A June, 2013 speech by Bill Clinton honoring war criminal Shimon Peres has highlighted the extent to which Israeli anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab bigotry has become acceptable within Western mainstream discourse.
In a racist echo of Golda Meir, who once admitted that she had trouble sleeping because of the number of Palestinian babies being conceived, Clinton said: “No matter how many settlers you put out there [in the West Bank], the Palestinians are having more babies than the Israelis as a whole…. You’ve got an existential question to answer.”
Clinton, who was reportedly paid $500,000 to publicly share his hatred of Palestinian babies, couched his bigotry as part of a speech on “peace” and the bankrupt “two-state solution.” Said Clinton: “If you don’t have a vision of where you want to wind up, bad things are going to happen sooner or later…. You have a better chance if you are driven by a vision of peace and reconciliation.” In plain language, if Israel does not return a mere 22 percent of the 100 percent of Palestinian land it stole, it will soon (horror of horrors) be overrun with Palestinian children.
Clinton’s racist comments, reported worldwide by mainstream media mostly without irony, were also an extension of current U.S. President Barack Obama’s own fear and hatred of Palestinian children, which he expressed clearly in May of 2011 to the delight and cheers of his American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) audience in Washington:
“Here are the facts we all must confront. First, the number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. This will make it harder and harder—without a peace deal—to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.”
For Palestinians, of course, neither Clinton’s nor Obama’s morally abhorrent remarks come as a surprise since they have long been accustomed to Israeli racism and its accompanying violence and brutality. Racist terms like “demographic bomb” and “demographic threat” are so common in Israeli media and discourse that they barely register any protest in the so-called “Jewish and democratic state.”
We are not talking about Israeli soccer fans thuggishly chanting “death to Arabs” at sporting events (a common occurrence these days), but rather racist incitement from the highest elected officials. Both Peres and Benjamin Netanyahu, for instance, have used the phrase “demographic threat” in public statements regarding Palestinian citizens of the state. In 2003, as finance minister, Netanyahu would say, “If there is a demographic problem, and there is, it is with the Israeli Arabs who will remain Israeli citizens” (“Netanyahu: Israel’s Arabs are the real demographic threat,” Haaretz, December 18, 2003).
Similarly, Peres would publicly muse in 1977 on the “problem” of the growing Palestinian population of Jerusalem: “I do not want to wake up one morning to discover that Jerusalem is subject to the demographic fate of [the] Galilee” (“Israel’s Geographic-Demographic Threat to Identity,” Royal United Services Institute News Brief, January, 2011). Ehud Olmert, as well, in a speech to the Knesset in 2007, would speak in alarming tones of a pending “demographic battle drowned in blood and tears.”
In 2009, Israeli Housing Minister Ariel Atias would instigate hatred against Palestinian citizens of the state and justify apartheid in a speech to the Israel Bar Association. “I see [it] as a national duty to prevent the spread of a population that, to say the least, does not love the state of Israel,” said Atias. Speaking in particular against the Palestinian population of the Galilee, he added: “If we go on like we have until now, we will lose the Galilee. Populations that should not mix are spreading there. I don’t think that it is appropriate [for Arabs and Israeli Jews] to live together” (“Housing Minister: Spread of Arab population must be stopped,” Haaretz, July, 2009).
Michael Oren, the current Israeli Ambassador (and chief propagandist) to the U.S., would even write a lengthy and deeply racist article published in Commentary magazine in 2009, titled “Seven Existential Threats,” and which included the sub-heading “The Arab Demographic Threat.” He would opine in a grave, apocalyptic voice that “the Palestinian population on both sides of the 1949 armistice lines is expanding far more rapidly than the Jewish sector and will surpass it in less than a decade.”
This trend must not continue, continues Oren, because “Israel, the Jewish State, is predicated on a decisive and stable Jewish majority of at least 70 percent. Any lower than that and Israel will have to decide between being a Jewish state and a democratic state. If it chooses democracy, then Israel as a Jewish state will cease to exist.”
Israeli academics and intellectuals, too, have joined the racist chorus of incitement and, simultaneously, of justification of war crimes against Palestinians. So Benny Morris, for example, after documenting the destruction of Palestine, the massive ethnic cleansing, the theft of land, and the massacres and rapes of innocents, would then vindicate every crime of the Zionist colonial-settler state from 1948 to the present.
“There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing,” said Morris in a 2004 interview with Ari Shavit. “That is what Zionism faced [in 1948]. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”
Then, jumping ahead six decades, he refers to Palestinian citizens of the state, who were not ethnically cleansed, in typically racist terms: “The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state” (“An interview with Benny Morris,” Counterpunch.org, January, 2004). Morris would thus set the stage for future ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, including the current operation in the Naqab (“Negev”) where tens of thousands of Palestinian Bedouin have been targeted for forcible removal from their ancestral lands.
Furthermore, these terms, once used exclusively against Palestinians, are now also utilized by both Israeli officials and citizens to shamelessly incite hatred against African asylum seekers, as well as African Jews who are, nominally, citizens of the state. As reported by Haaretz in 2010, for instance, Netanyahu said, the “flood of illegal workers infiltrating from Africa [was] a concrete threat to the Jewish and democratic character of the country.” Without skipping a beat, he would then associate asylum seekers with smuggling of drugs, terrorism, and general decadence, and so justifying the building of yet another apartheid wall to keep out the unwanted (“Netanyahu: Illegal African immigrants—a threat to Israel’s Jewish character,” Haaretz, July, 2010). See, in addition, the superb work of David Sheen who has meticulously documented recent shockingly fanatical anti-African marches in Tel Aviv, organized and led by elected Israeli officials and community leaders, in dozens of official reports, interviews, and video testimonies (www.davidsheen.com/racism/).
It is impossible to imagine Clinton, Obama, or any major political figure for that matter, talking about any other national, ethnic, or religious group in such unapologetically racist terms. Would either have made analogous comments regarding, for example, indigenous South Africans during the days of South African Apartheid? Or against North American First Nation peoples today? Would an Australian or Canadian housing minister ever speak about a minority group within their countries with the same unabashed hatred as Ariel Atias? Had they done so, the response of Western liberal pundits and intellectuals would have been swift and indignant—and rightfully so.
Ethnic cleansing, land theft, destruction of hundreds of ancient towns and villages, massacres, military occupation, and apartheid over six and a half decades in Palestine are all deeply tied together with Israeli/Zionist racism. Indeed, Israeli bigotry has often been and continues to be used to sanction and sanctify Israeli crimes against humanity; thus do attitudes and actions simultaneously fuel and feed off each other. That even supposed progressives have adopted Israeli attitudes towards Palestinians in their public statements as their own (with little or no controversy), and therefore also excusing Israeli crimes, shows the vile depths to which mainstream media discourse has sunk.
July 10, 2013
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Benjamin Netanyahu, Benny Morris, Bill Clinton, Israel, Obama, Shimon Peres |
2 Comments
It is an event ‘of cosmic proportions’, said one Palestinian academic, a befitting description regarding Stephen Hawking’s decision to boycott an Israeli academic conference slated for next June. It was also a decisive moral call which was communicated on May 8 by Cambridge University, where Hawking is a professor.
Hawking is a world-renowned cosmologist and physicist. His scientific work had the kind of impact that redefined or challenged entire areas of research from the theory of relativity, to quantum mechanics and other fields of study. This towering figure is also wheelchair-bound – suffering from complete physical paralyses caused by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) disease. For Hawking, however, such a painful fact seems like a mere side note in the face of his incredible contributions to science, ones that are comparable to only few men and women throughout history.
What is considered a prestigious scientific conference in Israel is hosted by President Shimon Peres, most remembered by Lebanese and Palestinians for ordering the shelling of a United Nations compound near the village of Qana in South Lebanon in 1996. The compound was a safe heaven, where civilians often sought shelter during Israeli strikes. Not that time around, however. 106 innocent people that were mostly children and women were killed and 116 wounded, including UN forces. That harrowing event alone would have sent Peres, then Israel’s prime minister, to serve his remaining years in jail. But of course, Israel is above the law, or so the Israeli government believes and thus it has consistently behaved accordingly in the last 65 years with a price tag of uncountable lives, untold destruction and protracted suffering of entire nations.
Hawking’s response to the boycott call was immensely important. The man’s legendary status aside, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement has proved more durable and successful than its detractors – mostly Israel’s apologists – want to believe. Hawking’s decision was also a testament that reason and morality should and must go hand in hand. Israel’s boasting of its scientific accomplishments should mean zilch if such technology is put to work to advance state violence, tighten military occupation and make killer drones available to other countries, thus exporting violence and mayhem. That very ‘science’ was used in abundance in Israel’s latest two wars on Gaza (2008-09 and 2012) which claimed thousands of lives between the dead and wounded.
Cambridge University, perhaps wary of a possible backlash, tried to mask Hawking’s decision as one that is compelled by health reasons, which, of course, was not the case at all. The university eventually retracted the statement, for the British scientist wished to make his decision crystal clear. The UK Guardian newspaper reported on Hawking’s rebuff of the conference, citing a statement by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, as it had coordinated with Hawking’s office:
“We understand that Professor Stephen Hawking has declined his invitation to attend the Israeli Presidential Conference Facing Tomorrow 2013, due to take place in Jerusalem on 18-20 June. This is his independent decision to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there.”
Unlike other acts of boycott, sometimes dismissed by Israeli officials as insignificant, this one was manifestly shocking for Israel. Yigal Palmor, spokesman for Israel’s Foreign Ministry was quoted by the New York Times saying “never has a scientist of this stature boycotted Israel.”
And since it was unexpected, Hawking’s respect of the boycott generated disorganized Israeli and pro-Israeli responses, ranging from demeaning jokes and insults pertaining to his illness, unwarranted accusations and even shaming him for using technology supposedly developed in Israel to combat his deteriorating ALS condition.
Never before has the country lost control over its carefully tailored narrative of its military occupation and violations of human rights in Palestine as is the case these days. While on one hand, Israeli officials speak of ‘peace’, they continue to issue tenders to build more settlements or expand existing ones, all built illegally on Palestinian land. On the very day that Hawking’s decision to boycott the conference was announced, ‘civil administration’ in Israel agreed to the construction of 296 new housing units in the illegal settlement of Beit El, thus entrenching military occupation and ethnic cleansing. Israeli officials and media still insist that there are no links whatsoever between such stark violations of international and humanitarian law and the rising boycott movement. They indefatigably accuse their critics of ‘anti-Semitism’ (which is hardly effective anymore) and warn of attempts at the ‘de-legitimatization’ of Israel, as if they expect the world to remain completely oblivious to its perpetual war crimes, illegal occupation and institutionalized discrimination against non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine and Israel.
The dialectics of Hawking’s decision are also important. It is a proof that civil society remains relevant, can be effective and also shows that official venues are not the only platforms in which the occupation of Palestine can be discussed and justly addressed. Nearly 20 years have passed since the Oslo Accords were signed, yet the Israeli occupation seems much more rooted than it was in 1993.
There is little doubt that the boycott movement is in constant growth and not simply because of the recurring news of artists and academics refusing to visit Israel, or take part in Israeli-sponsored events. Equally significant is the existence of strong layers of support being provided by civil society that makes it possible for artists, academics and others to adhere to the call of boycott, without fearing serious repercussions.
It was revealed that a letter to Hawking, aimed at dissuading him from joining the conference was signed by 20 top academics from many universities, including MIT, Cambridge, London, Leeds, Southampton, Warwick, Newcastle, etc. The professors told Hawking they were ‘surprised and deeply disappointed’ that he had agreed to take part in the conference, which is also to be attended by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former US President Bill Clinton, each with his own record of war crimes accusations spanning from Sudan, to Afghanistan, to Iraq.
But criticism of Hawking is not only emanating from Israel and its predictable circle of diehard supporters. It is also coming from some of those who count themselves as members of the Palestinian solidarity camp. The latter group, which is shrinking in number and outreach, argue that boycotting all aspects of Israel’s academic, cultural and political life will play into Israel’s ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘de-legitimization’ arguments.
But can the solidarity movement limit its boycott to the few Israeli companies with links to West Bank settlements and expect to achieve tangible, long term results? Those who think that boycotting the occupation is enough, seem not to understand the nature of the relationship between West Bank setters and the Israeli government. Israel treats the settlements and its well-armed inhabitants as part and parcel of the Israeli state and economy. They are residents of Israel, even if they live near Ramallah. There is no separation whatsoever except for some imaginary ‘Green Lines’ and such. And now with the Apartheid Wall, even that separation is being blurred and redefined.
Palestinians in Gaza or Nablus don’t see any difference between a solider who lives in an illegal Jewish settlement or another who lives inside Israel. They are all capable of committing murder, as many surely have, unhampered by geography or borders. International civil society should not fall into the trap of illusory distinctions. This also makes Hawking’s decision to boycott an Israel-based conference “of cosmic proportions”. It is morally defensible and ethically sound, qualities befitting a formidable man of reason like Stephen Hawking.
– Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is: My Father Was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press).
May 16, 2013
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | Bill Clinton, Cambridge University, Israel, Palestine, Shimon Peres, Stephen Hawking, Tony Blair, War criminals |
2 Comments
British theoretical physicist professor Stephen Hawking has joined an academic embargo on the Israeli regime by refusing to attend a conference hosted by the regime’s president Shimon Perez.
The prominent Cambridge professor was to take part in the Facing Tomorrow annual conference planned to be held in June but pulled out in protest at Tel Aviv’s treatment of Palestinians.
Hawking has not publicly announced his decision, but the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine said he has written a brief letter to Perez to inform him that he has sanctioned the conference.
“[Hawking has made] an independent decision to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there,” the committee said.
Hawking’s move follows a boycott of the Israeli regime by the Teachers’ Union of Ireland and by the American members of the Association for Asian American Studies.
Back in 2009, Hawking had also condemned the regime’s three-week onslaught on Gaza, saying Tel Aviv’s response to firing of rockets from the coastal strip was “plain out of proportion … The situation is like that of [Apartheid] South Africa before 1990 and cannot continue”.
May 8, 2013
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | Israel, Shimon Peres, Stephen Hawking |
1 Comment
The French national railroad company banned black and Arab employees from working at a Paris train station during a visit by Israeli President Shimon Peres for “security reasons,” a recent union statement revealed.
In a statement issued on April 10 and made public by French investigative news outlet Mediapart, railroad workers union SUD Rail revealed that the SNCF excluded its black and Arab workers from working at the Gare du Nord on March 8, as Peres arrived by train from Belgium.
The SNCF – the French acronym for the national railroad company – and one of its subsidiaries justified the decision by saying there shouldn’t be “Muslim employees welcoming the Israeli head of state,” the statement quoted.
The head of SNCF subsidiary ITIREMIA later confirmed that workers had been removed based on their race as a “precautionary principle” to “protect employees from the humiliation they might encounter” at the hands of security personnel.
The SNCF said the decision had come from the French interior ministry and the Israeli embassy, but employees are arguing that the decision was taken by the company itself.
In addition to selecting staff in contact with Peres based on race, a non-white train controller was also allegedly barred from checking the wagon Peres was traveling in, and an Arab train conductor was prevented from going through a part of Gare du Nord near Peres to reach his train.
SUD Rail said its committee on hygiene, security and work conditions has launched an investigation into the discriminatory acts.
April 15, 2013
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | France, Gare du Nord, Israel, Paris, Shimon Peres |
Leave a comment
“It almost doesn’t matter what proof they have or don’t have, it’s really a matter of perception right now and Israeli officials are accusing Iran and its government of orchestrating these attacks.”
– Stephanie Gosk, MSNBC Correspondent, February 15, 2012
“A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.”
– Reverend C.H. Spurgeon, April 1, 1855
The Israeli government wasted no time mourning, memorializing or reflecting on the loss of life after bombing of a bus of Israeli tourists at an airport on the Bulgarian coast. It was too busy going into full-on warmongering mode, immediately laying the blame for the tragic terrorist act on the government of Iran, despite a complete lack of evidence.
But in this world of propaganda, Israeli officials were out-front, setting the narrative for the Western media before any facts emerged. Facts aren’t important, just perception. Perception is reality.
Ha’aretz reporter Amos Harel wrote yesterday afternoon:
The government didn’t hesitate to point a finger on Wednesday. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, apparently supported by detailed intelligence, immediately blamed Iran for the terror attack on Israelis in Bulgaria that killed seven people.
Netanyahu warned of “an Iranian terror attack spreading throughout the world” and promised that “Israel will retaliate forcefully.” Remember that, whenever Iran has stated its intention to “respond” to attacks on its citizens on its own soil, it is accused of bellicosity and aggression.
Harel reported that the Israelis have “no doubt about who is behind the deadly attack in Bulgaria.” Netanyahu insisted, with no supporting information, “All the indications are that Iran is behind this deadly attack.”
This claim, however, was not in line with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s own statements to the press. Barak said the attack was “clearly… initiated probably by Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or another group under the terror auspices of either Iran or other radical Islamic groups.”
So, according to the top Defense official in Israel, the bombing was carried out by someone from some group somewhere that definitely is connected to Iran or someone else. Absolutely. Damning evidence, huh?
Israel’s Fascist Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman took the Netanyahu line as well: “I cannot get into all the operational details, but the identification is certain,” he said on Israel Radio. “From immediately after the attack, we worked hard and now the puzzle is put together, the identity and the responsibility are completely clear.”
Well that was fast.
Israeli President Shimon Peres jumped on the blame band wagon, saying, “We were witnesses to a deadly terror attack coming out of Iran… we know there were other attempts, and this time they succeeded.” He vowed retribution, stating that Israel “has the means and the will to silence and paralyse terror organisations.”
In contrast with Israeli hysteria and acting like a mature adult, Nickolay Mladenov, the Bulgarian foreign minister, said, “We’re not pointing the finger in any direction until we know what happened and complete our investigation.”
Nevertheless, the Iran allegation shot around the world at warp speed and was repeated uncritically by every major news outlet. Many commentators also noted that the attack came on the 18th anniversary of the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, a terrorist attack that many have long accused Iran of carrying out, despite the complete lack of any credible evidence to back up the claim.
And now, Bulgarian media is reporting that the suicide bomber responsible for the terror attack had no connection to Iran, but was former Guantanamo detainee Mehdi Ghezali, a Swedish citizen of Algerian and Finnish ancestry. He was captured in 2002 in Pakistan and turned over to the United States on suspicion of being an al-Qaeda sympathizer.
The New York Times has an extensive report detailing Bulgarian suspicions, some evidence, and a torrent of statements made by Israeli officials.
As more details emerge, it will become more and more clear how despicable the immediate exploitation of this tragedy by Netanyahu and cohorts to blame Iran with no evidence whatsoever actually is. But why grieve for those murdered and act like a responsible, somber leadership when you can warmonger and point fingers?
*****
UPDATE:
Immediately on the heels of reports that Swedish citizen Mehdi Ghezali is the lead suspect in the bombing, both Bulgarian and Swedish officials have denied such a development in the investigation.
Once again, in contrast to Netanyahu’s bloviating, Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nikolay Mladenov said, “it is wrong and a mistake to point fingers at this stage of the investigation at any country or organization.” Ha’aretz reports:
“We are only in the beginning of the investigation and it is wrong to jump to conclusions,” he added, saying that Bulgaria had “excellent cooperation with the Israeli security forces in matters pertaining to the investigation.”
Mladenov added that the countries “will investigate until we discover who is behind the attack. At this stage all we know about the identity of the culprit is his external appearance and a copy of a counterfeit Michigan driver’s license.”
July 20, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Iran, Israel, Nikolay Mladenov, Shimon Peres |
Leave a comment
Palestinian political prisoners illegally held in Israeli jails are on hunger strike and some are near death. The population of strikers includes 200 child prisoners, 27 Palestinian legislative council members, and 456 prisoners from Gaza who have not been allowed family visits since 2007 [1]. Meanwhile, colonization continued at a relentless pace. Ramzy Baroud and Jeff Halper argue that Israel is “fixing” the outcome and is an “end-game” scenario to take over most of the West Bank and leave us in small cantons [2]. Yet, judging from my research into the carefully planned Zionist project, such plans are not end games but mileposts to give the Zionists time to consolidate gains in preparation for the next round of expansion in precisely the way Ben Gurion described it to his son in 1937. Ben Gurion explained lucidly how the new state of Israel when established on part of the coveted land would be a base of steady expansion and growth in the future with or without agreement from “Arabs” [3]. I pondered how little has changed in the intervening 75 years. Colonial Israel continues to push the envelope and expand with or without agreement from compliant “Arabs”. Compliant Arabs existed in 1937 (headed by Ragheb Al-Nashashibi) and existed in 1967 and in 2012. There also existed intellectual and honest Arabs throughout our history.
Zionist colonization is not driven by emotion or haphazard action. It is done as instructed by the founding father of Political Zionism Theodore Herzl in 1897: “we must investigate and take possession of the new Jewish country by means of every modern expedient.” Modern expedients advocated by Herzl include planned methodical structure to remove the native people (with or without agreement of some Arabs) and create a large Jewish state. Herzl was not specific on size of the “required estate” but Ben Gurion and people of his era thought it possible to go as far as between the Nile and the Euphrates.
The plans of colonizers are remarkably similar and known from the diaries of Herzl in 1897, from the letter from Ben Gurion to his son in 1937, the Allon plan of 1967, and from the Hebron accords of 1997. It is a plan of expansion without some Arabs consenting or occasionally with agreement from some Arabs. These agreements, like the treaties that some Native Americans signed with the government of the United States in its expansionary phase, were and are violated because they are merely consolidation tools [4]. I think that like these Native American chiefs, some Palestinians thought that they are doing the best they could under difficult circumstances. Most of the Native American “leaders” had no concept or understanding of the true nature of the notions and emotions driving the Westward expansion of the white colonialists in the USA. They did not delve deeply into notions of manifest destiny, choseness, and racism that characterize their oppressors. One could say the ideology of Native Americans exhibited the exact opposite of their colonizers and thus they presumed that whites are ultimately human and could be dealt with as equals.
Peace for natives is to get their freedom, to live in dignity, and most of all to get the boot of colonization off our necks. Peace for the colonizers is to have the victim stop wiggling under their boots. Towards this they devised ingenious plans including a Palestinian Preventive Security force. Any rational human being can see this dictation and imbalance of power in daily news. Thus the people are left out of decisions whether on “negotiations”, on “national reconciliation”, on going and not going to the UN, or on how they may eventually be liberated. Despairing and riding a ship without compass or rudder, the people grumble and boil underneath and later erupt in revolt.
Needs and desires of the colonizers and the colonized are not the same. Occupiers and colonizers want more opportunities to progress via consolidation and strengthening of the status quo and allowing them to expand further. We, the occupied and colonized people, want to halt and eventually reverse the process of injustice. Palestinians want to return to our homes and lands and live peacefully as we did for millennia. We insist on return and self-determination. We insist that the country must remain multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multi-cultural. This is not a border dispute nor is it a quibble over the Israeli illegal control of the religious sites. Like in the struggle in South Africa under apartheid, it is a struggle that pits two very different visions of the area: one of racism and apartheid and the other of justice and equality.
Sporadic acts of heroic popular resistance are not enough to reach peace with justice. Coordination and joint action must take place. What hinders it is a system developed by the occupiers and agreed to by some of the occupied people. Personal economic benefit maintains the status quo. What is done with support from a Palestinian authority is nothing short of making this occupation the most profitable in history (several billion dollars flow annually to Israeli coffers as a result of this occupation). Already Israeli and Palestinian business deals are being executed for example in area C. This is the “economic peace plan” of Netanyahu and others. Those who may think of disrupting the status quo are investigated and punished. Most Palestinians are excellent diagnosticians and have figured this out. But I think many have not started to articulate solutions or ideas to get out of this mud hole that the Oslo Process (actually started with the 10 point program in 1974) put us into. It is not going to be easy and it does require sacrifice. But those delusional individuals who think that they have a salary or a position and they do not want to risk rocking the boat should think again. They should think of how their children or grandchildren would live under a system of racism and oppression. This is as true of Israelis as it is true of Palestinians.
Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) give us hope. Shimon Peres, the architect of Israel’s arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction and a war criminal once explained:
“In order to export you need good products, but you also need good relations… [If] Israel’s image gets worse, it will begin to suffer boycotts. There is already an artistic boycott against us and signs of an undeclared financial boycott are beginning to emerge.”
International figures who worked against apartheid in South Africa argued convincingly of why this can help here in Apartheid Israel [5]. But BDS is only a tool and certainly not sufficient to effect the needed change. There has to be a structured program from the people which includes an articulation of a vision with concrete goals for the future. In my book “Sharing the Land of Canaan” in 2004 I argued for precisely such a program to move from apartheid to a state of all its citizens. These notions have gained widespread acceptance among intellectuals and activists of various religious and political backgrounds. To arrive to this vision, we need organization.
Organization requires visionary leadership arising organically from a maturing rising population. We should not be reluctant to push our existing leaders and if they are not willing to move then to create alternative leadership. ALL Factions have aging and non-innovative leadership and ALL factions have younger energetic and dedicated (but marginalized) individuals. Clearly the status quo is devastating for us and cannot last. We know from history that people will rise-up and DEMAND change.
Is it time for varied voices to coalesce into a thunderous uproar that cannot be ignored? May we organize meetings and discuss publicly the path forward? While many for example discussed the failure of the “two state solution” and some articulated future visions, we need more than that. Can we as a people in 1948 areas, in the West Bank and Gaza and in exile create mechanisms and structures that take us to where we decide to go? Can we convince the world and even Israelis that we are serious about working for a future of peace with justice and prosperity for everyone? Voices of negativism must not dominate this critical stage. This conversation must be open to people of goodwill from all factions and from independents. While it must start among Palestinians, we must later involve our trusted supporters from around the world. We do have the resources: financial, intellectual, emotional, and physical. Let those who have skills in organizing organize and those who have skills in media work do media work. Let those who have skills in social networking do that. Those who have skills in music write songs for the revolution. Imagine if we can get even 5% or even 1% of the Palestinians around the world as participants in an organized effort. The change that could happen can be monumental.
The world today only respects those who respect themselves and struggle for their own rights. We have nothing to be ashamed of as Palestinians even though 7 million of us are refugees or displaced people. We have a lot to be proud of from our history [6]. We cannot give up now that the crisis of Palestine weighs on the world conscience and when the Arab spring could change the whole geopolitical reality of the Middle East. Even if we fail at our goal this time, the positive spirit that results would enrich all our lives. It would unleash the creativity and the energy that we know is in us. Change can and must happen because it ours is an existential struggle for 11.5 million Palestinians in the world and for our children and grandchildren born and unborn. Each of us has a role to play and has skills and other resources to contribute. Even if we start slow and among a few individuals, it will grow because we have no other choice. Let us get on with it.
[1] http://www.alhaq.org/documentation/weekly-focuses/569-palestinian-prisoners-near-death
[2] Ramzy Baroud- Israel plots an end-game http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/03/illegal-settlements-bonanza-israel-plots-an-endgame/, Jeff Halper http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/2012428124445821996.html but see also Susan Abulhawa’s reply to Jeff Halper http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=19274#.T6RigYJSHIA.twitter
[3] Ben Gurion letter to his son, sent October 5, 1937 http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/B-G%20Letter%20translation.pdf
[4] The Oslo accords were an excellent tool by Israel to consolidate its hold and in violations of the Geneva conventions allowed Israel “civil control” in >60% of the West Bank called area C. In further negotiations it was leaked how much people like Saeb Erekat were willing to keep going in handing over these areas to Israel http://www.aljazeera.com/palestinepapers/
[5] Desmond Tutu on the need for Divestment from Israeli apartheid http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/justice-requires-action-to-stop-subjugation-of-palestinians/1227722
[6] “Popular Resistance in Palestine: A history of Hope and Empowerment” http://www.qumsiyeh.org/popularresistanceinpalestine/
May 7, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | Ben-Gurion, David Ben Gurion, Israel, Jeff Halper, Shimon Peres, Zionism |
Leave a comment
In meeting with settlers in the “Jewish only” colony of Ofra in 2001, Benjamin Netanyahu was caught on camera explaining how he sabotaged the Oslo peace accords and bragging that: “… America is something that can be moved easily.” In 2003, Prime Minister Sharon was quoted as telling the Israeli president: “we [Jews] control America.”
Sharon and Netanyahu’s ominous declarations were proven over again this week at the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) meeting. On Monday night, unlike Obama’s, Netanyahu’s speech was attended by “more than two thirds of the [US members of] Congress.” The AIPAC convention is the largest coveted “donors’” gathering for aspirants US politicians.
Netanyahu’s ability to move America was validated once more in President Obama’s recent interview with the Atlantic Magazine and on Sunday by his unctuous speech at the AIPAC annual convention.
In the Atlantic magazine interview, the President seemed more concerned with assuring members of the foreign lobby that he was the best Israeli friend in the White House, for: “Every single commitment I have made to… Israel… I have kept.”
After elaborating on the supplementary military assistance, including the anti missile “Iron Dome” to protect Israelis and “ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge…” to shielding Israel for violating human rights at “the [UN] Human Rights Council… UN General Assembly, or… the Goldstone report.”
The President makes then a final pathetic plea to Christian and Jewish Zionists: “Why is it despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they’ve had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?”
At the AIPAC convention, Obama cited Israel more than 70 times. Yet, zilch for the US economy while pandering to members of a US foreign lobby. Other than blaming Palestinians for the failing peace process, the only significant addition to his magazine interview was an obsequious praise to the Polish native and current Israeli president, Shimon Peres who will be awarded the US presidential Medal of Freedom later this spring.
To his credit, president Obama did not succumb to demands by the Israeli prime minister to set a war ultimatum “redline” to the Iranians. While Israel, appears resolute to instigate war against Iran as the preferred option. The US military and leadership seems equally determined to leave war as the last resort option.
In both his AIPAC speech and magazine interview, it was disturbing however that the US president- the country arming Israel with the best technology and subsidizing its economy annually with over $5 billion of economic and military aid (including special supplementary assistance) – still foresaw Israel as equal to the US in making war decisions. Especially, when such decisions could lead to a global economic meltdown and leave devastating impact on the sluggish US economy.
It is for the first time in US history, a US President implicitly delegates war authority- with high credible probability of future US involvement- to a belligerent foreign entity.
Realizing such power, combined with the Jewish lobby’s authority over US election and foreign policy, Israeli Prime Minister will now press further, unfettered, with his declared intention to undermine the peace process with the Palestinians.
The President ended his AIPAC address by preempting impending Republican contenders’ speeches, making one last vigor plea reminding Israel firsters: “there is no shortage on speeches on the friendship between the United States and Israel…“ however judge me by “where my hearts lies” and by “what I have done-to stand up for Israel”
Would Obama’s superb servitude credentials suffice the insatiable AIPAC? Or would Republican presidential candidates prove to be more servile to the most powerful US foreign lobby?
~
Jamal Kanj writes frequently on Arab World issues and the author of “Children of Catastrophe, Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America”, Garnet Publishing, UK. Jamal’s articles can be read at www.jamalkanj.com, his email address is jkanj@yahoo.com
March 8, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | AIPAC, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel, Obama, Shimon Peres, United States |
1 Comment
Israel is looking at Africa’s east as an important strategic interest, and trying to step up ties with nations in the region under the name of “controlling the spread of Islamic extremists”.
The Associated Press reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hosted the leaders of Uganda and Kenya earlier this week.
The Kenyan leader has said that the Zionist entity has promised to provide ‘security assistance’ to his country to help protect its borders.
Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga has said Netanyahu promised to help build “a coalition against fundamentalism,” bringing together the countries Kenya, Ethiopia, South Sudan and Tanzania. The African country also has said Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, has told him Israel is ready to make “everything available to Kenya” for internal security.
For the Israeli part, Netanyahu’s office refuses to comment on Odinga’s claims, while Peres’ office suggests the Kenyan leader has gone too far.
An official in the Peres’ office says he has boasted that Israel is one of the most advanced countries in the world regarding homeland security and would be happy to share its expertise with any country fighting “global terror.” But the official, speaking on condition of anonymity says no specifics have been discussed.
Another Israeli official says an alliance with Kenya and other eastern African countries is natural.
An agency quotes Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev as saying: “We have joint interests and we believe that mutual cooperation can be beneficial to us all”.
Uganda and Kenya have been battling al-Shabab, a Somalia-based ‘al-Qaeda’ linked group.
According to AP, the Zionist entity also has intentions to build strong ties with the newly liberated South Sudan whose president has held a meeting with Netanyahu at the United Nations in September.
In Israel’s eyes, eastern Africa poses a potential hinterland where ‘al-Qaeda’ and other militants can potentially forge ties with similarly minded groups just to the north in Egypt and Gaza. Israeli officials already believe that Sudan is a pathway for smugglers providing weapons to militants in Gaza and the Sinai, and that ‘al-Qaeda’ linked groups in Egypt have been behind a deadly cross-border raid in August that killed eight Israelis.
The Zionist entity already has military ties with several African countries, including Nigeria, Tanzania and the Ivory Coast.
Relations with Kenya, Uganda and South Sudan have not yet reached that stage, though Israel’s “Defense” Ministry has given clearance for private Israeli security firms to operate in those nations, including some arms sales. Israeli defense officials say intelligence sharing is limited to a few close allies at this stage.
“The Ministry of Defense has excellent relations with a number of friendly nations in Africa, especially internal security and counterterrorism,” an official said, refusing to elaborate. He was not allowed to be identified under ministry regulations.
Israel has a long history of involvement in Africa, sending experts in agriculture and development, as well as military advisers and mercenaries, over the years.
November 18, 2011
Posted by aletho |
Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | Africa, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel, Kenya, Mark Regev, Shimon Peres, Uganda |
2 Comments
Aletho News
Aletho News 