Controversial Bestseller Shakes the Foundation of the Israeli State

This interesting article reviews some of the main points in When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?, a book by Tel Aviv University scholar Shlomo Zand (or Sand)

What if the Palestinian Arabs who have lived for decades under the heel of the modern Israeli state are in fact descended from the very same "children of Israel" described in the Old Testament?

And what if most modern Israelis aren't descended from the ancient Israelites at all, but are actually a mix of Europeans, North Africans and others who didn't "return" to the scrap of land we now call Israel and establish a new state following the attempt to exterminate them during World War II, but came in and forcefully displaced people whose ancestors had lived there for millennia?

What if the entire tale of the Jewish Diaspora -- the story recounted at Passover tables by Jews around the world every year detailing the ancient Jews' exile from Judea, the years spent wandering through the desert, their escape from the Pharaoh's clutches -- is all wrong?

As I am not a Middle East specialist, I can't comment on the veracity of the book, but as a historian I can say that tradition is "invented" and rarely true. History is never proven. History is a type of story, and even if we knew all the facts (which we never do), there are countless different ways to tell the story, and there are varying meanings to attach to said facts. How we see our past is always coloured by the present.

In the end, we can't base a present day land claim on an unproven (and unprovable) story from the far distant past. People can never be restored to their "rightful" home (when the displacement was thousands of years ago), because people are always involved in voluntary and involuntary migrations. Once people have made a new home and have borne children there, you can't kick them out. This goes for both Palestinians and Israelis. Like it or not, this area has to become a home for both groups in one way or another. I prefer a one-state secular democracy, but recognize the challenges of this solution. We have yet to get over this "clash of civilizations" myth.

Interestingly, there are people arguing in the comments about genetic similarity/difference of Jewish people (for instance, that Jews are all surprisingly alike, or they are more similar to non-Jewish Arabs or non-Jewish Europeans or non-Jewish Ethiopians or whatever). While an interesting intellectual exercise (it can be helpful for tracing migration patterns in the distant past), this seems to me not only silly but potentially dangerous to use in determining current political and territorial rights. I'm pretty sure we no longer believe in reserving specific pieces of land for those with particular genetic sequences.

Thursday Thoughts

From Torontoist:

Tory MP Jason Kenney complained that Romeo Dallaire was overly harsh when Dallaire criticized the federal government's handling of the Omar Khadr case. Kenney is a former general who is credited with using meagre resources to save the lives of over 20,000 people during the Rwandan genocide in the face of massive indifference from the west…no, wait, sorry, that was Dallaire. Jason Kenney is a lifetime party hack who didn't finish his bachelor's degree. See, they're almost like twins!

From Paul Graham: al Naqba at 60 and the reflections of a recovered Zionist:

Looking back I am amazed at how easy it was to adopt completely contradictory political positions, for example, to cheer on American blacks in their struggle for civil rights and to be blissfully unaware of the grinding poverty and racist oppression of aboriginal people in my own community; to see the American invasion of Vietnam as a horrendous crime while cheering on the Israeli army as it triumphed in the "Six Day War" of 1967.

Young people are idealists by nature with an instinctive sympathy for underdogs of all kinds. Messages of freedom and equality resonate with youth, in part because they experience the inequality and lack of freedom that accompany parental control.

The direction their idealism takes and their ability to identify underdogs depends pretty much on what they learn, at home, at school, from the media. As the ‘60s progressed it became possible to understand the injustice and horror of the Vietnam War and the just demands of the American civil rights movement: these were on display on the evening TV news. Aboriginal people didn’t have a media voice; they were invisible. And as for Israel and my youthful Zionism, well, I blame American novelist Leon Uris. (Read the rest here)

Via illvox, Bolivian President Evo Morales' 10 commandments to save the planet:

1. In order to save the planet, the capitalist model must be eradicated and the North pay its ecological debt, rather than the countries of the South and throughout the world continuing to pay their external debts.

2. Denounce and PUT AN END to war, which only brings profits for empires, transnationals, and a few families, but not for peoples. The million and millions of dollars destined to warfare should be invested in the Earth, which has been hurt as a result of misuse and overexploitation.

3. Develop relations of coexistence, rather than domination, among countries in a world without imperialism or colonialism. Bilateral and multilateral relations are important because we belong to a culture of dialogue and social coexistence, but those relationships should not be of submission of one country to another. Read the other 7 here.

US Plotted To Overthrow Hamas After Election Victory

In the Guardian UK:

The Bush administration, caught out by the rise of Hamas, embarked on a secret project for the armed overthrow of the Islamist government in Gaza, it emerged yesterday.

Vanity Fair reports in its April edition that President George Bush and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, signed off on a plan for the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to remove the Hamas authorities in Gaza. The plan called for Washington's allies in the region to funnel arms and salaries to Fatah fighters who would lead a rising against Hamas.

Democracy turned into a farce. Scores of dead women, men and children. A horrible situation (which was slowly showing some progress) made even worse. Yep, good job, Bush.

The Bush administration plan sought to undo the results of elections in the West Bank and Gaza in January 2006 which, to the chagrin of White House and State Department officials, saw Hamas win a majority of seats in the Palestinian legislature.

The project was approved by Bush, Rice, and Elliott Abrams, the hawkish deputy national security adviser.

The 2006 election result was seen as an affront to the central premise of the Bush administration's policy in the Middle East - that democratic elections would inexorably lead to pro-western governments.

Whoops. Is our face red!

Not that this is entirely news, we all knew that this is what was going on. Of course, the Bush administration is denying the report "in unusually strong terms".

More in Vanity Fair, which broke the story. And on Democracy Now: Iran Contra 2.0: How the Bush Admin Lied to Congress and Armed Fatah to Provoke Palestinian Civil War Aiming to Overthrow Hamas

Suicide Bombing: Just Another Kind of Bombing?

So I was listening to CBC this morning and the Current was continuing a discussion (it's mail day) about suicide bombing: causes, etc. Some comments I agreed with, some I didn't. But what struck me was how odd it is that we spend so much time analyzing the technique of suicide bombing (remember I do think it is a rational tactic). Why do we treat it so differently than, say, aerial bombing, such as by the US in Iraq or Israel in the Occupied Territories?

Well, lets think about this for a moment. (And of course, first I need to make the requisite disclaimer: I do not condone suicide bombing, or civilian-targeting violence on the part of either terrorists or governments.)

What is the difference between a bomb that falls from the airplane of a conventional army and a bomb that is meant to explode while still attached to a body? Why does the second attract such complete and vehement denunciation (just watch what kind of comments this post gets) while the first elicits barely a comment?

Here are some possibilities:
A) Certainty of death. The person responsible for exploding the bomb will only maybe die in the first case, but will almost surely die in the second. Does this explain the completely different responses? I think not. After all, both are equally willing to kill for their causes. And if someone is willing to die for a cause (which is nothing new), that's his or her business, is it not?

B) Type of perpetrators. A soldier employed by the state in a conventional army is clearly different than a fighter in an unconventional force, so the violence perpetrated by the former must be treated differently than the latter. I think this is partially true, but is not a sufficient explanation. See, if it is not the technique that matters, but the actors, then any techniques employed by any non-state actors should be denounced as vociferously as suicide bombing. There are enough examples in recent history to prove that this is plainly not the case. (Not to mention that it is crazy to think that violence committed by a state is somehow more justifiable than violence committed by non-state actors, especially when you consider a state with no legitimacy - Iraq, Afghanistan - or no state at all - Palestine?)

C) Type of victims. We are often reminded that suicide bombers often kill civilians, something completely worthy of censure. But aerial bombardment is so efficient at killing civilians, it is a bit ridiculous to even raise this point.

D) Or is it that suicide bombing is nearly the only weapon left among certain dispossessed groups, who have almost no other techniques left at their disposal? For instance, the Palestinians have tried nonviolence, they have tried political solutions, and without an army or weapons, there are few military options, aside from rock throwing or homemade bombs with low-tech means of delivery. In other words, these people can't opt for airstrikes and other high-tech forms of killing. Unfortunately for the imperial powers and colonial occupiers who wish for the end of resistance (as of course all imperial powers do), it turns out to be a weapon that is nearly impossible to prevent from being used. In some situations, like the Palestinian/Israeli situation, I think this explanation has some validity.

I think a lot of it has also to be blamed on propaganda, perpetuated by an uncritical media that has bought into the clash of civilizations model. We (of the rational, normal, enlightened West) would never consider strapping bombs to our bodies and setting them off in a public place (we pay people to do our killing for us). Therefore, there must be something pathological about their culture/religion/part of the world.

I'm mostly just thinking out loud here. I'd be curious to hear other thoughts on this. Preferably non-frothing-at-the-mouth types.

White Woman in a Pant Suit Rescues the Dark Masses

This article which I noticed while writing my last post annoyed me so much I though it deserved its own post.

Laura Bush helps women in Saudi Arabia
First lady Laura Bush helped launch a screening facility in Saudi Arabia Tuesday as part of a U.S.-Saudi initiative to raise breast cancer awareness in the kingdom where doctors struggle to break long-held taboos about the disease.

Bush's trip to Saudi Arabia, her first to the oil-rich kingdom, is part of a regional tour that aims to highlight the need for countries to share resources and unite in the fight against breast cancer.

"Breast cancer does not respect national boundaries, which is why people from every country must share their knowledge, resources and experience to protect women from this disease," Bush said in a speech at the King Fahad Medical City in Riyadh.

Course we don't expect American pharmaceutical companies to share their knowledge, resources, and treatment drugs.

"The cure for breast cancer can come from a researcher in Washington or a young doctor in Riyadh," she added.

Well shut my mouth! They have doctors in the desert?

Bush, who wore a navy blue pant suit, arrived in Riyadh from the United Arab Emirates, her first Mideast stop. Visiting female dignitaries are not required to don the traditional black cloak that all women in Saudi Arabia must wear in public. She was greeted by Prince Faisal bin Abdullah, the king's son, who is honorary president of the Saudi Cancer Society.

She's so modern and advanced, she wears PANTS! But hey, I want to know what the prince wore, too.

Bush visited the Abdul-Latif cancer screening center, the country's first, where she met with Saudi women affected by breast cancer.

She later witnessed the signing the U.S.-Saudi Arabia Partnership for Breast Cancer Awareness and Research agreement at a packed auditorium at the King Fahad Medical City.

Saudi became the third country to take on the program, which was organized by the State Department and includes the Susan G. Komen Foundation with MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas, Johns Hopkins Medicine in Maryland, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Before the agreement was signed, Dr. Samia al-Amoudi, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in April, spoke about the pain she felt when her 10-year-old daughter asked her if she would one day be stricken with the same disease.

She said she told her daughter "hopefully you will be able to tell your children there was once a disease called breast cancer that killed women, but it no longer is the problem it once was."

Al-Amoudi, a gynecologist, said about 70 percent of breast cancer cases in Saudi Arabia will not be reported until they are at a very late stage, compared with 30 percent or less in the U.S. She also said 30 percent of Saudi patients are under 40 years old.

Al-Amoudi said many of the hurdles in Saudi Arabia are not medical. For instance, until recently, it was widely considered socially improper to refer to the disease by name in the kingdom, she said.

"People would refer to breast cancer as 'the bad disease' or 'that disease,'" said al-Amoudi.

"But today, when we talk to the highest levels of authority or are speaking in front of all kinds of media about this issue we name the disease for what it is: breast cancer," she added.

I don't know about you but I think women like this doctor are doing an amazing job on their own. Personally I'd rather hear more of what she has to say. First of all, becoming a doctor (getting through med school) is a hell of an accomplishment for anyone. She is providing essential services to women in her community. She is speaking out despite fear of reprisal (in this context, speaking the name "breast cancer" publicly is an act of bravery). Having the First Lady of America supporting your cause can bring helpful media attention, can maybe even exert pressure on the Saudi state, but how sad is it that women like al-Amoudi are eclipsed by a White Western Wealthy Wife?

Dr. Abdullah al-Amro, head of the King Fahad Medical City, said that almost one-fifth of all women with cancer in Saudi Arabia have breast cancer.

Bush, whose mother and grandmother suffered from breast cancer, was also scheduled to meet with King Abdullah and with breast cancer survivors during her visit. She will then travel to Kuwait, where she will meet with women democratic reformers, legal advocates and business leaders.

Laura Bush last visited the Middle East in 2005, stopping in Jordan, Egypt, Israel and the Palestinian territories to promote freedom, education and the role of women.

Ugh. Gag me with a spoon.

Much worse than the story is the picture that went with it:

"Unidentified Saudi female doctor"? You couldn't ask her for her name? And doesn't Bush look so smug? And the darn medical equipment is blocking my view of her perfect perfect pant suit.

Who's Got Our Oil?

We may never solve the riddle of why God put our oil under their sand, but at least we know how to get it back. After all, if God didn't want us invading, slaughtering, and destroying resource-rich countries, he wouldn't have given us such a powerful military-industrial complex.


It may not be that accurate (Canada is so small - I assume tar sands aren't included) but this world map is a very special world map. It tells us
who has our oil.

That means this Very Special Map can tell the future. In a simple visual display of colour and shape, it shows us which countries we needs under our control. The bigger the chunk of map, the sooner we'll invade (unless other arrangements are made).

The Challenge of Progressive Solidarity: Hamas, Palestine, plus a Fishy Analogy

From MADRE:

The question is: how do we support the people of Palestine without endorsing the Hamas leadership? Let's be clear: Hamas' long-term social vision is repressive. Hamas is a movement driven by militarism and nationalism. It aims to institutionalize reactionary ideas about gender and sexuality, and it uses religion as a smokescreen to pursue its agenda.

And there is another, equally important question: how do we put forward this critique of Hamas without reinforcing the Bush Administration's anti-Arab, anti-Islamic rhetoric? We do that by taking a stand for a sane and humane US policy in the Middle East. When we demand an end to both Israeli occupation and US attempts to control the resources and governments of the region, we refuse to be conscripted into Bush's "war on terror."

Some people worry that criticizing Hamas means casting doubt on the legitimacy of its leadership. It doesn't. MADRE recognizes that Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council through a fair election and that Hamas must be part of any future negotiations. And MADRE acknowledges that Hamas has enabled many Palestinians to survive the ravages of Israeli occupation by providing healthcare, education, and other critical social services to families in need. We don't contest the legitimacy of Hamas' rule, but that doesn't mean that we are required to support them—any more than we are bound to support the new administration of Nicolas Sarkozy in France or any other elected government.

This article is relevant for more than this specific situation. It speaks to a very important question: how do we make a difference in this world while being neither insular nor reflexive nor by reinforcing the colonial order of things?

We have to walk a fine line. On the one hand, we need to acknowlege and respect the specificity of experiences in other cultures that differ from our own - this to avoid imposing our Western values upon others. And yet we need to not give up on the values that make us progressive. I believe a big part of that is rather than trying to dictate the terms of our support, we need to listen to the voices of the disenfranchised, whenever possible taking our cue from them. The organizations who are fighting for justice, equity, and human rights within their own countries don't need us to tell them what to do. Indeed, we can often learn from them. And those organizations we disagree with, do not need our unconditional support.

We do not have to make a choice between Fatah and Hamas. We can understand and support the right of the Palestinians to elect Hamas, while disagreeing vehemently with the platform and tactics of Hamas. Sort of like how we do not have to offer one of Obama or Hillary our unconditional support.

Our greatest responsibility to the people of the two-thirds world is probably at home - meaning, preventing our own governments and corporations from following policies that are often the root cause of so much violence, misery, and suffering. To paraphrase/mangle something I read the other day, that saying about not just giving someone fish, but teaching that person how to fish, needs to be updated. You best belive a people located in a coastal region knows how to fish. They don't need our charity, nor our patronizing fishing lessons. They need us to stop polluting the water. Or to stop arresting and killing them when they fish.

The Reality of People in Gaza: Could You Live Like This?

Via Window into Palestine:

One thing this video shows particularly well is the psychological implications for Palestinian children.

Aside from the violence, and the restrictions on movement, the sanctions on the Palestinians are also extremely oppressive. They get sick from dirty water and there's no medicine to make them better. Rates of malnutrition are increasing. People in Gaza can't even fish anymore, which means about a third of their meager dietary protein is now gone. It is truly a humanitarian crisis.

The Myth of the "Clash of Civilizations"

No matter how hard many world leaders are trying, the people aren't buying - the myth of the "Clash of Civilizations" that is.

A BBC World Service poll of over 28,000 respondents across 27 countries found that a majority of people worldwide believe the tensions between Islam and the West are due to conflicts over political power and interests - not from differences of religion and culture.

“Most people around the world clearly reject the idea that Islam and the West are caught in an inevitable clash of civilizations,” said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

A majority also agree that violent conflict between Islam and the West is not inevitable. Only 28% think that violent conflict is inevitable, while twice as many (56%) believe that "common ground can be found."
- Source
You can also read the BBC Story

What do Canadians think?

More than seven in ten Canadians believe common ground can be found between Muslim and Western cultures. Seventy-three percent say that common ground can be found, while just 16 percent believe that violent conflict is inevitable. A significant majority (56%) of Canadians sees “conflicts about political power and interests” as the source of tensions between Islam and the West, while fewer than three in ten (29%) believe they arise from religious and cultural differences. Three in four Canadians (74%) also see intolerant minorities as a primary reason for tensions between Islam and the West compared to just 19 percent who blame cultural differences. Fifty-five percent of Canadians fault intolerant minorities on both sides, far more than those who specifically cite a Muslim (12%) or Western (7%) minority. (SOURCE

At least two illustrious leaders, however, like to make the case that there is a deeper cultural or religious conflict. George Bush, right after 9/11:

Americans are asking, why do they [terrorists] hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

Which is of course, ridiculous. They don't hate the West's "freedoms". If anything, they hate our Imperialism.

Stephen Harper, in a speech speech to B'nai Brith

But the fact is this: those who attacked Israel – and those who sponsor such attacks – don’t seek merely to gain some leverage, to alter some boundary, or to right some wrong.

They seek what they and those like them have always sought – the destruction of Israel and the destruction of the Jewish people.

Why? A thousand complicated rationalizations but only one simple reason – because the Jews are different. Because the Jews are not like them.

Again, ridiculous. As if it were possible to find "one simple reason" for Israel-Palestine, but if you had to, probably it would be the extreme imbalance of power and resources - oppression due to occupation - not because they are "different". Does he also think Iraq's insurgents do it because Americans are "different"?

The right-wing media is even more blunt. Bill O'Reilly says "if Islam didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be a war on terror." Heidi Harris continually refers to "Islamic fascists" on Hardball (a term Amy Goodman thankfully calls her on, labeling it "racist" and "disgusting").

Much of the MSM's discussion of war and terrorism is done within this "cowboys and Indians" frame, in which we are the good guys and they are the evildoers. At best, it's lazy and at worst it's sickening bigotry.

For an example, see my analysis of the portrayal of the recent conflict in Somalia.

Israel and the Canadian Media

For background, read this article by Dan Freeman-Maloy, an excellent analysis of the Canadian media's biased reporting of last summer's Israel/Lebabon and Israel/Gaza conflicts. He accurately sums up the double standard in Canadian media: "No attacks on Israel can have been provoked. All of Israel’s attacks must be provoked and defensive."

He makes special mention of Toronto Star columnist Mitch Potter, who he says,

reduced Palestinian resistance to stubborn stupidity and described the fallen fighters as animals: "Another batch of Palestinian militants drawn out lemming-like and falling by the dozen to higher-calibre Israeli fire, just like their predecessors".

This was quoted in Justin Podur's blog Killing Train. Potter responded to Podur, defending himself:

I have been called many things in my time in the Middle East -- in fact, the dominant thrust of my critics after nearly five years of reporting from the region is that I am overempathetic to the plight of Palestinians.

The only thing this proves is how biased mainstream opinion really is. Compared with mainstream media, Potter is indeed fairly moderate, so it isn't surprising they'd consider him "overempathetic to the plight of Palestinians".

Podur responded to Potter's response yesterday. What was interesting was his scorn for the ideal of parity in coverage. The ideal of parity explains why even those who are trying to defend Palestinian rights are often careful to apportion blame equally to both Israel and the Palestinians, or they risk being totally reviled. But one of the underlying facts about this conflict is that it isn't a struggle between two equal forces. The consequences are also not equal. Take casualties for example:

Human rights organizations document the disparity. According to B'Tselem, from the beginning of the second intifada in September 2000 to the end of January 2007, Palestinians had killed 1020 Israelis, 704 of whom were civilians, 119 of whom were children. According to the PCHR, up until September 2006, when you sent me your email, Israel had killed 3859 Palestinians, 3069 of whom were unarmed, 724 of whom were children. It had completely demolished 2831 Palestinian homes and partially destroyed 2427. It had leveled 37 square kilometers (an area 10% the size of Gaza) and destroyed 677 industrial facilities.

You also must know that the disparity has grown in recent years. For the period during which I looked at your work (July 2006 – December 2006), Israeli forces killed 479 Palestinians, wounded 1650, and arrested 1570. By contrast, Palestinians killed 4 Israeli security personnel and 2 Israeli civilians.

The analysis of Potter's writing shows how language is used differently when describing the Palestinians compared to Israelis. Podur calls Potter racist. My sense is that this is simply a perfect example of how it is nearly impossible to think outside the dominant "Cowboys & Indians" Western world-view which designates who is good and who is evil. The same acts are viewed completely differently based on who is the perpetrator. And language transmits these biases, even when they are not necessarily intended.

Read the opening of this November article by Potter

Bedevilled by the continuing scourge of homemade Qassam rocket attacks, Israeli officials are believed to be exploring a new diplomatic overture that calls for the surrender of large swathes of the West Bank to a new Palestinian leadership in exchange for a decade-long ceasefire.

The plan, still in the formative stages, was outlined yesterday in the Hebrew daily Ma'ariv as a "bold and original" initiative that would enable the creation of a provisional Palestinian state as a first step toward normalization with Palestinians and the wider Arab world.

Reading this with no background information who would you think are evil and who heroes?

Via Zmag.

Punished for Electing the Wrong Leaders

The Americans (let's suppose) democratically elected George Bush, whose administration uses violence to further its goals. Therefore the Americans must live with the consequences of their actions; they must starve. Food will not enter the country. Their taxes will not pay for their services, but stay outside the country. They will not be allowed to leave their local areas. They will be kidnapped, jailed, shot - civilians: men, women, children.

Here in Canada, Harper is our democratically elected leader. Under his watch we've stepped up our mission of destroying Afghanistan. Does that mean now that I (even though I voted Green), you, your children, the peace activists, the Liberals, those who didn't vote, and all the rest of us Canadians should lose our right to a decent life free from hunger, torture, and violent death?

Why would this be considered ludicrously unjust for Americans and Canadians, but considered fair and reasonable for Palestinians?

The Palestinians democratically elected Hamas, which we are told was bad because Hamas is a terrorist organization (presumably because they use violence to further their goals). Therefore the Palestinians must live with the consequences of their actions; they must starve. (See: "Gaza is a Jail. Nobody is allowed to leave. We are all starving now")

Non-Violent Resistance in Iraq

Although we don't hear about it in the media, there has been, from the beginning of the occupation, active popular non-violent resistance in Iraq, using many different nonviolent tools and techniques including strikes, marches, civil disobedience and other forms of civil resistance.

No thanks to the US occupation.

WarResisters.org: There are at least two things the people of the United States don't seem to know about the U.S. occupation of Iraq. One is the magnitude of the violence being wreaked on the people of Iraq by the U.S. occupation forces (alone or in conjunction with Iraqi troops). The other is the breadth and extent of Iraqi nonviolent resistance to the violence of the occupation.
...
Nonviolent demonstrations against the occupation have been occurring constantly since the invasion. Some 20,000 gathered in Firdous Square a few days after the infamous pulling down of Saddam Hussein's statue to demonstrate against the occupiers. And the same has been true in Fallujah, Najaf, Amara, Kut, Basra Mosul, Irbil - all over Iraq. On August 25, the Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani arrived in Najaf at the head of a nonviolent force to put an end to the violence there. He succeeded in brokering a deal between the armed Iraqis and the attacking occupation forces. The nonviolent march to Najaf achieved what more than three weeks of relentless ground and aerial attacks by the occupiers could not.

Sort of like how we never hear about nonviolent Palestinian and Israeli resistance.

Peace is Possible in Iraq

What would it take to create peace in Iraq? Why not ask Iraqis? That's exactly what a delegation of American citizens did in August 2006. The Iraq Reconciliation Plan is an "aggregation of preconditions for bringing peace to Iraq". In other words, it's not everything, but it's at least a start.

Iraq Reconciliation Plan: Ten Points
1. End the occupation of Iraq.
2. Create a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops that is synchronized with the implementation of the Iraq reconciliation plan.
3. Disband the militias created after the occupation.
4. Revise Bremer's Orders and allow the Iraqis to rebuild their army.
5. Rewrite the Iraqi Constitution.
6. Keep Iraq as one state and do not partition into multiple states.
7. Begin the promised reconstruction of Iraq. Employ Iraqis and not foreign workers or contractors.
8. Acknowledge Iraqis' right to resist the U.S. occupation, negotiate with the resistance, and give amnesty to Iraqis resisting the occupation.
9. Investigate all the crimes that were committed by the new Iraqi Government and by the occupation forces in Iraq.
10. Make a fair distribution of oil income and natural resources.

More information here and here.

An American in Hezbollah's Tent

Excerpts from Rethinking Terrorism: A Jewish American Crosses into Hezbollah Territory:

I found myself in front of a squad of Jordanian police, explaining that I could not share in the bread they were offering because it was Eid al-Pesach, a holiday commemorating the Jewish escape from Egypt thousands of years ago.

They offered me yogurt and a spoon.

In all my travels in the Middle East I have repeatedly received the same welcome response.

This trip to Lebanon was no different than the other trips to the Middle East, says the author, which leads to the question:

How does the bombing start when we can we stand here chatting politely, drinking coffee, asking questions about Israel and Lebanese politics? Who are the people who start the bombing? Who are the kidnappers and the killers? And why can't they talk a little more first?

Why indeed? It is at least partially due to the incredible fear-mongering seen from the government and media. Fear is the most useful tool for governments bent on warmaking, and the media are their echo chamber. There is a dangerous and irrational anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hysteria, mostly fueled by the false, but fear-provoking equation: Muslim = Terrorist.

Howard Zinn reminded us of this in a recent address, by quoting Göring, who said: "Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war? But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. It works the same way in any country." (Emphasis mine)

Filed under Reflection

Media Void

Swedish human rights worker viciously attacked by Jewish extremists in Hebron: Story Not Covered in Major Media

"If 100 Palestinians chanting anti-Christian slogans had smashed a 19-year-old Swedish girl in the face with a bottle, breaking her cheek bone, it would be headlines in much of the US media." Via IfAmericansKnew Group.

Well, Israeli extremist settlers did just that, and nary a peep from the major Western news outlets.

Please contact your local media, tell them you have a news tip.

To see if our agitaging has yet made a difference, visit Google News. Today's screenshot at left shows only 7 pieces of coverage, none of which are from major Western media.) Today we only read about the oldest Palestinian suicide bomber who injured 2 Israeli soldiers (also awful, but both stories are equally deserving of coverage).

From International Solidarity Movement

A 19-year old Swedish human rights worker had her cheekbone broken by a Jewish extremist in Hebron today. Earlier the same day at least five Palestinians, including a 3-year-old child, were injured by the settler-supporting extremists, who rampaged through Tel Rumeida hurling stones and bottles at local residents. Palestinian schoolchildren on their way home were also attacked. The Israeli army, which was intensively deployed in the area, did not intervene to stop the attacks.
............
The incident was the latest attack by extremist Jews in Hebron. The small group of Khannist settlers in Tel Rumeida regularly attack and harass Palestinians in the area. The violence sometimes spills over to the international human rights workers who accompany Palestinians in an attempt to protect them from settler attack.

Here is the response by the spokespeople for The Jewish Community of Hebron, suggesting to the Swedish Foreign Ministry that, "in order to avoid any other unpleasant incidents in Hebron, all Swedish citizens, including members of TIPH and others, such as Ms. Johansson, be requested to stop their politically provocative anti-Jewish activities, leave Hebron immediately and stop interfering in internal Israeli affairs."

Topics: Media Issues, Middle East

U.S. Again Stands in the way of Justice for Palestinians

Despite the massacre in Beit Hanun, the recent shooting of Palestinian women at a demonstration, and other egregious acts, the US once again uses its veto power in the UN Security to prevent justice. (10 of the last 11 vetoes have been cast by the United States. Almost all of those were to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict.)

How is it possible to imagine this is moral? The devastation of the lives of people trapped in Gaza is appalling. Reality is so disturbing. How many people, if they are aware of what is happening, can morally justify standing by while these acts take place? Is it that we don't really see what is going on? Let that not be the excuse: Here are some photos and some more (warning, graphic content).

More on The Middle East

Non-Violent resistance in Israel and the Occupied territories

Despite what is an increasingly violent and militaristic culture in Israel, there are so many individuals and groups who are standing up and saying no more.

There are the extremely courageous Israeli conscientious objectors, who face imprisonment for refusing to fight and kill.

There's Yehuda Shaul, who wants Israelis and the world to know what is being perpetrated upon the Palestinian people. As he puts it, he is trying to break the silence, because "what's going on in the Occupied Territories is like the biggest secret in Israeli society. It's like the taboo. You never talk about it." (Listen/Read/Watch the Interview)

There is also so much non-violent resistance among Palestinians that is overshadowed by violent acts and underreported by the media.

I am particularly hopeful, however, about the solidarity movements and women's groups that are coalitions of both Israeli and Palestinian Women (like Coalition of Women for Peace and Bereaved Families Circle).

Here is an interesting podcast describing some of the Israelis and Palestinians who are using non-violent resistance to oppose the occupation. (listen/download mp3 - about 20 minutes long, and definitely worth a listen).

---

UPDATE DEC 18, 2006 - Yesterday there was a related article in The Star: Ex-soldiers break 'silence' on Israeli excesses: Yehuda Shaul tells Haroon Siddiqui 'something rotten' is going on in Gaza and the West Bank.

War Preparations for Impending Iran-US Conflict: Canadian Participation?

I want to be proud of being Canadian.

Right now it's kinda hard. I'm not proud of what we are doing (and not doing) in Afghanistan. I'm not proud of our role in destabilizing Haiti. I'm really not proud of our current participation in war preparations clearly targeting Iran, including the naval militarization of the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

What's this? Canada is preparing for war with Iran and the government didn't even tell Canadian citizens? Well, we are sending a warship as "part of Canada's campaign against terrorism in the Persian Gulf" (source)

Details:

The Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is actively collaborating in this military endeavor.

Canadian foreign policy has been steadily and successively militarized by two successive governments.

The government of Prime Minister Paul Martin (Liberal) implemented the “three-dimensional policy” of the “3-Ds” (“Diplomacy”, “Development,” and “Defense"), adding a military component to Canadian foreign aid and development assistance.

The 3-Ds brought Canada into performing as more active role in U.S.-led operations in NATO garrisoned Afghanistan. Despite the public protest, Canada has become an integral member of the Anglo-American military alliance.

Canada's involvement is not limited to Afghanistan as suggested by the press reports and official statements.

The H.M.C.S. Ottawa has been dispatched to the Persian Gulf, leaving in September, from British Columbia. Officially the H.M.C.S. Ottawa is being deployed as part of Canada's contribution to fighting the “War on Terrorism.” The Canadian vessel is the first publicly known ship to be deployed to the waters of the Middle East in about a year.5 The Canadian vessel is slated to be fully integrated into "Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5), which will be seafaring in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, off the Iranian coast.

From GlobalResearch.ca. Read even more here.

There are a lot of questions about a potential Iranian conflict, chief of which is, will it actually happen? I don't think anyone knows for sure, but as predicted (and I briefly covered here) the aircraft carrier Eisenhower has been deployed, making war "probable".

More on war in the Middle East

"War, War, Rumours of War"

War: Afghanistan
Canadians are at war in Afghanistan (or are we?). Whatever Harper calls it, we are killing and dying to protect a corrupt government filled with fundamentalist warlords against Taliban extremists. Oh good for us, killing bad people to protect other bad people; at least we think we are killing bad people. The Taliban can't be identified by membership cards, skin tone, T-Shirt colour, or any other convenient identity markers, so apparently soldiers are rounding up Afghan men in communities and reporting them as Taliban captured or killed. Well, I guess it's good for our troops. You know, dying is a real character builder.

War: Iraq
What is there to say? Imperialism by any other name is still... Imperialism.

Rumours of War: Iran
Yesterday on Democracy Now, an interesting analysis of Bush's speech at the UN General Assembly and a prediction of how a war on Iran might be played out. Phyllis Bennis tells of reports "in the last couple of days in Time magazine and elsewhere, indicating that there have in fact been orders preparing to deploy U.S. Navy warships towards Iran" with the goal of a naval blockade. She says most Americans don't know this is considered an act of war, so when Iran responds to the blockade (as is their right under Article 51 of the UN Charter), "the Bush administration would very likely call that an unprovoked attack on peaceful U.S. ships and would respond militarily, claiming to be responding in self-defense."

Until the philosophy which hold one race
Superior and another inferior
Is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned
Everywhere is war, me say war

That until there are no longer first class
And second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes
Me say war

That until the basic human rights are equally
Guaranteed to all, without regard to race
Dis a war

That until that day
The dream of lasting peace, world citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion
To be persued, but never attained
Now everywhere is war, war
- Bob Marley

Why can't we be more like our cousins?

More on War

Gaza is a Jail. Nobody is allowed to leave. We are all starving now'

A whole society is being destroyed. There are 1.5 million Palestinians imprisoned in the most heavily populated area in the world. Israel has stopped all trade. It has even forbidden fishermen to go far from the shore so they wade into the surf to try vainly to catch fish with hand-thrown nets.

From Common Dreams

UNCTAD said the economic crisis was being compounded by decreasing levels of aid from foreign governments and institutions since the militant group Hamas swept January parliamentary elections. Western nations and Israel have been withholding hundreds of millions of dollars from the Hamas-led government because of the group's refusal to disarm, recognize Israel and accept existing peace agreements.

From CNN

Now that Hamas has agreed to dissolve the government and form a coalition, will things change? Will the Palestinians in Gaza have a chance to live?