The Glaring Truth

Avatar on Earth

2010-02-24T17:46:00.000-08:00

American war veteran about the real enemy

2010-02-14T08:37:00.000-08:00

American soldiers telling the Reality of War on Terror!

2009-11-20T20:59:00.000-08:00

The Road to Guantanamo

2009-10-08T22:15:00.000-07:00

Turkish PM Erdogan at Davos

2009-02-03T16:31:00.000-08:00

"60 Minutes" on the two state solution

2009-01-31T20:13:00.000-08:00

EDITORIAL: Does Israel fear its friends more than its enemies?

2009-01-23T19:00:00.000-08:00

http://warincontext.org/2009/01/22/editorial-does-israel-fear-its-friends-more-than-its-enemies/

This article is about George Mitchell, Obama's pick for Middle East envoy:

The peace process has become a facade. Behind this facade, inside Israel, there has arisen a hardening conviction that peace is not possible. Mitchell poses a direct challenge to that conviction because he comes in with the opposite view:

…from my experience in Northern Ireland I formed the conviction that there is no such thing as a conflict that can’t be ended. Conflicts are created and conducted by human beings. They can be ended by human beings. I saw it happen in Northern Ireland although admittedly it took a very long time. I believe deeply that with committed, persevering and active diplomacy it can happen in the Middle East.
The real question that confronts Israel is not, what can advance the peace process? The question is much starker: does Israel still believe in the possibility of peace or has it become resigned to existing in a perpetual state of war?

Yet to pose this question is to expose the fragility of the security bubble inside which Israel currently chooses to reside. For as much as Israel likes to assume the posture of an indomitable military power, the simple truth is that Israel’s military might is utterly dependent on America’s patronage — hence the threat posed by America as honest broker, as opposed to loyal defender. As honest broker, America cannot perpetually provide Israel with the option of choosing war instead of peace.

Self-defence is no defence

2009-01-22T09:31:00.000-08:00

As more testimony emerges from the ruins of Gaza, evidence is stacking up that Israel has a war crimes case to answer

By: Michael Paulin

Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a state can take military action without the prior authorisation of the Security Council if it is acting in self-defence. Yet, as CNN has reported, it was Israel – and not Hamas fighters – that broke the ceasefire. On the November 4 2008, Israel shelled the villages of Wadi al-Salqa and al-Qarara, killing six Hamas activists.

It is true that Israel has suffered from Hamas rocket attacks. Insofar as these attacks indiscriminately target civilian areas, Hamas would be guilty of war crimes under the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Yet, in the past eight years, Palestinian rockets fired from Gaza have killed around 20 people in southern Israel. Israel's response is neither necessary nor proportionate.

At the time of writing, after 23 days of bombardment, more than 1,300 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, including 410 children and 104 women, while 5,300 are seriously injured, of whom 1,855 are children and 795 women. Israel has shelled three clearly marked UN schools, the existence and GPS coordinates of which Israel had been repeatedly notified. Israel has shelled the headquarters of UNRWA, the UN's relief agency (which is responsible with providing aid to 750,000 Palestinians), and it has shelled and bombed hospitals, ambulances, and medical personnel. In typical Israeli fashion, it has bulldozed homes without warning in an attempt to bury the inhabitants alive. Recent UN human rights reports expose that the Israeli army has deliberately used white phosphorus on civilians, which is prohibited "in all circumstances" under Protocol III of the Convention on Conventional Weapons, and evidence has emerged that Israeli snipers have deliberately targeted civilians.

On January 4, Israeli soldiers evacuated approximately 110 Palestinians into a single-residence house in Zeitoun and warned them to stay indoors. Half of the evacuees were children. Twenty-four hours later, Israeli forces shelled the home repeatedly, killing 30 of the inhabitants, although more bodies are likely to be recovered from the ruins.

After several days of requesting safe passage to the area, on January 7, during a three-hour lull in hostilities, an ICRC medical team was finally allowed in on foot (without ambulances) into the closed military area to evacuate any remaining survivors. According to testimonies gathered by the UN, Palestinian children were left unable to walk or speak, in shock and weeping by the bodies of their dead mothers. When the IDF finally let through the International Committee of the Red Cross, the children were led from the building past dogs eating the corpses of the victims.

Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights and a former international criminal court judge from South Africa, has stated that the incident in Zeitoun "appears to have all the elements of war crimes". Israel has not ratified the 1998 Rome Statute, so its leaders cannot be brought before the International Criminal Court in the Hague, unless the UN security council itself refers Israel's actions to the ICC. The US abstained from the recent UN security council resolution calling for a ceasefire, and it would almost certainly wield its powers as a permanent member of the security council to veto any attempt to refer Israeli leaders to the ICC.

In UK law, the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1995 attempt to afford the domestic courts universal jurisdiction for "grave breaches" of humanitarian law. This includes wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, extensive destruction and appropriation of property, which was not justified by military necessity and was carried out unlawfully and wantonly. Attacks on the wounded, the sick, or against medical units and personnel also constitute grave breaches, as does making the civilian population the object of attack practices of apartheid and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination.

On September 10 2005, the chief London magistrate Timothy Workman issued a warrant for the arrest of the retired Israeli Major General Doron Almog, in relation to the wanton destruction of 59 houses in Rafah refugee camp on January 10 2002. After Almog had landed at Heathrow, he was tipped off and he flew back to Israel. Perversely, the attempt to bring Almog to justice for war crimes caused the then foreign secretary, Jack Straw, to apologise to his Israeli counterpart for the attempted arrest. As Arthur Neslen has observed, it would seem that war crimes are fine, so long as someone says sorry afterwards.

Palestinians are living under occupation, and are therefore "protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Protected persons may not be punished for crimes that they themselves have not committed, and their collective punishment constitutes a war crime.
Israel's attempt to claim self-defence as a justification for the separation wall, which annexes swathes of Palestinian land, has already been rejected by the International Court of Justice. On July 9 2004, the International Court of Justice provided its advisory opinion that the construction of the wall is contrary to international law and that Israel was obliged to dismantle the wall forthwith. The court rejected Israel's defence that the separation wall is justified under the doctrine of self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

When the Middle East envoy for the Quartet, former UK prime minister Tony Blair, was interviewed by Gavin Esler on BBC Newsnight on January 9, he opined that a ceasefire had not been possible because: "I think that there are still real issues about what can be done to stop the smuggling of the arms going into Gaza and then the opening of the crossings so that there can be proper humanitarian help." Blair effectively makes the Palestinians' right to humanitarian aid dependent upon whether their democratically elected leadership can be prevented from bringing arms into Gaza.

Yet, as Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: "To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate." It would appear that Blair regards international law as either irrelevant or a hindrance.

Despite the Israeli supreme court's recent ruling in favour of the petitioner, the Foreign Press Association, that foreign journalists must be allowed into Gaza, the Israeli state prevented proper access throughout its attack. As the FPA's lawyer, Gilead Sher, observed: "There are several countries in this world, such as North Korea, Zimbabwe and Burma, that ban press coverage in conflict zones." Israel must ask itself whether this is really the company it wants to keep.

Anti-Islam Hate Speech to be prosecuted in Netherlands

2009-01-21T09:35:00.000-08:00

Via Reuters:

Right-wing Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who has made a short film accusing the Koran of inciting violence, must be prosecuted for anti-Islam comments, an Amsterdam court said.

The court overruled the public prosecutor who had declined to prosecute Mr Wilders, whose film Fitna urged Muslims to tear out hate-filled verses from the Koran.

"The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs," the court said in a statement.

Good news. We should not tolerate hate speech - against Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, or non-religious people.

Freedom of speech is one thing. And a valuable thing.

But defamation and slander should be exposed for what it is. Especially when it purposefully inflames tensions between people.

Let's expect better from our politicians, and discourage them to spread misinformation.

See article.

Stephen M. Walt: The myth of Israel's strategic genius

2009-01-20T14:02:00.000-08:00

Stephen M. Walt, Professor of International Relations at Harvard University, pens an interesting article regarding the view of the Israeli army and its successes and defeats through the years.

Excerpt:

"The moral of this story is that there is no reason to think that Israel always has well-conceived strategies for dealing with the problems that it faces. In fact, Israel's strategic judgment seems to have declined steadily since the 1970s -- beginning with the 1982 invasion of Lebanon -- perhaps because unconditional U.S. support has helped insulate Israel from some of the costs of its actions and made it easier for Israel to indulge strategic illusions and ideological pipe-dreams. Given this reality, there is no reason for Israel's friends -- both Jewish and gentile -- to remain silent when it decides to pursue a foolish policy. And given that our "special relationship" with Israel means that the United States is invariably associated with Jerusalem's actions, Americans should not hesitate to raise their voices to criticize Israel when it is acting in ways that are not in the U.S. national interest.

"Those who refuse to criticize Israel even when it acts foolishly surely think they are helping the Jewish state. They are wrong. In fact, they are false friends, because their silence, or worse, their cheerleading, merely encourages Israel to continue potentially disastrous courses of action. Israel could use some honest advice these days, and it would make eminently good sense if its closest ally were able to provide it. Ideally, this advice would come from the president, the secretary of state, and prominent members of Congress -- speaking as openly as some politicians in other democracies do. But that's unlikely to happen, because Israel's supporters make it almost impossible for Washington to do anything but reflexively back Israel's actions, whether they make sense or not. And they often do not these days."

Read more: http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/17/the_myth_of_israels_strategic_genius

Walt, in his article, links a few other websites:

(1) The blog "Tikun Alum", blog post entitled "Join American Jews in Condemning Gaza War"

In this post the author is collecting signature for a statement, which ends in saying:

Finally, as American Jewish progressives, and as human beings, we condemn Hamas and Israel for violating the human rights of civilians on both sides, although we do not necessarily declare these violations to be morally or legally equivalent. We affirm the rights of both Israeli and the Palestinian peoples to self-determination and self-defense, as we affirm the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

(2) An article by Glenn Greenwald published on Salon.com entitled "Both parties cheerlead still more loudly for Israel's war"

Glenn notes how:

[...] much of the world is urging an end to the war and acting to forge a cease-fire -- except the United States. Here, blind and unequivocal support for the Israeli attack is actually increasing almost as fast as the Palestinian body count piles up. Apparently, it isn't enough that we supply the very bombs being dropped on the Palestinians and use our U.N. veto power to prevent any U.N. action to stop the war or even to urge its cessation. The U.S. Congress wants to involve the U.S. further still in Israel's war.

(3) a very interesting youtube video of an orthodox Jew British MP who said that Israel is acting like Nazis in Gaza

Please review these materials.

Who started it?

2009-01-19T16:37:00.000-08:00

Of course we can take this question, "who started it?", all the way back to the beginning. But let's briefly take a look at an interesting fact regarding the recent history in light of the 2008-2009 Gaza Massacre:

From The Guardian (guardian.co.uk), 5 November 2008:

"A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory.
"The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away.
"'This was a pinpoint operation intended to prevent an immediate threat,' the Israeli military said in a statement. 'There is no intention to disrupt the ceasefire, rather the purpose of the operation was to remove an immediate and dangerous threat posted by the Hamas terror organisation.'
"Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, had personally approved the Gaza raid, the Associated Press said. The Israeli military concluded that Hamas was likely to want to continue the ceasefire despite the raid, it said. The ceasefire was due to run for six months and it is still unclear whether it will stretch beyond that limit."

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians

It is OK to blame Hamas for any crimes they commit.

It should also be OK to blame Israel for any crimes they commit.

What is not OK is to create a misleading timeline which begins with a barrage of rockets from the Gaza Strip, and try to pretend such an action was entirely unprovoked.

A very sad example of this is the comparison being made by very smug commenters on American TV newsmedia, including US politicians. They seem to think they can compare the rockets fired from Gaza to a hypothetical scenario whereby Canada was shooting rockets at the USA.

The USA does not keep Canada in an isolated state, cutting off food and money, causing living condition to be miserable on purpose as a collective punishment (for existing?).

People do not shoot missiles for no reason. Why do some people think this is the case? If violence is happening, it must be the violent person who is at fault? Do they not know how their own country was founded on violence? Violence towards British redcoats? Violence toward indigenous natives?

If anyone desired peace they would strive to create the conditions for peace.

By deeming the entire Palestinian race as "terrorist", the supporters of the Israeli government allow themselves to justify genocide, often in the name of God.

2009-01-18T20:00:00.000-08:00

Published on Saturday, January 17, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

Punishing the Palestinians

by Ralph Nader

In the long sixty-year tortured history of the Palestinian expulsion from their lands, Congress has maintained that it is always the Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority, and now Hamas who are to blame for all hostilities and their consequences with the Israeli government.

The latest illustration of this Washington puppet show, backed by the most modern weapons and billions of taxpayer dollars annually sent to Israel, was the grotesquely one-sided Resolutions whisked through the Senate and the House of Representatives.

While a massive bombing and invasion of Gaza was underway, the resolution blaming Hamas for all the civilian casualties and devastation-99% of it inflicted on Palestinians-zoomed through the Senate by voice vote and through the House by a vote of 390 to 5 with 22 legislators voting present.

There is more dissent against this destruction of Gaza among the Israeli people, the Knesset, the Israeli media, and Jewish-Americans than among the dittoheads on Capitol Hill.

The reasons for such near-unanimous support for Israeli actions-no matter how often they are condemned by peace advocates such as Bishop Desmond Tutu, United Nations resolutions, the World Court and leading human rights groups inside and outside of Israel, are numerous. The pro-Israeli government lobby, and the right-wing Christian evangelicals, lubricated by campaign money of many Political Action Committees (PACs) certainly are key.

There is also more than a little bigotry in Congress against Arabs and Muslims, reinforced by the mass media yahoos who set new records for biased reporting each time this conflict erupts.

The bias is clear. It is always the Palestinians' fault. Right-wingers who would never view the U.S. government as perfect see the Israeli government as never doing anything wrong. Liberals who do not hesitate to criticize the U.S. military view all Israeli military attacks, invasions and civilian devastation as heroic manifestations of Israeli defense.

The inversion of history and the scope of amnesia know no limits. What about the fact that the Israeli government drove Palestinians from their lands in 1947-48 with tens of thousands pushed into the Gaza strip. No problem to Congress.

Then the fact that the Israeli government cruelly occupied, in violation of UN resolutions, the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and only removed its soldiers and colonists from Gaza (1.5 million people in a tiny area twice the size of the District of Columbia) in 2005. To Congress, the Palestinians deserved it.

Then when Hamas was freely elected to run Gaza, the Israeli authorities cut off the tax revenues on imports that belonged to the Gaza government. This threw the Gazans into a fiscal crisis-they were unable to pay their civil servants and police.

In 2006, the Israelis added to their unrelieved control of air, water and land around the open-air prison by establishing a blockade. The natives became restless. Under international law, a blockade is an act of war. Primitive rockets, called by reporters "wildly inaccurate" were fired into Israel. During this same period, Israeli soldiers and artillery and missiles would go into Gaza at will and take far more lives and cause far more injuries than those incurred by those rockets. Civilians-especially children, the infirm and elderly-died or suffered week after week for lack of medicines, medical equipment, food, electricity, fuel and water which were embargoed by the Israelis.

Then the Israeli bombing followed by the invasion during the past three weeks with what prominent Israeli writer Gideon Levy called "a brutal and violent operation...far beyond what was needed for protecting the people in its south." Mr. Levy observed what the president of the United Nations General Assembly, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann called a war against "a helpless and defenseless imprisoned population."

The horror of being trapped from fleeing the torrent of the most modern weapons of war from the land, air and seas is reflected in this passage from Amira Hass, writing in the leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

"The earth shaking under your feet, clouds of choking smoke, explosions like a fireworks display, bombs bursting into all-consuming flames that cannot be extinguished with water, mushroom clouds of pinkish-red smoke, suffocating gas, harsh burns on the skin, extraordinary maimed live and dead bodies."

Ms. Hass is pointing to the use of new anti-civilian weapons used on the Gazan people. So far there have been over 1100 fatalities, many thousands of injuries and the destruction of homes, schools, mosques, hospitals, pharmacies, granaries, farmer's fields and many critical public facilities. The clearly marked UN headquarters and UN school were smashed, along with stored medicines and food supplies.

Why? The Congressional response: "Hamas terrorists" everywhere. Sure, defending their Palestinian families is called terrorism. The truth is there is no Hamas army, airforce and navy up against the fourth most powerful military in the world. As one Israeli gunner on an armored personnel carrier frankly said to The New York Times: "They are villagers with guns. They don't even aim when they shoot."

Injured Gazans are dying in damaged hospital corridors, bleeding to death because rescuers are not permitted to reach them or are endangered themselves. Thousands of units of blood donated by Jordanians are stopped by the Israeli blockade. Israel has kept the international press out of the Gazan killing fields.
What is going on in Gaza is what Bill Moyers called it earlier this month - "state terrorism." Already about 400 children are known to have died. More will be added who are under the rubble.

Since 2002, more than 50 Arab and Muslim nations have had a standing offer, repeated often, that if Israel obeys several UN resolutions and withdraws to the 1967 borders leaving 22 percent of the original Palestine for an independent Palestinian state, they will open full diplomatic relations and there will be peace. Israel has declined to accept this offer.

None of these and many other aspects of this conflict matter to the Congress. Its members do not want to hear even from the Israeli peace movement, composed of retired generals, security chiefs, mayors, former government ministers, and members of the Knesset. In 60 years these savvy peace advocates have not been able to give one hour of testimony before a Congressional Committee.

Maybe members of Congress may wish to weigh the words of the founder of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, years ago when he said:

"There has been anti-Semitism the Nazis Hitler Auschwitz but was that their [the Palestinian's] fault? They only see one thing: We have come here and stolen their country."

Doesn't that observation invite some compassion for the Palestinian people and their right to be free of Israeli occupation, land and water grabs and blockades in the 22 percent left of Palestine?

Inauguation Hunger Strike

2009-01-18T13:49:00.000-08:00

Gaza is dying. War crimes are being committed every single day, and the world is watching in silence. We have gathered, demonstrated and tried to make the world aware, but nothing is changing and the blood shed is not stopping. Let us unite on the American Inauguration day on a food strike, for a change that we can believe in.

We will not eat, will not drink, and will not stop until Gaza is healed.Please contact the media and tell them about our world-wide food strike. Invite your friends and make the world aware of the bleeding wound.

Gazans are starving, and I will not eat their flesh or drink their blood.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=45049944515#/event.php?eid=62633656140

Killed by Israel, Eaten by Dogs

2009-01-17T12:07:00.000-08:00

By Ola Attallah, IOL Correspondent
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
GAZA CITY -

"Oh, God! I have never seen such a terrible scene," cried Kayed Abu Aukal.The emergency doctor could not believe himself seeing the remains of what was days back Shahd, a full-fleshed 4-year-old Palestinian girl.She died when an Israeli shell was fired at the backyard of her home in the Jabalya refugee camp northern Gaza strip, where she was playing.When her parents attempted to rush to the rescue of their kid, who fell to the ground amid a pool of her blood, rains of Israeli bullets kept them a distance.For the next five days Shahd's which was left lying in the open left for dogs to tear out."The dogs did leave one single part of the poor baby's body intact," said a tearful Abu Aukal."We have seen heart-breaking scenes over the past 18 days. We picked up children whose bodies were torn or burnt, but nothing like this."For five days Shahd's brother, Matar, and cousin, Mohamed, tried in vain to reach her body. They were fired at by the Israeli occupation forces every time.Seeing the body of the little angel torn to piece by the assaulting dogs, the two made one final attempt, and it was their last.They were showered by Israeli bullets before they could reach Shahd's body, joining a long list of more than 920 Palestinians killed by Israel since December 27.DeliberateOmran Zayda, a young neighbor, said the Israelis knew very well what they were doing."They chased her family and prevented them from reaching to her body, knowing that the dogs would eat it," he said."They are not just killing our children, they are intentionally doing so in the most heinous and inhuman ways."Zayda said words, and even cameras, can not describe the horrific scene."You can never imagine what the dogs have done to her innocent body," he said, fighting back his tears.Many Palestinians insist Shahd was not the first or only such case.In Jabalya, when Abd Rabu's family was trying to bury three of its dead, the Israeli forces started firing at them, witnesses said.They then released their dogs at the bodies, deserted by mourners who sought shelter from the Israeli gunfire, they added."What happened was awful and unthinkable," Saad Abd Rabu, the deceased uncle, told IOL."Our sons died before our eyes and we were even prevented from burying them," he cried."The Israelis just released their dogs at their bodies, as even they have not done enough."

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1231760488574&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

Gaza Holocaust - An online Museum

2009-01-12T11:02:00.000-08:00

A group was made on facebook as an attempt of voicing the Truth about what is taking place in Gaza. If we cannot go and fight, let us show the world the reality that is being biased by the media and the political spokesmen:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58342007574
The idea of this group is to post all the photos that we can gather about the crimes that are being committed in Gaza that defy the simplest human rights. Posting a photo is very simple, just add the photo with a short comment describing when the photo was taken and what is shows, and name the source for credibility whenever possible. Please join the group, spread the word, and invite your friends to visit the museum, especially the ones who may not know the truth. Your participation is the key to the success of this attempt.

SUPPORT GAZA

Gaza: the logic of colonial power by Nir Rosen

2009-01-04T07:28:00.000-08:00

You can find it at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/gaza-hamas-israel

As so often, the term 'terrorism' has proved a rhetorical smokescreen under cover of which the strong crush the weak.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nir Rosen (Nir Rosen is a journalist whose work has appeared in The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, Time, Harper’s Magazine, The New Republic, and Salon. In addition to English, he speaks Arabic, Serbo Croatian, and Hebrew. In April 2003, he moved to Baghdad to cover the American-led intervention in Iraq and spent a year and a half under occupation with the Iraqi people. He has also reported from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and the Congo. He is a fellow at the New York University Center on Law and Security. He lives with his wife, Tiffany, in Lebanon.) More about him at http://www.nirrosen.com/blog/

guardian.co.uk, Monday 29 December 2008 08.00 GMT

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I have spent most of the Bush administration's tenure reporting from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia and other conflicts. I have been published by most major publications. I have been interviewed by most major networks and I have even testified before the senate foreign relations committee. The Bush administration began its tenure with Palestinians being massacred and it ends with Israel committing one of its largest massacres yet in a 60-year history of occupying Palestinian land. Bush's final visit to the country he chose to occupy ended with an educated secular Shiite Iraqi throwing his shoes at him, expressing the feelings of the entire Arab world save its dictators who have imprudently attached themselves to a hated American regime.

Once again, the Israelis bomb the starving and imprisoned population of Gaza. The world watches the plight of 1.5 million Gazans live on TV and online; the western media largely justify the Israeli action. Even some Arab outlets try to equate the Palestinian resistance with the might of the Israeli military machine. And none of this is a surprise. The Israelis just concluded a round-the-world public relations campaign to gather support for their assault, even gaining the collaboration of Arab states like Egypt.

The international community is directly guilty for this latest massacre. Will it remain immune from the wrath of a desperate people? So far, there have been large demonstrations in Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. The people of the Arab world will not forget. The Palestinians will not forget. "All that you have done to our people is registered in our notebooks," as the poet Mahmoud Darwish said.

I have often been asked by policy analysts, policy-makers and those stuck with implementing those policies for my advice on what I think America should do to promote peace or win hearts and minds in the Muslim world. It too often feels futile, because such a revolution in American policy would be required that only a true revolution in the American government could bring about the needed changes. An American journal once asked me to contribute an essay to a discussion on whether terrorism or attacks against civilians could ever be justified. My answer was that an American journal should not be asking whether attacks on civilians can ever be justified. This is a question for the weak, for the Native Americans in the past, for the Jews in Nazi Germany, for the Palestinians today, to ask themselves.

Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do. The powerful – whether Israel, America, Russia or China – will always describe their victims' struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan – with the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and terrorising them was the purpose.

Counterinsurgency, now popular again among in the Pentagon, is another way of saying the suppression of national liberation struggles. Terror and intimidation are as essential to it as is winning hearts and minds.

Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors. The danger in this excessive use of legality actually undermines legality, diminishing the credibility of international institutions such as the United Nations. It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism.

Attacking civilians is the last, most desperate and basic method of resistance when confronting overwhelming odds and imminent eradication. The Palestinians do not attack Israeli civilians with the expectation that they will destroy Israel. The land of Palestine is being stolen day after day; the Palestinian people is being eradicated day after day. As a result, they respond in whatever way they can to apply pressure on Israel. Colonial powers use civilians strategically, settling them to claim land and dispossess the native population, be they Indians in North America or Palestinians in what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories. When the native population sees that there is an irreversible dynamic that is taking away their land and identity with the support of an overwhelming power, then they are forced to resort to whatever methods of resistance they can.

Not long ago, 19-year-old Qassem al-Mughrabi, a Palestinian man from Jerusalem drove his car into a group of soldiers at an intersection. "The terrorist", as the Israeli newspaper Haaretz called him, was shot and killed. In two separate incidents last July, Palestinians from Jerusalem also used vehicles to attack Israelis. The attackers were not part of an organisation. Although those Palestinian men were also killed, senior Israeli officials called for their homes to be demolished. In a separate incident, Haaretz reported that a Palestinian woman blinded an Israeli soldier in one eye when she threw acid n his face. "The terrorist was arrested by security forces," the paper said. An occupied citizen attacks an occupying soldier, and she is the terrorist?

In September, Bush spoke at the United Nations. No cause could justify the deliberate taking of human life, he said. Yet the US has killed thousands of civilians in airstrikes on populated areas. When you drop bombs on populated areas knowing there will be some "collateral" civilian damage, but accepting it as worth it, then it is deliberate. When you impose sanctions, as the US did on Saddam era Iraq, that kill hundreds of thousands, and then say their deaths were worth it, as secretary of state Albright did, then you are deliberately killing people for a political goal. When you seek to "shock and awe", as president Bush did, when he bombed Iraq, you are engaging in terrorism.

Just as the traditional American cowboy film presented white Americans under siege, with Indians as the aggressors, which was the opposite of reality, so, too, have Palestinians become the aggressors and not the victims. Beginning in 1948, 750,000 Palestinians were deliberately cleansed and expelled from their homes, and hundreds of their villages were destroyed, and their land was settled by colonists, who went on to deny their very existence and wage a 60-year war against the remaining natives and the national liberation movements the Palestinians established around the world. Every day, more of Palestine is stolen, more Palestinians are killed. To call oneself an Israeli Zionist is to engage in the dispossession of entire people. It is not that, qua Palestinians, they have the right to use any means necessary, it is because they are weak. The weak have much less power than the strong, and can do much less damage. The Palestinians would not have ever bombed cafes or used home-made missiles if they had tanks and airplanes. It is only in the current context that their actions are justified, and there are obvious limits.

It is impossible to make a universal ethical claim or establish a Kantian principle justifying any act to resist colonialism or domination by overwhelming power. And there are other questions I have trouble answering. Can an Iraqi be justified in attacking the United States? After all, his country was attacked without provocation, and destroyed, with millions of refugees created, hundreds of thousands of dead. And this, after 12 years of bombings and sanctions, which killed many and destroyed the lives of many others.

I could argue that all Americans are benefiting from their country's exploits without having to pay the price, and that, in today's world, the imperial machine is not merely the military but a military-civilian network. And I could also say that Americans elected the Bush administration twice and elected representatives who did nothing to stop the war, and the American people themselves did nothing. From the perspective of an American, or an Israeli, or other powerful aggressors, if you are strong, everything you do is justifiable, and nothing the weak do is legitimate. It's merely a question of what side you choose: the side of the strong or the side of the weak.

Israel and its allies in the west and in Arab regimes such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have managed to corrupt the PLO leadership, to suborn them with the promise of power at the expense of liberty for their people, creating a first – a liberation movement that collaborated with the occupier. Israeli elections are coming up and, as usual, these elections are accompanied by war to bolster the candidates. You cannot be prime minister of Israel without enough Arab blood on your hands. An Israeli general has threatened to set Gaza back decades, just as they threatened to set Lebanon back decades in 2006. As if strangling Gaza and denying its people fuel, power or food had not set it back decades already.

The democratically elected Hamas government was targeted for destruction from the day it won the elections in 2006. The world told the Palestinians that they cannot have democracy, as if the goal was to radicalise them further and as if that would not have a consequence. Israel claims it is targeting Hamas's military forces. This is not true. It is targeting Palestinian police forces and killing them, including some such as the chief of police, Tawfiq Jaber, who was actually a former Fatah official who stayed on in his post after Hamas took control of Gaza. What will happen to a society with no security forces? What do the Israelis expect to happen when forces more radical than Hamas gain power?

A Zionist Israel is not a viable long-term project and Israeli settlements, land expropriation and separation barriers have long since made a two state solution impossible. There can be only one state in historic Palestine. In coming decades, Israelis will be confronted with two options. Will they peacefully transition towards an equal society, where Palestinians are given the same rights, à la post-apartheid South Africa? Or will they continue to view democracy as a threat? If so, one of the peoples will be forced to leave. Colonialism has only worked when most of the natives have been exterminated. But often, as in occupied Algeria, it is the settlers who flee. Eventually, the Palestinians will not be willing to compromise and seek one state for both people. Does the world want to further radicalise them?

Do not be deceived: the persistence of the Palestine problem is the main motive for every anti-American militant in the Arab world and beyond. But now the Bush administration has added Iraq and Afghanistan as additional grievances. America has lost its influence on the Arab masses, even if it can still apply pressure on Arab regimes. But reformists and elites in the Arab world want nothing to do with America.

A failed American administration departs, the promise of a Palestinian state a lie, as more Palestinians are murdered. A new president comes to power, but the people of the Middle East have too much bitter experience of US administrations to have any hope for change. President-elect Obama, Vice President-elect Biden and incoming secretary of state Hillary Clinton have not demonstrated that their view of the Middle East is at all different from previous administrations. As the world prepares to celebrate a new year, how long before it is once again made to feel the pain of those whose oppression it either ignores or supports?

America that we can trust

2008-11-05T09:45:00.000-08:00

Today the United States of America woke up a proud and hopeful America. You can feel relief, hope, and utter happiness in the eyes of the people walking in the streets, smiling for no specific reason, proud of being Americans, for the first time in so long. In many areas of the world, a similar degree of optimism is seen and felt. The very fact that Barack Obama has won the elections inspired hope and dignity in so many people around the world. African Americans cry with happiness, seeing the realization of the Luther Dream coming true. But not only black Americans are the ones rejoicing; students, women, white people, immigrants and minorities, from scholars to simple cab drivers; almost every American is rejoicing today, at least with the end of dark years of fear and poisonous hatred.

Yet, it is disappointing to simply be happy because a ‘black’ man won the elections. While many people might have voted for/against Obama because of the color of his skin, it is whom he is, what he is intending to do, his beliefs and his plans; these are the things that matter: to actually believe in the man, because he is worth it, and not only because he is the first African American to ever be elected as the President of the United States. Many of the reports I have watched yesterday revolved around the dream of the black people of America to finally get their rights back, and be compensated for long years of discrimination, inequality and slavery. While is this all true, yet what must not be forgotten is the fact that Obama is not the President of black Americans, but all Americans. It is as if the reversal of the race issue is taking place, which can still stand as an obstacle for Obama with his color eclipsing his character and potential. I believe he still has to cross this barrier, with his deeds and the history he is to be making.

One of the most defining moments for me in believing the John McCain would be a disaster to the world is when he replied to a woman complaining of Obama taking the lead by saying that she cannot trust him, because he is an Arab. McCain quickly and spontaneously answered, ‘no no, Obama is a decent man’. What kind of a message would such a reply give to minorities in America, and to the rest of the world? What does it say about his foreign policy approach or the way he inherently is viewing the world around him? America and the world are in no need for such mentalities anymore, and I am relieved that Americans were conscious enough to take the right decision, in an act of democracy thriving at its very best.

The hope Obama is bringing is equally enjoyed by citizens of the world. Yet the burden he has chosen to carry is tremendous, with such a heavy legacy of despair failure and mistrust. Obama does not have the magic wand that people are expecting him to wave on his inauguration day. However, a drastic change in American policies both internally and around the world will indeed be seen; a change in rhetoric has already started, with the spark of patriotism sincerity and determination gleaming in the American streets today. For non-Americans like me, the hope has been born; of a less hateful America, a less violent and inhumane foreign policy, and a more responsible and intelligent leadership. It might be too early and too naive to say, that finally injustice in over, fear is over, and hatred is no longer there. Yet, I am hoping that in the coming years, we will be seeing an America that we can finally trust.

Why do they hate us?

2008-04-07T14:19:00.000-07:00

Why do they hate us? A question that has been asked on both fronts. Americans and Arabs suddenly found themselves in a clear state of confrontation. While 9/11 was the evident sign that seems to have changed the future of the relationship of the United States with the Arab world, it can be argued that the crack has been there for longer than it seems, but only came to the surface with the September catastrophe and its tragic consequences. If we look at the question itself, we will come to realize that Americans could not draw a dividing line between the terrorists who committed the September crime and the Arab masses that had nothing to do with it and who have been the victims of similar attacks for decades ever since the assassination of Sadat onwards.

This negative and blurred image of the Arab and Muslim world has been intensified by the words of American spokesmen, especially President George W. Bush, highlighting the problem as an irrevocable clash of principles and a fight between goodness and evil, fueling the American fear and anger in preparation for the consequent wars of Afghanistan and Iraq, and putting Arabs on the defensive. The emphasized notion of the distant ‘other’ is the key element in manufacturing an unreal clash of civilizations that is to a great extent politically useful. Quoting Edward Said, “The organization of collective passion has never been more evident than in our time, when the mobilizations of fear, hatred, disgust, and resurgent self-pride and arrogance – much of it having to do with Islam and the Arabs on one side, “we” Westerners on the other – are very large –scale enterprises”[1]

While every hero needs an enemy to fight, every superpower needs a danger to struggle against, and every war needs an ethical reasoning, Islamic terrorism became the modern enemy, and the ‘made in America’ freedom fighters of yesterday became the terrorists of the present. The American presidency continued to stress that War on Terrorism in not against one particular known enemy that can be captured or defeated, but it is a world-wide war where enemies are numerous and unidentified: “Our war against terror is not a war against one terrorist leader or one terrorist group. Terrorism is a movement, an ideology that respects no boundary of nationality or decency…. And the war on terror continues beyond Afghanistan, with the closing of bank accounts and the arrests of known terrorists.”[2] The vague enemy repeatedly mentioned, and the tremendous loss of 9/11, the deep-rooted stereotyping of Arabs as inferior and brutal and Islam as violent and evil, made it very easy for all Arabs and Muslims to fall under the label of terrorism.

Due to the association of the War on Terrorism with negativity against Islam and the rise of Islamophobia, Arabs felt attacked and discriminated. While religion seems to be the cornerstone of the organism of most Arabs, the attack against Islam hit the core, affirming the clash of civilizations from yet another angle. On the other hand, the rapid deterioration of the American image in the Arab world is not mainly due to a cultural conflict or misunderstanding like it is the case on the American side, but due to the Arab’s resentment of the American policies affecting the region, specially The American unquestionable support and favor of Israel and the long enduring dilemma of the Palestinians. According to Shibley Telhami, the results of a survey carried out in Saudi Arabia, 59% believe that the American policies rather than values are the source of their frustration[3]. The Palestinian issue has been neglected and treated with disdain throughout the Bush years in office, allowing the Israeli government to unquestionably cross many lines, creating more fury and frustration in the Arab streets against the Israeli patron forcing the Arab governments to review their stance. Even Pro-American governments like Egypt’s and Saudi Arabia’s demanded more fairness from the American side towards the case. The 2006 Lebanon war and the American declaration of it as a part of the war on terror asserting the Israeli right to defend itself, was met with more anger in the Arab world, turning a disputed figure like Nasrallah into the modern Saladin in the eyes of many Arabs.

When Condoleezza Rice came and talked about the American plans for a “New Middle East”, an Arab uproar reached high degrees, expressing their refusal of the American domination and desire to shape the Arab nations as per the American/Israeli vision and interests. Seeking to establish democracy in the Arab world as one of the American strategic aims and as a reason for the war in Iraq was largely refuted by Arabs and non-Arabs alike. The claim that the United States invaded Iraq with the goal of liberating the Iraqis from tyranny and sharing with them the fruits of freedom and democracy turned out to be a disgraceful lie: “We are bringing aid to the long-suffering people of Iraq, and we are bringing something more: we are bringing hope.”[4] The utter chaos created in Iraq left the whole Arab world with an unshaken belief in the double standards of the American declared motives, and an absolute refusal of any help from the American side in issues like democratization and freedom of speech. Another stark example is the American refusal of the results in the Palestinian elections because they are against the American interests in the region. The American hegemony has become a reason for hatred rather than admiration in the Arab world.

The American invasion and prolonged occupation of Iraq and the disastrous collapse of Iraq since then is the ultimate reason that continues to fuel the Arabian wrath. While oil stays at the heart of the American interests in the region, many scholars and analysts explain the reason behind the Iraqi war to be more associated with the Israeli interests rather than the American: “the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure.”[5] It is justifiably to ask whether it is worth all the losses?

Establishing better relations with the Arab countries and regaining the love and respect of the Arab masses would be politically beneficial for the United States. The Middle East has always been a strategic centre of the American interests, and losing its loyalty to Iran can be very damaging for the American Interests and the world economic stability. Peace in the region would be more fruitful, compared to the rise of the oil prices due to the war in Iraq for example. Putting these factors in mind, changing the bitter circumstances governing the relationship between the States and the Arab world is critical.

The way to reforming the Arab-American relations seems long and unpaved, with distrust and misunderstanding obstructing the way, and with biased American policies totally blocking it. While the American people are the victims of biased media and educational systems, the American government is neither lacking information nor understanding. Serious change in the American official attitude towards the Arab world and its major issues is an indispensable pillar for any improvement to take place. While the disgracing problem of Iraq is complicated, and some of its tragic consequences cannot be corrected, the United States needs to address the problem differently, forsaking the myths and lies of the current administration. The hope of a different leadership thought may bring about some needed change, yet no miraculous solutions are expected.

However, the Arab-Israeli conflict, though more long-winded and deep-rooted, seems to be the most urging and possible area of improvement. The assistance in establishing a Palestinian State is a necessity that United States needs to put into consideration. If the United States chooses to lay a positive role in solving the Arab-Israeli conflict and creating an atmosphere of peace in the region can have a remarkable effect in putting out the Arabs’ anger and outweigh their distrust. Regaining the trust of Arabs will need effort, but it is not impossible. Nevertheless, it is critical in any attempt from the United States to spread out her democratization plans, which in themselves are in great need to modifications.

References:
· http://www.whitehouse.gov/.
· Mearsheimer John J. and Stephen M. Walt (2006). THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. Middle East Policy Council
· Telhami, Shibley (2004) The Stakes.
· Said, Edward Orientalism.

[1] Said, Edward Orientalism. Preface p. XVII.
[2] An excerpt from a speech by George W Bush on (December 7, 2001). Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/.
[3] Telhami, Shibley (2004) The Stakes. P. 46
[4] George W. Bush: Operation Iraqi Freedom – Radio Address: 05-04-2003.
[5] Mearsheimer John J. and Stephen M. Walt (2006). THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. Middle East Policy Council p. 54.

The Biggest daylight Robbery of the 20th Century

2007-04-11T11:59:00.000-07:00

Human Rights in Iraq?! Give me a break!

2007-04-08T14:32:00.000-07:00

The promise of freedom welfare and hope, brought by the Americans in their "just" war, evaporated with the first soldier stepping on the Iraqi lands. Fear, violence, use of banned chemical weapons, mass murder, and rape are the American explanation of a brighter future for the Iraqis. Serious concerns about human rights in Iraq rise and fade out with the endless number of daily violations. News about trials and court martial sessions are propagated but no further coverage is available for many of the incidents that remain 'under investigation'.

More than 10,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the first year as a direct result of the American occupation of Iraq. According to Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr, over 12,000 Iraqis were killed from January 2005 - June 2006.

The major scandal of Abu-Ghraib in 2004, in which inhuman acts of torture, murder, and rape of Iraqis of all ages and genders were committed, drew the attention of the international community to what is actually happening in Iraq. The horrifying photos that were released in addition to the testimonies of the prisoners proved the occurrence of unbelievably cold-blooded crimes like:
- Attack dogs snarling at cowering prisoners
- Naked prisoners forced to have sex with each other
- American soldiers sodomizing Iraqi boys
- Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
- Urinating on detainees
- Torture that leads to death
- Shooting prisoners
- Raping female detainees

However, Abu-Ghraib was not the start or the end of the series of abuses taking place every day in Iraq. Here are some examples of the true side of the American face seen in Iraq:

Fallujah
It has been reported that there was a repetitive use of white phosphorus in April 2004, November 2004, and three times in November 2005 in Fallujah, resulting in mass murder of civilians including women and children. The use of White Phosphorus results in fatal burns and the acidic gas can attack the eyes and mucous membranes. Such use is internationally banned against civilians.

Mukaradeeb
The village of Mukaradeeb was attacked by American helicopters on May 19, 2004, killing 42 men, women and children. The casualties, 11 of whom were women and 14 were children, were confirmed by Hamdi Noor al-Alusi, the manager of the nearest hospital.

Abeer and Asma
In 12 March 2006, six US soldiers from the 502nd Infantry Regiment gang-raped and murdered Abeer a 14-year old girl after killing her family and burning the lower part of her body. The crime remains under investigation.

In May 2003, Asma, a young engineer, was abducted in Baghdad. Asma was kidnapped in a car and driven to a farmhouse outside Baghdad, where she was said to have been repeatedly raped. The following day, she was thrown out of a car near her house. No news of investigation was announced.

Haditha Massacre
In 19 November 2005, 24 Iraqi civilians including women and children were killed in the Haditha Massacre when the American marines bombed their neighborhood when searching for a suspect. The massacre investigation remains open.

The "unlikely" Incident of Ishaqi!
InMarch 2006, the US troops were accused of deliberately shooting 11 people, including five children and four women, in Ishaqi, and blowing up their houses. Despite the availability of compelling evidences, the American government refused to continue investigating the crime, commenting on it as "unlikely to be true".

The doomed wedding
In19 May 2004, following a local wedding in the small village of Mukaradeeb, the American forces bombed the village killing 42 civilians. American military claimed that traditional celebratory gunfire was misinterpreted as an attack on American helicopters. The bombing took place twenty four hours after the alleged celebratory gunfire, at 3 AM. The crime remains under invertigation

Respecting the Freedom of Religion!
Al Askari Mosque bombing occurred on Feb 22 2006. Although no injuries occurred in the blast, the bombing resulted in violence over the following days. Over 100 dead bodies with bullet holes were found on February 23, and at least 165 people are thought to have been killed.Most if not all of these crimes are said to be under investigation; an investigation that seems to have no end.

These crimes take place everyday in every part of Iraq, not by the 'Iraqi insurgents' but by the American heroic troops in a severe smothering of the simplest of human rights.

Peace in Palestine

2007-03-28T23:21:00.000-07:00

For decades now, we have been hearing about negotiations and people sitting around the peace table to talk about the doomed future of the occupied land of Palestine. With each side blocking their ears and waiting for the other to lean, nothing but more blood and more loss are happening each day. With Israel hiding behind the only super power in the world, with the Vito card in their pocket ready to stop anyone from attempting to find a solution that could have a shred of justice, nothing would ever be done with the scale of power unbalanced to such a deteriorated extent.

Again the Arab leaders joined in their fancy ball room to talk about the future of peace, playing the same old game of hollow rhetoric and superficial patriotism. I sit there to watch them, knowing that a big zero will be the outcome of their big words and lavish banquets. How would they ever feel the suffering of a young girl, lying silent in a poor hospital, who has just lost her family under the fire of bombing, or a helpless young man who has no hope in a simple secure future with a stone in his hand as his only self defence. The irony of the situation lies in the generations that come and go with unshaken belief in their rights, being accompanied by weak leaders sitting round the peace table doing them nothing at all. The faces might change, yet the same attitude remains on both sides.

And here we are again, the leaders are talking, and the people are dying. May God bless the noble land of Palestine standing tall with no protector except the young man with the stone in his hand.

Hijaab Reflections: A Moment of Truth (1)

2007-03-26T02:07:00.000-07:00

It was a moment of peace and serenity; one of those moments where one feels detached from their surroundings and involuntarily close to something bigger and more important. It was a moment of reflection and deep connection. I found myself opening the Qur’aan to Surat Al-Ahzab (The Allied Parties). I had just watched a television programme where this ayah (verse) was mentioned in passing and for some reason I needed to read it to myself once again in more detail. I needed to read it with my heart this one time.

“O you Prophet, say to your spouses and your daughters and the women of believers…”

Women of believers! This ayah is talking to me. This message is for me. I found myself in a cautious and attentive mode, eyes widening with anticipation. My heart raced, what will I read next?

“…that they draw their outer garments closer to them…”

Be modest and be chaste. I contemplated for a moment. Cover up and do not expose yourself. I silently agreed as I searched for more.

“…that will (make) it likelier that they will be recognised…”

Recognised?! I read it again – recognised. Why does Allah want me to be recognised and what does He want me to be recognised as? Is it as a Muslim or is it as a true believer? I looked at myself for a second. Maybe He wants me to be identified as one who is close to Him, one whom He loves. Maybe He wants people to realise that I love Him and believe in Him. My heart beat with intensity. The meaning of this ayah is much bigger than I ever imagined, but wait, there is still more.

“…and so will not be hurt.”

The emotions building within me could not contain themselves anymore and my eyes watered instantly. Here was the reason being stated plain and simple. Is this why Allah wants me to be recognised? Allah wants me to cover up so that people can associate this modesty with His love for me. He wants to protect me! He wants me to be recognised and to be specifically distinguished from other women so that I could be protected.

“And Allah has been Ever-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful.”(33:59)

In spite of my misgivings and in spite of my weaknesses, He forgives and He is kind.

I never contemplated the meaning of this ayah in that way before. Just reading it with my heart and realising its sweet and poignant meaning brought tears of regret and shame to my eyes at Allah’s blatant affection. Tears that expressed the years I had wasted ignoring and reading this ayah superficially; living my life superficially. I remembered the times I had comforted myself with the thought that I was always conservatively dressed and modest in behaviour. I never felt any different from a non-Muslim who was also conservatively dressed and modest in behaviour. I never felt the need to be different; we are all humans after all. Religion is a way of life, not manifested in the way you look. Yet here was Allah saying it so clearly, that He wanted me to be different. He wanted people to know that these morals - modesty, chastity, dignity, strength of resolve and belief - these high values were inherent and central to Islam. He wanted me to be distinguished and identified in that sense. He wanted me to be protected so people with weak hearts would not hurt me! It was no longer a matter of just being conservative and modest in the regular sense. He wanted me to be identified by everyone, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, as someone who has these values. Yet how else would I be different if I already cover my whole body? How would I distinguish myself as one who is close to Allah? It suddenly dawned upon me like a bolt of lightning. The only way for me was to wear a scarf!

Many a time did I hear this ayah explained in a harsh, forthcoming way as a clear indication of it being an order to cover up and be veiled. It was always firmly indicated not only to cover one’s body but also one’s hair. I had always wondered about the significance of covering one’s hair. Would a head cover make that much of a difference? Surely it must be an over-exaggeration. Then again what about the millions of women the world over who cling to their scarves like it had become a part of them. I never understood it until this moment. It was suddenly all crystal clear! That last part of the ayah, Allah’s Ever-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful nature was always viewed as a warning. Yet never did I consider it as a gentle gesture of affection. The same way one protects a treasure from harm by covering it up and looking after it. How blind and deaf I had been! A stance not shared by any of His creations to be likened to a valuable token of affection.

I wiped my tears as I felt the shame filling my heart at the wasted time and years. How weak one is in reality. How non-obliging and ungrateful we can be as humans to Allah’s boundless blessings. May Allah forgive me. I knew that this was the beginning of a life-changing moment. My outlook to the world would never ever be the same again.

This is the first in a series of reflection on hijaab.

Doublespeak in the Oratory of G.W. Bush

2007-03-25T15:04:00.001-07:00

Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. George Orwell

Countless examples of doublespeak (1) have invaded our daily vocabulary and became an ordinary part of it; these examples usually find their way to the public through their constant use by the media and public political speakers. Among this phrasing we can find ‘collateral damage’ for innocent bystander deaths or injuries, ‘friendly fire’ for death caused by mistaken shooting of one’s own allies, ‘defence’ for war as in the Department of Defence, moreover, we usually hear ‘incontinent ordnance’ for accidental bombarding of civilians or schools, and ‘ethical cleansing’ for genocide, etc. Using such meaningless phrases perfectly fits in Orwell’s analysis of their use:
Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. (Politics and the English language: 12)

Abu-Gharib:
Sometimes truth can spring out from a photo, and speak for itself. It can say things that can be comprehended by all. However, what is ironic about the whole matter is that describing the photo in words can indeed be misleading. Talking about the horrifying torture that happened in Abo-Ghraib Prison in Iraq, one would think that these photos are taken from a Hollywood horror movie. But never would it come to the mind that they are real pictures of Iraqis imprisoned by the American heroic liberators who came to free the Iraqis from villains and tyrants, as they always claim. Although, the matter does not seem to be open for interpretation, as the photos clearly show an act of torture, the American leaders seem to hold another view. In political terminology, nothing is certain and everything is open for interpretation, as political words are elastic by nature. President Bush describes this incident as follows:
The American people were horrified by the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. These acts were wrong. They were inconsistent with our policies and our values as a Nation. I have directed a full accounting for the abuse of the Abu Ghraib detainees, and investigations are underway to review detention operations in Iraq and elsewhere. (June 26, 2004: President's Statement on the U.N. International Day in Support of Victims of Torture)

The calculated use of the generic term ‘abuse’ instead of the severer term ‘torture’ is made in order to create a less significant image of a wrong behaviour. We can easily notice how the speaker chooses a lighter word that does not create such a brutal mental image, as the word ‘torture’ would have done. What is actually done here is belittling the subject into a trivial unintentional mistake done by an exceptionally lawless bad soldier; this mistake does not represent an attitude or policy of the administration, but only a circumvention of an individual. The speaker is presenting us with a stark example of doublespeak, as he intends to avoid the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of an act of torture, while ‘abuse’ would only seem tolerable.

His use of the definite tone in ‘these acts were wrong’ implies firmness and finality. This tone is used as a complement of the same sequence, as it shows the speakers undoubted attitude about the unpleasant incident, and thus it leaves no chance for condemning him with its responsibility. As a result, the government leaders will come out clean from the whole matter, and will look honest and peace - loving despite the blood that still stains their hands.

The word ‘detainees’ also presents a less serious impact than ‘prisoners’, as the first implies temporary confinement. Accordingly, the doublespeak of the orator is an act of thought corruption, as it aims at concealing and twisting the truth. The American crime done in Abo Ghraib is a proof of the fear and not the hope brought by the Americans.

Terrorism:
The two terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘freedom fighter’ can be said to be nearly synonymous, as both terms mean armed political rebel or fighter. However, the irony that envelops the use of these two terms is emphasised by the fact that ‘terrorist’ is used for the bad guy; the one fighting against us, while a ‘freedom fighter’ is the good guy, as he is one of us or fighting with us.
Examples:
Terrorists who attack a self-governing Iraq are showing us and the Iraqis who they really are. They're not fighting foreign forces; they're fighting the Iraqi people. They're not just enemies of America; they're enemies of democracy and hope. They're enemies of a peaceful future in Iraq. As Prime Minister Allawi of Iraq said last week, "Anyone involved in these attacks is nothing more than a traitor to the cause of Iraq's freedom and the freedom of its people." He went on to say, "These are not freedom fighters. They are terrorists and foreign fighters opposed to our very survival as a free state." The Prime Minister and I share the same resolve. (June 16, 2004 President Salutes the Military at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa)

The president is talking about the hope brought by the Americans, which turned out to be murder, torture and imprisonment of any person suspected of patriotic feelings. The American law in prohibits the Iraqi citizens to fight against the concurring forces, thus these rebels are labelled as terrorists not just against America but also against America’s vision of Iraq.

MacDill (2) is the home of the U.S. Central Command. The Command was activated in the early 1980s. Back then, America needed CENTCOM (3) to help protect our allies from aggression and to support Afghan freedom fighters. (ibid)
What is ironic about this excerpt is who is here being named as freedom fighters. The Afghan freedom fighters are Osama Bin Laden’s group who were then fighting against the Soviets. At this time, United States’ biggest enemy was the other global force; the USSR. Accordingly, the fighters in Afghanistan were supported as they had a mutual enemy. The same people are now called terrorists, because it is now a new era. The change of interests has also changed the label from one opposite to the other.

Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. (State of the Union: 2002)
The only reason that the group responsible for calculating the embassy’s bombarding is being labelled as terrorists is that they are working against the United States. They are on the other side, so they are terrorists.

Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad … -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities. (State of the Union 2002)
You have to share the same perspective of the speaker in order to see that all the groups mentioned here deserve to be called terrorists. However, if you are not on the same side, then you can see that they are freedom fighters struggling against an evil mighty power that is Israel, which is occupying their land destroying their homes and killing hundreds of their people everyday. You will find that there is no shame in what they are doing; on the contrary, it is a patriotic act. Therefore, it all depends on where you stand and on whose side. Doublespeak prospers when liberators are seen through the eyes of invaders.

In fact, such labels gain authority from the one who uses these labels. Such phrases do not describe an inner attribute of the one holding this label, but they express the speaker’s own perspective and the way he wants others to think about and evaluate that person or group. Accordingly, governmental official speakers, especially the most powerful speaker: the president, play the leading role in determining the identity of the terrorist, which leads us to the notion that “speaking is governing”. Steven Livingston argues that:
The power to shape perceptions of violent events and their principal actors (both perpetrators and victims) usually rests not with the terrorists but with government official. Who the terrorists are in the first place is a question largely determined by these officials. Those who have routine access to the mass media, those to whom reporters turn when the dust settles and shooting stops, have the ability to shape coverage and perceptions. (Quoted in Silberstein: 2002: 3).
Therefore, it would only be appropriate to think about what the Americans are doing in Iraq from a different perspective than the one they are claiming. Let us see things from the other side for a change. According to the United States Department of Defence, terrorism can be defined as: the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. (http://www.gao.gov/atext/d03165.txt). Next, we are going to witness how a different stand of what is being said can lead to a different understanding. The coming excerpts will try to prove how the American doings in Iraq can be considered an act of terrorism according to their own definition of the term.

Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war; yet it is a great moral advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent. (May, 1, 2003: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended Remarks by the President from the USS Abraham Lincoln)
This excerpt is one example out of many others that state the tactical use of force to dispose of the Iraqi government. Therefore, the Americans have themselves fulfilled the first rule of carrying out a terrorist act: the calculated use of violence …intended to coerce or to intimidate government or society. Of course, the motive declared by the US officials is to free Iraq from the dictator, however, they chose to end the Iraqi tragedy by the introduction of a new kind of tragedy; invasion. Therefore, the Iraqis are now free from a tyrant, but are captives in the hands of their new leaders and invaders. The sentence: “no device of… from war” is very intriguing due to the fact that it implies the accidental loss of civilians in this act of war, which according to the speaker can be justified by a nobler aim; a known Machiavellian law.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime… We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq…And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government …We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in a peaceful Palestine. The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world. (ibid)

As has been said before, the label of ‘terrorist’ is now an American trademark that is given to anyone who stands in the way. The American president classifies the world into two groups: with or against. Accordingly, the parts in Iraq that remains dangerous are the parts where Iraqi rebels have chosen to stand in the way of the invader. Therefore, it would only seem inevitable to get rid of any voice asking for a real freedom that is not presented by the Americans, so at first these voices must be labelled as terrorists in order to fit in the scheme. Consequently, the Iraqi resistance of the US intrusion is not tolerated by the Americans, who chose to intimidate the society after the coup d’etat.

A second point raised by this excerpt is one of the political reasons behind the war; the elimination of any opportunity of possessing a nuclear power that would threaten the American domination of the world. A final point is implementing the American vision of the Middle East and the Moslem world at first in Iraq and then Afghanistan, and Palestine. The modern Iraq is being built according to American standards, with a new federal government that would play its role designed in accordance with the American vision. An ideological aim springs out here; the American government is scheming to shape the lives of other nations, specifically in Iraq, in a way that serves their strategic interests. The word ‘freedom’ in the concluding remark of the excerpt can be taken to mean voluntary compliance if we wish to see the other side of the coin: Compliance would undermine rebellion. Therefore, compliance is the safest ground for avoiding the terrorist’s label.

As we have seen the American forces in Iraq have fulfilled all the conditions that represent an act of terrorism. They have used calculated force to overthrow a governing regime, intimidated fear and violence among civilians, and invaded a country for political and ideological reasons. Seeing things from a different angle can lead to other types of labelling that symbolizes the ideologies and perceptions of the speaker or the view holder, and may not perfectly portray the truth. Difference in opinion, beliefs, and interests can create a fertile soil for label exchange.

Reference:
Silberstein, Sandra (2002) War of Words – Language, Politics and 9/11. London: Routledge.
Orwell, G. (1949) Nineteen Eighty-Four. London, Martin Secker & Warburg.
Orwell, George (1946) Politics and the English Language. http://eserver.org/langs/politics-english-language.txt
Lakoff, George (1991) Metaphors in Politics. http://philosophy.uoregon.edu/metaphor/lakoff-l.htm
http://www.yourencyclopedia.net/CENTCOM
http://www.gao.gov/atext/d03165.txt
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

(1) Doublespeak is a kind of euphemism that is associated with typical phrases used in the political arena as a way of avoiding mental associations.
(2) Air Force Base in Florida.
(3) United States Central Command: is a Unified Combatant Command unit of the U.S. armed forces, under the operational control of the U.S. Secretary of Defense. (http://www.yourencyclopedia.net/CENTCOM)

Pride and Prejudice

2007-03-25T14:51:00.000-07:00

By: Zeina

Thirteen days have passed since both battling parties have ceased fire. The Lebanese are still worried of a possible Round 2 to this seemingly endless war. Why wouldn't they when Israel has already made two breaches of the cease-fire agreement so far? The first was on Friday August 17th when it attempted to descend its troops in Bekaa area and the second was on Thursday August 23rd when it started bombarding the town of Shebaa in South Lebanon. However, the world is still standing still, unaffected by Israel's attempts to further jeopardize Lebanon's security. But if Hezbollah was the one to breach the agreement, then that would have been a different story. Hezbollah in their eyes is a "terrorist" militia aiming to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth; hence it must be fought savagely and ruthlessly until it's radically terminated. More than 1200 casualties, 20% of whom were children under 12 years of age, more than 60 bridges destroyed, more than 20,000 residential units demolished in the southern suburb of Beirut (Al-Dahiya), entire towns knocked down flat in the South, billions of dollars lost in the financial, industrial and agricultural sectors. The economy is a catastrophe, to say the least. Many companies ran out of business, many factories have been severely damaged or destroyed, several electricity plants, fuel tanks, national airways and major seaports have been targeted. As a result, hundreds of people have become jobless. Even Lebanon's ecology is at stake with the appearance of the oil spells on all Lebanese coasts, as a result of a leak caused by the bombardment of the Jiyyeh electrical plant in the northern South mid-July. Those concerned believe these spells have endangered sea life to an extent that it is now unsafe to eat fish. There goes another source of living for hundreds of Lebanese fishermen. Needless to say, the spread of epidemics and deadly diseases due to water and air pollution is highly possible, feared, and predicted. The list goes on and on. The war crimes and massacres Israel is responsible for go unpunished. And the world is still standing still. Israel has "suffered" to build a state for the Jews to live freely and happily, even at the expense of its neighboring countries' freedom and democracy. Israel's existence is not jeopardized by the presence of Resistance in other countries, namely the Islamic Jihadist groups in Palestine and the Lebanese Resistance. If Israel hadn't used force to establish a state for its people, usurped lands and attacked innocent civilians, resistance wouldn't have emerged in the first place. And if it were truly jeopardized by such anti-Zionist, or anti-Israel groups, then shouldn't it stop instigating so much hatred instead of acting victim all the time? For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction. It was never a matter of kidnapping two or three soldiers. Israel has always contemplated wars to terminate its opponents in the Arab world, with the help of their American allies. They boastfully claim they're seeking to attain peace in the world by establishing democratic, autonomous states, where in fact they are denying the Palestinians the right of practicing such democracy by abducting more than a third of the Palestinian Parliament Members. Resistance is "terrorism", while real terrorism is "measurable response" in the eyes of Israel, America and the Western media. It is perfectly acceptable for Israel to detain thousands of Lebanese, Palestinian and Arab prisoners, and to regain two kidnapped soldiers when the price is dead bodies of a thousand civilians or so. If the U.S.A is a country that seeks peace and justice, why would it send such advanced weaponry to Israel, giving it the green light to commit such atrocities? On the other hand, why is it absolutely out of question for Iran to produce nuclear artillery or to export missiles to Hezbollah? If “self-defense” is the term that justifies all Israel’s motives and actions, then why is it unacceptable for Hezbollah to defend their territory as well? The U.S.A has always adopted the attitude of a superior empire, giving itself the right to start "Wars on Terror", attacking and occupying lands without being questioned for its acts. Moreover, they fight in the name of democracy where in fact a great percentage of its population rejects its policies, especially those regarding its economic and political alliance with Israel.

One week of meditation under Israeli fire

2007-03-25T14:50:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, July 26, 2006
By: Sawsan Mostafa

What the Israelis taught me about dialogue

In a small neat supermarket in Dhour Ashouier, up the beautiful Lebanese mountains, an attractive woman in her early thirties stood prepared behind her cash desk. A strange-looking group of twenty foreigners stepped down a noticeably big bus and rushed into her store - as if on a serious mission to save the earth. And they did have a mission. Their mission was; to spend all the Lebanese Liras they had, purchase as much snacks and water as they could, and quickly leave. They knew that the Lebanese money they had was soon to become worthless. They knew that they needed food and water supply for the journey that none of them predicted. They also knew that they had little time before Israel would destroy the Eastern road to the Lebanese-Syrian borders – their intended destination.
I sometimes think of that woman behind the cash desk and wonder if her store is still open.

Months earlier I had applied to participate in an ordinary interfaith dialogue camp in Lebanon. Or at least, I thought it was ordinary. But, I thought many things.
I thought that after the camp was over, I would fly back home from Rafik Al Hariri’s international airport in Beirut, and I came back home from Queen Alia's international airport in Amman. I thought that successful dialogue is about open speech, respect and clearing misconceptions – a duty I have as a Muslim towards my religion. Now I know it is much more than that...it is about empathy and human relations.

I though I was attending the camp with a group of thirty participants from ten different origins. I realized I was attending the camp with thirty friends from the exact same origin.

I was not with my Mother and sister as Israel fiercely and randomly attacked the peaceful ports and cities of Lebanon. I was not with my sisters and brothers in Islam as Israel bombed the Lebanese international airport and infrastructure. I was not with my old school and college mates when most Arab leaders stood paralyzed, silent before oppression. I was not with people I would normally depend on when we had to take the dangerous road of "Zahla" to the Syrian borders in the longest journey of my life.

I had to go through this experience with thirty strangers from ten different countries and religions to realize the true meaning of co-existence, understanding and dialogue.
Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Sunni, Shiite, Druze, Hindu....how important is that in times of stress and hardship?

I never thought that people could have that much in common when they appear to be so much different. We shared our same concerns, same fears, same objection to violence and the same ambition for justice and peace. And of course we did… we are of the same creation.

As I look back at the past 12 days, I try to reflect on God’s planning and wisdom. Why did I meet Ruth, the American missionary girl who I felt so much at ease with, just like Nihal, my best friend in Egypt? Why did I meet Richard, the modest Eastern- German guy with the striking resemblance to Tarek Bassiouny, a very dear friend of mine since school? Why did I meet Feras, the religious Muslim Palestinian-Danish guy who I could easily relate to? Why did I meet Meena, the American-Hindu girl who reminded me so much of Sanaa, my favorite cousin currently living in Sudan?

As I look back at the past 12 days, I try to reflect on the meaning of war, purpose of life, God's blessings and Man's ungratefulness. As Israel launched its barbarious attacks against Lebanon, it was amazing to see Hadi, Samiha, Amir and Nancy, the Lebanese participants’ reaction to all the madness around us. They were always positive, always optimistic, and always affirmative. Heartbreakingly, they were familiar with the Israeli aircraft sounds and were no longer alarmed by it. After twenty years of war and destruction they were numb.
And Elise, the Christian Palestinian girl from East Jerusalem. I have never met someone like Elise, always positive, and always smiling. As a resident of East Jerusalem she was not permitted to cross the Lebanese-Syrian borders. With Israel shutting down the airport, Elise was literally trapped inside Lebanon. The country that was soon to become another duplication of her own home – Palestine.

As I look back at the past 12 days, I think of God’s dearest creation, human beings. For four long days before we got on that bus to Syria, the group had no place to turn to but each others’ dinning tables at the camp. We found comfort in each others’ company, and consolation in each others’ presence. An outside visitor would have never guessed that we only met few days before the attacks. It is amazing how war and misfortune can bring people together - something the whole Israeli army can never change.

I look back at this interfaith dialogue experience and begin to hope. I hope that this example of understanding and co-existence that we created in seven extraordinary days could be a reality. I hope that people would get to acknowledge their differences, appreciate their diversity and learn to live together - with justice. After all, the day will come when we all stand naked before God with no distinction between us but our good deeds. No one can escape that…not the Arabs, not the Israelis.

Biased Media - The Dilemma of Stereotyping

2007-03-25T14:47:00.000-07:00

By Amira El Wattar

On July 18, 2005, fourteen year old Ragheb al-Masri sat in the back of a taxi with his parents at the Abo Holi checkpoint. An Israeli bullet penetrated his back and cracked open his chest. His mother screamed as his body lay lifeless. Have you heard his name? I wouldn't expect that you have because CNN, The New York Times, and the Washington Post didn't report the killing online. If they had quoted his parents, their readers would have been able to feel their tears and envision the heartbreak. Ultimately, no Israeli soldier was arrested or even reprimanded.

Every time a suicide bombing strikes Israel, mass coverage of the tragedy begins instantly. Whether landing on the front page of The Times or taking up the headline block on CNN.com, the pain Israeli people endure is shown endlessly. Israelis do suffer. Suicide bombings are horrific. Nevertheless, Palestinian pain occurs far more frequently, and yet often overlooked by the mainstream American media.

You open any news channel to find news about the war in the Middle East, whether Israel against Palestine, Israel against Lebanon or the war still going on in Iraq etc. If it is a western news channel you find them most of the time trying to portrait Israel as the victim and the "Arabs" as the enemy or the "fanatics" … the ones who just won't stop fighting!!!

This establishment of stereotypes encourages people to react and behave in a manner that is both judgmental and biased.
The word Arabs is used to describe an individual from the Middle East. Despite the fact that these individuals are from different countries, with diverse cultures, beliefs and a variety of religions, they are characterized by one term, "Arabs." The word Arabs reduces individuals and countries to a distinct target, open to stereotypes and bias.

The Western media has often projected individuals of Arab descent in a negative manner. Currently, Arabs are seen as terrorists and murderers due to how the media presents them. Newspapers use key words such as extremists, terrorists and fanatics to describe Arabs. These distortions of the Arab people have created a general mistrust and dislike for Arabs among Americans and Europeans.

To identify Arabs with terrorism is to classify them as enemies. In research conducted by L. John Martin (1985), results showed that the word "terrorism" was used by the press in describing events and individuals they disapproved of. Yet, when describing these same acts by individuals who are not Arabs, the media was careful to appear neutral and unbiased.

A good example of media coverage which presented facts of an actual event in a prejudicial manner was the Oklahoma City bombing. In 1995, within minutes of the event, news reporters were insinuating that the bombing was an act of terrorists. Raised with unpopular stereotypes of Arabs, the American public was quick to develop images of Arab terrorists destroying American property. These views were fueled by the fact that it was a state building containing several government agencies. For example, "Steven Emerson, a terrorism expert, told viewers not to believe Islamic groups when they denied involvement."
Furthermore, CNN, a major news channel, gave the actual names of Arab suspects being detained for questioning in connection with the bombing (Alter, 1995). This type of reporting was a departure from the normal objective stance CNN usually takes of protecting the identity of individuals involved in criminal activity until the facts have been confirmed. It was impossible for the American public to conceive of the word terrorist in application to citizens of their own country. The word terrorism is synonymous with Arabs. Yet, the arrest of an American citizen for the Oklahoma bombing forced them to look at mainstream America and its ideologies. It is the mass media's inability to handle a forced examination of their own people that forces them to look outward for scapegoats.

Moreover, this projection of views is further fueled by current events such as the Palestinian Arab - Israeli conflict. American media and also the European media for that matter coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict paint a distorted image between victim and aggressor. The unbalanced coverage in the mainstream media places the Arab states in the position of violence and power, while Israel is left as a nation attempting to protect its freedom and people! Similarly, bias is evident in a disproportionate number of favorable references to Israel. Such distorted representations of Arabs have a direct consequence upon Arabs living worldwide. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee reported a 250% increase in hate crimes against Arabs from the previous year (Bazzi, 1995).

The news media allows television journalism to play a major role in setting the political agenda. Portraying Arabs as fanatics or terrorists all these types of views allow the general public and public officials to dehumanize Arabs. And those negative stereotypes of Arab nations, societies, cultures and institutions regulate foreign policy and attitude.

This inability to separate stereotypes from reality governs not only political policy, but economic policy as well. Newspapers and television media are always ready to justify oil price hikes by depicting the Arab nations' persona as money hungry, seeking to control the world's natural resources. For example, the world perceives OPEC as synonymous with Arabs, however; only seven of the thirteen OPEC members are Arab nations. Furthermore, of the five largest oil-producing countries, only one is an Arab nation, Saudi Arabia. This is validated by statements such as "the world's supplies of oil and price levels are manipulated and controlled by greedy Arabs" made by an Editor of The Washington Post. Other themes which follow along the lines of the Arab nations' attempt to dominate the world through their massive oil reserves include "blackmailing" the United States, in order to accumulate arms.

In a variety of studies, the age of television viewers is examined and the results show that children and young adults watched the most hours of television. These results are crucial since this age group represents individuals who are still in the process of developing and forming their perceptions of the world. Thus, when television programs present shows which offer "an image that can best be described as 'The Instant TV-Arab Kit, the kit suitable for most TV Arabs consists of a belly dancer's outfit, headdress (which looks like tablecloths pinched from a restaurant), veils, sunglasses, flowing gowns and robes, oil wells, limousines and/or camels," they are creating stereotypes which will mold the viewer's perceptions of Arabs as a whole.

A stereotype or the reinforcement of a stereotype removes the need to examine individuals on the basis of their character. Television executives can take a stereotype and perpetuate that stereotype, instead of doing research or presenting images which might create controversy. When they perpetuate the stereotype, this unfortunately, causes children to adopt misconceptions such as "Arabs are rich and have oil. All Arabs are named Mohammed. All Arabs are nomads." (Morris International). While these may seem to be minor misconceptions, they are the foundations upon which stereotypes and judgments are based.

Take for example television cartoon shows which are popular with young children such as "Richie Rich, Scooby-Doo , Porky Pig, Popeye, Heckle and Jeckle, Woody Woodpecker and Superfriends. At one time or another, each of these cartoon shows has projected Arabs in a negative manner. In Richie Rich, the hero "outsmarts an outlandish sheik." On Scooby-Doo, they "outwit Uncle Abdullah and his slippery genie." On Porky Pig "Ali-Baba bound, dumps a blackhearted Arab into a barrel of syrup." Bugs Bunny "escapes from being boiled in oil by satisfying the whims of a sheik with an unnamed goat." Accordingly, these cartoons define the world in very narrow terms, good vs. evil, "to a child, the world is simple, not complex, superman versus Arabs."

A good example of cartoons depicting Arabs in a negative manner is Walt Disney's animated feature film, Aladdin (The Walt Disney Company, 1993), which is now also a Saturday morning cartoon show on CBS-TV. In its attempts to make the film more appealing to the Western world, Disney Americanized the names and appearances of the characters. The Sultan, for instance, did not look like he was from an Arab country, unlike the antagonist, Jafer. Jafer, the only character with exaggerated Arab features, was displayed as the epitome of evil throughout the film. This depiction of the evil, manipulating Jafer, is an example of the Western view toward Arab people.
The name of the Princess in Walt Disney's version of Aladdin was changed from the one in the original tale. "Buddir al Buddor" was renamed "Jasmine," to help children identify with the character. Additionally, Aladdin was an orphan in Disney's version; his parents were never mentioned throughout the film. In the original story, Aladdin has a father. When the current film presented him as an orphan, this gave the impression that a backward country did not have social programs to take care of its dejected. Moreover, Princess Jasmine's attire was not that of a Princess, but the traditional attire of a belly dancer, or someone of lower status, which gave her an air of sexuality instead of royalty.

Returning to the issue of television for a minute; when asserting the influence of television shows on the propagation of stereotypes, programs geared toward adults and mainstream America or Europe cannot be ignored. Television writers and executives have employed and still employ several myths about Arabs including themes such as--"Arabs are buying up America. OPEC is synonymous with Arabs. Iranians are Arabs. All Arabs are Muslims. Arabs are white-slavers and uncivilized rulers of kingdoms. All Palestinians are terrorists. And Arabs are the world's enemies. Some have no basis in truth or glimmer of reality.

Stereotypes extend beyond those of Arab people; they also encompass the Muslim religion. In an attempt to place Islam in a category that Americans can understand, the media portrays images of Muslims as "belonging to a faith of millions of people, consisting of strange, bearded men with burning eyes, hierarchic figures in robes and turbans, blood dripping from the striped backs of malefactors, and piles of stones barely concealing the battered bodies of adulterous couples," according to Godfrey H. Jansen, an expert on Muslims, in his book, Militant Islam.

Television programs and the mass media do not examine the fact that the Islamic religion preaches equality and peace. The distortion of Islam and ensuing misconceptions lead television viewers to believe that it is a mysterious religion prone to acts of terrorism, violence and fanaticism.

This type of stereotype exists and is allowed to continue to exist because of the continued acceptance of myths. A myth is a fabrication created from an analysis of half-truths. A good example is the myth that it is Arabs who belong to the Islamic faith. The truth is that half of the world's population belongs to the Islamic faith. Muslims come from nations well beyond the Arab region, places such as China, Indonesia, India and the United States.
It is the myths about Arabs which often inspire directors, producers and screenwriters to develop a product which is then based on stereotypes. While producers, executives and others in entertainment industry deny playing a role in current stereotypes, a negative attitude toward Arabs persists due to fact, "a conspiracy is not necessary to continue the cycle of stereotyping, complacency is enough". Until the creators of films and television programs establish guidelines which include the depiction of both positive and negative aspects of Islam, of Arab Nations, and of their peoples, stereotypes will continue to exist.

As for the news media, there are five major reasons why it fails to cover and portray Arabs fairly: "cultural bias, the think-alike atmosphere within the impact media, the Arab-Israeli conflict, media ignorance of the origin and history of the conflict and a determined and sophisticated pro-Israel lobby (Morris International).

Israel commands larger media coverage than all Arab countries combined. Furthermore, the press regards Israelis as the "good guys" and Arabs as the "bad guys," due to the fact that "Israel is viewed as an extension of Western Civilization and culture (Morris International). The terms used in the press to describe Israelis tend to be positive, versus the negative terms used to describe Arab nations. Research analyzing accounts of the Israeli-Lebanese border conflict found that the Israelis were described as "troops, commandos, security forces, all neutral terms, while references to the Palestinians included terms such as guerrillas, infiltrators, raiders, all negative to pejorative terms"(Morris International). Political cartoons also distort and exaggerate facts to promote a particular editorial position about Arabs. This type of stereotype-formation will last as long as imbalanced and biased news reporting proceeds, since "the drawing of cartoons encourages the people of one country to support hostility against or friendship toward another group" (Morris International).

As seen by all of the mass media, Arabs are a menace to society, degenerates from an uncivilized culture. It is a continuous bombardment of negative images and falsehoods, creating myths and stereotypes. All of this negativity and disregard for the formation of stereotypes of Arabs encourages a multitude of judgments and perceptions by individuals. The media must accept responsibility for being a major force in the creation of such discriminatory views. One way to accept such responsibility is to dispel the current myths by presenting a more balanced image of Arabs. Writers should focus on providing images that depict Arabs as individuals, rather than as a homogenized group.

Arabs must demand change also, especially when stereotypes are presented in the entertainment arena. The NAACP, an African-American association, played a great role in securing diverse and unbiased portrayals of Blacks in films. Arab-Americans must demand the same respect and dignity.

Television can change perceptions by presenting the heritage of Arab-Americans, focusing on children's programming. According to Franklin Trout, a producer of documentaries, "you cannot ever understand a people or a country, or their subsequent actions unless you understand their history". It is necessary to humanize and individualize the inhabitants of the different Arab Nations. It is also essential to come to an understanding of a people's religion, in this case, the fundamentals of the Islamic religion. Contrary to the myths, for example, Islam is not a religion founded on secrecy and mystery.
In conclusion, the continued existence of a myth or a stereotype diminishes an individual's worth and character. It is the responsibility of all individuals to assure that not only they, themselves, are perceived fairly, but that all individuals are judged without bias. The media is a large factor in the formation of stereotypes and ideologies. Therefore, it is their responsibility to allow their audience to form opinions that are free from the influence of bias and negative stereotypes.

The mass media must accept this fact: they are the oracles of our time. An analysis of how Arabs are portrayed in the media has shown the existence of myths and negative stereotypes, perpetuations, projections, a vicious cycle, a cycle created by the media, allowed to continue by the media. It will all have to be countered by the mass media's destruction of fallacies.

Reference
*ARABS AND THE MEDIA By Narmeen El-Farra
Journal of Media Psychology

*
By Remi KanaziNew York, NYMarch 30, 2006

Introduction

2007-03-25T14:33:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the Glaring Truth

Thank you for your interest in our initiative. In the Glaring Truth, we believe that helping others to see the truth is a most needed task and a hard challenge of our time. Yet, it is the duty of every civilised person who has the ability to see through biased information and recognise the truth among the dominating stream of lies. We are a group of people from different parts of the world, with different backgrounds and ethnic origins. Yet we share in the same belief that we refuse to be misled and we refuse to allow this continuous cycle of masquerades that are shaping our lives, and the lives of others who remain unaware, of proceeding any longer. The Glaring Truth is not a political group, and it does promote or affiliate itself to any particular organisation of whatever kind. We respect difference but we refuse insult. Glaring Truth does not promote hatred, but it encourages freedom of thought and refuses brainwash, stereotyping, and ideological domination. We have started this group last August due to our feeling of responsibility towards the truth. We are all responsible and we are all going to be asked about it.

In Glaring Truth, we are currently moving in two directions. First, we are gathering correct information, filtering the uncountable sources of data, and putting our hands on the corrupt ones. In our prospective website, which is currently being prepared, we will present the undistorted facts we gathered, and we will locate and cooperate with similar groups that are fighting on the same side. Second, through the use of these facts, we have a group of volunteer writers who are attempting to further explain the reality of a number of crucial incidents that are usually ill-presented.

We want also to stress that we do not only welcome new members, questions, new ideas, and suggestions that can enhance the quality of our work, but we do need them to carry our cause a step further. Please feel free speak your mind.