The politically incorrect necktie: on boycotts and secular coercion

 Republished with permission from karlremarks.blogspot. Click on the link for the original article.

Karl Sharro

A Lebanese friend recently revealed on a social networking website that he had bought a tie from Marks and Spencer. This otherwise insignificant revelation provoked a tirade of angry comments from Lebanese vigilantes that chided the irresponsible tie-wearer on his unpatriotic choice of neck wear. Even though I was aware of the M&S boycott policy as being one of the cornerstones of anti-Zionism among the Arab Diaspora, I was taken aback by the intensity of the reaction and people’s willingness to publicly chastise someone simply because of their fashion choices. This militant censoriousness is chiefly practiced by people who regard themselves as ‘secular’, and even liberal, making it much more problematic. It points to the disturbing emergence of a secular piety that is far more insidious than one stemming from a religious worldview.

Before I left for Britain several years ago, I was instructed by several Lebanese friends on the necessity of boycotting M&S because of its ‘support for Israel’. Some assured me that all the profits that it made on Saturdays went directly to the IDF. The blunt way of phrasing the argument insisted that every pound spent in M&S translated into bullets fired at the Palestinians and the Lebanese, and no one would want to live with this burden on their conscience. But aside from the veracity of the claims, which I will come back to, this argument fails to comprehend the reasons for Israel’s military superiority. This superiority is not attained through private and public foreign aid but because Israel is an advanced industrial economy that is capable of developing advanced weapons through a combination of industrial and technological development.

Although Israel receives a large amount of military aid from the US annually, in percentage terms, this aid amounts to just 15% of Israel’s military expenditure. But in parallel, Israel is now one of the largest weapons exporters in the world, with up to two thirds of its weapons production made for export. In fact, Israel exports more than double the amount of US military aid it receives. It’s worth noting that Israeli weapon exports span the full range of military equipment from ammunition to advanced warning systems and drones. By contrast, Arab countries have a very small share of the production and sales of weapons globally, despite the fact that some of them have very large defence expenditure. (Saudi Arabia had the 8th largest military expenditure in the world in 2009 for example.)

Of course the large difference in weapons production between Israel and Arab countries reflects the overall difference in levels of industrialisation and research and development capabilities between them. The notion that Israel’s military capability can be damaged through consumer boycotts in the West is misguided. Of course, most advocates of such boycotts are aware of this, that’s why boycotts are not intended as practical measures but as largely symbolic actions. A consumer boycott can be an easy and convenient way of appeasing one’s conscience and, but it is not a serious political act. But once such behaviour becomes imperative and social pressure is applied to monitor adherence to it, it becomes a form of grassroots authoritarianism that is fundamentally undemocratic in nature. The irony is that the same people who would normally oppose other forms of conformity in Arab societies would voluntarily act as social enforcers in the case of boycotts.

Going back to the claim that all the Saturday takings at Marks & Spencer tills go to the IDF, there is certainly no record of it anywhere. However, activists insist on boycotting Marks & Spencer because it trades with Israel, although its historic position of supporting Israel has been altered in recent years. I am not interested in defending Marks & Spencer, but I find the idea of promoting the Palestinian cause through consumer boycotts in the West seriously flawed. Aside from all arguments on the effectiveness of such boycotts, pretending that complex political problems can be solved through altering consumer behaviour is a perverse notion. The most dangerous aspect of this is that it turns people from active political actors into passive consumers, both of products and of political/ethical choices that are distributed via ‘trusted sources’.

Solidarity has of course played a vital role in the promotion of political causes historically; this is why it is important to understand how the expression of solidarity has altered in recent years in parallel with this shift from active political subjects to passive observers. The international volunteers that participated in the Spanish Civil War left their families and friends behind and fought alongside their republican comrades against the Fascists. This was a conscious and active political choice as opposed to the mundane consumerist choices that we are now told are legitimate expressions of solidarity. I am obviously not asking for people to volunteer in global conflicts today, but asking for a reassessment of what forms of solidarity are politically meaningful. Where you buy your underwear is not one of them.

Beyond solidarity, there is a further dimension to global boycotts that is particularly pertinent to Arab countries. Not doing business with Israel is one thing, but boycotting companies purely on the basis that they do business with Israel is a luxury that the developing economies of the Arab world. The list of companies to be boycotted because of links with Israel has Intel among many others; the consequences of boycotting Intel products will certainly have a severe impact on Arab societies. (That’s why it’s much easier to focus on Marks & Spencer, much like animal rights activists direct their energy against fur instead of leather, on the basis that it’s easier to harass rich old ladies than biker gangs.)

Taking the boycott argument to its logical conclusion reveals the arbitrariness of singling out specific companies. Should we boycott the Western countries that support Israel financially and militarily? Would anyone seriously propose not studying in the US or going on a holiday in the UK? Should we stop using American textbooks and boycott all German cars? If boycotts are not about the actual economic impacts but represent a moral imperative as some insist, then where do we draw the line of responsibility? Why is boycotting Marks & Spencer more morally pressing than the US? It seems to me that pro-boycott activists have taken their cue from another UK retailer: their message seems to be every little helps.

Like it or not, global trade links are so wide and complex today that singling out companies to boycott is impractical. But more importantly, as long as Arab countries remain as net importers of industrial products, as well as technology and knowledge, such boycotts will definitely harm Arab societies more than the intended companies. The international economic sanctions on Iraq that followed its invasion of Kuwait were a stark example of the devastating effect of disengaging from the global economy. I witnessed firsthand the deterioration in Iraqi society during the 90s as a result of the sanctions. Within the space of a decade, one of the most advanced Arab societies was set back several decades. Boycotts are in fact a form of self-imposed economic sanctions.

The advocates of boycotts are of course aware of this. They are not interested in implementing wide-ranging boycotts but in altering individual behaviour and maintaining conformity to a ‘shared’ idea. They insist on those meaningless symbolic gestures as a way of showing commitment to The Cause. But boycott vigilantism is only a symptom of widespread intellectual intolerance. By volunteering to behave like secular coercers, educated and politicised individuals are only contributing to this problem. No just cause will thrive on a climate of intellectual repression. And while we’re at it, let’s keep where we buy our underwear out of public discourse.

The Facebook Garden of Eden

I agree with Eden Abergil when she says that the posting of her pictures on Facebook has been blown out of proportion.

This fresh faced lady had only intended to share with her loved ones 'the best time of her life' in the Israeli 'Defense' Forces; a formative experience in the life of many Israelis. This is a coming- of-age time to be cherished, remembered and revisited whatever career path these youngsters choose for their future. Blindfolded or not, the Palestinians are at best stooges and at worst a nuisance in an exclusively Israeli production. Theirs is not dissimilar to the role ascribed to Red Indians in a Spaghetti Western. They don't speak much, and when they do it is to utter robotic nonsense in a heavy accent. Without them the decorum just wouldn't be complete but the same could be said of the cactus or the olive tree.

So here goes Eden, a model soldier as she claims... or did she mean a soldier model. Having been dubbed 'super-sexy' by her commenting friends as she poses all smiles for the camera while elderly Palestinian men stare into the darkness of their blindfold. There is no hint of her feeling sorry for these helpless characters then, and now that she is made to explain her behaviour. Her reluctant apology addresses the potential public relation damage inflicted on Israel, not the moral dimension of her actions.

What is lacking here is not shame. Eden is not a 'bad apple' in the league of a Lynndie England torturing and sexually abusing in Abu Ghreib. No, she is boringly mainstream in a society that has relentlessly dehumanised its enemy to justify its own 'humane' project born out of the Prison camps of WW2. What is lacking instead is empathy: a skill that is harnessed in health professionals and that is actively supressed in military personnel (across the globe). The added dimension in the case of Israel is that its civilian society also suffers from the inability to empathise with 'the other'. As such, Eden cannot be blamed for not identifying at any level with the Palestinians, in their suffering but also in other mundane aspects of their lives (She jokes for example on whether the blindfolded man has a Facebook profile, as if such thing was inconceivable...for a West Bank Arab).

Having been quick to condemn, the Israeli military is unlikely to update its core curriculum in consultation with Amnesty International or the Quaker movement. Eden, had she still be enrolled would not have been lectured on the fact she has humiliated men who have daughters of her own age; living breathing human beings with an intellect, a story and a future. She would instead be encouraged to listen and learn from the polished Mark Regev as he quickly reclaims the moral high ground against the barbarian hordes that threaten civilisation.

Joint Palestinian/Israeli Photo Exhibition in London

http://www.bewarethecostofwar.org/

To those interested in photojournalism but more generally in the visual depiction of the Arab-Israeli conflict this small exhibition in Old Street is an interesting reflection on human suffering in its plainest expression. The photographers are Israelis and Palestinians, so are the victims and the perpetrators of violence in the images displayed. Expect blood, tears, destruction at a scale that is unfortunately too common in parts of the Middle East. One could argue that blurring the boundaries between aggressor and victim, oppressor and oppressed undermines the cause of the Palestinians by equating their suffering with that of the occupiers. Others might see it as an honest expression of anti-war sentiment. Many of the images have little artistic value while others reflect the events in a perversely beautiful manner.

Whatever your views or inclination, it wont leave you indifferent. For me it raises one important question: Can the very personal and individual experience of human suffering be objectively measured and compared?

Fadlallah's fatwa on Israel: An unhelpful addition to the debate

By Joseph El-Khoury

On Sunday 13^th September 2009, highly influential Shiaa Cleric Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah issues a fatwa from Beirut banning the normalisation of ties with Israel. For those who aren’t familiar with the concept, a ‘fatwa’ being a binding religious decree, similar in effect to the one issued by Ayatollah Khomeiny in the wake of the Salman Rushdie affair in the 1980s.

There is nothing new in the basic position adopted by Sayyed Fadlallah. The normalisation of ties with Israel is a highly charged issue at a time when there is no movement on the peace process front and the Palestinian state remains inaccessible. The problem lies with the premise he uses to justify his position. From what I read in the Arab speaking press The fatwa consists of 4 points which mostly reiterate the right of the Palestinian to the entirety of Palestinian land and the duty of every Muslim to resist the ‘rape’(Ightisab) of the land as the future of the entire Muslim nation depends on it. It also encourages other clerics to issue clear instructions to the believers and adopt a proactive approach in supporting the Palestinian cause. Point 2 is the one I found most controversial, especially when Sayyed Fadlallah is known for his measured words and open mindedness (in relative terms of course).

While most Lebanese and Foreign media only focused on the headline and the message of the fatwa, the Lebanese daily Assafir and the online media outlet El-Nashra gave a more detailed account of the actual statement. Assafir reports that in point 2 of the fatwa the Sayyed Fadlallah: “And it is the responsibility of the Arab and Muslim People, which day and night read in the Holy Koran, the history of these Zionists to realise that they did not have the acceptance of God, so how could they gain acceptance among people”. El-Nashra goes further: “Their history is only one of killing some prophets and rejecting others while obstructing their path, so that they have always been a problem in more than one historical period and a problem for people in more than one part of the world.” He goes on to justify that: “When we talk about the history of the Jews, we are not judging them on their past, for the Koranic message is one that the responsibility for history lies with those who committed it. Instead we point out that the attitude of their ancestors still continues to this day, and that there is a unity and consistency in the immorality and inhumanity of their stance, regardless of the modern change in discourse”.(Apologies for any inaccuracies in the translation)

I am honestly puzzled by the tone of the Fatwa, even if we consider that Fadlallah only intended for it to be head among his followers. Firstly, I am surprised by the casual use of Jews and Zionists interchangeably in the text, which seems to scupper decades of Palestinian efforts to re-centre their struggle as a political one against a colonial entity instead of an eternal ethnic-religious fight. Secondly, the lack of attention to Western sensitivities with regards to anything perceived as anti-Semitic discourse with National-Socialist overtones might also indicate a shift towards an overall aggressive stance that only relies on support in the Islamic and Islamist heartland to achieve victory over Israel. This aggressive stance can only reinforce the Zionist message that Jews in Palestine are threatened in their existence. Them who have been successful at stifling any criticism of Israel behind the cloak of anti-Semitism while convincing the West of some tenuous continuity between the Holocaust and their conflict with the Arabs. Fadlallah’s fatwa will soon join the image of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin Al Husseini meeting Hitler in 1937 in the Zionist arsenal of propaganda.

Not being Muslim, I am neither the intended recipient of Sayyed Fadlallah’s message nor do I feel concerned by it. The position of Arab secularists towards the Palestinian issue should remain a principled yet pragmatic affair guided by the interest of the Palestinian people who have an inalienable right to auto-determination and the establishment of a fully independent state on the territories occupied in 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Other more creative solutions are up for discussion but this minimum is non-negotiable.

جبهة المقاومة الوطنية اللبنانية

خالد برّاج

التاريخ: 16 ايلول 1982 – المكان: منزل المعلِم الشهيد كمال جنبلاط

"يا أبناء بيروت البطلة، يا أبناء شعبنا اللبناني العظيم في الجنوب والجبل والبقاع والشمال، أيها المقاتلون الوطنيون الشجعان إن العدو الإسرائيلي المستمر في حربه الوحشية ضد لبنان منذ أكثر من مئة وأربعة أيام يبدأ اليوم تدنيس أرض بيروت الوطنية الطاهرة... فلتنتظم صفوف الوطنيين اللبنانيين كافة، وبغضّ النظر عن انتماءاتهم السابقة وعن الاختلافات الإيديولوجية والطائفية والطبقية، في جبهة المقاومة الوطنية اللبنانية ضد الاحتلال الإسرائيلي، كسراً للقيد الذي تحاول أن تفرضه اليوم أميركا وإسرائيل على عنق شعبنا الحر ورفعاً لراية التحرر الحقيقي لشعبنا العظيم".

جورح حاوي – محسن إبراهيم

لبّا الرفاق النداء و حملوا السلاح و أخرجوا جيوش صهيون من بيروت و طاردوهم في صيدا و البقاع و جنوبي الجنوب, لم ينتظروا مباركة إقليمية أو إحتضان دولة ممانعة أو حتى مالٍ شريفٍ طاهر, إلتحقوا في صفوف جبهة المقاومة الوطنية البنانية (جمَول) و قاوموا المحتل أينما كان غير آبهين بالموت أو الأسر...
فألف تحية إلى من أطلق الشرارة الأولى, ألف تحية إليك يا أبو أنيس شهيد الحرية و العدالة الإجتماعية و الإنسان و ألف تحية إليك يا أبا خالد يا من آثرت السكوت في هذا الزمن الرديء "زمن الفضيحة" كما يقول شاعرنا الكبير الراحل محمود درويش.
و ألف تحية إليكم يا شهداء جبهة المقاومة الوطنية اللبنانية, أنتم يا خيرة الرجال الآتون من كل قرية في لبنان , أنتم من آمن أنّ عدو الداخل من نظام طائفي و محاصصة مذهبية هو نفس العدو المغتصب لأرض فلسطين والجنوب, هو نفس العدو المتربِص في ظلال الأنظمة العربية التقدمية و الرجعية ...
و ألف تحية إلى تلك العائلات التي هُجِرت من أرض و قرى الجنوب على يدِ المحتل الصهيوني و عملائه و على يدِ قوى الأمر الواقع (و الغدر) من فاشيين/ظلاميين و عصابات الإجرام و القتل...
و ألف تحية إليكم يا أمهات شهداء جبهة المقاومة الوطنية البنانية , يا من صبرتم و ضحيّتم بأغلى ما عندكم كي تبقى راية الحق و التقدّم تغرز مجدها في صدر الصهيونية و الأنظمة العربية (وكلّ الأنظمة العربية) البالية...
و ألف تحية إليكم يا أسرى جبهة المقاومة الوطنية البنانية , أنتم من خرجتم من معتقل أنصار و الخيام و زفتا و سجون الداخل الفلسطيني , أنتم من خرجتم من هذا السجن الصغير إلى السجن العربي الكبير, أنتم من أهملتكم الدولة و الحكومات المتعاقبة و سياسيوا الطوائف و المناصب...
فترة مجيدة من تاريخ نضال الشعوب بوجه الإحتلال و الظلم و القهر, فترة مجيدة يحاول البعض اليوم تغييبها و التعتيم عليها عن قصد, لكن ما من أحد ليستطيع (في لبنان و غيره) أن يمحيها من ذاكرتنا و وجداننا, لا أحد يستطيع تزييف و تزوير التاريخ إلى الأبد, هي كما تقول كلمات الأغنية في مقطعها الأخير:

"بين أنصار و عتليت يا أمي
كتبتلك أشوائي
بترابات فلسطين يا أمي
أنا و رفاقي
ونحنا شفنا العذاب يا أمي
و دءنا حلاتو
و إلِي نِسي جمّول يا أمي
يعدم حياتو"

'We Understand Islam'

By Joseph El-Khoury

Hamas spokesperson Ghazi Hamad’s desperate efforts to portray his movement as moderate and mainstream felt a tad rehearsed, triggering sniggers from other panel members during an Aljazeera English debate on the latest events in Gaza.

The heavy fighting over the weekend pitted Palestinian security forces, essentially under Hamas control, against a relative newcomer on the Islamist scene, known as the ‘Jund Ansar Allah’ or ‘Soldiers of the supporters of God’. This Salafi organisation of a few hundred members and apparently linked to the kidnapping of BBC Journalist Alan Johnston a few years ago, had been growing steadily and recruiting aggressively among the disaffected youth in the impoverished city of Rafah in Southern Gaza. As part of his diatribe Mr Hamad declared: ’These guys don’t understand Islam, We understand Islam’; an accusation that ironically had been levelled at them by Fatah in the past. Similarly he claims that his organisation never forces its beliefs on others, while the reality in Gaza reveals a systematic islamization of society organised by Hamas since it took over control of the district.

Only a few weeks earlier we read press releases indicating that Female lawyers were instructed to wear the veil while conducting official court business. Other reports suggest that Hamas is no longer content of focusing its task on fighting the Israelis but is determined to remodel Gazan life according to its religious and moral principles. Realistically, the movement doesn’t really have much choice, having dug itself into a hole by evicting Fatah to the West Bank and failed to emulate Hezbollah in the latest Gaza war, it is limited to capitalising on its religious platform.

Obviously they are not responsible for every brand of Islamism within Palestinian society, but on this account had so far only been rivalled by Islamic Jihad, a much more elitist organisation with no limited grass root support. In addition, any discerning observer with basic understanding of political Islam, will be aware of the radical differences between organisations such as Hamas (and Hezbollah) on one hand and the Global Jihadists of Al Qaeda. Their lumping together by the Western media only mirrors Israeli propaganda which equates between Palestinian resistance to occupation (regardless of how misguided and counterproductive) and the delusional behaviour of a group of religious fanatics. It is easy to forget that the West used military force in Iraq to bring to power political parties that would find themselves to the Right of Hamas ideologically, but what is ‘Kosher’ in Iraq is ‘Haram’ in Palestine.

Nonetheless, it is Hamas, aided by the Israeli blockade, which bears a large part of responsibility for creating an atmosphere where Islam could be used as a political tool in settling disputes and labelling opponents. A number of commentators have highlighted the rehabilitating benefit for the militants of having dealt a deadly blow to those who dared be more ‘Muslim’ than them. Others feel that this is not the last we will hear from the Salafis and that the appalling human situation in the strip has the potential to breed further unbridled fanaticism.

جاد المالح ومأساة مسرحية مناهضة التطبيع

خالد برّاج

لست على دراية كافية بخلفية جاد المالح الفكرية والسياسية ولست واثقاً من الروايات المتعلِقة بدعمه المطلق أو المشروط لجيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي ومشاركته ببرامج ترويجية خاصة بوزارة الدفاع الإسرائيلية، لكني تابعت ما حصل في الآونة الأخيرة من خلال الحملات الإعلامية اللبنانية المنتقدة (وخصوصاً تلفزيون المنار) لاستضافة هذا الفكاهي الفرنسي "المغربي اليهودي" الأصل خلال ثلاث حفلات ضمن فعاليات مهرجانات بيت الدين المقرّرة خلال صيف 2009، وهذا الأمر استوقفني أو أعادني إلى الماضي من خلال عدّة محطات أو حوادث شبيهة هي بالأصل ذو علاقة وثيقة بموضوع اليهود واليهودية وإسرائيل والصهيونية ومكافحتها...
الحادثة الأولى حصلت عام 1998، تاريخ الذكرى الخمسين لنكبة فلسطين، وكانت مجموعة من المثقفين اللبنانيين قد حدّدت نشاطات متفرِقة متعلِقة بالنكبة ودعت إليها مجموعة كبيرة من المثقفين من مختلف أرجاء العالم ومن ضمنهم بعض الكتاب والمفكرين اليهود المعروفين بعدائهم للصهيونية ودولة إسرائيل، إلاَ أنّ بعض الأحزاب في لبنان ومن ضمنها حزبٌ علماني عريق يجاهر بعلمانيته في شتّى المناسبات شنّ حملةٍ عشواء على منظّمي فعاليات ذكرى نكبة 48 ووصفهم بالصهاينة ومضلَلي الرأي العام حتى وصل الأمر ببعض "الرفاق" في الحزب العلماني بتوجيه تهديدات مباشرة بالقتل إلى المنظّمين وصولاً إلى الوعد علناً وعلى مسمع من الصحافة والإعلام بتفجير مقر إقامة النشاطات في حال حضور هؤلاء الكتاب والمفكّرين... طبعاً انتهى الموضوع بعدم حضورهم إلى بيروت خوفاً من أن ينفِذ "العلمانيون" ما وعدوا به لكنّ سمير قصير بقلمه وجرأته المعهودة أبى أن يسكت عن هكذا أمر ووصف ما حدث في مقالٍ شهير في جريدة النهار عنوَنه : "مدّعو قوميةٍ ما".
الحادثة الثانية حصلت في نفس العام ولا دخل لها لا من قريب ولا من بعيد بالموضوع الفلسطيني وذكرى النكبة ومسرحها كان كافيتريا المبنى الموحّد للجامعة اللبنانية حيث أصدر مجلس الطلاب المكوّن بغالبيته من محازبي ومناصري حزب الله قراراً بمنع بثّ أغاني فيروز في الكافيتريا، وعندما قام بعض الطلاب بالاستفسار عن الموضوع فوجئوا بردٍ واضح من قبل مجلس الطلاب مفاده أنّ أغاني فيروز تثير الغرائز الجنسية عند الطلبة! لكن الطلاب أعادوا مرةً ثانية استيضاح مجلس الطلاب حول هذا الموضوع غير مصدِقين ما سمعوه في المرة الأولى، إنّما الردّ جاء هذه المرّة عنيفاً وعلى لسان أحد مسؤولي الحزب في الجامعة متّهماً الطلاب بعدم الالتفات إلى دراستهم وتحصيلهم العلمي والانهماك والانشغال عوضاً عن ذلك بالأمور التي يحرِمها الدين إضافةً إلى الاستماع إلى ألحانٍ موسيقية هي أساساً غربية يهودية!
الحادثة الثالثة وقعت عام 2006 وعلى أثر انتهاء العدوان الإسرائيلي على لبنان، بدأت الوفود العربية وغيرها بزيارة لبنان والاطّلاع على الدمار و الخراب الذي خلّفته الهمجية الإسرائيلية في معظم المناطق اللبنانية، و كانت المحطّة الأساسية (إضافةً إلى بلدات الجنوب) هي الضاحية الجنوبية لمدينة بيروت حيث نالت النصيب الأوفر من الصواريخ والقذائف الإسرائيلية حيث ظنّت القيادة الإسرائيلية أنّها ومن خلال تكثيفها لحدّة القصف تستطيع اغتيال السيِد حسن نصرالله والقضاء بشكلٍ أساسي على البنى الداخلية الخاصة بالحزب... إلاّ أنّ النتيجة أثبتت عكس ذلك و جاءت الوفود العربية لمعاينة الضاحية الجنوبية ومن ضمنها وفدٌ قطري رفيع المستوى ضمّ رئيس الوزراء وشخصيات أخرى، وتمّ استقبال الوفد من قبل قيادة حزب الله بالترحيب والتهليل ودخل الوفد إلى الضاحية الجنوبية كدخول صلاح الدين الأيوبي إلى مدينة القدس على أثر هزيمة ريكاردوس قلب الأسد وتناسى الجميع أنّ أبنية وطرقات الضاحية الجنوبية قد دمّرتها الصواريخ الذكية وغيرها من القذائف والصواريخ التّي قامت الولايات المتحدة بتزويدها بشكلٍ يومي إلى جيش الدفاع الإسرائيلي عن طريق قاعدتها في دولة قطر!!!
الحادثة الرابعة حديثة العهد وهي من العام الماضي حيث منعت السلطات اللبنانية عرض الفيلم الإسرائيلي "فالس مع بشير" إضافةً إلى منع استيراد أقراص الـ"دي في دي" الخاصة بالفيلم وذلك وفقاً للأنظمة والقوانين اللبنانية المتعلِقة بمكافحة ومنع دخول البضائع الإسرائيلية إلى الأراضي اللبنانية، إلاّ أنّ المستغرب هو الكميّة الهائلة من أقراص الـ "دي في دي" المقرصنة الخاصة بهذا الفيلم والتي بيعت في السوق وكان مصدرها واحد يقع ضمن مناطق سيطرة حزب الله ... وحيث أنّ الفيلم يسلِط الضوء على مجزرة صبرا و شاتيلا والمنفِذ أيّ الطرف اللبناني (القوات اللبنانية)، و بما أنّ هذا الطرف اللبناني على نقيض وصراع سياسي واضح مع حزب الله ومن المجدي سياسياً التذكير الدائم بماضيه "الإجرامي و العميل" فلا مانع من نسخ الفيلم وبيع نسخ مقرصنة عنه غير آبهين بالإنتاج الإسرائيلي لهذا الفيلم مغلِبين منطق مكيافيلي الشهير: "الغاية تبرِر الوسيلة"!ختاماً أعود و أكرِر ما قلته في بداية المقال، إنّني لست على دراية كافية بخلفية جاد المالح الفكرية والسياسية ولست واثقاً من الروايات المتعلِقة بدعمه المطلق.. لكن بالتأكيد فإنّ برنامج جاد المالح و"قفشاته" الفكاهية في مهرجانات بيت الدين لكانت أقلّ ضرراً ودماراً وقتلاً من الصواريخ الذكية الآتية عن طريق دولة قطر أو أكثر إنسانية من العصبيات العنصرية والفاشية الصادرة عن هؤلاء "مدّعي قوميةٍ ما" الممانعين في أزقّة وخبايا شارع الحمراء.

Go to Gaza, Drink The Sea

By Joseph El-Khoury

‘...Go and Drink the Sea of Gaza’ Yasser Arafat (1929-2004)

There are plays that leave you in two minds about contemporary theatre. ‘Go to Gaza’ playing in North London was one of them. The experience meant to be truely total, my friends and I squatted on pillows, sacrificing comfort for Arab authenticity. The strikingly designed stage consisted of a mound of abandoned shoes. It would have been enjoyable if it wasn’t for the overwhelming fumes that would invariably shorten the life of an asthmatic. Never since the filming of Michael’s Jackson’s ‘Beat it’ has so much fumes been released in the atmosphere in the name of art. But seeing, with a bit of effort, passed the aesthetics and you are from the onset struck with a message: In Gaza, People die! Mostly miserable deaths caused or worsened by the Israeli occupation. Whether on the beach or in the camps, in their houses or on the roads, eating their dinner or firing AK-47s they die.

This omnipresent threat of death drives the play, through the obsessions and ruminations of the main character, a Palestinian young man. Too well-dressed, middle-class and detached from his surrounding(Not that the three are intrinsically linked)he is presented to us with too little background to allow empathy to develop. While all the main characters are Palestinian, an Israeli refusenik is thrown suddenly in the mix. Representing a fringe movement, she provides no real insight into the Israeli side of events. This is left to Mark Regev and Alan Dershowitz through recorded news interviews. Their smug, technical account of events is in contrast with the screams and sounds emanating from the strip. And here lies the problem for me; again Arab characters seem to shine in their state of emotional victimhood all the way to their decision to die a martyr of a generic colourless and faithless resistance far removed from the reality of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Although full of energy, the choreographed closing piece is too reminiscent of the PLO training camps of the 1970s, reflecting a phase of the struggle with which the traditional British Left is more at ease. All in all, I felt the play too targeted at a western audience to strike a chord with me. At times the attempts to help this audience identify with the sufferings of a Palestinian mother felt less than subtle (using the Madeleine McCann analogy) and with the potential to backfire. On a more positive note, the play contains moments of striking rawness and authenticity. My favourite being a father’s account in Arabic of a confrontation with the Israeli military machine that left his family in tatters and his home destroyed.

As I left the theatre I reflected on the weeks that followed the savage Israeli assault. With the siege still in place the Gaza strip is still on the mind of many activists. Not a day passes without a concert for Palestine, an exhibition for Palestine or a dinner for Palestine; all done in genuine support of the struggle of this people denied a land and an identity for too many years. This buzz coincided with the 50th anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising against Chinese occupation on 10th March. The irony that this now province of the People’s Democratic Republic of China has enjoyed public Western sympathy for many years wasn’t lost on me. Over the years, the Tibetan cause has become the equivalent of a cuddly cub or a helpless puppy: cute, popular and everyone’s favourite pet. It enjoyed the right celebrity endorsement and became an unavoidable political topic. But whether you believe the Dalai Lama is a peace loving saint or an astute manipulator, you cannot but acknowledge that when things get serious Tibetan freedom is downgraded to the level of East Timoran stability. On a recent visit to China, the appointed international face of Obama’s promises of change, secretary of state Hillary Clinton, demonstrated the A to Z of post-modern Realpolitik. With the latest global financial downturn, a people’s rights to freedom and auto-determination are relegated to the anti-chamber while mutual interests dominate the agenda.

I wonder in that environment what chance the Palestinians have of seeing progress on the peace process in the foreseeable future. They, because of their persistent struggle, in its guerrilla version, its international terrorism version, its rock throwing version, its suicide bomber version or its Kassam Rocket version have no chance of playing at the cuddly puppy. Despite all the best efforts of their supporters, they can at best hope to be viewed by the wider audience as an exhausted haggard mutt with the right scars to show it.

Read more About the Play:
http://gotogaza.wordpress.com

February’s Blog of the Month: The Philistine

www.thephilistine.org

Israeli discrimination against its own Arab population is at the heart of the message delivered by "The Philistine". Whether in sports, in the media, trough legal or illegal means, his report on standard acts of oppression reveals a face of Israel that is little know in the West.
The Zionist dream is creating nightmares inside and outside its border and this blog aims to tell us of events and behaviors that could be easily go unnoticed while the world media focuses on Gaza and Hamas. His recent posts include the destruction of olive trees by Israel in the West Bank, the ban of Israeli Arab reporters from a Yisrael Beiteinu gathering and the truth on illegal settlements. Multimedia is used efficiently and the embedded videos, like the PBS 60 minutes exposing Israeli Apartheid, are to the point and acceptable to a Western audience.

Another appealing factor in this blog is that it is esthetically pleasing with its clear layout and sober colors. It inspires authority reinforcing the validity of the content. Its rich links sections reveals a good selection of respectable and original blogs and websites focused on Israel, Palestine and the diaspora.
The links maintained and developed with the Arab blogosphere are not surprising. The author provides insight and describes himself as a "disenfranchised American citizen of Arab heritage (…). Not being raised in communities with large Arab populations has left him feeling like an outsider in their own environment. Events as an undergraduate in a larger city with a significant Arab (mostly Lebanese and Yemeni) population brought to light the cultural differences between the assimilated and un-assimilated Arab youth".
He claims creating this blog as "a Testament to the Strength of Words (even those written with a keyboard) ".

However, the icing on the cake is his focus on a little explored area of Israeli legislation with serious consequences for the state’s Arab population. Under the section "The Absentee’s Property Laws and You", the Philistine exposes how the "Absentees" property laws "were several laws which were first introduced as emergency ordinances issued by the Jewish leadership but which after the war were incorporated into the laws of Israel. These laws were passed in an effort to gain as much land from the indigenous people as possible while circumventing International Law".

Beside linking the texts of laws, legislations and amendments of the "Absentee’s Property Laws", the Philistine draws a comprehensive list of the Palestinian villages taken over by the Israelis and demolished according the enforcement of these laws during The past 60 years.

We thank the author for shedding light on such a fundamental issue that is completely ignored by the mainstream media covering the Israeli Palestinian conflict. For the initiative, the research work and the presentation we name ‘the Phlilistine’ our blog of the month for February 2009.

في أهمية الجبهة القانونية والحقوقية في الصراع مع إسرائيل

سهيل الناطور *

ينشر بالاتفاق مع نشرة الافق
www.al-ofok.com

لم نكن كفلسطينيين في الماضي نحفل بالتدقيق القانوني للمفردات المتعلقة بالصراع مع إسرائيل. لكن التجربة المريرة علّمتنا بعضاً مما فاتتنا سابقاً أهميته:
- نقصان (ال) التعريف، مثلاً، في الترجمة عن الانجليزية لقرار مجلس الامن الشهير 242 حول "أراض محتلة" أو "الأراضي المحتلة"، إذ تبيّن لنا أن العدو وحماته تعمّدوا ذلك كي تتآكل أرضنا بالاحتلال والاستيطان.
- كذلك تكرّست التجربة المأساوية قانونياً، حين جرى توقيع اتفاق أوسلو، المعروف باسم "غزة/أريحا"، دون الإشارة الى وقف المستوطنات في الاراضي الفلسطينية المحتلة أو تفكيكها، فجاءت المحصلة بالاستراتيجية الاسرائيلية نزعة نحو تهويد ما يقارب 40% من الضفة الغربية، ناهيك عن القدس العربية.

واليوم يحاول الإسرائيليون اعتماد مقاربة قانونية تضليلية من النوع ذاته، إذ بدأ عدوانهم الدموي في 27/12/2008 ضد قطاع غزة بالإعلان أنه ضد حركة حماس، رغم أن استهدافهم الفعلي هو للشعب الفلسطيني في القطاع ولمجمل قواه المقاومة. وقد حاولوا إعطاء أشكال من العمل والأداء مدّعين فيها أنهم يطبّقون قواعد وأعراف الحرب في القتال، من نمط أنهم يستخدمون السلاح بتناسبية مع الهجمات عليهم التي وصفوها بال "اعتداءات الإرهابية". وادّعوا أنهم حاولوا انهاءها بالانذار والاختراقات الصغيرة سابقاً ولما فشلوا في ذلك ولم يرتدع مطلقوها الفلسطينيون، اضطروا لإعلان حملتهم ونفذوها، وان هذا حق دفاع عن الذات تكفله المادة 51 من ميثاق الامم المتحدة...
ورغم ان ذلك ليس صحيحاً على الإطلاق، فإن بعض الدول الغربية الداعمة للمشروع الصهيوني تبنّته بشكل كامل، وكان وما زال عنوان موقفها الاساس "أمن اسرائيل والاسرائيليين"، وكأن جوهر المشكلة ليس الاحتلال الاسرائيلي ورفض الفلسطينيين لاستمراره.

هل يؤثر كل ذلك في مسار المواقف العالمية من الصراع في فلسطين؟

طبعاً. فالشعوب في العالم تصلها المعلومات مقننة وموجّهة، ويتأثر قطاع واسع بأقوال ومواقف المسؤولين في بلاده، والى أن تخترق كلمة الحق وصورة الواقع الفلسطيني الحقيقي ويتبدّى الإجرام الاسرائيلي، تكون الكوارث الانسانية قد بلغت ذرى مهلكة.
والامر لا يتوقف عند هذا الحد. فبعد توقف العمليات العسكرية الطويلة، تأتي آفاق الصراع السياسي لتكرّس نتائج الحرب. وهذا هو الأخطر. فالادّعاء مثلاً بالحاجة لأمن الاسرائيليين، أفرز عملياً امراً سياسياً ومادياً خطيراً، إذ نرى الرئيس الفرنسي ساركوزي يرسل "فرقاطة" الى ساحل غزة لحماية اسرائيل، وليس لحماية الفلسطينيين ومنع العدوان عليهم! وفي هذا موقف يشوّه الحقائق ويشير الى تبدّل في المواقف الفرنسية.

وفي نفس السياق، تتركز بعد الحرب الضغوط الدولية على المقاومة المسلحة وفصائلها، داعية إياها الى التحوّل للعمل السياسي كي تصبح مقبولة ضمن معايير ما يسمى بالمجتمع الدولي (بالتفسير الاوروبي الامريكي له)، والذي يتسم بازدواجية كريهة في المعايير. فبدلاً من مطالبة اسرائيل التي تحتل بلادنا بأن تنهي احتلالها وتنسحب من أرضنا، وبدل محاسبتها على عدم تنفيذ قرارات الامم المتحدة ذات الصلة، نُواجه بدعاوى تنفيذ اتفاقيات حول المعابر ودعوات لضبط الأخيرة ومراقبتها، فيما هي تؤمن الطحين والدواء لشعب محاصر، وعنيد يرفض الاذلال ويرفض التخلي عن حقوقه بالاستقلال والعودة. فتتحول القضية الى مسألة مساعدات وإغاثة وتأمين معابر لوصولها !

وقد اعتدنا كفلسطينيين لملمة الجراح والانهماك بغوث الضحايا بعد كل عدوان على نحو ننسى معه تسعير جبهة المواجهة القانونية. لكننا هذه المرة، ونتيجة شدة وقع الهجمية والبربرية العسكرية الاسرائيلية وما ارتكبته من جرائم وآثام، نجد أنفسنا أمام مشهد جديد يتحرك فيه الكثيرون، وتعلو أصوات الحقوقيين وأعضاء المجالس النيابية ونشطاء المنظمات غير الحكومية، وحتى بعض الهيئات في الامم المتحدة يطالبون بإتخاذ اجراءات فعالة لمحاسبة مجرمي الحرب الاسرائيليين.

بذلك، نحن اليوم أمام آفاق قانونية واسعة وأمام أبواب ينبغي فتحها لمعاقبة القتلة الاسرائيليين. وعلى قوى اليسار العربية خاصة، وعلى الحقوقيين الديمقراطيين جميعاً تحد حقيقي، بعيداً عن كل رهان على الأنظمة العربية التي تخشى أساساً محاسبة شعوبها لها، أن يعملوا كي لا تضيع فرصة مقاضاة إسرائيل، وألا يقتل الوقت الاندفاع الحالي للجهود القانونية الهادفة الى التصدي للجرائم الإسرائيلية...

* قيادي في الجبهة الديمقراطية لتحرير فلسطين

The Right of Return

By Dr Bassem Hassan

No, no, I am not referring to my right to return to writing articles for Arab Democracy. Speaking of which, I do want to apologize to my fans (all 3 of you, myself included!) for my prolonged absence. It was caused by shoulder surgery and too much work.

OK, back to the main topic. The right of return I am talking about is THE right of return. Yes, that one! The one enshrined in international law and UN security council resolutions. The right of expelled or escaped refugees to return to their homeland, hometowns, homes! The very right that Israel and the so-called “international community” insist on denying the Palestinian people. The right that even those who claim to represent the Palestinian people- and their backers in the hollow and defeated Arab officialdom- are willing to sign away from a fistful of dollars. The same dollars they get paid selling Israel cement to build its racist wall. The same dollars they count, with watering mouths, as they sell the Israeli army food supplies while closing the borders that would allow a besieged and bombed Palestinian population to get necessary food and medical supplies. The same dollars they then so generously announce as a donation to butchered Palestinian children having just made them selling Israel natural gas.

And so what of this right return? Well, the right of Palestinian refugees is perhaps the single most peculiar issue in the entire Palestinian question. It is used by friend and foe alike to exploit the Palestinian cause and people. Israel, of course, denies this right. It denies it not only because of its demographic implications, but for a much more fundamental reason. Accepting the right of Palestinian refugees is essentially an admission of its crime; of what Daniel Rubenstein, writing for Ha’aretz, called “the original sin”. Interestingly, Israel itself uses the concept of the right of return to populate its synthetic entity. Is not the whole idea of Israel based on “the right of the Jewish diaspora to return to the “promised land”? So, basically, a person who happens to be born into the Jewish faith in Brooklyn, New York has the “right of return” to Palestine, whereas the a person born and raised in Yafa who still holds on to her original house key, does not have the right to return to her place of birth? How does that work exactly? The Arab regimes, all Arab regimes “democratic Lebanon” included, use the right of return to deny Palestinian refugees basic human and civil rights. How do they do this? Well, you see, dear reader, the ridiculous “argument” goes as follows:
If Palestinians were to be treated as equal human beings with the right to jobs and education and health care, they might become too relaxed and happy. Too satisfied. Yes, human dignity has that downside, you see! When they become happy they risk forgetting about Palestine and their right to return to it! So, in order to make sure that Palestinian children never forget their right to return to Palestine and never lose that desire, let us lock them up in shanty towns, subject them to miserable living standards, force their children to go to pathetic makeshift schools and play in sewage water. Its for their own good really!

Yet the sadest element of the tragedy of Palestinian children is that they have been let down, not only by the “international community” and Arab regimes and societies, but by their own leadership. At least they still have their right of return to dream of, on those nights when the American made F-16’s decide to give them a nights sleep.

The Next Israeli War on Lebanon

By Bachir Habib

Israel bombing the surroundings of Beirut International Airport
during 2006 war. (Source: National Geographics).

It seems that time is ripe for the next Israeli war on Lebanon. It might not take place within the next few days or months, but it is definitely on the horizon.
On the eve of two major events; the Israeli elections taking place on the 10th of February and the first commemoration of the assassination of Hezbollah’s “commander in chief” Imad Mughnieh, the situation is worrying, dangerous and more volatile than ever.

The pieces of the puzzle start with the declarations coming from Teheran last week. Meeting with Iranian Air Force commanders, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared that “Iran's Islamic Revolution has been the source of great political changes”. He added that the "The popularity of the message of the Revolution can be clearly witnessed in what happened in Gaza, and before that in the 33-day war in Lebanon. The well-equipped Israeli army backed by the US was incapable of defeating a handful of besieged youth who had nothing but their faith in God."
When Ayatollah Khamenei mentions the popularity of the Islamic Revolution outside the Iranian borders, we are automatically redirected to the classical Iranian dogma of "Exporting the Revolution". The Iranian establishment seems satisfied with the spread of its doctrine abroad, specifically in Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories.

The echo of such perturbing declarations is heard in Beirut, where the Iranian fist is strongest. On the 16th of February, Hezbollah is organizing a massive rally to commemorate Mughnieh. Leaked information already suggests that "There is no other way but a revenge equal in its magnitude to scale and meaning of Haj Raduan’s (aka Mughnieh) assassination". Hezbollah officials have been reported saying in private circles that "The planned reprisal act will surprise Israel on many levels, and that Israelis should pay in order to refrain from assassinating other leaders".
Hezbollah is indeed an expert at surprising the public opinion and Israel. The party promised and delivered on many occasions. However, Israel’s reaction will not come as a a surprise to anyone this time, and the Party of God knows it well. This time, Hassan Nasrallah cannot tell us what should not have been said after the 2006 war, when he declared: "If I only knew the scale of the Israeli retaliation I would not have ordered the capture of the two Israeli soldiers (operation Honest Promise)".

Since Lebanon is officially at war with Israel, and since the military balance of power is in Israel’s favor in terms of fire power, the Israeli Ministry of defense has always handy in its drawers a draft plan for an eventual war on Lebanon.
If we go back in time, a dangerous precedent shows how Israel can use any pretext to start a war when it needs it. For example, in 1982, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon started "in response" to the assassination attempt against Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov.
After it failed in achieving its goals in the 2006 war; after the Vinograd commission report and its impact on troops morale, Israel is in desperate need for a war that will restore its lost supremacy. Such would be the plan of a future Likud government.

Hezbollah, from his part, appears ready to fulfill the promise by inflicting a painful revenge on Israel no matter what the result is, even if the price of Mughnieh’s blood will end up being paid by thousands of Lebanese lives. Finally, and by giving the order for the so called spectacular revenge, Hassan Nasrallah will give Tel Aviv a rare opportunity, while the best strategy would be to leave it stuck in the post Lebanon 2006, and Gaza 2009 era of failed wars.

دانا الزعبي vs إسرائيل

وائل عبد الرحيم

كتب يهوشع سوبل في صحيفة "إسرائيل اليوم" (ترجمات من الصحافة العربية) أنه في "الأسبوع الذي سبق الحملة في غزة، طُردت الطفلة الإسرائيلية، دانا الزعبي، من روضة أطفال، والسبب: لأنها عربية. ستة من الأهالي اليهود الذين لهم أبناء في تلك الروضة هددوا بإخراج أطفالهم من تلك الروضة إذا لم يتم طرد دانا الصغيرة منها. الحضانة خضعت للابتزاز العنصري من قِبَل الأهالي اليهود معلّلة قرارها بأن الروضة ستجد صعوبة في تحمّل الخسائر المالية التي ستلحق بها لو نفّذ الأهالي اليهود تهديدهم. أمُّ دانا الصغيرة وقفت أمام عدسات القناة العاشرة وقالت إنها تختنق".
تستحقّ دانا الصغيرة، مثلها مثل غيرها من أطفال "السكّان الأصليين"، أن تُحكى لها الحكايات الجميلة في مدرستها من معلمين ومعلمات يهتمون بها ويشعرونها وأطفال الروضة بالأمان والاحتضان والتشجيع. لا أعرف ماذا قالت أمّ دانا لها لكي تبرّر نقلها من الروضة، ربما كذبت عليها تلك الكذبة الصغيرة وهو ما يفعله المحبّون أحياناً، أو غنّت لها قصّة ما قبل النوم وفيها من الصور والموسيقى والألوان ما يبهج. القصة التي لم تروٍها الأم الحزينة المختنقة لابنتها هي ما ستكتشفه دانا حينما تكبر قليلاً عن وطن ضائع داخل وطن، وعن هوية محاصرة في أكبر نظام عنصري باق في القرن الواحد والعشرين.
ومهما فعل السيّد اوفير غندلمان مدير قسم الصحافة العربية في وزارة الخارجية الإسرائيلية والمشرف على موقع "التواصل" الالكتروني لتحسين صورة اسرائيل عند العرب، فإن جهده سيذهب هباء لأنه إذا اعتمد على افتراض باهت بأن المواطنين العرب العاديين لا يفقهون بالسياسة حتى لا يستنتجوا أن برامج الأحزاب الصهيونية في إسرائيل كلّها لا تقدّم سلاماً لهم ولا شيئاً من حقّ للفلسطينيين، فإنه لن يستطيع شرح قصّة دانا الزعبي، ولن يُتاح له المجال لأن يقول إن إسرائيل دولة قانون وواحة للديمقراطية في وسط غابة من الوحوش، كما أن المحكمة العليا الإسرائيلية لن تنظر في قضية روضة أطفال.
يمكن لمن يرغب بالاطّلاع على ملامح من أزمة الديناصور العنصري الباقي في "العصور الحديثة" أن يتابع قراءة مقال السيد سوبل الذي يشرح بشكل أدقّ عن صلات القرابة بين يورغ هايدر العنصري النمساوي المتوفي في حادث سير، وبين أترابه في الدولة اليهودية.
التشديد على موضوعة الدولة اليهودية أصبح اليوم في صلب البرامج الانتخابية للأحزاب الإسرائيلية كافة، بيسارها (ميرتس) وبقيّة يمينها (كاديما، ليكود، العمل، إسرائيل بيتنا، حزب الاتحاد القومي..الخ). فكلّ هذه الأحزاب متفقة على ضرورة أن تكون يهودية إسرائيل هي الشعار الأبرز للمرحلة التاريخية المقبلة، بعدما كان إنشاؤها على يد الروّاد الأوائل للحركة الصهيونية تحت شعار "الوطن القومي" لليهود.
وثمّة فرق بين "الوطن القومي" و"يهودية الدولة"، فالوطن القومي يعني بأفضل الأحوال "حق الشعب اليهودي في تقرير مصيره" على أراضي فلسطين التاريخية وحقه بـ"العيش بسلام" بمعزل عن الحقوق التاريخية لمن اقتُلعوا من أراضيهم قسراً.
أمّا يهودية الدولة، التي تكرّسها القوانين الأساسية في إسرائيل، فتتطلب حتى بالنسبة للأحزاب العلمانية مزيداً من الاعتماد على النص التوراتي في فلسفة القيادة السياسية، وهي إن لم تعن طبعا لعمير بيريتس وغيره من "عمّالويي" حزب العمل ونشطاء ميريتس تطبيق شريعة موسى، حيث أن في اليسار الصهيوني من يؤيد حقوق مثيلي الجنس ويدافع عن البيئة، (ويؤيّد الحرب على غزة "اضطراراً")، إلا أن نتيجته الطبيعية مزيد من القوانين والتشريعات التي تجعل التخطيط السياسي العام للدولة يهدف إلى نقائها القومي على المدى المنظور، وضمان ذوبان الأقلية العربية إن لم يكن تهجيرها عبر شطب الحقوق الوطنية والثقافية لهذه الأقلية باسم الاندماج تماماً كما شُطب قسم كبير من التاريخ والجغرافيا من مناهج الدراسة، وكما غُيّرت أسماء القرى والشوارع العربية واستُبدلت بأسماء عبرية.
أيضاً ما سيجعل مهمة السيد غندلمان صعبة قليلاً، الصور التي بثتها بعض محطات التلفزة العالمية عن تلة العار المشرفة على غزة من الجانب الإسرائيلي حيث فتح الشبّان والشابات الإسرائيليات قناني الشامبانيا مع كلّ قنبلة قاتلة كانت تلقيها المقاتلات الإسرائيلية على غزة.
لفت انتباهي تعليق لأحد الكتّاب داخل إسرائيل يستغرب فيه كيف أن الشباب في العالم في زمننا هذا يميلون أكثر نحو اليسار سواء بأفكاره الاجتماعية أو السياسية والاقتصادية التغييرية فيما شباب إسرائيل يزدادون عنصرية وتقوقعاً.
وهذه المقارنة البليغة في التعبير ليست اتهاماً باطلاً، ذلك لأن اتجاه التصويت في إسرائيل حتى على مستوى الأحزاب الصهيونية ينحو أكثر فأكثر إلى اليمين. فمهما كان الحزب الفائز بأكبر عدد من المقاعد في الكنيست الجديد فإن اليمين سيستطيع بسهولة تشكيل ائتلاف يجمع من الليكود إلى "الاتحاد القومي" (الذي طرح ترحيل عرب 48 إلى فنزويلا) مروراً ببقية الأحزاب القومية والدينية.
وربما نجمُ الانتخابات الحالية، العضو السابق في حركة كاخ الإرهابية كما كشفت هآرتس الثلاثاء الماضي، هو زعيم حزب "إسرائيل بيتنا" أفيغدور ليبرمان.
يشغل هذا الحزب في الكنيست الحالي 11 مقعداً، وترشّحه استطلاعات الرأي للفوز بستة أو سبعة مقاعد إضافية.
وليبرمان المولود في الاتحاد السوفياتي السابق، والذي يتحدث العبرية بلسان ثقيل، مصنّف في خانة اليمين المتشدد. وربما عُرف أكثر بدعواته الصريحة إلى طرد الفلسطينيين العرب، السكان الأصليين للبلاد، ضمن ما يسميه بـ"تبادل السكان" عانياً بذلك طبعاً تهجير مليون ومئتي ألف عربي في إسرائيل مقابل سحب آلاف قليلة من بعض المستوطنات في أجزاء من الضفة الغربية لا تشمل طبعاً "القدس الكبرى" الشرقية ولا المستوطنات الرئيسية التي تقطّع أوصال الضفّة. وحتى يتحقق حلم ذلك المهاجر الآتي من مولدوفيا فإنه يطالب بفحص ولاء دائم لعرب إسرائيل رافعاً شعاره "لا مواطنية لمن ليس له ولاء" ومركّزاً هجومه على النواب العرب في الكنيست وداعياً إلى معاملتهم كما يعامل العملاء والخونة.
ويحوز ليبرمان على إعجاب في الشارع الإسرائيلي الذي يقول إنه "يتحدث العربية" أي يتحدث اللغة التي يفهمها العرب! وسيتفوّق ليبرمان على ما يبدو على حزب العمل بعدد المقاعد التي سيحوزها في الكنيست رغم كل جهود الجنرال ايهودا باراك في غزة.
لن أصل من خلال كلّ هذا إلى استنتاج أن إسرائيل لا تريد السلام. فقد يجد البعض في هذا شعاراً تقليدياً بعض الشيء وتخطاه الزمن، حيث أن إسرائيل لم تعد مجتمع الروّاد الاشتراكيين الأوائل أو موطن الكيبوتز والتعاونيات. فصحيح أن إسرائيل تغيّرت وان مجتمعها تبدّل وطرأت عليه مستجدات.
وربما صحيح أن الإسرائيليين يريدون السلام والعيش بأمان. لكنهم ببساطة يريدون سلامهم هم الذي لن يتحقق، ومن المستحيل أن يتحقّق مهما خاضت إسرائيل من حروب وانتصرت فيها. لأن سلاماً غير مبني على تسوية تاريخية تحفظ الحقوق لأصحابها مقابل السلام نفسه، ليس سلاماً. ولأن بقاء نظام عنصري على هذا الكوكب هو امر مخالف للطبيعة، وبكل المعايير الأخلاقية والقانونية والعلمية، فإما أن يدفع باتجاه انفجار كبير يوماً ما ستكون ويلاته مرعبة، وإما ان تكون الأساطير الدينية على حقّ وتنتصر الغيبيات على الواقع، وفي الحالتين المأساة حاضرة.
والتسوية السياسية التي طرحها الفلسطينيون منذ الثمانينيات على الأقلّ واضحة ولا تنازل عنها لأن أحداً لا يستطيع أن يتنازل بعد. دولتان وحق اللاجئين. ومع ذلك ترفضها إسرائيل بوقاحة.
أمّا التسوية التاريخية التي على يهود إسرائيل التفكير جدياً بها بالنسبة للمستقبل، فتتخطى التسوية السياسية، وهي أكثر من تسوية، هي حلّ تاريخي ينسف شعار يهودية الدولة ليستبدله بدولة لجميع مواطنيها، ويُعلي سيادة القانون ويفصل الدين عن الدولة وينهي مأساة عنصرية مستمرة منذ عقود.
وإلا هل انتبه يهود إسرائيل إلى أنهم وباسم إسرائيل يخرقون القانون الدولي باستمرار منذ العام 1947 على الأقلّ؟ هل يتحمّل الضمير اليهودي في العالم ، بل والتراث اليهودي الذي قدّم للبشرية إسهامات جليلة، أن يسجّل عليه أنه خارج على كل القوانين والمواثيق المكتوبة وغير المكتوبة منذ 60 عاماً واكثر؟ إسرائيل فكرة أوروبية معادية للسامية خطفت اليهود من قلب الحضارة ورمتهم في غيتو قذر يقتلون شعباً آخر من شعوب العالم. وباسم اليهود تُرتكب المذابح.
لا تكملوا مئة عام خارج الضمير الإنساني، لأن تراثكم الغنيّ سيندثر بعدها، وأعيدوا دانا الزعبي إلى روضتها، جنباً إلى جنب مع أطفالكم، والمنازل إلى من لا يزال يحتفظ بمفاتيحها.

Ragab*!

By Dr Bassem Hassan**

Recep Tayyip Erdogan is undoubtedly the man of the moment. Headline grabber par excellence. I think the man is a very good strategist and knows exactly what he is doing.

Erdogan’s public political behavior is probably motivated by three issues. First he has more "eastern" leaning tendencies than the traditional political establishment in Turkey. Second, he, like most Turks by the way, is frustrated- more like sick and tired- of the constant delays and obstacles that the EU keeps erecting in the face of Turkish accession to the union. One should note here that Erdogan has done more than any other Turkish politician in terms of economic, democratic and human rights reforms in Turkey in order to meet EU standards. Third, Erdogan- in fact like most Turks also, except he has the courage to say it- has this deep gut feeling that he is the heir to an Empire that used to rule half the world and he believes that Turkey's current position as a "bridge between east and west" does not do justice to its size and its history, especially, when one understands this "bridge" from a political (as opposed to cultural) perspective. A bridge, after all, is something you just step on and go through to get somewhere! And that is exactly how the west and more particularly the US see Turkey. From an American perspective Turkey has- like Israel- for a long time been a great stick used to keep the region under control and ensure access to the region's (the near and middle east) natural resources. The loss of Iran from this western alliance after 1978, gave even greater importance to Turkey's role as a US ally.

So, the bottom line is that Erdogan has apparently decided, for a while now probably, that Turkey should wield its power in the region in a way more consistent with its own national interests, and his party’s Islamic ideology. In other words, why be the small (economically and culturally) fish in the big EU pond (especially that that pond keeps getting more and more difficult to jump into) when you can be the big fish in the considerably smaller middle eastern pond, which is your natural habitat to begin with.

This policy began openly in earnest when Turkey in the person of Erdogan, started mediating the peace negotiations between Syria and Israel and- if the man is to be believed- a deal was really close to being struck. And what does Israel do? Launch a cowardly, savage and barbaric attack on Gaza killing more than 1500 people in 3 weeks and injuring over 5000 with 1/3 of the dead and injured under the age of 12! Erdogan saw this as not only a crime against fellow Muslims and a personal insult but also, simultaneously, an opportunity. Notice that his outrage was delayed by about a week, and his government had sent mixed signals calling on Hamas, for example, to lay down its arms. Erdogan knows full well that his verbal onslaught against Israel is a winning strategy both abroad, and more importantly, at home. Israel's savagery has been met with world-wide popular condemnation and- aside from the cowardly Europeans- to quote Karel De Gucht, the Belgian foreign minister- who don't matter anyway, also world-wide official condemnation. Coming out as its most ardent and passionate critic makes him look like a decent, moral and courageous politician from a country whose population has a deep rooted and historical sympathy with the Palestinian cause. Israel today is politically weak and divided, and it certainly cannot afford to displease its largest and strongest regional friend. Erdogan’s verbal assault also positions Turkey- in the eyes of the fabled Arab street- firmly as a fair mediator for Arab-Israeli peace and fills a gaping political void that the Arab regimes actively created and that Iran is actively trying to occupy. On this point, the Sunni-Shiaa issue in the Arab world is important, by the way, but I will not get into it. Of course the new US administration would be happy with that, because Turkey after all is an ally, a member of NATO and a secular quasi-democracy.

Now, on the domestic front, the timing of the Gaza onslaught could not have been better for Erdogan. Mired in corruption allegations by several members of his party, and facing a looming economic crisis, the upcoming municipal elections could not have come at a worst time. Enter Israel's newest foray into war criminality, while Turkey is trying to mediate peace! Suddenly Erdogan has a very crystallized focus for his message of moderate Islamization mixed with Turkish nationalism and- for lack of a better term- imperial pride! If you cannot win elections on factual issues, then by god, win them on emotional ones!! Note, by the way, that the corruption issue is not a distinguishing factor for Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party. Turkey's entire political establishment, starting with the army, is corrupt and the traditional political parties are weak and fragmented. Turkish parties depend on municipalities for political fund raising. A probable calculation by Erdogan is that a landslide win in the municipal elections will ensure the flow of much needed funds to the party and ensures that his people are in the right places throughout the country. By the time the general elections come, the economy would have turned around, Turkey would have become a stronger regional player and Erdogan gets four more years!

Gaza for Erdogan is an issue that he both genuinely believes in and can exploit electorally. For a politician, this is exactly what you call the best of both worlds!

*N.B. Ragab is the Egyptian pronunciation of the Arabic Rajab, and also the title of a song by Lebanese pop super star and sex idol and bombshell Hayfa Wehbe.

P.S. here’s the newest Hayfa joke (I just made it up)

What did Hayfa Wehbe say to Erdogan when Shimon Peres tried to make a pass at her?

She said: “Ragab, 7oush sa7bak 3anni!”

P.P.S. Yes, yes, I confess, I love Hayfa!

**Dr Bassem Hassan is Lebanese and holds a PhD in Molecular Genetics from the University of Ohio,USA He is currently based at the University of Leuven in Belgium where he works as a Professor and Researcher.

Kaddafi’s “Performative Act” in the NY Times

By Bachir Habib

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, right, meets with US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, in Tripoli, Libya, Friday, Sept. 5, 2008, AP/Nasser Nasser

Only last week, The New York Times featured the Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Kaddafi as an opinion writer. We are used to such credible newspapers publishing articles by prominent diplomats, political advisors, and occasionally former or actual heads of State. We have read for example in the New York Times and other newspapers, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bill Clinton and many others, expressing their views on controversial issues.
The article written by the Libyan leader is somewhat ambiguous and raises many questions regarding its timing and its intention. It is equally clear that Kaddafi’s piece entitled “The One State Solution” is less a “way out” of the Middle Eastern crisis than it is a political statement reminding President Obama’s new Administration of Libya’s “achievements’ with George W Bush. Hence, the idea of writing an article in the NY Times is loaded with symbols and messages that can be summarized in three headlines:

The first one is the ability of Libya to propose a peaceful solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The second is the adhesion of “the new” Kaddafi to a version of History when he writes: “The basis for the modern State of Israel is the persecution of the Jewish people, which is undeniable. The Jews have been held captive, massacred, disadvantaged in every possible fashion by the Egyptians, the Romans, the English, the Russians, the Babylonians, the Canaanites and, most recently, the Germans under Hitler. The Jewish people want and deserve their homeland”. Finally, the third strong message Kaddafi sends is through denouncing religious extremists that he accuses of “feeding on the conflict as an excuse to advance their own causes”.

The Libyan leader is determined to get these three main messages across to the new American president. And to make sure nothing is lost in translation, he has chosen the NY Times as a reliable mailbox.
However, the Kaddafi who wrote the very conciliatory article a few days ago is the same one who requested “an open door for voluntary participation of Arabs to fight beside the Palestinians in Gaza” and urged “Arab countries to reactivate their common defense treaty to face the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip”.
I am not surprised to see an Arab Leader, formerly a “champion” of Pan Arabism making such a call to fight Israel and defend the Arab cause. It is not surprising either to see that our cherished leader is insulting Arab minds by presuming our ignorance and our illiteracy.
From an American point of view, Kaddafi’s well written article can be considered a gesture of goodwill and a sign of moderation. But placing his words in the context of his recent declarations on the matter shows how disrespectful and inconsistent our leaders can be when they use one discourse to ease tensions “at home” and another one to satisfy Washington.
One last word to the Colonel: While it is usually considered prestigious to be featured in the NY Times, on this occasion it smacks of insolence.

Related links:
Kaddafi's article in the NY Times
Kaddafi's declarations during the war on Gaza

The Unbearable Excuse of Impartiality

By Joseph El-Khoury

A young girl, from the Al Solton family, at Al Shatee school where she has been staying
since being displaced from her home by the current conflict in the Gaza,
January 10, 2008. Eman Mohammed/Save the Children

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has refused to broadcast an emergency appeal on behalf of the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC), a coalition of Aid agencies. Since 1963 this umbrella organisation has been involved in setting up efficient aid relief to victims of natural disasters and armed conflict across the world.

Representing well established charities the likes of Oxfam and the British Red Cross, they can hardly be suspected of pro-Hamas sympathies. Their websites reads: "At times of overseas emergency, the DEC brings together a unique alliance of the UK's aid, corporate, public and broadcasting sectors to rally the nation's compassion, and ensure that funds raised go to DEC agencies best placed to deliver effective and timely relief to people most in need".

In response to numerous calls, including from British Government officials (Douglas Alexander, Ben Bradshaw) and the tireless veteran MP Tony Benn, Caroline Thomson (CEO) echoed today the earlier words of the corporation’s Director General Mark Thompson, in his insistence that the decision was motivated by a commitment to ‘impartiality’. This surprising decision reveals a lack of sensitivity to the suffering of thousands of Palestinian casualties (wounded, orphaned, displaced etc) following the Israeli assault on Gaza.

If balanced reporting is a highly regarded value in complex conflicts, impartiality is a sad excuse for not airing an appeal to victims of war, regardless of the identity of the aggressor. Reading through the viewers comments on their online portal, one could argue that some support can be found among sections of the public for their editorial line so far on this matter. Obviously many others, including many British TV Licence payers (effectively those who fund the BBC as a public service) are appalled by it and have also made their thoughts clear in the comments section.

Abstract impartiality might have been achieved on the Gaza conflict, except that the BBC might realise that it has lost any relevance in its coverage of the Middle East, notably among Arab and Muslim audiences (An ironic state affairs at a time they are launching their Persian TV service). This relevance was earned the hard way through the excellent truly balanced reporting over the years by reporters of the class of Jeremy Bowen and Alan Johnston, to only name a few.

By emulating Sky and the covert pro-Israeli stance of the Rupert Murdoch-controlled media, the bureaucrats might have reassured the Right Wing pro-Israeli section of their audience, who have long accused the BBC of anti-Israel bias at the hint of any criticism...but by doing so this well respected and loved institution might have lost its soul.

Related links:
- BBC defends Gaza appeal decision
- To donate to the Gaza appeal

We will fight them on the Web...

By Joseph El-Khoury

One wonders what can and should be done to support the people of Gaza during these difficult times. Many have chosen to demonstrate once, twice and as many times as their schedule allows. Others have used the web to either promote their version of events or shout as loud as possible their anger at Israeli aggression and the lack of action on the International front. Sadly, this pattern was repeated many times throughout the bloody history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

It is important to be aware of why we do these things and whether they actually benefit the people of Gaza, ourselves or both. Recent Demonstrations in various European Capitals, such as London or Paris, have not reached the heights of the massive anti-war movement that preceded the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The crowds then were inflated because direct military involvement was on the agenda. Then, the millions who took to the street did not only include the usual suspects on the radical left, Muslim organisations and the Arab Diaspora. Looking at the crowds today on Saturday and Sunday, it is clear that those who do not fall in one of these categories were few in numbers. Witnessing such a barbaric war without taking to the streets seems inconceivable. After all, the demonstrations serve a dual purpose of containing the frustration for those emotionally, personally or politically involved who sit helpless in front of their TV screens while life goes on normally around them. The demonstrations also serve to support the morale of the people of Gaza and effectively their resistance. Any illusions that demonstrating has any effect on the policy of European governments should be dismissed. The campaign on the Web has a great potential as, beyond the first two goals, its interactive nature can also achieve a third goal: engaging the Israelis and their supporters in an attempt to make them reflect on the outcomes of their own government policies. To be effective, Arab bloggers need to engage the Israelis on their own territory, taking the discussion to their blogs, forums and online newspapers with clear arguments based on international human values but also on historical facts. This is not a psychological war to destroy their morale but rather a way to break the wall they have built on the ground and in their minds to isolate themselves from the reality they have created since 1948. Keep in mind that reading some Israeli bloggers makes a challenge for anyone with a hint of sympathy for the Palestinians, as the entrenched views displayed completely disregard the well-being and interests of others. For them, Israel should have been a desert, prepared to accommodate their ‘return’ 2000 years following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Arab population is at best a parasite to be silenced, at worst a pestilence to be eradicated. Their concept of peace consists of us being quiet and not disrupting their ideal life in their promised land. But close scrutiny will reveal that their life is not ideal, whether the Kassam rockets stop falling, or not. Israel is and will remain a country suffering from a deep malaise, because it was built in a wasteland of its own making. We are unlikely to ever return to a pre-1948 situation, whatever the radicals in our camp say. The incomplete military campaign of 2006 and today in Gaza have paradoxically confirmed that a sustainable victory is unavailable to the Israeli military. At best they can sow death and destruction, causing one Government to fall and another to be discredited, while returning to a painful status quo afterwards and the malaise. Everyone concerned must know deep inside that living at peace with each other is inevitable, and one of its mechanisms will be to reassure those willing to listen among Israeli public opinion that a malaise-free life in the Middle Peace is possible, with Arabs and not against them. 

This is a long- term strategy that will not immediately relief the pain in Gaza, but reinforcing the case of moderates in Israel is worth the effort. One anti-war protest in Tel Aviv is worth hundreds from Jakarta to Buenos Aires. Remember this equation when you write your next post.

More statistics: What every American needs to know about Israel/Palestine

"What every American needs to know about Israel/Palestine" is a quote from the site Ifamericansknew.org . Statistics shown on this site, addressed primarily to interested American readers, are self explanatory and well referenced. The figures that followed were last updated in November and are likely to rise significantly as a result of the latest Israeli offensive on Gaza. We read:

Israeli and Palestinian Children Killed since September 29, 2000 till Present:
123 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians, and 1050 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis.
Israelis and Palestinians Killed since September 29, 2000 till Present: 1062 Israelis and at least 4876 Palestinians have been killed.
Israelis and Palestinians Injured since September 29, 2000 till Present: 8341 Israelis and 33034 Palestinians have been injured.
Daily U.S. Taxes to Israel and the Palestinians:
In the Fiscal Year 2007 the U.S. gave more than $6.8 million per day to Israel in comparison to $0.3 million per day to the Palestinians.
UN Resolutions Targeting Israel and the Palestinians:
Between 1955 and 1992 Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.
Current Number of Political Prisoners and Detainees: 1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 10756 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel.
Demolitions of Israeli and Palestinian Homes, since 1967 till Present: 0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 18147 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel.
Current Israeli and Palestinian Unemployment Rates:
The Israeli unemployment rate is 7.3%, while the Palestinian unemployment rate is estimated at 23%.
Current Illegal Settlements on the Other’s Land: Israel currently has 223 Jewish-only settlements and "outposts" built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians do not have any settlements on Israeli land.

Link: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Arabdemocracy

When 400=4: The Mathematics of Israeli propaganda

By Joseph El-Khoury

The Israeli onslaught on Gaza is the latest example of the type of asymmetrical warfare that has characterised armed conflicts over the past 20 years, specifically those involving a Western Military Power. In many ways, the fire-fight with Hamas is a repeat of the 2006 war with the Hezbollah on Lebanese soil: Large scale artillery strikes from the air, sea and ground followed by an invasive ground offensive that is all but certain in the Gaza case. The asymmetry is apparent in the military resources, manpower, technological advances and intelligence available to both parties but also in the collateral human cost. In 2006, Israel lost 158 citizens, most of them soldiers on duty. On the Lebanese side the estimated toll was between 1000- 1300, the majority of which were civilians (30% children under 13 according to UNICEF sources).During this latest round of fighting the Palestinians have suffered around 440 mortal casualties (25% civilians according to the UN) in 8 days while Israel have reported the death of 4 civilians from rockets fired on Israeli towns from Sderot to Ashdod and beyond. Despite the discrepancy in numbers and the extent of the devastation on the Palestinian side, foreign commentators felt it their duty to provide a balanced view of the conflict, against all odds. This effort to avoid being accused of biased generates some heroic attempts to equate the impact of the conflict on both sides. To bolster their case, the Israelis had to come up with alternatives to combat the flood of images coming out of Gaza showing torn limbs, dead babies and bleeding corpses scattered around a parking lot. Despite the efforts of official medias to sanitise the war for their sensitive audiences through a ban on gore and blood, the availability of alternative sources of information and the cyber activism of Palestinians and their supporters have ensured that the reality of the war is still accessed by a significant number of people who make up mainstream opinion in the West. Although many would argue that International sympathy for the Palestinians is yet to protect them or advance their cause, there is little doubt that without it the Israelis would have carried out their fantasies of apartheid at a faster pace. Israel anyway is concerned about its image, and the Zionist lobby has promptly risen to the rescue recycling old myths and creating new ones with the aim to perpetuate the overarching myth of the Israeli David vs. the Arab Goliath on which it relies to remind Europe of its guilt and responsibility towards the Jewish people.

In this optic, the internal racist anti-Arab discourse is kept under wrap. Another one emerges on the blogosphere and in the media, in which Israelis claim ‘never to have disliked Arabs’ as if this century old conflict was a popularity contest and the IDF’s intention was to bomb Gaza into friendship. On the other hand, Arabs are portrayed as full of unexplained hatred towards Jews. Paralleling that we are confronted to a deliberate almost orchestrated emphasis on psychological trauma experienced by the Israeli side. Without minimising the impact of any loss on indiviudals, the theory is that in the absence of fatalities, ‘stress’ generated by the Kassam rockets and the existence of the Palestinians in the first place is equivalent to the carpet bombings of entire villages (Bint Jbeil) and crowded slums (Rafah). So the average British or French spectator is invited to connect with the plight of the nice middle class family in Siderot who lives under constant threat from rocket attacks. The nice family is carefully chosen to hail from some European country and frequently retaining some of the habits of that country facilitating the process of identification. The personal stories seem familiar, the dog, the family dinner, and the blue eyed children; all in contrast with the portrayed lives of the poor Palestinian living his refuge in overcrowded noisy dwellings. Western audiences have little in common, at least superficially with these families and as a consequences struggle to feel their pain and empathise with their suffering beyond the basic human short-lived reflex. In fact, their plight is even used against them, as they seem to revel in it encouraged by the militant rhetoric emanating from radicals who praise and glorify pain to boost morale. For Westerners, these words are difficult to contextualise except through their own experience of the effect of Muslim martyrdom. But unlike Hamas, those who are actually interested in a solution for the Palestinians cannot ignore Western public opinion and should cultivate it to understand the Palestinian perspective beyond self-serving pity. To counter Israeli propaganda, a revised communication strategy is more vital now then ever before.

Livni’s Dream: Kick Out the Israeli Arab Population

By Bachir Habib

"When the Palestinian state is created, I will be able to go to Palestinian citizens, who we call Israeli Arabs, and say to them: You are residents with equal rights, but your national solution is in another place".

Tzipi Livni, December 11, 2008

With the above words, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni addressed a group of young high school students in Tel Aviv last week.
Livni, the Kadima party leader and running candidate for the post of Prime Minister, can’t afford to commit political mistakes during election times. What she said was not a thoughtless blunder; it was calculated, premeditated, and intentional.
While Israeli political parties hit the election ground scheduled early next year, all the polls predict a come-back of the Likud led by the radical Benjamin Netanyahu. This political context witnessing the emergence of the radical right wing in Israel is reinforced by the weak position of the Israeli Labor party and its leader Ehud Barak.
The ground is now slipping under Kadima’s feet, in particular after the Ehud Olmert corruption scandal. And while the center right electorate seems to be strongly affected by the loss of credibility of its leader, on the further right it looks as if it is time for more unity.
This is exactly why Livni is in such fear of loosing the elections, and it is only in this context that her words can be explained. The hopeful Prime Minister decided apparently to play inside the yard of the radical right, and started to borrow their own words and vocabulary in order to seduce voters. However, Livni’s words have more of a dogmatic significance because they were directed to an audience that hasn’t yet reached the legal voting age.
Her statement on that specific day reveals that the so called center right in Israel has a radical view of how the country should look after a two state solution is implemented. It is equally not the first time the Kadima leader infuriates Israeli Arabs. Only a month ago, she said that “it must be clear to everyone that the State of Israel is a national homeland for the Jewish people (…), and that the national demands of Israeli Arabs should end the moment a Palestinian state is established ".
Livni’s words provoked outrage among Arab Israeli lawmakers. Culture, Sports and Science Minister Ghaleb Majadele reacted to her statement saying: "The roots of the Israeli Arab citizens were planted before the state was established (…) and that their residency and citizenship are not open for negotiation ".
The electoral bazaar is now open and the Israeli soil looks more fertile than ever to host a cut-throat campaign where dogmas and ideologies are deployed to attract voters. It also appears that Israeli politicians are still somehow dreaming of an exclusive national homeland for the Jewish People. They are not ashamed to exclude or transfer non Jews if at all possible, a practice that reminds strongly of what they themselves had to endure before and during the Second World War.
Partisans of such thinking have the right to dream and work for their political project. But it automatically gives the right to those Israelis and Palestinians who disagree, to reject the trap of the two state solution. And hence, it adds legitimacy to any form of campaign for a bi-national state where Israelis and Palestinians can live together under a modern and democratic government.