This is from a 2001 video.
Read here Gideon Levy commenting in Haaretz on the video.
The problem is that Netanyahu's position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, peace, the US and everything else is not an exception. It is the way the majority of Israelis, citizen and politicians, view their position in the ME and the world. Too powerful to break...and going their way by deceit...
Showing posts with label Peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peace. Show all posts
26.2.09
Shlomo Ben Ami: 'Peace will be achieved only by talking to Hamas'
February, 26, 2009, The Times, London.We need to rethink the strategy for achieving peace in the Middle East
Sir, If every crisis is also an opportunity, it is now time to rethink the strategy for achieving peace in the Middle East. The latest and bloodiest conflict between Israel and Hamas has demonstrated that the policy of isolating Hamas cannot bring about stability. As former peace negotiators, we believe it is of vital importance to abandon the failed policy of isolation and to involve Hamas in the political process.
An Israeli–Palestinian peace settlement without Hamas will not be possible. As the Israeli general and statesman Moshe Dayan said: “If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.” There can be no meaningful peace process that involves negotiating with the representative of one part of the Palestinians while simultaneously trying to destroy the other.
Whether we like it or not, Hamas will not go away. Since its victory in democratic elections in 2006, Hamas has sustained its support in Palestinian society despite attempts to destroy it through economic blockades, political boycotts and military incursions. This approach is not working; a new strategy must be found. Yes, Hamas must recognise Israel as part of a permanent solution, but it is a diplomatic process and not ostracisation that will lead them there. The Quartet conditions imposed on Hamas set an unworkable threshold from which to commence negotiations. The most important first step is for Hamas to halt all violence as a precondition for their inclusion in the process. Ending their isolation will in turn help in reconciling the Palestinian national movement, a vital condition for meaningful negotiations with Israel.
We have learnt first-hand that there is no substitute for direct and sustained negotiations with all parties to a conflict, and rarely if ever a durable peace without them. Isolation only bolsters hardliners and their policies of intransigence. Engagement can strengthen pragmatic elements and their ability to strike the hard compromises needed for peace...
29.9.08
Olmert: Israel has to return occupied lands to achieve peace
Yep...Including the west bank and Jerusalem East. And Israeli leaders typically declare these things when they are out of office. So I wonder who is the main obstacle to peace in Israel ? The public or their leaders ?
18.4.08
Jimmy Carter's visit to the ME in the US press
No Peace Without Hamas by Mahmoud Zahar, in the Wapost.
Carter Calls Israel Treatment of Palestinians a Crime. By Jeffrey Fleishman, The Los Angeles Times.
Palestinian Official Says Talks With Israelis Yield Little. By Isabel Kershner, The New York Times.
All three articles in Truthout.org
Our movement fights on because we cannot allow the foundational crime at the core of the Jewish state - the violent expulsion from our lands and villages that made us refugees - to slip out of world consciousness, forgotten or negotiated away. Judaism - which gave so much to human culture in the contributions of its ancient lawgivers and modern proponents of tikkun olam - has corrupted itself in the detour into Zionism, nationalism and apartheid.
...History teaches us that everything is in flux. Our fight to redress the material crimes of 1948 is scarcely begun, and adversity has taught us patience. As for the Israeli state and its Spartan culture of permanent war, it is all too vulnerable to time, fatigue and demographics: In the end, it is always a question of our children and those who come after us.
Carter Calls Israel Treatment of Palestinians a Crime. By Jeffrey Fleishman, The Los Angeles Times.
"I think it's an atrocity what is being perpetuated as punishment" against the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, Carter said. He added that the situation was "a crime" and that people were being "starved" to death living behind walls in prison conditions.
Palestinian Official Says Talks With Israelis Yield Little. By Isabel Kershner, The New York Times.
Jerusalem - The Palestinian Authority's foreign minister on Thursday offered an unusually bleak assessment of the negotiations with Israel and said President Mahmoud Abbas would seek more active American intervention when he meets with President Bush in Washington this month. Riad Malki, the foreign minister and minister of information in the West Bank-based government, told the Foreign Press Association here that the talks on the core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had so far yielded "no results."
The Israelis and the Palestinians agreed to the talks at the American-sponsored peace conference at Annapolis, Md., last November. The stated goal was to reach an accord by the end of 2008 based on Mr. Bush's vision of two states living side by side. "Yes, they are talking," Mr. Malki said. "All the issues are on the table. But we did not conclude any issue. How long will it take? Nobody knows."
All three articles in Truthout.org
10.3.08
Do Americans Believe Palestinians Have The Right to Exist?
From Timothy Gatto in Talking Points Memo.
At every attempt to pressure Israel into peace, Israel responds by more provocation which it knows will be followed by more violence. And the first of these provocations for stateless, houseless Palestinians is the Israeli settlements.
Israel has been able to expand, since 1967, by creating unlawful facts on the ground, facts that do not attract condemnation, or when they attract it at the UN, it is vetoed by the US. These facts have two goals, delay and eliminate the possibility of any peace process, and then create a provocation resulting in acts of violence from the Palestinians. These acts of violence become an a posteriori justification for the unlawful facts created by Israel on the ground in total contempt for international law and Human rights.
You have for example many stories like this one.
And this one: Israel announces 750-unit West Bank expansion.
And this: Rogue Israeli settlements in West Bank continue...(not 'rogue' to Israel)
Attitudes in the US toward Israeli settlements (2003).
Timothy Gatto cites money and electablility issues as reasons for US politicians to side always with Israel. But this is not actually the attitude of the majority in the US. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this discordance is that US politicians are not elected by the people but by the money and the lobbies that operate in Washington.
At every attempt to pressure Israel into peace, Israel responds by more provocation which it knows will be followed by more violence. And the first of these provocations for stateless, houseless Palestinians is the Israeli settlements.
Israel has been able to expand, since 1967, by creating unlawful facts on the ground, facts that do not attract condemnation, or when they attract it at the UN, it is vetoed by the US. These facts have two goals, delay and eliminate the possibility of any peace process, and then create a provocation resulting in acts of violence from the Palestinians. These acts of violence become an a posteriori justification for the unlawful facts created by Israel on the ground in total contempt for international law and Human rights.
You have for example many stories like this one.
And this one: Israel announces 750-unit West Bank expansion.
And this: Rogue Israeli settlements in West Bank continue...(not 'rogue' to Israel)
Attitudes in the US toward Israeli settlements (2003).
Timothy Gatto cites money and electablility issues as reasons for US politicians to side always with Israel. But this is not actually the attitude of the majority in the US. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this discordance is that US politicians are not elected by the people but by the money and the lobbies that operate in Washington.
2.9.07
Israel working to prevent any viability for a future Palestinian state
Much has been said about Israel's right to exist. Nothing has been said about Israel's right to co-exist either with a Palestinian state or in a binational state with Palestinians. In other words, while Israel is enjoying the status of an internationally recognized state built on a stolen land, nobody is preoccupied with the future of the Palestinians who live as refugees or prisoners in an apartheid like pieces in what remains of their land.
Two recent reports highlight the uncertainty, if not the impossibility, of a future Palestinian state, following facts created on the ground by the state of Israel which accelerated since 2000; the settlements in the west bank cutting Palestinian villages and communities from each other, and sometimes villagers form their own orchards, and the network of roads reserved only for the Israelis. Now that the international community is showing, a bit late, some worry about the continuity of the west bank itself which became totally compliant and dependant on Israel (let's not mention the continuity between the West Bank and Gaza and what to make of Gaza ?), and therefore the viability of a future Palestinian state, Israel, following the Sharon doctrine of 'continuity through transportation', is planning some future roads for those compliant Palestinians. The future viability of a Palestinian state will depend for example in some cases on a 16 meters road between Betlehem and Ramallah, controlled by Israel...
French philosopher Régis Debray who went on an official mission to Israel and Palestine lately wrote a pessimistic report about the viability of a future Palestinian state to the French government. You can find excerpts from his report in the August French edition of Le Monde Diplomatique: "Palestine, a policy of deliberate blindness or how the world backed itself into a corner." Debray sometimes resort to irony and sarcasm to describe the state of neglect and the contempt in which the prospects for peace and existence for Palestine and the Palestinians are held by the international community and Israel.
The main question therefore is not Israel's right to exist, not even Israel's right to co-exist, because obviously Israel decided not to coexist. The main question is: what does Israel intend to make of the Palestinians ?
Two recent reports highlight the uncertainty, if not the impossibility, of a future Palestinian state, following facts created on the ground by the state of Israel which accelerated since 2000; the settlements in the west bank cutting Palestinian villages and communities from each other, and sometimes villagers form their own orchards, and the network of roads reserved only for the Israelis. Now that the international community is showing, a bit late, some worry about the continuity of the west bank itself which became totally compliant and dependant on Israel (let's not mention the continuity between the West Bank and Gaza and what to make of Gaza ?), and therefore the viability of a future Palestinian state, Israel, following the Sharon doctrine of 'continuity through transportation', is planning some future roads for those compliant Palestinians. The future viability of a Palestinian state will depend for example in some cases on a 16 meters road between Betlehem and Ramallah, controlled by Israel...
French philosopher Régis Debray who went on an official mission to Israel and Palestine lately wrote a pessimistic report about the viability of a future Palestinian state to the French government. You can find excerpts from his report in the August French edition of Le Monde Diplomatique: "Palestine, a policy of deliberate blindness or how the world backed itself into a corner." Debray sometimes resort to irony and sarcasm to describe the state of neglect and the contempt in which the prospects for peace and existence for Palestine and the Palestinians are held by the international community and Israel.
The main question therefore is not Israel's right to exist, not even Israel's right to co-exist, because obviously Israel decided not to coexist. The main question is: what does Israel intend to make of the Palestinians ?
17.4.07
USrael's Lies: The New Orientalism and the Elusive Peace
Israel does not want peace. That's not only Gideon Levy's conclusion but also the conclusion of some in the Bush camp as it appears (i.e. Robert Novak). Indeed, nothing for now can move Israel and the neo-cons from their attitude toward conflict and peace in the ME, because public opinion in the US and the west in general are kept in ignorance of facts about the region. Western policy about the Middle east is divorced from facts and from informed public opinion, thanks mainly to the work of the neo-cons.
''To these people the interests of Israel are paramount, and if Israel is not interested in a two state solution that involves handing back settlements then neither are the neo-cons. And no matter what game they play publicly, their policy line remains tied to whatever the state of Israel wants.''
A blatant example of this willful ignorance is the death of investigative journalism and the reduction of the media, even the most prominent ones, to simple mouthpieces of their governments and their leaders. Homeyra points out to an article on the neo-cons where there is mention of the fact that most of them come from the news media which they tranformed into their echo chamber, a subjective one by their own admission. Le Monde yesterday published answers to questions sent to the three front runner candidates for the presdiential elections in France. The questions were about ten 'crucial' issues in foreign policy, as determined by le Monde. A third of the questions was about Iran, more than a third was about internal and foreign affairs issues related to Europe including attitudes toward China and Russia, and there was a question on Darfur, a recently zionist sponsored 'humanitarian' cause. There was no mention of the Israeli-Arab conflict, no mention of Iraq, and no mention of Palestine. Half of the questions on crucial foreign policy issues in France, as determined by le Monde, can be seen as neo-con issues. Le Monde is a center left mainstream French newspaper. The sounds of the drumbeats in the echo chamber are reaching distant neighbourhoods.
I realised yesterday that the neo-con thinking has become invasive, even among people and countries outside their own circles. This work of disinformation was achieved by a joint effort from Israel and its neo-con allies through means including shock and awe wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, lying, intimidation, mayhem, threats, and most of all, the devaluation of facts on the ground which were replaced and substituted by false narratives bearing no relation to Truth.
Take for example the present zionist narrative on the Israeli-palestinian peace process, the one that was fabricated since 9/11 with the help of the 'War on Terror'. We all know that the 'war on terror' has produced more terror, displaced three to four millions Iraqis from their homes while eight to nine millions need humanitarian assistance, killed another million of them, and destabilised the whole Middle East, not to mention Afghanistan. On the other hand, the 'war on terror' served as the main line in a narrative preventing any effort to reach peace in Palestine. The following were the main premices of the 'War on Terror' narrative:
-Sharon could not talk to Arafat because Arafat was a terrorist;
-Sharon could not talk to Abbas because Abbas could not reign in on terrorists;
And when Abbas was sufficiently weakened and Hamas took over democratically after having stopped suicide bombings:
-Sharon, and consequently Olmert, could not talk to Hamas because not only Hamas are terrorists but they don't recognise Israel's 'right to exist'. Israel was frightened asking for the protection of the international community because, in Palestine, terrorists in government don't recognise its 'right to exist';
The international community followed Israel in this path and Israel felt enough support to conduct daily invasions and armed assaults on Gaza (Remember Jennine, Beith Hanoun ?) as well as daily harrassement of Palestinians, which continue to go on as I am writing. Israel felt enough support to conduct a bloody criminal war on Lebanon to get the pro-Bush Sanyura government rid of Hezbollah 'terrorists' which are roughly 40 % of the country's population and more if you count their popular support from other communities, killing, in one month, more than a thousand civilians, displacing a quarter of the population, destroying infrastructure and dropping some one million cluster bombs intended to kill well after the ceasefire.
During this time, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority were caving to international pressure to form a unity government so the west could send aid, halted at the election of the Hamas government, to palestinians who are in critical conditions and starving. Rice, Bush and Olmert tried their best, and behind the scenes, to stop a unity government, by giving money and arms to corrupt Palestinian factions (Fatah) pushing Gaza into a civil war. Things were starting to look really ugly when Saudi Arabia, the first official US and Israel implicit ally in the region, worried by a rise of anti-Saudi sentiment in the Arab street and among Muslims, stepped in and brokered a unity government. The Palestinian Authority government that resulted has not only a third of its members from Fatah, an organisation seen now as 'moderate' by the US and Israel (it wasn't moderate enoug for them when it was time to negotiate with Arafat), but it has also more than a third of its members from the civil society and independant groups. Israel ignored the government. The saudis relaunched their peace initiative, with an implicit agreement from the present Palestinian government, Israel continued to ignore it, until a week ago. Meanwhile, Olmert is mulling the Arab peace offer. If it is good for him on the internal level, he may engage in talks but he seems reluctant to accept it as such. Read here how Israel and most Israelis view the peace initiative, which is minimal to a two state solution, and here an appraisal of the initiative.
During the five years and a half since 9/11, chances for peace in the ME were squandered by a simple narrative, the 'war on terror' narrative, making all Arabs and Muslims potential terrorists, ennemies of the West, unfit for talks and undeserving peace. It is a convenient lie and it is a new dehumanising tactic for the New Orientalism enabling the continued and renewed occupation of Palestine, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the invasion and bombing of Lebanon, the extraordinary renditions, torture, at scales unseen before, by modern western democracies, enabling Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the reorientation of the international foreign policy agenda away from the Israeli-Arab conflict to new satellite but nonetheless important conflicts like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, and Somalia. And it does not stop there. Al-Qaida, which is an objective ally of the neo-cons in the 'war on terror', because Al-Qaida exists as long as the 'war on terror' exists (see the Adam Curtis documentary, 'The Power of Nightmares'), was trying recently to spread this 'war' to the Maghreb, Algeria and Morocco. The Algerian government, which dealt with a murderous and state threatening wave of Islamist terror whose scale was much wider than 9/11 related directly to an internal social and economical malaise, and which is trying to revive the state, the economy, and national reconciliation, was very very angry with the US ambassador's reaction to the recent bombings in Alger. It accused the US embassy, who issued a warning on future and imminent Al-Qaida terror attacks in Alger, of interference in internal affairs of a sovereign state. The present US ambassador in Alger had a previous job in occupied Iraq as an ambassador. The Algerian government is labeling the shocking attitude of the US ambassador as the 'Iraqi' attitude, a coloniser attitude. Algerians fought a bloody war of decolonisation and they are, more than other Arabs, very sensitive to the colonialist attitude.
Lets listen to professor Edward Said speaking on Orientalism.
Thanks Kel.
By labeling Arabs and Muslims as terrorists and potential threats to the US and the West, Israel, the neo-con, and their much cherished 'war on Terror' have recreated Orientalism. This New Orientalism, no less dehumanising, is much more rapacious; it supresses any humanity to Arabs and Msulsims and manages to deny them the status of victims and to convince the world that it is Israel who is the victim in this conflict. The 'War on Terror' is a convenient lie hiding an inconvenient truth; the unjustice done to Palestinians, Muslims, and the Arab world, by Israel.
This New Orientalism is unlike others because it uses as a proxy an occupying state, Israel, which is politically and strategically, and at the same time, an integral part of the ME and an integral part of the West. Unlike other occupation endeavours, and with the exception of the European occupation of the new World, this one, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, is here to stay. If it refuses peace, if it refuses to merge into a uniquely Middle Eastern state strategically and politically different from the West's military power and in peace with its neighbours, and if the West refuses to dissociate itself from this occupation, the only logical outcome, and history is here to testify to this outcome, will be a dramatic outcome and either one of these:
The end of the existence of the Palestinian state. It happened already;
The end of the Israeli state. It could not happen given the military and economic power of Israel;
The extermination and dissemination of the Palestinian people. This is happening before our eyes.
If Israel does not want a two state solution, giving a viable state to Palestinians and retreating behind the 1967 occupation lines, neither a one state solution integrating all Palestinians and giving them rights equal to Jewish citizens, the only outcome will be the slow extermination of the Palestinian people. This is the simple truth we are trying to hide from by listening to neo-con lies.
UPDATE: I am relieved that no Arab or Muslim was behind the horrible shooting at Virginia Tech on Monday April 16th. Otherwise, Bush would have to invade the Arab or Muslim country of the shooter. That's the meaning of the war on terror; waging wars with organised armies against a bunch of fools and thugs. Now, is Bush going to attack South Korea ?
''To these people the interests of Israel are paramount, and if Israel is not interested in a two state solution that involves handing back settlements then neither are the neo-cons. And no matter what game they play publicly, their policy line remains tied to whatever the state of Israel wants.''
A blatant example of this willful ignorance is the death of investigative journalism and the reduction of the media, even the most prominent ones, to simple mouthpieces of their governments and their leaders. Homeyra points out to an article on the neo-cons where there is mention of the fact that most of them come from the news media which they tranformed into their echo chamber, a subjective one by their own admission. Le Monde yesterday published answers to questions sent to the three front runner candidates for the presdiential elections in France. The questions were about ten 'crucial' issues in foreign policy, as determined by le Monde. A third of the questions was about Iran, more than a third was about internal and foreign affairs issues related to Europe including attitudes toward China and Russia, and there was a question on Darfur, a recently zionist sponsored 'humanitarian' cause. There was no mention of the Israeli-Arab conflict, no mention of Iraq, and no mention of Palestine. Half of the questions on crucial foreign policy issues in France, as determined by le Monde, can be seen as neo-con issues. Le Monde is a center left mainstream French newspaper. The sounds of the drumbeats in the echo chamber are reaching distant neighbourhoods.
I realised yesterday that the neo-con thinking has become invasive, even among people and countries outside their own circles. This work of disinformation was achieved by a joint effort from Israel and its neo-con allies through means including shock and awe wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, lying, intimidation, mayhem, threats, and most of all, the devaluation of facts on the ground which were replaced and substituted by false narratives bearing no relation to Truth.
Take for example the present zionist narrative on the Israeli-palestinian peace process, the one that was fabricated since 9/11 with the help of the 'War on Terror'. We all know that the 'war on terror' has produced more terror, displaced three to four millions Iraqis from their homes while eight to nine millions need humanitarian assistance, killed another million of them, and destabilised the whole Middle East, not to mention Afghanistan. On the other hand, the 'war on terror' served as the main line in a narrative preventing any effort to reach peace in Palestine. The following were the main premices of the 'War on Terror' narrative:
-Sharon could not talk to Arafat because Arafat was a terrorist;
-Sharon could not talk to Abbas because Abbas could not reign in on terrorists;
And when Abbas was sufficiently weakened and Hamas took over democratically after having stopped suicide bombings:
-Sharon, and consequently Olmert, could not talk to Hamas because not only Hamas are terrorists but they don't recognise Israel's 'right to exist'. Israel was frightened asking for the protection of the international community because, in Palestine, terrorists in government don't recognise its 'right to exist';
The international community followed Israel in this path and Israel felt enough support to conduct daily invasions and armed assaults on Gaza (Remember Jennine, Beith Hanoun ?) as well as daily harrassement of Palestinians, which continue to go on as I am writing. Israel felt enough support to conduct a bloody criminal war on Lebanon to get the pro-Bush Sanyura government rid of Hezbollah 'terrorists' which are roughly 40 % of the country's population and more if you count their popular support from other communities, killing, in one month, more than a thousand civilians, displacing a quarter of the population, destroying infrastructure and dropping some one million cluster bombs intended to kill well after the ceasefire.
During this time, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority were caving to international pressure to form a unity government so the west could send aid, halted at the election of the Hamas government, to palestinians who are in critical conditions and starving. Rice, Bush and Olmert tried their best, and behind the scenes, to stop a unity government, by giving money and arms to corrupt Palestinian factions (Fatah) pushing Gaza into a civil war. Things were starting to look really ugly when Saudi Arabia, the first official US and Israel implicit ally in the region, worried by a rise of anti-Saudi sentiment in the Arab street and among Muslims, stepped in and brokered a unity government. The Palestinian Authority government that resulted has not only a third of its members from Fatah, an organisation seen now as 'moderate' by the US and Israel (it wasn't moderate enoug for them when it was time to negotiate with Arafat), but it has also more than a third of its members from the civil society and independant groups. Israel ignored the government. The saudis relaunched their peace initiative, with an implicit agreement from the present Palestinian government, Israel continued to ignore it, until a week ago. Meanwhile, Olmert is mulling the Arab peace offer. If it is good for him on the internal level, he may engage in talks but he seems reluctant to accept it as such. Read here how Israel and most Israelis view the peace initiative, which is minimal to a two state solution, and here an appraisal of the initiative.
During the five years and a half since 9/11, chances for peace in the ME were squandered by a simple narrative, the 'war on terror' narrative, making all Arabs and Muslims potential terrorists, ennemies of the West, unfit for talks and undeserving peace. It is a convenient lie and it is a new dehumanising tactic for the New Orientalism enabling the continued and renewed occupation of Palestine, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the invasion and bombing of Lebanon, the extraordinary renditions, torture, at scales unseen before, by modern western democracies, enabling Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the reorientation of the international foreign policy agenda away from the Israeli-Arab conflict to new satellite but nonetheless important conflicts like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, and Somalia. And it does not stop there. Al-Qaida, which is an objective ally of the neo-cons in the 'war on terror', because Al-Qaida exists as long as the 'war on terror' exists (see the Adam Curtis documentary, 'The Power of Nightmares'), was trying recently to spread this 'war' to the Maghreb, Algeria and Morocco. The Algerian government, which dealt with a murderous and state threatening wave of Islamist terror whose scale was much wider than 9/11 related directly to an internal social and economical malaise, and which is trying to revive the state, the economy, and national reconciliation, was very very angry with the US ambassador's reaction to the recent bombings in Alger. It accused the US embassy, who issued a warning on future and imminent Al-Qaida terror attacks in Alger, of interference in internal affairs of a sovereign state. The present US ambassador in Alger had a previous job in occupied Iraq as an ambassador. The Algerian government is labeling the shocking attitude of the US ambassador as the 'Iraqi' attitude, a coloniser attitude. Algerians fought a bloody war of decolonisation and they are, more than other Arabs, very sensitive to the colonialist attitude.
L'attitude des Américains mise en cause à Alger après un avis d'alerte aux attentats
LEMONDE.FR | 15.04.07
LEMONDE.FR | 15.04.07
© 
L'ambassade des Etats-Unis à Alger redoute de nouvelles attaques dans la journée
LEMONDE.FR | 14.04.07
LEMONDE.FR | 14.04.07
©
Lets listen to professor Edward Said speaking on Orientalism.
Thanks Kel.
By labeling Arabs and Muslims as terrorists and potential threats to the US and the West, Israel, the neo-con, and their much cherished 'war on Terror' have recreated Orientalism. This New Orientalism, no less dehumanising, is much more rapacious; it supresses any humanity to Arabs and Msulsims and manages to deny them the status of victims and to convince the world that it is Israel who is the victim in this conflict. The 'War on Terror' is a convenient lie hiding an inconvenient truth; the unjustice done to Palestinians, Muslims, and the Arab world, by Israel.
This New Orientalism is unlike others because it uses as a proxy an occupying state, Israel, which is politically and strategically, and at the same time, an integral part of the ME and an integral part of the West. Unlike other occupation endeavours, and with the exception of the European occupation of the new World, this one, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, is here to stay. If it refuses peace, if it refuses to merge into a uniquely Middle Eastern state strategically and politically different from the West's military power and in peace with its neighbours, and if the West refuses to dissociate itself from this occupation, the only logical outcome, and history is here to testify to this outcome, will be a dramatic outcome and either one of these:
The end of the existence of the Palestinian state. It happened already;
The end of the Israeli state. It could not happen given the military and economic power of Israel;
The extermination and dissemination of the Palestinian people. This is happening before our eyes.
If Israel does not want a two state solution, giving a viable state to Palestinians and retreating behind the 1967 occupation lines, neither a one state solution integrating all Palestinians and giving them rights equal to Jewish citizens, the only outcome will be the slow extermination of the Palestinian people. This is the simple truth we are trying to hide from by listening to neo-con lies.
UPDATE: I am relieved that no Arab or Muslim was behind the horrible shooting at Virginia Tech on Monday April 16th. Otherwise, Bush would have to invade the Arab or Muslim country of the shooter. That's the meaning of the war on terror; waging wars with organised armies against a bunch of fools and thugs. Now, is Bush going to attack South Korea ?
8.4.07
Gideon Levy: Israel does not want peace
I was celebrating Easter this week-end with my family. I had no time to post. However, between meal preparations and visits I read the news and gathered material for some posting next week and was saddened at fellow pro-Palestinian blogger's Ben Heine censorship at Daily Kos. His post was erased and treated as a troll post following an article he published there drawing comparisons between Avigdor Lieberman's ethnic cleansing project for Israel and the Nazis'. Autocensorship regarding sensibilities toward the Israeli question are very strong among western so called 'liberals'. Because the west stands with its both wings, right and left, as a barrage against criticism against Israel, voices for Peace and Justice are not heard these days and the current thinking want us to blame the victims, the palestinians, for the absence of peace.
There was some consolation for me in reading this article by Gideon Levy in Haaretz. Because every time there is a censorship of plain facts, we make a step away from Truth and Peace, and courageous voices, like Levy's, must be heard if we want to make the effort of debunking lies and the demolition and vandalism of the Truth they achieve.
The moment of truth has arrived, and it has to be said: Israel does not want peace. The arsenal of excuses has run out, and the chorus of Israeli rejection already rings hollow. Until recently, it was still possible to accept the Israeli refrain that "there is no partner" for peace and that "the time isn't right" to deal with our enemies. Today, the new reality before our eyes leaves no room for doubt and the tired refrain that "Israel supports peace" has been left shattered.
It's hard to determine when the breaking point occurred. Was it the absolute dismissal of the Saudi initiative? The refusal to acknowledge the Syrian initiative? Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's annual Passover interviews? The revulsion at the statements made by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, in Damascus, alleging that Israel was ready to renew peace talks with Syria?
Who would have believed it? A high-ranking U.S. official says Israel wants peace talks to resume and instantly her president "severely" denies the veracity of her words. Is Israel even hearing these voices? Are we digesting the significance of these voices for peace? Seven million apathetic Israeli citizens prove that we are not.
Entire generations grew up here weaned on self-deception and doubt about the likelihood of achieving peace with our neighbors. In our younger days, David Ben-Gurion told us that if he were only able to meet with Arab leaders, he would have brought us peace in his time. Israel has demanded direct negotiations as a matter of principle and Israelis have derived great pride from the fact that their daily focus on "peace" has concealed their state's lofty ambitions. We were told that there was no partner for peace and that the ultimate ambition of the Arabs is to bring about our destruction. We burned the portraits of "the Egyptian tyrant" at our bonfires on Lag Ba'omer, and were convinced that all blame for the lack of peace lied with our enemies.
After that came the occupation, followed by terror, Yassir Arafat, the failed second Camp David Summit and the rise of Hamas to power, and we were sure, always sure, that it was all their fault. In our wildest dreams, we wouldn't have believed that the day would come when the entire Arab world would extend its hand in peace and Israel would brush away the gesture. It would have been even crazier to imagine that this Israeli refusal would have been blamed on not wanting to enrage domestic public opinion.
The world has been turned upside down and it is Israel that stands at the forefront of refusal. The policy of refusal of a select few, a vanguard of the extreme, has now become the official policy of Jerusalem. In his Passover interviews, Olmert will tell us that, "The Palestinians stand at the crossroads of a historic decision," but people stopped taking him seriously a long time ago. The historic decision is ours, and we are fleeing from this crossroads and from these initiatives as if from death itself.
Terror, used as the ultimate excuse for Israeli refusal, only helps Olmert keep reciting, ad nauseum, "If they [the Palestinians] don't change, don't fight terror and don't adhere to any of their obligations, then they will never extract themselves from their unending chaos." As though the Palestinians haven't taken measures against terrorism, as though Israel is the one to determine what their obligations are, as though Israel isn't to blame for the unending chaos Palestinians suffer under the occupation.
Israel makes a point of setting prerequisites and believes it has an exclusive right to do so. But, time and time again, Israel avoids the most basic prerequisite for any just peace - an end to the occupation. Of all the questions asked during his Passover interviews, no one bothered to ask Olmert why he didn't react with excitement to the recent Arab initiatives, without preconditions? The answer: real estate. The real estate of the settlements.
It's not only Olmert who is dragging his feet. A leading figure in the Labor party said last week that "it will take five to 10 years to recover from the trauma." Peace is now no more than a threatening wound, with no one still talking about the massive social benefits it would bring in development, security, freedom of movement in the region and by establishing a more just society.
Like a little Switzerland, we are focusing more these days on the dollar exchange rate and on the allegations of embezzlement leveled against the Finance Ministry than on the fateful opportunities fading away before our very eyes.
Not every day and not even in every generation do we encounter an opportunity like this. Although it's not for sure if the initiatives are completely solid and believable, or if they are based on trickery, no one has stepped up to challenge or acknowledge them. When Olmert is an elderly grandfather, what will he tell his grandchildren? That he turned over every stone in the name of peace? That there was no other choice? What will his grandchildren say?
There was some consolation for me in reading this article by Gideon Levy in Haaretz. Because every time there is a censorship of plain facts, we make a step away from Truth and Peace, and courageous voices, like Levy's, must be heard if we want to make the effort of debunking lies and the demolition and vandalism of the Truth they achieve.
The moment of truth has arrived, and it has to be said: Israel does not want peace. The arsenal of excuses has run out, and the chorus of Israeli rejection already rings hollow. Until recently, it was still possible to accept the Israeli refrain that "there is no partner" for peace and that "the time isn't right" to deal with our enemies. Today, the new reality before our eyes leaves no room for doubt and the tired refrain that "Israel supports peace" has been left shattered.
It's hard to determine when the breaking point occurred. Was it the absolute dismissal of the Saudi initiative? The refusal to acknowledge the Syrian initiative? Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's annual Passover interviews? The revulsion at the statements made by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, in Damascus, alleging that Israel was ready to renew peace talks with Syria?
Who would have believed it? A high-ranking U.S. official says Israel wants peace talks to resume and instantly her president "severely" denies the veracity of her words. Is Israel even hearing these voices? Are we digesting the significance of these voices for peace? Seven million apathetic Israeli citizens prove that we are not.
Entire generations grew up here weaned on self-deception and doubt about the likelihood of achieving peace with our neighbors. In our younger days, David Ben-Gurion told us that if he were only able to meet with Arab leaders, he would have brought us peace in his time. Israel has demanded direct negotiations as a matter of principle and Israelis have derived great pride from the fact that their daily focus on "peace" has concealed their state's lofty ambitions. We were told that there was no partner for peace and that the ultimate ambition of the Arabs is to bring about our destruction. We burned the portraits of "the Egyptian tyrant" at our bonfires on Lag Ba'omer, and were convinced that all blame for the lack of peace lied with our enemies.
After that came the occupation, followed by terror, Yassir Arafat, the failed second Camp David Summit and the rise of Hamas to power, and we were sure, always sure, that it was all their fault. In our wildest dreams, we wouldn't have believed that the day would come when the entire Arab world would extend its hand in peace and Israel would brush away the gesture. It would have been even crazier to imagine that this Israeli refusal would have been blamed on not wanting to enrage domestic public opinion.
The world has been turned upside down and it is Israel that stands at the forefront of refusal. The policy of refusal of a select few, a vanguard of the extreme, has now become the official policy of Jerusalem. In his Passover interviews, Olmert will tell us that, "The Palestinians stand at the crossroads of a historic decision," but people stopped taking him seriously a long time ago. The historic decision is ours, and we are fleeing from this crossroads and from these initiatives as if from death itself.
Terror, used as the ultimate excuse for Israeli refusal, only helps Olmert keep reciting, ad nauseum, "If they [the Palestinians] don't change, don't fight terror and don't adhere to any of their obligations, then they will never extract themselves from their unending chaos." As though the Palestinians haven't taken measures against terrorism, as though Israel is the one to determine what their obligations are, as though Israel isn't to blame for the unending chaos Palestinians suffer under the occupation.
Israel makes a point of setting prerequisites and believes it has an exclusive right to do so. But, time and time again, Israel avoids the most basic prerequisite for any just peace - an end to the occupation. Of all the questions asked during his Passover interviews, no one bothered to ask Olmert why he didn't react with excitement to the recent Arab initiatives, without preconditions? The answer: real estate. The real estate of the settlements.
It's not only Olmert who is dragging his feet. A leading figure in the Labor party said last week that "it will take five to 10 years to recover from the trauma." Peace is now no more than a threatening wound, with no one still talking about the massive social benefits it would bring in development, security, freedom of movement in the region and by establishing a more just society.
Like a little Switzerland, we are focusing more these days on the dollar exchange rate and on the allegations of embezzlement leveled against the Finance Ministry than on the fateful opportunities fading away before our very eyes.
Not every day and not even in every generation do we encounter an opportunity like this. Although it's not for sure if the initiatives are completely solid and believable, or if they are based on trickery, no one has stepped up to challenge or acknowledge them. When Olmert is an elderly grandfather, what will he tell his grandchildren? That he turned over every stone in the name of peace? That there was no other choice? What will his grandchildren say?
7.1.07
Movie comment: Children of Men
Yesterday I went to see Alfonso Cuaron’s Children of men. I have to mention first that I did not read the book by P.D. James on which the movie is based.
The story opens in England in 2027. All other countries have collapsed, claims a giant electronic poster, and only England soldiers on.
Cuaron’s adaptation is not didactic. There is no explaining in the movie on what is really going on, as in Spielberg's sci-fi movies for example. But if you know what is going on in the news worldwide, you don’t need an introduction to the story. Because of this, the movie is realistic. It is a political statement on the state of Humanity. There are no flying cars, no extraordinary buildings and gadgets, no strange creatures, only human beings devoured by anxiety, hopelessness, boredom, and a dark future.
We understand later that an advertised drug called Quietus is recommended for suicide. The realism of the movie is such that the line of advertisement is that of any other product, it gives the consumer the illusion of free will and choice. The subtitle of the advertisement is ‘You decide when’. Cuaron’s realism comes from the fact that instead of focusing on gadgets, he focuses on Humans. And some Humans basic features, when taken at the population level, do not seem to change over time. They are emotional, they are greedy, they are irrational and they are violent. Violence is the main theme of the movie. But it is confronted with birth, renewal, and innocence…
The Humanity in 2027 is in a terrible state, a chaotic state very close to what people are experiencing in some parts of the world actually. There are cattle and birds epidemics, environmental catastrophes, collapsing states, wars, and massive migrations, and to top all of this, women have become infertile. The last birth was 18 years ago in Brazil but the person who was born 18 years ago had just died, and the whole world is mourning his death. Inside England, there seems to be some order imposed by the state but it is being resisted and fought by many groups with divergent interests. The country had closed its frontiers to refugees and we wee in the movie illegal immigrants transported in cages toward camps where they are kept under strict army and police control. On the way, they are beaten, humiliated, and killed, for some of them. A man, who lost a baby he had with a woman in the resistance and was consequently estranged by her, will be asked to accompany an 18 year old illegal refugeepregnant girl across the burning and dangerous land to the safety of ‘The Human Project’.
The highlight of the movie is in the final scenes when we witness a birth, a street fight, the bombing of a civilian building where resitants are trapped by the army, and the final deliverance for some. All this happens in an area where the government had imprisoned opponents and immigrants, bombing them regularly or whenever the tension becomes unbearable. The battle scenes were crudely filmed, there was no warning as to the explosion of the bombs or the bombing of a building inhabited by illegal immigrants and resistants ‘terrorists’ who fight for their rights and for a different vision of the country. The line is blurred between fiction and real life. Some of the scenes resembled what we witness everyday on TV screens from the streets of Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza. There was a protest with chants ‘Allah Akbar’ from Muslim immigrants. There were women in the streets crying over the dead bodies of their relatives fighters, sons and husbands, as in Gaza. There were inscriptions on the walls of the word ‘Intifada’ in Arabic.
What struck me most in the movie is the fact that Humanity knew that it was going to its end. Twenty years of infertility are what is needed for the extinction of the species, a lengthy extinction of course. But people were fighting each other anyway. Suddenly it occurred to me that violence, always present in human societies, did not in fact increase over time, but did however invade our minds. We are not more violent than our ancestors, but we are more committed to violence, we cannot live without it, even though we know that we will all be dying in a near future. And the reason why violence has invaded our mind is that in the presence of danger we don’t look for solutions, we fight.
Is the earth warming up and threatening some of our resources? Why bother finding solutions? Better fight within the new context to keep our privileges without changing our way of life. Are we going to die as a species because of real threats? Why bother trying to find solutions when we can fight to keep going on according to our own way and at the expanses of other individuals, groups, countries and the entire species? Why bother finding a solution to our energy needs when we can go to Iraq, fight and kill more than 200000 people in three years? And why bother finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when we can fight for sixty years, and keep going, in order to grab more land, kill more people, strip the others from their rights, kill hope, divide people, radicalise them in groups fighting each other, putting their regions on fire, and diminishing, every day, the prospects for peace while extending wars?
Even though we are not committed to find a solution to women’s infertility, the movie tells us that many groups will be fighting around the miracle baby, who was incidentally born, to make him their own, and not the baby of Humanity, and not the baby of the whole species. What is the significance of birth, innocence, love, and renewal in a world that surrendered to violence? It is better not to be born. Humanity is alarmingly disappointing, and can be even more disappointing, as biologists tell us, than other animal groups, where sometimes individuals will give up on their own survival instincts in order to contribute to the survival of their own species.
We came out of the movie, all the four of us, my husband and my children, hoping that the movie was after all about fiction. But sadly it isn’t.
The story opens in England in 2027. All other countries have collapsed, claims a giant electronic poster, and only England soldiers on.
Cuaron’s adaptation is not didactic. There is no explaining in the movie on what is really going on, as in Spielberg's sci-fi movies for example. But if you know what is going on in the news worldwide, you don’t need an introduction to the story. Because of this, the movie is realistic. It is a political statement on the state of Humanity. There are no flying cars, no extraordinary buildings and gadgets, no strange creatures, only human beings devoured by anxiety, hopelessness, boredom, and a dark future.
We understand later that an advertised drug called Quietus is recommended for suicide. The realism of the movie is such that the line of advertisement is that of any other product, it gives the consumer the illusion of free will and choice. The subtitle of the advertisement is ‘You decide when’. Cuaron’s realism comes from the fact that instead of focusing on gadgets, he focuses on Humans. And some Humans basic features, when taken at the population level, do not seem to change over time. They are emotional, they are greedy, they are irrational and they are violent. Violence is the main theme of the movie. But it is confronted with birth, renewal, and innocence…
The Humanity in 2027 is in a terrible state, a chaotic state very close to what people are experiencing in some parts of the world actually. There are cattle and birds epidemics, environmental catastrophes, collapsing states, wars, and massive migrations, and to top all of this, women have become infertile. The last birth was 18 years ago in Brazil but the person who was born 18 years ago had just died, and the whole world is mourning his death. Inside England, there seems to be some order imposed by the state but it is being resisted and fought by many groups with divergent interests. The country had closed its frontiers to refugees and we wee in the movie illegal immigrants transported in cages toward camps where they are kept under strict army and police control. On the way, they are beaten, humiliated, and killed, for some of them. A man, who lost a baby he had with a woman in the resistance and was consequently estranged by her, will be asked to accompany an 18 year old illegal refugeepregnant girl across the burning and dangerous land to the safety of ‘The Human Project’.
The highlight of the movie is in the final scenes when we witness a birth, a street fight, the bombing of a civilian building where resitants are trapped by the army, and the final deliverance for some. All this happens in an area where the government had imprisoned opponents and immigrants, bombing them regularly or whenever the tension becomes unbearable. The battle scenes were crudely filmed, there was no warning as to the explosion of the bombs or the bombing of a building inhabited by illegal immigrants and resistants ‘terrorists’ who fight for their rights and for a different vision of the country. The line is blurred between fiction and real life. Some of the scenes resembled what we witness everyday on TV screens from the streets of Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza. There was a protest with chants ‘Allah Akbar’ from Muslim immigrants. There were women in the streets crying over the dead bodies of their relatives fighters, sons and husbands, as in Gaza. There were inscriptions on the walls of the word ‘Intifada’ in Arabic.
What struck me most in the movie is the fact that Humanity knew that it was going to its end. Twenty years of infertility are what is needed for the extinction of the species, a lengthy extinction of course. But people were fighting each other anyway. Suddenly it occurred to me that violence, always present in human societies, did not in fact increase over time, but did however invade our minds. We are not more violent than our ancestors, but we are more committed to violence, we cannot live without it, even though we know that we will all be dying in a near future. And the reason why violence has invaded our mind is that in the presence of danger we don’t look for solutions, we fight.
Is the earth warming up and threatening some of our resources? Why bother finding solutions? Better fight within the new context to keep our privileges without changing our way of life. Are we going to die as a species because of real threats? Why bother trying to find solutions when we can fight to keep going on according to our own way and at the expanses of other individuals, groups, countries and the entire species? Why bother finding a solution to our energy needs when we can go to Iraq, fight and kill more than 200000 people in three years? And why bother finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when we can fight for sixty years, and keep going, in order to grab more land, kill more people, strip the others from their rights, kill hope, divide people, radicalise them in groups fighting each other, putting their regions on fire, and diminishing, every day, the prospects for peace while extending wars?
Even though we are not committed to find a solution to women’s infertility, the movie tells us that many groups will be fighting around the miracle baby, who was incidentally born, to make him their own, and not the baby of Humanity, and not the baby of the whole species. What is the significance of birth, innocence, love, and renewal in a world that surrendered to violence? It is better not to be born. Humanity is alarmingly disappointing, and can be even more disappointing, as biologists tell us, than other animal groups, where sometimes individuals will give up on their own survival instincts in order to contribute to the survival of their own species.
We came out of the movie, all the four of us, my husband and my children, hoping that the movie was after all about fiction. But sadly it isn’t.
11.7.06
War, Peace And The Quest For The Ordinary Good Life
This artificial mound was erected in Waterloo, Belgium, to commemorate the victory of European armies on Napoleon. The Lion's gaze and one of his paws are directed at France in a sign of defiance. It is called 'La Butte du Lion'
Napoleon's defeat was achieved in 24 hours in a fierce battle that is reenacted at the site in a Panorama of images and sounds.
Listening to the sounds of the battle I thought that it must have been very brave of these men to fight and die. Of course, most of them were forced to go to war but then some did it willingly, as in every battle. But as in every battle, all were expected to act heroically.
Heroism was the number one moral value in ancient societies but this moral value is replaced in our modern societies by 'The quest for the ordinary life', as argued by Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor in his book 'The sources of the Self: the making of the modern identity'. Taylor views 'ordinary life' as no less interesting than heroism on the battlefield when it is oriented toward the Good in us and others. However, it is characterised by the rejection of suffering. It is within this quest for the better in ourselves and others that the ordinary life becomes the good life.
The question that occupied my mind for quite a while after visiting 'La Butte du Lion' was: how are we to reconcile, in the West, our shifting moral values from heroism on the battlefield to the quest for the ordinary life ? I wasn't sure of the answer until my husband asked me the question differently: how come people are ready to suffer and die and sacrifice their life and renounce the 'ordinary life' and the pursuit of happiness?
I realised that we live today in a divided world. There are those who live the ordinary good life and those who die. As I am writing this post, I learn by Al-Jazeera that Israel had just invaded Lebanon. The move is designed to exhaust the Resistance. I hear from the leader of Israel terrible statements about the use of 'full force to turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years if the Israeli soldiers were not returned'.
But these threats won't do. The Resistance definitely belongs to the category of the people willing to die. It is not because they do not like life or they are not engaged in the pursuit of the good life, it is just that there could be no good life if you are daily threatened, and occupied. Without dignity, there could be no good life. Heroism is still a thing for those the West wants to keep humiliating through a neocolonial proxy like Israel.
Napoleon's defeat was achieved in 24 hours in a fierce battle that is reenacted at the site in a Panorama of images and sounds.
Listening to the sounds of the battle I thought that it must have been very brave of these men to fight and die. Of course, most of them were forced to go to war but then some did it willingly, as in every battle. But as in every battle, all were expected to act heroically.
Heroism was the number one moral value in ancient societies but this moral value is replaced in our modern societies by 'The quest for the ordinary life', as argued by Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor in his book 'The sources of the Self: the making of the modern identity'. Taylor views 'ordinary life' as no less interesting than heroism on the battlefield when it is oriented toward the Good in us and others. However, it is characterised by the rejection of suffering. It is within this quest for the better in ourselves and others that the ordinary life becomes the good life.
The question that occupied my mind for quite a while after visiting 'La Butte du Lion' was: how are we to reconcile, in the West, our shifting moral values from heroism on the battlefield to the quest for the ordinary life ? I wasn't sure of the answer until my husband asked me the question differently: how come people are ready to suffer and die and sacrifice their life and renounce the 'ordinary life' and the pursuit of happiness?
I realised that we live today in a divided world. There are those who live the ordinary good life and those who die. As I am writing this post, I learn by Al-Jazeera that Israel had just invaded Lebanon. The move is designed to exhaust the Resistance. I hear from the leader of Israel terrible statements about the use of 'full force to turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years if the Israeli soldiers were not returned'.
But these threats won't do. The Resistance definitely belongs to the category of the people willing to die. It is not because they do not like life or they are not engaged in the pursuit of the good life, it is just that there could be no good life if you are daily threatened, and occupied. Without dignity, there could be no good life. Heroism is still a thing for those the West wants to keep humiliating through a neocolonial proxy like Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Since March 29th 2006
