January,28,2009
FROM GAZA WRITES A CHILD TO HIS ISRAELI FRIEND
*****************************************************
I write with a painful heart,Oh my dear friend!,
I have been wrecked before we could meet;
Your forces brought an unprecedented havoc,
Now I am unable even to walk on my feet.
Since the time, we became friends on the net,
'To work for mutual love', were our dreams;
Your bombs have deprived me of everything,
Our hopes are shattered by wails and screams.
Today I came from the hospital without my legs,
To see the debris of my house and parents dead;
Staying under the sky, with none of mine left,
What to say? how to pick up the life's thread.?
But in your countless mails about my welfare,
I still find some traces of humanity in your land;
They give me delight,when you prayed for me,
" May God save you from Israel's brutal hand";
Your solemn words revived my zest and zeal,
With faith in the Divne, and strength of arm;
I shall make ceaseless efforts till my last breath,
For my country to regain its glory and charm.
*************************************
Dr.Mustafa Kamal Sherwani
All India Muslim Forum
Lucknow, U.P.India
Email:sherwanimk@yahoo.com
Friday, 30 January 2009
Islam not against yoga
‘Islam not against yoga’Hindustan Times, January 27, 2009
Going against Indonesia’s ban on Muslims practicing yoga, India’s well-known Islamic seminary says there is nothing wrong with any exercise done for health reasons.
Clerics at the highly revered seminary in Deoband town in Uttar Pradesh said that yoga was fine as long as no non-Islamic religious rituals were involved.
“Islam does not prohibit anyone from practicing yoga or any other kind of physical exercise. Only thing is that with what belief you are doing it... If you are doing it for health reasons, there is absolutely no problem in practicing yoga or any other exercise,” said Qari Usman, an expert on Hadith at Darul Uloom.
“In fact the Prophet had laid stress on people leading a healthy life. Historically there have been traditions of different kinds of exercises in Muslim civilizations,” added Usman, also a former pro-vice chancellor of the seminary that attracts thousands of students mainly from India.
Yoga guru Swami Ramdev has suggested that non-Hindus can chant Allah in place of Om while doing yoga.
Qari Usman reacted to this: “Exercises are done for physical fitness, why include religious mantras?”
India is home to about 140 million Muslims — the third largest Muslim population after Indonesia and Pakistan.
Indonesia’s Ulema Council also known as MUI met on Saturday and issued a 'fatwa' asking Muslims to stop practising yoga saying it included chanting of Hindu mantras.
The Indonesian fatwa follows a similar ban imposed by Malaysia’s top Islamic body in November.
The ban, which follows a similar edict in Malaysia, was passed after investigators visited private yoga classes across the country.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=RSSFeed-India&id=a31a101e-5de6-4424-a923-4e9360223ae1&&Headline=%e2%80%98Islam+not+against+EMyoga%2fEM%e2%80%99
Going against Indonesia’s ban on Muslims practicing yoga, India’s well-known Islamic seminary says there is nothing wrong with any exercise done for health reasons.
Clerics at the highly revered seminary in Deoband town in Uttar Pradesh said that yoga was fine as long as no non-Islamic religious rituals were involved.
“Islam does not prohibit anyone from practicing yoga or any other kind of physical exercise. Only thing is that with what belief you are doing it... If you are doing it for health reasons, there is absolutely no problem in practicing yoga or any other exercise,” said Qari Usman, an expert on Hadith at Darul Uloom.
“In fact the Prophet had laid stress on people leading a healthy life. Historically there have been traditions of different kinds of exercises in Muslim civilizations,” added Usman, also a former pro-vice chancellor of the seminary that attracts thousands of students mainly from India.
Yoga guru Swami Ramdev has suggested that non-Hindus can chant Allah in place of Om while doing yoga.
Qari Usman reacted to this: “Exercises are done for physical fitness, why include religious mantras?”
India is home to about 140 million Muslims — the third largest Muslim population after Indonesia and Pakistan.
Indonesia’s Ulema Council also known as MUI met on Saturday and issued a 'fatwa' asking Muslims to stop practising yoga saying it included chanting of Hindu mantras.
The Indonesian fatwa follows a similar ban imposed by Malaysia’s top Islamic body in November.
The ban, which follows a similar edict in Malaysia, was passed after investigators visited private yoga classes across the country.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=RSSFeed-India&id=a31a101e-5de6-4424-a923-4e9360223ae1&&Headline=%e2%80%98Islam+not+against+EMyoga%2fEM%e2%80%99
Muslim leaders find hope in Obama ?
Islamic Group's President Finds Hope With Obama
By ELIZABETH HAMILTON The Hartford Courant January 25, 2009
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-secondlook0125.artjan25,0,7221903.story
For Ingrid Mattson, the defining moment of President Barack Obama's inauguration came during one declarative line, in the middle of his speech.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers," Obama said.
And in that moment Mattson, who was one of the lucky few to be sitting in the presidential box at the Capitol as the new president spoke, was nearly moved to tears.
"It felt very liberating and empowering for a community that has felt in many ways marginalized, under suspicion and out of place over the last few years," said Mattson, who is president of the Islamic Society of North America and director of the Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations at Hartford Seminary.
Mattson knows of what she speaks.
As has happened during past public appearances, Mattson's inclusion in the Obama inauguration — she was one of a dozen or so clergy invited to participate in Wednesday's National Prayer Service at the Washington National Cathedral — recently sparked some intense public criticism.
In this case, the criticism was related to a federal prosecutor's decision to list the Islamic Society of North America as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a plot to fund the terrorist group Hamas. The designation was included in the government's terrorism case against the Holy Land Foundation, which was convicted last November of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas.
The Islamic Society of North America has denied any connection to Hamas and is seeking to have its name removed from the government's list. Also named in the federal case were two other prominent Islamic organizations in America — the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the North American Islamic Trust.
Although much of the past criticism of Mattson has been relegated to blogs, the high-profile nature of the inaugural celebration coupled with the seriousness of the government's accusation led this time to a whole new level of scrutiny.
The Associated Press put out a story, which was then picked up by some major news organizations, last weekend, that detailed Mattson's connection to the group and its inclusion in the Holy Land case.
The publicity didn't derail Mattson's participation in the prayer service — a spokeswoman for the inaugural committee instead defended Mattson's "stellar reputation in the faith community" — but it did serve as a reminder of the criticism she so frequently faces.
Hartford Seminary issued a statement of support for Mattson on Tuesday, saying that she has worked consistently to promote interfaith dialogue and "prepare peacemakers." The seminary also said Mattson has repeatedly denounced terrorism.
"I have to say that every time this happens I feel disheartened for a little while until all the expressions of support come in," Mattson said Wednesday shortly after her participation in the prayer service. "It's an opportunity for growth, and to have more empathy for others and experience the true grace of friendship."
Mattson said the Islamic Society is fighting both the substance of the government's claim against it, as well as the legal designation of "unindicted co-conspirator" — because it allows the government to levy the accusation without publicly disclosing its proof.
"There's also no forum to publicly defend ourselves against any charge," Mattson said.
According to news reports last July, federal prosecutors said they had a "wide array" of evidence linking the groups to Hamas. But the picture the government painted of Mattson's organization also detailed its collaborative work with the Bush administration.
Mattson said members of the organization have received awards from the federal government for their work.
"There's this really bizarre quality to the whole thing because, on the one hand, many people in government value our work, ask for our advice and support and have even honored us," Mattson said. "On the other hand, because of this one federal prosecutor's decision to put us in this category for the trial, we have this legal stigma around our neck."
Mattson said she believes the criticism of her comes from two distinct groups: those who "don't like Muslims to be involved in or recognized in society in any way" and those who "oppose anyone in academia or the clergy who advocates in any way for Palestinians."
Her position, and the position of the society, rubs the wrong way anyone who sees the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a "zero-sum game," she said.
"We believe the pro-peace position is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine," Mattson said. "We advocate that American Muslim and Jewish communities should understand each other and communicate with each other."
Mattson, 44, has been president of the Islamic Society since 2006, which is when the public criticism of her really heated up, according to David Barrett, spokesman for Hartford Seminary.
Tuesday's statement of support for Mattson is "unfortunately not the first time" the seminary has had to publicly defend the scholar — and by extension itself — against accusations of being sympathetic to terrorists, he said.
"There's been criticism of the seminary for the same reason there's been criticism of Ingrid Mattson, which is 'You're supposed to be a Christian seminary. What are you doing getting into bed with Islam?'" Barrett said. "Our answer is that we think this is important and we will continue to teach about the three Abrahamic faiths because people will understand their own faith better if we do that."
Mattson, who is from Canada, converted to Islam as a young woman. She has been a professor of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations at Hartford Seminary since 1998, Barrett said.
Wednesday, as President Obama, his wife and other high-ranking officials lined the front pews of the National Cathedral, Mattson stepped to the front of the altar in a row of other interfaith clergy and recited her brief prayer:
"On this day of new beginning, with hearts lifted high in hope, may we be a people at peace among ourselves and a blessing to other nations."
Afterward, she reflected on how the new president has been a source of comfort and inspiration to her.
"Having seen him go through his campaign and face all the attacks and insinuations he faced with such dignity was a good example for me," Mattson said.
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-secondlook0125.artjan25,0,7221903.story
By ELIZABETH HAMILTON The Hartford Courant January 25, 2009
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-secondlook0125.artjan25,0,7221903.story
For Ingrid Mattson, the defining moment of President Barack Obama's inauguration came during one declarative line, in the middle of his speech.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers," Obama said.
And in that moment Mattson, who was one of the lucky few to be sitting in the presidential box at the Capitol as the new president spoke, was nearly moved to tears.
"It felt very liberating and empowering for a community that has felt in many ways marginalized, under suspicion and out of place over the last few years," said Mattson, who is president of the Islamic Society of North America and director of the Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations at Hartford Seminary.
Mattson knows of what she speaks.
As has happened during past public appearances, Mattson's inclusion in the Obama inauguration — she was one of a dozen or so clergy invited to participate in Wednesday's National Prayer Service at the Washington National Cathedral — recently sparked some intense public criticism.
In this case, the criticism was related to a federal prosecutor's decision to list the Islamic Society of North America as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a plot to fund the terrorist group Hamas. The designation was included in the government's terrorism case against the Holy Land Foundation, which was convicted last November of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas.
The Islamic Society of North America has denied any connection to Hamas and is seeking to have its name removed from the government's list. Also named in the federal case were two other prominent Islamic organizations in America — the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the North American Islamic Trust.
Although much of the past criticism of Mattson has been relegated to blogs, the high-profile nature of the inaugural celebration coupled with the seriousness of the government's accusation led this time to a whole new level of scrutiny.
The Associated Press put out a story, which was then picked up by some major news organizations, last weekend, that detailed Mattson's connection to the group and its inclusion in the Holy Land case.
The publicity didn't derail Mattson's participation in the prayer service — a spokeswoman for the inaugural committee instead defended Mattson's "stellar reputation in the faith community" — but it did serve as a reminder of the criticism she so frequently faces.
Hartford Seminary issued a statement of support for Mattson on Tuesday, saying that she has worked consistently to promote interfaith dialogue and "prepare peacemakers." The seminary also said Mattson has repeatedly denounced terrorism.
"I have to say that every time this happens I feel disheartened for a little while until all the expressions of support come in," Mattson said Wednesday shortly after her participation in the prayer service. "It's an opportunity for growth, and to have more empathy for others and experience the true grace of friendship."
Mattson said the Islamic Society is fighting both the substance of the government's claim against it, as well as the legal designation of "unindicted co-conspirator" — because it allows the government to levy the accusation without publicly disclosing its proof.
"There's also no forum to publicly defend ourselves against any charge," Mattson said.
According to news reports last July, federal prosecutors said they had a "wide array" of evidence linking the groups to Hamas. But the picture the government painted of Mattson's organization also detailed its collaborative work with the Bush administration.
Mattson said members of the organization have received awards from the federal government for their work.
"There's this really bizarre quality to the whole thing because, on the one hand, many people in government value our work, ask for our advice and support and have even honored us," Mattson said. "On the other hand, because of this one federal prosecutor's decision to put us in this category for the trial, we have this legal stigma around our neck."
Mattson said she believes the criticism of her comes from two distinct groups: those who "don't like Muslims to be involved in or recognized in society in any way" and those who "oppose anyone in academia or the clergy who advocates in any way for Palestinians."
Her position, and the position of the society, rubs the wrong way anyone who sees the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a "zero-sum game," she said.
"We believe the pro-peace position is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine," Mattson said. "We advocate that American Muslim and Jewish communities should understand each other and communicate with each other."
Mattson, 44, has been president of the Islamic Society since 2006, which is when the public criticism of her really heated up, according to David Barrett, spokesman for Hartford Seminary.
Tuesday's statement of support for Mattson is "unfortunately not the first time" the seminary has had to publicly defend the scholar — and by extension itself — against accusations of being sympathetic to terrorists, he said.
"There's been criticism of the seminary for the same reason there's been criticism of Ingrid Mattson, which is 'You're supposed to be a Christian seminary. What are you doing getting into bed with Islam?'" Barrett said. "Our answer is that we think this is important and we will continue to teach about the three Abrahamic faiths because people will understand their own faith better if we do that."
Mattson, who is from Canada, converted to Islam as a young woman. She has been a professor of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations at Hartford Seminary since 1998, Barrett said.
Wednesday, as President Obama, his wife and other high-ranking officials lined the front pews of the National Cathedral, Mattson stepped to the front of the altar in a row of other interfaith clergy and recited her brief prayer:
"On this day of new beginning, with hearts lifted high in hope, may we be a people at peace among ourselves and a blessing to other nations."
Afterward, she reflected on how the new president has been a source of comfort and inspiration to her.
"Having seen him go through his campaign and face all the attacks and insinuations he faced with such dignity was a good example for me," Mattson said.
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-secondlook0125.artjan25,0,7221903.story
Obama and Iran
Revealed: the letter Obama team hope will heal Iran rift
Symbolic gesture gives assurances that US does not want to topple Islamic regime
One draft urges Iranians to consider the bene? ts of losing their pariah status in the west. Photograph: Vahid Salemi/AP
Robert Tait and Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 January 2009 01.44 GMT
Article history
Officials of Barack Obama's administration have drafted a letter to Iran from the president aimed at unfreezing US-Iranian relations and opening the way for face-to-face talks, the Guardian has learned.
The US state department has been working on drafts of the letter since Obama was elected on 4 November last year. It is in reply to a lengthy letter of congratulations sent by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on 6 November.
Diplomats said Obama's letter would be a symbolic gesture to mark a change in tone from the hostile one adopted by the Bush administration, which portrayed Iran as part of an "axis of evil".
It would be intended to allay the suspicions of Iran's leaders and pave the way for Obama to engage them directly, a break with past policy.
State department officials have composed at least three drafts of the letter, which gives assurances that Washington does not want to overthrow the Islamic regime, but merely seeks a change in its behaviour. The letter would be addressed to the Iranian people and sent directly to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or released as an open letter.
One draft proposal suggests that Iran should compare its relatively low standard of living with that of some of its more prosperous neighbours, and contemplate the benefits of losing its pariah status in the west. Although the tone is conciliatory, it also calls on Iran to end what the US calls state sponsorship of terrorism.
The letter is being considered by the new secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, as part of a sweeping review of US policy on Iran. A decision on sending it is not expected until the review is complete.
In an interview on Monday with the al-Arabiya television network, Obama hinted at a more friendly approach towards the Islamic Republic.
Ahmadinejad said yesterday that he was waiting patiently to see what the Obama administration would come up with. "We will listen to the statements closely, we will carefully study their actions, and, if there are real changes, we will welcome it," he said.
Ahmadinejad, who confirmed that he would stand for election again in June, said it was unclear whether the Obama administration was intent on just a shift in tactics or was seeking fundamental change. He called on Washington to apologise for its actions against Iran over the past 60 years, including US support for a 1953 coup that ousted the democratically elected government, and the US shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988.
The state department refused to comment yesterday on the draft letters.
US concern about Iran mainly centres on its uranium enrichment programme, which Washington claims is intended to provide the country with a nuclear weapons capability. Iran claims the programme is for civilian purposes.
The diplomatic moves are given increased urgency by fears that Israel might take unilateral action to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.
The scale of the problem facing the new American president was reinforced yesterday when a senior aide to Ahmadinejad, Aliakbar Javanfekr, said that, despite the calls from the US, Iran had no intention of stopping its nuclear activities. When asked about a UN resolution calling for the suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment, Javanfekr, the presidential adviser for press affairs, replied: "We are past that stage."
One of the chief Iranian concerns revolves around suspicion that the US is engaged in covert action aimed at regime change, including support for separatist groups in areas such as Kurdistan, Sistan-Baluchestan and Khuzestan.
The state department has repeatedly denied that there is any American support for such groups.
In its dying days, the Bush administration was planning to open a US interests section in the Iranian capital Tehran, one step down from an embassy. Bush's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said that never happened because attention was diverted by the Russian invasion of Georgia. Others say that rightwingers in the Bush administration mounted a rearguard action to block it.
The idea has resurfaced, but if there are direct talks with Iran, it may be decided that a diplomatic presence would obviate the need for a diplomatic mission there, at least in the short term.
While Obama is taking the lead on policy towards Iran, the administration will soon announce that Dennis Ross will become a special envoy to the country, following the appointments last week of George Mitchell, the veteran US mediator, as special envoy to the Middle East, and Richard Holbrooke, who helped to broker the Bosnia peace agreement, as special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Ross, who took a leading role in the Middle East peace talks in Bill Clinton's administration, will be responsible on a day-to-day basis for implementing policy towards Iran.
In a graphic sign of Iranian mistrust, the hardline newspaper Kayhan, which is considered close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has denounced Ross as a "Zionist lobbyist".
Saeed Leylaz, a Tehran-based analyst, said a US letter would have to be accompanied by security guarantees and an agreement to drop economic sanctions. "If they send such a letter it will be a very significant step towards better ties, but they should be careful in not thinking Tehran will respond immediately," he said.
"There will be disputes inside the system about such a letter. There are lot of radicals who don't want to see ordinary relations between Tehran and Washington. To convince Iran, they should send a very clear message that they are not going to try to destroy the regime."
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
Isn't democracy wonderful?)
"In 16 days: 888 Palestinians killed in Gaza (284 children and 100 women) and 4080 injured".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rule #1:
In the Middle East, it is always the Palestinians that attack first, and it's always Israel who defends itself. This is called "retaliation
Rule #2:
The Palestinians are not allowed to kill Israelis. This is called "terrorism".
Rule #3:
Israel has the right to kill Palestinian civilians; this is called "self-defense", or "collateral damage".
Rule #4:
When Israel kills too many Palestinian civilians, the Western world calls for restraint. This is called the "reaction of the 20 international community".
Rule #5:
Palestinians do not have the right to capture Israeli military, not even 1 or 2.
Rule #6 :
Israel has the right to capture as many Palestinians as they want (around 10,000 to date being held without trial). There is no limit; there is no need for proof of guilt or trial. All that is needed is the magic word:
"terrorism".
Rule #7:
When you say "Hamas", always be sure to add "supported by Hezbo-Allah , Syria and Iran".
Rule #8:
When you say " Israel", never say "supported by the USA, the UK, European countries and even some Arab regimes", for people (God forbid) might believe this is not an equal conflict.
Rule #9:
When it comes to Israel, don't mention the words "occupied territories", "UN resolutions", "Geneva conventions". This could distress the audience of Fox, CNN, etc.
Rule #10:
Israelis speak better English than Arabs. This is why we let them speak out as much as possible, so that they can explain rules 1 through 9. This is called "neutral journalism".
Rule #11:
If you don't agree with these rules or if you favor the Palestinian side over the Israeli side, you must be a very dangerous anti-Semite. You may even have to make a public apology if you express your honest opinion.
THIS IS CALLED: DEMOCRACY!!
(Isn't democracy wonderful?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rule #1:
In the Middle East, it is always the Palestinians that attack first, and it's always Israel who defends itself. This is called "retaliation
Rule #2:
The Palestinians are not allowed to kill Israelis. This is called "terrorism".
Rule #3:
Israel has the right to kill Palestinian civilians; this is called "self-defense", or "collateral damage".
Rule #4:
When Israel kills too many Palestinian civilians, the Western world calls for restraint. This is called the "reaction of the 20 international community".
Rule #5:
Palestinians do not have the right to capture Israeli military, not even 1 or 2.
Rule #6 :
Israel has the right to capture as many Palestinians as they want (around 10,000 to date being held without trial). There is no limit; there is no need for proof of guilt or trial. All that is needed is the magic word:
"terrorism".
Rule #7:
When you say "Hamas", always be sure to add "supported by Hezbo-Allah , Syria and Iran".
Rule #8:
When you say " Israel", never say "supported by the USA, the UK, European countries and even some Arab regimes", for people (God forbid) might believe this is not an equal conflict.
Rule #9:
When it comes to Israel, don't mention the words "occupied territories", "UN resolutions", "Geneva conventions". This could distress the audience of Fox, CNN, etc.
Rule #10:
Israelis speak better English than Arabs. This is why we let them speak out as much as possible, so that they can explain rules 1 through 9. This is called "neutral journalism".
Rule #11:
If you don't agree with these rules or if you favor the Palestinian side over the Israeli side, you must be a very dangerous anti-Semite. You may even have to make a public apology if you express your honest opinion.
THIS IS CALLED: DEMOCRACY!!
(Isn't democracy wonderful?)
Thursday, 22 January 2009
The Blame Game in Gaza
Media Advisory
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3667
The Blame Game in Gaza
Erasing Israeli actions to fault only Hamas
1/6/09
The Israeli attacks in the Gaza Strip that began in late December have reportedly killed over 500 Palestinians, many of them civilians and children. As is often the case, U.S. corporate media's presentation of the events leading up to this dramatic escalation in violence have laid the blame for the violence mostly with Hamas, whose rocket attacks on Israel are often cited as the cause for the current Israeli attacks.
In many media discussions about the events that led to the fighting, emphasis is placed on Hamas' decision in late December to allow a cease-fire agreement with Israel to expire, or the group's failure to adequately suppress rocket attacks into Israel during the cease-fire.
A USA Today timeline (1/5/09) explained, "In November, the truce frays as Hamas rockets continue to land in Israel, which closes several border crossings and kills militants building tunnels Hamas was using to smuggle weapons and other goods into Gaza." On NBC Nightly News (12/27/08), Martin Fletcher explained that "a six-month truce ended this week and Palestinians fired rockets into Israel, as many as 60 a day. Israeli leaders said enough is enough."
A Washington Post editorial (12/28/08) announced that Hamas "invited the conflict by ending a six-month-old ceasefire," while Post columnist Richard Cohen (1/6/09) was much blunter: "It took no genius to see the imminence of war. It takes real stupidity to blame it on Israel."
The Dallas Morning News (12/30/08) agreed emphatically in an editorial titled, "Blood on Hamas' Hands": "The pictures of the civilian victims of Israeli airstrikes—especially children—are heart-rending. But let's keep straight whose fault this tragedy is: Hamas, the fanatical Islamists who rule Gaza and who have used the land as a launching pad for firing rockets into Israel."
The New York Times' December 28 lead declared, "The Israeli Air Force on Saturday launched a massive attack on Hamas targets throughout Gaza in retaliation for the recent heavy rocket fire from the area." The next day, Times reporter Stephen Farrell asked (12/29/08), "Why did Hamas end its six-month cease-fire on December 19?" He argued that the "rejectionist credo" of Hamas made this step all but inevitable.
These accounts fail on several grounds. For starters, the cease-fire agreement from June through mid-December was credited by many for ratcheting down the violence—rocket fire into Israel dropped significantly and claimed no Israeli lives during the truce. (Prior to that, rocket and mortar attacks since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in late 2005 had killed 10 Israelis—theisraelproject.org.) After the cease-fire expired, rocket attacks increased, though no Israelis were killed until after the Israeli attacks were launched; four have been killed since then (Agence France-Presse, 1/6/09).
Interestingly, as the truce expired, the New York Times published an article (12/19/08) that began with a typical corporate media formulation—Palestinians are attacking, Israel is retaliating—before noting that Hamas was "largely successful" in curtailing rocket fire into Israel: "Hamas imposed its will and even imprisoned some of those who were firing rockets. Israeli and United Nations figures show that while more than 300 rockets were fired into Israel in May, 10 to 20 were fired in July, depending on who was counting and whether mortar rounds were included. In August, 10 to 30 were fired, and in September, 5 to 10."
The Times article, by Ethan Bronner, noted that what Hamas expected in return from the Israelis never arrived:
But the goods shipments, while up some 25 to 30 percent and including a mix of more items, never began to approach what Hamas thought it was going to get: a return to the 500 to 600 truckloads delivered daily before the closing, including appliances, construction materials and other goods essential for life beyond mere survival. Instead, the number of trucks increased to around 90 from around 70.
Bronner also added that "Israeli forces continued to attack Hamas and other militants in the West Bank, prompting Palestinian militants in Gaza to fire rockets," which produced Hamas response attacks. The Times continued:
While this back-and-forth did not topple the agreement, Israel’s decision in early November to destroy a tunnel Hamas had been digging near the border drove the cycle of violence to a much higher level. Israel says the tunnel could have been dug only for the purpose of trying to seize a soldier, like Cpl. Gilad Shalit, the Israeli held by Hamas for the past two and a half years. Israel’s attack on the tunnel killed six Hamas militants, and each side has stepped up attacks since.
This straightforward recitation of events is rarely heard in much of the rest of the media coverage of the violence in Gaza—including in the Times, since Israel began its full-scale assault. But for many consumers of U.S. media, history is made irrelevant; a Time magazine piece (1/12/09) began:
Two sounds dominate the lives of Israelis living near Gaza: the wail of a siren and, 25 seconds later, the whistling screech of an incoming rocket fired by the Palestinian militant group Hamas. That gives Israeli families just enough time to dive for cover—even as they pray the rocket will miss.
At 11:30 a.m. on December 27, a new sound filled the azure Mediterranean sky: the rolling boom of Israeli bombs and missiles slamming into Gaza.
Israeli airstrikes in Gaza are anything but "new," but presenting them as such—and pairing that presentation with an Israeli family sheltered against an incoming Hamas rocket—gives a wildly misleading impression of a conflict where the deaths and suffering are overwhelmingly on the Palestinian side.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3667
The Blame Game in Gaza
Erasing Israeli actions to fault only Hamas
1/6/09
The Israeli attacks in the Gaza Strip that began in late December have reportedly killed over 500 Palestinians, many of them civilians and children. As is often the case, U.S. corporate media's presentation of the events leading up to this dramatic escalation in violence have laid the blame for the violence mostly with Hamas, whose rocket attacks on Israel are often cited as the cause for the current Israeli attacks.
In many media discussions about the events that led to the fighting, emphasis is placed on Hamas' decision in late December to allow a cease-fire agreement with Israel to expire, or the group's failure to adequately suppress rocket attacks into Israel during the cease-fire.
A USA Today timeline (1/5/09) explained, "In November, the truce frays as Hamas rockets continue to land in Israel, which closes several border crossings and kills militants building tunnels Hamas was using to smuggle weapons and other goods into Gaza." On NBC Nightly News (12/27/08), Martin Fletcher explained that "a six-month truce ended this week and Palestinians fired rockets into Israel, as many as 60 a day. Israeli leaders said enough is enough."
A Washington Post editorial (12/28/08) announced that Hamas "invited the conflict by ending a six-month-old ceasefire," while Post columnist Richard Cohen (1/6/09) was much blunter: "It took no genius to see the imminence of war. It takes real stupidity to blame it on Israel."
The Dallas Morning News (12/30/08) agreed emphatically in an editorial titled, "Blood on Hamas' Hands": "The pictures of the civilian victims of Israeli airstrikes—especially children—are heart-rending. But let's keep straight whose fault this tragedy is: Hamas, the fanatical Islamists who rule Gaza and who have used the land as a launching pad for firing rockets into Israel."
The New York Times' December 28 lead declared, "The Israeli Air Force on Saturday launched a massive attack on Hamas targets throughout Gaza in retaliation for the recent heavy rocket fire from the area." The next day, Times reporter Stephen Farrell asked (12/29/08), "Why did Hamas end its six-month cease-fire on December 19?" He argued that the "rejectionist credo" of Hamas made this step all but inevitable.
These accounts fail on several grounds. For starters, the cease-fire agreement from June through mid-December was credited by many for ratcheting down the violence—rocket fire into Israel dropped significantly and claimed no Israeli lives during the truce. (Prior to that, rocket and mortar attacks since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in late 2005 had killed 10 Israelis—theisraelproject.org.) After the cease-fire expired, rocket attacks increased, though no Israelis were killed until after the Israeli attacks were launched; four have been killed since then (Agence France-Presse, 1/6/09).
Interestingly, as the truce expired, the New York Times published an article (12/19/08) that began with a typical corporate media formulation—Palestinians are attacking, Israel is retaliating—before noting that Hamas was "largely successful" in curtailing rocket fire into Israel: "Hamas imposed its will and even imprisoned some of those who were firing rockets. Israeli and United Nations figures show that while more than 300 rockets were fired into Israel in May, 10 to 20 were fired in July, depending on who was counting and whether mortar rounds were included. In August, 10 to 30 were fired, and in September, 5 to 10."
The Times article, by Ethan Bronner, noted that what Hamas expected in return from the Israelis never arrived:
But the goods shipments, while up some 25 to 30 percent and including a mix of more items, never began to approach what Hamas thought it was going to get: a return to the 500 to 600 truckloads delivered daily before the closing, including appliances, construction materials and other goods essential for life beyond mere survival. Instead, the number of trucks increased to around 90 from around 70.
Bronner also added that "Israeli forces continued to attack Hamas and other militants in the West Bank, prompting Palestinian militants in Gaza to fire rockets," which produced Hamas response attacks. The Times continued:
While this back-and-forth did not topple the agreement, Israel’s decision in early November to destroy a tunnel Hamas had been digging near the border drove the cycle of violence to a much higher level. Israel says the tunnel could have been dug only for the purpose of trying to seize a soldier, like Cpl. Gilad Shalit, the Israeli held by Hamas for the past two and a half years. Israel’s attack on the tunnel killed six Hamas militants, and each side has stepped up attacks since.
This straightforward recitation of events is rarely heard in much of the rest of the media coverage of the violence in Gaza—including in the Times, since Israel began its full-scale assault. But for many consumers of U.S. media, history is made irrelevant; a Time magazine piece (1/12/09) began:
Two sounds dominate the lives of Israelis living near Gaza: the wail of a siren and, 25 seconds later, the whistling screech of an incoming rocket fired by the Palestinian militant group Hamas. That gives Israeli families just enough time to dive for cover—even as they pray the rocket will miss.
At 11:30 a.m. on December 27, a new sound filled the azure Mediterranean sky: the rolling boom of Israeli bombs and missiles slamming into Gaza.
Israeli airstrikes in Gaza are anything but "new," but presenting them as such—and pairing that presentation with an Israeli family sheltered against an incoming Hamas rocket—gives a wildly misleading impression of a conflict where the deaths and suffering are overwhelmingly on the Palestinian side.
Archbishop’s statement on Gaza
Wednesday 31st December 2008
For immediate use
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has made the following statement regarding the current situation in Gaza:
The spiraling violence in Gaza tragically illustrates the fact that the cycle of mutual threat and retaliation have no lasting effect except to reinforce the misery and insecurity of everyone in the region. I want to express my grief and sympathy for the innocent lives lost in this latest phase of violence. People of all faiths in this country will want to join their voices to the statements of the Christian Muslim Forum and the Council of Christians and Jews in urging a return to the ceasefire and efforts to secure a lasting peace. We must unite in urging all those who have the power to halt this spiral of violence to do so.
Those raising the stakes through the continuation of indiscriminate violence seem to have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. It must surely be clear that, whilst peace will not wipe out the memory of all past wrongs, it is the only basis for the future flourishing of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. The recent statement by the Patriarchs and Heads of Church in Jerusalem reflects a clear awareness that there can be no winners if the current situation is allowed to persist. Its continuation can only condemn ordinary Palestinian and Israeli citizens to the prospect of another year of fear and suffering.
Urgent humanitarian needs have arisen through the attacks on Gaza and Israel and they demand a generous response to local appeals for support, such as that issued by the Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem for its hospital in Gaza. But this humanitarian response, both local and international, needs to be matched by redoubled efforts in the political sphere.
The prophet Zechariah declared, "Not by might and not by power, but by my spirit says the Lord of Hosts". The New Year is an opportunity for a new initiative that will set the tone for what lies ahead. Religious leaders, most particularly those of the region, have an urgent responsibility in supporting the search for peace and reconciliation. But it is the political leaders and opinion-formers who hold the key to implementing the necessary changes that can bring hope. Can they not agree a period of truce as the New Year begins, so that the communities of the Holy Land may once again explore how common security might at last begin to replace the mechanical rhythms of mutual threat? Might the outgoing and incoming Presidents of the USA combine to make such an appeal and pursue its implementation?
The Anglican Communion worldwide stands alongside other religious communities and humanitarian organisations in its commitment to supporting any such initiative. Without such a sign of hope, the future for the Holy Land and the whole region is one of more fear, innocent suffering and destruction.
For immediate use
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has made the following statement regarding the current situation in Gaza:
The spiraling violence in Gaza tragically illustrates the fact that the cycle of mutual threat and retaliation have no lasting effect except to reinforce the misery and insecurity of everyone in the region. I want to express my grief and sympathy for the innocent lives lost in this latest phase of violence. People of all faiths in this country will want to join their voices to the statements of the Christian Muslim Forum and the Council of Christians and Jews in urging a return to the ceasefire and efforts to secure a lasting peace. We must unite in urging all those who have the power to halt this spiral of violence to do so.
Those raising the stakes through the continuation of indiscriminate violence seem to have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. It must surely be clear that, whilst peace will not wipe out the memory of all past wrongs, it is the only basis for the future flourishing of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. The recent statement by the Patriarchs and Heads of Church in Jerusalem reflects a clear awareness that there can be no winners if the current situation is allowed to persist. Its continuation can only condemn ordinary Palestinian and Israeli citizens to the prospect of another year of fear and suffering.
Urgent humanitarian needs have arisen through the attacks on Gaza and Israel and they demand a generous response to local appeals for support, such as that issued by the Anglican Diocese of Jerusalem for its hospital in Gaza. But this humanitarian response, both local and international, needs to be matched by redoubled efforts in the political sphere.
The prophet Zechariah declared, "Not by might and not by power, but by my spirit says the Lord of Hosts". The New Year is an opportunity for a new initiative that will set the tone for what lies ahead. Religious leaders, most particularly those of the region, have an urgent responsibility in supporting the search for peace and reconciliation. But it is the political leaders and opinion-formers who hold the key to implementing the necessary changes that can bring hope. Can they not agree a period of truce as the New Year begins, so that the communities of the Holy Land may once again explore how common security might at last begin to replace the mechanical rhythms of mutual threat? Might the outgoing and incoming Presidents of the USA combine to make such an appeal and pursue its implementation?
The Anglican Communion worldwide stands alongside other religious communities and humanitarian organisations in its commitment to supporting any such initiative. Without such a sign of hope, the future for the Holy Land and the whole region is one of more fear, innocent suffering and destruction.
Poem - Dear Mr Obama
Dear Mr. Obama !
Don’t belie the hopes of the ecstatic world,
When you sit on the mighty American throne;
Try to change your country into a sacred place,
Make it shine with piety, as once it shone.
I know you inherit the legacy of a devil,
Whose hands are full of ravages and blood;
Who exulted over the wails and shrieks,
Who ruined the peace like a miserable flood.
Have an intent gaze at Michelle –your wife,
When, of Iraq,Afghan and Gaza folk, you think;
Tell her 'someone will rape you in front of me',
Imagine her agony,and look at her horrific blink.
Cast an affectionate glance at Malia and Sasha,
Your lovely daughters of 11 and 7 years old;
Tell them ' I will be shot before your eyes',
Then face the truth as a person- brave and bold.
Bring to your mind the images of countless houses,
Which your deadly bombs have reduced to rubble;
The mounting heaps of the dead whose life has gone,
Like a slight breeze breaks a water’s tiny bubble.
************ ********* ********* ********* *
Dr. Mustafa Kamal Sherwani
All India Muslim Forum
Lucknow ,U.P.India
Email: sherwanimk@yahoo. com
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
Three Simple Proposals
Gaza Seen From Paris - www.counterpunch.org
By JEAN BRICMONT and DIANA JOHNSTONE
There are surely millions of us, invisible to each other, enraged and powerless as we watch the massacre of Gaza and listen to our media describe it as a "retaliation against terrorism", "Israel's right to defend itself". We have reached a point where answering the Zionist arguments is both useless and unworthy of humanity. So long as it is recognized that the shells landing on Ashkelon are likely to have been fired by descendants of the inhabitants of that region who were driven out by the Zionists in 1948, talk of peace is a smoke screen for continued Israeli assault on the survivors of that great injustice.
What then is to be done? Yet another dialogue between "moderate" Arabs and "progressive" Israelis? An umpteenth "peace plan" to be ignored? A solemn declaration from the European Union?
All such mainstream gestures are mere distractions from the ongoing strangling of the Palestinian people. But more radical demands are just as futile. The call to create an international tribunal to judge Israeli war criminals, or for an effective intervention by the United Nations or the European Union will accomplish nothing. The real existing international tribunals reflect the relationship of forces in the world, and will never be used against the cherished allies of the United States. It is the relationship of forces itself that must be changed, and this can be done only gradually. It is true that Gaza is a dire emergency, but it is also true that nothing really effective can be done today to stop it, precisely because the patient political work that should have been done before still remains to be undertaken.
On the three modest proposals that follow, two are ideological and one is practical.
1. Get rid of the illusion that Israel is "useful" to the West.
Many people, especially on the left, persist in thinking that Israel is only a pawn in an American capitalist or imperialist strategy to control the Middle East. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Israel is of no use to anybody or anything but its own fantasies of domination. There is no petroleum in Israel, or Lebanon, or Golan, or Gaza. The so-called wars for oil, in 1991 and 2003, were waged by the United States, with no help from Israel, and in 1991 with the explicit demand from the United States that Israel stay out (because Israel's participation would have undermined Washington's Arab coalition). For the pro-Western petro-monarchies and the "moderate" Arab regimes, Israel's ongoing occupation of Palestinian lands is a nightmare, which radicalizes much of their populations and threatens their rule. It is Israel, by its absurd policies, that provoked the creation of both Hezbollah and Hamas and that is indirectly responsible for much of the recent growth of "radical Islam".
Moreover, the plain fact is that capitalists as a whole make more money in peace than in war. It is enough to compare the profits made by Western capitalists in China or Vietnam since making peace with those countries, compared to the past, when "Red China" was isolated and the US waged war against Vietnam. The majority of capitalists could not care less which "people" must have Jerusalem as its "eternal capital", and if peace were achieved, they would hasten into the West Bank and Gaza to exploit a qualified work force with few other opportunities.
Finally, any American citizen concerned with the influence of his or her country in the world can see quite clearly that making enemies of a billion Muslims in order to satisfy every murderous whim of Israel is scarcely a rational investment in the future.
Those who consider themselves Marxists are among the first to see in Israel a simple emanation of such general phenomena as capitalism or imperialism (Marx himself was much more cautious on the matter of economic reductionism). But it does no service to the Palestinian people to maintain such fictions – in reality, like it or not, the capitalist system is far too robust to stake its survival on the Jewish occupation of the West Bank, and capitalism has been doing just fine in South Africa since the end of Apartheid.
2. Allow non-Jews to speak their mind about Israel
If support for Israel is not based on economic or strategic interests, why do the political class and the media passively accept whatever Israel does? Many ordinary people may feel unconcerned by what happens in a faraway country. But this does not apply to the West's leading opinion makers, who never cease criticizing what is wrong with the policies of Venezuela, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, Islam, Serbia, Russia or China. Even unproved rumors and gross exaggerations are repeated with insistence. Only Israel must be treated with kid gloves.
One explanation offered for this special treatment is Western "guilt" for past anti-Semitic persecutions, in particular the horrors inflicted on Jews during the Second World War. It is sometimes pointed out that the Palestinians are in no way responsible for those horrors and should not have to pay the price for crimes committed by others. That is true, but what is almost never said and which is obvious nevertheless, is that the overwhelming majority of French people, Germans or Catholic priests today are just as innocent of what happened during the war as the Palestinians, for the simple reason that they were either born after the war or were children at the time. The notion of collective guilt was already very questionable in 1945, but the idea of transmitting that collective guilt to subsequent generations is quite simply a religious notion. Even if it is said that the Holocaust should not justify Israeli policy, it is striking that the populations who are supposed to feel guilty for what happened (the Germans, the French and the Catholics) are most reticent to speak out.
It is strange that at the very time the Catholic Church renounced the notion of Jews as the people who killed Christ, the notion of the almost universal guilt for killing the Jews began to take over. The discourse on universal guilt for the Holocaust is like religious discourse in general in the way it legitimizes hypocrisy, by shifting responsibility from the real to the imaginary (on the model of "original sin" itself). We are all supposed to feel guilty for crimes committed in the past about which, by definition, we can do nothing. But we need not feel guilty or responsible for crimes being committed right before our eyes by our Israeli or American allies, whom we can hope to influence.
The fact that we are not all guilty of the crimes of the Third Reich is simple and obvious, but needs to be driven home to allow non-Jews to speak up freely about Palestine. As it is, non-Jews who often feel they must leave it to Jews, as the only people who have the "right" to criticize Israel, to defend the Palestinians. But given the relationship of forces between the Jewish critics of Israel, and the influential Zionist organizations claiming to speak for the Jewish people, there is no realistic hope that Jewish voices alone can save the Palestinians.
However, the main reason for the silence is surely not guilt precisely because it is so artificial, but rather fear. Fear of "what will they think", fear of slander and even of being taken to court for "anti-Semitism". If you are not convinced, take a journalist, a politician or a publisher to some spot where nobody is listening and there is no hidden camera or microphone, and ask whether he or she says in public all he or she thinks of Israel in private. And if not, why? Fear of hurting the interests of capitalism? Fear of weakening American imperialism? Fear of interrupting oil deliveries? Or, on the contrary, fear of Zionist organizations and their relentless campaigns?
We have little doubt, after dozens of discussions with such people that the last answer given above is the correct one. People do not say what they think of what calls itself the "Jewish State" for fear of being called anti-Jewish and being identified with the anti-Semites of the past. This sentiment is all the stronger inasmuch as most people who are shocked by Israeli policy are genuinely horrified by what was done to the Jews during the Second World War and are sincerely outraged by anti-Semitism. If one stops to think about it, it is clear that if there existed today, as was the case before 1940, openly anti-Semitic political movements, they would not be so intimidated. But today, not even the French National Front says it is anti-Semitic and whoever criticizes Israel usually starts by denying being anti-Semitic. The fear of being accused of anti-Semitism is deeper than fear of the Zionist lobby, it is fear of losing the respectability that goes with condemnation of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust as the highest contemporary moral value.
It is imperative to free criticism of Israel from the fear of being falsely accused of "anti-Semitism". The threat of this accusation is an insidious form of moral blackmail that perhaps constitutes the only real potential source of a widespread revival of anti-Jewish resentment.
3. The practical initiatives are summed up in three letters : BDS- Boycott, disinvestment, sanctions
The demand for sanctions is taken up by most pro-Palestinian organizations, but since such measures are the prerogative of states, it is clear that this will not happen soon. Disinvestment measures can be taken by trade unions and churches, on the decision of their members. Other enterprises that collaborate closely with Israel will not change their policy unless they are under public pressure, that is, boycotts. This brings us to the controversial issue of boycotts, not only of Israeli products but also of Israel's cultural and academic institutions.
This tactic was used against apartheid in South Africa in a very similar situation. Both apartheid and the dispossession of the Palestinians are a late heritage of European colonialism, whose practitioners have a hard time realizing that such forms of domination are no longer acceptable to the world in general and even to public opinion in the West. The racist ideologies underlying both projects are an outrage to the majority of humanity and gives rise to endless hatreds and conflicts. One might even say that Israel is another South Africa, plus exploitation of "the Holocaust" as an excuse.
Any boycott is apt to have innocent victims. In particular, it is said that boycotting Israeli academic institutions would unjustly punish intellectuals who are for peace. Perhaps, but Israel itself readily admits that there are innocent victims in Gaza, whose innocence in no way prevents them from being killed. We do not propose killing anyone. A boycott is a perfectly non-violent act by citizens. It is comparable to conscientious objection or civil disobedience in the face of unjust power. Israel flouts all UN resolutions and our own governments, far from taking measures to oblige Israel to comply, merely reinforce their ties with Israel. We have the right, as citizens, to demand that our own governments respect international law.
What is important about sanctions, especially on the cultural level, is their symbolic value. It is a way of telling our governments that we do not accept their policy of collaboration with a state that has chosen to become an international outlaw.
Some object to a boycott on the grounds that it is opposed by both some progressive Israelis and a certain number of "moderate" Palestinians (but not Palestinian civil society as a whole). But the main question for us is not what they say, but what foreign policy we want for our own countries. The Israeli-Arab conflict is far from being a mere local quarrel and has attained a worldwide significance. It involves the basic issue of respect for international law. A boycott should be defended as a means to protest to our governments in order to force them to change their policy. We have the right to want to be able to travel without shame in the rest of the world. That is reason enough to encourage a boycott.
(A french version of this text is in preparation).
Jean Bricmont teaches physics in Belgium and is a member of the Brussels Tribunal. His book,
Humanitarian Imperialism, is published by Monthly Review Press. He can be reached at Jean.Bricmont@uclouvain.be.
Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, Nato, and Western Delusions
published by Monthly Review Press. She can be reached at: diana.josto@yahoo.fr
By JEAN BRICMONT and DIANA JOHNSTONE
There are surely millions of us, invisible to each other, enraged and powerless as we watch the massacre of Gaza and listen to our media describe it as a "retaliation against terrorism", "Israel's right to defend itself". We have reached a point where answering the Zionist arguments is both useless and unworthy of humanity. So long as it is recognized that the shells landing on Ashkelon are likely to have been fired by descendants of the inhabitants of that region who were driven out by the Zionists in 1948, talk of peace is a smoke screen for continued Israeli assault on the survivors of that great injustice.
What then is to be done? Yet another dialogue between "moderate" Arabs and "progressive" Israelis? An umpteenth "peace plan" to be ignored? A solemn declaration from the European Union?
All such mainstream gestures are mere distractions from the ongoing strangling of the Palestinian people. But more radical demands are just as futile. The call to create an international tribunal to judge Israeli war criminals, or for an effective intervention by the United Nations or the European Union will accomplish nothing. The real existing international tribunals reflect the relationship of forces in the world, and will never be used against the cherished allies of the United States. It is the relationship of forces itself that must be changed, and this can be done only gradually. It is true that Gaza is a dire emergency, but it is also true that nothing really effective can be done today to stop it, precisely because the patient political work that should have been done before still remains to be undertaken.
On the three modest proposals that follow, two are ideological and one is practical.
1. Get rid of the illusion that Israel is "useful" to the West.
Many people, especially on the left, persist in thinking that Israel is only a pawn in an American capitalist or imperialist strategy to control the Middle East. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Israel is of no use to anybody or anything but its own fantasies of domination. There is no petroleum in Israel, or Lebanon, or Golan, or Gaza. The so-called wars for oil, in 1991 and 2003, were waged by the United States, with no help from Israel, and in 1991 with the explicit demand from the United States that Israel stay out (because Israel's participation would have undermined Washington's Arab coalition). For the pro-Western petro-monarchies and the "moderate" Arab regimes, Israel's ongoing occupation of Palestinian lands is a nightmare, which radicalizes much of their populations and threatens their rule. It is Israel, by its absurd policies, that provoked the creation of both Hezbollah and Hamas and that is indirectly responsible for much of the recent growth of "radical Islam".
Moreover, the plain fact is that capitalists as a whole make more money in peace than in war. It is enough to compare the profits made by Western capitalists in China or Vietnam since making peace with those countries, compared to the past, when "Red China" was isolated and the US waged war against Vietnam. The majority of capitalists could not care less which "people" must have Jerusalem as its "eternal capital", and if peace were achieved, they would hasten into the West Bank and Gaza to exploit a qualified work force with few other opportunities.
Finally, any American citizen concerned with the influence of his or her country in the world can see quite clearly that making enemies of a billion Muslims in order to satisfy every murderous whim of Israel is scarcely a rational investment in the future.
Those who consider themselves Marxists are among the first to see in Israel a simple emanation of such general phenomena as capitalism or imperialism (Marx himself was much more cautious on the matter of economic reductionism). But it does no service to the Palestinian people to maintain such fictions – in reality, like it or not, the capitalist system is far too robust to stake its survival on the Jewish occupation of the West Bank, and capitalism has been doing just fine in South Africa since the end of Apartheid.
2. Allow non-Jews to speak their mind about Israel
If support for Israel is not based on economic or strategic interests, why do the political class and the media passively accept whatever Israel does? Many ordinary people may feel unconcerned by what happens in a faraway country. But this does not apply to the West's leading opinion makers, who never cease criticizing what is wrong with the policies of Venezuela, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, Islam, Serbia, Russia or China. Even unproved rumors and gross exaggerations are repeated with insistence. Only Israel must be treated with kid gloves.
One explanation offered for this special treatment is Western "guilt" for past anti-Semitic persecutions, in particular the horrors inflicted on Jews during the Second World War. It is sometimes pointed out that the Palestinians are in no way responsible for those horrors and should not have to pay the price for crimes committed by others. That is true, but what is almost never said and which is obvious nevertheless, is that the overwhelming majority of French people, Germans or Catholic priests today are just as innocent of what happened during the war as the Palestinians, for the simple reason that they were either born after the war or were children at the time. The notion of collective guilt was already very questionable in 1945, but the idea of transmitting that collective guilt to subsequent generations is quite simply a religious notion. Even if it is said that the Holocaust should not justify Israeli policy, it is striking that the populations who are supposed to feel guilty for what happened (the Germans, the French and the Catholics) are most reticent to speak out.
It is strange that at the very time the Catholic Church renounced the notion of Jews as the people who killed Christ, the notion of the almost universal guilt for killing the Jews began to take over. The discourse on universal guilt for the Holocaust is like religious discourse in general in the way it legitimizes hypocrisy, by shifting responsibility from the real to the imaginary (on the model of "original sin" itself). We are all supposed to feel guilty for crimes committed in the past about which, by definition, we can do nothing. But we need not feel guilty or responsible for crimes being committed right before our eyes by our Israeli or American allies, whom we can hope to influence.
The fact that we are not all guilty of the crimes of the Third Reich is simple and obvious, but needs to be driven home to allow non-Jews to speak up freely about Palestine. As it is, non-Jews who often feel they must leave it to Jews, as the only people who have the "right" to criticize Israel, to defend the Palestinians. But given the relationship of forces between the Jewish critics of Israel, and the influential Zionist organizations claiming to speak for the Jewish people, there is no realistic hope that Jewish voices alone can save the Palestinians.
However, the main reason for the silence is surely not guilt precisely because it is so artificial, but rather fear. Fear of "what will they think", fear of slander and even of being taken to court for "anti-Semitism". If you are not convinced, take a journalist, a politician or a publisher to some spot where nobody is listening and there is no hidden camera or microphone, and ask whether he or she says in public all he or she thinks of Israel in private. And if not, why? Fear of hurting the interests of capitalism? Fear of weakening American imperialism? Fear of interrupting oil deliveries? Or, on the contrary, fear of Zionist organizations and their relentless campaigns?
We have little doubt, after dozens of discussions with such people that the last answer given above is the correct one. People do not say what they think of what calls itself the "Jewish State" for fear of being called anti-Jewish and being identified with the anti-Semites of the past. This sentiment is all the stronger inasmuch as most people who are shocked by Israeli policy are genuinely horrified by what was done to the Jews during the Second World War and are sincerely outraged by anti-Semitism. If one stops to think about it, it is clear that if there existed today, as was the case before 1940, openly anti-Semitic political movements, they would not be so intimidated. But today, not even the French National Front says it is anti-Semitic and whoever criticizes Israel usually starts by denying being anti-Semitic. The fear of being accused of anti-Semitism is deeper than fear of the Zionist lobby, it is fear of losing the respectability that goes with condemnation of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust as the highest contemporary moral value.
It is imperative to free criticism of Israel from the fear of being falsely accused of "anti-Semitism". The threat of this accusation is an insidious form of moral blackmail that perhaps constitutes the only real potential source of a widespread revival of anti-Jewish resentment.
3. The practical initiatives are summed up in three letters : BDS- Boycott, disinvestment, sanctions
The demand for sanctions is taken up by most pro-Palestinian organizations, but since such measures are the prerogative of states, it is clear that this will not happen soon. Disinvestment measures can be taken by trade unions and churches, on the decision of their members. Other enterprises that collaborate closely with Israel will not change their policy unless they are under public pressure, that is, boycotts. This brings us to the controversial issue of boycotts, not only of Israeli products but also of Israel's cultural and academic institutions.
This tactic was used against apartheid in South Africa in a very similar situation. Both apartheid and the dispossession of the Palestinians are a late heritage of European colonialism, whose practitioners have a hard time realizing that such forms of domination are no longer acceptable to the world in general and even to public opinion in the West. The racist ideologies underlying both projects are an outrage to the majority of humanity and gives rise to endless hatreds and conflicts. One might even say that Israel is another South Africa, plus exploitation of "the Holocaust" as an excuse.
Any boycott is apt to have innocent victims. In particular, it is said that boycotting Israeli academic institutions would unjustly punish intellectuals who are for peace. Perhaps, but Israel itself readily admits that there are innocent victims in Gaza, whose innocence in no way prevents them from being killed. We do not propose killing anyone. A boycott is a perfectly non-violent act by citizens. It is comparable to conscientious objection or civil disobedience in the face of unjust power. Israel flouts all UN resolutions and our own governments, far from taking measures to oblige Israel to comply, merely reinforce their ties with Israel. We have the right, as citizens, to demand that our own governments respect international law.
What is important about sanctions, especially on the cultural level, is their symbolic value. It is a way of telling our governments that we do not accept their policy of collaboration with a state that has chosen to become an international outlaw.
Some object to a boycott on the grounds that it is opposed by both some progressive Israelis and a certain number of "moderate" Palestinians (but not Palestinian civil society as a whole). But the main question for us is not what they say, but what foreign policy we want for our own countries. The Israeli-Arab conflict is far from being a mere local quarrel and has attained a worldwide significance. It involves the basic issue of respect for international law. A boycott should be defended as a means to protest to our governments in order to force them to change their policy. We have the right to want to be able to travel without shame in the rest of the world. That is reason enough to encourage a boycott.
(A french version of this text is in preparation).
Jean Bricmont teaches physics in Belgium and is a member of the Brussels Tribunal. His book,
Humanitarian Imperialism, is published by Monthly Review Press. He can be reached at Jean.Bricmont@uclouvain.be.
Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, Nato, and Western Delusions
published by Monthly Review Press. She can be reached at: diana.josto@yahoo.fr
Devlin's Angle - http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_0708_02.html
The Mathematical Legacy of Islam
Today, mention of the word Islam conjurs up images of fanatical terrorists flying jet airplanes full of people into buildings full of even more people, all in the name, they say, of their god. In an equally sad vein, the word Baghdad brings to mind the unscrupulous and decidedly evil dictator Saddam Hussein. Both images are as unrepresentative as they are understandable, a sad reflection on the ease with which a handful of crazed fanatics, lacking the ability or the wit to bring about change by peaceful means, can hijack not just a plane or a country but an entire cultural heritage and its associated religion. For those of us in mathematics, and by extension all scientists and engineers, the sadness is even greater. For the culture that these fanatics claim to represent when they set about trying to destroy the modern world of science and technology was in fact the cradle in which that tradition was nurtured. As mathematicians, we are all children of Islam.
Following the advent of Islam in the seventh century, Islamic forces attacked and conquered all of North Africa, most of the middle East, and even parts of Western Europe, most notably Spain. The capital of this empire, Baghdad, was established on the Tigris River. Its location made it a natural crossroads, the place where East and West could meet. Baghdad quickly became a major cultural center.
With the emergence of a new dynasty, the Abbasids, in the middle of the eighth century, the Islamic Empire started to settle down politically, and conditions emerged in which mathematics and science could be pursued. By and large, the early mathematical work done by Arabic scholars was predominantly practical, and not very deep -- certainly nothing like the mathematics of the ancient Greeks a thousand years earlier. Nevertheless, the subject appears to have been viewed as important and prestigious. Early Islamic scholars imported to Baghdad books on astronomy and mathematics from India.
Early in the ninth century, the Abbasid caliphs decided to adopt a more deliberate approach to the cultural and intellectual growth of the empire. They established the House of Wisdom, a sort of ninth century academy of science, and started to gather together scholarly manuscripts in Greek and Sanskrit, together with scholars who could read and understand them. Over the following years, many important Greek and Indian mathematical books were translated and studied, leading to a new era of scientific and mathematical creativity that was to last until the 14th century.
One of the first Greek texts to be translated was Euclid's Elements. This had a huge impact, and from then on the Arabic mathematicians adopted a very Greek approach to their mathematics, formulating theorems precisely and proving them formally in Euclid's style. Like Greek mathematics, which was defined more by the common language in which it was written and carried out, rather than the nationality of the practitioners, Arabic mathematics was determined largely by the common use of Arabic by scholars of many nationalities, not all of them Arabic or Muslim, spread throughout the Islamic Empire.
One of the earliest and most distinguished of the Arabic mathematicians was the ninth century scholar Abu Ja'far Mohammed ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi, who was an astronomer to the caliph at Baghdad. His name indicates that he was from the town of Khwarizm (now Khiva), on the Amu Darya river, south of the Aral Sea in what is now Uzbekistan. (Khwarizm was part of the Silk Route, a major trading pathway between Europe and the East.) Al-Khwarizmi's full name can be translated as "Father of Ja'far, Mohammed, son of Moses, native of the town of Al-Khwarizmi".
Al-Khwarizmi wrote several books that were to be enormously influential. In particular, his book describing how to write numbers and compute with them using the place-value decimal system that came out of India would, when translated into Latin three hundred years later, prove to be a major source for Europeans who wanted to learn the new system.
In fact, Al-Khwarizmi's book on arithmetic with the Hindu-Arabic numbers was so important, it appears to have been translated several times. Many translations began with the phrase "dixit Algorismi" ("so says Al-Khwarizmi"), a practice that led to the adoption in medieval times of the term algorism to refer to the process of computing with the Hindu-Arabic numerals. Our modern word "algorithm" is an obvious derivation from that term.
Another of Al-Khwarizmi's manuscripts was called Kitab al jabr w'al-muqabala, which translates roughly as "restoration and compensation". The book is essentially an algebra text. It starts off with a discussion of quadratic equations, then goes on to some practical geometry, followed by simple linear equations, and ending with a long section on how to apply mathematics to solve inheritance problems. The Englishman Robert of Chester translated Al-Khwarizmi's algebra book from Arabic into Latin in 1145. The part dealing with quadratic equations eventually became famous. Such was the influence of this work that the Arabic phrase al jabr in the book's title gave rise to our modern word "algebra".
After Al-Khwarizmi, algebra became an important part of Arabic mathematics. Arabic mathematicians learned to manipulate polynomials, to solve certain algebraic equations, and more. For modern readers, used to thinking of algebra as the manipulation of symbols, it is important to realize that the Arabic mathematicians did not use symbols at all. Everything was done in words.
One of the most famous Arabic mathematicians was 'Umar Al-Khayammi, known in the West as Omar Khayyam, who lived approximately from 1048 to 1131. Although remembered today primarily as a poet, in his time he was also famous as a mathematician, scientist, and philosopher, doing major work in all those fields.
It was largely through translations of the Arabic texts into Latin that western Europe, freshly emerged from the Dark Ages, kick-started its mathematics in the tenth and subsequent centuries.
It was around the tenth century that "cathedral schools" sprang up in many parts of Europe,. Designed to train clerics, they concentrated on the trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric), with more advanced students going on to the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy). Their creation helped spur an increased interest in mathematics. To fuel that interest, scholars turned to the ancient works preserved by the Islamic culture, many of them in Spain. For instance, Gerbert d'Aurillac (945-1003), later to be Pope Sylvester II, visited Spain to learn mathematics, then returned to France where he reorganized the cathedral school in Rhiems. He re-introduced the study of arithmetic and geometry, taught students how to use the counting board, and even used Hindu-Arabic numerals -- though apparently not the full place-value system we use today.
In the centuries that followed, many European scholars spent time in Spain translating Arabic treatises on various subjects. Latin was the language of the European scholars, and thus the target language for the translations. Since few European scholar knew Arabic, however, the translation was often done in two stages, with a Jewish scholar living in Spain translating from the Arabic to some common language and the visiting scholar then translating from that language into Latin. In the same way, many ancient Greek texts, from Aristotle to Euclid, were also translated into Latin, whereupon they began to make an impact in the West.
In addition to the translations of Al-Khwarizmi's works, of particular note was the appearance in 1202 of Fibonacci's book Liber abaci, which described the Hindu-Arabic place-value system for representing numbers, and explained how to compute with them. Fibonacci's treatment was so good that it arguably had more influence than any other source on the eventual acceptance of the new number system around the world, including Al-Khwarizmi's writings that had come much earlier.
The full story of Fibonacci is a fascinating one, which I will turn to in a future column. The point I want to make now is that it was through translations of the Arabic texts that western Europe was able to develop its own mathematical traditions so rapidly, paving the way for the scientific revolution in the seventeenth century and thence to the scientific and technological world we take for granted today. Many of those Arabic texts were themselves translations of still earlier Greek works from a thousand years earlier.
Without the dedication and commitment to science of the Islamic scholars of the 9th to the 14th century, who both preserved important scientific works and pushed forward the limits of mathematical and scientific knowledge, it is not at all clear that Western Europe would have become the world leader in science and technology. And had that not been the case, it is unlikely that the United States (as we know it today) would have inherited that leadership role.
I suspect that Osama bin Laden, as an educated man from a very wealthy family, is fully aware of the crucial role played by Islam in the development of the West's scientific tradition. I doubt that the same is true for the hordes who pour out into the streets of Iraq and Pakistan in his support, to rejoice the slaughter of men, women, and children they have never met, living in countries they have never visited. I doubt also that a sense of Islam's ancient tradition of scientific scholarship and learning is possessed by the fanatical few who, at bin Laden's bidding, believe that the surest way to achieve immortal greatness in the eyes of their god is to commit mass murder as a first step towards turning back the advances in science and technology that they see as so evil, and returning humankind to the Stone Age.
Ignorance, we used to say, is bliss. Maybe that was once the case, although I very much doubt it. Be that as it may, I think that the clear message of September 11 and the events that have unfolded in the months since then, is that ignorance is dangerous, leaving the gullible ignorant wide open to manipulation by unscrupulous and evil individuals. It is also, as I have tried to indicate, deeply sad.
The 'first true scientist'
By Professor Jim Al-Khalili University of Surrey
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7810846.stm
University of Surrey
Isaac Newton is, as most will agree, the greatest physicist of all time.
At the very least, he is the undisputed father of modern optics, or so we are told at school where our textbooks abound with his famous experiments with lenses and prisms, his study of the nature of light and its reflection, and the refraction and decomposition of light into the colours of the rainbow.
Yet, the truth is rather greyer; and I feel it important to point out that, certainly in the field of optics, Newton himself stood on the shoulders of a giant who lived 700 years earlier.
Yet, the truth is rather greyer; and I feel it important to point out that, certainly in the field of optics, Newton himself stood on the shoulders of a giant who lived 700 years earlier.
For, without doubt, another great physicist, who is worthy of ranking up alongside Newton, is a scientist born in AD 965 in what is now Iraq who went by the name of al-Hassan Ibn al-Haytham.
Most people in the West will never have even heard of him.
As a physicist myself, I am quite in awe of this man's contribution to my field, but I was fortunate enough to have recently been given the opportunity to dig a little into his life and work through my recent filming of a three-part BBC Four series on medieval Islamic scientists.
Modern methods
Popular accounts of the history of science typically suggest that no major scientific advances took place in between the ancient Greeks and the European Renaissance.
But just because Western Europe languished in the Dark Ages, does not mean there was stagnation elsewhere. Indeed, the period between the 9th and 13th Centuries marked the Golden Age of Arabic science. Great advances were made in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, physics, chemistry and philosophy. Among the many geniuses of that period Ibn al-Haytham stands taller than all the others.
Ibn al-Haytham is regarded as the father of the modern scientific method.
As commonly defined, this is the approach to investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge, based on the gathering of data through observation and measurement, followed by the formulation and testing of hypotheses to explain the data.
This is how we do science today and is why I put my trust in the advances that have been made in science.
But it is often still claimed that the modern scientific method was not established until the early 17th Century by Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes.
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that Ibn al-Haytham arrived there first.
In fact, with his emphasis on experimental data and reproducibility of results, he is often referred to as the "world's first true scientist".
nderstanding light
He was the first scientist to give a correct account of how we see objects.
He proved experimentally, for instance, that the so-called emission theory (which stated that light from our eyes shines upon the objects we see), which was believed by great thinkers such as Plato, Euclid and Ptolemy, was wrong and established the modern idea that we see because light enters our eyes.
What he also did that no other scientist had tried before was to use mathematics to describe and prove this process.
So he can be regarded as the very first theoretical physicist, too.
He is perhaps best known for his invention of the pinhole camera and should be credited with the discovery of the laws of refraction.
He also carried out the first experiments on the dispersion of light into its constituent colours and studied shadows, rainbows and eclipses; and by observing the way sunlight diffracted through the atmosphere, he was able to work out a rather good estimate for the height of the atmosphere, which he found to be around 100km.
Enforced study
In common with many modern scholars, Ibn-al Haytham badly needed the time and isolation to focus on writing his many treatises, including his great work on optics.
He was given an unwelcome opportunity, however, when he was imprisoned in Egypt between 1011 and 1021, having failed a task set him by a caliph in Cairo to help solve the problem of regulating the flooding of the Nile.
While still in Basra, Ibn al-Haytham had claimed that the Nile's autumn flood waters could be held by a system of dykes and canals, thereby preserved as reservoirs until the summer's droughts.
But on arrival in Cairo, he soon realised that his scheme was utterly impractical from an engineering perspective.
Yet rather than admit his mistake to the dangerous and murderous caliph, Ibn-al Haytham instead decided to feign madness as a way to escape punishment.
This promptly led to him being placed under house arrest, thereby granting him 10 years of seclusion in which to work.
Planetary motion
He was only released after the caliph's death. He returned to Iraq where he composed a further 100 works on a range of subjects in physics and mathematics.
While travelling through the Middle East during my filming, I interviewed an expert in Alexandria who showed me recently discovered work by Ibn al-Haytham on astronomy.
It seems he had developed what is called celestial mechanics, explaining the orbits of the planets, which was to lead to the eventual work of Europeans like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton.
It is incredible that we are only now uncovering the debt that today's physicists owe to an Arab who lived 1,000 years ago.
Professor Jim Al-Khalili presents Science and Islam on BBC Four at 2100GMT on Monday 5, 12 & 19 January
Friday, 2 January 2009
So what have the Palestinians got to complain about?
Mark Steel - http://tiny.cc/sohja
The Israeli government suffers terribly from this confusion. They probably have adverts on Israeli television in which a man falls off a ladder and screams, "Eeeeugh", then a voice says, "Have you caused an accident at work in the last 12 months?" and the bloke who pushed him gets £3,000.
The rockets may be unable to to kill on the scale of the Israeli Air Force, said one spokesman, but they are "intended to kill".
Maybe he went on: "And we have evidence that Hamas supporters have dreams, and that in these dreams bad things happen to Israeli citizens, they burst, or turn into cactus, or run through Woolworths naked, so it's not important whether it can happen, what matters is that they WANT it to happen, so we blew up their university."
Or there's the outrage that Hamas has been supported by Iran. Well that's just breaking the rules. Because say what you will about the Israelis, they get no arms supplies or funding or political support from a country that's more powerful than them, they just go their own way and make all their weapons in an arts and crafts workshop in Jerusalem.
But mostly the Israelis justify themselves with a disappointing lack of imagination, such as the line that they had to destroy an ambulance because Hamas cynically put their weapons inside ambulances.
But they prefer a direct approach, such as the statement from Ofer Schmerling, an Israeli Civil Defence official who said on al-Jazeera, "I shall play music and celebrate what the Israeli Air Force is doing."
And almost certainly one of the reasons this is happening now is because the government wants to appear hard as it wants to win an election. Maybe with typical Israeli frankness they'll show a party political broadcast in which Ehud Olmert says, "This is why I think you should vote for me", then shows film of Gaza and yells: "Wa-hey, that bloke in the corner is on FIRE."
And Condoleezza Rice and her colleagues, and the specially appointed Middle East Peace Envoy, could then all shake their heads and say: "Disgraceful. The way he's flapping around like that could cause someone to have a nasty accident."
To portray this as a conflict between equals requires some imagination
Wednesday, 31 December 2008
Wednesday, 31 December 2008
When you read the statements from Israeli and US politicians, and try to match them with the pictures of devastation, there seems to be only one explanation. They must have one of those conditions, called something like "Visual Carnage Responsibility Back To Front Upside Down Massacre Disorder".
For example, Condoleezza Rice, having observed that more than 300 Gazans were dead, said: "We are deeply concerned about the escalating violence. We strongly condemn the attacks on Israel and hold Hamas responsible." 
Someone should ask her to comment on teenage knife-crime, to see if she'd say: "I strongly condemn the people who've been stabbed, and until they abandon their practice of wandering around clutching their sides and bleeding, there is no hope for peace."
The Israeli government suffers terribly from this confusion. They probably have adverts on Israeli television in which a man falls off a ladder and screams, "Eeeeugh", then a voice says, "Have you caused an accident at work in the last 12 months?" and the bloke who pushed him gets £3,000.
The gap between the might of Israel's F-16 bombers and Apache helicopters, and the Palestinians' catapulty thing is so ridiculous that to try and portray the situation as between two equal sides requires the imagination of a children's story writer.
The reporter on News at Ten said the rockets "may be ineffective, but they ARE symbolic." So they might not have weapons but they have got symbolism, the canny brutes.
It's no wonder the Israeli Air Force had to demolish a few housing estates, otherwise Hamas might have tried to mock Israel through a performance of expressive dance.
The rockets may be unable to to kill on the scale of the Israeli Air Force, said one spokesman, but they are "intended to kill".
Maybe he went on: "And we have evidence that Hamas supporters have dreams, and that in these dreams bad things happen to Israeli citizens, they burst, or turn into cactus, or run through Woolworths naked, so it's not important whether it can happen, what matters is that they WANT it to happen, so we blew up their university."
Or there's the outrage that Hamas has been supported by Iran. Well that's just breaking the rules. Because say what you will about the Israelis, they get no arms supplies or funding or political support from a country that's more powerful than them, they just go their own way and make all their weapons in an arts and crafts workshop in Jerusalem.
But mostly the Israelis justify themselves with a disappointing lack of imagination, such as the line that they had to destroy an ambulance because Hamas cynically put their weapons inside ambulances.
They should be more creative, and say Hamas were planning to aim the flashing blue light at Israeli epileptics in an attempt to make them go into a fit, get dizzy and wander off into Syria where they would be captured.
But they prefer a direct approach, such as the statement from Ofer Schmerling, an Israeli Civil Defence official who said on al-Jazeera, "I shall play music and celebrate what the Israeli Air Force is doing."
Maybe they could turn it into a huge nationalfestival, with decorations and mince pies and shops playing "I Wish We Could Bomb Gaza Every Day".
In a similar tone Dov Weisglas, Ariel Sharon's chief of staff, referred to the siege of Gaza that preceded this bombing, a siege in which the Israelis prevented the population from receiving essential supplies of food, medicine, electricity and water, by saying, "We put them on a diet."
It's the arrogance of the East End gangster, so it wouldn't be out of character if the Israeli Prime Minister's press conference began: "Oh dear or dear. It looks like those Palestinians have had a little, er, accident. All their buildings have been knocked down – they want to be more careful, hee hee."
And almost certainly one of the reasons this is happening now is because the government wants to appear hard as it wants to win an election. Maybe with typical Israeli frankness they'll show a party political broadcast in which Ehud Olmert says, "This is why I think you should vote for me", then shows film of Gaza and yells: "Wa-hey, that bloke in the corner is on FIRE."
And Condoleezza Rice and her colleagues, and the specially appointed Middle East Peace Envoy, could then all shake their heads and say: "Disgraceful. The way he's flapping around like that could cause someone to have a nasty accident."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)