Kosovo Independence means good news for Palestine

With Western opinion so gravitated towards the humility of Kosovar Albanians, we have one nation-state after another pushing each other over in whom is recognising the new state of Kosovo. They're lined up like children at an amusement park, itching to declare Kosovo the newest statelet under the aegis of Western civilisation.

"Hello Kosovo, make yourself at home. We're the EU, over there is NATO, (you remember them? They helped you slaughter those Serbs who were trying to inflict a genocide.) and here's someone you have to meet: Our emperor, Washington. Pssst, she calls the shots."

Or that's how the parody went. What is more interesting is the fact that Kosovo has NO legal basis on declaring independence but yet that has no bearing on the Western powers right about now. They feel the need to reward this little beacon of humanitarianism amongst the Serb animal that international law is not a prerequisite for such a maneuver.

Accompanying this little historic action were two very informative pieces on Counterpunch, one by George Szamuely and the other by Diane Johnstone. Both are stunning in its lucidy and very welcome in its rigidity, especially with the compliant media over the Kosovo encounter for almost a decade now. For years we've been satured with the adoration of Kosovar Albanians, while the demonisation of the Serbs, along with Milosevic had no quarter. Johnstone's piece focused on the "uniqueness" of Kosovo amongst other tiny territories that hope to gain independence but have not been given such the positive response as the Kosovar Albanians have. Here Johnstone quotes Roger Cohen who laments on what to do about the non-Albanians:

"But what about the Serbs who still live in the historic part of Serbia called Kosovo? Cohen takes care of that problem in a few words: "Some of the 120,000 Serbs in Kosovo may hit the road."

Ah. Truly a paradigm of humantarianism at its finest. Bomb them. Terrorise them. Ethnically cleanse the area. Then whoever is left can "hit the road".

Szamuely's article is even more stunning, which also features many parallels within Europe that hopes to gain independence. These secessionist movements have been suppressed, and no one has been recognising their efforts for statehood. Secondly, Szamuely accounts that Kosovo has far less legal options for independence than other territories such as South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria. In fact, the "uniqueness" of Kosovo is the glaringly obvious fact that it is backed by the US and the EU, along with a strategic military base in its centre. Thirdly, Serbia is the main hub for Kosovo, and since its declaration to secede, it definitely will face grippling shortcuts on its economy.

"A newly-independent Kosovo would have poor relations with Serbia and would be subjected to an economic blockade. Its electric grid is integrated within Serbia's electric grid. Its debt has been taken care of by Serbia."

So what if they are relying solely on aid: this is a new state, rejoice! It's amazing that only Vladimir Putin seems to be the only sane voice here amongst the public officials. The world is going mad and no one is stopping them.

Dangers ahead

But what does this mean for the rest of the world? Putin analysed correctly that "these double standards" are a terrible precedent that only shows bad faith for other separatists movements.

"Why do we promote separatism? For 400 years Great Britain has been fighting for its territorial integrity in respect of Northern Ireland. Why not? Why don't you support that?"

It's clear that the EU is forcing pressure on Russia, trying to limit its power across the former Yugoslavia. But what of other movements? What of the Chechens? The Cypriots? The South Ossetias? The Basques? Even the Quebecoix? Could they find parallels in the Kosovo model? Could they share in its "uniqueness"? Definitely it will send shockwaves throughout the world that little majorities could attempt to gain control in a hope to gain independence from the title nation that they believe is oppressing them. Territorial integrity? Hah. No way.

What about Palestine?

For too long now the Palestinians have been demanding their own independence. Too bad they do not share Kosovo's "uniqueness". Terrible, also, is the fact that Israel is the one who owns "uniqueness" in this part of the neighbourhood. What is too alluring is the lesson of the KLA, and the fact that now, almost nine years later, the actions of the KLA along with NATO helped created a favourable situation for Kosovar Albanians at the expense of the Serbs. Here's an excerpt from Szamuely's piece on Kosovo's treatment of Serbs:

'Kosovo's Serbs -- the few that remain -- live behind barbed wire and need armed escort whenever they step outside their enclaves. According to a recent European Commission report, "only 1 per cent of judges belong to a minority group and less than 0.5 per cent belong to the Serbian minority. Only six of the 88 prosecutors belong to minority groups." Overall, the report concluded, "little progress has been made in the promotion and enforcement of human rights."...

Kosovo Serbs fear that they will become a decoration to any central-level political institution with little ability to yield tangible results. The Kosovo Albanians have done little to dispel it."

Could this be a model for Palestinians to follow? Already Abbas is dismissing the notion. Why, didn't the PLO declare independence in '87?

"Abbas ruled out taking such a step unilaterally soon, saying he would pursue negotiations with the Israelis until an agreement is reached by the end of 2008, including a settlement on the status of occupied east Jerusalem."

He is really taking it too far now. Discussing East Jerusalem? Now that's a fat chance. Olmert already is procrastinating; and while he does that, more buildings are being constructed and more outposts are being erected in the West Bank. How inept can Abbas be that he plans to negotiate with the occupier, who dismisses him and his demands, and when he wakes up in Ramallah he finds more settlers in the West Bank.

"The Civil Administration has not taken any practical steps to prevent the new construction."

This is where he is placing his faith on to declare a viable Palestinian state? Not very likely, is it? What does he have to lose? I mean, declaring independence is surely a missive that would not even reach the negotiating table, but at least demand something more since Kosovo has done so much in such a little timespan. It's been forty years for the Palestinians under occupation. And it's not as if they haven't demanded freedom, have they? Kosovo has done, why not Palestine?

"For the US and the EU, Kosovar Albanians, having enjoyed almost nine years of UN administration and NATO protection, cannot be expected to wait any longer for their freedom, while the Palestinians, having endured over 40 years of Israeli occupation, can wait forever."

How truly cynical is that?

Yes. Kosovo and Palestine are not that similar; each has its own idiosyncrasies. But the only significant difference is the evident aid that goes to the Kosovars who are celebrating freedom against the Israeli war machine who are oppressing Palestinians. Kosovo is a Muslim majority, no? Why not show more of that steel and support another Muslim majority who wants freedom from a people who want to ethnically cleanse them? Isn't that parallel just? (Naturally, the Yugoslav government has been accused of such an action without any proof, while the Israelis do so overtly, even with international acclaim. I mean, look at Gaza.) Certainly if figures such as Richard Holbrooke and Roger Cohen testify to their sympathy for Muslim persecution at the hands of genocide whackos, they would do best to pinpoint Jerusalem, not Kosovo.

It's a perfect scenario: Kosovo Muslim majority declares independence followed by Palestine Muslim majority declares indepedence (in West Bank and Gaza). The US and EU all fight each other on who recognises them first. Idyllic. And it's not as if there aren't similarities between the both of them: Kosovo relies on aid and Serba; Palestine on aid and Israel; Kosovo is almost purely Muslim; Palestine's Arab population is almost purely Muslim (with the Christians dispersing); Kosovo was under threat of extinction" by Serbs; Palestine is under threat of pauperisation by Israelis. It's win-win.

But Kosovars are just mere pawns being played. They are duped, especially with the enlightening fact that their "democracy" is far from it. It's all under the mercy of Bosnia, the ICR, ESDP and the IMP, all under the tutelage of NATO. In fact, it's a "NATO Colony". Purely just theatre to fund support for Camp Bondsteel.

Terrorism Works

I must confess that I love the idea of precedence. If Iraq is bombed, what is stopping the US from doing the same to another country with fictitious weapons of mass destruction? If torture is legal in certain cases, why is it okay for the West to condemn other developing nations from praticising CIA taught strategies? If Kosovo declares independence, what's stopping the next separation movement from doing likewise? Despite what the counter-terrorists would want us to believe, Kosovo is the prime example of terrorism working. The KLA decimated the Serb minority, cowed them into their little areas, likened sometimes to "Bantustans" (sound familiar?), and now have pushed most of them out of Kosovo. These Serbs are so evil that they have no rights in the EU (also sound familiar?). Here we are, almost nine years later and they have their own state.

Jonathan Freedland wrote a rather naive piece about the Palestinian strategy. He advocates that for Palestinians to gain momentum, they have to undertake a non-violent approach. He was also echoing Mustafa Barghouti, who believes that a reactionary response to Israeli atrocities is not the way to gain the West's support. In light of Kosovo, it seems silly NOT to take a more harder stance against their occupier. After all, against a genocidal enemy, take matters into your own hands.

What is rather disappointing is in light of the numbers Barghouti stressed, that

"Palestinian freedom of movement is more restricted now than it was on the day of all those fine speeches. Now there are 561 checkpoints on the West Bank; in November there were 520. His figures showed an increase in Israeli attacks of 220% (largely, no doubt, in retaliation for those incoming Qassams). He counted 177 Palestinian deaths since Annapolis, the vast bulk in Gaza.

Yes, it was true that the confidence-building measure of prisoner releases happened: 788 Palestinians have been set free. But how much confidence could that build when 1,152 have been newly arrested since Annapolis?"

After citing those figures, he honestly feels that striking back is not an option? Now, I have to believe that Barghouti intends on "terrorism", ie Qassams being fired willy-nilly. But having highlighted the plight of the common Palestinian, he must feel empathy for the need to retaliate. If not then he is very silly at his request that Palestinians desist from resisting their occupier; isn't that the real evil here, the occupation, and not their victims?

We all want to stress how "balanced" we are by condemning arbitrary Qassam fire and suicide bombers: that really should not be stressed, or the need for it is certainly superfluous. Of course we dismiss such actions. But what about other actions that only really is a consequence of the occupier's policy that dehumanise the Palestinians? Freedland foolishly writes in parenthesis that Israel's attacks were "in retaliation". Apparently the Palestinians here are the aggressors. You could have fooled me but Freedland wants to contextualise that Israel is only "retaliating" from terrorist attacks. Aren't Palestinians allowed the same form of "retaliation"? Gideon Levy remarked that every Qassam fire was preceded by a Palestinian casualty in the Gaza Strip. Sounds like retaliation against the occupier, which they have every legal basis to do so, unlike Kosovo's declaration of independence.

"could compare their struggle to the Martin Luther King movement for civil rights, walking and marching for their freedom... the power of mass non-violence would be undeniable."

It's great that we can advocate such strong positions when they do not threaten his existence. It's safe for Freedland to map out what Palestinians should do without bearing the brunt of punishment at the hands of Israel. I know Freedland has the best of intentions but what is lacking is the fire that emphasises that Israel has no problem in trampling any form on non-violent protests. Think the first intifada; think of the revolts of past years; think of the second intifada and why it became so bloody; what about the protests at Bi'lin? What of Rachel Corrie? What of those prisoners whom Barghouti spoke of? Are they all prisoners became they were terrorists? Or did any of them advocate a non-violent struggle against their coloniser?

This debate reminds of Ray HaCohen's piece three years ago.

"There are thousands of Palestinian Gandhis out there, then: whole villages that demonstrate daily and peacefully against the robbery of their land and livelihood. Alas, their voices are unheard – because of the Israeli undercover soldiers who throw stones from within these peaceful demonstrations, and because of commentators and movie stars who then wonder, "Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?"

There are plenty of non-violent demonstrations: you have just have to be vigilent and search for them. They do not report certain things about the conflict: Palestinian civil disobedience is not what the world wants to read or hear. And what happens when they do protest?

"We've now got a clear confirmation of what Palestinian and Israeli peace activists have been saying all along: the Israeli army would not tolerate a Gandhi-style resistance."

Apparently Freedland is unaware of these demonstrations. I guess it's hard to see the reality from where he sits and types on his laptop. True, the Palestinians are left with little to stem the tide that is happening against them. The situation is grim, but by no means is non-violence the only way to stop Israel. It seems the way Freedland thinks that people will support Palestinians is if they altogether just lay down and get bulldozed while the international community sits on their hands and applauds Kosovar Albanians for doing the unthinkable, all the while Abbas negotiates with Olmert as the East Jerusalem is getting further and further from the final status talks. Har Homa gets bigger, and more Palestinian land is stolen right from their noses. Brilliant strategy there.

With the Kosovo secession, the KLA displayed what has been a cold strategem: that violence and terror do work. Yes, you have to have the proper imperial backer on your side, and if you have that, then you have all the cards. There have been few examples that do not follow this pattern: South Africa being one of them, and Northern Ireland. There are plenty of others, but South Africa is the one that comes closer to mind.

Nelson Mandela, the first black South African president, was a murderer. What would have happened if he were liquidated? Would the African National Congress succeeded without him? He did spend time in jail and was branded a "terrorist". Would he be alive today to see the fall of apartheid if he advocated non-violence? Would the Afrikaaners not have destroyed him if he wasn't so militant? Other examples are the IRA, the FLN and the FARC. What would Northern Ireland, Algeria and Colombia be if it weren't for these organisations advocating a strong resistance that meant arms and weapons against their coloniser and oppressor? Would these movements cease to exist if they were crushed like the Israelis imprison Palestinians by advocating non-violence and being passive to every member casualty?

Let's face it, the Palestinians do need some sort of deterrant. Right now they are a punching bag for Israelis, two-fold considering their Lebanon failure and Iran being emboldened by Iraq's strife and Washington's depleted military resources. The spectre of Martin Luther King and Gandhi is a strong one, and their message is never lost: but we're not dealing with a segregated America nor a past imperial giant in Britain, with an Indian nation that had a bigger majority than the Palestinians have. Plus we're still on the cusp of a public relations battle that has Palestinians on the wrong end of the stick, ie they are not "unique". While it's great to have a plan for the Palestinians to endure their grief with non-violent protests, it's not a realistic approach considering Freedland does not even know that such a movement has been existing for many, many years. And considering that a fellow American, who embodied the ideal of non-violent resistance was bulldozed to her death, her status is still being denied of heroism and in some circles viewed as a "terrorist sympathiser". What kind of a lesson is that to advocate non-violent demonstration when a prime example of it is demonised?

No, I am certainly not advocating a resort to terrorism. The acts of the KLA are reprehensible, and most of this is purely satirical. But Freedland wants to dictate how Palestinian should react to gain legitimacy, when the actual fact is that they already have legitimate concerns to gain support for their own independence. It is merely a given that the practice of terrorism, the launching of Qassams, and the mass calls for boycott are all the consequences of the occupation.

There is no realism involved when he states that "the power of mass non-violence would be undeniable". It is undeniable, but so is Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. They imprison some 10, 000 of them, many subjected to torture. And they are meant to take it lying down in the vain hope that the West will awaken to their suffering. What's forty years of occupation, two generations? When is it going to change, any time this year? Is there any hope for a change? Do they even talk about Palestine in the primacy elections? Do the candidates differ on the Israel Factor?

All that's missing is the "uniqueness".

Settlements are illegal

With all the hubbub about the latest "terrorist" slain in Lebanon, a good piece from Ha'aretz revealed what we have been stating all along, that the settlements are in violation of international law.

"More than one-third of West Bank settlements were built on private Palestinian land that was temporarily seized by military order for "security purposes," according to a report by the Civil Administration that is being published here for the first time.

The settlements in question, which include Ariel, Kiryat Arba and Efrat, have tens of thousands of residents, and many have existed for decades. A security source termed this a "difficult statistic" that is liable to cause trouble for Israel both in Washington and its own courts."

So there we have the damning evidence, and that "more than one-third" which are home to "tens of thousands of residents" were built on Palestinian land, for the purposes of settlements. According to the article, seizure of land not for "military needs" are illegal, and that "at least 19 of the 44 settlements on the Civil Administration's list were established after 1979", when the Begin regime "decided that all new settlements or expansions of existing ones would be built only on state land", violates even Israeli law.

The settlements that fall within this boundary are numerous:

"Ariel, Efrat and Kiryat Arba - three of the largest West Bank settlements - the list includes major "ideological" settlements such as Ofra, Beit El, Psagot, Kedumim, Karnei Shomron, Elon Moreh and Shiloh; Jordan Valley settlements such as Gitit and Mechora; and even "quality of life" settlements such as Kfar Ruth, near Modi'in."

Also interesting is the fact that this information has been suppressed for so long because it might "damage the state's security and foreign relations." It even makes them more culpable towards these illegal actions, coined better by Attorney Michael Sfard saying it

"proves that systematic land theft for the purpose of establishing settlements was carried out via a fictitious and completely illegal use of the term 'military necessity.' The concealment of this information for all these years shows that the authorities also knew they were committing illegal acts."

The impact of settlements is one that should not be minimised by our media. Despite all the articles that congratulates the targeted assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, whom I had not heard of until his death that is quickly spiraling into a spin vs spin-better fluctuation, this policy to redraw the map of the West Bank into Israel's favour is one that should be at the forefront of every conference, every debate and every lecture speech. Not only has it been found of being in violation of Israel's own law of the land, the Geneva Convention is also strict on matters of land seizure.

"Article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention prohibits an occupying power from establishing settlements occupied by its nationals. And it prohibits population transfer that alters the character of the occupied land. Israel ignored the Convention and established more than 200 Jewish only settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem protected by the Israeli military. The media does not explain that most of Palestinian violence against the Israelis is triggered by the provocative presence of these settlements. Occupying power is not permitted to alter patterns of beneficial use of resources in the occupied land, but Israel has diverted most of the water from aquifers under the West Bank for use in Israel and the Jewish only settlements."

But what is most frustrating is the deafening silence we still get from the West over the settlements question; Harper does not talk about it, Bush only feigns on it every now and again, Rice is totally submissive, and Livni and Olmert prefer to deal with Gaza rather than stop what is going on in the West Bank. No mistakes about it: Gaza is important, but not in the pretext that Livni is speaking of, ie sending in the troops.

What of the settlements? What of the settlers? Right now, even more settlers are raiding the West Bank. Here's another report on the situation on the ground:

"Nine Israeli families who staked out homesteads in a valley deep in the West Bank, promised Friday to bring more settlers to the disputed area the Palestinians want for a future state, despite Israel's promises to the United States to stop settlement expansion...

The wildcat action at Maskiot, in the northern West Bank, was funded in part by a private U.S. group and is just one of recent Israeli actions to anger Palestinians as peace negotiators try to reach a final treaty."

Very gripping stuff when my neighbour south of me funds more and more settlements that destroys any hope for a Palestinian state, or is that hope really truly gone? Makes you wonder why Leviev is still being protested against since he is also prime funder for more settlements also.

What also catches my attention is this nugget of truth:

"Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Friday that the government had issued permits for construction of 307 Jewish homes in the contentious east Jerusalem neighborhood, of Har Homa, drawing fresh fire from one of the Palestinians' top peace negotiators.''

Yes. Olmert's goverment issued the permits for further construction; he's the guy who said that if there is no Palestinian state then they are left with an apartheid battle that will be the end of Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this make him some kind of sadist, that if he truly believed in what he said then he wants Israel to see its destruction? Or is it just more blanket statements that aim to appease and then just go ahead with the dismemberment of a viable Palestinian state?

What's it going to take for the advisors to notice all of this? Something tells me that it's going to be a very long wait until most Israelis turn into a questioner of Israel's failed policy and that, to quote Idith Zertal

"ominous presence of a most horrific historical event, how it has shaped a whole society, shaped a collective psyche, and served as a warrant for such [abuses]....Traumas are bad advisers...

The present is always creating a problem for us, for Israelis and Jews." (By which she included American Jews, too.) And the present is the time in which we must actually make our lives. The only way to peace for Jews is to "take responsibility for the present and the near future."

Even today we're still swimming in the plethora of Holocaust memories: the blank cheques of all blank cheques that helps cripple Palestinians and any who dare oppose Israel's bulldozing of Palestinian land. Testiments to how life is in the West Bank are available for all to see, and it's not the pretty picture that Israelis would like to tell you that Palestinians are much better off with the occupation than without it. We need no statistics on the injured, the dead and the disparity. We've seen it all before. And yet it still does not pierce the bubble that the world seems to be floating on.

We're still stuck on the same old routine here. Isn't there meant to be a candidate race going on? I don't even see the world Iraq, let alone hear about the Palestinians. In fact, most are more attuned to Obama's politics and background rather than talk about curbing Israel's landgrab in the West Bank.

When will people stand up for justice for the Palestinians? Here we have the evidence, but where's the anger and outrage? We all can't be paralysed by some notion of sympathy for the Israelis, can we? Let's take a stand and demand that Palestinians deserve a decent living. That means better water, freer borders and free from harassment and checkpoints and roadblocks and ID cards and house demolitions and targeted assassinations and olive tree uprooting and better sewage control and rights to aid and food and access to the water and...

Don't let them be silent on the cause. We can't condemn them to this struggle for a lifetime.

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.

Another slip for Olmert?

Just before Annapolis, Ehud Olmert gave a nice shock to the world when he made a statement that was all but taboo. It was quite earth-shattering; or it should have been, since it was the Prime Minister of Israel who went where no American politician was willing to go (besides an ex-President) and give credence to an apartheid analogy. Back then, Olmert made the summit of Annapolis quite the curtain call, and made the two-state solution the existential solution for Israel to remain a Jewish state. I shall remind us of what he said because it is an iconic moment:

"He [Olmert] warned of a "South African-style struggle" which Israel would lose if a Palestinian state was not established."

Olmert must be aware of the growing awareness of the "apartheid" struggle, hence his connections of Annapolis, peace processes, settlements, security and the Palestinian state being tied to the one-state solution. It didn't take a genius to clue in that with all the pitfalls of past "peace processes" that only caged in the Palestinians and even to some extent, made the occupation worse, that Palestinians both inside and outside the territories would be calling for a system that would abolish the ideology that discriminates against them and prevents them from having any rights as a human being. How long could the Palestinians trust that Israel and the US had their best interests at heart? We're heading towards the forty-first year of this "ephermeral" occupation, and with no end in sight.

But Olmert has gone a step further, this time even admitting that Israel is "not honouring its commitments" under the protocols of Annapolis; ie deconstruction of settlements or the cessation of settlement activity. Remember to bookmark that article, because it is very scarce that any politician would admit any wrong doing, let alone one that has the stakes riding on the Holy Land. Here he is at his most blatant:

"Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, called continued Israeli construction in West Bank settlements a breach of Israel's obligations under a peace plan revived in the US city of Annapolis last year.

Olmert's remarks, which appeared in an interview with the Jerusalem Post newspaper on Friday, came days before George Bush, the US president, arrives in the region.

He said: "There is a certain contradiction in this between what we are actually seeing and what we ourselves promised."

"Obligations are not only to be demanded of others, but they must also be honored by ourselves. So there is a certain problem here."

We're making great strides here and yet taking five steps backwards in the process; Israel is acknowledging that they have yet to hold up their part on the "peace" bargaining, and the onus is not SOLELY on the Palestinians to achieve some form of security blanket for Israel's kooks. With the largest military contingent and an array of nuclear weapons in the region completely dominating against a stateless, army-less and sometimes government-less people, it really is beside the point, is it not? Because Abbas the pretender cannot even keep a strangehold on his own territory, let alone attempt to gain control of Gaza. Or is Gaza simply left off the picture?

The history of the conflict is reaching new parameters now, and Olmert is taking bold steps where no Israeli leader has dared to travel: not only has there been some form of acceptance of a Palestinian struggle, it also translates that there is a justified nationalism within the Palestinian community, hergo recognition of a Palestinian right to exist. In stark comparison to past leaders who simply refused to believe that a Palestinian existed at all, or those archaic no non-sense apologists who still declare Jordan a "Palestinian state", the year 2008 may well be one of many strides and yet one of many disappointments: The strides because lately there seems to be a good turn about of opinion, not only here in Canada and the States, but also some in Israel. The disappointments because the Zionists are not going to give up without a fight, and it's a fight that they know all too well and play very dirty. We need no reminder of who they are but they still hold the high card here. Just a peak into any comment section in Ha'aretz, the Jerusalem Post, or even the NOW Magazine here in Toronto and it's plain to see that old perceptions are still hard to let go. But what's more stunning is the way the Palestinian perspective is creeping into these publications. An interesting article appeared in NOW detailing the truth about Canada Park, which was built on Palestinian land in the West Bank and subsided by your Canadian taxpayer. (Very) Slowly, the public is getting some facts about Israel's occupation that was not available to them a decade ago (unless you did some extensive research of your own).

Juxtapose these with the fact that the boycott campaign is still getting an audience, the human rights reports on the Lebanon War last year condemning Israel for its actions (as well as Hizbollah, mind you), and other little reports that are slipping its way into the internet is really unmasking David for the Goliath he really is. It's not easy to keep all of this under wraps, and with every threat into Gaza leaving more Palestinians dead, the occupation is not quite so "benevolent" as Israel's supporters would claim it to be. In Ramallah, another life is in critical condition with three shots to the back of the head by the IDF. And this is the West Bank, under Abbas' soveriegnity. Because it is Fatah-controlled, therefore Hamas is left to dry, as two of their members were taken by Israel. This is the way it will be under the current blueprint for two states: Israel imposes its will, the Palestinians have no choice but to be humiliated.

But what is the most damning are those settlements. And I hate to be a broken record but it is this attempt to "create facts on the ground" that ultimately will lead to another intifada or another disaster, whichever comes first. Making apartheid is something that should not be tolerated, and it seems that most Western nations are complicit since there is no outcry or no cessation of funds that continue to pay for these violations of international law. Whether it be the United States, Canada, Australia or Great Britain, there is a trickle that connects us with the occupation in one form or another, however minute it could be. It's as simple as your tax dollars finding its way into the Middle East or a purchase from the biggest bookstore in the city. I'm not equating this ignorant act from one that overtly supports Israel, but if we do educate ourselves maybe we can help this boycott a little, create a fiasco over those settlements that is strangling the Palestinians fight for a state.

Why such an opposition towards these settlements? Not only are they illegal, but they are infringing on every part of Palestinian life. They are deleting the agriculture, the economy of the Palestinians, surrounding their villages into enclaves, cutting them off from other parts of the West Bank (especially East Jerusalem) and finding their water going to the Jews. It has gotten so bad that the Israeli government is withholding the publication of the Spiegel Report for fears that the conclusion would not be pleasing for Washington. (Missing the point entirely since Bush has been silent on this issue and basically legitimised it a couple of years back.)

"Military sources said that the report has been kept secret to avoid embarrassing Israel's relations with Washington.

Under the internationally-backed roadmap, Israel must freeze all settlement activities and vacate settlements constructed after March 2001.

The Spiegel report is seen as the largest database ever compiled by state authorities on settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian lands.

It reveals extensive building in key settlements, often on privately owned Palestinian lands.

The report's data came from the Civil Administrative and other Israeli government agencies as well as from photographic sorties carried out by civilian aircraft.

The report was compiled in response to incomplete figures provided by the government on settlement activities in the occupied lands."

The Report revealed what was known to everyone on the ground; so this was not news. However, due to the censorship of the authorities, it is all the more damning that these settlements are the focal point of the occupation, one that is displacing Palestinians, usurping their land and making them refugees in the process. Attempting to deflect the issue, it only makes the case against the settlements stronger. All along, this activity has been relatively tolerated by the West, leaving Palestinians to fend for themselves, putting faith in brokered agreements that was meant to alleviate the hardship of a land stolen. Oslo, Taba, Camp David, the Road Map; this all led to more settlements. The Palestinian state was a desired 22% of historic Palestine; now they are left with half of the West Bank with the Jordan Valley in complete Israeli control. Jeff Halper said that Israel will have "two Eastern borders". That's unheard of in today's civilised society.

Now with Olmert admitting that Israel is not doing its part for the sake of peace, we've got no option now but to demand that Israel cease the construction of "extended" settlements. To find out the toll the Palestinians are taking thanks to the settlers, read this enlightening article by Janine Roberts. She witnesses how the farmers are subjected to the settlers, how the Israeli soldiers are reluctant to remove them or accost them when they do harm to civilians, and how the police are arriving too little and too late. When the settlers are removed, "the young settlers reoccupied it as they had done every other time". The army would evict them only for the settlers to return at night. They have a free reign on the land.

"Everywhere I travelled around the West Bank, from Nablus in the north to Hebron in the south, from Jerusalem to Jericho... Israeli’s army aggressively patrols every Palestinian town and village seemingly at least once a week – and everywhere the Israeli settlements were busily expanding and establishing new outposts on Palestinian agricultural lands."

And there have been announcements that more settlements will be built. How is this meant to help bolster Abbas? How is this meant to implement Annapolis or the Road Map? Or is this all a sham that is leaving the Palestinians with no option but to accept a Bantustan? Is Olmert serious about a Palestinian state? Is he serious when he speaks of an existential threat for Israel when a one-state solution is argued?

Talking about it is one thing; we can all speculate on why Olmert would be dovish, when most of the Knesset is quite hawkish, or rather, very Zionist to a little Zionist. We are now living in times where Zionism is severely questioned, the Palestinian question is getting a debate or even a say in the conflict in some areas, and Zionists across the board are trying to fit their affinity for a Jewish safe-haven but trying to salvage some form of humanism when it comes to treating their counterparts. They want their Jewish state but yet they want to be free of discriminating Arabs. It simply cannot happen. They cannot have democracy and have a Jewish Israel. It's either one or the other.

Olmert has the power to do something about it. Bush has the power to do something about it. The settlers like to believe that God is on their side or that the politicians are too weak to stop them. The army is with them on that issue; Olmert is stuck in an imbroglio with the Winograd Report. Barak is still Barak. But, as Mark Elf has asked, "are the settlements building themselves?"

Yes. It can be done. Even that war criminal Ariel Sharon dismantled settlements in Gaza. Olmert, who may not have Sharon's temerity or outreach, could really be an opportunist and take it so we can have a dialogue for justice. This issue is not going to fade away. It permeates throughout the world and it won't stop until there is justice. Stop the settlements, Olmert, if you are truly serious about Annapolis. If not, then you doom that summit all too premature (even though most knew it was a failure before it begun). It's refreshing to hear your words, but the settlements don't build themselves.

Celebrities and the Palestinians

These are interesting times: Christmas rolls on by along with Eid and Hannukah, as well as other denominational holidays too that doesn't want to be left off the dialogue here. The spirit of giving, goodwill and cheer as the new year nears and it is time to start afresh and make new bridges and leave the past behind us, except in the city of Christ's birth, as Christmas was canceled thanks to the continuing encroachment of Israel's land confiscation. It's amazing that a city so famed throughout the West, as well as a story that I grew up "worshipping", is turned into a spectacular ghetto, with people caged in and a wall that splits the ancient Bethlehem into smithereens. This is the place of Jesus, the celebration that Christmas is meant to be about, and his birthplace is destroyed.

So where are all those bastions of human rights, ie those celebrities who do nothing but good in the name of humanity? I mean, we all know the US is silent when it comes to these pertinent issues, but where's that famed "do-gooder" Angelina Jolie who has topped a celebrity Reuters poll for top humanitarian? Sure, the suffering in Africa is a good cause, no? Where did all that LiveAfrica aid go to, I wonder? Is Bono listening? Or too busy praising that war criminal Tony Blair, who's the Middle East peace envoy? Where's George Clooney and his comrades when you need them? Yes, the Save Darfur campaign is gaining strides, even though it's a conflict more complex than they dare to imagine, or even investigate. They claim that they are confronting hotly contested issues (ie Iraq) but stop short when it comes to the Holy Land. Here Clooney accuses his opponents of attempting to "destroy his career"; last I checked the Iraq war is not very popular, and if you want destroyed careers, check out Norman Finkelstein.

And it's not for lack of evidence either. There are scores of human rights reports by Amnesty International, B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. A review of all these concludes that Israel is in direction violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions. So why all the silence here?

I think we know why. Perhaps touching this issue would be career-icide for any who oppose it. Have a gander at one Susan Sarandon. Here we have an outspoken opponent of the Iraq War (No surprise there. Who isn't nowadays?), and "likes to speak out when she sees an injustice", but it all is torn to shreds when she wines and dines at Lev Leviev's jewellery store. The focus of some controversy, apparently Sarandon's advocacy for justice is limited to those which really aren't very politicised, or aren't romanticised by Hollywood (think of Blood Diamonds) thanks to the newfound affinity for Africa's plight. As far as the occupied territories goes, all rules, or more appropriately, all human rights are thrown out the window.

Silverstien describes Leviev as a man who "has become wealthy in his chosen profession by trafficking in Angolan diamonds." Also adding that he participates with the Land Redemption Fund, "which purchases land under false pretenses from Palestinian owners in order to transfer them to settlement ownership". No human rights violations there, correct?

Sarandon has been targeted by the Jewish Voice for Peace, Adalah-NY and Jayyous’ Land Defense Committee. In addition, two Palestinian villages have joined the call for Sarandon to join their campaign against the settlement intensification. Despite her explanation that she has no "ties", her act has her on the side of a certain Alan Dershowitz who had to show his unified support for settlement activity and its proponents.

How interesting considering that the Arab League has recently denounced that settlements are the main blockade towards peace, and many have (correctly) labelled that it is Israel's expansionism that is effectively destroying the possibilities of a two-state solution.

"It is now clear that the settlements issue will destroy any hope of peace and will break the course of Annapolis."

And both Sarandon confesses to be an advocate of justice as well as Dershowitz who has been noted on many occasions (thanks largely to himself trying to convince himself) that he is in support of a two-state solution. The evidence is damning: settlements means no Palestinian state. It has been Israeli policy since the aftermath of the 1967 war. All the Palestinians have left is a Bantustan, Israeli-style. It's is all the more magnified when you get the attitudes of the Orthodoxy who squat on Palestinian land.

"In my view, Israel from the Mediterranean to the Jordan Valley is a Jewish state," said Goldstein, 48, a mechanical engineer and air force veteran who is mayor of a group of settlements that form the Gush Etzion Regional Council. "Its lands are earmarked first and foremost for Jewish citizens."

Meaning there is no place for the Arabs, both within the occupied territories and in Israel proper. Why do you think that the Israeli Arabs continue to be vilified and "they only draw a meager 1% of media coverage – most of it negative in nature", despite the fact that they make up 20% of Israel's population? With no voice at all, it's easier to turn them into something less human or into caricatures, or "demographic bombs". Hanan Ashrawi lays it out for all to see:

"To me, the demographic argument is by definition racist. I think Palestinians have the right to independence, statehood and self-determination as a legal and political imperative. It is not an issue that has to become a threat or that we formulate in response to somebody else's position."

So now we have a state that wants to remove Palestinians, and is making them into second-to-ninth grade citizens, all with the inherent racist ideology that Israel wants the occupied to recognise as legitimate, something that gives Israel the stamp of approval that what they do to the Palestinians is okay because Zionism says so? Sarandon is in bed with all of them when she is silent amongst the picketers at New York, doing business with a known funder of settlements. So much for all her "justice" talk. It's easy to denounce slaughters when the atmosphere is so chic, but the Palestinians are still negatives in the celebrity quo. Sometimes even Adolf Hitler gets a repreive from them.

Sure, "evil" is interpreted within the eye of the beholder. I'm positive those settlers who make life a living hell for the Palestinians are doing "good" in their eyes, or those IDF soldiers are doing what's good for their racist state when they slay an innocent civilian. But what is one meant to say when they get "giddy about killing"?

"In fact, most people must be trained to disregard the humanity of others in order to be capable of killing them."

I guess it's a "good" thing to see yourself as superior to your fellow man. With all that hubris, it's harder and harder to testify that what they are doing is not a deliberate act of aggression with a goal to scare and terrorise. Or when a soldier pens a song about the celebration of killing Iraqis, does he know he's doing the wrong thing? Let's not get lost that Hitler was the only one capable of "evil". Would Will Smith have been forced to apologise if he directed those comments against the IDF and the US soldier? Would he be wrong to say it? Or do we just get backpatting from our celebrities who want to "bring our soldiers home" and save them from the mess they created? Perhaps we'll just make a terrible movie about it.

What would be remarkable is if these "heroes" of ours actually made themselves effectual and did something of character. This is not meant to minimise the terrible conditions that the African continent is in; in fact, aid is not enough to help them. If Jolie and her gang truly wanted to stop the bleeding, they would speak out against the policies that cripple their economy, and the corporations that help benefit from their destitution and robbery. Conflicts diamonds, war for oil, AIDS, and corruption are only part of the problem. Do not give a get out of jail free card to those G-8 nations who only want to keep Africa in its current state of disaster. They bankrupt the system that has the profits channeling into the fatcat's pockets.

Or what if they made an issue out of Israel's settlements? Now that would be true courage. Think of the examples the residents of Bil'in are setting; these are people who are left with nothing and who are up against a state that is backed by the biggest superpower today. They stand up to Goliath.

And not to be forgotten are those members of Adalah-NY. Their persistence is creating a stir that is more than welcome. And their chants are quite a thing of genius. Let's show our solidarity. (To the tune of "Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel".)

“Apartments for Jews only, Discrimination, sure! He thinks Palestine's the problem, and Apartheid is the cure!
Oh boycott boycott boycott, Don't buy Leviev today Funds crime with all that profit, Who needs diamonds anyway?
Then one cold November eve, Leviev came to town He put a store here in New York, But we will shut him down!
Leviev your crimes are showing, Your deeds are getting hard to hide No matter what you call it, We say NO to apartheid!”

The significance of Har Homa

Philip Weiss indicates that the presence of Har Homa, a settlement built in the 90s around the vicinity of East Jerusalem, is a prime example of how strong Israel's supporters are in Washington, so much so that they were able to paralyse President Clinton in his denouncement of the construction.

"In 1997 the Netanyahu government resolved to build Har Homa, under pressure from the right wing, including Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert, now the P.M., who was adamant about the need for the development's 6500 units, for Israeli Jews.

Yasir Arafat was enraged by the plans. Har Homa would serve to cut the southern West Bank off from East Jerusalem, and would violate the Oslo accords, which called on Israel not to establish any more "facts on the ground." Arafat said Har Homa was likely to detonate an "explosion" among Palestinians and he would respond to Har Homa with the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.

Arafat felt he had moved Clinton; but when he arrived at Andrews Air Force base to leave the country, he got a call from Dennis Ross. Ross informed him that Netanyahu was refusing to freeze the settlement.

Clinton did send a letter to Netanyahu asking him to postpone construction, the authors report. But Netanyahu blew that off.

The settlements have been a disaster, everyone agrees on that. And they arose from political pressures inside Israel...These settlements have been a pox on the peace process, as threatening to international security as Hamas's rise or Iran's noises about a bomb...Where is the American spine? Can you imagine an American president deferring to any other head of state in similar circumstances? The spinelessness can only be explained politically: that our government also has rightwing constituents engaged on the issue."

It's a sad fact that when a peace process is underway, with concessions forever asked of Palestinians while Israel refuses to define their borders, they accelerate their annexation, preceding to built more settlements in order to delegitimise a future Palestinian state, creating more "facts on the ground" to prevent any sovereignity, only autonomy "through the occupier". (Think Gaza.) All of this is not new. It is a testament as to how strong Israel's apologists are in the circles of policy wonks. Clinton balked. He didn't want to feel the sting of the Lobby. President Bush was helpless to halt Ariel Sharon in his continued building on the West Bank, even more so that he was called "a man of peace" for destroying more Palestinian homes and taking more of their land, at a time when Palestinian violence was rather low. Har Homa is typical. Tanya Reinhart concluded that

"But the new settlement is an irreversible act which eliminates their chances to ever get such rights [over Jerusalem]."

In conjuction, the US Government "vetoed two different UN Security Council resolutions that called on Israel to stop construction at Har Homa. The U.S. was the only country of the 15 members on the council to vote against the resolution." This along with the fact that the US (along with Israel and Micronesia) "were the only countries among the 185 members in the UN General Assembly to vote against an April 1997 resolution demanding an immediate halt to construction at Har Homa."

We hold our hopes in the mediator called the United States; but with all their actions in the Middle East, only a fool could accept such a broker in talks of peace. No one in the Third World is impressed with all the sophistry, no matter how many times you can call it "freedom", or a benevolent occupation, or a "peace envoy", it simply is not. The facts prove another result: that Palestinians are being tortured, assassinated, imprisons children, humiliated, starved, punished, prevented from leaving their homes or going to work, and "voluntarily" transferred.

But all that is necessary for the beauty that is Har Homa.

"As of 2006, there were approximately 2000 families, 8 kindergartens, 2 day care centers, 2 public grammar schools, 3 medical clinics, and 3 shopping centers."

It is important to remember that all of this construction is in violation of international law, further settlements encapsulates Zionist policy towards the West Bank, and continued annexation of Palestinian land is meant to halt any hope of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. By ignoring this, or perhaps by pre-empting such a fact of contiguity, Israel aims to halt any possibility of a state for Palestinians, that they want them off the land and driven to Jordan (or other neighbouring states). This is common knowledge, especially for any congressman in Washington. But what other state could thumb their noses at the biggest superpower today and adamantly refuse a condition that the US President maintains is an obligation towards a genuine peace settlement in this dialectic?

There are other shining examples of such dualities that seems to escape any scrutiny (but more and more people are seeing the equation for what it is). And the debate rages on. How long can people shut their eyes before they see that these people are dangerous and their cantankerous distortions of policy is detrimental to their so called desires for "peace"? Unless their true intention is an Israel hegemony over the Middle East region, to which it is not us of the left who support "terrorists" but rather the right who support "extremists", then the expose of Israel's espionage should only be intensified.

James Petras reveals in his stunning article that it was the Israel Lobby that pushed for the invasion of Iraq, and the theory of "Big Oil" only clouds the true reason that the war took place, and "[T]he price of the ‘exonerate Israel’ strategy is to overlook the powerful role that the Israel First lobby is playing" to promote future wars (ie Iran) and exculpate the occupier from their duties under the Geneva Accords.

"Analytically, the differences between Israeli state policy and the leading US Zionist organizations are, with very rare exceptions, indistinguishable... An analysis of the relationship between the Israeli state and highly placed Zionist officials in the Bush Administration reveals first and foremost that Tel Aviv laid out the strategic policies of eliminating Middle East regimes opposed to its ethnic cleansing of the occupied territories and unlimited expansion of colonial settlements in Occupied Palestine and the consolidation of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.

Mearsheimer and Walt describe the pro-Israel power configuration as a ‘lobby, just like any other US lobby’, a ‘loose collection of individuals and groups’ outside of government, acting on behalf of Israel. Nothing could be further from the truth. The power of Israel in the United States is manifested through a multiplicity of highly organized, well financed and centrally directed structures throughout the United States."

Although Petras may have overstated the influence of The Lobby to invade Iraq on Israel's behalf, the ratio between Bush and his corporate constituencies, Israel's good name and Cheney's lunacy is probably a question reserved for the historians of the future to analyse, it is beyond a doubt that the war in Iraq would not have taken place without the likes of "Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrook, Sandy Berger, William Cohen" in Clinton's administration and "Ari Fleischer, Paul Wolfowitz, David Frum, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Eliott Abrams, Irving (Scooter) Libby, David Wurmser and others" during Bush's reign calling for the attack of Iraq (and to remodel the Middle East in Likudnik style). With key players in very important posts, offensives against Lebanon last year and Syrian strikes make more sense when juxtaposed with the PNAC strategy set up for Bibi all those years ago. In addition to this, the aggressive Israeli position against the Palestinians, which provoke more retaliation and hatred, hence more "terrorism", is overlooked thanks to the many who want to control what is said about the Jewish State. The list of "anti-Semites" is growing, Zionism is losing its luster, more are aware of Israel's human rights record, and the people who count are getting sick and tired of the war in Iraq. So why is it that the only candidates we can look forward to are just as hawkish as the ones we despise today?

It is because of what we have been speaking about all this time: those settlements, that war in Iraq, the smearing of respected figures in public, contemn of those who are willing to go out of line to reveal the true nature of Israel's occupation and treatment of Palestinians, the belligerent status of Israel's position against its neighbouring states (ie Lebanon and Syria), and the looming war in Iran, one that has military experts clamouring to show that that would be a disaster that makes Iraq look like a cakewalk; the Lobby has usurped the leadership and have seduced the public into thinking that all of this is necessary for Israel's good, which equals to America's well being. We can bet on more bellicose planning for the region, all configured to benefit the Jewish State and accomodate their whims. They wanted Saddam removed: they did it for us. They want Iran to be hit: the tough talk is not just for show. They want to keep Syria at bay besides their desire to improve relations: so they bomb them and can get away with it. They want Iran to be nuke-free while they keep their nukes under wraps: done. They want the Palestinians to continue their suffering and to be decimated, forever removed from reality, removed from history, removed from consciousness: it happens as we speak. What is next can only be speculated.