Bloody and still unbowed

The horrifying pictures and videos are still searing our memories as the Gaza Strip has experienced one of its bloodiest week since the beginning of the Second Intifada and definitely the biggest death toll in such a short span since Hamas has been in control. You would not know it from the Israeli press or even from the pages of the New York Times that the ghastly total of Israel's excursion into the tiny strip has amounted to 121 according to the AP which "at least 54 of them did not take part in the hostilities" according to B'Tselem (adding that "twenty-five of them minors" and "at least forty-six minors were wounded."). These are amazing numbers when put in comparison with the number of Israelis who have fallen (a paltry 3 for those terrorists who "aim" at civilians). If Hamas is trying to kill Israeli civilians, it is doing a poor job of it. As facts would have it, it is the mighty Israeli army who did superb work of destroying innocents:

"IOF penetrated the Wadi al-Salqa village in the central Gaza Strip, assassinated one man, and killed an infant less than one month old...

They surrounded the home of 40-year-old Yousef Sulaiman al-Smiri...After the IOF besieged al-Smiri's house, the IOF opened fire at it intensively under helicopter cover. It ordered the family, through loud speakers, to leave the house. The family and their guests left the house, except for Yousef al-Smiri who fled.According to affidavits given to Al Mezan by witnesses, the family and the guests left the house as they were instructed by the IOF. The house's outside lights were on and the IOF kept its light on them the entire time. However, the soldiers continued shooting and, consequently, the mother Nadia Abu Aser was hit by a live bullet to her left arm. Her infant daughter, Amira, was injured by a live bullet to her head. Also, the shooting injured four other residents of the house.

There is reason to believe that Yousef al-Smiri was murdered after being stopped. After he fled his house, his body was found at approximately 10:00am the next day (5 March). Believing that he escaped from the IOF, the neighbors found al-Simiri's lifeless body lying in an open area about 150 meters from his house. When the body was examined at the hospital, a live bullet was found in his chest, and his head was crushed."

Not content with their good work in slaying poor Mohammed Al-Boraiy last week, they wanted to repeat their "morale" exercise on more Gazans. Is this what Ehud Olmert had planned when spoke of “weaken” Hamas or pressuring Palestinians in overthrowing the Islamists in a false hope of removing them from power? You would think that Olmert had been taught a lesson from his failure in Lebanon but I guess these politicians will never admit when their policy is one that is fruitless. It seems Olmert’s master plan is being undone in the West Bank also, with a spectacular scene that has Jerusalem being policed more in recent memory. Even though the official Israel line is that they were not responsible for the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, Hizbollah is claiming responsibility for the latest killings in Jerusalem evoking the “retribution” that was inevitable after another of Israel’s extra-judicial killing. Time and again, the doomed nature of Israel’s militancy is putting their citizens in danger of reprisal and Olmert seems not to care.

Now we have children, dozens of them, being killed and this is meant to make Palestinians blame Hamas? This doesn’t even make the news in the Israeli press:

“the Yedioth Ahronoth and Maariv dailies, to be specific - decided that the killing of over 60 residents of Gaza in one day by our soldiers is not a story. The proof: There is no mention of it, not even implied, on the first pages of these two newspapers, their obvious showcase…Only on the margins of page 3, in tiny letters, was there a first mention: About 95 Palestinians killed since Wednesday. A first picture of the killing and the outcry in Gaza on page 6.”

With such disregard for the worth of Palestinian life, it’s easy to paint them as part of the enemy’s front line. Why, they use “human shields”, don’t they? The killing of their children is a great military strategy: they have less people to “blend in” with. They’re cowards. We can sit in our fighter planes and bomb them like the ants they are and only feel a “slight bump on the wing”.

What is important to note is that Israel has not felt the need to even cover what’s going on inside Gaza, as they have not sent ONE single reporter in there. How else are they meant to know what’s going on if they don’t even care enough to report on it?

The Israelis, the Americans and yes even most of the West’s dehumanization of the Palestinians is what is contributing to their failed strategy to even come close to quelling the violence in the region. Plenty of politics are thrown in, and it is far too complex to limit to a single damning point that is the leading reason why things are getting so bad but you would think that after the Iraq disaster that the elite would think twice about such invasions and bombing campaigns to “weaken” the enemy. With the ascendance of Hamas back in January 2006, it has been a consistent point of Washington to try to ignore that a pattern is happening that is weakening their presence in the Middle East. Hence the great deal of importance on the Vanity Fair article that only embodies what Condoleezza Rice and George Bush had in mind when the “surprise” of a Hamas victory, which should have been foreseen since there were MANY advisors who stated that the Fatah party were not “ready” ie they were not prepared to face the onslaught of a “clean Hamas” against a “dirty Fatah” on a one man, one vote election, and even Rice’s head proxy confessed that the elections were not a good idea, that they have to do what they can to eradicate this nuisance of a party.

Rice does not come out too cleanly in the article, and according to Missing Links, the article totally exonerates Dahlan and his party since they always attest that their plan was doomed to begin with. “It was not our fault” that the coup did not happen because they were weak, under-funded and unprepared. Hamas saw what was coming and naturally did what any political party does: survive. How ironic is it now that over a decade later after being tortured by Fatah police and security personnel for attempting to sabotage the Oslo process it is Hamas who has the power to do so over Fatah soldiers. And could Hamas be blamed for trying to show Fatah that it was only part and parcel of the occupation? That Israel had passed on the duties of occupation to its own proxy army in the territories called Fatah who were doing their best to clamp down on dissent and resistance?

This is the major problem that Rice and Bush have dug for themselves, and to a lesser extent Ehud Olmert: their sheer opposition of Hamas and Hizbollah as something less than what they are, or by merging them with “terrorists” as al-Qaeda or even “terrorist states” such as Iran has them stuck in a xenophobic drama. Despite what Rice and Bush might say, Hamas is far from an Iranian proxy (like Fatah is when Bush undertook that policy to overthrow Hamas). It may get aid from Iran but tell me where does Hamas expect to get aid from? There have been reports upon reports about the situation in Gaza being the worst since ’67, having no electricity, no medical system and their food is in short storage. This is no way to restore faith in the Palestinians and is the biggest double standard when you refuse to accept their decision on who they want to lead them in talks. And because for some reason that aggrieved Palestinians do not want to suffer more humiliation at the hands of the colonizer, who has made them refugees once, twice and sometimes even more than that, they react angrily and decide to fire some rockets, the sanctions that are meant to hurt Hamas only hurt those normal Palestinians more. It is their food that is being rationed and their movement that is being challenged and their children that is being hurt and killed. Collective punishment has not worked to overthrow anyone; it only works to add more “fuel to the fire”. With all the fighting, Hamas has more material to give to anyone who will listen that Israel is intent to inflict damage of “Holocaust” proportions. And with the current invectives being hurled at Arab MK’s in the Knesset coupled with the number of casualties in the Gaza Strip, who is to blame Hamas for not trying to capitalize on all of this?

Hamas already has called the Israeli pullout a victory. Olmert claims that is was only a limited action to give Hamas a “taste” of what is to come. It is difficult to surmise what is to come next, with contradictory accounts from both Olmert and the coming Egypt initiative that is supposed to be backed by the Israelis and the US. Yet again, Hamas is foiling the US plans and this won’t be the last of it.

But what is very sordid is that all of this fighting could have been avoided. Muhammed Al-Boraiy could have lived for a lot longer and the one month baby girl could have had her first steps. Had it not been for the casus belli against Hamas, it might have been led to something more tangible than a shaky talk with Egypt as the mediator. The shortsightedness of Rice and Bush is leading them to repeat their mistake of Lebanon back in 2006 when Rice expressed with bravado that it was to be a “birthpang of a new Middle East”. Little did she know that she was almost correct: the resistance groups of Hizbollah and Hamas are surely making a very strong point of being regarded as a legitimate player in the Middle East, and cannot easily be diverted as some marginal faction that is only intent on terrorism and bent on Israel’s demise. Rice, the Cold War expert, is seeing that using pulpits along the region is not the easiest way to do business. Bush the catechist, may not be willing to admit that his “us versus them” policy is bankrupt and is leading the American empire down a slippery slope that has Iran becoming the biggest influence in the violatile Middle East, hence why Israel wants the US to take it down.

The calculation of "not talking to terrorists" has cornered the Bush administration into a tough episode here. While the double standard is so odious when North Korea is spoken to and Iran is isolated, the plan of putting Hamas as a "terrorist" entity has culminated into what we have seen in the last week or two. The deaths would have been avoided if the Bush administration had not attempted to punish Palestinians for voting in Hamas. Had Hamas been engaged when they were showing plenty of signs of moderating, who knows what could have been accomplished? Rice and co. do not want to go back on their principles of not giving terrorists any leverage but what Rice and co. seem to miss is that it is they who cannot choose who speaks for their "enemies". By branding Hamas as "terrorists", they ideologically had to ignore the result, since they weren't "our kind of guy(s)". Thus, we have the policy of isolation that has led many Hamas supporters from believing that Washington are serious with negotiations to being in complete disillusion that Washington's words had any real merit. Bombing Lebanon and littering it with cluster bombs did not do a thing to weaken Hizbollah's support as Israel still has to do with them no matter what they do. Quite surprising is that the only person who seems to have any logic is Ron Paul as he was the only 'no' vote in Congress for the new resolution condemning Palestinian rocket attacks. It seems they will never learn.

As a matter of fact, it is Hamas that is learning all the rules of the game. The violence may have not lead to much, and the Qassams are usually ineffective but they have led Israel to the negotiating table with them, something that has not happened since they were elected into power. The Fatah wing is largely hollow, with only aid and Washington’s backing keeping them alive in the West Bank. Since Annapolis, Fatah has not seen one concession from Israel, only subterfuge and fake “removals” that only solidifies the Jerusalem bloc. This has been consistent with every peace process, and it is no wonder that Hamas states that Israel is not intent on giving up anything through negotiations and only armed resistance can show them that there is a price to pay for continued colonization of Palestinian lands. Now that it has weathered the Israeli storm, it is now in a standoff that could potentially lead to a ceasefire. The sanctions may not be lifted but Hamas has shown that is can survive the slow starvation though this does nothing to help pressure Hamas.

Of course, we will get the typical replies that “if only Hamas recognize Israel” and all that fluff. But we’re not talking about final borders here, are we? Aren’t we just talking of a ceasefire? The solution to the conflict has to involve Hamas, and not just the phony leader that Washington beefed up for theatre. Whether Washington likes it or not, Hamas has the support of the people, or else it would not have voted for it. It is stupid to believe that Canada did not like the fact that Bush was voted in (again) so therefore they immediately cut all financial ties to the US; they merely accepted the result and just kept going with business as usual. I know, I know, bad analogy: but just because you do not like the victor of an election does not mean that they don’t have legitimacy. If you want relations with the country, you talk with the voted representative of the population. You don’t try to ignore the result and attempt to delegate the responsibility on third parties: this isn’t 1967 and the Jordanian option was a failure. The PLO was selected for a reason; Hamas was voted in for a reason. Now let’s swallow our idiotic pride and talk with Hamas before it really is too late.

Secondly, the demands of Hamas are just a plan for them to be viewed as rejectionists. What’s usually missing is the fact that although Hamas won’t recognize Israel, Israel won’t recognize Israel: Israel does not have final borders. Israel does not recognize Israel on the UN Partition borders nor even on the Green Line. In the words of Mamoon Alabbasi,

“So why is Hamas being singled out for not recognising the UN drawn Israel (the one with the pre-1967 Green Line borders)?

And the Israel that Israel itself recognises (the one that includes land grabbed through war) is not recognised by the international community.”

So the world does not recognize Israel in its current form and yet Hamas is being bullied to commit to it? Now that is quite a double standard and Hamas are no fools. It is even reported that despite the condemnation of Palestinian schoolbooks inciting hatred towards Israel, it is the Israeli textbooks that do not even show the Green Line. The education system does not recognize Palestine and yet Hamas is meant to recognize Israel? Is Israel required to recognize a Palestinian state before they are brought to the negotiating table? (They should recognize one anyway.) I quote Alabbasi again,

“why is Hamas expected to recognise those who do not recognise them?”

But that does not stop Hamas from sending out gestures of a ceasefire? Do they stop talks with Washington because they do not recognize Hamas? Absolutely not. And to be even more frank, Israel did not require such a demand of Egypt and Jordan, both of whom have had peace and normalisation with Israel for a number of decades. So is the requisite for recognition such an imperative? After all, those Palestinian textbooks come from Egypt and Jordan, so they do not recognize Israel and incite hatred towards them yet peace is still a possibility within those two nations.

It is just a clever ploy in order to keep Hamas as a fringe. But unfortunately for Bush, Olmert and co. they are not going away too easily and have put their strategy completely off the track. Engaging Hamas would be the policy that would make the most sense. They have some sort of prestige and they are the most likely party to bring order in Gaza and stop those Qassams from flying over into Israel. A modicum of common sense would have led one to undertake this policy back when Hamas was voted in but Rice decided to go another route, one that neocon David Wurmser called “a stunning disconnect between the president’s call for Middle East democracy and this policy”.

No one has ever accused the Bush administration of dealing with reality but Hamas are making themselves become a reality to the administration. You can never know what to expect next as Washington could well be on the way of cooking up another plan to derail Hamas. But as of right now, Hamas is still alive, and unbowed.

They kill babies, don't they

Originally I was going to write about the latest from Obamarama, with quite enlightening facts peeping through about the latest "new hope" of America's politics. But not to unjustly deflect his noteworthy progress aside, I was more emotive ie disgusted, about the latest string of killings in the Gaza Strip, all thanks to our friendly neighbourhood occupier, Israel. I do not think it is unfair that the Obama post was put on the shelf, and in hindsight it is perhaps better off that I refrain from the hysteria that is engulfing Barack. His exploits has been well documented by the blogosphere, all by better and more experienced analysts than myself. So I would just be a small fish in a really big pond, and who needs to be superfluous when it comes to Israel-Palestine.

All Obama aside, Gaza has been raging with its residents screaming. Israel refuses to ease on the blockades, despite the EU and the UN all rightfully reprobating Israel for its misguided policy of "collective punishment". Upon this writing, Israel is continually warning (threatening) of a full-scale invasion of Gaza, letting everyone know that what has happened recently in Gaza is just a precursor of more pain and suffering to come. In fact, it was one particularly event that immediately gained my attention, and should also make the rest of the world balk at the "benevolence" of "the only democracy in the Middle East": a six-month old baby falling victim by Israel's bombs. His name was Mohammed Al-Boraiy.



This is earth shattering news, or it should be. I do not doubt that it will be lost in the midst of other spectacular deaths that too frequent the Palestinians. It is true that there was a casualty in Sderot from a Qassam attack, and this will prove very useful for the two Ehuds in the Knesset: it gives more justification for the kind of acts that we see too plainly, like the one above. Sderot is just the perfect pretext for more death and destruction to be inflicted on Hamas and the Gaza Strip. It matters not to the West that some of Hamas' members were killed previously before the Sderot death: what matters is that an Israeli died, and some Palestinians have to pay for their death, and with record numbers to boot. Poor tiny Mohammed, his life taken away, and he didn't even get a chance to utter his first word. A scant search for an Israeli comment on Mohammed goes unrewarded: the only one I found was a "no comment" and the usual reply that it was in retaliation for Qassams. What could they say about that? What could the media say about it? No CNN google hit, no Fox News google hit, no New York Times article, no Washington Post. Where's Thomas Friedman and his intellectual insight now?

Unfortunately, Mohammed was not the only tragedy in the last few days coming out of the Gaza Strip. Among the numbers were four children, and some reports naming a fifth, "killed while they played football".

"While the Israeli military said it had been targeting militants and rocket-launching squads, the officials said the boys were playing football close to their homes in Jabalya, northern Gaza."

Israel was not content there: they pummelled the home of Ismael Haniyeh, and caused more destruction at a nearby pharmacy, "a disabled centre catering for 400 chronically ill patients". This occupation was already ugly; it has just reared its ugly head yet again. What was Rice's response? "Hamas" is to blame for this purgatory.

More and more pictures, footage and articles appear that reveal that the occupation is not something that can be prettified. Jonathan Cook reported not only the lack of rights for Israeli Arabs, but also on the revelation that the killer of Aseel Asleh will not be punished close to eight years later. Still no justice for the Palestinians. Secondly, the reports that the behaviour of the IDF is purile, exposing themselves to Palestinian shepherds as they expel them from their land. And Hebron has been a haven of incidents:

"Shooting Palestinian bystanders; illegally commandeering cars and going on joyrides; torturing a youth by pressing a heater to his face and beating cuffed prisoners on their way to custody. These are only some of the reported cases of abuse for which Israel Defense Forces soldiers serving in the West Bank are currently on trial."

The article has some hideous testimonies:

"Last July, soldiers from the brigade commandeered a local taxi...The driver, Mohammed Issa Mahrazeh, was also removed, tied up and blindfolded and returned to the vehicle, where he was held for the duration of the incident. He sustained bruises...

According to Israel Radio, IDF soldiers used the cameras on their mobile phones to record themselves abusing detained Palestinians. Some of the soldiers allegedly beat the detainees while one of the soldiers is accused of exposing himself...

"We'd go on a patrol," one soldier told Channel 2 [television]. "If even one kid looked at us the wrong way, he'd be slapped. Rocks were thrown at us during one patrol, and we caught one of the kids who knew the perpetrators. We beat the crap out of him until he told us who did it." The soldier said that he and other soldiers tracked down a boy said to be involved, aged 14, and placed the tips of their rifles in his mouth. "We said, 'You want to die? Just say when and where,'" the soldier recalled...

[S]oldiers at roadblocks choked 10-year-old Palestinians with their bare hands until the children passed out."

Why there has been another report in Hebron of IDF soldiers beating a Palestinian and forcing him to dance naked. This is all too indicative of the moral decay that is happening within the IDF ranks as well as the Israeli Jewish mentality. The sheer humiliation that is being inflicted upon the Palestinians is sick pleasure for the IDF, high on the euphoria of their superiority, drunk with power, and now subject to capriciousness and whimsy as sick as their mind can take them. See what they can do to a pathetic Palestinian: reduce him to an animal, cage them in, brand them with ID cards, burn their olive trees, bulldoze their home, split their land, make him dance naked. We can even bomb their children and get away with it. This is what Palestinians see when they talk of the "only democracy in the Middle East". Gaza is a living experiment, and the prison is threatening to break out in a violent rage.

In fact, there's been a slippage of sorts, as Israel's Deputy Israeli Defense Minister Matan Vilnai reportedly called for a "bigger Holocaust" on the Gaza Strip. Ali Abunimah recalled that Vilnai used the Hebrew term "shoah" which is what the Jews use to refer to the Nazi Holocaust. Now Israel's officials are in deep damage control as they want to distance themselves from Vilnai's Freudian slip or attempt to downplay its intention that Vilnai only exclaimed for it to be a "disaster or a catastrophe". Now even Israel's leaders are invoking themselves as Nazis as they undertake a search and destroy mission in the Gaza Strip.

Further review of Abunimah's article only iterates that the call for the culling or removal of Palestinians is not something new.

"On 28 February, Vilnai's colleagues added their own inflammatory statements. Cabinet minister Meir Sheetrit stated that Israel should "hit everything that moves" in Gaza "with weapons and ammunition," adding, "I don't think we have to show pity for anyone who wants to kill us."

This is what we're growing accustomed to. Israeli Chief Rabbi Metgzer advocates a Palestinian state in the Sinai where "the plan would be to "take all the poor people from Gaza to move them to a wonderful new modern country with trains buses cars, like in Arizona - we are now in a generation where you can take a desert and build a city." Unfortunately we're not reciting any silly fantasies here: as Abunimah has alerted, the call for Palestinian displacement is quite normal among Rabbis.

Vilnai's slip-up is not really that big of a deal when we're dealing with the Palestinians. It is just another in the archives of Israel's intention to dehumanise their enemies and reduce them to rubble. We're going to get more hard words from each leader and Mohammed's death is going to be used to further fan the flames of aggression, just like the infamous bombing at a Gaza beach during Operation Summer Rain back in 2006. It is no accident though that we have forgotten about that incident, just like further down the road many will forget about what happened to Mohammed. The violence is just too much and we're inured to it. "Shit happens" during war: I find it hard to believe that Mohammed's parents will take solace in that reasoning.

Although the call for a "new Holocaust" has not balked many as of yet, it is in glaring constrant with the current polling statistics that has Israelis wanting a dialogue with Hamas: a gesture that was advocated here over and over. Not to toot my own horn but it was foreseen that the only way for the Qassams to really be stopped is to negotiate with Hamas, give them legitimacy and let them have the power over who to police the rocket fire. Just upon finishing Abunimah's book One Country: A Bold Proposal To End the Israeli-Palestininan Impasse, where he responds to a critic of his against a one-state solution he writes

"Give people rights and conflict diminshes...

When people's rights are recognized, it is possible to stop seeing them as terrorists and murderers and start seeing them as national assets and fellow citizens." [pg 174]

Just a small gesture to talk to Hamas will go a long way as it will give Hamas a reason to believe that Israel sees them as something significant, or of importance, or even of equal margin as Israel. With some trust, maybe the distance between enemies will be reduced. They don't have to be best friends: Egypt and Jordan both have peace deals with Israel and they don't recognise the Jewish state. They have "normalisation": why can't this be the same model for Hamas?

To be accurate, 64 % want Israel to talk with Hamas about a ceasefire and the release of Shalit (remember him?). That is a great margin and one that is gaining "public traction". More revealing is the fact that the Likud (48 %), Kadima (55 %) and Labour (72 %) are all a majority being in favour for a Hamas negotiation. Why then, does not Olmert put his guns down and talk to Hamas? His public wants him to, and even his coalition are in favour of it (except Barak of course)? Is this going to be another case of the population showing more common sense than its government? I believe it is more evidence that it is the public who truly feels the rockets being launched and its ramifications as Israel's officials sit in their safe offices and put more Sderot residents in harm's way just to make a point of not "talking to our enemy who wishes us dead". They're not doing that good of a job if that is their intention as Israel is leading the way by far on the dead campaign. Or is this the way for a "new Holocaust"?

The moral bankruptcy of the occupation is turning for the worse. It could be these unenlightening facts that is making young Jews in America turn away from the "pro-Likud" line that Obama rightfully rues as the way toward mutual destruction. And it is a possibility that that is what they see in Obama when they talk of "change": it is a very new development when a Presidential candidate talks so clearly about the Israel issue in America. While Clinton and McCain both aim to be more hawkish on Israel's front, Obama is making us breathe a fresher air when he reminds Israel that

"there was a tension that arose between the African American and the Jewish communities during that period when we were dealing with apartheid in South Africa, because Israel and South Africa had a relationship at that time."

Obama is opening up the debate even more, and it is more than welcome. Being too precocious when it comes to Israel is a big mistake especially when the consequences are so dire. We have children dying here so whenever Obama puts Israel in its place, it is more than backed up by circumstantial evidence when Mohammed is recalled. And Obama is right when he says that a "pro-Likud" thinking is not necessarily what most American Jews want. Here's Glenn Greenwald's account:

"With regard to virtually every issue, the right-wing American Jewish factions which act as arbiters for what views are "pro-Israel" and what views signify "anti-Israeli" animus or even anti-Semitism actually represent a minority -- often a small minority -- of Jews generally, and their views are sometimes even rejected by a majority of Israelis."

And it's Israelis again who are embarrassing Americans and Israel's government yet again. Debates are fierce in Israel; in the US the only debate is whether your criticism is anti-Semitic or not and that does a great disservice for not only Israelis who desire peace and normalisation in the Middle East, but those who truly see themselves as a great ally to Israel. Right now, the calling for a "new Holocaust" is not one that will end good, and for the Palestinians, it could be close to extinction.

Maybe it is a little too late to engage Hamas now when another Palestinian toddler is slain. As I was typing this, the report came in that there were more casualties inflicted, and this time a 13 month old baby was killed. That's two babies in the span of two days.

"The bloodletting began before midnight Friday in the northern town of Beit Hanoun, where a 13-month-old girl, Malak Karfaneh, was killed by shrapnel."

Sadly the report does indicate that it was the Qassam firers who were responsible as their launch fell short and landed in the area of the baby's house. Now this cycle of violence is really on the tipping point. Maybe this may make Hamas rethink their position too but I somehow doubt it. Hamas is not as guilty as Israel but their insistence to retaliate is not helping matters anymore. It's true that they have to show Israel that there is a price to occupy but now we're stuck in a turmoil and little children are being killed. "In all, more than 70 Palestinians, including around 40 civilians, have been killed since fighting flared on Wednesday." That's a tragedy right now.

Condoleezza Rice is on her way back to the Middle East for "conflict resolution" but she still laments Hamas over all of this. The polls say talk to Hamas and Rice just continually blames them. This is not the way to go. Hamas were voted in for a reason. Mark Perry has been quoted that "Hamas is moderate" as well as Tony Karon. NOT to engage with him is a policy that will lead to nowhere but more Qassam rockets. As Sderot hears more alarms, Gaza ends up burning. And Olmert is not phased by any of this.

It might be safe to say that Annapolis is effectively over. Abbas is unable to do anything to appease the situation, even as the West attempts to bolster his image as the sole provider for the Palestinians. Hamas is resisting but it seems that their campaign is falling short as the world calls for them to be implemented. Annapolis could have been a guide to a better talk and we know that it could have been better than what we see happening in Gaza, but instead we were still stuck with the "ideological" battle over "good vs evil" that Daniel Levy warned us about. Back in November, Levy said if Bush and Olmert are intent on upholding the fact that Hamas is not someone to talk to then Annapolis is over and done with before it begins. Look where we are now: can you say that Levy was wrong?

What's more sickening to think of is that neither side seems willing to go back. Olmert wants to make Gazans pay. Hamas wants to show it can still be effective in taking some chunk out of Israel. The occupation just gets uglier by the day as the West Bank is carved up and East Jerusalem is severed from Palestinian life. The sole light right now is Obama, as hopes could be pinned on him on turning back this path toward a "new Holocaust". The bad news is that Obama can only be sworn in in 2009, and even if he does win, there really is no indication that he can take on a spineless Congress whose pockets are stuffed with AIPAC money. But just as Israeli officials are in damage control over Vilnai's slip, the Jewish quarter are also in major damage control over Obama's ascendence into the prime candidate for the Democratic party. Their methods are well-known but it only seems to give more steam to the Obama train.

Now I am not ready to endorse the man but he seems quite the reasonable option. He is talking a good talk (lately) and he does have Robert Malley as an advisor. Maybe there might be a Democrat whom we could vote for. It is still premature but Obama's latest exploits have made me warm up to him. And with recent events we can only hope for more of Obama's sternness in front of Israel's crowd.

Note: I had this written out yesternight but lost the heart of it due to a terrible computer malfunction. Vilnai's comments should not be easily forgotten, as it evokes the Nazis but only this time, it is Israel that is being compared to them (although some scholars have done so previously). Vilnai's quote reminds me of a statement that I found on Palestine Remembered:

"Through their own words do they damn themselves."

The Zionists have been on record through diaries and memoirs stating their intention for the removal of Palestinians, the existence of Palestinians and their plans to provoke response against Arab states in order for more war to gain territory or recognition that Israel is under constant attack. This is just another quote in a big archive dating back to Herzl upon the birth of Zionism. Upon further understanding of what Zionism really meant for the Palestinians, it is painstakingly clear that what drives the Zionists today is the same thing that drove the Stern Gang, the Irgun and the Haganah back in the 40s: the realisation of the total Jewish majority in historic Palestine. When given this information, the conflict is given a deeper meaning than just politics over rights and terrorism and "peace processes". There is internal debate over whether to give up the occupied territories, but not many question the need for a Jewish state that champions Jews over Palestinians. Vilnai only went a step further that most will not say in public but think in private.

Now I do feel quite remorseful thanks to the latest numbers. But what's more telling is there really is no end in sight now. I doubt the offer of a ceasefire will be on the table for much longer. Hamas is being arrested in the West Bank and Israel wants to continue with their failed policy of liquidation.

And it could not be any more logical: the open arms of Osama Bin Laden and co will be welcoming such Israeli bombing. The ignorance of this is too telling as Iraq provides the perfect lesson that no one is learning from. Here's the thing: more deaths will only mean more martyrs. Mohammed will be lifted to this profile I'm sure of it.

It is the same case for Israel: another death in Sderot only means that Hamas is not really sincere with their gesture of a ceasefire. But Israel has the means to put an end to this: Gaza is still being controlled fully by Israel (along with Egypt, the EU and the US). The easement of the sanctions can slow down Qassams. A bilateral talk with Hamas would show that you are serious about Hamas' concern and they would match that with an offer that would deal with Israel's concern about security. Hamas oversaw a unilateral ceasefire for a year. It can be done if Israel wants to.

I do not want more people to die but Hamas needs something to cling to or else other factions will take the lead in the resistance front and by the looks of how things are turning out, it is those peripheral groups that are being proven right: there's no legal way of dealing with Israel when it comes to Palestinian concern. Fatah was neutered, going from a large resistance movement with arms, turning into a hapless party with no power and full of corrupt officials. Hamas condemned the PLO of being just another tool of the occupation: now they are part of it. What's Hamas to do now when they played with the cards that the occupier gave them and they still come out with a losing hand? Islamic Jihad's contention that Israel has NO intention of ever conceding anything to Palestinians unless you threaten them with an armed struggle is looking more alluring to estranged Gaza youth who get killed while they play football. Not only that, they lose limbs, get beaten up, see their relatives shot at, and have their freedom of movement taken away. This is not a way to make friendly neighbours.

We are no closer to a mediation. Ironically, we're closer to "new Holocaust". Can we invoke those two words "never again"?

Paging Israel: Let's have a ceasefire

For lack of a better way to end the constant assault on Sderot, Hamas is still putting the offer of a ceasefire for Israel to accept, despite the current casaulties that afflicts Gazans, as well as the relentless siege mentality that has left three dead today at Bein Hanoun, seventy injured at a non-violent protest in Bethlehem, and at least 170 people killed by Israel since the beginning of the Annapolis peace conference back in November. On top of that, Gazan life has become quite unbearable, with the power outages hurting not only the hospitals, but even the sewage system that has left Gaza "stinking", as Mohammed Omar put it.

"Sewage water is filling the streets... The stench is unbearable...

The amount of children who have been taken ill has increased considerably. Cases of diarrhea are mounting by the day. Even now, children continue to play outside amongst the raw sewage – where else can they go?"

What's also surprising is the fact that the Gaza siege is also destroying Israel's economy also. Here is an excerpt from an article in the Middle East Times:

"The West Bank and Gaza Strip constitute Israel's second biggest market after the United States. In 2006, the combined 3.5 million residents of the Palestinian territories imported over $2 billion worth of Israeli products, or more than 6 percent of all Israeli exports excluding diamonds. This is the same amount that Italy and France combined, two of the eight richest countries in the world, imported from Isreal.

Israel's business community has voiced its alarm. Ronen Leshem, head of the business department at Israel's Peres Center for Peace, wrote recently in an op-ed in The Marker, an Israeli business publication: "In a few weeks, the business sector in Gaza is going to collapse, and one of the big losers is going to be Israel."

Rather appalling when you have a government cynically putting their own people in harm's way, threatening normal citizens about the security of their job because they refuse to let them deal with a market that has been so sacred to them, and all for the sake of imagery: the big bad wolf Israel still has its might, and you Arabs better not have any thoughts about taking us on. We're still strong, we still have (nuclear) weapons, and our military budget is bigger than your's. Naturally, we'll bomb you without any provocation and perhaps even liquidate some of your peripheral (eventual) martyrs: this will show you Arabs who's boss.

Although one could conclude that this is all very silly, it is not when you partake in Middle East politics. In fact, this revealing article by Patricke Seale elevated Israel's need for "targeted assassinations" for the purpose of deterrence and strategy:

"[P]ossible explanation for the Mughniyeh killing is that Israel was keen to demonstrate to its regional opponents -- not just Hizbullah and Hamas, but Syria and Iran as well -- that its long arm can reach deep into their home territory. This seems also to have been the message of Israel’s air-raid last September against a military installation in eastern Syria -- an unprovoked violation of Syrian sovereignty and international law, which the Bush administration appears to have approved.

No doubt, such spectacular feats of arms are also intended to remind Washington -- and especially its intelligence community -- that in spite of the fiasco of the Lebanese war, Israel remains a valuable strategic asset in America’s ‘global war on terror'.There may well have been some reasons of internal Israeli politics for the assassination of Mughniyeh."

And we shall not forget about Olmert's own reasons for wanting to pummel Palestinians:

"Olmert may have felt the need to restore his prestige with the Israeli public after the Vinograd commission’s stern indictment of his leadership in the 2006 war."

But we're missing what's important here: sure, Qassams are a rather pesky nuisance for Sderot residents, but they have inflicted such tiny damage, which only is testament when one sees the total disparity between Gaza dead and Israeli dead: "at most one Israeli is killed for the death of some 40 Palestinians." I do not wish to minimise the launcher's intention: I assume it is to terrorise the Israelis; but what about the "daily raids and the cruel siege"? Do they not have the same intention to terrorise Palestinians into cowering humans, hoping that they would uprise against Hamas, the only organisation who seems to have their best interests at heart?

Back on the 18th, a UN official described the conditions of Gaza, saying

"Medical services in Gaza are deteriorating, private industry has more or less collapsed, and there are real worries about education. There is increasing dependence on international aid, which has risen very sharply over the last eight months."

He also hinted at a "humanitarian catastrophe" and said 73 percent relies on food aid. This is quite the comfortable living that Olmert has remarked at, "an affront to the dignity of the people" in Gaza as stated by Mr. Holmes of the UN. Apparently we have differing versions on what living comfortably really means. And this is omitting the simple fact that Gaza is stinking while being amongst the most densely populated place on the planet, all done with the support of the West.

Despite this gruesome reality, Hamas continues to lay down the ceasefire offer. I know many would say it's just another opportunity for them to build arms. So what? Would Israel not build more arms to counter that? Or would Hamas be the only one required to cease any military activity? Preposterous.

Hamas intention for opportunism should only be a sidenote from what truly matters: a cessation of hostilies that sees both Gazans and Israelis fearing the air. We're getting alot of commonsense from the local people who are suffering from the inept policies of Olmert and co., getting alot of groundbreaking work on blogs. It is with great pride that I do feature the blog that has one Gazan and one resident of Sderot doing their best to show that Palestinians and Israelis are not fated to destroy each other. And continuing on that same vein, February 23rd saw a "Gaza Siege Day", seeing "[p]eople in more than 30 countries from the four corners of the globe to protest the "inhumane" Israeli siege of the Gaza Strip." We can only hope for more activity along this nature.

On the plus side, we're getting two major calls to talk with Hamas from important posts. The Israeli Mayor of Sderot himself has indicated that he "would say to Hamas, let's have a ceasefire". Now this isn't some fringe member of society here that is either an anti-Zionist, post-Zionist or even a dove, but the actual mayor of the town being terrorised is wanting to negotiate with "the devil", ie Hamas. He even refers to Hamas as "the devil": now there can be no threats of a pro-Palestinian here, can there be?

But maybe he's just seeing what all of us is seeing: that Hamas should be engaged with. This is precisely what a former Mossad chief has suggested Olmert should do. Again, this is not some left-wing nut who wants to appease the Palestinians and go back to the 67 borders such and such, but "Efraim Halevy received the prestigious CIA Director's Award from then-director George Tenet for his assistance to the U.S. intelligence service". He's been described as "a hawk", and his interview is one that must be read by everyone who believes that Hamas is an entity that should be ignored.

"Hamas is not al Qaeda and, indeed, al Qaeda has condemned them time and time again. Hamas may from time to time have tactical, temporary contact with al Qaeda, but in essence they are deadly adversaries. The same goes for Iran. Hamas receives funds, support, equipment, and training from Iran, but is not subservient to Tehran. A serious effort to dialogue indirectly with them could ultimately drive a wedge between them."

This means that Hamas is not some extremist regime that wants to stifle any effort for normalisation. It is not a terrorist faction: it is the body that was voted by the Palestinians to represent them. They have a voice which should be heard. They were voted in for a reason. Hamas "has demonstrated that they are more credible and effective as a political force inside Palestinian society than Fatah", and "[i]t makes sense to approach a possible initial understanding including Hamas—but not exclusively Hamas—at a time when they are still asking for one. No side will gain from a flare up leading to Israel re-entering the Gaza strip in strength to undo the ill-fated unilateral disengagement of 2005."

And the ridiculous precondition for Hamas to recognise Israel's "right to exist" is ludicrous. The intent is for a ceasefire, you do not need to recognise anyone's right to exist to halt attacks. You just need to negotiate a treaty that both parties can agree to. Having Hamas cave in to the demand is "an a priori renunciation of ideology before contact is made. Such a demand has never been made before either to an Arab state or to the Palestinian Liberation Organization/Fatah."

Halevy also testifies that Abbas is weak, and the US and Israel have done nothing to empower his movement. He seems rather neutered, and creating a Palestinian satrap has been a large failure so far. Halevy ends the interview with a very pessimisstic view:

"It appears by all indications that neither Israel nor the United States are prepared to contemplate such a test of alternative strategy."

And how can we say that he is wrong? We've got Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain as the options for Presidency. Many want to back Barack, but he's shown no real indication that he can do what no other President since Eisenhower has done: take on the Zionist Lobby. He seems more like cosying up to the old Jewish establishment to reassure them that Israel is safe in his hands. Some change. Nevertheless, he is taking a battering in the smear column.

But what is Olmert to do now? We know that he has to look strong, reeling from the defeat of the Lebanon War: hence the actions at Syria and the slaying of Mughniyeh. He also has to keep Hamas off the legitimacy table, considering he is unable to stop Qassams from landing in Israeli territory. Someone has to die for Qassams being launched; what kind of a lesson will that be for Israelis? We talk to our enemy who wants us dead? I don't think so.

For too long we've been ignoring the fact that Hamas wants to talk, and it wants to engage with the rest of the world. Why do we continue to sideline them and pretend that they are not serious in their intention? Why are we stuck in a paradox where the only way to talk is to "not talk" and provide action that only decreases the possibility for justice and peace? Alastair Crooke analyses the failings of the West to engage in dialogue with Islamists, that

"Unless there is this questioning and awakening in the West [about Islamism] - and I use the word deliberately - an awakening - then I think that the West will remain unchanged...

Talking therefore, in terms of the title of this talk, is not overdue. Sadly, at this stage, the West cannot hear."

It's still xenophobia and ignorance that prevents the West from normalisation with the Orient. Israel may want Hamas to go away by their own rules, and by the delaying tactics that would only encapsulates their policy of maximisation of land into Israeli control and the monopoly of arms and power in the region; the West accepts the ideology that Hamas and Hizbollah and all the rest are just backward people who cannot be trusted when they talk of "peace" because their just disingeniune and are merely playing possum so they can destroy civilisation and turn it all into Sharia law. Or to put it plainly, "the devil". But even we have to talk to "the devil" himself some day. Why not now when they offer to stop terrorising Sderot for a very long time? Are Halevy and Sderot Mayor Eli Moyal's cries to talk to "the devil" going to go unheard? Or are Sderot residents left to rely on the aid that charities give them because Israel just uses them as an excuse to continue their siege of Gaza?

Are we going to listen? When soldiers are "Breaking the Silence" by exhibiting the toll Occupation has, do we continue to deflect the call to look amongst ourselves when we remain silent about all of this?

Palestinians should matter to everyone

Maybe it is because of an absence of two weeks that has seen me sick with a flu that left me rathe inoperable to anything remotely close to being effectual towards the conflict, or perhaps it is just the malaise that one feels when they reach a certain age and they are encountered by life riddles because they are subpar in comparison to their childhood dream, but lately I have felt lackadaisical on the whole subject and the effort that it requires of myself that justifies its presence on my life. Because of this (as well as other complications such as a cold that doesn't want to go away), I was missing from last week's demonstration at the Israeli consulate to demand the siege of Gaza end. Always not one to shy away from accountability, I do feel a little ashamed that I was unable to attend such a matter that I have felt so strongly about. I wanted to show my solidarity but was not present, even after I said that I would go.

After the no-show, as well as bitter winter, the draining feeling did not go away. Milling through the archives, sifting over and over of articles throughout the two weeks, attempting to find a topic that I could find something to write about; and it's not as if there isn't anything short of incidences that happens. In the end, I came around to the same dead end. I had nothing of total interest that provoked any real thought into the matter. Sure, we can all write about the Gaza strangulation; but better journalists with better knowledge and contacts do so already. Mind you, of course Gaza should be written about, but that doesn't mean that it would always be read, and if so, not by people who matter. What good is hearing another UN official talk about its "grim and miserable" situation? Is another EU official going to change the situation when he speaks of a Palestinian state and calls to "remove the blockade on Gaza because there must be movement for goods and people"? Could another diplomat talk of the bitter reality in Gaza and hope to make Israel relent its frustration?

There. I had had enough and toyed with the idea of slipping back into the numbness of simplicity that consisted of work, family, car troubles, awful television, and a Knicks team that doesn't win. After all, wouldn't the situation be the same even if I didn't write on this blog? It was the same before I read politics; things only gradually became worse for the Palestinians. What if I decided to just stop the studying in scholar, stop the research on alternative media and blogs, and cease devoting so much time to a conflict that has no real bearing on how my life turns out? Would it matter to those nuts who comment on Ha'aretz or the people marching in Bi'lin against the wall?

A few thoughts to myself and then I remembered an article I read by Bill Fletcher. A past president of TransAfrica Forum and the editor of The Black Commentator, he titled his piece "Palestine Matters". And it reinforced my assumptions that what I do really does matter, that what I read has an impact however small and insignificant it may seem to me. While there are many passages that I want to quote, here's one that struck the chord to an estranged activist feeling the pinch of debility:

"With each atrocity against the Palestinian people comes another battle cry from one or another part of the planet, not only against Israel, but against their unconditional backers in Washington, DC. And those battle cries should raise our concern."

Of course I read and hear the tired old cliches that having a stake in the issue will make the world a safer place. Yes, there are many valid points that support this notion; Osama talks of the occupation by foreigners on holy enshrines in the Muslim world; the many grievances that US policy afflicts on the Middle East, especially the poor, which only is more agitative when juxtaposed with the talk of "democracy" and "freedom"; the looting of resources that falls into the pockets of Western fatcats at the expense of the Third World poor, which then spirals into environmental concerns; and the one-sided "balance" that has Israel crushing the Palestinians all full view of their Arab brothers. All of this could be stopped if the Palestinians were given a viable state. Then again, we don't know that do we, as this world seems to work in vacuums: the issue of Palestine might be solved for a period, but there is still Iraq, South America, North Korea and Africa that is still falling under the rubric of US foreign policy and "free trade". Their grievances could tip over and create another struggle that has the truth miscontrued and another conflict that could last generations. And Osama could still be a thorn in our asses, yet a smaller one that might have him ineffectual. But what seems to be the most pressing security issue for most here is the one that is near their doorstep, not terrorism per se. The domestic always has more focus rather than the foreign.

Such doubts had me questioning whether it really was time to put it all to rest and be another robot like my fellow co-workers who just talk about the usual topics (cars, girls, sports). Then late Edward Said, who had written a post-article on Orientalism that appeared in The Palestine Chronicle really took me back to where the roots of the conflict began (that is revisiting Orientalism and The Question of Palestine), and reacquainted me with an intellectual that inspired me to really study further what consists of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I was reminded

"that every domain is linked to every other one, and that nothing that goes on in our world has ever been isolated and pure of any outside influence. We need to speak about issues of injustice and suffering within a context that is amply situated in history, culture, and socio-economic reality. Our role is to widen the field of discussion."

I believe if Edward were alive today he would still be just as explosive as he was back in the 70s and give no quarter to anyone who dared justify the actions in Gaza. He would have no mercy for Mahmoud Abbas who seems to be encouraging the rift between Fatah and Hamas, thus destroying what could have been a strong unified front against the occupier. Everyone knows that a fragmented Palestinian society can only paralyse their fight for self-determination, not enhance it. And having rereading Edward Said's most provoking work, it only made me realise moreso that the question of Palestine is something that does matter to everyone, more or less, anyone who prides themself as a human.

"The paramount thing is that the struggle for equality in Palestine/Israel should be directed toward a humane goal, that is, co-existence, and not further suppression and denial."

It echoes within me that it is not only for self-determination, identity and awareness that the Palestinians should be recognised and matter, but one of the most importance is of an egalitarian goal, that Palestinians and Israelis should "co-exist", that they are both of equal matter and both have equal rights as a human.

Now that isn't rocket science: it's all been instilled in all of us early on that we're all the same, we all bleed whether we're black, white, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Muslim, Asian, Native, etc. So why is it so difficult to realise that Palestinians are only asking for what is their human right and that is to be seen as equal to their counterparts, the Jews? We can all state that there are certain politics at hand here, and that it's not as simple as that; but why not? Was not the South Africa model built upon the foundation that the blacks had the same rights as the whites and had no right to be treated that way? How about the Irish? The abolishment of slavery and segregation? The civil rights movement? It's not a case-by-case basis where we lessen the impact of the struggle because "Jews were persecuted" by the Holocaust and therefore they are bound to have their "Jewish state" which is their sanctuary from anti-Semitism, an affliction that is a world-wide disease since Jews are so oppressed. Those statements are made even without any scrutiny considering that Jews sit as CEOs and major stockholders, and even sit at important seats at the UN and in Washington and are seen on movies screens as leading actors and actresses. Anti-Semitism really outcasted them, didn't they?

It's a given that there are numerous boundaries as to why the issue is what it is. A plaintive media over the suffering of Israel's population against the propaganda that the Palestinians face (as terrorists and extremists and Islamofascists) does its job in vilifying Palestinians to no limit, and we are satured with phony scholars and experts who claim to know what is best to do in the conflict. We have talk upon talk about what to do with the Qassams, and yet no discussion as to why the Palestinians have any grievance at all in firing those rockets. Right now, we're on the brink of an invasion into the Gaza Strip just to help the residents of Sderot, meanwhile the Hamas offer for (ANOTHER) ceasefire is again ignored. Why would they cynically put their own citizens at risk just for their own political advancement? Is it worth it to destroy the Palestinians and endanger more Sderot residents just to have another "victory" moment?

Sure, there was a suicide bomber. But why do they become suicide bombers? Are we so immune to their situation that we simply ignore why the Palestinians are angry in the first place? Why would someone voluntarily take their own life just to make a hapless point against their occupier? Or have we simply forgotten that they are occupied? Because after forty years, we tend to assume that it has been like this forever and that there was no occupation to be begin with. Isn't that the way the coloniser is working here? Here we are, in the affluence of technology and free media, and we're still backward on who we're condemning? It's not the Palestinians who are building new houses in East Jerusalem, is it? Didn't Ehud Olmert already state Israel was not upholding its end of the bargain as proscribed by the Annapolis conference? So why are we not stopping this? Why are we still talking of Qassams and an extremist Hamas? Does East Jerusalem have no bearing on why Palestinians get mad? Does no letup on the roadblocks and checkpoints contribute to their hatred of Israel? Some might not be able to remove Israel from Jewish, especially since they are adamant that they be recognised as a Jewish state. This only contributes further to the dormant anti-Semitism, hence only exacerbating what is already a touchy subject. I have not even mentioned the settlements and their overzealous supporters that claim that they own this piece of land.

And the more you read into the conflict, and the more the truth escapes, the more you feel the need to write about it, to condemn it, and to say "that this is not right and that Palestine matters". Because weren't we in a position like this before, where the truth was so askewed that people did not want to listen and just go on with their day-to-day lives? No one is going to accuse anyone of being a little Eichmann, but being silent when we know that things are so bad for the Palestinians is like a green light for the people in power to do what they want. Sure, when it affects us personally then we want to stand up for our rights. But what about the ones whose rights are impinged on already? Where's our altruism? We care about the environment, the poor on our streets (well, some of us do) and our starving children. Here's a case where their starvation is all part of the game and we don't want to think about it.

And who's to stay that it doesn't affect us personally? We pay for it out of our pockets too, you know.

This may all seem a little confusing, even to myself I have run on and on and have no real point. But I figure that why I do this is because I believe I have an obligation to fight for justice whether and whomever it effects. And the Palestinians are the ones who I find to be the most persecuted in today's world. We have all heard the discussions, the one-state versus the two-state, whether they are their own victims or whether the world sees them the wrong way. But what should not be lost is this is a struggle that we can all identify with, whether we are affected by it personally or not (meaning Jewish, Muslim or even a minority). The world is being cast as the elite vs the poor, and sadly the majority of us is on the wrong side of it. That means me too. And it's this policy of usurpation, colonisation, removal and control that Israel uses over the Palestinians that also has some form in our own lives too. The people in power take land, money, and attempt to control our movement as well as our thinking by kowtowing the media. It's a little more extreme in the Palestinian case, and hence why we should all be more vocal to their demand to be recognised and have a viable state.

Right now, the media has it painted the wrong way and most of us are buying into it. And the longer this happens the longer justice will be put off, and that means more of the violence that only destroys more of Palestinian livelihood. I definitely fall very short of Edward Said, but our "humanism" will be lost if we let Israel completely remove the Palestnians from memory and from reality. They occupy not only the land, but also the important circles that only further Palestinian destruction. Why else do we have three people left in the US election that are trying to outflank each other on who is more pro-Israel? Why else do they attempt to strifle conversation on the Israel Lobby and aim to derail the Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer book? Why else do they try to apologise for Israel's transgressions against Palestinians or attempt to say that Israel owns the entire land because of their pious idiocy? Did we not read about a time long ago called Manifest Destiny where another sort of pious moron attempt to eradicate another sort of Native from their homeland because they felt it was their God-given right to do so? Does Benny Morris' words that the Nakba had to happen for another civilisation to thrive mean nothing to anyone anymore at the height of human rights advocacy and Hollywood drama for blood diamonds (or settlement diamonds to be more accurate)? Weren't the same conclusions met that such actions were a travesty to humanity, even something closely horrific as a Holocaust but only against another target? Aren't we meant to speak out against such actions that destroy a population?

Sitting here and typing this, I always question why I write about Palestine, and I always come to the same conclusion: that it is the truth as I believe it to be, and it is my job to try to air it to anyone who is interested. Debate about the topic? Bring it on. It's all a challenge and this is no easy feat as I'm not the most read of scholars just yet; I still need a few more years under my belt to even come close. Marching against Israeli atrocities? You bet. Signing petitions? Show me where.

I do feel now that I am a part of this issue that I must partake in the Palestinian struggle. Of course it is not just narrowed to their fight, as there are local issues to battle, as well as other foreign conflicts that I feel strongly about. But none more than the Palestinians. I know it's just a minor detail but most like to say that it is in Israel's interest to have a viable Palestinian state; well we can stop doing everything just for Israel's interest. In fact, we can even state that it's Israel's interest to continue with things the way they are because the Palestinians are backed against (three) walls with no one giving two shits about them. And I cannot sit here and let life go by while they endure their strangulation, knowing what I know now.

I can try to continue to relate how the Palestinian fight is one that resembles the blacks of South Africa, segregation, and other Third World struggles against imperialism. And that's all true, in a sense too; but many other more indepth studies have been written on such subjects and I could not do it justice here in my tiny little space. But Palestine is a question that is deep within myself that needs to be answered again and again; it's as if it's my conscious and talking about it is what really defines the "humanism" inside of me, the moral vicissitudes that I experience, and the voice that says that I am on the right track no matter how many obstacles are erected in front of me. In the end, Palestine is what defines the human struggle for equality for me, and how it can be so decontextualised and misinterpreted to fit into someone else's benefit, even at the greatest expense of someone right there next to them.

Yes, the fight for equality, the battle for truth, and the war for justice: the paradigm is Palestine. Nowhere is the playing field more uneven, nowhere is the debates more polemic, and nowhere is it where the people who matter are more silent about it than Palestine. It's all here people: settlements, Security Council, ICJ, Israel Supreme Court, torture, targeted assassinationas, checkpoints, terrorists, corruption, dissidents, collaborators, satraps, enclaves, Bantustans, apartheid, security walls, olive trees, beaches, fishery, airspace, weapons, army, settlers, protestors; it's all here and the battle for truth is being waged.

And we're on the tilting point right now. More and more speak out, which leads to more strongarm tactics to curb the criticism. Zionism is on the wane. Obama is seen as the candidate for a new Jewish crowd that criticises Israel's policy against the Palestinians. And Walt and Mearsheimer's book is a bestseller, as well as Jimmy Carter's. There was a giant call for Israeli Apartheid Week which still hits major cities across the globe. All of this does not bode well for the Jewish State, especially since a UN official stated that a "two-state solution has passed".

This follows the break at Rafah just over two weeks ago. The hold Israel has is slipping. We could all be cogs in the machine that ultimately brings down a state that discrimmates and champions Jews over Arabs. We could all be a part of history and witness another falling wall and another Soviet-like breakdown of empire, or perhaps another apartheid regime destroyed in favour of equality for all and justice to the Palestinians.

I cannot say that what I do does make a difference to those in Gaza and the Palestinians in the West Bank and the diaspora. I also cannot even say that it makes a difference to anyone here at the moment besides the few who I know. But living in such narrow parameters in not the way it works when you write about politics because it could only belittle what the truth is, whatever you believe it be. And that is not why we write on such matters. I do it because I feel it is of great importance that the world has to know what is going on; whether I get read or not is an afterthought as I know I can only do what I can do to the best of my ability as I have no output on other people's lives. Yet, the truth has a chain effect without pontificating: the more people know it, the more they feel compelled to spread the word. I feel that compulsion.

Just a few days ago, we had the Australian Prime Minister apologise to the Aborigines, whom they treated so abasively in years past, much similar to how other settler states dishonours its indigeous people. Who knows, maybe some activists also had doubts as to whether they actually made a difference to the Aboriginal struggle two to three decades ago. So it may not happen today, tomorrow, or even in my lifetime. But eventually, the Palestinians will see their reward for all of their struggle. And in the end, that's why I write, and that is why I have a stake on Israel-Palestine.

Where were you when they blew up the wall?

We all remember the scene when the Berlin Wall was finally torn down, marking a historic moment in the twentieth century when time stood still and we all could recall the tiniest detail of where we were and what we were doing. Another date that encapsulates the same recollection is 9/11, where we felt surrealism at its most perverse when we witnessed smoking towers tumble, turning into ashes. Thursday January 24th, 2008, is set to be another landmark on the calender and with good reason. Nothing is a more gripping image than a massive wall being broken down, and earlier this morning (or late last night my time) in Rafah, the barrier was blown up with a few blasts, enabling Gazans the freedom that they have been aching for since June. Here's coverage of the extraordinary incident by Al-Jazeera English:



Only two days ago I wrote about the embarrassing situation that has the international community blaming the Palestinians about the latest Israeli decision to put Gaza in a complete blackout. Amongst the agony of Gazans who have been subject to total closures and at times, the perfect laboratory to try out new weapons, we have the EU, Israel and now even a Presidential candidate bending over backward to appease Israel and its feared supporters. As the images of Palestinians having a brief taste of freedom, Barack Obama is showing just what kind of steel he is made of by declaring to Ambassador Khalilzad that Israel had no option but to hermetically seal Gaza. The letter is making its rounds in the blogosphere, querying as to what Obama can accomplish with such a cowardly line. The answer: votes.

The joyous scenes is following closely with Martin Luther King Day, evoking his much cited "I Have a Dream" speech in where he bellows that "We are free at last." Yes, Palestinians finally have broken the prison that has caged them in since Hamas took control of the Strip. Streams of thousands piled into Egyptian Rafah, and stocked up on what they could get their hands on; cheese, concrete, iron, oil. diesel, cigarettes, foam mattresses, cleaning materials, flour, glass plates, mats, blankets; nothing was too scarce for these Gazans. Rafah had not seen anything like it before, as people came in droves, as well as donkey and carts, in order to taste some form of autonomy. Hosni Mubarak stated that they were "hungry" as he ordered his troops to help Gazans load up on supplies and usher them back to the crossing. That piece of altruism is shocking considering Egypt has done plenty to allocate the suffering of Gazans on Hamas, as well as collaborate with the occupier that this is the best thing to do for their security. Cairo has been seeing protests about their role in the closure for months, and it seems that with the prisonbreak, it would have been too embarrassing in front of a live connected media to deny these Palestinians some sort of relief. Mubarak has problems already; a confrontation with ordinary Palestinians just days after human rights organisations expressing deep concern over their plight would have been a wedge in his presidency.

And how ironic is it that Israel, the US and the West is blaming Hamas for the wreckage wreaked on Gaza, saying it's Hamas' fault that Palestinians are living with no electricity, no sewage control, no water, etc. that Hamas is the one responsible for setting them free of Israel's strangehold. Amira Hass reports:

"Hamas operatives had been sawing away the foundations of the wall between Egyptian and Palestinian Rafah for a few months to make it easier to blow it up when the time came, a source close to the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) in Rafah told Haaretz Wednesday.

A central Hamas operative partially confirmed the report, although he told Haaretz it was PRC operatives who had prepared to breach the wall, while Hamas policemen did not interfere. In any case, Hamas has for months been discussing the need to take the initiative in ending the siege of Gaza.

Apparently, after four days of hermetic closure, following months of siege, the planners believed the political and social conditions were ripe to bring down the iron wall that Israel had put up."

What we have here now is a problem: how can the world continue to blame the suffering on Hamas when it is they who seem to be the only one concerned about the Palestinians? How can we continue to accuse them of selfishness, cutting their own electricity for "propaganda purposes" and isolate them when they blow up a wall that has encased Gazans to their worst nightmare? How can we stop Gazans from responding positively to Hamas when they do so many things that help them?

That is the dilemma now that is posed for the West. Hamas has done what no other body was able to do: give relief to Palestinians, give them access to aid and supplies, and most importantly, give them (a brief sense of) freedom. This latest event has bodly defined what Palestinians have been saying all along: the world is indifferent to their suffering. All the lip service about two-states, refugees, and freedom has led them to a closed area that is one of the most densely populated in the world. The world looks on by, talks the good talk while doing nothing to stop Israeli atrocities that claim more and more lives. We sit in horror as Olmert overtly claims that his policy is a collective punishment, and yet the international community does nothing about it. In fact, it does worse than nothing: it praises the oppressor for dealing with it swiftly! Now that is hubris.

The suffocation of the Gazans as a strategy by the West to weaken Hamas culminated at the Rafah border. With stunning clarity, the explosions that broke down the barrier were the metaphor that highlighted the failure of the international consensus. Only uncanny timing can explain Kathleen Christison's article on the illegitimacy of the "international consensus" (IC) as a broker in the Israel-Palestine conflict appearing on the same date that the wall fell, focusing on how the IC has failed in even accounting for a Palestinian commentary on peace talks and negotiations. Christison is scathing on the purposes of the IC:

"The international community does not initiate policies; it merely parrots and goes along with the positions promoted by the centers of international power, in this case the U.S. and Israel.

There is in fact no international consensus supporting two states for Palestine-Israel. Those who cite UN Security Council Resolution 242 as the basis...did not even mention Palestinians except as "the refugee problem" and clearly did not put forth a proposal for two states in Palestine-Israel."

The advocacy of a one-state solution is consistently criticised by two-staters because of an agreement by the IC that two-states is what the world can accept. But the IC has always been dormant on Palestinian demands; hence the IC is only a lapdog for the superpowers who dictate policy of the conflict, aka the US and Israel since the fall of the Soviet Union.

What has the IC done for Gaza? Nothing but jargon and rhetoric. The UN is inept and Europe only wants to placate the US and Israel. Canada is silent, China is indifferent as they have nothing to gain, Russia is ineffective and Australia is mute on the topic. Six months went by and Gaza was a massive prison with the IDF exercising impugnity on helpless Palestinians. They turned off the lights, bombs flew and Gazans were starved; the IC sat on their hands and gave Israel a pat on the back for stealthly dealing with the irritating Qassams. Have we forgotten that Qassams are still being launched despite the sanctions and blockades? Or the narrative that Qassam fire was preceded by IDF-inflicted deaths? Where are the results that would justify this collective punishment that is a violation of the Geneva Accords?

Without a doubt the Rafah breach is a bitter rebuke to not only the IC but also on Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party. While Abu Mazen propped up his phony government to play the game of peacetalk with Olmert and Bush, he candidately embraced the IC's dismissal of anything Gaza-related. Annapolis is the perfect paradigm of this: constructed and supervised by the two heavyweights directing orders to the beaten. Gaza was not even mentioned in Annapolis. It is a rude awakening to Abu Mazen as he struggles to gain any hint of success through his process of engagement (or collusion?) while Hamas took a big stride for Palestinian resistance. Israel maintains its construction in the West Bank and violence has increased during the Annapolis timeframe: this is what the Palestinians have gained when playing peace with the occupier and its most ardent supporter (and exporter of arms and aid). This is what they have struggled for? More housing for Israelis? More land theft? More grievances and lost trees and crops?

Now Abbas faces a test that he has to match Hamas' resolve and message that the IC, US and Israel do not have the Palestinians' best interest at heart. The Palestinians have taken it upon themselves to break free of the entrapments and impasses that has afflicted them for so long. They were not meant to take matters in their own hands; the elite is meant to resolve this issue for them. But you could forgive them into thinking that the world has forgotten about them. Jeff Halper testifies of the Palestinian temperment of not giving in:

"Not only have the Palestinians experienced the dehumanization all oppressed and colonized peoples experience, not only have they been made into the embodiment of the rich and powerful's greatest fear, evil "terrorists" who may tear down their privileged "civilization," but they have been turned into guinea pigs...

And yet the Palestinian people -- and in particular those who remain sumud, steadfast, in Palestine -- continue not only to resist but to surprise and confound its would-be Israeli master at every turn. Despite unlimited control, a complete monopoly over the use of force, utter callousness and a vaunted Shin Beit, Israel's military intelligence, Palestinians vote as they want, resist, carry on their daily lives with dignity -- and blow huge holes in the walls and policies constructed in order to imprison and defeat them."

Certainly the fight is not over. Egypt will close the border, Israel will remain its tight squeeze on Hamas, and the world will try to isolate them again. But the piercing of the bubble might shake a few people to realise that Gazans are not living normal lives and that Israel is not being a benevolent occupier. Annapolis is on thin ice as of this moment and Hamas may have made the West take them seriously. There is plenty of resistance against the other wall that demarcates the West Bank into swiss cheese. They stand up to their bullies every day demanding justice. The world has been shamed by the Palestinians: Will they take this notice of despair and respond this time?