Vote for Obama or … Welcome World War IV?

By Bachir Habib

The US presidential campaign is heating up, and Sarah Palin is the latest Republican weapon deployed after the stunning success of the Democratic Convention in Denver. The Palin choice might backfire early against the Republican’s campaign, with personal and professional stories about Alaska’s governor (qualifying her as a bad choice already) invading the press in America and abroad.
However, very strong ideas are making their way to the American political discourse. Frightening principles and words are being used, and “World War IV” is one of them. World War IV entered this campaign when Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor told Seth Colter Walls from the Huffington Post nearly two months ago: “If McCain is president and if his Secretary of State is Joe Lieberman and his Secretary of Defense is Rudolph Giuliani, we will be moving towards the World War IV” (the Cold War counted as World War III).
The more powerful is a Nation, the more its internal affairs become of interest for the International Community. How many non Americans wish they can vote in the US elections to see the candidate that will “help” or “do less harm” to their country securing his way to the White House?
But unfortunately, all those interested in the US elections can’t make their voice heard via powerful lobbies as AIPAC who imposed itself as a pressure group able to guarantee that the elected president considers Israel’s National Interest as integrated to and inseparable from the US National Interest.
It is finally to the American voter alone to decide who will be ruling the American Empire (or what Bush left of it). And that same American voter will indirectly define Washington’s positions towards Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia (etc)… At the same time, the American voter might not be worrying about all the international questions, and his vote might be exclusively on internal issues like healthcare, economy, unemployment, taxes (etc)…
The interaction between internal and international issues becomes crucial when a country holds a position of superpower. Since the end of the cold war in 1991, the US has been considered as the only remaining superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union. November 2008 is a historical moment for the United States of America. And the Russia – Georgia crisis over Ossetia throws doubt over the US remaining in the position it held since 1991.
It is a test of realism for the American Empire. Will it assume the responsibility of its power by voting for a President able to recollect the pieces internally and adopt a less arrogant tone abroad? Or will it vote for a World War IV perspective that will prove that “Each empire holds in its heart the germs of its self destruction”?

Read More...

Summary only...

Peaceful Palestinian Walks disturbed by Zionism

By Bachir Habib

On the second of August 2008, the title of an opinion article in the Jerusalem Post caught my interest. Titled “The ‘Economist’ Rewrites History” by Zalman Shoval, former Israeli ambassador to the United States it accuses The Economist of revisionism only because it positively reviewed, under the Arts section, a book called Palestinian Walks, Notes on a Vanishing Landscape, written by Raja Shehadeh, a Palestinian Lawyer and founder of Al Haq* organization in 1979.
In his book, winner of the Orwell Prize 2008, Shehadeh describes the change in the landscape of the hills surrounding Ramallah through seven walks he took in the area. His lyrical description of the “Biblical Hills” comes as a perfect justification of the prize awarded to the author and his book. The seven walks counted were not made within a year or two; they are spread at least over two decades. That’s exactly why the reader, while turning the pages of this book, is taken through the geographical changes to the hills and their surroundings over a troubled time, where political and military events had the strongest impact on transforming the peaceful nature of what Shehadeh calls the “Highland Hills of Palestine”.
Shehadeh’s perspective is also interesting in the way he shows how the function of the hills surrounding Ramallah changed over the generations. From a place where Palestinian men used to escape the hot summers, working the land and building Qasr (round stones structures built without concrete dotting the land where farmers kept their produce and slept on the open roof), the hills now fulfill a security function, but this time for the Israeli settlers building outposts to better control Palestinian areas. Shehade’s journey and description of this change of function intersects with the Israeli architect Eyal Weizeman’s thesis called "The Politics of Verticality", where the latter develops the idea that the Israeli architecture has played an important role in the conflict for the past six decades. Weizeman’s more recent work has focused on the way the Israeli outposts are built in a South African “apartheid” style.
Shehade’s book is Art, contrary to what his Excellency the ambassador pretends. How can art not relate to politics in that part of the world where the historical artistic patrimony is transformed daily by political conditions? In that specific sense the book is politically potent. Even if its formal relation to the political sphere is subtle, using hints and questions that push the reader to seek political answers elsewhere.
This last argument is probably one of the reasons why Shehade was awarded the Orwell prize. He doesn’t impose political conclusions nor affirms ideological positions. A fact he comes across as a very harsh critic of all Palestinian factions and militias, simply by counting the number of times he came close to being shot dead by armed Palestinian militants on his walks, or the abuse he suffered, he who founded an organization to protect Palestinian rights, at the hands of those who pretended to protect him.
In its review to Shehade’s work, The New York Times Book Review found that: “Few Palestinians have opened their minds with such frankness”. Such acclaim disqualifies totally Shoval who showed nothing but hatred and racism in his judgmental article published in the Jerusalem Post. Nowhere was that more obvious than in the disdain he showed “a certain Raja Shehade, portrayed as a lawyer and a writer…” As if he, a government official, did not know that Shehade is well known to Israeli tribunals as a lawyer who defended the Palestinians against land expropriation practiced by Israel. Shoval’s position is in fact against anyone who dares looking at the Israeli – Palestinian conflict from an angle that questions long-established Zionist myths. That is why he accused The Economist of re-writing History.
His Excellency knows well enough that if this book achieved fame, it is because Shehade does not play political games. Instead, as an experienced professional lawyer, sticks to the hard facts. A concept that the seasoned diplomat obviously struggles with.

*Al-Haq is the West Bank affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists - Geneva, and is a member of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN), the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Habitat International Coalition (HIC), and the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO).

Read More...

Summary only...

وأنت وجوه نحبّها في وجه واحد

وائل عبد الرحيم

محمود درويش يتوسط ياسر عرفات وجورج حبش

هنالك انت، على تلة في رام الله، تناكدنا برحيلك المبكر، تُبكينا وتُثقل علينا.. ما انت إلا وجه اجتمعت فيك كل الوجوه التي نحبها، فكأنما برحيلك رحلوا كلهم... على هذه الأرض قصيدة حب تستحق أن نولد معها من جديد.. على هذه الأرض فلسطين التي زيّنتها انت وسرّحت شعرها وغسلت قدميها، وهي الآن تحضن جسدك.

انت فلسطينُك فلسطيننا، وانت امُّك امنا...

***

حينما يغرُب وجهٌ آخر من الوجوه الحلوة، ...
حينما يذهب فدائي إلى النوم، ويعلن العام ان سيدة، ام البدايات والنهايات، حزينة للفراق، وحينما يبكي الشعراء سيّد الشعراء، وتنزوي عصافير الجليل وترفض ان تطير...
حينها، فلنعلم انه اكثر من موت وأصعب من لحظة رحيل.
شخصياً، أفضل العام الذي قبل هذا العام على العام الحالي. وحتماً افضل الذي قبله، وقبله..
وربما كنت افضّل لو ان الزمن ما عاد زمنا.. تجمّد او تحجر او اخترع الله او العلماء له بديلاً.. هكذا لكنا عشنا احلامنا في سني الحُلم ولم نهزم عشرات المرات.

ليست الهزيمة ان تُحتل الأرض ويمزقها جدار.. بل الهزيمة ان نعود إلى البداوة، والجاهلية تنخر عقولنا وتصيب القلوب بالتيبّس. فلكم هو بليغ حقاً سميح القاسم في رثائك يا محمود درويش، يبكيك فإذ هو يبكي فلسطيننا الآن.. فهي حقاً "ذُبيانُ تَغزو. وعَبْسٌ تُحارِبْ".. وها هو القاسم يتمنى لو انه يلحق بك غير آبه بحزننا، فيصرخ "خذني معك"، حتى لكأنه نكاية يريد ان يضيف حزناً على حزن في الزمن الحزين.
فها هي غزة يا محمود درويش إمارة حيث "صار لكل عصابةٍ نبيّ، ولكل صحابيّ ميليشيا"...!

***

هل اختار محمود درويش الرحيل عن سابق تصوّر وتصميم؟
هل اصيب بجرح الاقتتال وتدمير الذات الذي يمارس ليلاً نهاراً وجهاراً جهاراً دون حياء ودون تورية؟
ربما.. وربما هو مجرد موت..
لكنه القدر ان تغيب الوجوه التي شكّلت وعينا، ترحل وجهاً بعد آخر، تخلي مكانها لأبي سفيان وصبيانه.. وتعلن ان موعد فلسطيننا مع انتفاضة انسانية متجدّدة تأجّل زمناً...

***

انت الذاكرة يا محمود درويش، وانت عرس الجليل، وانت انتفاضة الحجر في رام الله.. وانت مقاومة الحصار في غزة.. وانت الذي ما غادرت حيفا..
انت الاخرون الذين توالى رحيلهم في سنوات القهر هذه، انت ياسر عرفات وجورج حبش وابوعلي مصطفى.. وأنت توفيق زيّاد وإميل حبيبي... وانت وجوه نحبّها في وجه واحد..
وانت بيروت الشعراء والفدائيين... وانت العواصم العربية في لحظة حرية.. وأنت الذاكرة والذكرى.
برحيلك اليوم، تشرف دائرة الحلم على الفراغ... لكن برحيلك يا احبّ الناس إلى فلسطين يزداد الإصرار على التمسك بجوهر الصراع.

***

انا لم أعد اؤمن بالحتميات التاريخية، لكن هذه القضية التي نزفت 100 عام واكثر لن تنمحي.. وهذا الشعب الذي قدّم أغلى الشهداء واجمل الأبناء ليحيا، لن يموت.. هذه هي الحتمية التاريخية!
وسيبقى علمك يا فلسطين، علم منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية، مرفوعاً عالياً عالياً عالياً ما بقي حيّ على هذه الأرض.. وسيبقى هذا الشعب ينشد مع توفيق زيّاد أننا باقون.. باقون.. "كأننا عشرون مستحيل، في اللد، والرملة، والجليل"، واننا "هنا .. على صدوركم، باقون كالجدار"..

***

سنفتقدك يا محمود العائد إلى التراب.. سنفتقد قصائدك وثورتك وشجاعتك وصدق الأحاسيس..
و"فلسطين لنا".. ستظل قصيدة حب، وانشودة حرية وتحرر، ونبيذاً على جسد عار راقص في عرس بين كنيسة المهد ومسجد عمر.

Read More...

Summary only...

Why the ‘Sand Niggers’ should vote for Obama

By Joseph El-Khoury

Out of all derogatory terms used for Arabs in the Anglo-Saxon world 'Sand Niggers' is the one that best describes their present situation at the ethnic group everyone loves to hate. For other colourful expressions I would refer you to the Urban Dictionary available on the web. Similar to the way Black people were perceived as lacking in morals, naturally violent, immune to any cultural sense, lazy and unreliable in a pre-civil rights movements America, anti-Arab prejudice is mainstream post 9/11.

As mentioned by various Arab media outlets, both candidates to the US presidency have made very little attempts to attract the vote of approximately 1.5millions Arab-Americans, who in some states (Michigan, Ohio) make a significant minority. These might even prove more crucial if the race is tight. While McCain seems at all uninterested in this community, Barack Obama went out of his way to distance himself from any display of Muslim support for his campaign, even asking young veiled women to step out from a camera shot during a rally. This is hardly surprising for the son of a Kenyan Muslim who spent his early years in Indonesia. His advisors know that while Christian America might forgive him for being Black, it will not allow him any flirtation with the ’Evil Religion’.

To be fair to Senator Obama and his opponent, the Arab-American community is neither homogeneous nor united. It is split down many religious, socio-economical and cultural fault lines that go beyond the generational gap common to every immigrant community. In general terms, Lebanese (also Syrian and Iraqi to a lesser extent) Americans of Christian extraction form a distinct sizeable group who maintain strong links to their motherland but are keen to show themselves as ‘faith cousins’ fully integrated to the American dream. Coptic Egyptians are a smaller but well organised group with a militant Christian streak. They are socially conservative on issues such as abortion, gay rights and the death penalty and feel comfortable in enlightened republican circles. Many Muslim Arabs of various origins are as socially conservative but find it harder to show their American credentials due to a heavier religious and cultural load. In some cases this extends to public expressions of faith (The veil) which for the insulated average American belong to the enemy. Their Arab identity is emphasised in relation to other Muslims but more recently the two groups have grown closer as a consequence of wholesale prejudice against them and the Islamisation of the Palestinian struggle. US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan only served to confirm their beliefs in a conspiracy targeting the existence of their religion.

The issue or Israel remains essential to understanding the relation between Arab-Americans and their adopted country. The US has been unwavering in its support for the Zionist entity since its creation in 1948 providing it consistently with the financial, technological, military means to dominate the Middle East and wreck the hopes of one Arab generation after the other. This is unlikely to change regardless of who takes over the White House come November. But two factors Arab voters should consider while casting their votes. The first factor is that An Obama administration will not be motivated by ideology in its position vis-a-vis Israel while remnants of the neo-conservative and evangelical Christian agenda will persist in a Bush-McCain transition. Pragmatic policies might still be detrimental to the Palestinians but are easier to debate and challenge than those backed by divine intervention. The second factor is that the election of a Liberal modern Black man to the highest office will be good for America, whatever foreign policy he adopts. This is a revolution in the making and as all astute immigrants know it is by joining hands with the locals for the common good that you gain acceptance. As the American poet Gil Scott-Heron cynically puts it: ‘The revolution will not be televised...’ but the election certainly will!

Read More...

Summary only...

De-politicize the Bible and the Quran

By Elie Elhadj

Image: Courtesy of : http://sabbah.biz

For a long-term durable solution to the Arab Israeli conflict, a single democratic and secular state for Jews and Palestinians needs to evolve. Other solutions are like band-aid treatment to cancer. The dream of an exclusive Jewish state in Palestine is unsustainable, unless the Palestinians vanish.
Muslim and Jew can live together in peace. History is the proof. Hundreds of thousands of Jews lived in Arab countries peaceably for centuries. In his Coningsby, British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1868 and 1874-1880), the first and thus far the only person of Jewish parentage to reach the premiership, described the “halcyon centuries” in Muslim Spain where the “children of Ishmael rewarded the children of Israel with equal rights and privileges with themselves.” Sultan Bayezid-II (1481-1512) encouraged thousands of Jews to settle in the Muslim Ottoman Empire following their expulsion from Spain.
Around the time of Israel’s creation, more than 850,000 Jews migrated from Arab countries, 600,000 going to Israel. The charge that the Jews migrated because of Arab maltreatment is an unfair political expediency. The migration happened in the course of Israel’s creation. During this period, 531 Palestinian villages were depopulated and 805,000 refugees lost their homes, according to Palestinian sources (650,000 to 700,000 refugees, according to Jewish sources).
Islam venerates Judaism. The Quran made Abraham as the first Muslim. Islam is the Religion of Abraham. Quran’s Chapter 14 is named after Abraham and, to Joseph Chapter 12 is named. Today, Jewish derived Arabic proper names are common. Feeling powerless, the Arab masses invoked hostile Quranic Verses, recounted stories of the Prophet’s troubles with the Jewish tribes in Medina, drew lessons from substituting Friday for the Sabbath and the prayer’s direction from Jerusalem to Mecca. For thirteen centuries, however, these were non-issues.
Politicizing the Bible’s Genesis 15:18: “The Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, unto thy seed have I given this land from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates” politicized the Quran.
Politicizing the Bible pushed frustrated moderate Arabs into orthodoxy and the orthodox into Jihadism. The Arab Israeli conflict has degenerated to a religious war that could last for a thousand years. In provoking the enmity of their age-old Muslim friends, Zionism has radicalized Arab Muslims into Islamist extremism. In doing so, it disserved the long-term interests of the Jewish people.
Had Zionism adhered to the stipulation in the 1917 Balfour declaration: “Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” this conflict would not have developed. The Bible and the Quran must be de-politicized.

The two-state solution is capricious:
First, demographically, a purely Jewish state is impossible to attain. The Zionist dream of creating an exclusive state for the Jewish people in Palestine is unsustainable in the long-term. Presently, about 1.3 million Palestinians are citizens of Israel, or just under 25 percent of Israel’s 5.5 million Jews. Due to their high population’s growth rate the Palestinian-Israelis will eventually become the majority. The number of Palestinians in Israel in 1948 was about 150,000. The Palestinian-Israelis are in addition to the 4.2 million Palestinians who live under Israel’s occupation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Outside Palestine, 2.6 millions are registered in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, plus 1.5 million scattered worldwide.
Secondly, Jerusalem, borders, security, water, settlements, and the refugees’ right-of-return are intractable.
When Clinton, Barak, and Arafat attempted in July 2000 to tackle these issues at Camp David, the negotiations collapsed, leading to the second intifada. Thirdly, even if a miracle patches up a two-state agreement, the extremists on both sides would undermine it.
Fourthly, the Arab masses will shun a Zionist state. Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) have failed to develop beyond small diplomatic missions.

Western secular democratic ideals should inspire a single secular democratic state:
First, the intractable obstacles would disappear. Secondly, a single state will commingle Palestinians and Jews into an inseparable mix. Arabs would no longer have an excuse to boycott their Jewish “cousins.” Economic, cultural, educational, and social interaction would follow.
Thirdly, a single state would allow Arabs and Jews access to all Palestine. The Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are instruments of integration between Palestinians and Jews, not segregation, a mixture as difficult to unscramble today as removing the Palestinian Israelis from Israel.
Durable peace requires the genuine welcome of the Arab masses of the Jewish people. The Jews who had lived among Arabs could be helpful. They share customs, habits, values, food, music, dance, and, for the older generation, the Arabic language.
Whether it would be a good bargain to exchange a partial and declining Jewish exclusivity in an unstable two-state solution for a durable single state embracing Jews and Muslims is a question Israel’s Jewish people alone can answer.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Syrian crane made in France

By Bachir Habib

Picture: www.lefigaro.fr

What we witnessed in Paris was not a Euro Mediterranean summit. The French are not dupe, neither the Europeans; and the occasion provided a good cover. What we witnessed was simply Syria’s reintegration into the International Community. Bashar Assad’s visit to Paris is his first successful international visit since 2004.
This visit has to be placed in a context, and that context is not European, it is purely Middle Eastern and challenging after the failure of the regional American project. What happened in Paris is also a European move on the international foreign policy chessboard; a daring maneuver from French President Nicolas Sarkozy who succeeded in convincing his European counterparts that the time was right for distancing themselves from previous alignment on US policy towards the region. This is even more necessary before Washington itself operates a foreign policy shifting leaving Brussels behind. Not to forget that in the United States, it is now “Time to Change” as said by the Democratic presidential contestant Barack Obama.
Sarkozy opened wide the gates of Europe and the world to the Syrian President. Paris tried to show that Assad is received only because he responded positively to the French demands: Reducing interference in Lebanon or using positive influence to help in unlocking the Lebanese political deadlock, pushing towards a Hamas – Israel truce through pressure on his Palestinian allies, and finally proving a true will to make peace with Israel and continue visibly what started secretly between the two countries two years ago as the July 2006 war raged on Lebanese soil.
This is the tip of the iceberg, but at its base resides a more serious issue: A new balance of power is being formed in the Middle East, there’s a decline (at least temporary) of American influence after decades of direct management of the region while a new Iranian (de facto) regional super power will emerge in case Teheran’s nuclear program is not halted.
This new context is highly important to France and Europe, because it’s not only the American “Greater Middle East” that is broken, but because the post cold war American Dream of a Unipolar World that has been crushed.
Is it the new dawn of Multipolarity that we’re witnessing? It might be. But it is definitely not the Multipolarity the West was dreaming of. It is one where Europe and the US will have to deal with countries like Iran, Pakistan and Venezuela (…) as regional super powers that have a National Interest to protect, same as Washington, Brussels or Moscow.
French diplomacy reveals its conviction that reintegrating Syria in the international community is the only way to take it back from Iran’s arms. But Assad declared this week that following a request from France, Syria would hold talks with Iran to try and resolve the crisis over its nuclear programme! Nicolas Sarkozy knows that this is not how Assad can be stolen from Ali Khamenei, and it is unrealistic, at least for now, to expect Damascus to take a distance from Teheran. It is rather the Iranians who are on the verge of being recognized as a great regional power, by using a Syrian crane made in France.
By the way, was Husni Mubarak there? And even if Saudi King Abdullah was with him, Assad would have remained the only star. It is simply not a good time for US allies.

Read More...

Summary only...

The July War 2006 in Information Design

By Bachir Habib

33, is the number of days it took to implement a new Middle Eastern equation. On the 13th of July, only one day after Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers in Northern Israel, behind the so called “Blue Line”, Israel declared an open war on Lebanon. Hezbollah called its operation “The Truthful Promise” and Hezbollah secretary general Hassan Nasrallah declared that its goal was to capture Israeli soldiers in order to exchange them with Lebanese prisoners in Israel. Two years after a war that devastated large parts of the country in just 33 days, Hezbollah is proving he is standing by his promise as we stand days away from the release of Lebanese prisoners in Israel.

Very few books have been released so far on this conflict and its outcome. But in the months and years to come this topic will become of high interest to Geo-strategists and Historians. In the meantime this war was also a source of inspiration in the artistic sphere. Pamela Hraoui, a Lebanese student of Information Design at Central Saint Martins College of Arts and Design in London decided to use the theme for her Masters project.

In her book titled 33, with a pitch black cover, Hraoui’s concept is articulated in three different movements. The first one is displaying opposing information by contrasting the headlines of the Lebanese Daily Star and the Israeli Jerusalem Post. The second is again opposing two main pictures, one from Israel and the other from Lebanon. These pictures have no legend and speak for themselves! Her third movement involves mapping the human, economical, and military cost on both sides, day by day, with forty novel design characters and symbols of her own creation.
In this unpublished book, each day of the war is summarized in six pages based on visuals, graphics and journalistic information.

Below are snapshots of the book (copyright: Pamela Hraoui) she kindly agreed to post on Arabdemocracy in memory of the July 2006 war.

Read More...

Summary only...

We Can Be Heroes... Just For One Day

By Bachir Habib

As soon as the prisoner exchange deal between Israel and Hezbollah left the secret sphere, it became subject to debate in the media and on newspapers pages. The UN is officially calling it a “Humanitarian Agreement”. But this labeling doesn’t seem to justify such a deal in the eyes of many in Israel.
A quick look at the daily press there is enough to reveal an aggressive debate on the issue. Even some international newspapers have fallen in the trap of the internal Israeli debate. Last week, “The Independent” correspondent in Jerusalem Donald Macintyre was the latest Western Fashion Victims choosing to title his piece “Israel to swap killer for two dead soldiers”.
This debate is not expected to end soon. It may at the contrary amplify in the coming days, as the exchange operation nears.
Whether Israel likes it or not, this UN brokered deal is the direct consequence of the July 2006 war. In a conventional war perspective, where the military operations end with a clear winner and loser, such a deal would have occurred sooner after the war. But Israel was not in a posture to admit defeat in August 2006, while Hezbollah showed much triumphalism describing as a “Divine Victory” his ability to resist the Israeli attack.
Israel needed time; it took over a year for the Winograd Report to be issued detailing the Israeli mistakes after a lengthy investigation. After admitting defeat, it is now time for Israel to pay the price.
Under a “humanitarian” cover, Israel is making a historic move. Giving back Samir Kuntar in exchange of two (maybe dead) soldiers captured on the 12^th of July 2006 is a giant leap. The interesting debate about it in Israel is about fears that such a move might become a political and juridical precedent.
The deal will most likely go forward, and the Israeli government is in need to improvise to justify such an unusual event. The latest justifications belong both to the moral sphere. One of the traditional arguments has a religious connotation, invoking Jewish practices that prohibit abandoning dead Israeli soldiers in the battle field.
But the more important and controversial argument is one of “Moral Superiority”.
After at least five decades of Israeli attempts to prove “Military Superiority” and “Technological Superiority” over its Arab neighbors, now it is has found the gift of “Moral Superiority”.
The deal will soon be implemented, Samir Kuntar will be free and welcome as a national hero in Lebanon, while the Israeli nation will overcome its grief by convincing itself that it is morally superior, only for one day. I say one day because no doubt that Israel will continue flaunting basic human rights and international war while claiming eternal victim status.

Moral superiority can only be a stranger in an entity governed by a war doctrine, where every citizen is a solider, and where peace is not possible before the opponent is completely defeated.

Read More...

Summary only...

AIPAC, US Elections, and the Arabs

By Bachir Habib

Picture: www.whitehouse.gov

“Following the plenary session, more than 5,000 Policy Conference delegates took to Capitol Hill for some 500 Congressional lobbying appointments”. This sentence is taken from the AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee America’s pro – Israel lobby) website. The news article was on the 2008 Policy Conference hosted by AIPAC the previous week. How important this conference was for the US frontrunners for the White House.
Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John Mc Cain gave speeches about Israeli – US ties.

"We know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as President I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security (…)" Senator Obama said. He even exceeded what most current Israeli leaders would say by declaring: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided (…)”.
Clinton vowed that "speaking up for a strong American-Israeli relationship is essential to the interests of the United States", while Mc Cain who opened the Conference in Washington, D.C. in front of more than 6,500 pro-Israel delegates said that “Iran must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons” and concluded by saying: “In a world full of dangers, Israel and the United States must always stand together.”

From the three speeches mentioned above, the strongest one and somehow the most revolting one comes from Obama, the candidate of “Change” and the author of the “Yes We Can” slogan. It is the same Obama whose comments drew fire in the United States particularly from AIPAC supporters when he declared months ago that “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people”.
In a campaign for Presidency, and particularly in the United States, such comments can be fatal. There, the “Israeli friendly” ingredient is an indispensable recipe of any successful campaign. The smart Obama appears to be playing it by the rules when it comes to foreign policy. He corrected his earlier statement during a presidential debate when he clarified that his remark about the suffering of Palestinians “was actually an indictment of the Palestinian leadership” that he believes “has caused much of the Palestinian suffering”.

Obama, the “offshore President” as dubbed by the New York Times might be a revolutionary choice for Americans. He is the first Afro-American candidate to ever have a real chance of becoming President. His social and economical slogans might bring him to power at a time when Bush’s administration appears incapable to deal with the foreign policy and economical problems it generated since 2003. But on the Israeli – Palestinian level, Obama is a déjà vu, same as any American candidate who wants to be elected. This is a no-go zone, and AIPAC is just too powerful.
On such occasions, I remember this image of Prince Bandar Bin Sultan (ex Saudi ambassador in the US), relaxing with George W Bush in his Texan ranch.
I sometimes naively ask myself why our powerful Arab officials and Diaspora, and many of them very well connected to the centers of foreign policy making, did not come up yet with a kind of Arab response to AIPAC.

But suddenly, the BAE “Al Yamamah” story brings me crashing back to earth. And this is just only one example of why we are not capable of organizing ourselves the AIPAC way.

* There have been numerous allegations that the Al Yamamah contracts were a result of bribes to members of the Saudi royal family and government officials. According to these allegations BAE Systems paid hundreds of millions of British pounds to the ex-Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan.

Read More...

Summary only...

حزيران أقسى الشهور

بقلم د. باسم حسن

Picture: Courtesy of www.badil.org

"دوائر حول الدوائر، دعني أفسر لك الحادثة
حلمت، كما كنت تحلم، أن حزيران أقسى الشهور
وأن الكلام الذي يتكرر فينا لكي نتبعه
هو الكارثة".
محمود درويش*

البارحة حين خلدت إلى النوم كان انتحاري مخدر بالحقد الديني يفجر نفسه بمجموعة من المدنيين في بغداد، وكان سياسيو لبنان ومواطنوه المخدرون بسموم الطائفية يتناقشون حول ما إذا كانت الطاقة الكهربائية تعمل بشكل أفضل إذا كان وزيرها شيعيًا أم سنيًا أم مارونيًا.
البارحة حين خلدت إلى النوم كانت قوات الأمن في دمشق والقاهرة تعتقل كتّابًا وأساتذة جامعيين بتهمة التحريض على الإخلال بالأمن، وكان ضباط كبار في الجزائر وطرابلس الغرب والرباط يقبضون رشاوى مشاريع النفط والغاز.
البارحة حين وضعت رأسي على الوسادة وأغمضت عينيّ، كان رأس مواطن أخر، معصوب العينين، يُقطع في الرياض. البارحة حين خلدت إلى النوم بعد يوم مثقل بالتفكير، كان المواطن العربي من المحيط إلى الخليج مهمومًا إمّا بأبواب مستقبله الموصدة، أو بخبز وحليب أطفاله أو بعدم التفكير، وغالبًا بالثلاثة معًا.
ولماذا يفكر وقد فسّر له شيخه أو قسه كل شيء؟ لماذا يفكر وقد حُلَّت له كل المسائل منذ ألفي سنة؟

منذ 5 حزيران 1967 والتفكير ممنوع.

هزمنا.

ليس عسكريًا فقط. هزمنا بالعقل.

هزمنا لأننا لم نكن حاضرين. وماذا كان رد فعلنا على الهزيمة؟ أن نتقوقع أكثر. أن نستسلم أكثر. وأسوأ الاستسلام لم يكن لأعدائنا، بل لأنظمتنا وخرافاتنا.

لكنّ الهزيمة ليست قدرًا، والنوم ليس موتًا، وزعماؤنا ليسوا آلهة، ورجال الدين ليسوا أنبياء. نتأمل، نحلم، لأنه يجب أن يكون هناك أمل ويجب أن يكون هناك حلم نعمل على تحقيقه.
نعمل!

5 حزيران 1967 ليس نهاية التاريخ. وفلسطين ليست إسرائيل والقدس لن تبقى محتلة إلى الأبد. السجن والغربة ليسا الخيار المحتوم، والعقل... العقل لا بد أن يمحو الخرافة.

* اسميك نرجسة حول قلبي من مجموعة "هي أغنية هي أغنية".

Read More...

Summary only...

Our apologies, Palestine!

Picture by Rina Castelnuovo for the NYTimes

On Arabdemocracy we had planned to mark the Nakba with a post dedicated to the 60th Anniversary. Unfortunately the turn of events in Lebanon over the past week derailed our plans. Things are far from settled in Beirut but life (and death) continues in other parts of the Middle East.

The President of the United States sought to mark the day by renewing his vows towards the 'only democracy in the Middle East'. In his unequivocal manner he stated his country's past, present and future policy in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The speech is long but a delight to read to everyone who has ever doubted the US position.

I found the concluding paragraphs fascinating for their crystal clarity.

"Sixty years ago, on the eve of Israel's independence, the last British soldiers departing Jerusalem stopped at a building in the Jewish quarter of the Old City. An officer knocked on the door and met a senior rabbi. The officer presented him with a short iron bar -- the key to the Zion Gate -- and said it was the first time in 18 centuries that a key to the gates of Jerusalem had belonged to a Jew. His hands trembling, the rabbi offered a prayer of thanksgiving to God, "Who had granted us life and permitted us to reach this day." Then he turned to the officer, and uttered the words Jews had awaited for so long: "I accept this key in the name of my people."

Over the past six decades, the Jewish people have established a state that would make that humble rabbi proud. You have raised a modern society in the Promised Land, a light unto the nations that preserves the legacy of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. And you have built a mighty democracy that will endure forever and can always count on the United States of America to be at your side. God bless".

Thank you President Bush, we will miss your straight-talking.

The editorial Team at Arabdemocracy


The official version of the speech can be found on
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/05/15/text_of_president_bushs_speech_to_the_israeli_parliament/?page=5

Read More...

Summary only...

You, Facebook and National Security

Facebook is by far the most popular social networking site on the net. On it, one can socialize, find old friends from a distant past, advertise events and gather support for causes. Unless you are technophobic it can be a very useful tool.

However, the fast spread of Facebook raises a number of questions; two of them worthy of debate.

The first issue is reconnecting with people from our past. If we managed to live for years and thrive without talking to and hearing from someone, what’s the purpose of suddenly pretending that the are indeed part of your present. And they are still unlikely to be part of your future. How many of you readers have on their Facebook list contacts they do not actually contact!

The second issue is more important, it is about blurring the boundaries between the professional and the private. While employees and companies have set up Facebook networks to promote a friendly image, the drawback is that random colleagues now access our personal picture albums, our family life and our social environment. It gets even more complicated when the colleague is your manager. Would you dare to ignore his 'friendship' request? Or would you risk it to protect your privacy?

Along these lines, Facebook has now become a national security threat in Israel where the military has recently introduced restrictive measures banning soldiers from posting on their pages pictures showing sensitive military subjects .The following article by BBC Journalist Martin Asser gives some insight into the problematic relationship between the Israeli Army and Facebook.

Bachir Habib
Arabdemocracy

Israeli army in Facebook clampdown

Martin Asser, BBC, Jerusalem

Israeli defence chiefs have moved to tighten internet social networking rules after photographs appeared showing sensitive military subjects.
A review of Facebook pages belonging to Israeli troops found that some had posted detailed pictures of air bases, operations rooms and submarines. "These are things we don't want the public to see for security reasons," an official source told the BBC.
Posting photos of troops in uniform - a popular pastime - is still allowed.
The new set of rules - which has not been made public - includes a ban on images of pilots and members of special units, and anything that shows specific military manoeuvres.
The defence ministry launched its inquiry earlier in the year to check the potential security risk in the dozens of social networking groups dedicated to life in the Israeli military. Compulsory military service is a rite of passage experienced by large numbers of young Israelis and in recent years they have shared their experiences through photos and web-posted accounts of their activities.
"There's a lot of illegal photography inside the Israeli Defence Forces, including the Israeli Air Force," a source inside the air force told the BBC.
"Most of the soldiers don't understand how much damage it may cause," the source added. The military source, who cannot be identified, says a few of his comrades are authorised to take pictures at their bases and to post them on Flickr.
Every photo is vetted by military censors, and the ones considered appropriate are assured a warm reception by the many enthusiasts of military hardware in the Flickr community.
But the defence ministry says military tribunals have investigated and disciplined about 100 soldiers who broke the rules and unwittingly helped the enemy this year.
It may seem a large number, but the defence ministry source said: "Considering the number of soldiers there are with social networking websites, it is a tiny proportion."
The worst offenders were punished with a month in jail for particularly egregious posts, while others were warned they would face similar punishment if they re-offended.

Read More...

Summary only...

Language, Media and Propaganda

Sometimes events and encounters serve to validate your point of point of view or reassure you that persevering against all odds is worthwhile. At a Cambridge University Conference, we did not need to hear from Yonatan Mendel* what we already knew for us to feel validated in our conviction that a fair and just peace would be possible one day in the Middle East. The mere fact we were hearing a balanced political discussion at all outside the usual animosity that separates Arabs and Israelis on this issue was enough.
As one of the speakers, he went on to talk about how language had been used and abused by the Israeli media to market its side of the story both within Israel and in the West. The following article in the London Review of Books (6th March 2008) revisits this same theme.

Arabdemocracy

"A year ago I applied for the job of Occupied Territories correspondent at Ma'ariv, an Israeli newspaper. I speak Arabic and have taught in Palestinian schools and taken part in many joint Jewish-Palestinian projects. At my interview the boss asked how I could possibly be objective. I had spent too much time with Palestinians; I was bound to be biased in their favour. I didn't get the job. My next interview was with Walla, Israel's most popular website. This time I did get the job and I became Walla's Middle East correspondent. I soon understood what Tamar Liebes, the director of the Smart Institute of Communication at the Hebrew University, meant when she said: 'Journalists and publ