The Media , Madona and Michael

Link

https://i0.wp.com/www.israelity.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/peres-madona-3_wh.jpg
The old-Devil and the new-Witch !!

For the coming 15 days ,
I beg of you all to carefully watch
which Media shall mention that Michael Jackson
has converted to Islam , and which Media shall never do it.

Make your own statistics
and then make your own conclusions.

As if ,
it were “wrong” to convert to Islam
as Michael obviously did , therefore it is rather irrelevant…..
but otherwise it is perfectly alright to do as Madona recently did,
….converting to Judaism !!

Bearing in mind that you cannot convert into a “race “
…..although Jews pretend to be a race-people-nation-culture.
When it is normal to convert to Islam , which is
a brotherhood of beleivers , a Religion…..the Religion !!

Madona can now ” inherit ” the Land of Canaan
while probably Michael Jackson , would in theory
enter the Heavens….without ever stealing Mecca…..
nor stealing Jerusalem.

Bearing in mind that Madona , “legaly” ,
may steal Jerusalem now that she became a Jew….

Back to our story !

Watch the news , please ,
and tell us who or what shall ever reveal to us
and indeed to the large public, that Michael Jackson
died as , a converted-Muslim-person ?
and who shall not mention it ?? and how often ??

Raja Chemayel

Posted by Тлакскала at 11:32 PM
Advertisements

Who may dictate to us about the Dictators ??

Link

The main-stream- Media’s and the West ,
have decided to call President AhmadiNejad ,
as being a dictator…. .

Of course it is a matter of opinion
and all opinions are subjective.. …(even mine)

Do we have facts , supporting
the claim or the theory of “Dictator” ????

How different is Mr. Moussavi ???
Or any other presidential- candidate !!

Let us hear it , por favor !!!.

Raja Chemayel

Posted by Тлакскала at 11:23 PM

Two eyewitnesses deny the Basij Involvemen in Neda’s assasination

Link

"Embers and Ashes:" An intellectual’s exile, struggle and success

Link
Atef Alshaer, The Electronic Intifada, 30 June 2009

“My homeland, you have spurned me … I shall never return to you … I shall never ever return to you …”

So ends Hisham Sharabi’s compelling autobiography, Embers and Ashes: Memoirs of an Arab Intellectual. Sharabi, a leading Palestinian intellectual who died in 2005, uttered these words to himself on board a plane from Amman, Jordan to the United States in 1949. He studied and taught in the US for the rest of his life, retiring as a professor of history at Georgetown University in 1998. Ably translated from Arabic by Issa J. Boullata, Embers and Ashes is a poignant story of an intellectual’s exile and struggle.

Sharabi transports the reader seamlessly from his early life in Palestine, where he was born in 1927, to his studies at the American University of Beirut, and finally his own American experience and life as a university professor at Georgetown. While it occasionally lacks cohesion, the book is unmistakably personal and insightful.

Sharabi’s departure from Amman was preceded by tumultuous events in Lebanon where he was a prominent activist in the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), led by Antun Saadeh. Perhaps more than anyone else, it was Saadeh who influenced Sharabi’s intellectual trajectory. Saadeh’s political line and that of the SSNP was premised on unity between Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. Sharabi depicts Saadeh sympathetically as a man of deep human values: courageous, inspirational and subtly intellectual. But he also shows other aspects of Saadeh’s personality:

“He used to speak of the party as if it were an actual government on the verge of taking power. In his personal behavior and public stance, he acted like a man of state. The party in his view was the only political force that stood up to colonialism and could achieve independence. It was the only force that could liberate Palestine. I think that Saadeh underestimated the depth of sectarian, tribal, and feudal feelings in [Lebanon]” (150-151).

There are two issues regarding Saadeh’s approach to which Sharabi submitted uncritically, and on which he later seems to renege. Firstly, he did not oppose Saadah’s grandiose vision of the Syrian homeland, which shifted from being confined to Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and Transjordan, to include Iraq, Kuwait and Cyprus. Secondly, Sharabi embraced Saadah’s view that “the individual was a mere means that society used to achieve its aims; and that society represented a firm and abiding ‘truth,’ whereas individuals fell away like autumn leaves,” thereby “ascribing a universality to society and considering society an ultimate ideal in itself” (59-60). However, Sharabi developed a more nuanced and critical view of these matters, particularly in his attribution of a more central and visible role to the individual in society.

Sharabi was also influenced by German philosopher Nicolai Hartmaan, who “considered moral values as justice, courage, love, and friendship to be objective and timeless. For him, those values enjoyed an eternal existence, like Plato’s ideals” (129).

Embers and Ashes also provides an insightful reading of the Arab and American intellectual landscape. Sharabi is unsparing in his biting criticism of the intellectual and academic environment in the Arab world and points to serious flaws in education. Nor does he hold back in criticizing Arab universities for failing their students. He attributes to them his slowness in grasping the rigorous methods of learning which he encountered in the US. Stating that “I may forgive those to whom I owe my education for their ignorance and their foolishness. But it is far more difficult to forgive them their arrogance and the moral cruelty they practiced in distorting me and calling it an education” (22). For this discussion alone, Sharabi’s book deserves a wide reading, particularly by Arab intellectuals, because it is critical of teachers and professors who are too engrossed in themselves and their self-made grandeur.

Sharabi was born in Jaffa and lived in Acre, and his discussion of Palestine is the familiar but ever-relevant Palestinian yearning for a country that was stolen. He tenderly evokes the image of Acre, the beautiful sea stretching before his eyes, the fertile fields of grain glistening in the eye of the sun, the orange, lemon and olive trees with their scent wafting through; the cascade of houses, finely built and designed; the neighbors sitting peacefully together. But there is often something tragic about Palestinians recollecting or being exposed to images of their towns and villages from which they were expelled in 1948. The Acre that Sharabi knows and evokes before 1948 in his book becomes a less recognizable place as he receives a photograph of it from his Jewish friend, Uri Davis: “familiar, but strange at the same time, in another world … the remaining Arab inhabitants have been forbidden to live in the new city, outside the wall, and have been forced to live within the walled old city, which has become a casbah to the Jews, visited by foreign tourists wanting to buy locally made articles and to see ‘the Arab population of Israel.'” (76).

Sharabi does not dwell on his own significant intellectual contributions as such. In the book, he reflects on his observations and involvement in the SSNP and interactions with events in the Arab world from a distance. He does, however, refer to papers he presented at conferences and gives general comments about his contributions. He considered Zionism as part of an imperial project that could only be understood, and as such dealt with, once there is a proper understanding of the broader context of European colonialism. He also refers to the patrimonial and patriarchal characteristics of Arab societies that weakened their sense of resistance against their aggressors and curtailed their individual freedoms. In this sense, the book provides an incisive reading on many levels of the Arab cultural and political landscape by someone who has been at the thick of major historical events: 1948, the emergence of socialist and nationalist parties in greater Syria and the Arab world and his experience as a Palestinian Arab in America. Sharabi rightly saw value in transmitting his experience and thoughts to new generations, and he does so with distinctive astuteness and sensitivity.

Embers and Ashes is not only a story of exile and struggle, but also of well-deserved resounding success. It is a fitting testament to Sharabi’s life as a Palestinian beacon of humanity and intellectual honesty.

Atef Alshaer has first graduated from Birzeit University in Palestine, where he studied English Language and Literature. He holds a doctorate in Linguistics from the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Related Links

Israeli doctors colluding in torture of Palestinian detainees

Iink

Jonathan Cook, The Electronic Intifada, 30 June 2009


Boys showing things they endured in captivity.

Israel’s watchdog body on medical ethics has failed to investigate evidence that doctors working in detention facilities are turning a blind eye to cases of torture, according to Israeli human rights groups.

The Israeli Medical Association (IMA) has ignored repeated requests to examine such evidence, the rights groups say, even though it has been presented with examples of Israeli doctors who have broken their legal and ethical duty towards Palestinians in their care.

The accusations will add fuel to a campaign backed by hundreds of doctors from around the world to force Yoram Blachar, who heads the IMA, to step down from his recent appointment as president of the World Medical Association (WMA).

More than 700 doctors have signed a petition arguing that Dr. Blachar has disqualified himself from leadership of the WMA, the profession’s governing ethical body, by effectively condoning torture in Israel.

The campaign against Dr. Blachar has gained ground rapidly since his appointment as president in November. Critics said his alleged complicity in the use of torture in Israeli detention facilities can be traced to 1995, when he became chairman of the IMA.

Until 1999, when Israel’s high court restricted torture, Israeli doctors routinely supervised the medical treatment of abused detainees, mostly Palestinians from the occupied territories.

During that period Dr. Blachar surprised many colleagues by expressing support for Israeli interrogators’ use of “moderate physical pressure” in a letter to The Lancet, the British medical journal. The phrase covers a wide range of practices from beatings and binding prisoners in painful positions to sleep deprivation. It is regarded by human rights organizations as a euphemism for torture.

Despite the 1999 court ruling, a coalition of 14 Israeli human rights groups known as United Against Torture concluded in its latest annual report in November that Israeli detention facilities are still using torture systematically. Israeli doctors are also being relied on to treat the resulting injuries.

Last week, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I) and the Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PCATI) published a joint report examining hundreds of arrests in which Palestinians were bound in “distorted and unnatural” ways to inflict “pain and humiliation” amounting to torture.

The report noted instances where prisoners, including a pregnant woman and a dying man, were shackled while doctors carried out emergency procedures in a hospital.

According to the report, the doctors violated the Tokyo Declaration, the key code of medical ethics adopted by the WMA in 1975 that bans the use of cruel, humiliating or inhuman treatment by physicians.

Ishai Menuchin, the head of PCATI, said his group had been lobbying strenuously against Israeli doctors’ complicity in torture since it issued a report, “Ticking Bombs,” in 2007, arguing that torture was routine in Israel.

PCATI highlighted the testimonies of nine Palestinians who had been tortured by interrogators. The report also noted that in most cases Israeli physicians treating detainees “return their patients to additional rounds of torture, and remain silent.”

In June last year, PHR-I drew the IMA’s attention to two cases in which the attending doctor failed to report signs of torture on a Palestinian.

Anat Litvin of PHR-I told the IMA: “We believe that doctors are used by torturers as a safety net — take them out of the system and torture will be much more difficult to enact.”

The groups stepped up their pressure in February, writing to Avinoam Reches, the chairman of the IMA’s ethics committee. They demanded that his association investigate six cases of doctors who failed to report signs of torture.

In one case, a prison doctor, under pressure from interrogators, agreed to retract a written recommendation that a detainee be immediately hospitalized for treatment.

Reches promised to conduct an inquiry. However, last month the two human rights groups criticized him for failing to investigate their claims, accusing him of holding only “amicable and unofficial” conversations over the phone with a few of the doctors concerned.

“We have sent to the IMA many testimonies from victims of torture who were referred to doctors for treatment,” Dr. Menuchin said. “But the IMA has yet to do anything about it.

“A significant number of doctors in Israel, in detention facilities and public hospitals, know torture is taking place, but choose to avert their gaze.”

This month, Defence for Children International-Palestine Section issued a report on the torture of Palestinian children, noting that in several of the cases it cited, Israeli doctors had turned a blind eye. A boy of 14 who was beaten repeatedly on a broken arm reported the abuse to a doctor who, he said, replied only: “I had nothing to do with that.”

The report stated that the group “has not encountered a single case where an adult in a position of authority, such as a soldier, doctor, judicial officer or prison staff, has intervened on behalf of a child who was mistreated.”

Campaigners against Dr. Blachar’s appointment as the head of the WMA say its Israeli sister association’s inaction on torture is unsurprising given its chairman’s public stance.

Derek Summerfield of the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, said: “The IMA under Dr. Blachar is in collusion with the Israeli state policy of torture. Its role is to put a benign face on the occupation.”

Dr. Blachar told the Israeli website Ynet last week that such criticisms were “slanderous,” saying he and the IMA denounced all forms of torture.

The WMA, with nine million members in more than 80 countries, was established in 1947 as a response to the abuses sanctioned by German and Japanese doctors during the Second World War.

In 2007, the WMA’s general assembly called on doctors to document and report all cases of suspected torture.

Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.

A version of this article originally appeared in The National, published in Abu Dhabi.

Gilad Atzmon – Tribal Marxism for Dummies

Link

By Gilad Atzmon • Jun 30th, 2009 at 8:42 • Category: Analysis, Biography, Gilad Atzmon, Gilad’s Choice, Israel, Newswire, Our Authors, Palestine, Religion, Resistance, War, Zionism

“The European left must make a serious critical assessment of this “we know better” attitude and the ways it tends to deal with popular forces in the south as ideologically and politically inferior.” Hisham Bustani

“The subsequent emergence of Islamism holds a false promise. While it poses a challenge to Western domination, it is backward looking and inherently unable to deliver progress.” Moshe Machover June 2009

For very many years the Palestinian solidarity discourse was dominated by leftist ideology carried largely by Jewish Marxists. Though the support of Jewish leftists was rather important at an early stage, it lost its primacy and urgency as Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian solidarity discourse evolved into a vivid autonomous discourse based on widely accepted ethical grounds. The Israeli war crimes against Palestinians are now well documented. No one needs the odd kosher ‘righteous Jew’ to approve that this is indeed the case.

And yet, in spite of the clear fact that Palestinian solidarity discourse moved ahead, Jewish Marxists are still insisting upon dictating their tribally orientated pseudo-analytical vision of reality.

Jewish Marxism is very different from Marxism or socialism in general. While Marxism is a universal paradigm, its Jewish version is very different. It is there to mould Marxist dialectic into a Jewish subservient precept. Jewish Marxism is basically a crude utilisation of ‘Marxist-like’ terminology for the sole purpose of the Jewish tribal cause. It is a Judeo-centric pseudo intellectual setting which aims at political power.

Palestinian thinkers were probably the first to realise that the situation in Gaza, Nablus and the refugee camps had little in common with 19th century Europe. This was enough to defy Marxism as a sole analytical political tool. However, the Jewish Marxists had a far more adventurous plan for Palestinians, Arab people and the region in general. They wanted Arabs to become cosmopolitan atheists. They suggested that Arabs should drop ‘reactionary Islam’ and liberate themselves as ‘the Jews did’ a century ago.

Seemingly, Palestinian and Arab intellectuals grasped that the method that successfully transformed Russia into a Soviet Union, at the expense of millions, was not going to liberate them. They obviously realised that the Jewish Marxists did not intend upon bringing millions of Palestinian refugees home either. It wasn’t even set to launch any form of an adequate resistance. It was there to saturate the discourse with empty rhetoric and pseudo-analytical jargon in order to divert the attention from questions having to do with Jewish tribal politics and Jewish identity.

As interesting as it may be, it is actually the Jewish Marxists, those who support Palestinians as long as they drop Islam, who are the ultimate exemplary exponents of Jewish tribal politics. It is the Jewish Marxist rather than the ‘Zionist’ who exposes the Jewish political ugly attitude in its worst crude form. This is good enough reason to monitor the Jewish Left and to understand its philosophy. As we will see soon enough, Jewish Marxism is there to suppress any form of engagement with the Jewish question by means of spin. It is there to stop scrutiny of Jewish power and Jewish lobbying. The Judeo Marxist is an imposter prophet who claims to know the answers and yet, for some reason, his reading of historical events is no less than a total catastrophe. None of his predictions stand the reality test.

One of the last prime exponents of Judeo Marxist ideology is Professor Moshe Machover. Machover was born in Tel Aviv, then part of the British Mandate of Palestine, he moved to Britain in 1968. He was a founder of Matzpen, a miniature Socialist organisation in 1962.

Machover’s reading of Zionism is pretty trivial. ‘Israel’, he says, is a ‘settler state’. For Machover this is a necessary point of departure because it sets Zionism as a colonialist expansionist project. The reasoning behind such a lame intellectual spin is obvious. As long as Zionism is conveyed as a colonial project, Jews, as a people, should be seen as ordinary people. They are no different from the French and the English, they just happen to run their deadly colonial project in a different time.

However, as much as Machover is desperate to divert the attention away from the Jewish question, Jewish tribal politics and the Jewish identity, his entire premise can be demolished in a one simple move. If Israel is a ‘settler state’ as he says, one may wonder, what exactly is its ‘motherland? In British and French colonial eras, the settler states maintained a very apparent tie with their ‘motherland’. In some cases in history, the settler state broke from its motherland. Such an event is a rather noticeable one. The Boston Tea Party may ring a bell. However, as far as we are aware, there is no ‘Jewish motherland’ that is intrinsically linked to the alleged ‘Jewish settler state’. The ‘Jewish people’ are largely associated with the Jewish state, and yet the ‘Jewish people’ is not exactly a ‘material’ autonomous sovereign entity. The lack of material Jewish motherland leads to the immediate collapse of Machover’s colonial argument.

Moreover, native Hebraic Israeli Jews are not connected culturally or emotionally to any motherland except their own state. As an ex-Israeli, I can testify that neither my parents nor myself or any of my fellow expatriates have ever been aware of our ties to any other (mother) state except Israel. Accordingly, it may be true that Zionism carries some colonial elements and yet, it is not a colonial project per se, for no one can present a material correspondence between Jewish ‘motherland’ and a Jewish ‘settler state’. The Jewish national project is unique in history and as it seems it doesn’t fit into any Marxist materialist explanation.

We are therefore entitled to assume that Machover’s ‘settler state’ is just another Judeo Marxist spin that is there to divert the attention from the clear fact that Israel is the Jewish state. In order to understand Israel’s unique condition we must ask, “who are the Jews? What is Judaism and what is Jewishness?” In fact answering these questions will help us understand why Machover and other Jewish Marxists invest so much effort producing all those spinning lines. As interesting as it may sound, Machover’s alteration of Marx’s ideology is very similar to the Zionist distortion of the Old Testament.

Machover’s recent publication is a pompous lengthy talk delivered in November 2006 at the Brunei Gallery Lecture Theater (SOAS). For some reason it was published this month by the ‘International Socialist Review’ (ISR).

Considering the embarrassing fact that none of Machover’s prophetic predictions ever stood the reality test, the publication of such an embarrassing paper raises serious concerns regarding the editors of the ISR’s understanding of world current affairs. It would be very interesting to learn from the ISR whether they approve Machover’s suggestion that Islam “is backward looking and inherently unable to deliver progress.” It may also be important to make sure that every Muslim on this planet grasps that an Elder Jew Marxist from London is convinced that they should throw away their Qur’an.

I may as well mention that here in Britain and in some other European countries more than just a few people are concerned with the latest rise of nationalism. Shockingly enough, comparing Machover’s pretentious and supremacist take on Islam with rightwing nationalists reveals a very amusing fact. As it happens, Machover, the supremacist tribal Jew, has managed to locate himself on the right of Nick Griffin and the BNP. While Griffin is kind enough to offer ‘foreigners’ £50,000 to go back to their ‘homeland’, our Kosher Marxist Machover is set to rob the indigenous of his belief on his land. Griffin would not be able to get away saying about Islam that it is ‘backward looking’. This is hardly surprising, while Griffin has to meet a vast opposition, Machover would have very little opposition within the left. One reason is obviously due to the fact that Machover and his three Jewish supporters are unnoticeable. Another reason may be that racism and supremacy is, unfortunately, a Jews only territory. As we can see Machover is getting away with it. Hopefully, this will change soon.

Machover launches his 2006 talk raising an interesting question: “How should we think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?”

One may notice that Machover uses the word ‘should’ and ‘we’. This form of speech suggests that the elder may possess the right answers within his intellectual arsenal. Following the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, Machover declares with confidence “We must be clear as to how the issue ought to be approached.”

I may admit that when a Jewish marginal Marxist voice utilises the “we”, ”should” and the “ought”, my red alert light turns on. I recently read about some Bolsheviks who held similar ideas to Machover’s did to Ukrainians peasants in the name of just another “we”.

Machover dares to come with a pretence of an analytical argumentation that will produce a concept of resolution. “Understanding,” he says, “ought to precede judgment.” Someone should remind the Hebraic ‘prophet’, who probably failed to read a single philosophical text in the last 50 years, that ‘understanding’ is itself subject to prior ‘understandings’ and ‘judgments’. In fact Machover’s own systematic failure to understand the power of Islam and Arab resistance is in itself due to his own prior understandings and some severe Judeo Marxist indoctrination.

It would take Machover many thousands of words of pseudo-analytical text before he outlines his vision of ‘Resolution—principles and preconditions’.

“Above all,” he says, “pressure must be applied on Israel to end its military occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights.” “Equal rights”, he affirms are “essential elements that a lasting resolution must embody”. This is quite an astonishing insight from a man who claims to understand the conflict. In spite of his ‘analytical research’ Machover somehow failed to realise that the Jewish state is not going to willingly approve any form of equality, for Jewish political ideology does not succumb to the belief in human equality.

“The right of return,” he continues, is the “ recognition of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland, to be rehabilitated and properly compensated for loss of property and livelihood.”

This is indeed beautiful and correct and yet, Machover fails to tell us what is going to lead the Israeli Jews to give away their little ‘Jews only state’.

Machover eventually comes with a very simple resolution. “The third and most fundamental element in a genuine resolution is removal of the fundamental cause of the conflict: the Zionist colonisation project must be superseded.” I may stress at this point that Moshe Machover is not one of my satirical fictional characters. He is real and he even has at least 3 Jewish Marxist followers. The crucial question here is how these 4 Judeo Marxists are going to sell this reasonable idea to the Israeli Jews?

Like other deluded solidarity campaigners who fail to realise that the Palestinian future will be determined by ‘facts on the ground’, Machover engages himself in the one state/two state academic resolution discourse. “For a two-state setup to satisfy them, Israel would have to be de-Zionized: transformed from an ethnocratic settler state into a democratic state of all its inhabitants.” For some reason, Machover, who doesn’t even live in Israel, believes that he can tell the Israelis in what kind of country they should live in. “On the other hand, a single state would have to be not merely democratic (and hence secular) but have a constitutional structure that recognizes the two national groups and gives them equal national rights and status.” Once again the Elder Jew Marxist, the embodiment of the ultimate possible marginal voice, is telling the Palestinians and the Israelis that if they want to live together they better be secular. One should admit by now, it indeed takes some chutzpah to be a Judeo Marxist.

After 22 pages of Marxist self-indulgence on the verge of verbal masturbation, the man himself comes with the necessary goods. He admits that he was wasting the time of his listeners.

“Indeed, no genuine resolution is possible in the short or medium term, because of the enormous disparity in the balance of power.”

So in case you happen to wonder what may bring a change. Here it is. ‘Moishe of Arabia’ has two answers to offer. “First, decline in American global dominance” as if Israel is bound to crash with its current allies. As Machover knows, Jews changed their allies rather often in the last century.

“Second,” he continues “a radical-progressive social, economic and political transformation of the Arab East, leading to a degree of unification of the Arab nation—most likely in the form of regional federation.” Seemingly, the archaic Marxist fails to gather the most obvious evolving story, the Arab nation is largely Islam. Arab people are becoming more and more united around their love of Allah and the notion of Ummah. As far as reality is concerned, Islam is the rising force, whether our four Judeo Marxists like it or not, Hamas scored astunning win in the first Palestinian parliamentary election which it has taken part in. Would elections take place in the PA today, the Hamas victory would even be greater. Considering the fact that Islam is the only successful resistance force against Western colonialism and the Zionist war machine, the fact that ISR published Machover’s Judeo-centric intellectually lame analysis is there to prove that the time may be ripe for Socialists and Marxists to save themselves from the Judeo political grip. In 1884, in his invaluable paper ‘On The Jewish Question’ Marx argued that for the world to emancipate itself of capitalism, it should liberate itself of the secular Jew[1]. I do not know much about people liberating themselves. I would narrow it down and argue that for Marxist and socialists to liberate their discourse in accordance with their master mentor, they may have to consider liberating themselves of their tribal infiltrators.

As we saw before, in terms of tolerance and ethics, Machover positioned himself to the right of Nick Griffin and the BNP. In terms of political pragmatism, he is to the right of Shimon Peres and his ‘New Middle East’. Machover has his own plans for a New Middle East. He is going to unite them all and throw their Qur’an away.

By now we are really accustomed to the fact that Machover doesn’t like Islam. “The subsequent emergence of Islamism holds a false promise …Nor can it possibly be a uniting force: on the contrary, it is deeply divisive as between Sunnis and Shias, and has no attraction whatsoever for non-Muslim and secular Arabs (including Palestinians), let alone Hebrews.”

Interestingly enough, Moishe of Arabia comes with these embarrassing lines in November 2006, just 5 months after the Shi’a Hezbollah gave a signal of support to its Sunni brothers in Gaza, reminding Israel that they were just to the north, and wide awake, serving the Israeli army with a humiliating defeat. The Marxist elder comedian gave his 2006 talk less than a year after Hamas has scored a

In fact, many Socialists and Marxists do, especially out of the Anglo-American world. However, those Marxist and Socialists who keep spreading anti-Islam views better just join the Jewish Lobby, Wolfowitz and the Neocons, the NJF They better do it because this is where they belong.

[1]“What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.” Karl Marx On The Jewish Question, 1844

Tagged as: , , , , , , ,

Gilad Atzmon is a jazz musician, composer, producer and writer.
Email this author All posts by Gilad Atzmon

Hamas "Improving": From "Immunity to learning" To "Immaturity" – updated

In this updated version, I corrected some spelling mistakes, and stormed my memory, digged to retreive the historical regional and international scene in order to draw reader’s attention to another fact. Year 1958, was also the peak of the Cold War. In 1958, I witnessed the birth Fateh, the birth of United Arab Repuplic, toppling of a pro-Western government in the Iraq 14 July Revolution. Now, dear readers connnect the dots.
Finally Tony found it


I coppied the article from his Blog, and added in green the parts he omitted

Hamas’ political immaturity

AN IMPORTANT ARTICLE And Recommended Reading

Why??
Because, the writer concluded:

In the late 1980s, the same Palestinian national movement that in the 1960s emerged to liberate Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean sea accepted the two-state solution and at a later stage, recognized Israel, and paved the way for the transformation of the Palestinian cause into one of charity. Now, Hamas is reinventing the wheel. No wonder, one has a sense of déjà vu.
Tony is telling his readers, Isaid it: Like Arafat, Hamas is using the resistance to get to negociation table.

Read Haidar Eid telling you:

  • Hamas, failed to rectify historic mistakes made by the official leadership
  • Hamas failed to make Gaza 2009, as rightly, expected by The Palestinian people, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Diaspora and in 1948 Palestine to be the Sharpeville of Palestine, a turning point in the history of the Palestinian struggle against Israel’s policy of occupation, colonization and apartheid.
  • Instead of building on victory and on the outpouring of international support in the streets of Istanbul, London, Amman, Caracas, Johannesburg and even Muscat — to mention but a few cities — the leadership of the Palestinian resistance movement, including Hamas, rushed to Cairo for what turned out to be endless, futile rounds of national unity dialogue…… .
  • Gaza leadership failed to act as a victorious one; to wait in Gaza for at least one month after the end of the massacre and make it clear that they would welcome any sign of real support and solidarity while they were staying with their people in Gaza. That, alas, did not happen.
  • Hamas, alas, has fallen within the trap of Oslo and its fetishization of statehood at the expense of Palestinian fundamental rights.
  • In the late 1980s, the Palestinian national movement accepted the two-state solution and at a later stage, recognized Israel. This is the same resistance movement that in the 1960s emerged to liberate Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Behind-the-scenes negotiations, ultimately, led to the signing of the notorious Oslo accords, which paved the way for the transformation of the Palestinian cause into one of charity. Now, Hamas is reinventing the wheel. No wonder, one has a sense of déjà vu.

Though I disagree with the author’s conclusion, I respect his opinion, and would comment as follows.
I don’t believe that the resistance movement (I mean Fateh) emerged in the 1960s to liberate Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Fateh, was created in 1958, at the peak of the Arab Nationalist Movememt (Lead by Nasir) destroyed Arab Nationalism, pulled the carpet from under the feet of the popular arab national movement lead by Goerge Habash, who aligned his movement with Nasir. It is the “Resistance” movement that paved the way for relieving Arab regimes from their obligation towards Palestinian cause that participated in paving the way for 1967 defeat, that put an end to the idea of liberation of palestine from river to sea.
So, its wrong to compare that “Resistance” Movement that lead palestinian from one defeat to another with Hamas that lead Palestinian to the first victory in their History. Where?
Not in Lebanon, Not in karama (Jordan), in besieged Gaza.
I agree with the author saying:
Undoubtedly, Hamas’ electoral victory turned the whole equation upside down and was considered a blow to the Bush doctrine in the Middle East. The price paid by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has been extremely heavy. Not because of their support for Hamas, but rather because of their choice to put an end to the “peace process” charade.
The same statement applies on Hezbullah and Lebanon who paid a similar price for resisting the Bush doctrine in the Middle East.
But, Is it true that had “there been another Palestinian political force that could be trusted to fight the outcome of the Oslo accords in a principled manner, it might have had a chance.
The problem is neither Hamas, nor Hezbullah leadership, its the failure of the Arab nationalism and Arab left and the process of NGOization and Osloization (Culture of peace – culture of Life) that put both (Arab nationalism and Arab left) to the right of Hamas, and Hezbullah.
We failed, Let them try. Thus said George Habash, the real Profet of arab nationalism and armed struggle.
One final word to the author, expecting, that Abbass, Mubarak, and Obama, would come to Gaza, the world war on Hamas would stop if Hamas acted as victorious, and stayed in Gaza for just one month.
ARE YOU DREAMING??

Haidar Eid, The Electronic Intifada, 25 June 2009
“When Hamas, unexpectedly, won the 2006 parliamentary elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the message from the one-third of the Palestinian people living in those territories was clear: no more of the “peace process” facade — with its untiring “two-state solution” slogan that never materialized, and no more of the bread crumbs offered to the new inauthentic NGOized, Osloized leadership classes……

(In the years since the 1993 Oslo accords, funding NGOs — nongovernmental organizations — has been a major means for foreign governments to influence, co-opt and neutralize Palestinian politics. This process of “Osloization” made some Palestinian organizations more loyal to their funders than to their principles.)
Many of those who voted Hamas into power were not, in fact, supporters of the organization, but rather disgruntled Palestinians looking for change and reform after 13 years of futile, meaningless negotiations that did huge damage to the Palestinian cause….. and transformed it from a liberation struggle supported by millions all over the world into a dispute between “two equal parties,” two countries fighting for border arrangements.

Undoubtedly, Hamas’ electoral victory turned the whole equation upside down and was considered a blow to the Bush doctrine in the Middle East. The price paid by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has been extremely heavy. Not because of their support for Hamas, but rather because of their choice to put an end to the “peace process” charade. Had there been another Palestinian political force that could be trusted to fight the outcome of the Oslo accords in a principled manner, it might have had a chance. But by 2006, the left had already gone through a process of NGOization and Osloization that put it to the right of Hamas, dovetailing with the right wing that was already in control of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Hamas, then, won the elections because it was expected, whether rightly or wrongly, to rectify historic mistakes made by the official leadership — most importantly defending the right of return of refugees, and putting an end to the unattained two-state solution…… A deadly, hermetic siege was imposed on the Palestinians of Gaza as soon as the election results came out, followed by numerous attempts to destabilize the situation through a US-backed coup attempt, culminating in Israel’s 22-day genocidal war on Gaza.

The latest war was a political tsunami aimed at creating a sense of defeat amongst the Palestinians, and a sense that they are confronted with a metaphysical power that can never be defeated. …..The message was that their choice of an anti-Oslo political power was not only a political mistake, but an existential one as well, a mistake that would change their future altogether; hence, the calculated targeting of children and families. More than 90 percent of the victims of the massacre were civilians, according to leading human rights organizations. None of the declared objectives of the massacre, however, were achieved: Hamas is still in power and the resilience of the Palestinians of Gaza is stronger than ever. Israel has failed to make them feel that they are a defeated people.

Hamas rallied tens of thousands of its supporters in celebrations of the “historic victory over the Zionist entity.” Its spokespersons reiterated again and again that based on this historic victory, there would be no return to the pre-massacre siege and that reality on the ground now “necessitated” new steps. The Palestinian people, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Diaspora and in 1948 Palestine (the part of Palestine on which Israel was declared in 1948), also had high expectations. ……Gaza 2009 was, rightly, expected to be the Sharpeville of Palestine, a turning point in the history of the Palestinian struggle against Israel’s policy of occupation, colonization and apartheid.

This historic victory against Israel’s aggression required a visionary leadership, one with a clear-cut strategy of liberation that divorces itself completely from the Oslo accords and the deceptive two-prison solution. Instead of building on this victory and on the outpouring of international support in the streets of Istanbul, London, Amman, Caracas, Johannesburg and even Muscat — to mention but a few cities — the leadership of the Palestinian resistance movement, including Hamas, rushed to Cairo for what turned out to be endless, futile rounds of national unity dialogue…… . One is not, of course, against any serious attempt for national unity, but one also takes it for granted that the ABC of leadership, especially elected ones, is to be with the masses. The siege, which so far has led to the death of more than 400 seriously ill persons (from lack of medicine or ability to travel abroad for treatment), should have been exposed as the obstacle that prevents the leaders of the resistance from having national dialogue because they, as leaders, cannot and should not leave their besieged, traumatized people and move freely outside Gaza. This should have become a condition. If any Arab dignitary wanted to have a discussion with the victorious leadership, he or she should have been invited to Gaza. One would have expected the Gaza leadership to act as a victorious one; to wait in Gaza for at least one month after the end of the massacre and make it clear that they would welcome any sign of real support and solidarity while they were staying with their people in Gaza. That, alas, did not happen.

This was a step in what I call the “abortion of victory.” Instead of coming up with an alternative program to that of the Palestinian Authority, and all the organizations belonging to it, and instead of building on the unprecedented, growing solidarity with the Palestinians of Gaza, the leadership of Hamas, in statements made by its leaders and — more importantly — letters sent to the US president, have started reinventing the wheel! I will limit myself to a couple of important examples: Hamas’ flirtation with the Barack Obama administration and their endorsement of the two-prison solution.
After US President Barack Obama’s much-talked-about speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, in which he had nothing of substance to say about the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, Dr. Ahmed Yousef, a senior advisor to Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, in an interview on Al-Jazeera International, was extremely happy with the speech……

Failing to understand that Obama’s election does not represent a radical change in American Middle East policy is a sign of, to say the least, political immaturity……. which was, according to him, like Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech! Two nights later, and on Hamas’ Al-Aqsa television, the ex-spokesperson of the first Hamas government argued, and I would say with conviction, that Obama’s (in)famous speech was a clear indication of the change taking place in the US administration and that “we” need to make use of the “diversity” within the American establishment! This, of course, came after Hamas sent a letter to Obama which Senator John Kerry, who visited Gaza a few months ago, refused to carry.

Failing to understand that Obama’s election does not represent a radical change in American Middle East policy is a sign of, to say the least, political immaturity. The “diversity” within the US establishment is like the difference between the Likud and Labor parties in Israel. Obama still represents the Democratic Party, which is a part of the mainstream American establishment. Obama’s victory in the presidential elections, therefore, has not produced a change in the nature of American imperialism. Obviously, Hamas has bought the fiction brought about by the election of Obama and his “seriousness” in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hamas fails to see that in essence, what Obama is offering is not different from what George W. Bush and, before him, Bill Clinton offered…….In his speech, Obama made it crystal clear that the US-Israel ties are “unbreakable;” prior to that he was more than clear in announcing that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of the Jewish state.” For the Obama administration, Israel’s security remains the issue, which, ultimately, marginalizes the whole issue of Palestine.
The Israeli-American siege imposed on Gaza would be lifted immediately, if Obama decided it should be so. In fact, the US is not merely complicit, but rather a participant in the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against the Palestinians of Gaza……Any freshman student of political science, not to say a child on the streets of Gaza, would tell you this.

The second, more important example, of Hamas’ political immaturity, is its acceptance of the already dead two-state solution. In a joint a press conference with former US President Jimmy Carter, Palestinian Prime Minister Haniyeh said that Hamas accepts a state limited only to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the areas occupied by Israel in 1967 with Jerusalem as its capital. This is ironic, not to say bizarre, since every politician in Palestine knows that a two-state solution has been rendered impossible….. by Israeli colonization of the West Bank, by the looting and pillaging of Gaza, by the construction of the apartheid wall, and by the expansion of so-called “Greater Jerusalem.” Since 1967, the US has supported and is still supporting Israel in creating conditions that have made the two-state solution impossible, impractical and unjust.

For a senior Hamas leader to reiterate what has already been said by the head of its political bureau, Khaled Meshal, one can conclude that this is the beginning of a process of deterioration — even Osloization — not only in rhetoric, but also in action……. The Palestinian people are not only those living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. There are six million refugees, the overwhelming majority of whom are waiting to return to their villages and towns in accordance with UN Resolution 194, and 1.4 million Palestinian citizens of Israel, who have third-class status. The Palestinian struggle is not for an independent state on the 1967 borders, but rather for liberation — liberation for all the inhabitants of the historic land of Palestine. Accepting the illusion called an independent state on the 1967 borders is, in actual fact, an acceptance of a racist solution par excellence.

By launching its genocidal war against Gaza, Israel has shot the two-state-prison solution in the head, which consequently means a dire need for an alternative program that addresses the Palestinian question as one of democracy, equality, human rights and, ultimately, liberation from occupation, colonization and apartheid. Hamas, alas, has fallen within the trap of Oslo and its fetishization of statehood at the expense of Palestinian fundamental rights. Of course, one tends to agree that the current serious crisis in Palestine emanates from the nature of the deformed political system created by the Oslo accords and their claim of laying the foundation for a two-state solution. By participating in the January 2006 elections, most political organizations in Palestine, including Hamas, showed an implicit acceptance of the new political reality created by the Oslo accords and hence the two-state solution. But, ironically, Hamas claimed otherwise, that its objective was to bring Oslo to an end.

In the late 1980s, the Palestinian national movement accepted the two-state solution and at a later stage, recognized Israel. This is the same resistance movement that in the 1960s emerged to liberate Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Behind-the-scenes negotiations, ultimately, led to the signing of the notorious Oslo accords, which paved the way for the transformation of the Palestinian cause into one of charity. Now, Hamas is reinventing the wheel. No wonder, one has a sense of déjà vu.
Mohamed Hasanein Heikal and Azmi Bishara, two leading intellectuals in the Arab world, have repeatedly criticized Hamas for its lack of exposure to the external world. This world does not only include the US, Iran and the official Arab regimes. It is a world that also includes the same civil society organizations that pressured their governments in the late 1980s to boycott the apartheid regime of South Africa; it has the university students who have occupied their campuses in an attempt to pressure their administrators to divest from companies having ties with apartheid Israel; it has the students of Hampshire College, the University and College Union of the UK, the Scottish Trade Union Council, the South African trade union federation Cosatu, and others in Venezuela, Bolivia and further afield. It has the Palestinian BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) National Committee. …… The struggle is not only an armed one, but it includes other pillars as well, pillars that emphasize the importance of international solidarity and mass mobilization, rather than placing all hope and faith in Barack Obama and his administration.

Gaza 2009 — the political steadfastness the people have shown in reaction to Israel’s genocidal war — has proven that the Palestinian people are way ahead of their leaderships!”

Haidar Eid is an independent political commentator

# posted by Tony : 8:01 PM

1 comments:

ritalin said…
UPYou have displayed great passion on this post.I am unsure about some of what you are saying in it. However the following segment hit me hardest:”I agree with the author saying:Undoubtedly, Hamas’ electoral victory turned the whole equation upside down and was considered a blow to the Bush doctrine in the Middle East. The **_price paid by the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has been extremely heavy__**. Not because of their support for Hamas, but rather because of their choice to put an end to the “peace process” charade.The same statement applies on Hezbullah and Lebanon who paid a similar price for resisting the Bush doctrine in the Middle East.But, Is it true that had “there been another Palestinian political force that could be trusted to fight the outcome of the Oslo accords in a principled manner, it might have had a chance.The problem is neither Hamas, nor Hezbullah leadership, its the failure of the Arab nationalism and Arab left and the process of NGOization and Osloization (Culture of peace – culture of Life) that put both (Arab nationalism and Arab left) to the right of Hamas, and Hezbullah.We failed, Let them try. Thus said George Habash, the real Profet of arab nationalism and armed struggle.”

Ritalin
Thank you, many, not only you are unsure about some of what I am saying, I mean who was behind the creation of Fateh (In particular behind Arafat). Therefore, I have to explain.
What I said above is not a conclusion I reached after analysing the history of Fatah and the resistance under the leadership of Arafat. It is an old opinion, theory, almost as old as Fateh. Unfortunately, events (Black september, civil war in lebanon, oslo, PA) supported and still supporting it.
In a famous lecture (after oslo) in London, Hani al-Hassan (an old Fateh Guard, the poltical adviser of Arafat) tried to Justify going to Oslo. He claimed (Hanging Fateh treason on Nasir’s hook) that after 1967 war Nasir told Arafat and Fateh leaders close to Arafat: its over, you has no choice other than reaching a peace deal with Israel.
Consequently, according to Al Hassan, after 1967, Fateh decided its time for preparing the Palestinians to accept a peace deal with Isreal.
Based on Al-Hassan’s statement, I am one of many Palestinians who claimd that, the Massacres of Palestinians, in Black September, in Jordan, in Lebanese civil war, the performance of Fateh during the 1982 war on Lebanon, its alignment with Saddam that lead to the Nakba of half million Palestinian living in Kuwait, starving Palestinians on the PLO payroll for several months before Oslo, were steps in the process that paved the way Oslo, sold Oslo to Palestinians, and the return of “Victorous” Afrafat to Ramallah. In fact he returned to end the First Intifadah.
I am, her, just saying the Plan was there all the time, since the formation Fateh. Actually it was the reason for that formation.
In adopting armed struggle, Fateh put itself to the Left of Nasir and Arab nationalist movement.
Fateh was not the only player, the Syrian Seperation coup funded by Sauda undermined the Liberation Nationalists option, and bosted Fatah and its Palestinian Option.
Both Fateh, based in Syria and, and Pre-assad Syrian regime, pushed, jointly Nasir to 1967 trap, that paved the way in 1969 for:

Here, let us remember that Nasir’s rejected Baghdad Pact , known as Dwight Eisenhower‘s Project, to contain the Soviet Union by having a line of strong states along the USSR’s southwestern frontiercontain.
Nasser felt that the pro-western Baghdad Pact posed a threat to Arab Nationalism. As a response, Egypt and Syria united into the United Arab Republic. At that time, 1958 Syria was as described by Patrick Seal, a feather in wind storm. It is Nasir who protected Syria from the wind storm blowing from Iraq, Turkey, and Lebanon.
The United Arab Republic boasted 1958 revolution in Iraq.
On July 14, 1958, the Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in a military coup. The new government was led by General Abdul Karim Qasim who withdrew from the Baghdad Pact, opened diplomatic relations with Soviet Union and adopted a non-aligned stance; Iraq quit the organization shortly thereafter. The organization dropped the Baghdad Pact moniker in favor of CENTO at that time.”
“The toppling of a pro-Western government in the Iraq 14 July Revolution, along with the internal instability, caused President Chamoun to call for U.S. assistance.”
The United Arab Republic boasted also in the same year, 1958, the setting up of the first cells of the Fateh movement in Kuwait
The formation of Fatah was the first nail driven in the coffen of Arab nationalist movement at its 1958 peak, and 1967 and the death (poisoning) of Nasir was the last nail.
I remember, and understand how and why, after the the success of Algerians revolution and the 1961 Syrian seperation coup, tens of Palestinian faction have grown like mashrom within Palestinian in Daispora. Mainly in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Gaza. But I failed till this very moment to find a reason for creation of Fatah in 1958 (the peak of Arab nationalism).
All events, many meetings, discussions, I held since early sixties confirmed my old theory.

  • I met Mahmoud Abbas, accidently, in 1976 in Lybia, without knowing that he is Fatah member, after presenting my theory in his presence, he said nothing other than cursing Palestinian leaders mainly Habash.
  • I met many Fateh Ambasadors, who just commented: Conspiracy theory.
  • Few weeks after Camp david 2, one retired Fatah old Guard, who Joined Arafat in Kuwait, told me many, many stories confirming my theory. He mentioned an internal secret Document issued before 1967, about the two state solution. He said, a copy of the document is available with ….. another Ex-Fatah, living in….This document, lead to a coup within Fateh in Kuwait. The Cuop was ended by Fateh fighter brought from Syria A Kuwaiti flight.
  • There was always, a big question mark about Arafat, his family, real family name origin. In early 1990’s I directly heard, while under arrest from my interrogator, a non-confirmed story, claiming that Arafat is the son of a Jewish family, from Moroco, His grand father, came to Jerusalem in 1928, coverted to Islam, married the daughter of Abu-Assoud (Jerusalem Mofti) in order to stay in Jerusalem). Arafat’s Father business was selling Jewish Head cover, his shop was burned, and he left to Gaza, then to Egypt. His son Yesir was born in a Jewish neighbourhood (Hay Assakakini) in Cairo.
  • Few years ago, I accidently met Arafat’s Egyption half brother without knowing him in a gethering. One syrian claimed, that Syrian PM Al-Kasim was removed because they fount the Al-Kasim family are Ex-Jews. I commented: Good for them, they knew and took action. We know and don’t dare to speakout. I was sitting between Arafat’s Half brother and a friend. My friend hit my leg to warm to stop me, but I told my story. After sabout half an hour, we moved to the dining table and the half brother standing on the other side facing me, without telling me his identity, he commented as follows: Anwar Al-Sadat, after hearing the same story, he asked for Arafat’s family tree. He found Head of Arafat’s family was our Prophet Mohamad. I am not making it. I have many witnesses. In short the stupid comment of Arafat’s half brother confirmed the un-confirmed story.
  • Unlike Cohen (Amin Thabit), the famous spy planted in Syria, Arafat is real and have a real family.

I always argued, how Israel succeeded in assasinating almost all Fatah founders, such as Kamal Edwan, Kamal Nasir, Abu Jehad, Abu Iyad, Abu Alhall, etc.. and fail to get Arafat. His life was saved many, many times, after Balck September in Jordan, The western fleet arrived twice to Labanon to save his ass, Americans rescued him when his plane crushed in Lybian desert. I know many stories about Israel bombing places, building, in both Syria and Lebabon, few minures after Arafat leaving it.
Some would say, how would Israel kill such asset??
My answer is:
After his great sevices to zionist project, in putting Palestinians on the “Peace track” that lead to Oslo and his “Victorous” return to end the first Intifada, Arafat became a liabilty more than an asset.
In Camp David two, he reached and agreement with Barak, but he needed time sell it to Palestinians, Arabs and Muslems, but he failed to deliver. Barak left the office to Sharon, to complete the “Independance” And Arafat lost controll on the Palestinian street with the second Intifidah.
The asset became a Liability. Zionist Elders decided to keep the profile of Arafat as the “Historic God father of Palestinian Armed Resistance” rather than exposing him and paving the way for a New Fatah leader like Barghouti. Especially with the Bahae Mahmoud Abbas Merza, ready to complete the mission.
A Dead “Palestinian HERO” is better than a living EXPIRED EXPOSED SPY.

ritalin said…

Thank you UP,
it is a fascinating topic
there is an old adage, “the truth is often stranger then fiction”
IT makes me think about Arafat wearing a side arm/pistol during his visit to the UN (United Nations)
Would they allow a real Palestinian freedom fighter to wear a pistol? No. But an ersatz Palestian? yes.
8:57 AM, June 28, 2009

%d bloggers like this: