May the year 2013…

lead to the beginning of the end of many of the issues in the world today so I’ll only post jolly news 😛 Many things are in our hands, do what you can to bring a little peace to the world whether it is peace of your own mind, your house, family, friends, neighborhood, etc.

Happy New Year all!

Will we see an end to Zionist plots in Lebanon?

Beirut,

As usual in Lebanese politics an issue is chosen and then the politicians run amuck with it. This doesn’t mean it is not important most of the time it is but there is so much back and forth discussions between the numerous political parties (their number quite remarkable for a small country) for months and years sometimes it is hard to keep up with all the details. Yet, when foreign parties start to be part of these discussions one has to pay more attention (Lebanon’s history has always been marred with foreign interventions).

One has to ask witnessing this are these parties interested in the well-being of the Lebanese more than the people of the country itself? Are these parties real supporters of justice? Are they role-models in applying the rule of law? Can’t they sleep until they find the ones responsible for assisinating former PM Rafiq al Hariri?

Yes, from the events regarding the court and investigation of this assassination (STL) it seems these parties care very much about the Lebanese to the degree that nothing would stop them from reaching as they claim truth and justice. Shall we take a look at those “just” bearers?   

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

The US secretary of state also pointed out that “intimidation or threats” from Hezbollah should not be tolerated.

Egyptian FM Ahmed Abul Gheit

“No one can reject the Special tribunal for Lebanon” investigating in the 2005 assassination of former Premier Rafiq Hariri, threatening the international community “will confront those seeking to use the STL in order to destabilize Lebanon.”…

“Egypt does not aim to increase its interests in Lebanon, but we see it as an important country in the Middle East and our leaders have called for leaving it alone, this is still Egypt’s motto and we are committed to it,”

Foreign Secretary William Hague

Foreign Secretary William Hague urged other nations to support the court, saying justice “is the only way to ensure long term stability” in Lebanon.

If you haven’t laughed yet at the irony of ever having the word just in relation to any of the countries these people represent then please do now.

The Lebanese are so lucky that they have such “friends” to share “donations” to keep the STL going because it seems the Lebanese are moving towards not paying for it. “Justice” comes only from the US which supplies the Israelis with weapons to kill the Lebanese, Britain which passes them on to the Israelis (like in 2006), and  Egypt who at any opportunity stands with the Israelis and their crimes.

Another funny tidbit, I was watching on the news the other day the STL has reporters in Hague parading the grandiose facilities there. Yesterday, they toured the prisons where they will put the accused people. Hey, those places look so nice with computers, tvs and a good hospital who could refuse?! Maybe they will be able to convince some members of Hezbollah to stay there for there is continuous electricity (which is mostly cut off in the southern suburbs of Beirut) because that is the only way they might get one over there.

 The mockery is too much to bear sometimes, believe me all the Lebanese ask is to be left alone but I doubt that will happen any time soon.

Muslim, Christian Authorities Slam Swiss Referendum to Ban Minarets

What is most disturbing about this is the revisiting of Europeans back to their bigoted ideas that existed but flared up in certain moments of time. Fascism and Nazism were just two examples. Every society has its racists and bigots but when it comes to take a good chunk of society then that is an indication that a societal disease is present and in no way can they claim at least in the present that they are even remotely tolerant and believe in freedom. What is annoying is they ask the rest of us who live in third world countries to take them as examples. Yes, we have problems, too many to count, and some of them societal diseases but we at least the people admit we have these problems even if the dictatorships for governments prevent any advancement. What the heck is the Swiss excuse then? The people voted for this. What is it Muslims fault? Yeah yeah we are the ones who invade and occupy countries that have centuries of culture like Iraq and destroy a population and cause all kinds of havoc based on a lie. Yes that is our fault. Christians in Iraq have been there for centuries! Gone in a few years when new imperialists and Zionists came to Iraq. When the Lebanese war started in 1975, Kissinger told the late president Suleiman Franjiyeh that the US is ready to take all the Christians from Lebanon in the pretence it was for their own good! If that right wing group really cared about Christians then why aren’t they standing against the Israeli attack on them in Palestine? Of course not, they are probably buddies.

No more self-righteousness from the so called first world counties. There is nothing you have we want especially societal values. Seriously, they can’t even tolerate an architectural structure that even Muslims can’t use what can you approve of then?

Muslim, Christian Authorities Slam Swiss Referendum to Ban Minarets

Al Manar

30/11/2009 Swiss voters approved a ban on new mosque minarets being built, prompting dismay and anger in the Muslim world at the success of the far-right initiative.

The referendum to ban the minarets was approved Sunday by 57.5 percent of voters who cast ballots and in 22 out of the country’s 26 cantons.

Far-right politicians across Europe celebrated the results, while the Swiss government sought to assure the Muslim minority that a ban on minarets was “not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.”

Minarets distinguish mosques and are traditionally used to call for prayers.

The far-right Swiss People’s Party (SVP) said that the minarets — of which Switzerland has only four and which are not allowed to broadcast the call to prayer — were not architectural features with religious characteristics, but symbolized a “political-religious claim to power, which challenges fundamental rights.”

The referendum’s approval was quickly condemned in the world’s most populous Muslim nations.

Leading Lebanese cleric Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah slammed as racist the Swiss referendum. Sayyed Fadlallah said in a statement that the ban was in line with a media frenzy to portray Muslims in a negative light and urged the West to seek better understanding of the Islamic religion.

“This kind of decision is aimed at inciting racism against Muslims in the West,” said Fadlallah, who has followers throughout the Shiite Muslim world. “It also negatively impacts on non-Muslims.”

He said Muslims in Switzerland should not resort to violence in answer to the ban. “I call on them to act positively with their Swiss compatriots, even those who voted in favor of a ban on the minarets,” his eminence said.

“This is the hatred of Swiss people against Muslim communities. They don’t want to see a Muslim presence in their country and this intense dislike has made them intolerant,” said Maskuri Abdillah, the head Indonesia’s biggest Muslim group, Nahdlatul Ulama.

Egypt’s Mufti Ali Gomaa denounced the ban on new minarets as an “insult” to Muslims across the world.
“This proposal … is not considered just an attack on freedom of beliefs, but also an attempt to insult the feelings of the Muslim community in and outside Switzerland,” he said.

Pakistani religious groups condemned the referendum calling it “extreme Islamophobia.”

“This development reflects extreme Islamophobia among people in the West,” said Khurshid Ahmad, vice president of Jamaat-e-Islami, an Islamic political party that is represented in Pakistan’s parliament.

“This also represents very serious discrimination against Muslims.”

Ahmad described the Swiss decision as a serious violation of human rights and international law. “This is an effort to provoke Muslims and prompt a clash between Islam and the West.”

Yahya Mujahid, a spokesman for Islamic charity Jamaat-ud-Dawa said: “The West never takes respite in claiming to be champions of religious tolerance and inter-faith harmony, but this latest decision shows their bias against Muslims.”

In Morocco, a parliamentarian from the Justice and Development Islamist Party expressed surprise.
“I think that Muslims in Switzerland, and those who live in the European Union, have a lot of work to do in communication to show their real face of tolerance and cohabitation of Islam,” said Saad Eddine Othmani.

Islam is the second largest religion in Switzerland after Christianity. Muslims in this country make up some five percent of the population.

The Conference of Swiss Bishops also criticized the result, saying that it “heightens the problems of cohabitation between religions and cultures.”

The Vatican issued a statement supporting the stance of the Conference of Swiss Bishops. Antonio Maria Sveglio, president of the pontifical council on migration, told the ANSA news agency that “we are on the same page” as the Conference of Swiss Bishops.

A mosque in Geneva was vandalized three times during the anti-minaret campaign, local media reported Saturday.

Justice Minister Widmer-Schlumpf sought to reassure Muslims, saying: “It is not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture. Of that, the Federal Council gives its assurance.”

But for the 400,000-strong Muslim community, the harm has been done.

“The most painful for us is not the minaret ban, but the symbol sent by this vote. Muslims do not feel accepted as a religious community,” said Farhad Afshar, who heads the Coordination of Islamic Organizations in Switzerland.

Young people carrying candles and cardboard minarets led a mock funerary procession in the federal capital Bern, carrying a banner reading “This is not my Switzerland,” the ATS news agency reported.

Amnesty International said the minaret ban is a “violation of religious freedom, incompatible with the conventions signed by Switzerland.”

The Swiss Green party said it was contemplating lodging a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for violation of religious freedoms as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

“It’s an expression of quite a bit of prejudice and maybe even fear,” said Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, whose country currently holds the European Union presidency.

“It is clear that it is a negative signal in every way, there’s no doubt about it,” he told Swedish Radio.

Lawmakers at the Council of Europe, a 47-member human rights watchdog that Switzerland currently chairs, issued a statement expressing its concern at the result. “The result of this referendum goes against the values of tolerance, dialogue and respect for other people’s beliefs,” said Lluis Maria de Puig, the president of the body’s parliamentary assembly.

In neighbouring Austria, Interior Minister Maria Fekter said the government would “look at” the Swiss ban, but stressed that “freedom of religion is anchored in the (Austrian) constitution.”

But Austrian media were united in their attack of the Swiss ban.

The Der Standard daily described the vote as the “ugly face of direct democracy”, while the Die Presse newspaper said Swiss voters had done a “disservice” to their country.

French far-right politician Marine Le Pen welcomed the outcome, saying that the “elites should stop denying the aspirations and fears of the European people, who, without opposing religious freedom, reject ostentatious signs that political religious Muslim groups want to impose.”

“Switzerland is sending us a clear signal: yes to bell towers, no to minarets,” said Roberto Calderoli, minister of administrative simplification and a member of Italy’s anti-immigrant Northern League party, told the ANSA news agency.

However, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner condemned Switzerland’s referendum vote as a show of intolerance and said the decision should be reversed. “I am a bit shocked by this decision,” Kouchner told RTL radio. “It is an expression of intolerance and I detest intolerance.

“I hope the Swiss will reverse this decision quickly,” he added.

Kouchner said “if we cannot build minarets that means that we are practicing religious oppression”.
“Is it really offensive that in a mountainous country there is a building that is a bit taller than the others?” he asked.

A senior member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party said Monday that the banning is a sign of a fear of Islam that also exists in Germany and must be “taken seriously.”

To criticize the outcome of the Swiss would be counterproductive. It reflects a fear of a growing Islamisation of society, and this fear must be taken seriously,” said Wolfgang Bosbach of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), in the Berliner Zeitung newspaper.

SWITZERLAND FAR-RIGHT NOT WORRIED ABOUT MUSLIMS REACTION, BARGAINS ON HISTORIC ARAB AND MUSLIM PASSIVENESS

Meanwhile, SVP Vice-President Yvan Perrin cheered the fact that his party had won the vote “without difficulty.”

He told Radio Suisse Romande that Swiss companies should not worry about suffering from a possible backlash from Muslim countries.

“If our companies continue to make good quality products, they have nothing to worry about,” he said.

AI condemns Islamophobic Swiss vote

Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Press TV

Amnesty International has expressed deep regret over the Swiss voters’ approval of a ban on minarets, calling it a violation of religious freedom for Muslims.

“The ‘yes’ vote comes as a surprise and a great disappointment,” David Diaz-Jogeix, Amnesty International’s deputy program director for Europe and Central Asia, said on Monday.

“That Switzerland, a country with a long tradition of religious tolerance and the provision of refuge to the persecuted, should have accepted such a grotesquely discriminatory proposal is shocking indeed,” Diaz stressed.

He also added that the ban violates the right of Muslims to manifest their religion in Switzerland, and is incompatible with the international conventions signed by the European country.

Sunday’s referendum followed a controversial campaign against the symbolic architectural feature of Islamic mosques, spearheaded by far-right Swiss politicians, the Swiss People’s Party (SVP).

The SVP’s campaign posters depicted a Swiss flag sprouting black, missile-shaped minarets alongside a woman shrouded in a head-to-toe veil.

The poster, which was condemned worldwide for inciting hatred towards Islam, plays on fears that Muslim immigration will lead to an erosion of Swiss values.

Though the government opposed the ban, 57 percent of voters and 22 out of 26 cantons (or provinces) voted in favor of it, meaning minarets can no longer be erected anywhere in Switzerland.

The ban is expected to be rejected by either the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland or the European Court of Human Rights.

Islam is the second largest religion in Switzerland after Christianity, and its followers represent over 4 per cent of the country’s population.

Of 150 mosques or prayer rooms in Switzerland, only 4 have minarets, and only 2 more minarets are planned.

None broadcast the call to prayer.

Palestinians Say They Will Ask UN to Recognize State and “Israel” Worried

by Carlos Latuff

Let us assume the PA will be able to convince other countries to accept this idea and it is passed by some miracle in the UN, what then? Will the PA consider the Israelis occupiers because they sure don’t now since they collaborate with them economically and security wise to say the least. Do they expect someone will fight for them to get the land back? Who will force the settlers out, them? Will they call an outright resistance? The Israelis are already an occupation and the settlements in theory are regarded illegal by other countries so start resisting now.

How did these people come to be in the PA? They don’t have one bit of sense or logical viewpoint always looking out for their personal interests and not that of the Palestinians. Obviously, the Israelis will not accept this and they already annexed the lands through the settlements and the wall. I think the PA is just playing a role in an already put plan by the Israelis and the US. When the Israelis take everything and expel yet again the Palestinians they will say it was a response to what the PA did then the PA tells the Palestinians, we did what we could but the Israelis are strong and it is over.

What they don’t know is not all people are stupid as them and they do take the initiative and have plans for the Israelis and their ilks, the resistance in its various parts across the region is in the frontline because nothing other than it worked in returning lands and rights.

Palestinians Say They Will Ask UN to Recognize State

Al Manar

15/11/2009 The Palestinians intend to ask the UN Security Council to recognize their independence, a senior official said on Sunday amid mounting frustration with the stalled “peace” process.

“We have reached a decision… to go to the UN Security Council to ask for recognition of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and with June 1967 borders,” chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat told AFP.

“We’re going to seek support from EU countries and Russia and other countries” for the measure, he said.
Erakat’s comments came amid growing frustration among the Palestinians with so-far ineffective US efforts to re-launch peace negotiations with Israel that were suspended during the Gaza Strip war at the turn of the year.

They mark the latest in a series of options that the Palestinians have warned they could take if the Middle East peace process remained stalled.

Others include unilaterally declaring independence, asking the UN to determine final borders of their promised state, dissolving the Palestinian Authority and seeking equal rights within Israel.

“Israel” Worried as Support for Unilateral Declaration of Palestinian State Grows

Al Manar

15/11/2009 Israeli Cabinet ministers convened Sunday morning for their weekly meeting amid stalemate in Israeli-Palestinian talks and a growing disposition to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, “Israel is strong and deterring, and it has a strategic interest in reaching an agreement through negotiations. We must always look at the alternatives – and without an agreement, there is a change that support of the Palestinian unilateral declaration may grow, and there will be a rising demand for the establishment of a bi-national state.”

These two threats, Barak said, “Will not be realized tomorrow morning, but we must not delude ourselves about their seriousness. At the root of the weakening of international support of Israel, and things like the Goldstone Report, lies that fact that Israel has been ruling another people for 42 years. We must end this.

Israel has security interests, nothing needs to be done at any price, but we must not get confused, and it is our duty to reach an agreement with the Palestinian people.”

For his part, minister Eli Yishai said, “We are making a mountain out of a molehill, There is no need to be concerned over the declaration of a Palestinian state be there is an Israeli option for a response. We must take action on the diplomatic front.”

Following reports of Palestinian plan to unilaterally declare statehood, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly plans to announce Israel rejects this notion and stress that solution lies in negotiations.

PA chief Mahmoud Abbas has said that 18 years of negotiations with the Israelis have failed to give any advance to the so called peace process. According to analysts, Netanyahu is at ease with the notion of continuing negotiations so long that they continue, like the past 18 years, to be fruitless ….

“The unilateral Palestinian move is a hostile initiative. I think it is brazen,” Minsiter Uzi Landau said. “The initiative is meant to torpedo any chance for negotiations. It must be made clear that any unilateral declaration on their part that is meant to deteriorate the chances for negotiations needs to be accompanied from our side with annexation of territories in Judea and Samaria.”

Vice Premier Silvan Shalom told Ynet, “I think the Palestinians need to know that unilateral moves will not yield the results they hope for. Every action will receive a appropriate Israeli response.”

Israeli lying machine on full gear to justify piracy

The Israelis claim they have caught a ship full of arms coming from Iran to Lebanon to arm Hezbollah and paraded what they called “its content” on TV. As usual they concealed their crimes by stating they are protecting themselves, always the victims. They hid that they pirated that ship which is illegal under international law. This is not the only crime they are trying to hide but they are trying to upstage the discussion of the Goldstone report.

The problem with Israeli lies is they are so over the limit (if there is a lying scale) what they spew is unbelievable and anyone with a brain that bothers to think about their lies would know they are the nonsense they are. If the ship came from Iran then it means it had to pass many places before it reaches the Mediterranean Sea so it must pass through the Suez canal where all ships are searched. The questions that come to mind: Why wasn’t the ship stopped by the Egyptian government an ally of the Israelis if there were such weapons on it (they don’t like Iran and Hezbollah)? If the Israelis were watching the ship as they claimed from the time it left Iran why was it only stopped when it reached the Mediterranean Sea? And why would Iran risk (if the ship really had weapons) all this to get weapons to Hezbollah through the sea when obviously there is a safer route? The Syrians said that it is theirs and it was going to Iran. So it didn’t come from Iran, nor was it watched from there, nor do the Syrians need to put weapons on a ship to get it to Lebanon.

Finally, if the Israelis can break international law to “protect” themselves and Ki Moon helps them out instead of doing his job why can’t we? If it is the law of the jungle so be it.

Hezbollah Denies Any Link to Arms Shipment Israel Claims Its Seizure

Al Manar

05/11/2009 Hezbollah on Thursday vehemently denied Israeli accusations that a huge shipment of arms seized by the Zionist entity was destined for the Islamic resistance group. “Hezbollah staunchly denies any link to the weapons that the Zionist enemy has seized from the Francop ship,” the group said in a brief statement.

“At the same time Hezbollah denounces Israel’s piracy in international waters,” it added.

The Israeli military claimed it had seized the 137-metre (450-foot) Antigua-flagged vessel Francop before dawn on Wednesday around 100 nautical miles from the Israeli coast.

Iran and Syria, staunch allies of Hezbollah, have both rejected Israel’s accusations about the ship’s destination and direction of passage.

In a joint press conference Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki and his Syrian counterpart, Walid al-Mouallem, dismissed Israeli claims that a ship loaded with arms from Iran and headed for Syria had been intercepted in the Mediterranean Sea.

Walid al-Mouallem confirmed that the Israeli navy had seized a ship with Syrian cargo, but denied it was carrying arms; he also denied that the ship had been intercepted on its route from Iran to a Syrian port, saying the ship was headed in the opposite direction, on route to Iran to deliver Syrian-made goods for civilian consumption.

Israel, in fact, did not provide any proof of the alleged “hundreds of tons of arms bound for Hezbollah from Iran,” as Israel’s deputy naval commander, Rani Ben Yehuda, told the press.

At the joint press conference in Tehran, Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Mouallem commented the seizure of the ship by Israel stating that “unfortunately, some official pirates in the seas, sometimes in the name of the navy, sometimes in the name of inspection, obstruct trade movement between Syria and Iran”.

The ship itself, the “Francop”, was operated by the United Feeder Services, a Cyprus-based company that had taken the load in the Egyptian port of Damietta. An employee of the United Feeder Services said the ship had been bound from Damietta to Cyprus and from there to Lebanon and Turkey.

Hezbollah Slams Ban’s Report on Resolution 1701 as Unfair

Al Manar

05/11/2009 Hezbollah slammed on Thursday the eleventh report of the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon on UN resolution 1701 as unfair to Lebanon and its Resistance.

In a statement it released, Hezbollah emphasized that the report described in length limited incidents in the south without detailing Israeli violations of Lebanese sovereignty. “The report describes more than 10,000 air, land and sea violations against Lebanon since 14 August 2006 as breaching to UN resolution 1701; yet it continuously stresses on a few limited incidents which occurred in Lebanon,” the statement said.

“Which assault is more dangerous? The continuation of Israeli violations, espionage activities, spy cells, launching rockets on South Lebanon and statements which assure that Israel will continue to gather intelligence from Lebanon…. or a limited number of incidents which do not equate the constant Israeli violations?” the Resistance party wondered.

The party also wondered why the report described in “passing words” the Israeli attacks while it mentioned in length every incident on Lebanese territory.

“Is Israel’s decision not to leave the Ghajar area a usual and impulsive issue or it should be efficiently stirred and discussed at the Security Council , holding Israel responsible for an immediate withdraw or facing repercussions? Besides, is the occupation of the Sheba’a farms and Kafarshouba hills a normal and usual issue too, or should “Israel” withdraw without any conditions or void excuses?” Hezbollah also asked the UN chief in its statement.

The Resistance party concluded its statement by pointing that the report should have shed light on Israeli violations that cause worries and instability in the region instead of ignoring the Israeli violations and by that encouraging the Zionist entity to carry on its aggression against Lebanon and its people.

In the name of “Self-defense”

by Carlos Latuff

This is my small contribution to The First Word War set out to reclaim the true meaning of words against Zionist spreading of disinformation started by Palestine Think Tank and Tlaxcala (read more about it).

WRITTEN BY REALISTIC BIRD, Palestinian think tank

In the name of “self-defense” they massacred, in the name of “self-defense” they committed ethnic cleansing, and in the name of “self-defense” they stole land.

The Israelis have hidden behind the concept of self-defense for decades by abusing the word to their advantage. The word self-defense gives off the connotation that the one acting it is the victim under attack from a vicious aggressor.

Have you ever heard the Israelis describing any of their wars or offensives other than in that context? It even led them to call their armed forces, [Israeli] Defense Forces. The duplicity of the situation arises from the nature of the Zionist entity, a colonizing, invading, occupying and racist entity founded on the death and expulsion of the Palestinians. How is it possible for such an entity who was the initiator of aggression to claim its actions are done in self-defense? The one who attacks, who destroys 400 villages, massacres scores of the inhabitants, and occupies the lands of Palestine over more than six decades can’t be a victim thus has no right to self-defense.

An occupation is by its very nature a brutal existence and because of this international law admits that any people under it have the right to resist it in all means possible. Yet, looking at the hasbara that the Israelis and their allies spread through the media one thinks that the Israelis are the ones under occupation and not the Palestinians. The Palestinians are always shown as the terrorists, the ones who are attacking but the truth is international and human law gave them the right to fight back aggressors. The Palestinians are the ones under occupation, does anyone deny that? If so how is it possible that the Israelis claim “self-defense” to excuse their crimes when there is an undeniable right to resist them?

In a lopsided world where the meaning of words are taken out of context and contradict the truth and common sense Israelis are allowed to commit their horrendous acts with no one to hold them accountable.

The First Word War is an initiative of Palestine Think Tank and Tlaxcala. We welcome our readers to submit entries for publication, translation and dissemination. Send them to contact@palestinethinktank.com or tlaxcala@tlaxcala.es

Egypt on the downhill ever since Camp David: US and Egypt co-sponsor war games-video

by Al Jazeera

Egypt is still pursuing the wrong strategy, what exactly did Egypt gain in this process? One would think Egypt is some super power now. Absurd they abandoned their earlier strategy to work on internal growth but decades after there is nothing to be seen. Egypt only has to look at Pakistan and see what the US has done to it and it is its ally. When the US and Israelis see a need to do that in Egypt they won’t hesitate.

In the video they say they see themselves as a power of stability, sure working against regional interests by being against Hamas and keeping a brutal siege on Gaza and working against the resistance in Lebanon, trying to sabotage the meeting between Saudi Arabia and Syria, and allowing Israeli subs through the Suez canal are all for stability. They speak just like the Israelis and US admin. reverse everything they say to know the truth.

Abbas running around like a headless chicken?

Not knowing what to do after his fiasco that showed his true nature. Before, even though everyone including Palestinians knew he was corrupted and was collaborating with the Israelis he was able to get by with the support of Arab rulers and others, strong backing from Fatah, and feeding people the illusion that the road to Palestine is through peace negotiations. I doubt Abbas and his aides knew the backlash to their despicable actions by deferring the Goldstone report would be this large.

After the huge wave of anger that poured over Abbas and the PA like molten lava he is scrambling around to find a way out. I didn’t think he lacked intelligence before but now I’m contemplating it because of his methods to maneuver out of the act of treason (I’m not really afraid to use this word like others because when you stab your own people in the back and aid their enemy, it is treason period). A few days ago reports surfaced that the Israelis might lend a helping hand (cracks me up every time) out of his debacle but then he noticed (duh!) that the idea would only make things worse so he is rethinking it.

Abbas wary of ‘kiss of death’ from “Israel”

Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Press TV

Israel faces growing US pressure to make more sweeping concessions to strengthen Mahmoud Abbas, The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

But some of the possible concessions Israel had reportedly been considering, such as approving a second mobile-phone network in the West Bank or plans to build a new Palestinian city north of Ramallah, would now likely only do further damage, Palestinian government spokesman Ghassan Khatib said.

“This will be the kiss of death for Abbas,” Khatib said.

“It would give the impression that the Palestinian Authority dropped their support for the UN report in exchange for financial gains,” he added.

Hamas made a good move by delaying the reconciliation for the moment and left it open for other Fatah members singling out Abbas. They also included other Palestinian factions in the decision making it a well-rounded decision in the favor of the Palestinian people rather than Hamas (even though we all know that Hamas would not have even dreamed of such an opportunity).

Mishaal: Ramallah authority no longer eligible to lead the Palestinian people

12/10/2009

DAMASCUS, (PIC)– Khaled Mishaal, the political bureau chairman of Hamas, has accused the Ramallah authority led by Mahmoud Abbas of lying and of not being fit to rule the Palestinian people.

Mishaal, addressing the concluding session of the international Golan forum attended by 1,428 delegates from 55 countries on Sunday evening, said that all those responsible for delaying the voting on Goldstone report should be brought to account.

He noted that for the first time an international report is condemning Israeli for its aggression on the Palestinians but a Palestinian group stood up to this report, protected Israel and saved it from international condemnation.

The Hamas leader said that there would be no reconciliation at the expense of Palestinian constants, stressing that this Movement wanted to organize the Palestinian home within the PLO and the PA in accordance with democratic rules and free elections.

The reconciliation project is still there but suitable mechanism and timing were being discussed for concluding it, Mishaal elaborated.

The Hamas leader lashed out at American president Barack Obama saying, “He gives us words and gives our enemy deeds,” charging that Obama had blessed the aggression on Gaza before swearing in as president of the USA.

Now Abbas is taking a new strategy backing of his decision without really addressing the anger towards him. The least he can do is admit his actions and beg for forgiveness but no he insists on an “investigation” into who made the decision! His audacity even brought him to claim other countries are to blame. The man seems to be lax in following the news since even the EU supported the report, all his claims are but hot air.

Shall I address his absurd claims about Hamas? For the love of sanity, didn’t he remember Gaza is under siege? Irony plays here in which Hamas wanted the reconciliation to end the siege but now Abbas wants it to get out of his troubles. Even though the siege will continue it was impossible for Hamas to throw away the suffering and blood of the Palestinians in Gaza.

Abbas makes U-turn on anti-Israeli resolution

Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Press TV

The Acting Palestinian Authority chief says he will push for a vote on a recently released UN report about Israeli war crimes in the Gaza Strip…

“I instructed our ambassador [to the UN in Geneva] to call for another extraordinary meeting of the Human Rights Council in order to vote on the report, seeking to punish all who committed the most grotesque crimes against women and children in Gaza,” The Wall Street Journal quoted Abbas as saying in a televised speech late on Sunday, addressing the controversy publicly for the first time.

Facing an unprecedented wave of condemnation and accusations of treason from other Palestinian factions including his own party, Abbas had said he ordered the establishment of a commission of inquiry into finding those responsible for dropping a UN resolution against Israel…

Abbas however defended his earlier backing of a deferment, The Wall Street Journal reported.

“The decision to postpone the vote was a result of a consensus among the different parties at the Human Rights Council…and in order to secure the largest number of supporters for any resolution in the future,” he said.

Aljazeera.net, October 11, 2009

Abbas argument

The vote would have been one of many steps to bring Israeli officials before a war crimes tribunal, something many Palestinians want to see.

About 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died as a result of the 22-day conflict between last December and January.

Abbas said that there had not been significant enough support for the resolution at the UN Human Rights Council: “The draft resolution was either totally rejected, partially rejected or some countries expressed their reservations.

“We wanted to reach mechanisms that would ensure the implimentation of the decision and punish the perpertrators of crimes against our people.

“We have been lobbying and pushing for the issuance of a draft resolution that will be submitted to the UNHCR [the UN Refugee Agency] through some friendly countries … in order to gather greater support for this resolution.

“We have …. held numerous contacts in order to gather the greatest level of support from African groups, Arab groups, Islamic groups, as well as the non-alligned movement and other countries.
“We wanted to ensure an international environment that would provide a better environment to protect our people.”

Hamas criticised

Abbas said that Hamas’s criticism of the postponement was aimed at bolstering its own position.

“This campaign of Hamas aims to serve their interests which is to postpone the signing of the reconciliation deal,” Abbas said, referring to efforts to bring about unity between his own Fatah group and Hamas.

“They want to consecrate their rule and regime in Gaza. They want to ensure the continuity of the division. They aim at weakening the national Palestinian Authority.”

Commenting on Abbas’s speech, Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst, said it was partisan.

“If someone was expecting an apology or an explanation of a mistake we certainly haven’t heard it today.

“He spoke more as the head of the Fatah faction than the president of all the Palestinian people.

“In the sense that he locked himself in, in aggressive tones with Hamas leaders rather than come as the great reconciliator … and that is not good politics for a Palestinian president.”

Aymen Moheldyn, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Gaza, said many Palestinians would find Abbas’s speech “very disturbing”.

“It was a very disturbing tone for those hoping for national reconciliation. There is certainly no love lost between the two factions [Hamas and Fatah],” he said.

Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal, meanwhile, slammed the Palestinian leadership over the decision and said “the timing is not right” for a reconciliation deal between his movement and Abbas’s Fatah party. But Mashaal, in a speech in Damascus shortly after Abbas’s address, said the atmosphere was not right for a deal between the rival factions.

“The Goldstone report was the final straw … We cannot accept any more mistakes,” Mashaal said in a speech in Damascus, shortly after Abbas’s address. “This is not a leadership which deserves our trust.” He said resistance is the only strategic option to restore the land and rights of Palestinian people. The decision to ask for a delay was a “scandal,” he said. “The timing is now not right” for a reconciliation deal.

Al Manar

Bush was insane but Obama seems like a hollow figure

{Last session} by Yaseen Al Khaleel-Al Watan newspaper-Oman

In general believing any American president will bring good tidings to Arabs and Muslims is the delusion of the weak minded and the hopeless. The US administrations only do their interests and that is expected so it is still amazing that some Arabs look for that outside influence to get them out of the slump they are in. If they need hope they only need to look into themselves for its them who can change the status quo and no foreign interests will ever help them reach independence and self-determination. There is no review of history and how many times foreign forces have stabbed Arabs and Muslims in the back. The other day I was watching on Al Jazeera a documentary about a British soldier known as Lawrence of Arabia who the British sent to persuade the Arabs to fight the Ottomans in WWI by lying to them that they would be able to gain their independence afterwards. What was the result? The Sykes-Pico agreement that broke the Arabs into countries they are now and the Balfour promise that brought crazy, racist killers to Palestine. Since WWI the Arabs are paying for that mistake and instead of trying to change things after a 100 years Arabs rulers still make the same mistakes.

These Arabs rulers followed Bush and they still follow Obama now. Bush was a Christian Zionist, I mean that in political terms but unfortunately his brutal policies came from a distortion of certain beliefs. He really believes in the actions he was committing and his support of Israelis was a manifestation of this belief (read about Christian Zionists and their apocalypse theory for more information). So he attacked Iraq, Afghanistan and planned for a new Middle East, which is one of the mind products of Kissinger, in order to secure their control on the region and achieve ultimate security for the Israelis. Obama on the other hand does support the Israelis and continues previous policies but till now I’m not sure he is a genuine Christian Zionist. When he asked the Israelis for a settlement freeze and they refused I thought at first that is the usual American Israeli role playing but as this charade went on Obama is looking like a weak president. If that is the way to get the Arabs to accept “Israel” (by Arabs I mean the people and not the stooge rulers) he is really mistaken. What does it matter if his middle name is Hussein? We don’t follow people according to their names. I laugh every time Israelis or republicans insult him by mentioning that name. Whatever Obama is trying to achieve whether covertly or directly he is appearing like a lost tourist in the desert running after mirages. People had faith in him because he promised what he can’t deliver. He carried all these false illusions on his shoulders and as time goes by he appears like a president with no power. Don’t promise what you can’t fulfill but he is a politician after all and the neocons are here to stay.

Dear Arabs and Muslims we all know that the right path is through resistance and standing against Zionist plans each according to his/her ability. There is no other path and the sooner you accept that and work in that direction the closer we get to our end result, a region free of occupiers, racist killers and dictators.

It will remain Al Qudus

{Al Qudus} by Mohammad Saba'nah-The New Al Hayat newspaper-Palesine

Many don’t understand what is the connection many millions of Arabs and Muslims have with al Qudus, other than the one based on the religious standing of it in history and faith. If you go to the south of Lebanon the landscape there is very close to that in Palestine (especially in the north of it), the hills, the rocky nature of the land, the wild flowers that flare up in spring and turn wooden in the summer. I feel a sense of calm and attachment to that land not because of a nationality, ethnicity, history or anything else just a deep unbreakable bond that is printed in the heart never to be erased. It can’t be eliminated by the change of a name or the ethnic cleansing of a group and its culture. It is something rooted in our very fabric and transmitted from generation to generation who seek ways to not only love this city but to be able to visit it.

The ironic thing is that as we are connected to this place and its surroundings the Israelis claim the same. They make these tours to “historical and tourist” sites to show they had a history here so they can carry on with their crimes. The Israelis are deluded people, they are deluded that they are moral, they are deluded that they are democratic, they are deluded that they have the right to act as if they are better than others, and they are deluded that they are justified by their hate and crimes. It is not our fault they are fed these things and expect us to follow suit and bow to their needs and aspirations.

My heart just as that of millions beats for al qudus, I sent my salaams even from afar when I was in Jordan on the top of mount Musa (peace be upon him) looking down at it. I promised myself that when it is free from occupation that I will go there to pray in masjid al aqsa, once again affirming our bond to it that is everlasting. Till then dear al qudus fear not the threats from our enemies, it is a promise  you shall return.

Preparing for war

by Carlous Latuff

Yes that is done when you are a government aiming to wage a war or one who wants to defend itself but does a citizen and a civilian do that? The sad truth is these days civilians need to prepare for war because when it comes to invaders and followers of strategies that target civilians to weaken their enemies (US and the Israelis use it) then people have no choice. I think there are three aspects one has to put in order: supplies, mental resolve, and emotional acceptance.

If we start with the easiest of the three, supplies as in food and other essential items. The most important things are water and food items that do not rot without electricity like canned food items (not they are good in nutrition but you have to take what you can get) and dry items like rice, salt, sugar, lentils, chickpeas, wheat, etc.

If we move to the mental part of the preparation I asked myself how can anyone accept the idea of war. Your mind as a civilian tells you to move away, to leave and find another place because the idea  of keeping your family safe comes first but the truth is many people have no place to go. Rationalizing the idea of war might cause a sense of relief by giving reasons for the war or seeing the positives of the end result. You might ask, is there a positive result to war?! Yes that might seem odd but wars are conducted with goals in mind whether you are the one who started it or the one on the other end. If these goals are achieved then you have a positive result from the war no matter the destructive and inhumane aspects of it, remember we are dealing with the mental and rational part now not the emotional.

Now the hardest is the emotional, this is very hard to control when you hear bombs around you, view the death of people and the chaos that war causes. Many negative feelings flood a person especially a civilian: fear, anger, frustration, and confusion but humans need to look for a positive sign so a feeling of hope has a place in wars, hoping for the war to end, hoping for victory, hoping that it never gets repeated, etc. Each of us deals with this aspect in a different manner, personally I find anger and hoping for victory that works best for me.

Yet, I can’t forget that some people don’t even have the luxury to prepare for war because they have lived in it for decades, it has become part of their lives, a hellish life it is. It is hard to put myself in the Palestinians shoes even with what I have witnessed, some things you can empathize with but really knowing the feeling if you haven’t lived in it is very hard, surrounded by killing racists who keep wanting to steal from you and have the audacity to get angry if you try to stop them.

Why am I writing this exactly? Well, because I’m trying to put in words what I’m thinking,  a mind seeking to find a solution to a recurring problem (to put it lightly). Our enemies are preparing for war to initiate it ( “ISRAEL” UPS THE TEMPO IN ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO KICK START A FIGHT WITH LEBANON, Israeli Occupation Forces to Test Overhead Exploding Shell, Israeli Navy Reports Successful Anti-Missile Test )so it is our part to do the same.

The Broken Dreams of Wada Cortas: Memoirs of a Lost Arab World

“War has crowded the memories of my youth and old age and every stage in between.”

This disturbing sentence is true now for all Arabs as it was many decades ago during the life of Wada Cortas. A simple sentence simplifies the life of tens of millions of people all stuck in the whirlwind that had started a century ago and is still continuous till this day taking in its path not only lives but dreams of many who had hoped for a better future. What would have Wada said if she was living today? Would we pass the disaster or will it be continued by the ever greed of some men to take what is not theirs? It upsets me to be one of these millions waiting to have a better future yet my preset is filled not only with conflicts but with threats of new wars. Peace seems to be a far away goal and all we can really hope for is maybe a year or ever less of some quiet while the fire rages underneath to be leashed at the next bump in the road.

Yet, it is not possible either to give up hope because that means accepting the status of the present and having no chance of change. As each of us struggles to break the pattern that has been present for decades I wish all of you success in your endeavors based on justice, dignity, and freedom.

The Broken Dreams of Wada Cortas: Memoirs of a Lost Arab World

By NADIA HIJAB, counter punch

“It was a trying time for dreamers,” Wadad Makdisi Cortas wrote of the year 1935. She was 26 and “yearned to speak my language, to read Arabic books, and to foster Arab independence and solidarity.” But she had just become the headmistress of a girls’ school in Lebanon that was a particular thorn in the side of the French colonial rulers.

As in their other colonies, the French imposed their language, insisting that the students at the Ahliah National School for Girls not only be taught in French but also use it at recess. “Students who insisted on speaking Arabic were to be singled out, and those who persisted were to be given detention,” Cortas recalled. (Of course, as history marched on, English won the battle to become the global lingua franca.)

Cortas’ memoirs span the 20th Century: She was born in 1909 and died in 1979. She writes beautifully, with dry humor and with sadness, of living and travelling in a Middle East without borders and of the agony inflicted as frontiers were carved into a soil alive with friendships and family ties — agonies that continue to this day.

She evokes a time when Jews and Arabs mingled freely, then stopped due to the growing conflict as Palestine was forcibly transformed into Israel. And she describes from personal knowledge — she was one of 12 women amidst 1,000 men at the American University of Beirut — women’s struggle for a place in the public sphere.

Cortas was still the headmistress when my mother taught at Ahliah years later and when I went to school there decades later. So I turned to the just-published English translation of her memoirs, A World I Loved:

The Story of an Arab Woman (Nation Books) with anticipation mixed with apprehension. She was a formidable woman and I had left a lot of homework undone: I was sure she would reach across the pages of time to hold me to account.

To my mind, perhaps the book’s most astonishing revelation was that she was only five feet tall. She so towered over everyone, her back straighter than the wall in the assembly hall where we were gathered for pep talks and music. But of course she spoke from the stage and we were much smaller then.

When she was growing up, in the early days of the 20th Century, Arabs were not yet worried about Zionism.
Cortas describes a mixed Middle East that included White Russians, Armenians, Turks, Jews and many others among the Arabs. In her youth, this woman from what had just become Lebanon even visited a Jewish kibbutz in the Galilee. She describes it as efficiently run by recently arrived Polish Jews but “completely detached from the life of the area.” Arabs only later discovered that many kibbutz dwellers were being trained in modern warfare at the same time as the British empire was disarming the Palestinians.

Cortas’ writing is often lyrical. She depicts a Beirut where mulberry trees and orchards stretched out in place of today’s chic restaurants and cafes. “We learned to love the sea in all of its moods,” she writes, and tells of the old fisherman Khalil who remained by the sea when the Italians bombarded the Lebanese coast on the eve of World War I. His philosophy: “Conquerors come and go. Only the sea is eternally with us.”

She was bred on politics, which were then as they are now a matter of life and death. She listened as her father and his friends argued long into the night whether Arab aspirations for independence would fare better under a weak Ottoman Empire or by supporting the British and French. Arab nationalists chose the latter and paid a price still exacted today.

Cortas came from a family of redoubtable women, and her father supported the equality of the sexes. She and her sister were the first girls from their school — they also studied at Ahliah — to go to university. At the American University of Beirut, they were able to get an education but had no social life. In a puzzling insight into social mores, roller-skating was the only sport considered proper for young women.

The female students were not allowed to attend historical plays, but could take up public speaking, and they happily debated the emancipation of women and political freedoms. The student body went on strike to protest British and French imperialism, but America was looked upon with favor as “a great center of liberal ideas.” That was then.

Cortas visited America many times in later years, admiring its “organization and discipline” but finding that “grace had vanished. Life was a swift race, and no one could afford to loiter.” She noted that black students at the University of Michigan, where she worked for a post-graduate degree, were a small minority and were “quite aloof. When it was my privilege to have contact with some of them, they unloaded their painful recollections.” In perhaps the understatement of the century, she thought it would “take a long time to change the situation.”

This globe-trotting woman also taught in Iraq back in 1930. Her daily commute in Baghdad involved a boat ride across the Tigris, past riverbanks adorned with tall palms dangling red dates, gardens, and palaces. “I did not have eyes enough to see all the haunting sights of this magical city.”

But Cortas soon got into trouble. Chosen to speak to a cohort of graduating pilots, she “prepared a fiery speech expressing pride at seeing the first Arab aviators fly in Arab skies. I must have been strongly moved, for the speech disturbed the British authorities.” For the rest of her stay, she concentrated on her teaching.

Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and the whole Arab world were intertwined then, and, in spite of the borders, still are. Cortas’ daughter Mariam married the late Palestinian intellectual Edward Said. Cortas helped to found and served on the board of many organizations, including the Institute for Palestine Studies, to which I am affiliated.

This intertwining is why to be an Arab is to sometimes live in a well of sorrow. My mother, who also taught in Baghdad in her youth, before her exile from Palestine, spent her last years in Jordan. The advent of satellite TV into many homes since 2000 meant that she was daily buffeted by graphic images of terrifying death in Iraq to the east and in Palestine to the west. Perhaps many Arabs found some meagre comfort, as I did, that their parents were no longer alive for the Israeli assault on Gaza this winter.

Cortas wrote before she died in 1979: “War has crowded the memories of my youth and old age and every stage in between.” She witnessed the early flowering and brutal crushing of Arab nationalism; the catastrophic loss of Palestine in 1948, which has defined the region since; national liberation movements; the growing rapaciousness of oil wealth, local and foreign; and the succession of home grown dictators and their freedoms denied.

Her last years were marked by the horrors of the Lebanese civil war, described in staccato sentences in between sheltering from the fighting. Yet her legacy lives on and the school she served for so long has remained a byword for Arab nationalism. But her nationalism was never of an ugly, exclusivist kind. Rather it was about people attached to their land being able to express their identity amidst diversity.

She wondered whether succeeding generations would “prove wiser” than her own. As if to answer that question, the introduction was written by her daughter Mariam, who worked tirelessly to get the English edition published in time for the 100th anniversary of her mother’s birth. Mariam has loving, and unflinchingly honest, memories of her mother.

And the afterword is written by Cortas’ granddaughter Najla, an accomplished actress, who discovered during a visit to Lebanon in 2006, when war raged once more, that she was the veteran now, comforting children and “somehow responsible for future generations.” She and her peers fought down their fear and went on to protest in old ways and new, blogging and creating art, music and theatre, with “no sense of resignation.”

Had Cortas lived through the horrors of the wars of the present day, she would also have seen much determination and sensed many changes, small but tangible, giving hope that a world loved is not yet lost. It is still a trying time for dreamers. Yet there are dreamers still, of all races and creeds, striving for a different reality.

The policy of victimhood

Ever watched the movie mean machine (this is the English version there are other American versions)? If you watch it you’ll find yourself identifying with the prisoners and wanting them to win instead of the guards. I find it interesting that people will like the criminals who are imprisoned for very ugly crimes istead of  the guards of the prison. I think the reason for that is that the prisoners in this case are seen as victims because of the off handed ways of the warden and the guards whose actions are criminal also but they are in a position of authority. Most people stand with justice and abhor the abuse of the law or violation of it so anyone in a state of victimhood or even seen in that position is empathized with even if he/she is a criminal.

The idea of victimhood from this movie lends itself to the world’s political scene. How do you explain then that with all the horrid actions of the Israelis ranging from genocide and ethnic cleansing to petty harassment of Palestinians are defended by many people other than Israelis because they view them as victims? For example, people excuse many things done in Gaza because it is Hamas’s fault for launching rockets or the people who voted for them. Another example is the large murder of Pakistani and Afghanis is justified because according to the coalition they are harboring Taliban and their soldiers are under attack.

Another form of exploitation of victimhood is when you apply it to someone else to justify a military or political action. We recently saw the sympathizers with the protests in Iran because the protesters were seen as victims and even all of the Iranian people. Though no one can justify the generalization and I find it funny when the Iranians protests and hold “down with America” signs for example they are terrorists yet political interests call for putting a victim label on them now. This label is used to further political policies and is accompanied with the demonization of the ones against those supposed victims. The same issue happened in Iraq, Saddam was used as a pretext for the invasion by victimizing the world first fearing the WMDs then the Iraqis themselves.

The policy of victimhood is best utilized by the Israelis and I don’t think anyone surpasses them in that department and they justify anything in that light. This policy is not only horrid because of the actions that stem from it but rather it erases the real victims around the world from the sick and hungry who are now a billion to the victims of war who don’t have anything to do with it and are in the millions.

When you form an opinion about any world event know the far reaches of the issue for there are so many lies running around it is easy to be deceived by them.

Wide open spaces…

Today I was watching the clouds go by from the window. It was surreal watching the fluffy white clouds going fast due to the good strong wind even though it was a clear sky while the antennas on the rooftops are swaying slightly back and forth. For some reason looking up at the sky made me focus more while reciting my dua (supplication to God) as if my mind was able to think more clearly and was able to cut out all the noise of the city. It made me wonder how wide open spaces affects our mind versus closed spaces. I guess it explains why people have a hateful fear of prison like places.

Obama’s speech, who cares?!

I didn’t hear Obama’s speech in full. So I think it would be unfair for me to comment on all the content so instead I posted good analysis on the blog from others on the issue.

The reason I didn’t hear the speech in full even though I’m an Arab and a Muslim is because I wasn’t slightly interested or had the time for that matter to sit and listen to a person who represented nothing to me other than one of the passing US presidents. I find it patronizing that I should care what the man thinks or plans for the region. What do I care? The people of this region should be the planners and not someone who from the snippets of the speech I heard could not get himself to state things as they are and dances around some issues with pretty words. The Palestinians were ethnically cleansed not dislocated. They already had a homeland that was still stolen by this man’s allies.

I simply can’t get over the audacity of it all, why is the man telling us what he wants to do in this region?! Who the heck is he? The US president, so what? Should I beg for mercy? Or for his understanding? He is dictating the future of this region that was the point of the speech. Seriously saying nice words to people who have suffered gravely from his country’s “plans” for this region doesn’t make things ok. Even if the man had good intentions he can’t do anything with them. If he wants change then let him go back to his country and make a real change there that is what he should care about.

Simply patronizing…