Adieu John Kenneth Galbraith

Economist, Humanist and a Great Thinker who, in each of his writings, forced Americans to reexamine their ultracapitalist and hawkish values, died yesterday at the age of 97 at a Cambridge hospital, Massachussets.

Terror business thriving

In 2005:
11111 terror attacks, mainly in Iraq;
14600 died, mainly in Iraq;
360 suicide attacks;
An additional 7497 persons killed injured or kidnapped in terror acts (and not attacks) in the world, among them 1000 children, 6500 policemen, 170 clergymen and 100 journalists were either killed or injured. Among them 56 americans killed, 17 injured and 11 kidnapped.
Compared to 651 terror attacks in 2004.
If the same criteria were applied to 2004 and 2005, the numbers in 2005 would have been 10761.

The US is happy.
Henry Crumpton, special coordinator for antiterrorrism at the US state department, who reported these numbers this friday, had this to say:
''The world is more secure because despite the increase and the radicalisation and despite the fact that violence continues, civilised societies are realising that they will have to unite in this war against terrorism.''

The state department estimates, without fearing any contradiction, that the operational ability of Al-Qaida is diminished while their ideological influence is increased, meaning other groups are doing the job for Al-Qaida.
These groups are inspired by Al-Qaida and difficult to detect.
''This is the long term tendency'' states Mr. Crumpton. ''Terrorist forces are going to organize in smaller groups, 4 persons maximum the group like the one who did the London July 2005 attack. These are difficult challenge for us.'' He states also that 2005 was ''characterised by the expansion of networks which are strategically important feeding foreign terrorrist groups in Iraq where the crucial front against global terror is''.
Meaning Iran and Syria are main purveyors of foreign terrorists to this country. So lets displace the fight and also destruct these countries, after having destructed Iraq.

Why terror business is thriving in Iraq ? Because every act of resistance against the American occcupier is considered an act of terror. Resistance is then confounded with real terror, increasing the statistics of terror acts and attacks. Our modern democracies are used to manipulate unemployment numbers to justify their social policies and the US is manipulating, with new criteria including resistance to foreign occupation, terror numbers, to justify its long term war against terrorism. This is not simply a manipulation of numbers, it is also a deliberate policy, confounding resistance and terror, first provoking resistance in Islamic countries in the middle east, then 'calling on' international jihadists to 'join' this resistance in the name of the 'war on terror', therefore proceeding to the summing up of resistance and terror. This is what is happening in Iraq, this is what is giving us these terrible numbers, these terrible deaths and destruction and this is what is feeding the US business of the 'War on terror'.
And most importantly, this is what is giving zionists extremists the argument that Muslims and Arabs are murderous and dangerous. Don't you believe me ? Look at my precedent post.

For those who want to consult the original document , it can be downloaded from the web site of the US department of state.

Islam bashing: are there limits or is there an end ?

Racist Talk from Haaretz's Israel Harel

''A different type of murderousness, Arabic-Islamic, has been developing of late. To understand what the rest of the world, and particularly the Jews, can expect from it, we should look at what it is wreaking on its home turf - the Arab and Islamic world. Despite the fact that the theoreticians of terror have many explanations from the worlds of psychology and sociology, one cannot avoid drawing a central conclusion - the one the researchers dare not touch for fear of being branded racist. This is not even "understandable" or "logical" terror aimed at achieving political or even religious goals. In most cases, this is murder for the sake of murder, and terror (such as blowing up Iraqi mosques with worshipers inside) for the sake of terror.

In Algeria, armed gangs wiped entire villages off the face of the earth - men, women and children. This was not in war, when civilians on both sides of the barricades battle for some holy purpose. This is murder for its own sake. Dr. Guy Bechor, a researcher at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, believes that about 250,000 people were slaughtered in Algeria.

Could this kind of thing happen in a Western country? As a generalization, no. .. Where else in the world could there be horrors of the type being perpetuated even now in Sudan? More than 200,000 have been murdered there, the majority being Christians killed by Muslims. The Christian world has not intervened to save the Christians and the minority of animists, as it did to save the Muslims in the Balkans. Only the forces - woe to them - of the African Union attempted unsuccessfully to stop the genocide.
The car bombs exploding daily in Iraq inspired by the Al-Qaida commander there, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, kill mainly Muslims. One must also remember those who were murdered by Saddam Hussein and the late Syrian President Hafez Assad - the latter killed 20,000 of his own people in Hama. The mass murders carried out by the Taliban are recorded in the Islamic book of shame.

If they demonstrate such cruelty against their Muslim brothers, especially after the Holocaust when it seemed to have passed from the world, it is clear that they have the ability to demonstrate similar or even greater cruelty against the target that they have thoroughly demonized under the guise of anti-Zionism, with the aid of Western anti-Semitism: the Jews, and particularly those in Israel. They truly hate the Jews and want to wipe them and their state off the face of the earth.''

'Confessions of a legal Jewish settler'

Haaretz's Bradley Burston's first person free talk on settlements and on being a settler.

The 'Why we cannot talk with Hamas' deconstructed

A great post by my colleague Gert.

Norway conducting talks with Hamas and the Palestinians

And the US is trying to prevent Norway from doing so, to no avail.
For more info link to Cosmic Duck.

'Freedom of expression' they said

Those who rose to defend freedom of expression when Muslims protested against the publication of cartoons mocking Islam and the prophet, will they rise to defend the freedom of expression of a 17 years old girl, author of an eloquent animation condemning the war in Iraq ?

Why protect the freedom of expression of this young lady ? Because she was smeared, threatened and boat swifted in the ugliest way possible.

Will Salman Rushdie, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Anders Rasmussen and the Jyllandsposten, Irshad Manji, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the american christian neoconservative right and all those self called 'freedom lovers' rise to defend Ava Lowery against smear and ugly menace in the name of freedom of expression or will they let go ? Or is the war in Iraq a commodity to hide Racism, Islamophobia and criminal war mongering behind a curtain of false decency, freedom loving and political correctness and the moment someone raises the curtain on this ugliness, the whole thing becomes an 'inconvenient truth' * so Ava must stop doing anti-war animations ?

For more info link to Gert .

*To paraphrase Al-Gore for the title of his excellent and coming soon to a theatre near you documentary on global warming. My daughter watched it in her Ecology class recently and she told me a lot of good about it.

The Israeli-Neo-Con project for the Middle East: Lebanonisation, not Democratisation

The term 'Lebanonisation' refers to the lebanese civil war between the different sects and religions in Lebanon which started in 1975 and lasted 15 years resulting in the near total destruction of a fragile nascent nation, in addition to disparitions, deaths, massacres and expatriations. This war came to a halt only for a short period (10 years) after which recent rising tensions in the region achieved a new state of political, economic and social precariousness leaving Lebanon in a limbo over its future.
Now Iraq has been going through the same process. From a prosperous and secular country providing its citizens with the basics of health care, education and infrastructure to a less prosperous but still unified and politically stable dictature after having been weakened by wars and sanctions, Iraq is now descending into hell since the March 2003 american invasion spiraling every day and at every suicide bombing into a civil war from which it may never recover.
Now you may say that things may be different in the two countries in waiting, Syria and Iran. I bet you not and I will tell you why. People with nice and positive projects, like the ones avowed by Bush and the neo-cons for the middle east to bring democracy and development, don't destruct in order to implement their projects. They don't bully and they don't kill. Bringing a democracy to a country should never be a killing enterprise.

However, I have every reason to believe that the killing enterprise going on in the middle east is here to last and is not to bring democracy and prosperity but only destruction and misery. I always defended the idea that the whole american enterprise for the middle east was to destabilize the region even further and to plunge the countries into a prolonged state of chaos in order to let Israel have its way as an imperial power whose wandering, under tremendous pressure, into an internationally sponsored peace process with the Palestinians was so short lived that nobody now remembers that glorious, and not so far, time.

Since Oslo and even before, the zionist project was officially transmutating from a 'survival' project for the state of Israel to an imperial project for the entire region. In fact the zionist project for Israel was never a 'survival' project as Israel wanted us to believe, it was always an imperial project. The official transmutation came when Israel realised in 1982 - after it won the two wars against Arab countries (1967 and 1973), after the departure of Palestinians from Lebanon, the weakening of the Movement for the Liberation of Palestine by the Lebanese civil war and the free ride Sharon was able to take into palestinian camps in Lebanon in 1982,assassinating children and women left behind by Palestinian militants ousted from Beirut with Arafat under international 'guarantees' on the security of their civilians in the camps - that they have no reasonable force in the middle east to oppose their imperial project. However, Israel is a tiny little country surrounded by a legion of oil rich countries and outnumbered by Arabs and its might can be insufficient to conduct its imperial project. It needed to weaken Arab countries and the only way to do so is to play on their ethnical and religious differences, to break these countries into sects wary of each other and ready to wage internal wars as it happened in Lebanon. Everybody knows by now the prominent role Israel played in Lebanon's civil war training the christian Phalangist militia inside Israel and supporting their war efforts against other Lebanese sects.
Israel knew it could not conduct such a project alone for the entire region without the United States, its long term ally, and probably could not have done so without the awaited but rapid military demise of the Soviet Union, the other superpower player in the middle east. It could not do it by itself taking the risk of enduring an international outcry and opprobrium for meddling in internal Arab countries affairs at such a large scale. So here comes the neo-con project for the greater middle east, plunging the region into civil wars and destructing their social fabrics, therefore sending them into a prolonged state of underdevelopment and internal tensions while Israel can thrive and reign without pressure for a long time to come.

I am not the only one musing on such a highly conspirational hypothesis. There are documents written and facts on the ground to substantiate it. We are living a nightmare in the middle east and the only thing that tells me that in fact this is reality and not a nightmare is that 'I know I am not dreaming because I can't sleep anymore'.
This is not a conspiracy theory. This is reality as it is. I ask you to look at the big picture, not to focalise on one regional problem at a time, to look at them all. I ask you also to take a historical perspective on what is happening now in the middle east.

And I ask you to read the article that inspired me to write this post.

''Yinon's strategy was based on this premise. In order to survive Israel must become an imperial regional power and must also ensure the break-up of all Arab countries so that the region may be carved up into small ineffectual states unequipped to stand up to Israeli military might. Here's what he had to say on Iraq:
"The dissolution of Syria and Iraq into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front. Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run, it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel.
"An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and Lebanon.
"In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul and Shiite areas in the South will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north."''

Wisdom is Dutch

Everybody remembers the assassination of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands by a fanatic Muslim and the state of shock in which this very peaceful and tolerant country found itself in after the assassination.

Well, it is not like that suddenly the Dutch woke up to a new reality. Before that, in May 2002, a right wing leader and the chief of what just became the second largest political party in Holland, Pim Fortuyn, was assassinated by a militant ecologist . Fortuyn never hid his disdain of Islam declaring on many occasions that the culture was 'arrierated', that they were 'homophobic' (Fortuyn was an avowed homosexual) and that Holland has 'too many Muslims'.

The connection between Theo Van Gogh and Islam came through the controversed Hirsi Ali* whose extremist and provocative critical views on Islam were influenced by a personal change from a fundamentalist muslim to an atheist.

The recent Danish cartoon row had a snow ball effect on many european legislations toward immigrants. Recently, Holland introduced an immigration legislation requiring from foreign citizens from only Islamic countries applying for citizenship to undergo a test in which they should express their sentiments and opinions in front of gays kissing and nude women in a move (stupid, I must say) the immigration ministry considers to be a test on the very essence of Dutch values, tolerance, in this case tolerance towards what might shock a devout Muslim.

However silly and discriminatory this legislation might be, it tells us how the people who designed the test, and the West in general, view Muslims: intolerant and violent.
Some Muslims might be intolerant and violent, like in every religion or ethnicity. Logically speaking saying that 'Muslims in general or Islam is intolerant and violent' could not follow from saying that 'some Muslims might be intolerant and violent' and this is actually what happened and what is happenning: some Muslims are intolerant and violent in their confrontations of western policies, and not values, as some would like us to believe (I believe behind the values confrontation there is a resentment towards middle eastern policies of the West). But then the last assertion: 'some Muslims are intolerant and violent' can apply to individuals in every group or religion, if you replace 'Muslism' by something else and I don't need here to enumerate the list of intolerant and violent people belonging to such and such gruop or religion. However, under the growing hype and fear provoked by the 'War against terrorism', the West did make the logical error of drawing a false conclusion from a shaky premise: from 'some muslims are intolerant and violent', the West drew the conclusion that 'Muslims in general and Islam are intolerant and violent'.

Because this can be a very dangerous generalization, in addition to the fact of being erroneous, Dutch are now reconsidering their initial reaction to the assassination of Theo Van Gogh and the growing fear of Islam it provoked in Holland. The BBC Arabic reports that an official commission appointed by the Dutch government to study the reaction of the government and the Dutch society to these events has presented its three years study results on April 12th in a 250 pages document. The government will present an official answer to the document before the Dutch parliament.

The document states that Islam does not contradict Dutch values and Human rights. The study in the document is based on an exploration of democratic values and Human rights in 10 islamic countries including Egypt, Iran and Indonesia. The document states that while there are extremists in these countries, there are at the same time other movements which outnumber the extremists working toward more democracy and openness albeit slowly. Critics of the document, the most prominent being Ayaan Hirsi Ali said that the study lacks professionalism and did not adress the issue of free speech in these countries.

The lead researcher in the study told BBC Arabic that he wanted the document not only to draw conclusions but also to open the door to a wider discussion about the values issue between Islam and the West. He also rejected Ali's remarks as vague generalizations about Islam that can be dangerous in the sense that they close the door and elevate a wall between Islam and the West.

The document goes further in that it has recommendations on how to deal with islamist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Brotherhood. They advocate maintaining contact with these organizations and not isolating them. They think that the isolation of these 'reformists' movements which have a lot of credit among Muslim citizens, will lead them to stay inside the influence of Islamic countries therefore diminishing their contacts with the West and its values and creating a gap which wil be filled only by more extremism.

Only fear, préjugés and hasty generalizations can lead to a faulty conclusion that Islam contradicts western values, drawn from some particular events. Wisdom is to think logically and to enquire about facts and reality behind our fears and beliefs.
Now where is the intolerance and who are the intolerants and how can you define tolerance ?

I say, tolerance has been and will always be Dutch. Wisdom is Dutch also because wisdom and tolerance are related, it is wisdom, not fear, that makes us tolerant and it is tolerance that makes us wise and not fearful.

*''Hirsi Ali wrote the script for Submission ^[4], a short, low-budget film directed by Theo Van Gogh. This film criticized the treatment of women in Islam. The film showed naked and half-dressed women with texts from the Qur'an referring to the subordination of women covering their bodies. In addition to writing the script, Hirsi Ali also provided the voice-over. The release of the film sparked much controversy, as well as violent reaction, when radical Islamist Mohammed Bouyeri gunned down Van Gogh in an Amsterdam street on November 2, 2004. A letter pinned to Van Gogh's body with a knife was primarily a death threat to Hirsi Ali.''

Thus spoke Bin Laden/Bush

I am finally able to publish today. Thanks to Gert and Cosmic Duck for having hosted this post that I wanted to share first thing after finishing it, you can remove it from your comment section now. I am having many technical difficulties with my blog since last week including publishing and updating with comments.

Here is my post of the day.

I feel tired and angry.

Tired that our time is now paced by terror attacks, Bin Laden's apparitions on Al-Jazeera, terror spin and terror talk. We are becoming a global society obsessed by fear and terror.
Angry that a sinister jihadist whose only credence is to have fought, with the CIA as brothers in arms, the soviets in Afghanistan, is capitalizing on Muslims and Arabs frustrations.
Angry that an army of 150000 is destroying Iraq, the mother of all civilisations, its society and its history in the name of 'Freedom and Democracy' as conceived, packaged and exported by some ill advised minds in the West.
Angry that Palestine and the Palestinians are being stigmatized for their fight against oppression because of the sisnister jihadist.

Angry that Israel is banking on the 'war on terror' by more oppression and more occupation of Palestine.

Angry that 30 years after I opened my eyes as a teenager, and a person with political consciousness and morality, on the Israeli-Palestinin conflict, Palestine is still opressed and occupied and Palestinians still without a land or an official recognized identity.

Angry that the sinister jihadist is well served by:
The USA policy in the middle east, its sidelining with Israel in the face of the growing opression of the Palestinian people, its bullying of Arabs and Palestinians and its bullying of Muslims.
Angry that some so-called 'intellectuals' can find a justification to this all non-sense.
Angry that my children will never dream or feel the freedom of protesting and speaking against an oppressive power because they will be labeled terrorrists.
Angry that the world is watching silent while a part of its humanity is being scorned by torture policies in the name of the 'War on terror'.
Angry that in our western 'democracies' we are so proud of, the average citizen has no voice in the face of avid politicians using the 'War on terror' and its policies to grab more power than what they could have ever dreamed of in a real democracy.
Tired to see rationality, morality, justice and all what we fought and still fight for, sacrificed on the altar of the 'War on terror'.

You can do all the analysis you want on yesterday's Bin Laden speech, there is one conclusion you canot negate:
This sinister jihadist has been elevated to the statute of a global statesman by a bunch of irresponsible political adventurers and he and them have irreversibly changed our lives, our values and our world.

For completely different reasons, Bush/Cheney and Bin Laden cannot live without fighting a global menace and for this purpose they had to invent it. Bin Laden had to export and globalize his fight against Saudi rulers because he lost it at home. Bush and Cheney had to find a global enemy (Islam) in order to replace the communist menace, to keep alive the business of arms and wars and to keep their citizens in a simili-democracy in which no dissent to the outrageous enrichment of hteir rulers and their ruling class and its outrageous war against the American people can be possible.
The irony is that, as citizens of the world, we are caught between two exported and global civil wars in which we are being drawn, every day, by uncritical and submissive media, to believe that these wars are actually ours.
Hand in hand, Bin Laden is still fighting alongside his american ally, not anymore against the soviets but this time against the entire world !

For more depressive reading about the state of this irresponsible war please go to these links.

Al-Jazeera's report on Bin Laden's message

Timeline for Bin Laden's messages

Uri Avnery on the Lobby story: 'Who is the dog and who is the tail ?'

''The question, therefore, is not whether the two professors are right in their findings. The question is what conclusions can be drawn from them. ''

''LET'S TAKE the Iraq affair. Who is the dog? Who the tail?
The Israeli government prayed for this attack, which has eliminated the strategic threat posed by Iraq. America was pushed into the war by a group of Neo-Conservatives, almost all of them Jews, who had a huge influence on the White House. In the past, some of them had acted as advisers to Binyamin Netanyahu.
On the face of it, a clear case. The pro-Israeli lobby pushed for the war, Israel is its main beneficiary. If the war ends in a disaster for America, Israel will undoubtedly be blamed.
Really? What about the American aim of getting their hands on the main oil reserves of the world, in order to dominate the world economy? What about the aim of placing an American garrison in the center of the main oil-producing area, on top of the Iraqi oil, between the oil of Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Caspian Sea? What about the immense influence of the big oil companies on the Bush family? What about the big multinational corporations, whose outstanding representative is Dick Cheney, that hoped to make hundreds of billions from the "reconstruction of Iraq"?
The lesson of the Iraq affair is that the American-Israeli connection is strongest when it seems that American interests and Israeli Interests are one (irrespective of whether that is really the case in the long run). The US uses Israel to dominate the Middle East, Israel uses the US to dominate Palestine.''

France refuses a visa to a Hamas government member

Citing the decision of the EU to cut diplomatic ties with Hamas, France refused to grant Samir Abu Eisheh, a Hamas cabinet member, a visa to attend an event organized by the Institut du Monde Arabe in Paris. France's foreign ministry explained that although the event is a private initiative, it received governmental support and subsidies and the French government is entitled to consider that a presence of a Hamas cabinet member has a diplomatic aspect which may contradict the EU decision about its diplomatic ties with Hamas. French foreign ministry spokesman although cited the conditions under which France may open up to Hamas:
Renouncing violence,
The recognition of Israel,
The recognition of previous peace agreements between Israel and the PA.

Those are vulgar tactics of intimidation targeting Hamas and the Palestinians. People in Palestine and the Arab world are saying that even though Arafat was corrupt he used to have the backing of the Palestinian people while Abbas is not only corrupted but has no legitimacy among the Palestinian people. He is perceived by Palestinians as the candidate of Israel, the US and the EU. Abbas, however, will be in France at the end of April and will be meeting France's president Jacques Chirac.

The choice of the Palestinian people is ignored by the west, so much for democratizing the middle east as a way of fighting terrorrism. What the US and the EU are doing is fighting democracy in the middle east as a way of fostering terrorrism !

'Hungry and Shell-shocked'

Amira Hass reports from Gaza.

Rising tensions between Hamas and Abbas and their far reaching implications

Present political tensions in Palestine were initiated by a near complete international hostility initiated by israel and the US as a reaction to the rise of Hamas to power. Internally, Abbas is playing on this hostility and on the pressures exerted on Hamas in the hope of regaining power.
Recently, Hamas announced it is going to have its own internal security force composed of volunteers in order to curb the growing insecurity in the territories provoked by thugs and militants unhappy with their loss of power (on this you can read Laila's post). However, Abbas, as president of the PA, vetoed the Hamas initiative.

The Associated press reported today some very harsh statements from Hamas's political chief Khaled Mechaal targeting Abbas without naming him. Mechaal pronounced these statements in a rally in a Palestinian refugee camp north of Damascus and in the presence of high ranking officials from the Hezbollah, the Popular Front of the Liberation of Palestine and Palestinian FM Mahmoud Zahar.
I believe that tensions meant to oust Hamas from Power can actually spread to the entire middle east. Pro Hamas and anti-Hamas camps are being formed. Jordan's king have already criticized Hamas publicly and accused them of arms smuggling in Jordan. Saudi Arabia will be busy preparing for what it seems to be the next Al-Qaida operation. Egypt's Mubarak is the US's number one ally in the middle east and will not turn on them. In the Hamas camp you find Lebanon's Hezbollah, Syria's Assad and most importantly Iran.

The Hamas's game the US is playing with Israel and their Arab allies have the potential to stir up a war in the entire region with one strike of a match.

Mechaal's words (My translation from Le Monde's article)
''There is a another government in Palestine, a counter-government depriving us from our prerogatives and the rights of our people. This is a plot.''
''A faction of our own people is plotting against us. They are carrying out a plan to defeat us.''
''Those who think that our failure is an equation to reintegrate power with the help of Israel and the US are being misled. Only ballot boxes can legitimize power.''
''This military coup disguised as a security matter and supported by zionists and the US will be defeated by the Palestinian people.''

In an interview with Germany's ZDF channel on Friday, April 21st, Mechaal said that Hamas will recognize Israel in exchange of palestinian land occupied during the 1967 war and Jerusalem.

''"Israel must withdraw from territories it has occupied since 1967. This includes the capital of Jerusalem." Other conditions Mishaal said include "the right of refugees to return as well as the dismantlement of Jewish settlements, the destruction of the separation barrier and the release of all (Palestinian) detainees. "If and only if Israel does this, then Hamas, Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims will be ready for true peace."''

Mechaal said that he was disappointed by Europeans. So I am. Instead of playing in Israel's and Bush's hands, the present difficulties of the PA must be an opportunity for the Europeans to regain the lead and the initiative for an Israeli-Palestinian conflict resolution.

The only real democracy in the middle east...

Is...Cyprus, as Angry Arab repeats incessantly, and not Israel.
On Israel and the Democracy issue, read this great post by Elizabeth (on her other blog which I discovered today).

Jack Straw on Hamas: double-tongued and hard-tongued but not conciliatory

During a visit to Saudi Arabia, Straw justified the recent EU decision to cut funds to the PA by raising the problem of Hamas's link to terrorrism and accountability. It is ironic that when the PA under Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas used to divert the money aid from the Palestinians to the pockets of few in the government, nobody in the EU asked for accountability, Straw included.

''The UK's Telegraph reported today that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said in Saudi Arabia that "recognition" of Israel did not mean a formal declaration by Hamas, but just a practical acceptance of the "reality" of the Jewish state.''

What is exactly a practical acceptance of the reality of the jewish state ?
What is the reality of the jewish state ? There are many realities to the jewish state.

If Straw is alluding to the geographic reality then he is asking Hamas too much, even much more than formal recognition of Israel. If he is not talking about geographic reality then what the hell is he talking about ? He says: ''There has to be some continuity of Government and that includes a recognition of the fact that Israel exists, not a celebration of that by any means, and to a continuation of the agreements that the Palestinian Authority’s entered in to."

In Straw's language, a 'formal declaration' about the acceptance of the existence of Israel is then a 'celebration' and a practical acceptance is 'a recognition of a fact'. A 'recognition of a fact' without celebration could only be achieved by Hamas by changing its chart as to include Israel as a fact. In my opinion, for a movement that sees itself as a resistance movement, a 'recognition of Israel as a fact' is equal to recognizing the futility of their resistance. For a movement that defines itself as a ressistance to a fact, recognizing this fact is actually recognizing its own disintegration. This is a logical issue where A and non A cannot coexist as both facts and both true. And Hamas knows very well that once it recognizes Israel as a fact, Israel will be no more willing to accomodate itself as to please a non fact. This has a precedent and it is what happened actually to Fatah after the Oslo process.

I believe Straw's declaration, which was made during an official visit to Saudi Arabia, was meant to please the host, give Saudi Arabia some legitimacy to serve as an intermediary between the West and Hamas and legitimacy at home. It was also meant to disinform and deceive.
Ironically, Straw's declaration was interpreted by the Telegraph and the Arabic news web site as lenient toward Hamas while the rest of his talk was recycling the US clichés about Hamas:

He says for example about Hamas's responsibilities :''those responsibilities include an understanding you can not have a democratic Government which at the same time is sponsoring and supporting terrorism.''
The government elected by the Palestinian people cannot fight an occupation force because it is considered by the west as terrorrist. It is like telling French during second WW that they cannot fight Germans because it is considered as terrorrism ! Israel and the US wanted so much to put this label on Hamas in order to deligitimize the resistance to the Israeli occupation. How are the Palestinian supposed to defend themselves from the agressive Israeli occupation ? Of course, there is the problem of suicide attacks and civilian killings and I recognize that Palestinian resistance movements if, for some reasons that might be understood because they are fighting one of the best equipped armies in the world, they cannot stick to a resistance targeted at the military, should renounce definitely violent resistance because attacks on civilians have been damaging for the Palestinians. This has been for a long time now a difficult problem for Palestinians. They know very well that if they didn't practice violent resistance they might have disappeared from the international political agenda just like Tibetans. After all, it is armed resistance that decided Israel to withdraw from south Lebanon and it is armed resistance that gave Fatah a negotiating tool in Oslo.
By asking Hamas to recognize Israel as a fact and to renounce resistance because it is considered as terrorrism, we are asking Hamas and similarly, every other Palestinian resistance movement to negate both its foundation and its actions. By doing so without international guarantees and international military protection, we are denying Palestinians both their history and their future.

UPDATE: Read this piece by Sam Bahour (Electronic Intifada website) on Hamas, the Palestinians and the West.

Hamas's hostile surrounding is closing in

It bothers me that Jordan is playing the US game in bullying Hamas. Jordan is an authoritarian monarchy and a repressive regime, it is not the beacon of democracy that the US wants to promote in the middle east.

Recently, their banks have asked Hamas to withdraw its money from their account 'fearing', they say, a US ban. And now they are fabricating stories of arms smuggling by Hamas as they fabricate stories of Al-Qaida plots foiling daily in ordser to please the US and to give substance to the claim of the 'dispersion' of terrorrism. This is a country whose insignificant king plays on Arab political divisions and excercizes subservience to the US in order to stay in power. Just before the first free elections in Iraq, he wrote an op-ed in the Washington post insisting on the increase of the shiite threat in the middle east if shiites may come to win the elections in Iraq.

How do you want Arabs to free themselves from Islamists when their obscurantist and repressive rulers have no dignity, aligning themselves on what is perceived by the Arab street as ennemy number one (Israel and the US). This is the same kind of attitude from Saudi rulers that pushed Bin Laden to rebel against americans.
It bothers me that Jordan is turning its back on its Arab neighbor in times of need. Up to now, Hamas is no Al-Qaida style islamist militantism and has no ties with Al-Qaida, but if Arab countries play in the hands of Israel and Washington, how long Hamas will be able to stand alone. This kind of strategy may push Hamas closer to Al-Qaida and fulfill the prophecy of Israel and the US.

Arabs have rulers only preoccupied by pleasing the US and hanging on power no matter what while citizens have nowhere else to turn to, except Islamism. They have no development, no progress, no more secularist regimes (the last one being Syria), no friends, no international symapthy and no hope at all.
This is a dangerous trend.

USA National Security Doctrine: 'Successes and Challenges'

The document, page 8. I am continuing to dissect the US propaganda. I don't know if I am doing well but all I know is that this is a necessary task. Any suggestion other bloggers may have or any one would like to join me and post on his, her blog or on this blog ? You are welcome.

'The war against terror is not over. America is safer, but not yet safe. As the enemy adjusts to our successes, so too must we adjust. '

The US is promoting a Prolonged War on terrorrism. The document on National Security explains that the ennemy is adjusting to the successes of the war on terrorrism. It does not explain How and Why. With one word (adjustment) and no justification as to the How and Why of this adjustment, the US wants to build an Atlantic Alliance for a Prolonged War on Terrorrism. Does this means that the US is anticipating that terrorrism will be adjusting for a long period of time and how do they know that ?

'The successes are many:'
• Al-Qaida has lost its safe haven in Afghanistan.
• A multinational coalition joined by the Iraqis is aggressively prosecuting the war against the terrorists in Iraq.
This means that the center of operations of Al-Qaida has moved from Afghanistan to Iraq. I am not sure we can call that a success. I am mad when I hear that Iraq is a success, a success for breading terrorrism !

• The al-Qaida network has been significantly degraded. Most of those in the al-Qaida network responsible for the September 11 attacks, including the plot’s mastermind Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, have been captured or killed.

This statement must be substantiated. Because what counts is the prosecution of these people. Anybody can tell any story about those who were killed and the stories can be false. As for those captured, we need facts and only neutral prosecutions can bring about the facts. No wonder why septembre 11th victims families are unhappy with the way facts about 9/11 seem to be evanescent. The only face of Al-Qaida shown to the public until now is Al-Moussaoui, a disturbed man who wants to become a martyr and who was not even able to gain the trust of minor Al-Qaida operatives.

'• There is a broad and growing global consensus that the deliberate killing of innocents is never justified by any calling or cause.'

Yes and if applied fairly this principle could be a real progress for humanity. However the' killing of innocents' is not a universal definition. Look at what is happening in Palestine and Iraq, when killed by the Israeli army or the US army, the definition changes. Innocents become in fact 'terrorrists' disguised. And the definition changes again when innocents are killed by suicide bombers or militia which are on the US and the EU terrorrist list. Innocence is on one side and terror is on the other. Do you believe in such a simplistic and relativist defintion of such important issues ?

'• Many nations have rallied to fight terrorism, with unprecedented cooperation on law enforcement, intelligence, military, and diplomatic activity.'

Reluctantly I must say and with little results since everybody now knows how military and intelligence cooperation is being distorted and exploited by the US. The diplomatic activity is mainly focused on making countries more submissive to US policies. And the law enforcement to fight terrorrism is a gift given by the US to those ruling politicians in our democratic countries who hate democracy and who must deal with it, in order to justify secrecy, distorsion of information and arbitrary treatment of citizens resulting in the absence of accountability (something every ruling politician without morals dreads the most) and the increase of the power of the few individuals in the ruling party.

'• Numerous countries that were part of the problem before September 11 are now increasingly becoming part of the solution – and this transformation has occurred without destabilizing friendly regimes in key regions.'

Of course, Lybia was part of the problem. Saudi Arabia was and still part of the problem. But as long as they are on their knees they can continue breeding discontent and terrorrism. Here also, the definition of countries that were part of the problem and are no more can change depending on US interests and its ally's interests, Israel. Syria for example is on its knees, the Baath party became very weak after the concerted Hariri-Jumblatt-neo-con campaign against it in Lebanon. However, the weakness of the syrian regime is not enough for Israel and the US. They want the regime to renounce definitely on reclaiming the Golan heights occupied by israel in the 1967 and 1973 Israeli-Arab wars. This is a very unpopular move to do for the regime and Syria will continue its agony until it renounces the Golan heights. So the submission of Syria has nothing to do with terrorrism because this country, hostile to Saddam's regime, was against Saddam in the first gulf war and has given valuable information to the US during the first two years of the second Iraq war. It has even imported individuals from US rendition flights to torture in its prisons to 'extract information' for the US intelligence.

'• The Administration has worked with Congress to adopt and implement key reforms like the Patriot Act which promote our security while also protecting our fundamental liberties.'

This is a total lie, like everything else in the document. Since its inception, the Patriot Act was seen as a menace to fundamental liberties by all human rights organizations.

'The enemy is determined, however, and we face some old and new challenges:
• Terrorist networks today are more dispersed and less centralized. They are more reliant on smaller cells inspired by a common ideology and less directed by a central command structure.'

'The Ennemy': Who is the ennemy ? It is not a state, it is not a person (if they can claim that it is a person it can be ridiculous, the US versus who ? Bin Laden...) The Ennemy is fictional because it is not centralised, and it is an ideology. The US and the world are fighting an ideology, a cultural meme that can infect at its will everybody on the planet... This is exactly the definition of a fiction: a product of the mind. However, this ideology/belief /fiction is related to the US domination of the middle east, of muslim countries in the middle east. And US actions in these countries are feeding those same ideologies and beliefs.

The US is then fighting a fiction which is its own creation.

'• While the United States Government and its allies have thwarted many attacks, we have not been able to stop them all. The terrorists have struck in many places, including Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, and the United Kingdom. And they continue to seek WMD in order to inflict even more catastrophic attacks on us and our friends and allies.'

Means nobody is safe because the fiction is international. I mean who can stop people believing what they believe ? And who can stop people fighting for what they believe in ? Since the beginning of time people have done that. However, never before, people's beliefs for what they should fight for were unified. The US, by its actions in the middle east and against Islam is radicalising Islam and creating a unified belief for which the only soltuion is an international or a unified war.

'• The ongoing fight in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry.'

Because the international fiction needs a rallying cry, so here it is. they don't only fabricate the fiction but they also fabricate the rallying cry ! And each fabrication needs a war on its own.

'• Some states, such as Syria and Iran, continue to harbor terrorists at home and sponsor terrorist activity abroad.'

Means there still work to be done and Wars to be waged in these two countries.

The more I read the document and the more I realize that this is a nightmare ! When citizens in the US, Canada and the EU will wake up on a rallying cry to fire their representatives who adhere to this nightmarish vision of our Brave New World and adress the real problems of their people ?

USA National Security Doctrine: Terrorrism between Facts and Neo-Con Fiction

I am still reading the document on the National Security Doctrine. I was wrong when I said that the document does not mention explicitly Islam. The document mentions Islam (page 14, quoted below).

This is a propaganda that might make old communists die from envy.

First: I thought it preposterous that a document on National 'Security' looks in fact like a document on International 'Security'.
Second: I thought it Awkward that Islam was identified as the next international menace after communism in the passage I quoted yesterday (page 4).
Third: With the passage quoted below, it is clear that the doctrine of National 'Security' made in the USA has actually a primary mission alongside Democracy, Free market and so on : Rescuing Islam from itself and rescuing other religions from the danger of Islam.

So the doctrine on National 'Security' not only becomes a doctrine on International 'Security' but also a doctrine of deterrence for an International Religious Energy Agency* based at the white house, USA.

Fourth: The doctrine makes it clear as to the why of its principles. First it states what it is not the cause of the terrorrism it is fighting and then it states what are the causes of the terrorrism it is fighting.
If you compare the two set of causes you realize that everything related to facts on the ground is not considered as a cause for terrorrism while everything stemming from neo-cons ideology, vision and interpretation of the world is considered as a cause for terrorrism.
Logically speaking, What is considered as a cause for terrorrism by the neo-cons and the White house is what is fabricated in their mind, even if it does not have a factual basis.

''While the War on Terror is a battle of ideas, it is not a battle of religions. The transnational terrorists confronting us today exploit the proud religion of Islam to serve a violent political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These terrorists distort the idea of jihad into a call for murder against those they regard as apostates or unbelievers – including Christians, Jews, Hindus, other religious traditions, and all Muslims who disagree with them. Indeed, most of the terrorist attacks since September 11 have occurred in Muslim countries – and most of the victims have been Muslims.
To wage this battle of ideas effectively, we must be clear-eyed about what does and does not give rise to terrorism:
• Terrorism is not the inevitable by-product of poverty. Many of the September 11 hijackers were from middle-class backgrounds, and many terrorist leaders, like bin Laden, are from privileged upbringings.
• Terrorism is not simply a result of hostility to U.S. policy in Iraq. The United States was attacked on September 11 and earlier, well before we toppled the Saddam Hussein regime. Moreover, countries that stayed out of the Iraq war have not been spared from terror attack.
• Terrorism is not simply a result of Israeli-Palestinian issues. Al-Qaida plotting for the September 11 attacks began in the 1990s, during an active period in the peace process.
• Terrorism is not simply a response to our efforts to prevent terror attacks. The al- Qaida network targeted the United States long before the United States targeted al- Qaida. Indeed, the terrorists are emboldened more by perceptions of weakness than by demonstrations of resolve. Terrorists lure recruits by telling them that we are decadent and easily intimidated and will retreat if attacked.
The terrorism we confront today springs from:
Or Terrorrism is:
• Political alienation. Transnational terrorists are recruited from people who have no voice in their own government and see no legitimate way to promote change in their own country. Without a stake in the existing order, they are vulnerable to manipulation by those who advocate a perverse vision based on violence and destruction.
• Grievances that can be blamed on others. The failures the terrorists feel and see are blamed on others, and on perceived injustices from the recent or sometimes distant past. The terrorists’ rhetoric keeps wounds associated with this past fresh and raw, a potent motivation for revenge and terror.
• Sub-cultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.
• An ideology that justifies murder. Terrorism ultimately depends upon the appeal of an ideology that excuses or even glorifies the deliberate killing of innocents. A proud religion –the religion of Islam – has been twisted and made to serve an evil end, as in other times and places other religions have been similarly abused.''

* As dubbed by Steve Bell, the Guardian cartoonist.

Putting the last suicide attack in Tel Aviv in context

Something the mainstream western media will not do.

At least, Le Monde is the only mainstream western media reporting fairly this time on the last Palestinian suicide attack in Tel Aviv.
Kofi Annan just condemned the attack and so did I.
But did Kofi condemn the daily shelling of the civilian population in Gaza ?
Is the world condemning the starvation of the Palestinian population in Gaza ?
Is the world condemning the international and blunt pressures exerted on the democratically elected Palestinian government ?
Is the world condemning the injustice being perpetrated daily against Palestinians ?

USA National Security Doctrine as of March, 16, 2006

It states that USA national security can be achieved by the spread of the principles of the free market and democracy. But to achieve this goal, the USA must wage a war on terrorrism or Islam. Islam is not mentioned but the reference to a war on Islam is obvious in the passage quoted below.

There are no factual or logical relations between the goals and the means. Terrorrism always existed and is not a privilege of a religion. The link between the free market, terrorrism and democracy is meaningless.

One have to admit that the only thing the USA is doing very good is the war on Islam and the spread of the free market. As for the spread of democracy and the war on terrorrism, they are both smokescreen for justifying two unpopular ideas, the idea of the free market and the idea of a war on Islam.

Demagogy made in USA. Enjoy !

Read the pdf document here.

Page 6 it says:

''Overview of America’s National Security Strategy

It is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. In the world today, the fundamental character of regimes matters as much as the distribution of power among them. The goal of our statecraft is to help create a world of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system. This is the best way to provide enduring security for the American people.
Achieving this goal is the work of generations. The United States is in the early years of a long struggle, similar tto what our country faced in the early years of the Cold War. The 20th century witnessed the triumph of freedom over the threats of fascism and communism. Yet a new totalitarian ideology now threatens, an ideology grounded not in secular philosophy but in the perversion of a proud religion. Its content may be different from the ideologies of the last century, but its means are similar: intolerance, murder, terror, enslavement, and repression.''

Update: read this excellent post by my colleague Earl entitled: 'The making of the Arab menace'.
This is what the doctrine of the national security of the USA is doing: fabricating a menace in order to perpetuate the Industrial-military lobby. It is no coincidence that the document mentions the Islamist menace just after the communist one. These people are still living in the cold war era logic even if they claim the contrary. The cold war era was good for the military industry so why not invent a menace similar to the communist one, global, ugly and potentially menacing to individual freedoms.

'Who is a terrorist?'

One more article I read today. Gideon Levy on Israel's actions in Gaza.

'Gaza on brink of implosion'

''An empty watchtower overlooks a deserted road lined with rusting vehicle parts. The only traffic is a pregnant bitch and a mule and cart. This is Gaza's economic lifeline, the Karni crossing into Israel, which is supposed to handle 1,300 containers of merchandise and food per day in order to sustain 1.3 million people.
But nothing is entering or leaving Gaza, and now the funds to purchase what is available there are also drying up, bringing the dire situation of its people to a new and febrile crisis.
Karni is officially closed because the Israeli army has declared a security alert for the Jewish Passover holiday. Yet it has barely been open this year. The effect is a paralysis of Gaza's commerce and severe shortages of basic foods. Not that the locals are in a position to buy what food there is. There is little money because the European Union, Canada and the United States have stopped funding the aid-dependent Palestinian Authority, which can no longer pay its staff's wages.
The result is that families are existing on tiny amounts of money and businesses are facing collapse...''

And while Palestinians are left financially and socially suffocating, Israel is asking the US and the world for more support.

Palestinians and self-determination under occupation: Mission Impossible ?

''One of the gravest blunders Hamas has made, which is about to cost the movement a real embarrassment, to say the least, is the inherently false assumption that a government can function properly under such an intensely oppressive military occupation. Indeed, experience garnered over the past two weeks has convinced many Palestinians that a government functioning under the Israeli occupation has to choose between becoming either a quisling entity or putting itself on a collision course with the occupying power and its supporters -- in this case the US and EU.''

Update: Al-Jazeera reported on saturday April 15th that Russian FM called Abbas to offer emergency aid to the PA .

Update: Bitterlemons, an Israeli-Palestinian online publication, offers in its April 10th issue 4 opinions on possible solutions to the present dead end in Palestine.

'Are we being too lenient towards Israel ?'

Shlomo Sand, professor of contemporary history at Tel Aviv University, on Israel, Palestine and the mutual recognition issue.

...''After the historical and permanent refusal of Israel tor ecopgnize its responsibility at the origin odf the Palestinian refugee problem of 1948, Israel has done everything in its power to discredit the credibility and the prestige of the Palestinian authority. Consequently, the population in the territories having to endure the occupation, opted for a firmer and less corrupt political party, Hamas. It is very unlikely that Hamas, playing a dangerous game in defying Israel and the West, will find a solution to the stricken Palestinian population. However, Hamas is not renouncing the idea of recognizing Israel, under certain conditions.''

...'' In 1988, the national Palestinian movement have recognized in its majority the principle of the partition of Palestine, however, Israel never recognized a Palestinian state inside the 1967 borders and never recognized the ethnically arab Jerusalem as the capital of this state. Why then Palestinians must recognize Israel in these conditions ? Israel has never recognized the right to autodetermination of the Palestinian people and did not have to endure boycott neither sanctions by the West for this reason.''

...''The wrold is lauding Olmert and before him Sharon when neither of them have ever contemplated negociating with the Palestinians a just peace. Contrary to moving in the direction of a just peace, Israel has erected a separation wall built on Palestinian land, is annexing eastern Jerusalem with its holy sites, is expulsing Palestinian population from the Jordan valley to better encircle Palestinian enclaves trying to end any geographical continuity in the Palestinian territories. Despite all this, Israel is receiving appraisals.''

...'' As an Israeli, a son of jews who were refused in the twenthieth century citizenship beause of their origins, I find the idea of a pure jewish state terrifying. There is an urgency to end the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and end the murders this occupation is provoking. There is also an urgency to vaccinate the Israeli state against the virus of Racism threatening to contaminate it.''

Sophia's comment: A sustainable and durable peace can be installed between Israel and Palestine on these terms: The recognition by Israel of a Palestinian state inside the 1967 borders, recognized by UN resolutions, with eastern Jerusalem as its capital and a solution to the 1948 refugee problem. Palestinians and Hamas will make peace under these conditions.

Is this asking too much from Israel ? That is exactly what Israel has been trying to avoid. In order to avoid peace under these conditions, which seem reasonable enough for many, Israel has been trying every possible military and diplomatic move to the point of plunging the entire middle east in wars and plunging the West in wars against Islam and arab countries for years to come.

Ethnic Cleansing in Israel and Consent Manufacturing destined to the West

Ilan Pappe on Israel and its Palestinian population

''In the run-up to the election, pundits discussed this question using language akin to that employed in Europe and the United States in debates over immigration. Here, however, it is the immigrant community that decides the future of the indigenous population, not vice versa. On 7 February 1948, after driving to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv and seeing the first villages that had been emptied of Palestinians on the western outskirts of Jerusalem, a jubilant Ben-Gurion reported to a gathering of Zionist leaders: ‘When I come nowadays to Jerusalem I feel it is a Hebrew city. This was a feeling I only had in farms and in Tel Aviv. Not all Jerusalem is Hebraic but there is already a huge Hebraic bloc – no Arabs in it. One hundred per cent Jewish. If we can persevere,’ Ben-Gurion added, this miracle will happen elsewhere.''

...''Once the ‘Arabs’ in Israel and the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories came to be thought of in the West as ‘Muslims’ it was easy to elicit support for Israel’s demographic policies, at least where it counted: on Capitol Hill. But even in Europe there was no need, after 9/11, to explain why Israel has a ‘demographic problem’. On 2 February 2003 the popular daily Maariv carried a typical headline: ‘A quarter of the children in Israel are Muslims.’ The piece went on to describe this fact as Israel’s next ‘ticking bomb’. The increase in the ‘Muslim’ population – 2.4 per cent a year – was not a problem anymore, but a ‘danger’.

Messing up with Iran

The excellent Seymour Hersh on the intentions of the Bush administration regarding Iran.
Please compare the expectations of the Bush administration on winning Hearts and Minds with regime change in Iran with Iranians reactions to the Uranium enrichment announced yesterday by Ahmadi-Nejad.
On the Uranium Enrichment steps necessary to produce the atomic bomb read my colleague Gert.
Because right now, Iran is only capable of producing glowing Mickey Watches with its Uranium enrichment, according to professor Juan Cole.

Palestinians : World's Pariahs

The entire world is turning its back on the Palestinians, thanks to the efficacy of the zionist propaganda machine and to the collapse of the arab world. Entangled in wars initiated by Israel and the US and the rise of Islamists, arab leaders are busy surviving. The arab civil society is embroiled in its resentement of the west, its double standards and bigotry against arabs.

Israel is reigning and the world is following !

''The new UN policy follows bans on contacts with Hamas by Israel, the United States and the European Union, which consider the militant Islamic group a terrorist organization. Hamas' refusal to renounce its violent, anti-Israel ideology after its victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections in January has also led Israel and the West to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from the new government, which is now bankrupt.''

...''While Annan has called for the results of the Palestinian election to be respected, Dujarric said he has also joined the United States, the EU and Russia in demanding that Hamas recognize Israel, accept past Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements and renounce violence.''

Has anybody asked Israel to renounce violence ?

Well I think Hamas is showing a lot of restraint in front of all this Israeli bullying.
But who cares ?

Syrian poet Ahmad al-Maghout, who passed away recently, said this:

"The Perfect Crime: to be Born an Arab."
"Policemen, Interpol men
everywhere;
You search for the perfect crime,

There is only one perfect crime;
To be born an Arab."

In regard to the present situation in Palestine, One may say that the perfect crime is to be born a Palestinian !

(Thanks to Ur-Shalim for listing Al-Maghout's poem)

Hamas on Peace

Via Professor Finkelstein website: A Just Peace or No Peace.

Israeli unilateralism is a recipe for conflict - as is the west's racist refusal to treat Palestinians as equals

By Ismail Haniyeh

Do policymakers in Washington and Europe ever feel ashamed of their scandalous double standards? Before and since the Palestinian elections in January, they have continually insisted that Hamas comply with certain demands. They want us to recognise Israel, call off our resistance, and commit ourselves to whatever deals Israel and the Palestinian leadership reached in the past.

But we have not heard a single demand of the Israeli parties that took part in this week's elections, though some advocate the complete removal of the Palestinians from their lands. Even Ehud Olmert's Kadima party, whose Likud forebears frustrated every effort by the PLO to negotiate a peace settlement, campaigned on a programme that defies UN security council resolutions. His unilateralism is a violation of international law. Nevertheless no one, not even the Quartet - whose proposals for a settlement he continues to disregard, as his predecessor Ariel Sharon did - has dared ask anything of him.

Olmert's unilateralism is a recipe for conflict. It is a plan to impose a permanent situation in which the Palestinians end up with a homeland cut into pieces made inaccessible because of massive Jewish settlements built in contravention of international law on land seized illegally from the Palestinians. No plan will ever work without a guarantee, in exchange for an end to hostilities by both sides, of a total Israeli withdrawal from all the land occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem; the release of all our prisoners; the removal of all settlers from all settlements; and recognition of the right of all refugees to return.

On this, all Palestinian factions and people agree, including the PLO, whose revival is essential so that it can resume its role in speaking for the Palestinians and presenting their case to the world.
The problem is not with any particular Palestinian group but with the denial of our basic rights by Israel. We in Hamas are for peace and want to put an end to bloodshed. We have been observing a unilateral truce for more than a year without reciprocity from the Israeli side. The message from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to the world powers is this: talk to us no more about recognising Israel's "right to exist" or ending resistance until you obtain a commitment from the Israelis to withdraw from our land and recognise our rights.

Little will change for the Palestinians under Olmert's plan. Our land will still be occupied and our people enslaved and oppressed by the occupying power. So we will remain committed to our struggle to get back our lands and our freedom. Peaceful means will do if the world is willing to engage in a constructive and fair process in which we and the Israelis are treated as equals. We are sick and tired of the west's racist approach to the conflict, in which the Palestinians are regarded as inferior. Though we are the victims, we offer our hands in peace, but only a peace that is based on justice. However, if the Israelis continue to attack and kill our people and destroy their homes, impose sanctions, collectively punish us, and imprison men and women for exercising the right to self-defence, we have every right to respond with all available means.

Hamas has been freely elected. Our people have given us their confidence and we pledge to defend their rights and do our best to run their affairs through good governance. If we are boycotted in spite of this democratic choice - as we have been by the US and some of its allies - we will persist, and our friends have pledged to fill the gap. We have confidence in the peoples of the world, record numbers of whom identify with our struggle. This is a good time for peace-making - if the world wants peace.

From The Guardian to Haaretz: How facts are skillfuly twisted by Haaretz in reporting on an IDF related article

Although I really like Haaretz, they have two amazing reproters, Amira Hass and Gideon Levy and they report thoroughly on Israel and Palestine, sometimes even more bluntly then any western media outlet, they still have BIG biases when it comes to the IDF (Israel Defense Forces). En Passant, what a lie to call this army an army of Defense when it is an army of criminal occupation.

Compare for example the original article from the Guardian on the fact that a UK coroner found that the IDF soldier and his superiors committed deliberate murder in killing a British citizen in 2003 - this came after another indictment concerning another british peace activist and photographer came to the same conclusion - and the Haaretz article mentioning clearly the original article with some additions and twists of language and meaning.

The Haaretz title (U.K. coroner recommends war crimes charges for IDF soldiers) suggests that: 1) it is the coroner who came to this conclusion alone, 2) the prosecution is against individual soldiers. The Guardian title (Calls for UK to act over Britons shot dead in Gaza) suggests : 1) that the coroner came to this conclusion after having heard other similar cases and after recommandations from others (the jury and the victim's parents), 2) a wider action than the one suggested by Haaretz against individual soldiers.

There is no mention, for example, in the Haaretz article of this statement from the coroner suggesting a wider action:
The Guardian: ''Dr Reid said Israel's army posed a danger to British nationals, especially those covering the continuing conflict with the Palestinians: "British citizens, journalists, photographers or others may be subject to the risk of fatal shots."
Haaretz:''Dr. Reid said that the IDF poses a danger to British citizens''

Note the trivialisation of the whole statement and the omission of Journalists and Photographers.

There is no mention either of the victim's family lawyer harsh statement against the IDF as a whole:''Michael Mansfield QC, who represented the family at the inquest, said: "Make no mistake about it, the Israeli defence force have today been found culpable by this jury of murder."

A twist of language and meaning: an example.
Who is the killer, IDF soldiers or their fire ???
The Guardian: ''Andrew Reid, the coroner who heard both cases, announced he would write to the attorney general about how similar fatalities could be prevented, including examining possible prosecutions of Israeli commanders. In court Dr Reid said he would write to the attorney because the case raised wider issues of command in the Israeli military and because "two British citizens engaged in lawful activities" had been killed by Israeli soldiers.''
Haaretz: ''A U.K. coroner said on Monday that he would recommend that the British attorney general seek legal action over the deaths of two pro-Palestinian activists killed by Israel Defense Forces fire in 2003.'' Notice that the two activists were killed not by soldiers from the IDF but from 'Israeli Defense Forces Fire'.

Another twist of meaning:
The Guardian:''The family will seek a meeting with senior British ministers to press them to act, and do not rule out a private prosecution.''
Haaretz: ''The report also said that Hurdnell's family is pursuing meetings with government officials to urge them to seek action.''
The above two sentences do not convey the same meaning.

An interesting addition from Haaretz suggesting that the direct cause of the death of the activist is not 'IDF soldiers Fire' as they say:''Hurndall fell into a coma following the shooting and died nine months later. His family claim Israeli authorities initially denied responsibility.''

And then the biggest twist and lie of all !
The Guardian: ''Tom Hurndall, 22, died after being shot in broad daylight by an Israeli soldier who later said his commanders had issued orders allowing him to shoot even unarmed civilians.'' And the coroner stated that Mr. Hurndall was engaged in 'lawful activities' and the Guardian reprots that Hurndall '' tried to rescue children who froze in fear after the soldier opened fire.''
Haaretz: ''Hurndall, a student, was photographing the work of the International Solidarity Movement, whose activists often placed themselves between Israeli forces and Palestinians to try to stop the Israeli military from carrying out operations, ignoring orders to leave no-go areas. Israeli authorities said the protesters endangered themselves and the soldiers with their activities. ''

From Haaretz point of view, Hurndall should not have been there, he placed himself willingly in a dangerous situation, ignored orders and, most of all, 'endangered Israeli soldiers'.

What bothers me also is that they wrote the activist name in three different manners: Hurdnall, Hurdnell and Hurndall, the latest being the correct transcription.

The IDF is the pillar of Israel as a country. This is a colonialist country who have been feeding and preying on ist neighbors since its founding. This a country who plunged its neighboring countries in a permanent state of war and underdevelopment. It never tried to achieve a just peace and therefore surrounded itself by ennemies.
The IDF is the pillar on which Israel stands. Forget the bible, forget old history, forget everything, the IDF is the only real legitimisation of Israel. It started as a terrorrist organization for driving Bedouins and Palestinians, who inhabited the land when the first migrant jews arrived in Palestine, out of their villages and homes and it is continuing to terrorrize the Palestinian people and the whole Arab world. It is the only army in the middle east possessing nuclear arms.
With all that, Israel would like you to believe that its existence is in danger and it is a peaceful country. These are all lies. And even the 'respectable' and center-leftist' journal Haaretz who does not shy from criticizing harshly anything related to Israeli politics, is ready to shed its journalistic rigor in favor of defending Israel's pillar and the reason behind its existence, its army, even if this army is accused of doing unlawful acts and crimes against Humanity*.

* I should mention here that there are courageous individuals in this army who refused to serve in the occupied territories to help the settlement enterprise revived by Sharon in 2001 and who served prison time for their refusal. They are also engaged in peace talks with Palestnian combatants and sea things differently from their hierarchy. Clearly what is at stake here is not the behaviour of individuals in the army but the behaviour of the army as a whole in its rules of engagement and the behaviour of israel as a state while the Haaretz article tried to conceal thses aspects.
On the peace talks go to:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=combatants+for+peace&itemNo=704675 (sorry to display it like this but I am having problems with my links functio right now)

An insider reflections on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Via Angry Arab:

''The settlements and the Israeli separation wall are enormous obstacles to a viable two-state solution. But they were put in place by acts of political will. In principle, they can be removed by political decisions. What is uncertain is whether any coalition of forces can be assembled in Israel that can muster the wisdom and courage to undertake this. It would be greatly facilitated if the international community and the media ceased to propagate obfuscations about the nonexistent "peace process." This has become a propaganda term that conceals Israel's continued settlement expansion, the construction of the separation barrier declared illegal by the International Court of Justice and the fact that the Gaza Strip remains under occupation practically and according to international law. These harsh realities and their appalling consequences for the Palestinian people must be confronted. The Bush Administration, which has endorsed very nearly any Israeli outrage against the Palestinians in the name of the "war on terror," is hopeless on this, as on many other Middle East policy questions. The Democratic Party has a poor record on Israeli-Palestinian issues and cannot be considered a serious alternative.

Where, then, is the hope for a peaceful solution to the conflict? I believe that it lies in the young Palestinians, Jewish Israelis and internationals who have been fighting shoulder to shoulder in weekly battles against the Israeli security forces since late 2003 to halt the construction of the separation wall. This struggle has been led by Palestinian villagers in unheralded places like Budrus and Bil'in, organized in the Popular Committee Against the Wall. Although their successes have so far been minor, these actions have demonstrated that trust is built through joint political action and that whether there will eventually be two states or one, coexistence, not separation, is the foundation for peace.''

The WHY of the injustice done to the Palestinians

Just before the Israeli elections and ever since Olmert was given the job of forming the next Israeli government, Israel has been shelling Gaza on a daily basis. Nobody knows why.

In the same vein, European Union ministers have confirmed aid cut to the PA.

''Cette décision n'est "ni une menace ni une tentative de chantage, ni une punition collective pour les élections" palestiniennes de janvier, a indiqué, lundi, la ministre autrichienne des affaires étrangères, Ursula Plassnik.''

This decision is not a menace, pressure of any kind, neither a collective punishment for the Palestinian January elections, declared Austrian FM Ursula Plassnik.

And again nobody knows Why.

The west is assuming that when Palestinians get shelled and starved, they must know why, exactly as when the jews were denounced, deported and killed, the perpetrators of these crimes must have assumed that the jews knew actually why all this was happening to them. Indeed, many deported jews spoke of the guilt and uneasiness related to their condition as if they have commited a crime of just being a jew.

Being stigmatised and punished for no obvious reason must have a terrible feeling associated to it. Indeed, not giving an obvious reason to punishing and harming someone else makes victims of Hate assume alone the effects of the Hate, while the hater thinks that he is in his own right in doing the things that he does.

The Hate and indifference of Israel and with it a sizable part of the world (and yes the UN)directed at the Palestinians are only the burden of the Palestinian people alone. This is what Palestinians are experiencing day after day with no end in sight.

Washington's Prolonged War against terrorrism and the new Atlantic Alliance

Here are some of the talking points as reported by Le Monde on a meeting where US general Kimmit explains and promotes the Prolonged War (Guerre Longue) to the personnel of the coalition at the Centcom in Florida.

The Concept: A Prolonged War is defined by the defeat of Al-Qaida and its associates and will continue after the stabilization of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sophia's comment: This will be a neverending war because the war against Al-Qaida not only did not weaken Al-Qaida but is producing a lot of what general Kimmit calls 'associates'. As conceived by Washington, the war against Al-Qaida is a casus belli to put the entire world in a state of prolonged war. Terrorrism is not fought with big armies, military alliances and invasions of countries, terrorrism is best fought with intelligence. But intelligence for Washington is becoming a mean to create legitimisations for the invasions and not a tool to fight terrorrism.

The means
As the stabilization of Afghanistan and Iraq is nowhere in sight, Washington will rely more and more on NATO as it is doing in Afghanistan and will try to integrate coalition personnel and officers to its own Central Command staff to start other wars. It will necessitate the reduction of hierarchy levels between the Centcom and the secretary of state. It will rely on other means than military, the internet ???

Sophia's comment: Yes lets get rid of all the bureaucracy to speed things up like fabricating intelligence and propaganda, giving contracts to our friends at Halliburton and make disasters and civil wars in invaded countries look like perfect success. After the invasion, coalition forces will do the dirty job of making sure the mess we started will keep going on. As for the internet, the general was not explicit but he clearly want to look at other means than military, it could have been something else after all, the point is to find other means and right now he does not have the slightest idea.

Questions, précisions, dissent and some more bureaucracy
Jordanian general Alkhass Nart asks what 'Prolonged' means: 10 years, 100 years ?
The Tampa Centcom center for the war in Afghanistan and Iraq could eventually become the center for the War on Terrorrism everywhere in the world and general Gerald Minetti would like officers of the coalition forces to support not only the Centcom in Florida for the planning of the operations but also all the regional commands everywhere in the world.
European officers are reserved. They never saw the plans and the details for this Prolonged War and Danish general Falk Portved, who seems to have understood more than others what the Americans are saying, declares that he and other coalition officers never contemplated that the 'village' of the coalition in Tampa could become a new Atlantic Alliance. In the waiting of a final acceptance from its allies, Washington is moving the officers from barracks to permanent buildings hoping to create a 'situation on the ground' to facilitate its Prolonged War while their countries of origin are actually sending them on transitory assignements not more than one month.

Sophia's comment: general Alkhass is either an anxious person or a philosopher wanting to clarify the concept. By regularly briefing visiting officers from coalition countries on the concept of Prolonged War in a friendly atmosphere and by moving them fron transitory barracks to permanent buildings, Washington is hoping that colaition countries will eventually understand and accept to enroll in its Prolonged War. After all, even if the concept is far from being clear and even if there are no clear planning, Prolonged War against terrorrism will make its way among coalition countries because these countries have no international vision and no clear plans either for the actual political transformations of the world. Eventually also, even a vague concept, will make its way in the minds by virtue of repetition. Even a donkey* can learn from repetition, goes an Arab saying (please if someone have a better translation of the saying, send it to me).
*A donkey is considered as the dumbest of all animals in most of the arab world.

Update: Haaretz has this interesting report on washington's long war against what haaretz calls 'international terror'

EU's new middle east policy and the cartoon row

You may think that the cartoon row was a crazy frenzy on both sides. The truth is the cartoon row was designed to make EU's middle east policy closer to that of the US by creating a misunderstanding of Islam and hindering dialogue between the EU and the muslim and arab worlds. Until now, the EU was the main contributor to the Palestinian aid.
Not content of destructing the Palestinian infrastructure during the second intifada, paid for by the EU after the Oslo accords and before the second intifada, Zionists worked hard to plant the misunderstanding between the EU and Islam.

Clearly, the hysteric reaction of muslims across the arab and muslim worlds to the not funny and not so smart cartoons have created a profound misunderstanding. My european secular husband, despite being well educated on the many issues of the middle east and the arab world, couldn't understand the reaction otherwise than pure fanatism. I tried hard to explain to him that: 1) fanatism per se is not mainstream among muslims and 2) people in the arab street marched in protest because they were manipulated by their rulers to do so in order for these contested rulers (Syrian and Saudis for example) to gain legitimacy among their people and that this manipulation was made possible by the frustrations of ordinary muslims and arabs to what they perceive as the hypocrisy and the double standards of the west.

I can easily imagine that, beyond clichés, the cartoon row encouraged some already tired and harrassed european diplomats into 'divesting' from the Palestinain authority under the rule of an Islamist organisation. That was exactly the purpose of pro-zionists americans and right-wing Danish* and they clearly won.

*It seems that the Editor of the Jyllandposten who published the cartoons had close ties to pro-zionist americans and the most notorious of them, Daniel Pipes.

Hamas's rocky start

Between international apathy and internal manipulations of the security situation by corrupt and disgruntled Fatah members, Hamas had to face a difficult first week in office. Until now they are reacting calmly and trying to play the few cards available to them on all levels.

Being a child in the Palestinian territories

Blogger and journalist Leila-El-Haddad celebrates Palestinian children day.

Not all islamist organizations are the same

The US and western media would like you to believe that all Islamists organizations are the same: Al-Qaida style. This way you see Islam only through the lens of Al-Qaida and extremism. This is rather a simplistic vision.

Counterpunch and Clancy Chassay prove the contrary.
''In fact Al Qaeda is generally considered to be more concerned with waging war against its Muslim counterparts than against the countries of the West.
"Al Qaeda's priority is to confront domestic enemies, be they Shiites or reformists who are accused of being contaminated by western ideas," says Amal Saad Ghorayeb a specialist on militant Islamism at the Lebanese American University, "They consider them more pressing than tackling the US and Israel head on."
Ghorayeb believes Hamas' emphasis on defining and confronting American interference in the region and its active role in resisting Israel enables it to compete better with Al Qaeda for regional Muslim support than less militant groups like the Muslim Brotherhood who focus more on religious dogmatism.
"Hamas represents a popular and legitimate alternative to Al Qaeda in that it has the militant credentials of the other group, but at the same time it is also fully integrated into its society, which enables it to be a political player and interact with the international communityThis gives them a huge edge vis-à-vis the Salafi Islamists." ''

Chassay argues for a distinction between those whose main goal is to topple their own governments like the muslim brotherhood (Egypt) and Al-Qaida (Saudi Arabia) and those who fight outside injustice provoked by Israel and middle eastern US policy. This is creating a divide among these organizations. However, Chassay misses a point: Even those who fight their own governements, they fight indirect consequences of US foreign policy which supports these governments against the will of their people and this is why they exported their fight on US soil like Al-Qaida. He misses also another distinction: those who export their fight against their government like The Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaida because of their opressive regimes and those who don't export their fight like Hamas.

As the struggle for the palestinian cause among arabs is very popular, arab regimes who are fighting violent internal dissent might want to support Hamas. This way, they buy legitimacy. Recent political moves prove that Hamas is willing to give them this lost legitimacy in return for financial and monetary support. My worry is that the american masters of these regimes will not let them proceed without constraints and as they like. Without american pressure, these countries may be good candidates for brokering a good peace deal for the Israeli-palestinian conflict and in fact saudi Arabia had one after the collapse of Camp david in 2000.

However, I don't think the US is really interested in curbing muslim uprising because if this is the case it should be willing to give these countries some latitude in their dealings with Hamas and political matters related to arab interests and some more latitude on the international level. Wait and See !

You may notice also that US foreign policy got it all wrong in the middle east. It is supporting undemocratically elected, Egyptian, Jordanian and Saudis rulers against the will of their people and fighting the democratically elected Hamas against the will of the palestinian people. So much for democracy !