الفلسطينية | al-falasteenyia

drones...

2009-07-11T15:28:00.004-04:00

Obama Betrayal Syndrome

2009-07-01T09:38:00.003-04:00

First the t-shirts, then the Nikes. Now there's talk of coffee, food, and even a deli.

Beware, the food may cause indigestion in some people.

Others might develop a full-out syndrome. Yes, Obama Betrayal Syndrome, also known as OBS.

Do you have Obama Betrayal Syndrome? Click here to find out.

bonus: while you're at it, click here to find out whether or not you have swine flu.

Israel attacks aid boat

2009-07-01T02:30:00.002-04:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

30 June 2009

ISRAEL ATTACKS JUSTICE BOAT; KIDNAPS HUMAN RIGHTS WORKERS;
CONFISCATES MEDICINE, TOYS AND OLIVE TREES

For more information contact:
Greta Berlin (English)
tel: +357 99 081 767 / friends@freegaza.org

Caoimhe Butterly (Arabic/English/Spanish):
tel: +357 99 077 820 / sahara78@hotmail.co.uk
www.FreeGaza.org

[23 miles off the coast of Gaza, 15:30pm] - Today Israeli Occupation
Forces attacked and boarded the Free Gaza Movement boat, the SPIRIT
OF HUMANITY, abducting 21 human rights workers from 11 countries,
including Noble laureate Mairead Maguire and former U.S.
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (see below for a complete list of
passengers). The passengers and crew are being forcibly dragged
toward Israel.

"This is an outrageous violation of international law against us.
Our boat was not in Israeli waters, and we were on a human rights
mission to the Gaza Strip," said Cynthia McKinney, a former U.S.
Congresswoman and presidential candidate. "President Obama just told
Israel to let in humanitarian and reconstruction supplies, and
that's exactly what we tried to do. We're asking the international
community to demand our release so we can resume our journey."

According to an International Committee of the Red Cross report
released yesterday, the Palestinians living in Gaza are "trapped in
despair." Thousands of Gazans whose homes were destroyed earlier
during Israel's December/January massacre are still without shelter
despite pledges of almost $4.5 billion in aid, because Israel
refuses to allow cement and other building material into the Gaza
Strip. The report also notes that hospitals are struggling to meet
the needs of their patients due to Israel's disruption of medical
supplies.

"The aid we were carrying is a symbol of hope for the people of
Gaza, hope that the sea route would open for them, and they would be
able to transport their own materials to begin to reconstruct the
schools, hospitals and thousands of homes destroyed during the
onslaught of "Cast Lead". Our mission is a gesture to the people of
Gaza that we stand by them and that they are not alone" said fellow
passenger Mairead Maguire, winner of a Noble Peace Prize for her
work in Northern Ireland.

Just before being kidnapped by Israel, Huwaida Arraf, Free Gaza
Movement chairperson and delegation co-coordinator on this voyage,
stated that: "No one could possibly believe that our small boat
constitutes any sort of threat to Israel. We carry medical and
reconstruction supplies, and children's toys. Our passengers include
a Nobel peace prize laureate and a former U.S. congressperson. Our
boat was searched and received a security clearance by Cypriot Port
Authorities before we departed, and at no time did we ever approach
Israeli waters."

Arraf continued, "Israel's deliberate and premeditated attack on our
unarmed boat is a clear violation of international law and we demand
our immediate and unconditional release."
###

WHAT YOU CAN DO!

CONTACT the Israeli Ministry of Justice
tel: +972 2646 6666 or +972 2646 6340
fax: +972 2646 6357

CONTACT the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs
tel: +972 2530 3111
fax: +972 2530 3367

CONTACT Mark Regev in the Prime Minister's office at:
tel: +972 5 0620 3264 or +972 2670 5354
mark.regev@it.pmo.gov.il

CONTACT the International Committee of the Red Cross to ask for
their assistance in establishing the wellbeing of the kidnapped
human rights workers and help in securing their immediate release!

Red Cross Israel
tel: +972 3524 5286
fax: +972 3527 0370
tel_aviv.tel@icrc.org

Red Cross Switzerland:
tel: +41 22 730 3443
fax: +41 22 734 8280

Red Cross USA:
tel: +1 212 599 6021
fax: +1 212 599 6009
###

Kidnapped Passengers from the Spirit of Humanity include:

Khalad Abdelkader, Bahrain
Khalad is an engineer representing the Islamic Charitable
Association of Bahrain.

Othman Abufalah, Jordan
Othman is a world-renowned journalist with al-Jazeera TV.

Khaled Al-Shenoo, Bahrain
Khaled is a lecturer with the University of Bahrain.

Mansour Al-Abi, Yemen
Mansour is a cameraman with Al-Jazeera TV.

Fatima Al-Attawi, Bahrain
Fatima is a relief worker and community activist from Bahrain.

Juhaina Alqaed, Bahrain
Juhaina is a journalist & human rights activist.

Huwaida Arraf, US
Huwaida is the Chair of the Free Gaza Movement and delegation
co-coordinator for this voyage.

Ishmahil Blagrove, UK
Ishmahil is a Jamaican-born journalist, documentary film maker and
founder of the Rice & Peas film production company. His
documentaries focus on international struggles for social justice.

Kaltham Ghloom, Bahrain
Kaltham is a community activist.

Derek Graham, Ireland
Derek Graham is an electrician, Free Gaza organizer, and first mate
aboard the Spirit of Humanity.

Alex Harrison, UK
Alex is a solidarity worker from Britain. She is traveling to Gaza
to do long-term human rights monitoring.

Denis Healey, UK
Denis is Captain of the Spirit of Humanity. This will be his fifth
voyage to Gaza.

Fathi Jaouadi, UK
Fathi is a British journalist, Free Gaza organizer, and delegation
co-coordinator for this voyage.

Mairead Maguire, Ireland
Mairead is a Nobel laureate and renowned peace activist.

Lubna Masarwa, Palestine/Israel
Lubna is a Palestinian human rights activist and Free Gaza organizer.

Theresa McDermott, Scotland
Theresa is a solidarity worker from Scotland. She is traveling to
Gaza to do long-term human rights monitoring.

Cynthia McKinney, US
Cynthia McKinney is an outspoken advocate for human rights and
social justice issues, as well as a former U.S. congressperson and
presidential candidate.

Adnan Mormesh, UK
Adnan is a solidarity worker from Britain. He is traveling to Gaza
to do long-term human rights monitoring.

Adam Qvist, Denmark
Adam is a solidarity worker from Denmark. He is traveling to Gaza to
do human rights monitoring.

Adam Shapiro, US
Adam is an American documentary film maker and human rights activist.

Kathy Sheetz, US
Kathy is a nurse and film maker, traveling to Gaza to do human
rights monitoring.

iraq: mission accomplished again?

2009-06-30T07:13:00.004-04:00

i can't help but look at the situation in iraq today (i.e. the pullout of american forces from urban areas) through a palestinian lens.

some media are reporting that iraqis are in high spirits today. i don't know if this is really true, and more importantly, i'm not here to tell iraqis how they should be feeling.

nonetheless, the celebratory mood takes me back to the gaza 'pullout' of 2005 and even back to the signing of oslo. in the case of latter, the pullout proved nothing but a sham. as for oslo, it really didnt mean much of anything- other than the fact the pa essentially became israel's puppet in the west bank.

but back to iraq- some are optimistic- saying that this is the beginning of change. nevermind the fact that US forces- and their mercenary counterparts- will remain in the country (yes even after the final 'full withdrawl' in 2011). others still are fearful of the american pullout, worrying that iraqi forces can't provide security. but is there really anything (new) to fear if nothing much is going to change anyway?

Despite the formal pullback, some US troops will remain in cities to train and advise Iraqi forces. US forces are also ready to return if asked.

The US military is to continue combat operations in rural areas and near the border with the permission of the Iraqi government.

The US has not said how many troops will be in the cities in advisory roles, but the vast majority of the more than 130,000 US troops forces remaining in the country will be in large bases scattered outside cities. (aljazeera)

wow, talk about a clean getaway.

no matter what your opinion is on the subject, there is no denying that this day is a special one. why? because in addition to this so-called pullout, this day marks the start of bidding on a "controversial" oil service contracts:

On June 30 major companies - including Exxon, Shell, BP and Total - will gather at Iraq's oil ministry in Baghdad for a two-day meeting to take part in the first bidding round for oil service contracts.

However, what the oil companies will be entitled to if they secure a contract has become one of the most controversial elements of the bidding process.

The companies want a long-term share of the oil they produce under a Production Sharing Agreement, which allows them to book reserves in advance and tell the market exactly how much oil they expect to produce.

This is exactly the type of contract that Iraqis in the oil industry are opposed to. They argue oil companies should be awarded Technical Service Agreements, meaning they will be paid solely to develop Iraq's oil fields.
...
Oil workers' unions in Iraq have also spoken out against the contracts.

"The first round of the allocation of Iraq's oil contracts... have given huge advantages to the foreign companies"

Hassan Joumah, president of the Federation of Iraqi Oil Workers Union, says: "Unfortunately, there are many problems with the first round of the allocation of Iraq's oil contracts, which have given huge advantages to the foreign companies to invest in Iraq's oil.
"Giving such returns to foreign companies will put Iraq's economy in the hands of foreign companies."

The Iraqi oil workers gained some concessions including establishing joint operating companies.

Under this arrangement, international oil firms will not receive a share of Iraq's oil but they will be working in the country for the next 20 years with a 75 per cent stake in the operation. (more here)

it seems that US army got what it came for, huh?

red-dead water project (updated)

2009-06-30T05:22:00.007-04:00

Ynet reports today on the status of the red-dead water project, which will connect the shrinking dead sea with the red sea via a 112 mile pipeline:

Minister Shalom reportedly met in secret with a high ranking Jordanian official several weeks ago, in order to finalize the project. During Shalom's meeting with Zoellick, it was decided to begin the project's pilot program, according to the guidelines set by Dr. Uri Shani, head of the inter-ministerial steering committee task with the project.

The pilot will first examine the environmental impact the project may carry, as 200 million cubic meters of water out of the Red Sea, 100 of which to be pumped into the Dead Sea, whose water levels have been steadily declining, and 100 to be funneled to desalination projects.

The pilot program will test the Red Sea waters' affect on the Dead Sea in order to see if the claim made by various environmental group, saying such a move would be detrimental, has any merit.

...

The Dead Sea Canal project has been mulled over by the Israeli governments over the past few decades. One of the options also being explored is connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea, via the future pipeline.

The multi-billion dollar project will be partially funded by the international community, as well as by Israel and Jordan. The Palestinian Authority is meant to use funds donated to it for this purpose.

Both minister Shalom and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have said that the project is imperative for the advancement of the region's financial peace, needed as part of the effort to push the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

the official jordanian response? we had no idea the project was approved. really?

of course this is a bad idea for several reasons. check out this article from the washington report on middle east affairs back in 2007:

...Words of warning, however, have emerged from various quarters, from scientists to environmental groups—notably Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME), leading campaigners on the regional water crisis. Their concern is that with a study so centrally focused on the feasibility of a canal, the root causes of the decrease in Dead Sea water levels have been ignored. The crisis at the Dead Sea is a result of massive diversion of the waters of the Jordan (and, additionally, overuse of water resources by the mineral mining industry), yet these issues are not to be addressed by the study.

Campaigners call for a total rethinking of water management—or lack of same—in the region. Regarding agriculture, for example, in a water crisis such as this no government should be permitting the growth of tropical fruits, which require excessive amounts of water. Nevertheless, governments in the region permit this shortsighted economic activity to continue. In Israel, 50 percent of water is directed to agriculture, yet that sector represents only 3 percent of the country’s GDP.

Regarding the specifics of the canal itself, FoEME pose a number of difficult questions if it is to go ahead. How will planners address the ecological effects of mixing Red Sea water with Dead Sea water that has a salt concentration 10 times higher? Will the pumping of water from the Red Sea change currents and result in damage to ecologically important coral reefs? Situated in an earthquake zone, what will happen if a natural disaster or other cause results in leakage of saltwater into sweet groundwater reserves?

As usual, excessive Western money is being used to plaster over the cracks and avoid addressing fundamental regional issues. The World Bank and its sponsors have no intention of actually forcing regional actors to address their own responsibility in the water shortage, as this would present very awkward questions for the West’s regional allies. Why, for example, is the average Israeli able to consume four times as much water, per capita, as the average Palestinian? Why does Israel violate the Oslo accords by denying Palestinian access to the River Jordan? Why do Israel and Jordan and other states continue to over-pump the Jordan and its tributaries in such a crisis?

In December, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported Syrian anger over construction of a new water reservoir in the east of the occupied Golan, near the 1967 border, reducing the amount of water which would reach the shared Yarmuk River. Why is Israel allowed to continue occupation of this region of strategic water resources without international isolation? Such a line of questioning, of course, will not be found in World Bank-sponsored water studies.

Whatever the results of the feasibility study, funds are unlikely to be raised to start construction until 2011 at the earliest. It remains to be seen if the feasibility study materializes into something more concrete.

While headlines concerning the Middle East usually herald accounts of daily brutality, it is worth noting that, in terms of a long-term sustainable future and security for ordinary people in the region, there is no more strategic and fundamental issue to be addressed than the preservation of water. And real preservation and security will only come with a just distribution of power and resources.

it clear that palestinians will not stand to benefit from this red-dead project if it does goes through. this what the current water situation looks like for palestinians:

By regional standards Palestinians have among the lowest access to fresh water, forcing Palestinian communities to engage in unlicensed drilling simply to obtain drinking water. The Israeli Water Authority has used its de facto role as regulator to prevent Palestinians drilling for water, despite growing demand from Palestinian consumers. Meanwhile, Israel has increased its own off-take from the aquifer above the agreed levels. This practice allows Israeli citizens, including settlers in the West Bank, to consume four times more fresh water per capita as Palestinians living in the West Bank.

The World Bank also found that although Palestinian agriculture accounts for a bigger share of economic output and overall employment in comparison to Israel, the Palestinian per capita water budget for agriculture is one-fifth of Israel's.

"You are dealing with a situation of vast inequality," Gray asserts. "In terms of the water situation, it is not experienced in the same way by Israelis and Palestinians ... and that creates a very different scenario for those Israeli farmers who have access to subsidized water and so never have to deal with the situation in the same way as Palestinian farmers." click here for more

and to understand the impact of the israeli/pa water agreement be sure to read this. indeed, the oslo accords have failed us in more ways than one.

the sulta is defunct

2009-06-27T07:12:00.007-04:00

fatamas negotiations continue. i hate to sound pessimistic- but its just not working. factional infighting is just a symptom. no one is talking about the the big white elephant in the room.

these talks are clearly failing as members of fatamas continue to go after each other in the west bank. we've been reduced to pure thuggery. ive said this a million times before- infighting amongst the palestinians is older than the state of israel. this latest round is simply more gruesome and just as damaging.

you know what i think of when i see fatamas at each other's throats?

i remember that line from lauryn hill's song forgive them father: ' why every indian wanna be the chief?'

this is our problem. but whats ironic (and depressing) is that 'cheif' is an empty title. the palestinian 'authority' doesnt have any authority over anything. so why every palestinian wanna be the prez? the sulta is defunct. wake up and smell it rotting.

instead of this useless bickering i would say we need more acts like this: (long live the grassroots)

Bil’in Continues To Protest Despite Arrests

Palestine Monitor
27 June 2009
Friday’s nonviolent protest against the wall in Bil’in went on as usual despite Israeli night raids this past week in which 7 boys from the village were arrested.

At the demonstration, there were around 200 protestors including international and Israeli activists, press, and villagers. Demonstrators marched to the separation fence chanting slogans such as “No No to the Wall” and “Israel is a fascist state.”

Demonstrators were met with teargas as they approached the fence. The Israeli military also used the teargas cannon which shoots out over 30 teargas canisters at the same time—creating panic among the demonstrators as they tried to dodge the flying canisters and the thick cloud of teargas.

PMRS had an ambulance on site and treated several demonstrators for teargas inhalation. There were no other injuries reported.

This protest had special importance because of the presence of Canadian author, Naomi Klein. She was promoting her book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, at a news conference in Bil’in.

While attending the protest, Klein commented, “When we hear about what happens at the demonstrations…when people are killed and badly injured in lawful demonstrations against something that is clearly illegal, that isn’t a normal situation…we’re rejecting [that] normalization.”

Klein also commented on the legal suit Bil’in has brought against two Canadian companies—Green Park International and Green Mount International, for their involvement in construction of the illegal settlements being built on Bil’in’s land.

“Really what this court case is doing in Canada is breaking through the propaganda barrier…we hear all the time in our corporate media, which is a very pro-Israeli media, that this is the only democracy in the region. And yet, this court case has become a way to put that claim on trial.”

Bil’in has lost over half of its land to the illegal separation wall and settlements. For the past four years, Bil’in has organized non-violent protests against the theft of their land. About 2 months ago, Israelis murdered Bassem Abu Rahmah, a non-violent demonstrator. He was shot from 20 meters away in the middle of his chest with a new Israeli weapon—the high velocity tear gas canister. The official Israeli investigation into Abu Rahmah’s death ruled it ‘accidental.’

Bil’in Village Website: http://www.bilin-village.org/

On Iran

2009-06-26T09:35:00.004-04:00

A very interesting analysis of the Iran situation by Hamid Dabashi- i've been patiently waiting for a voice of wisdom to get me through the twitter/US media frenzy. i can only hope that this wave of activism will spread to places like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. It was Egyptian activists, afterall, who used facebook in order to organize rallies, etc back in 2007 (or was it 2008?). Rest assured, however, if such protests were to happen in the arab world, the government response will be no less violent than that of the iranian regime. And as I'm sure you all know, the american reaction will be drastically different.

Make sure to read through to the end- I've highlighted parts that struck me the most...

People power

The Iranian elections show that the people's democratic will can no longer be held in, writes Hamid Dabashi*

Khonak an qomarbazi keh bebakht har cheh budash,
Benamand hichash ella havas e qomar e digar.
[Lucky that gambler who lost all he had,
Left with nothing but the urge for yet another game]
-- Anonymous Persian poet

The Iranian presidential election of June 2009 will go down in history as one of the most magnificent manifestations of a people's indomitable will to achieve enduring democratic institutions. The beleaguered custodians of the Islamic Republic, thoroughly aware of their own lack of legitimacy, were quick to use the occasion as a vindication of their illegitimate rule. They are wrong. This was not a vote for their legitimacy. It was a vote against it -- albeit within the mediaeval juridical fortress they have built around the notions and principles of citizenry in a free and democratic republic. The feeble "opposition" to the clerics abroad also rushed to admonish those who participated in the election, insisting on regime change, at a time when upward of 80 per cent of eligible voters willingly participated in the election. Both these desperate, hasty, and banal readings of the election, predicated on bankrupt positions are false.

Let's begin with the losers of this presidential campaign. The single most important loser of the Iranian presidential campaign of June 2009 is Ali Khamenei, the supreme guide, and the velayet-e faqih. If this election, the process of the election not its fraudulent result, showed anything, it should be the nation is not safih (indigent) enough to need a supreme faqih (most learned) to shepherd it. This election revealed the political maturity of a nation that can now be allowed to return to its own devices and the obscenity of the very notion of a velayet-faqih wiped off its body-politic. The very office of the supreme guide is an insult to the democratic intelligence and the collective will of this nation. If Ali Khamenei had an iota of decency left in him, at the autumn of his patriarchy, he would dismantle this obscene office forever, convene a constitutional assembly and disband the three other undemocratic institutions of the republic -- the Assembly of Experts of Leadership, the Guardian Council of the Constitution, and the Expediency Council of the Regime. These are the enduring vestiges of a theocratic legacy that have no room in a democratic republic. Iranians are Muslim, the vast majority of them, and there are millions of Iranians who are not Muslim, or believing or practising Muslims -- and none of that should matter in their privileges and duties as citizens of a republic. As he witnesses the erosion of every single iota of legitimacy that the Islamic revolution claimed over the nation, the soon-to-be 70- year-old Ali Khamenei can leave a legitimate legacy for himself by seeing to it that this mediaeval banality is wiped out of Iranian democratic aspirations. It is simply unseemly to see grown up people, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Mir-Hussein Mousavi, appear so obsequious and sycophantic towards another man. What is the difference between a shah and a supreme guide? Nothing.

An equally important loser in this campaign, though declared its winner, is the populist buffoonery of that unsurpassed charlatan Ahmadinejad, the bastard son of the Islamist revolution. In his demagoguery and fanaticism he represents the most fascistic tendencies of the Islamic revolution and republic. All revolutions have a dose or two of populism and demagoguery mixed with their idealism and high aspirations. What has happened in the Islamic revolution is that its innate populism has now been personified in one demagogue who seeks to stay in power by manipulating the poor and disenfranchised segments of his constituency by fraudulent economic policies that gives people fish instead of teaching them how to fish, gives governmental subsidies and handouts instead of generating jobs. The economic policies of Ahmadinejad have been catastrophic and institutionally damaging, causing double-digit inflation and endemic unemployment in an oil-based economy at the mercy of global market fluctuation far beyond Ahmadinejad's control or comprehension. His religious populism and ludicrous claims to divine dispensations is a cruel joke on signs and symbols people hold sacred.

The next loser was Mousavi's poorly run presidential campaign -- ill-advised, ill-prepared, sentimental, full of necessary colour symbolism but lacking substance, a clearly articulated platform, economic detail, political programming or an attempt to reach out to a wider spectrum of his constituency. His campaign was too elitist, tied in its visual paraphernalia to a northern Tehran sensibility and lacking appeal across an oil-based economy. His delay in entering the race, his to-ing and fro-ing with Mohamed Khatami, suggested poor preparation, as did his debate with Ahmadinejad. While Ahmadinejad had come with charts and graphs and dossiers, flaunting his lumpen demeanour, thinking himself "a man of the people", Mousavi had nothing except his gentility to offer. He rambled along, read from written statements in a barely audible voice, ran out of things to say before his time was over. The problem with the Iranian democratic movement is not that it is unable to produce an Obama -- if he is the model. Mousavi could have very well been an Iranian Obama. The problem is there was no David Axelrod or David Plouffe, what the Mousavi campaign desperately needed and sorely lacked. A band of self-indulgent Muslim yuppies surround him with not an idea of how to reach his multiple constituencies. If Mousavi did reach these constituencies it was be

comrades in arms), for having saved the integrity of the country during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). But he faced a new Iran, a new generation, an entirely different constituency that loved and admired him and his wife Zahra Rahnavard at face value. But you never win a campaign on good will. This is not to suggest that the election was not rigged -- it may or may not have been. But there are rudimentary strategies for reaching out to diverse constituencies which his campaign ignored.

The next big loser in this Iranian election was the legacy of George W Bush, i.e. the Bush-Wolfowitz doctrine. Look at Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, on two sides of Iran, and then look at Iran on 12 June 2009. Millions of Iranians in a peaceful, orderly, joyous and enthusiastic march to the ballot box. The second they thought their votes were stolen they poured into the streets, what Americans should have done in 2000. Along with the Bush and Wolfowitz doctrine, the losers include the US Congress, and its headquarters at AIPAC. The US congress can scarce be imagined more transparently hypocritical. On the night before the Iranian election, on 12 June, AIPAC pushed a button and its stooges in the US Congress began pushing for a resolution imposing more severe economic sanction on Iran, knowing only too well that the following day its news would increase the chances of Ahmadinejad, Israel's choice of candidates, as Israeli officials have been only too keen to admit.

Losers also include expatriate Iranian monarchists along with all other politically bankrupt banalities and their native informers and comprador intellectuals, from Washington DC to California, who have established vacuous centres for "dialogue" or and to save "democracy" in Iran. What a band of buffoons they were made to look like after this grassroots, inborn rise for democratic rights.

The sole winners of the presidential election of 2009 were the Iranian people, whoever they voted for -- some 40 million of them, out of an eligible voting population of 48 million, upward of 80 per cent. This election showed the democratic will of Iranians has matured beyond any point of return, no matter how violently the unelected officials of the Islamic Republic wish to reverse it. It is too late. As made evident during the presidential election of 2009, Iranians are perfectly capable of organising themselves around competing views, campaigning for their preferred candidates, peacefully going to polling stations and casting their vote. It is high time that the Shia clerics pack their belongings and go back to their seminaries, and for regime change charlatans like Paul Wolfowitz to retire in ignominy, and for career opportunist comprador intellectuals of one think tank or another in Washington DC or Stanford University to go back to the half decent teaching position they had before.

Before I close, I must also say that a major loser is Hassan Nasrallah of Lebanon. Nasrallah must know that the deep and variegated roots of Iranians' commitment to the Palestinian cause and the fate of the Shias in Lebanon are in the vast ocean of their hearts and minds, fed to them with their mother's milk and not in the dirty pool of Ali Khomeini's pocket. Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular, ought to know that Iranians are watching them closely, and wish to hear their voices. This is the Iranian Intifada. A leading slogan in the streets of Tehran is Mardom chera neshestin, Iran shodeh Felestin (People why are you sitting idly by, Iran has become Palestine). Arab and Muslims, their leading public intellectuals, must come out and take the side of this grassroots, inborn, and peaceful demand for a healthy and robust democracy.

The US congressional stooges of AIPAC -- the Israeli generals were all squarely on the side of Ahmadinejad -- are in the same league as Hassan Nasrallah.

All Arab and Muslim potentates ought to know that their young are watching events in Iran with a keen interest. It is not only Iranians that are wired to Facebook and Twitter, so are their brothers and sisters around the globe, throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Young Arab and Muslims around the globe are not immune to the demands young Iranians are exacting at the heavy cost, courageously exposing their bare chests against the bullets and batons of tyranny. This is a post-ideological generation. They could not care less about their parents' political hang-ups. They demand, and will exact, human, civil and women's rights, through a grassroots, entirely legitimate uprising, without compromising an inch to the imperial machinations of the United States or the colonial thuggery of Israel. The custodians of the Islamic Republic are in violation of Article 27 of the constitution of the Islamic Republic. To the best of my knowledge, this is not a revolution to topple the Islamic Republic. This is a grassroots demand for civil rights. Iranians being clubbed and shot in the streets of Tehran are not the stooges of the United States. The Arab and Muslim mediaeval potentates suffocating the democratic aspirations of their people are. Fear the day that young Arabs and Muslims learn from their Iranian brothers and sisters and demand their inalienable human rights, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, equal rights for men and women, economic opportunity, respect for human decency and for the rule of law.

* The writer is the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University in New York.

oops, my bad (or not)

2009-06-20T07:22:00.002-04:00

the show goes on in afghanistan:

The report, the release of which had been delayed following military disagreements over what should be made public, comes after the US's top commander said the US military was unlikely to discipline troops involved in the incident.

Do you believe in World Refugee Day?

2009-06-20T05:28:00.007-04:00

is it just me or is world refugee day overrated? i can't help sounding cynical when people like angelina are suddenly educating us on the subject. as much as the day is supposed to bring about awareness i feel that on a deeper level its almost if not completely pointless. the reasons why these refugees are displaced are almost entirely ignored. the real issues get tangled up with things like international 'aid' and other bureaucratic stuff.

a few summers ago i attended an exhibit on world refugee day hosted by doctors without borders. as usual, palestinian (and iraqi) refugees were excluded. they always seem to be. the separation of the palestinian case is not accidental. when your average person thinks about a "refugee" palestinians don't come to mind, despite being the largest and oldest refugee population (we do afterall, have our own refugee agency- unrwa- separate from unhcr). and its not like our plight has stagnated- think of nahr el bared, the war on iraq, gaza, etc.

and i don't mean to say some refugees are more important than others. maybe i expect too much- maybe people just don't understand what the difference is between palestinian, pakastani, iraqi, afghani, and congolese refugees. what i'm saying is that refugees, wherever they may come from, are continually sidelined, and that the plight palestinian refugees in particular is continually placed on the back burner. No one seems to care about the iraqi refugees in syria; and the latest exodus of refugees in pakistan happened with full consent and approval of the US and pakistani government. But if by chance the plight of iraqi or pakistani refugees is mentioned (and when it is mentioned, it is mentioned ever-so-casually) you can be assured that palestinians will be left out of the equation.

why? because simply mentioning palestinian refugees is problematic. the world would have to face up to the fact that these refugees did not in fact, appear out of thin air. that it was israel, that great beacon of light/democratic country, which expelled them in order to pave way for the establishment of their state. this would lead people to ask the obvious question: did israel have the right to do that? does israel have the right to keep on doing that, as it continues to confiscate palestinian land and issuing demolition orders?

nobody wants to get into that just yet. that said, i wish you all a happy refugee day.

Racism is not new in Israel

2009-06-20T04:56:00.004-04:00

i just had to post this- azmi bishara breaks it down (again). and what better example of racism than the case of azmi bishara himself? (see his author's note below) also check out the latest round of israeli racism caught on youtube.

Loyalty to racism

Israel's attempt to legislate loyalty to the Jewish state is proof of the failure of the Zionist/colonial project of Israelification, writes Azmi Bishara

What is behind the latest wave of legislative proposals flooding the Knesset agenda? I refer specifically to those intended to curb manifestations of Palestinian patriotism and to restrict the political activity of Arab Israelis.

The aim of these laws is to impose the Israeli nationalist creed by coercion. It's really that simple. Over the last decade, the Knesset has experienced several bursts of legislative activity seeking to restrict freedom of opinion and expression on the questions of the Jewishness of the state and the right to resist occupation. The advocates of these laws are indefatigable. If the proposals fail to pass through any of the necessary stages, they are resubmitted over and over again in the hope of wearing out their opponents.

Is Israel really heading towards fascism? Is its vaunted democracy on the wane? Or, I suppose, we could rephrase these questions as follows: Was Israel more democratic at some point of time than it is today and are liberal civic rights in that country being beaten back after having thrived at that particular point of time? What exactly is going on?

I would say that two developments are unfolding in tandem. On the one hand, Israel is experiencing a deepening of and expansion in the concept and exercise of liberal political and economic civil rights (for Jewish citizens). At the same time, there is an upsurge in ultranationalist and right-wing religious extremism accompanied by flagrant manifestations of anti-Arab racism. As a consequence, the Jewish citizen endowed with fuller civil rights (than those that had existed in earlier phases when Zionist society was organised along the lines of a militarised quasi- socialist settler drive) is simultaneously an individual who is more exposed to and influenced by right-wing anti-Arab invective.

The contention that Israel had at one point been more democratic and is now sliding into fascism is fallacious. It brings to mind our protest demonstrations in the 1970s and the earnest zeal with which we chanted, "Fascism will not survive!" Our slogans were inspired by the Spanish left before the civil war in Spain and by the Italian left in the 1930s. But, in fact, the context was entirely different. Israel was the product of a colonialist settler drive that came, settled and survived. Fascism is a very specific form of rule, one that does not necessarily have to exist in a militarised settler society that founded itself on top of the ruins of an indigenous people. Indeed, that society organised itself along pluralistic democratic lines and it was unified on a set of fundamental principles and values as a basis for societal consensus. As militarist values figured prime among them, there was no need for a fascist coup to impose them. Even Sharon, who, from the perspective of the Israeli left, seemed poised to lead a fascist coup was one of the most ardent advocates of women's rights during his rule. He also proved one of the more determined proponents of implementing the rulings of the Israeli Supreme Court, which is a relatively liberal body in the context of the Zionist political spectrum and within the constraints of Zionist conceptual premises. Israel has grown neither more nor less democratic. The scope of civil rights has expanded, as has the tide of right-wing racism against the Arabs.

Among the Arabs in Israel there have also been two tandem developments. The first is an increasing awareness of the rights of citizenship and civil liberties after a long period of living in fear of military rule and the Israeli security agencies, and in isolation from the Arab world. That period was also characterised by attempts to prove their loyalty to the state by dedicating themselves to the service of the daily struggle for material survival and progress in routine civic affairs. At the same time, however, the forces of increasing levels of education, the growth of a middle class, the progress of the Palestinian national movement abroad, the advances in communications technologies, the broadening organisational bonds among the Palestinians in Israel, and the cultural and commercial exchanges between them and the West Bank and Gaza combined to give impetus to a growing national awareness.

The Arab Israelis' growing awareness of rights has paved the way for an assimilation drive to demand equality in Israel as a Jewish state. Such a demand is inherently unrealisable, as it would inevitably entail forsaking Palestinian national identity without obtaining true equality. Instead of assimilation there would only be further marginalisation. However, this danger still looms; there are Arab political circles in Israel that are convinced that this is the way forward. At the same time, there is the danger that truly nationalist forces could lose their connection with the realities of Palestinians' civil life, by stressing their national identity exclusively with no reference to their citizenship or civil rights, or the conditions of their lives. This tendency threatens to isolate the nationalist movement from its grassroots, and this danger, too, persists although to a lesser extent.

The flurry of loyalty bills and the like reflects another phenomenon that has taken root among Arabs in Israel and that the Israeli establishment regards as a looming peril. This peril, from the Israeli perspective, is twofold. Not only can Palestinians exercise their civil rights in order to fight for equality, they can also take advantage of their civil rights in order to express and raise awareness of their national identity by, for example, commemorating the Nakba and establishing closer contact with the Arab world. Commemorating the Nakba -- the anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel and the consequent displacement and dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians -- is a relatively new practice for Arabs inside Israel, dating only to the mid-1990s. Before this -- until at least the end of the 1970s, before the spread of national awareness gained impetus among Arabs inside Israel -- many of them participated in the celebrations of Israel's independence day and offered their congratulations to Israelis on the occasion. There were no laws against commemorating Nakba Day, not because Israel was more democratic but merely because there was no need for such laws in the eyes of the Israeli establishment, since the Arabs were not commemorating it anyway. In fact, open demonstrations of disloyalty to the state as a Zionist entity were very rare.

But since that time, change did not affect Israel alone. The political culture of broad swathes of Arabs inside that country shifted towards more open expressions of their national identity. To them, there is no contradiction between this and the exercise of their civil rights. Indeed, they felt it their natural right to use the civil liberties with which they are endowed by virtue of their citizenship to engage in forms of political expression that the Israeli establishment regards as contradictory to its concept of citizenship. Naturally, the clash became more pronounced with the growing stridency of right-wing Zionist racism.

The citizenship of Arabs inside Israel has a distinct quality that I have been attempting to underscore for years. Theirs does not stem from ideological conviction or the exercise of the Zionist law of return. Nor is their situation similar to migrant labour or minorities who have chosen to immigrate to the country and who accommodate to the status quo, as is the case with immigrant communities in the US or France, for example. Their citizenship stems from the reality of their having remained in the country after it was occupied. They are the indigenous people. It is not their duty to assimilate to the Zionist character of the state and the attempt to transform them into patriotic Israelis is an attempt to falsify history, to distort their cultural persona and fragment their moral cohesion. A Palestinian Arab who regards himself as an Israeli patriot is nought. He is someone who has accepted to be something less than a citizen and less than a Palestinian and who simultaneously identifies with those who have occupied Palestinian lands and repressed and expelled his people.

It is impossible, here, to examine all facets of the phenomenon, but we should also touch upon a third trend, which is the growing degree of showmanship, sensationalism and catering to the forces of popular demand on the part of Knesset members. This trend is to be found in all parliamentary systems since television cameras made their way into parliamentary chambers. Parliament has become a theatre and a large proportion of MPs have become comedians or soap opera stars, depending on their particular gifts and/or circumstances. However, when the favourite drama or comedy theme is incitement against the Arabs, this can only signify that anti-Arab prejudices, fear mongering, abuse and intimidation are spreading like wildfire. This is the very dangerous and not at all funny part about the parliamentary circus. And it's going to get grimmer yet for Arabs in Israel.

In the Obama era, following the failure of Bush's policies, the Israeli government will be directing the venom of its right-wing racist coalition against East Jerusalem and Israeli Arabs. After all, it will be easier to focus on domestic matters, such as emphasis on the Jewishness of the state, than on settlements in the occupied territories. Some of the proposed loyalty laws, such as that which would sentence to prison anyone who does not agree to the Jewishness of the state, will have a tough time making it through the legislative process. However, merely by submitting the proposal, the racist MK will have killed two birds with one stone: he will have made a dramatic appearance before the cameras so that his constituents will remember his name come next elections, and he will have stoked the fires of anti-Arab hatred. Other laws may stand a better chance. The proposal to ban the commemoration of Nakba Day could pass like the law prohibiting the raising of the Palestinian flag, or it could fail because even on the right there are those who object to such a ban. It is also doubtful that this country could promulgate a law compelling people to swear an oath of allegiance, because the intended targets are not immigrants but citizens by birth. It would require quite a feat of constitutional re-engineering in order to render citizenship acquired by birth subject to a loyalty oath at some later phase in a person's life.

Naturally, no state, however totalitarian it may be, can impose love and loyalty for it by force, let alone a colonialist state that would like to force this on the indigenous inhabitants it had reduced to a minority on their own land. Certainly it would be much easier for Israel to prohibit manifestations of disloyalty than to legislate for forced manifestations of loyalty.

For many years I've been advocating a Palestinian interpretation of citizenship in Israel that Israel continues to reject, with consequences to myself that readers may well be aware of. According to this interpretation, the Palestinian Israeli effectively tells the ruling authorities, "My loyalty does not go beyond the bounds of being a law abiding citizen who pays his taxes and the like. As for my keeping in touch with Palestinian history and with the Arab world in matters that should be inter-Arab, such things should not have to pass via you or require your approval." Such talk was previously unheard of in Israel and it came as quite a shock to the ears of interlocutors used to liberal-sounding references to "our Arab citizens" who serve as "a bridge of peace" and proof of "the power of Israeli democracy". Rejecting such condescension, the new type of Palestinian says, "My Palestinianness existed before your state was created on top of the ruins of my people. Citizenship is a compromise I have accepted in order to be able to go on living here in my land. It is not a favour that you bestow on me with strings attached."

Apparently, more and more Arab citizens have come around to this attitude, to the extent that Israel has begun to realise that the material exigencies of life or gradual acclimatisation to Israeli ways and political realities will not be able to stop the trend. It has come to believe that only new laws will bring a halt to what it regards as dangerous manifestations of disloyalty. Such laws will be inherently oppressive but they will simultaneously pronounce the failure of Israelification.

Author's note: In his defence of the need for a law to punish with imprisonment those who refuse to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, MK Zevelun Orlev cited the "case of Azmi Bishara". According to this right-wing lawmaker, "this case" began when Bishara refused to recognise the state verbally, after which he proceeded to visit "the countries of the enemy" without permission and to "abet the enemy" in time of war. Naturally, the accusations are groundless. Azmi Bishara did indeed visit Arab countries, openly and without permission, because he refuses to subordinate the relationship between himself, as an Arab, and the Arab world to Israeli authority. However, as an opposition Arab Knesset member, Bishara had no information to hand to an "enemy" or anyone else for that matter. Meanwhile, his ideas on politics and other matters are in the public domain, having been published and discussed in Israel and elsewhere. The allegation of abetting the enemy in time of war was merely a cover-up for a political witch-hunt. Its leaders are now trying to create legislation so they do not have to concoct security excuses in the future in order to suppress the advocates of opinions such as those Bishara expresses.

moderatly corrupt?

2009-06-19T12:42:00.008-04:00

while we approve more funding for the war in iraq and afghanistan, intl oil companies will now have a greater stake in iraqi oil:

In less than two weeks, on 29 and 30 June, the Iraqi Oil Minister, Hussain Shahristani, will award service contracts to the world's largest oil companies to develop six of Iraq's largest oil-producing fields over 20 to 25 years.

sometimes i wonder who's more corrupt- our friends at the pa or the the current iraqi 'government'. technically, iraq ranks amongst the lowest according to transcperancy intl (however, their 2008 survey- which i linked to- does not include pa folk). if i were to guess, iraq would beat the pa in the corruption category- but only b/c there's more $$ at stake.

but my favorite part? how all these corrupt govs are dubbed "moderate". you know, countries like egypt, saudi, jordan, and basically every other arab country arent exactly democracies (booya, take that western liberal supporter of iranian opposition activists!) . there is nothing moderate about these regimes- i think they are even beyond moderately corrupt at this point. it seems that "moderate" is just codeword for crony. oh, if only there was an index for how many times the US has dubbed a regime "moderate". indeed, if such an index exisited, i think the pa would take the cake.

ethnic cleansing on a schedule

2009-06-17T11:57:00.006-04:00

note: many of these homes that were built 'illegally' were built by palestinians who were expelled from their homes in 1948. by the way, jewish israelis are never found to be living in an illegal structure (such as a settlement) and never receive demolition orders the way palestinians do. why? b/c of the very racist nature of israel itself. its a state for one type of people and only one type of people- everyone else can get the hell out. everyone else is a 'demographic threat'. so all this stuff you hear about loyalty laws, calls for the mass transfer of palestinians, actually shouldnt surprise you at all. this is business as usual; shit been this way since day 1. and thats not day 1 of bibi's term. thats day 1, 61 plus years ago (mm perhaps even more). keep countin people, and israel will make sure keep on expellin', keep on demolshin', etc etc. its like clockwork. ethnic cleansing on a schedule. chop, chop, folks!

Israeli municipality hands out demolition orders to Palestinian families
Wednesday June 17, 2009 15:48 by Ghassan Bannoura - IMEMC News & Agencies

At least a dozen Palestinian families in vireos parts of East Jerusalem received on Wednesday demolition orders.

According to the Israeli municipality the homes are built without the needed building permission. The families started the illegal process by hiring a lawyer to get their case heard in the court, local sources reported.

Since last week the Israeli municipality has forced four families to demolish parts of their homes because they lacked the needed permission.

Hateem abed Al Qader, Minister of Jerusalem Affairs in the Palestinian Authority told IMEMC in a past interview that Israel has so far issued at least 1000 demolishing orders to Palestinian owned home and other sutures in Jerusalem since the start of this year.

Israel occupied the East Jerusalem in 1967, since then it has rarely given Palestinian residents permissions to build homes or add to the old ones, meanwhile it continue to build Israeli settlements in and around Jerusalem, an act that is illegal under international law.

Bibi's Speech

2009-06-16T04:16:00.004-04:00

UPDATE: check out susan abulhawa's article in response to bibi's speech.

UPDATE #2: Saree Makdisi's Op-ed in the LAT on this subject is a must read. ive posted it below:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-makdisi19-2009jun19,0,1505080.story

From the Los Angeles Times

Opinion

The language that absolves Israel

A special political vocabulary prevents us from being able to recognize what's going on in the Middle East.
By Saree Makdisi

June 19, 2009

On Sunday night, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech that -- by categorically ruling out the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state -- ought to have been seen as a mortal blow to the quest for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On Monday morning, however, newspaper headlines across the United States announced that Netanyahu had endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state, and the White House welcomed the speech as "an important step forward."

Reality can be so easily stood on its head when it comes to Israel because the misreading of Israeli declarations is a long-established practice among commentators and journalists in the United States.

In fact, a special vocabulary has been developed for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. It filters and structures the way in which developing stories are misread here, making it difficult for readers to fully grasp the nature of those stories -- and maybe even for journalists to think critically about what they write.

The ultimate effect of this special vocabulary is to make it possible for Americans to accept and even endorse in Israel what they would reject out of hand in any other country.

Let me give a classic example.

In the U.S., discussion of Palestinian politicians and political movements often relies on a spectrum running from "extreme" to "moderate." The latter sounds appealing; the former clearly applies to those who must be -- must they not? -- beyond the pale. But hardly anyone relying on such terms pauses to ask what they mean. According to whose standard are these manifestly subjective labels assigned?

Meanwhile, Israeli politicians are labeled according to an altogether different standard: They are "doves" or "hawks." Unlike the terms reserved for Palestinians, there's nothing inherently negative about either of those avian terms.

So why is no Palestinian leader referred to here as a "hawk"? Why are Israeli politicians rarely labeled "extremists"? Or, for that matter, "militants"?

There are countless other examples of these linguistic double standards. American media outlets routinely use the deracinating and deliberately obfuscating term "Israeli Arabs" to refer to the Palestinian citizens of Israel, despite the fact that they call themselves -- and are -- Palestinian.

Similarly, Israeli housing units built in the occupied territories in contravention of international law are always called "settlements" or even "neighborhoods" rather than what they are: "colonies." That word may be harsh on the ears, but it's far more accurate ("a body of people who settle in a new locality, forming a community subject to or connected with their parent state").

These subtle distinctions make a huge difference. Unconsciously absorbed, such terms frame the way people and events are viewed. When it comes to Israel, we seem to reach for a dictionary that applies to no one else, to give a pass to actions or statements that would be condemned in any other quarter.

That's what allowed Netanyahu to be congratulated for endorsing a Palestinian "state," even though the kind of entity he said Palestinians might -- possibly -- be allowed to have would be nothing of the kind.

Look up the word "state" in the dictionary. You'll probably see references to territorial integrity, power and sovereignty. The entity that Netanyahu was talking about on Sunday would lack all of those constitutive features. A "state" without a defined territory that is not allowed to control its own borders or airspace and cannot enter into treaties with other states is not a state, any more than an apple is an orange or a car an airplane. So how can leading American newspapers say "Israeli Premier Backs State for Palestinians," as the New York Times had it? Or "Netanyahu relents on goal of two states," as this paper put it?

Because a different vocabulary applies.

Which is also what kept Netanyahu's most extraordinary demand in Sunday night's speech from raising eyebrows here.

"The truth," he said, "is that in the area of our homeland, in the heart of our Jewish homeland, now lives a large population of Palestinians."

In other words, as Netanyahu repeatedly said, there is a Jewish people; it has a homeland and hence a state. As for the Palestinians, they are a collection -- not even a group -- of trespassers on Jewish land. Netanyahu, of course, dismisses the fact that they have a centuries-old competing narrative of home attached to the same land, a narrative worthy of recognition by Israel.

On the contrary: The Palestinians must, he said, accept that Israel is the state of the Jewish people (this is a relatively new Israeli demand, incidentally), and they must do so on the understanding that they are not entitled to the same rights. "We" are a people, Netanyahu was saying; "they" are merely a "population." "We" have a right to a state -- a real state. "They" do not.

And the spokesman for our African American president calls this "an important step forward"?

In any other situation -- including our own country -- such a brutally naked contrast between those who are taken to have inherent rights and those who do not would immediately be labeled as racist. Netanyahu, though, is given a pass, not because most Americans would knowingly endorse racism but because, in this case, a special political vocabulary kicks in that prevents them from being able to recognize it for exactly what it is.

Saree Makdisi is a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA. He is the author of, among other books, "Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation."

UPDATE #3: Mustafa Barghouti weighs in on the speech too.

forgotten gaza?

2009-06-16T03:24:00.003-04:00

as far as the world is concerned, its almost like it didnt happen. for gazans, its like it never ended:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jun/08/gaza-reconstruction-refugees

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jun/11/gaza-israel

and an aljazeera english piece on the aid* that didnt come:

*i have problems with "aid"- but thats a subject for another post.

Azmi Bishara: From Cairo with Love

2009-06-16T03:14:00.004-04:00

another excellent piece from azmi bishara. i could not agree more with his analysis- this is the best review of the whole obama-in-egypt-affair ive seen yet:

The Arabs applauded Bush's vision of a Palestinian state before the end of his term in office. Why expect anything better from Obama, asks Azmi Bishara

The US president has announced that he is going to address the Islamic world. Let's listen to what he has to say. The Arab media has heralded the event using the same words, saying that "the US president is to deliver a speech addressing the Islamic world." The countdown to the event has been marked with such expressions as "the awaited speech" and the "expected address".

It is hard to say why the Arab media struggled to predict what the president would say in his message for more than a week -- as if we were on the verge of a war or the signing of a peace treaty. Would knowledge in advance have helped in any way? Would it have clued us in to any steps we might take before the anticipated event, for example? But why not just wait to see what he would say?

There was no compelling reason to attempt a forecast. Even if someone had some insight into what was in the speech, he or she was not going to pre-empt it by declaring some course of political action. But then a forecast was not really the point. After all, a media professional is not a soothsayer or an oracle. Instead, he is in the business of creating expectations, building suspense, shaping moods and moulding these elements into a pattern and steering them in a certain direction. Expressions like "historic visit" and "landmark speech" are the materials he works with.

As a result, and contrary to what is commonly believed, the US president did not have to mount a public-relations campaign. Others were already doing this for him and creating the type of interest he needs.

Of course, the purpose of the speech was not really to address the Islamic world. It was to present a new US foreign-policy approach to the region. Indeed, much of what was contained in Obama's speech he had said before in his speech to State Department staff, in his speech in Turkey, and in his address to the Iranian people. He was elected to change US political rhetoric, and anyone who cannot see that it has changed is blind. For change had to come. It was inevitable not because of those who applaud US policy unconditionally, whether now or in the past, but because Arab resistance and other factors had combined to destroy Washington's previous approach to the region and the rhetoric it had used with regard to the issues of Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon.

Yet, the Arab media went ahead anyway and echoed the title Obama had chosen for his address -- an "Address to the Islamic world" -- and in doing so it compounded the force of his rhetoric. It stirred a tendency to hyperbole and a willingness to believe that everything Obama said was new. It also represented the Islamic world as if it were a homogeneous whole, and as if those who lived in it were wringing their hands in confusion, unable to put their minds at rest until they had heard what Obama had to say. After hearing it, they would reward him by taking his speech as the beginning of a new era.

However, the Islamic world is far from homogenous. It is made up of friends and allies of the US to varying degrees, and enemies and opponents of the US to varying degrees. Obama cannot possibly address all these at once within the same framework, least of all when American missiles are currently "addressing" Muslims in Afghanistan and Waziristan and other Muslims in the same countries are carrying out such policies. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Muslims in Indonesia were waiting politely to hear the US president's speech from Cairo.

It would have made more sense, and would have been easier to accept, if Obama had claimed that he would be addressing the Arab world from Cairo. However, this was not what he claimed. Washington had evidently decided to keep the term "Arab world" out of circulation except in the context of the Arab peace initiative. Maybe it was not all that odd that the Arabs, who have been reaffirming their Arab identity in the face of Iran, were not keen to reaffirm their Arab identity in the context of this "historic" visit.

The US president is an oratorical phenomenon, and he brings a smooth and cultured polemical talent to his task. He was swept into power on a tide of change. This president has undoubtedly gladdened the hearts of America's conservative allies in the Islamic world because he does not strive, and nor does he claim, to strive for a "democratic revolution" in the Arab world like the previous neoconservatives.

Instead, he speaks a language of pragmatism that is characteristic of the conservatives of the past, a language that, as in the past and as remains the case today, betrays the hypocrisy of American "progressive" liberalism when its most senior representative, the president, needs to sing the praises of a king with whom he has nothing whatsoever in common. Such has been the fate of this liberal Harvard graduate who, after coming to power on the crest of a youthful wave of change, finds himself following a conventional conservative line and espousing common interests as the foremost criterion of foreign policy.

Of course, interests are elegantly wrapped up in noble-sounding allusions to a "meeting" and "dialogue" of civilisations, a "respect" for other cultures and for "the other" instead of a "clash of civilisations". This is the kind of balancing act that the current US president is so good at because of his proficiency in progressive jargon and because of the political correctness that he so amply demonstrated during his electoral campaign.

Both discourses -- the dialogue of civilisations as well as their clash -- derive from a framework that divides the world politically into civilisations. Yet, even so, hypocrisy is still better than war. This feature of the president's message to the Islamic world was epitomised by his praise for the official Arab order, and here the hypocrisy was two-fold. There was false modesty in handling relative positions and displaying respect with the aim of winning affection, while at the same time concealing an underestimation of others' intelligence. The hypocrite extols what he would not ordinarily admire, and he selectively exaggerates things that merit admiration. He dissimulates in order to win someone over regardless of ethical contradiction in the hope of gaining some advantage over that person or getting something out of him. It is one of the ugliest forms of politics.

If Obama homed in on the radiant face of Islam, relying on Quranic verses that were greeted with enthusiastic rounds of applause from audiences eager to hear Islam being recognised in the West, let us not forget that this is also the person who treated the word "Muslim" as a kind of slander when he was accused of being one during the US presidential election campaign.

Now that he is free of the constraints of that campaign and of the scrutiny of his former opponent John McCain and of the right in America regarding his relationship with Islam, he can give expression to his hypocrisy on this score and on others. As we have seen, Obama is an expert at balancing acts: while he is for democracy, he is against exporting it; he is for the war in Afghanistan, but against the one in Iraq; he condemns Palestinian violence, though not the violence of the occupation, though he does criticise the settlements. It all boils down to stereotypes, all these words and sentiments that bring neither good nor harm in reality. If someone were to point out his omissions with regard to Israeli violence, then he might well declare his opposition to it in his next speech, or justify it in the manner in which he said that he was opposed to the war on Iraq, but that toppling Saddam was a good thing.

Colonialist hypocrisy was hardly invented by the new US president. Take Napoleon, for example. At the beginning of his expedition against Egypt in 1798, Napoleon addressed the sheikhs and scholars of Al-Azhar and opened what he had to say with the declaration of faith. According to the Egyptian chronicler Abdel-Rahman Al-Jibarti, Napoleon proclaimed, "In the name of God, the Just, the Merciful; there is no God but He; He was not begotten, nor has He begot; no partner hath He in his kingdom.... O Egyptians! You have been told that I have come to this land with the intention of eradicating your religion. But that is a clear lie; do not believe it [...]. I [...] worship God, glory be to Him, and respect His Prophet and the great Quran [...] O you sheikhs, judges, imams, and leading men of the country, tell your people that the French are also sincere Muslims. [... The French] entered Rome and destroyed the throne of the Pope, who had always urged Christians to combat Islam. Then they marched to Malta, from whence they expelled the knights who claimed that God, exalted is He, sought of them that they fight the Muslims."

I can only add that Napoleon, who claimed that he and the rest of the French were Muslims and that his armies had defeated the Vatican because the Pope had urged Christians to wage war against Islam, also called for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine almost a century before Herzl and the birth of the Zionist movement. No matter how the new US president indulges in the language of political correctness and in his "on the one hand, ... but on the other" formulas that are calibrated to upset no one, he will never attain the heights of the hypocritical orators that the Arabs today, and their ancestors in the past, have heard and would probably prefer not to remember.

Conservative Arabs will thrill at the pragmatism of the new US president, as well as at his disinclination to export democracy and his desire to work with the existing Arab and Islamic regimes on the basis of mutual interest, all packaged in the language of civilisational dialogue, tolerance and mutual respect. But they will not thrill if the same spirit of pragmatism is exhibited towards Iran.

Neo-liberal Arabs, on the other hand, who had a meeting of minds with the neoconservatives over exporting democratic revolution at the end of an American gun, will be disappointed. However, they will find recompense in their ability to praise the US openly, now that it has officially abandoned belligerency in favour of diplomacy and the language of peace. When the US changes tack again because of Iranian "intransigence", or because of its refusal to abandon uranium enrichment, or because it has been unable to strike a deal with Tehran, then people in the Gulf and elsewhere will continue to sing the US's praises when it tightens sanctions against Iran.

Those Arabs who agreed with everything the last US president said will probably not care one way or another about what the new president says or about any analysis of it. They will agree with the US president regardless. It is not as if the US's Arab allies had any serious qualms about what Bush used to come up with, and they are now relieved at what the new president has to say. Whatever the US president says is good by definition from the point of view of these regimes, which take it as their duty to accept and justify what the US president says, and what the next US president says, even if it turns out that different US presidents are saying exactly opposite things. This is the only strategy they have to their name.

I do not intend to dredge up Bush's remarks about Islam, extremism, moderation, and good and evil, with all of which America's conservative Arab allies agreed, nor do I intend to dredge up his remarks about the democratic imperative, with which America's neo-liberal Arab allies agreed. Even if these two sets of opinions were polls apart in theory, they were not that far away from each other in practice. Bush at that time was their answer, and their alliances with him were sufficient for both the neo-liberal and the undemocratic regimes. Instead, I will simply turn to the roadmap.

Why should the Arabs hope for anything new from the new US president with regard to Palestine, having agreed so enthusiastically to Bush's roadmap and having fixed their demands on Israel's fulfilling its obligations under the plan after the Palestinians had carried out theirs? That they should not hope for much was clearly demonstrated during the war on Gaza. The Palestinian Authority (PA) on the West Bank not only repressed the resistance forces, but it also clamped down on peaceful demonstrations of solidarity with the people in Gaza. By so doing, the PA argued, the Palestinians would be in a position to insist that Israel meet its obligations under the roadmap because they were demonstrating their commitment to the destruction of terrorist infrastructure. The Arabs applauded Bush's vision, and today they are applauding Obama's. Bush envisioned a Palestinian state before the end of his term. Why expect anything from Obama, who has made exactly the same pledge?

It is true that the US has changed. It also changed in the eras of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan. But the problem resides elsewhere, namely in changing the political mentalities of the Arab regimes.

Washington is taking a new tone towards Israel, one more in tune with the Zionist left than with the Zionist right. It is insisting on the "rights of two peoples", while still according the Jewish state the higher value and painting a picture of equality where there is none. Still, one must acknowledge the new tone.

Yet, this tone is not only the product of a change in the US. There has also been a change of tone in Israel. The Israeli government refuses to make a verbal commitment to freezing settlement activity, as did the previous government to the Bush administration. This government also refuses to make a verbal commitment to a two-state solution, as did the previous government under Olmert.

Obama's refusal to recommit to Bush's letter of assurance to Sharon led Netanyahu to refuse to recommit to Bush's vision of a two- state solution. The Israeli attitude has shifted further to the right, and the US attitude has reacted to that shift. That is the only difference. On the Palestinian question, in particular, there has been no real change in the US position. The new Israeli government has rejected the basis of a return to the so-called "peace process", though this is what Obama has pledged to the Arabs. In addition to adopting a tougher tone towards Israel, he has also pledged to pressure Israel into returning to the "peace process". The US and its Arab allies need this ongoing "process" as a kind of muzak, one that is essential to setting the mood for Arab moderation.

The problem is not whether or not the US has changed, something which in any case will not be manifest in a lecture or visit. The problem is the lack of agreed Arab interests and the lack of a strategy for attaining them. Without these things, the Arabs have little hope of reaping the benefits of changes in the US, apart from some relief at the change in tone and atmosphere.

A victory for the BDS movement!

2009-06-08T13:24:00.001-04:00

yes!!!

From Omar Barghouti of PACBI

VICTORY!!

In the first smashing and convincing victory of the global BDS movement in the field of corporate responsibility and ethical compliance, Veolia is reportedly abandoning the Jerusalem Light Rail project, an illegal project that aims at connecting Israeli colonies built on occupied Palestinian territory to the city of Jerusalem.

As the Haaretz article below admits, the BDS campaign's success in costing Veolia some $7 billion worth of contracts is the key behind this decision by the troubled company to pull out of the project.

It is worth mentioning that Le Monde has recently published an expose, revealing to French readers and, crucially, to Veolia's stock holders the fact that the company is losing a lot of money because of its complicity in a project that constitutes a major violation of international law, if not a war crime.

This great victory came as a result of years of hard, principled, meticulous and persistent work by French solidarity groups, particularly AFPS; by the growing French BDS movement which was instrumental in making Veolia lose a huge contract in Bordeaux; by Dutch activists who achieved the first success in convincing a Dutch bank to divest from Veolia and applied pressure on other banks to follow suit; by Swedish peace and justice groups, mainly connected to the Church of Sweden, particularly Diakonia, and Swedish Palestine solidarity groups who cost Veolia the heaviest, $4.5 billion contract in running the Stockholm metro; by British solidarity groups and activists, particularly affiliated with PSC, who contributed tremendously to excluding Veolia from a lucrative contract in the West Midlands; and of course by the Palestinian BDS National Committee, BNC, which partnered with all the above in the now famous Derail Veolia and Alstom campaign to pressure the company to abandon this illegal project.

The Derail Veolia and Alstom campaign, which involves activists and groups in many countries all working to pressure the two French giants to quit the JLR project, was officially launched at the Bilbao Initiative conference in the Basque city last November.

Now is the time to pressure Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Gulf states, among others, to kick Alstom out due to its complicity in this illegal project. Solidarity with Palestine means almost nothing if it cannot be translated into BDS action that can truly cost the Israeli occupation and apartheid regime dearly.

This is the time to DERAIL ALSTOM!

Omar

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1091186.html

Jerusalem rail operator jumps ship, Tel Aviv group isn't even responding

The light rail projects for Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are both facing difficulties. In a body-blow to the future Jerusalem light rail, the French company Veolia, which was supposed to run the train system after its construction, is abandoning the project.

Moving on to Tel Aviv, the city can't even get a response to the compromise it offered MTS, the consortium supposed to build an urban train system, in order to settle issues in dispute. It's waited a month and gotten no answer, causing not a little consternation in government circles.

As for the Jerusalem system, Veolia not only wants out of running the future train; it's trying to sell its 5% stake in Citypass, the light rail consortium.

In recent days Veolia has been sending feelers to the Egged or Dan bus consortiums, to potentially replace it as project operator.

Any change in the ownership structure of Citypass, or in the identity of the project operator, requires the permission of the state. Also, the attempt to add Egged to the consortium could arouse opposition at the Antitrust Authority.

Veolia has had to contend not only with the delays and difficulties in building the light rail project itself, but with political pressure at home as well. Two months ago a French court heard a lawsuit by a pro-Palestinian group, demanding that the light rail project be halted.

The organization based itself on an article in French law that allows the court to void business agreements, signed by French companies, that violate international law.

The political pressure on Veolia has been mounting in another direction. According to various reports abroad, the French firm had been losing major projects in Europe because of its involvement in the Jerusalem job. Observers claim that's the real reason Veolia opted out.

Also, for two years the Jerusalem project has been held up by battles between Citypass, the city of Jerusalem and various ministries. (The disputes even include whose fault the delays are.)

Last week the spat between Citypass and the state reached a new low, after the group admitted it couldn't meet the new deadline for the Jerusalem light rail project. It expects to run nine months behind schedule, the consortium said. The state then accused the business consortium of deliberately dragging its feet and of effecting "a hostile takeover of the streets of Jerusalem."

Sources in Israel's transportation sector called Citypass's announcement "chutzpah," on the grounds that it and the state had agreed on a new schedule only a year earlier. And that was a month after an arbitration process during which the new schedule was ratified.

In response to Citypass' announcement, the state contacted the arbitrators accompanying the process, asking them to enforce the franchise agreement and force Citypass to finish the works as set in the new schedule, by September 2010, "finally restoring normalcy to Jerusalem."

The state also asked for permission to stop paying Citypass, including the upcoming installment of NIS 32.5 million.

Citypass can meet the agreed-on schedule, the state insists: "This isn't inability to complete the project on time. At most it's a crude attempt to squeeze more money from the state," wrote the state in its letter to the arbitrators. "[Citypass] already advised the state and the arbitrators that it doesn't intend to finish the works on time, but it doesn't settle for words: It is making sure to work at a pace that assures it won't meet the agreed-on deadline for completion."

In summation, the state accuses Citypass of making life in Jerusalem intolerable.

Citypass denies the allegations, which it called "absurd," and claims the state is indulging in baseless legal gambits in response to the lawsuit Citypass filed against it because of the delays.

Sources in the know suspect that the delays ruined the project's business model. The cost of the works grew, and there were delays in the transfer of state funding for the companies involved in the project, while the companies needed the money to return their own loans. The upshot, if so, was heightened tensions between the partners in Citypass, mainly between equipment provider Alstom, operator Veolia and the Israeli contractor Ashtrom.

After some changes, the partners in Citypass are Ashtrom (27.5%), Alstom (20%), Polar Investments (17.5%), Israel Infrastructures Fund (10%) and Veolia (5%).

The Jerusalem project involves building eight lines. Only the first one has passed the tender process, which Citypass won. The line is supposed to start in Pisgat Zeev, pass along Jaffa Street and end at Mount Herzl. The cost of that line alone is projected at NIS 2.4 billion. The state is providing NIS 1.4 billion.

the morning after...

2009-06-07T17:55:00.000-04:00

ive been waiting for the storm to pass before dropping my two cents on the matter of obama's speech. on one hand, i feel that it is not worth commenting on, simply b/c its nothing but a bunch of empty words.

i will say this:

the speech made these people angry while making these people very, very happy. both groups of people are equally crazy, naive, and delusional. i would tell the former not to worry- everything will proceed as planned- israel will not be forced to give up an inch of the land it has confiscated. i would tell the latter to stop smoking their hope and change joint.

i'll be honest. i'm not the type of girl that falls for cheap pick-up lines or trumped-up speeches for that matter. i prefer to look at the nitty gritty policies (check my previous posts for a complete rundown).

besides, talk is very cheap- and it when it comes to the 'middle east' its even cheaper. sure, obama said you can't force democracy on people. unless of course, you live in a country like iraq, and your country was invaded in the name of wmd/democracy installation. it also has to be the right kind of democracy- i.e. the people need the vote for the right guys (as in lebanon- where , by the way, my friend got a call from a certain political party and was offered 1,000 dollars for his vote) not the wrong guys (as in palestine and in a handful of latin american countries). bush danced with the saudis and praised mubarak. obama got some bling-bling (see above) and praised mubarak. all together now: ch-ch-changes!!!!

Obama's Settlements

2009-06-02T23:09:00.002-04:00

I've posted this video before, but with all this talk of Obama and his harsh talk on settlements I see the need to re-post. The true question is whether or not he will tie a freeze on settlements (psst. the answer is no; and notice how low the bar is set- we're not talking dismantlement here- just a freeze, i.e. the absolute bare minimum).

How did this all start? O simply said the following:

"a freeze on (Israeli) settlements is part" of negotiations for peace in the Middle East.

after issuing this incredibly vague, non-committal statement, the buzz began. Bibi has rejected O's gentle plea to freeze settlements calling it unreasonable. now all sights are on cairo to see what Obama will say (if i may digress: i am told he's seeking to address muslims in his speech- as if we're somehow one homogenous body you can can just 'address'. furthermore, i really resent the polarization- now we are to believe that we fall in either one of two categories: muslims or the rest of the world.)

anyway, for those of you holding your breath- don't. why? because we've been here before:

as the beginning of this video shows you- an attempt was made by bush the first to make aid to israel conditional- and yes, the condition was a freeze on settlements. since then, the rate of settlement build-up has tripled. case in point: israel will face no consequences for its actions: the building settlements, continued massacres and evictions, land expropriations, various violations of un resolutions, the siege of gaza, the bantustanization of the west bank, etc etc. and obama will be the last person to hold them responsible.

Follow the money

2009-06-02T09:24:00.004-04:00

This is no shocker. In fact its widely known. Nonetheless, the Times reports today on arms sales to Sri Lanka.

Just as Israel gets millitary aid from the US to carry out its massacre in Gaza, Sri Lanka also got aid from the EU, Britain, and the US to cary out its genocide against the Tamil people:

Britain approved commercial sales of more than £13.6 million of equipment including armoured vehicles, machinegun components and semiautomatic pistols, according to official records.
....
“The EU had an obligation not to supply these things,” said Malcolm Bruce, a Liberal Democrat MP who visited Sri Lanka last month. “There were too many unanswered questions. With hindsight, Britain’s sales did violate the EU code of conduct.” {article in full here}

oh, and just as Israel resepects freedom of the press, so does Sri Lanka.

check out bodyontheline for more information including a boycott of sri lankan products.

Obama goes to Egypt

2009-06-01T15:23:00.002-04:00

in other news-

there's lots of hype going on now regarding obama's visit to egypt. if you've been reading this blog, you probably know how i feel about it. i just wish obama would open up a marketing/pr firm- he'd do great business honestly with tag lines like: "its not torture, its an alternative interrogation technique- and we're not going to show you the photos or put those responsible on trial" or "hope and change: lets hope that maybe in my next term as president i can change your mind as to why wiretapping IS a good idea".

if you think im just the token cynical palestinian whose life revolves around taking punches at your messiah/president then you are quite wrong. lets get a different perspective. with this trip, obama seeks to boost mubarak (you know, that arab moderate- eerrr i mean dictator). and in case you don't know what the deal is with mubarak- here's a refresher below. yes folks, mubarak has officially jumped on the hope and change bandwagon. nothing can stop us now- yeeehaaaa!!!

The justifications of the torturer
A discussion with an Egyptian State Security officer raises questions and suggests a few answers.
By Alaa Al-Aswany
May 31, 2009
Writing From Cairo --

Some years ago, I was invited to a relative's wedding, and at the wedding, I sat next to one of the bridegroom's relatives. He introduced himself to me by saying: "My name is such-and-such, police officer."

The man was in his 40s, very elegant, polite and quiet. I noticed a prayer mark on his forehead. We exchanged the usual pleasantries, and I asked him, "In which department do you work?"

He hesitated for a second, then he replied: "State Security."

We both kept silent, and he turned his face away from me and started to watch the other guests. My mind was torn between two conflicting options: Should I resume the previous polite conversation, or should I express my opinion candidly on the State Security Investigations department? In the end, I couldn't help but challenge him, and I will reconstruct the conversation that followed to the best of my ability:

"Excuse me. You are religious, it seems," I said.

"Thank God."

"Don't you see any contradiction between being religious and working in State Security?"

"Where would the contradiction arise?"

"People detained by State Security are beaten, tortured and raped, though all religions prohibit such practices."

He started to get emotional and said: "First, those who are beaten deserve to be beaten. Second, if you study your religion thoroughly, you will find that what we do in the State Security department is fully compatible with Islamic teachings."

"But Islam is a religion that safeguards human dignity."

"That's a generalization. I have read Islamic jurisprudence, and I am well aware of its provisions."

"There's nothing in Islamic jurisprudence that makes it legitimate to torture people."

"Listen to me until I finish, please. Islam has nothing to do with democracy or elections. Obedience to a Muslim ruler is a duty for his subjects, even if he has usurped power, is corrupt or unjust. Do you know how Islam punishes those who rebel against their rulers?"

I kept silent.

He continued enthusiastically: "They face the haraba punishment, which is amputation of the left hand and the right foot. All those we detain at State Security have rebelled against the ruler, and by Islamic law we should cut off their limbs, but we do not do this. What we do is much less than the Islamic punishment."

Our discussion went on for a long time. I told him that Islam was revealed essentially to defend truth, justice and freedom. I said that the haraba punishment was applicable only to armed groups that kill innocent people, steal their money or rape them. It should by no means be applied to Egyptian political dissidents.

He remained insistent on his opinion and ended the discussion by saying: "This is my understanding of Islam. I am convinced of it, and I will not change it. I will be responsible for it before God."

After I left the wedding, I asked myself how this educated and intelligent officer could be convinced of such an erroneous interpretation of Islam. How did he extract from Islam such perverted ideas? How could he imagine for one moment that God approves of us torturing people? These questions remained without answers until, some months later, I read a paper titled "The Psychology of the Executioner."

In it, the researcher argued that torturers can be divided into two groups. The first group are psychopaths, who behave aggressively without any moral restraints. The second group -- and these are the majority -- is made up of ordinary men who are psychologically normal and who, once they leave work, are upright and lovable, with good morals.

But to be able to torture people, two conditions are indispensable: submission and justification. Submission means the police officer carries out the torture in response to orders from his superior and convinces himself that he is compelled to obey. Justification comes about when the officer convinces himself that torture is ethically and religiously legitimate, usually because he believes his victims to be agents of the enemy or enemies of the nation, infidels or criminals. In his mind, that justifies torturing them to protect society and the country. Without this justification, the police officer would not be able to continue torturing his victims because, at some point, he would be unable to cope with his pangs of conscience.

I remembered this when I heard about the arrest in April of two university students, Omnia Taha and Sarah Mohammed Rezq. Campus security at Kafr El Sheikh University in the Nile Delta arrested the two young women and handed them over to State Security because they had incited their colleagues to go on strike. The prosecution accused them of plotting to overthrow the government and ordered that they be remanded in custody for 15 days for questioning. But honestly, how could two women less than 20 years old try to overthrow President Hosni Mubarak's regime simply by talking to their colleagues?

Moreover, calling for a strike is not in itself a crime because Egypt has signed dozens of international conventions recognizing the right to strike as one of the basic rights of Egyptians. But what is really saddening is that I learned from colleagues of the two girls that at State Security they were violently beaten and tortured and that the man who beat them and ripped off their clothes was a senior officer. It's not so terribly surprising -- bloggers, leftists and Islamic activists are all arrested and tortured on a routine basis in Egypt, often spending years in prison without being charged -- but it's horrifying nevertheless.

How could a police officer, who was probably a husband and a father, beat with such brutality a student so like his own daughters? How could he face his conscience and look his wife and children in the eye? Didn't this senior officer feel ashamed of himself as he beat a young woman who could not even defend herself?

As President Obama prepares for his trip to Egypt this week, the Mubarak regime is facing unprecedented waves of social protest because life here has become intolerable for millions of Egyptians, who now have no choice but to take to the streets to proclaim their demand for a life fit for humans. Today, between 40% and 50% of Egyptians live below the poverty line; Egypt has become two different countries -- one for the poor and one for the rich.

As for the regime, it is now completely incapable of serious reform, so it pushes the police to confront, repress and torture people, overlooking the simple and important fact that police officers are, first and foremost, Egyptian citizens and that what applies to Egyptians in general applies to them too. Most of them suffer in the same way as other Egyptians.

I often recall the discussion I had with the State Security officer at the wedding. And I reflect that a political system that relies for its survival on repression always fails to see that the apparatus of repression, however mighty it may be, must be operated by individuals who are part of society and whose interests and opinions generally conform with those of the rest of the population. As repression increases, a day will come when those individuals can no longer justify to themselves the crimes they are committing against people. At that point the regime will lose its power to repress and will meet the fate it deserves. I believe that we in Egypt are approaching that day.

Alaa Al-Aswany is the author of the novels "The Yacoubian Building" and "Chicago."

Too many Arabs

2009-05-30T12:56:00.002-04:00

yet another reason to continue with an academic boycott of israel (as well as other types of boycott)

from the AIC:

The Carmel Academic Center in Haifa Closes Academic Track As Too Many Palestinian Students Registered

The Carmel Academic Center in Haifa shut down the concentration in accounting within its Department of Business Administration because a majority of the students applying were Palestinian citizens of Israel. This was revealed in a news item reported on Israeli news Channel 10 on 24 May (in Hebrew only).

According to this report, just over one week before studies were to commence, the center administration announced that the accountancy concentration would not open. According to a student (S.), “I was told […] that the students for accounting did not pay tuition, and later that there were not enough students.”

Dr. Amos Baranes, a senior lecturer at the Carmel Academic Center and head of the Accounting Concentration, held a conversation about this decision with Gil Reshef, the entrepreneur behind the for profit Carmel center, which opened in the current academic year:

In this recorded conversation, Reshef said

“If it is a majority Arab, we can’t allow ourselves, because we can’t allow ourselves an institution that will be categorized as Arab. Haifa University has this image and has a big problem [as] it is perceived as a university of Arabs […] We are not funded (by the state) and if we will be seen as Arab, [students] will not come […]”

Shocked by this conversation. Dr. Baranes met with Carmel Academic Center President, Professor Yehezkel Taler, formerly the Deputy Chair of the Israel Council for Higher Education. The conversation was recorded:

Dr. Baranes: “Yesterday I had a conversation with Gil; Gil also raised the issue about which you spoke, the Jewish/Arab issue, that we shouldn’t be an Arab majority […]”

Taler: “Here there was also a problem.”

Dr. Baranes: “What?”

Taler: “Here there was also a problem. Of all those who registered, three were Jews, the rest Arab.”

A horrified Baranes turned to the Israel Council of Higher Education, which accredits all institutes of higher education in Israel, including the Carmel center. In a written response, the Council noted that “it was clarified beyond doubt that the college didn’t open the program due to financial considerations.”

However, when Carmel College President Taler learned that Dr. Baranes contacted the Israel Council for Higher Education, he removed Baranes from the center’s academic council and told him his future at the college is unclear. Taler told Baranes (in a taped conversation):

Taler: “I don’t want you there (Carmel’s academic council) […] I am not prepared that someone from the academic council will correspond with Ahmad Tibi (Dr. Tibi, Knesset member from the Ra’am Ta’al party) and the Israel Council for Higher Education.”

Carmel College’s website (in Hebrew only) provides a telephone number (*5745) that can be dialed only from the areas under Israel’s control. When calling this number, the AIC was told that no telephone number exists that can be dialed from abroad, and that no fax number is available. However, we found their email and fax number, which you may find below.

The Alternative Information Center encourages Palestinian, Israeli and international activists for justice to contact the Carmel Academic Center and the Israeli Council of Higher Education to protest this blatant case of institutionalized racism by the Carmel Academic Center, and the lack of an in-depth investigation of this case by the Israel Council for Higher Education.

Carmel Academic Center:

E-mail: carmelcam@carmel.ac.il
Fax: +972 (0)3 533-1645
Telephone: *5745 (For those able to call from areas under Israeli control)

Israel Council for Higher Education:

Secretariat of the Council
Fax: +972 (0)2 5679955
Telephone: +972 (0)2 5679911

Quality Assessment Unit:
adi@che.org.il
Fax: +972 (0)2 5611914
Telephone: +972 (0)2 5611914

Palestine Festival of Literature

2009-05-25T00:01:00.001-04:00

in not-so-breaking news, the Palestine Festival Literature is going on right now.

they got off to a rough start yesterday thanks to israeli army (see below). they'll be updating their blog with highlights everyday- and they've got an incredible line up of authors. Be sure to check them out!

Kuffeiyeh Spotting

2009-05-24T22:40:00.005-04:00

from my mobile phone:

hsbc- bank with style?
@ macys:
@ marshalls:

Gaza is closed (still)

2009-05-24T15:02:00.002-04:00

Gazans can't get into Gaza. British Medics can't get into Gaza. American activists can't get into Gaza. In the meantime, Palestinians die in Gaza.

Health conditions worsening in Gaza as borders remain closed
UN News Service, May 23, 2009

Piles of solid waste sit near a sewage pond in the southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis. (IRIN)

The deteriorating health situation in Gaza has been intensified by Israel's blockade of crossings into the area, the United Nations agency tasked with assisting Palestinian refugees warned today.

Even before Israel's military offensive targeting Hamas militants on the tiny strip of land earlier this year, which killed over 1,400 people and injured 5,000 others, the border closures had a grave impact on the health of Gazans and the ability of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) to provide health services.

According to the agency's latest health report, some 4,000 medical items per day on average could cross into Gaza before the conflict, whereas only 40 items are currently allowed to be imported daily.

UNRWA also reported that restrictions on building supplies have resulted in damaged health care centres being left in a state of disrepair and a scarcity of paper has led to difficulties in keeping medical records.

The new report also voiced deep concern over the lack of adequate food to children, and said that on top of widespread unemployment, no petrol or diesel has been delivered to Gaza and only very limited amounts of cooking gas has made it into the Strip since 2 November, causing anaemia in 30 per cent of children below 36 months of age and 50 per cent of pregnant women.

Guido Sabatinelli, UNRWA Director of Health, told reporters in Geneva today that the agency forecasted a 25 per cent shortfall in its biennium budget for 2009-2010. Since needs were expanding, the agency said it would be obliged to suspend some of its services next year, including hospital closures.

Mr. Sabatinelli said that the UNRWA health budget was $80 million to provide for 4 million persons, or $20 per person per year, which is well below the recommendation by the World Health Organization (WHO) of $60 per person as an absolute minimum.

Birth Pangs II

2009-05-22T19:26:00.002-04:00

The US tells Lebanon to give birth to the proper kind of gov't in order to receive aid. (wolfowitz's 'good governance' theory at its best)