Israeli columnist: “Our leaders believe Arabs are fundamentally inferior.”

March 17th, 2010 by sleepercell

Merav Michaeli tells it like it is:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157029.html

The president of Brazil, who visited Israel this week, defines himself as a negotiator and not as an ideologue. “I was born into the politics of dialogue, I became president of this country through dialogue and I have conducted my entire presidency by means of dialogue,” he told Haaretz. Speaking about the planned indirect talks with the Palestinians, he noted: “The importance of talks between third- and fourth-rank officials [does not hold] even 1 percent of the importance of tete-a-tete talks between leaders. Politics is mainly contact. People have to look at each other, sense each other. A leader has to look into the eyes of his interlocutor.”

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has the support of 80 percent of the people in his country, which he has rehabilitated and improved amazingly during the seven years of his two terms in office. He apparently knows something about leadership.

Dialogue and negotiations are the opposite of war, victory and occupation, and looking into your partner’s eyes means openness, willingness and basic trust. Regrettably, no leader in Israel today possesses any of these. We have no leader who will look Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the eye and see there an equal partner, a desire for peace, sincerity or integrity.

The reason is a basic concept in psychology called “inner reality.” Anyone who has been in therapy knows how this works: With our human limitations, we have an inner picture of the world, the principles of which are determined very early in life, mainly by circumstances and the parents who raised us. Into these patterns, which are imprinted in us, we pour the element of reality. Prof. Dan Ariely, author of the book “Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions,” explains how the mind builds an expectation and then the expectation fulfills itself using our reality. That is, it’s not that we believe what we see, we simply always see what we have believed from the outset.

Our leaders, who have been “taking turns” with one another for more than 15 years now, have a picture of the world in which the Arabs are fundamentally inferior and want to throw us into the sea; we are in an existential danger and the whole world is against us. Each has his own reasons. Two of them have spent most of their adult lives living by the sword, one was an old-school, labor-movement, security-minded Zionist, and two are scions of very right-wing families. One of them also has a father who believes that the Holocaust has not ended.

Thus, no matter how deeply Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, former prime minister Ehud Olmert, President Shimon Peres or former prime minister Ariel Sharon in his day look into the eyes of a Palestinian leader, all they see is a security threat, an existential threat and a loser.

It’s not by chance that they take turns. They belong to the same exclusive club: very privileged white males from well-connected families. The ideological differences among them are a question of nuance. Only two have been different: opposition leader Tzipi Livni, who comes from the same background but as a woman is already in a somewhat different position, and Labor MK Amir Peretz.

Peretz is their diametric opposite: a Mizrahi – someone with family origins in the Muslim countries. He grew up in a transit camp, has been a labor leader and someone who lives in a town in the outskirts of the country. When he was appointed defense minister, they chose not to remember that he had been seriously wounded as a munitions captain in the paratroopers. Instead, they preferred to jeer at him for that photo of him looking into binoculars with the lens caps on.

But it’s this picture, of a person for whom looking through binoculars is not taken for granted, that embodies a different option: a person who has not spent his life looking through crosshairs, who grew up among Arabs in Morocco and is not patronizing to them, who knows up close the position of impoverished inferiority.

It’s precisely a person like this looking into the eyes of a Palestinian leader who can find a true common language. But Peretz’s background also creates in the inner reality a glass ceiling that’s very hard to break from inside, and God is our witness that no one was glad to break it for him from the outside.

Swedish Papers Reprint Muhammad Cartoon

March 11th, 2010 by sleepercell

Andrew Ward of the Financial Times reports today that several leading Swedish newspapers yesterday reprinted Lars Vilks’s famous cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog.

According to the FT – and pretty much every other newspaper printed in Europe or the U.S. – the cartoons “break an Islamic law forbidding depiction of the prophet.”

Oh, is that why Mozzlims are so upset?  Let’s hear it from one of our (two) long-time readers in Uganda, who today submitted this letter to the FT:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please, for the last time, let us not continue with the lie that Muslims are offended by Lars Vilks caricatures because “they break an Islamic law forbidding depiction of the prophet,” as Andrew Ward claims in his report from Stockholm (FT, 11 March 2010).

Iranians and Turks, to name but two Muslim civilisations, have a long tradition of depicting Mohammed in paintings.  Their works have not raised the ire of the Muslim world precisely because they do not portray Mohammed as a dog (Vilks), or as a man with a bomb for a turban (Danish cartoons), or as a pig (Israeli cartoons).

Surely, Christians would not appreciate it if Muslims drew cartoons of Jesus as a dog, or if Muslims drew caricatures of Moses as a pig (leaving aside that this would never happen since Jesus and Moses both are revered as prophets by Muslims and figure prominently in dozens of suras in the Qur’an).

How can Westerners be so pig-headed and not realise this?  This has nothing to do with “daring to depict Mohammed” and everything to do with the intentional denigration of an entire people.  We would never tolerate such overtly racist smears against blacks, or against the Jewish people – nor should we.  However, we give a free pass to Islamophobes under the guise of “freedom of speech”.

I know that sober analysis like this is not favoured in Europe and the West, so I doubt letters of this kind will be printed in the FT.

Or, as another friend of the Sleeper Cell put it:

A cartoonist submits a caricature to the New York Times depicting black people as monkeys and baboons.  The Times refuses to publish them.  Does this mean the NYT is against freedom of speech?  Should other American newspapers now print these cartoons to make a stand on free speech?

Honestly, how can white people not get this?  They must be the dumbest people on this earth.  Or are they just so evil that they pretend not to understand this most obvious of things?

Why can’t there be peace in the Middle East?

March 10th, 2010 by sleepercell

On the bus today to work I espied an elderly white man reading about the Middle East and grumbling under his breath. Something about, “They’ve been fighting over there for milleniums [sic]!”

He then turned to me and asked, “Are you a Muzzlim?” and wondered how any “Muzzlim” could “justify the Muzzlim stance.”

I summarised the Muzzlim stance, as I understand it, thusly:

The only solution is one state with equal rights for Jews, Arabs (both Christian and Muslim), and others. The “two-state solution” is nothing more than a fig leaf for continued apartheid.

Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Jerusalem is illegal under international law. The UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution to this effect, #242. The U.S. and every other member state voted for this resolution, and it has been re-affirmed countless times.

Israel may claim that Jerusalem is their “eternal and undivided capital”, but no nation on earth – not even the U.S. – recognises it as such. Every foreign embassy in Israel is in Tel Aviv.

Israel needs to wake up to reality and join the community of nations by ending their illegal occupation and restoring full human rights to Palestinians. One nation, one rule of law, and an end to apartheid: just like South Africa.

Those Crazy Afghans and Their Crazy Culture

March 8th, 2010 by sleepercell

A few minutes ago Fox News showed footage of General McChrystal speaking about U.S. efforts to occupy Afghanistan. He said that one lesson he learned was that the Americans could not impose their political, security, or war-waging systems on the Afghan people. He gave Marjah as an example.

“We could have liberated Marjah weeks ago with the firepower we had,” he said [I'm quoting as best I can from memory; someone please provide transcript if available], “but in the eyes of the Afghan people, that liberation would have been illegitimate, because it would have meant the destruction of their homes, their neighbours, their friends, their families; and that’s just unacceptable to them.”

Wow, so Afghans – unlike civilised white people – value human life and would be saddened to see their homes destroyed and loved ones murdered by U.S. bombs.

If only they were like us, willing to let their homes, cities, and entire country be destroyed for the greater cause of U.S. imperialism – I mean, democracy!

It is so peculiar, this culture of theirs, rooted, as it is, in the Middle Ages, with its concern for the welfare of people.

General McChrystal made these comments with an absolutely straight face, without a trace of irony or wit in his voice. It reminded me of the U.S. officer’s comment on the village of Ben Tre in 1968: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

Joe Stack and the Definition of Terrorism

February 23rd, 2010 by sleepercell

No doubt this subject has been bandied about with great verve and vigour; I am not interested in rehashing the debate, but I will provide an extraordinarily simple – not to say, simplistic – definition of terrorism and demonstrate why it has absolutely nothing to do with religion. (I don’t know Mr. Stack’s religious affiliation and I don’t care to.)

A Nigerian friend of mine posits that Mr. Stack definitely is a terrorist, but a “non-religious” one (“the worst kind”, another friend pipes up), but what has religion got to do with terror?

So-called “religious” terrorists – and it matters not if Mr. Stack was one – are just political. Political aim is what defines terrorism.

Terrorism, simply defined, is the use of violence, or the threat of violence, to achieve political aims or to make a political statement.

Sri Lankan terrorists (the Tamil Tigers) are Hindu suicide bombers who attack Buddhists. Yet nowhere are these Hindu suicide bombers classified as “religious” terrorists or singled out for their religion.

The conflict in Northern Ireland pitted Protestants against Catholics. Yet nowhere in the media were the Irish terrorists classified as “religious” terrorists.

Because they’re not. And neither are the Tamil Tigers. They happen to be Hindu, and they happen to be attacking people of a different religious affiliation, but their aim is political, just like al-Qaida’s, just like the Northern Irish, just like Timothy McVeigh, just like….

And I would like to apologise parenthetically if the mountains of commentary on this subject have already included my terse analysis.

Simple things, after all, should be stated simply.  ’Tis the motto of the Sleeper Cell, gleaned during his prison days!

Israeli TV: Israel Harvested Organs from Palestinians

December 21st, 2009 by sleepercell

Israeli forensic pathologists routinely harvested organs from dead Palestinians in the 1990s.

This has long been a claim by Palestinian families, but was dismissed as a mere “anti-Semitic conspiracy” or shrugged off as “Palestinian paranoia”.  To be honest, while the claims seemed credible to me, I was never sure what to think of it.

Now Israeli TV (and CBS News – the online version, anyway, and for now, that is, before the site pulls the AP story after being deluged with thousands of negative complaints from pro-Israeli activists) is reporting that it’s all too true.

Ghastly.  I won’t use the N-word.

Hillary Clinton went to great pains in her autobiography to denounce a fellow Christian lady (Yasser Arafat’s wife) for “repeating the lie” that Israel had poisoned Palestinian water wells.  I don’t know Suha Arafat’s claim was proven – if someone does, let me know – but I remember thinking that such a belief/theory was plausible based on what Palestinians had already suffered at the hands of the Israelis.

In the same way, there are no doubt some political theories held by some black Americans that most whites would consider ludicrous (e.g., the CIA started AIDS as part of a genocidal effort against blacks).  But after, for example, black Americans were deliberately injected with syphilis – as recently as the 1970s – as part of a “medical experiment” by the U.S. Public Health Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_experiment), you can hardly blame them if they get a little suspicious and, by extension, accuse the government of committing other atrocities against blacks.

It is important to understand cultural context and political history without reflexively acceding to every extant outlandish conspiracy theory.  In this case, the Palestinians who swore their loved ones’ organs had been ripped out were vindicated.  I cringe at the thought that this may lead to an increase in sales of The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion.  And yet I maintain hope that the revelation of this horrific practise will inspire those in Palestine and in the solidarity movement to continue their work in the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) campaign.

CBS News:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/20/ap/middleeast/main6001606.shtml

Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs

Super Racist Swiss: So THIS is what democracy, freedom of religion, and liberal Western society looks like

November 29th, 2009 by sleepercell

Ban on Building Mosques in Switzerland

60% of Swiss voted yes on a referendum banning the construction of minarets, a key architectural feature on mosques. This is what freedom of religion looks like?

Man, I can’t imagine even for one second the Western media’s reaction if Pakistan or Egypt banned the construction of churches. At least in those backward countries Christians have the right to build houses of worship.

The posters urging Swiss to approve the referendum smack of the worst Nazi caricatures of Jews in the 1930s.  [Anyone know how to add photo files to a wordpress post?  I'm a (perpetual) n00b.]

Why don’t they just ship us all off to an island and torture us in cages?  (Oh wait, Guantanamo….)

U.S. Soldier Testifies That We Are Committing Terrorism Every Day in Afghanistan

July 1st, 2009 by sleepercell

 

“I love my country, and never once while serving [in Afghanistan] did I feel I was protecting America.”

“Almost 100% of the time, we found that suspected terrorists turned out to be innocent civilians.”

Corporal Rick Reyes of the U.S. Marine Corps

We are mass murderers in Afghanistan.  We are killing civilians every day.  We are doing nothing to protect Afghanis or Americans.

Jewish settlers attack Palestinian labourers as Israeli PM rejects settlement freeze

June 1st, 2009 by sleepercell

[Editor's Note:  Some would say the use of the very word "Jew" or "Jewish" itself is anti-Semitic.  It is the Associated Press writer, Steve Weizman, who writes that "Jewish settlers went on a rampage", and it is the leader of a radical Israeli group who says that "Jewish terror cells will be activated".]

crazy part in article below is where they say that U.S. policy of doing nothing to pressure israel to freeze settlement construction is changing under obama.
either one of two things is true: 
1)  they’re dead wrong, and BO is doing nothing, as well (my feeling, since all BO has done is utter a few words about settlements, which clinton and bush did, too)
or,
2)  if israel doesn’t freeze settlements now, that means that they rejected BO (prez of their staunchest ally), or that they convinced BO to change his mind.
either scenario means a big story that the press should report on.
i bet you the (north american) press will report nothing on this.  in ‘02, when bush publicly and firmly demanded israel step down from its re-invasion of the WB, he reversed course a few days later after coming under pressure from AIPAC, et al.  i’ll never forget his absolute reversal and the press’s totally ignoring his 180-degree turnaround.
i also betcha this story won’t stay as a headline on yahoo! news very long.
story (which nowhere mentions that the settlements themselves are illegal under international law, which is kinda crucial in understanding this issue):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090601/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians
AP, 1 June 2009

JERUSALEM – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is dismissing U.S. calls for a West Bank settlement freeze as unreasonable.

Officials say Netanyahu delivered his assessment to a closed parliamentary committee Monday.

The U.S. has demanded that Israel halt all construction in the settlements. Netanyahu says some building must continue to accommodate what he calls “natural growth.”

A meeting participant says Netanyahu testified that Israel cannot “freeze life” in existing settlements. He said “there are reasonable requests and unreasonable requests.”

Another participant says Netanyahu said his job is to protect Israel, even if his decisions are not popular.

The participants spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was closed.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

NABLUS, West Bank (AP) — Mobs of Jewish settlers went on a rampage in the West Bank Monday, attacking Palestinian laborers and setting fire to agricultural land to protest against an Israeli government crackdown on unauthorized outposts in the territory.

Six Palestinian laborers riding on a minivan were injured when stone-throwing settlers attacked them, the workers said.

The violence comes as the Obama administration is pressuring Israel to honor long-standing pledges to tear down wildcat settlement outposts in the West Bank and to freeze expansion in existing, government-sanctioned settlements.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has balked at the U.S. demand to halt construction in existing settlements and faces stiff resistance within his hard-line government against taking down about two dozen of the outposts. The disagreement has caused a rift between the allies.

It has also put Jewish settlers and their backers in the Israeli government on the defensive.

Monday’s violence was all deep inside the West Bank, where most of the hard-line settlements are located.

It started overnight near the radical settlement of Yizhar, police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. About 100 settlers blocked a road to protest against Israel’s recent removal of a handful of tiny, uninhabited outposts. Six settlers were later arrested there.

Before dawn near another radical settlement, Kedumim, stone-throwing settlers ambushed a minivan carrying Palestinian laborers to Israel, the workers said. Six of the 15 Palestinians on board were hurt, including Yahye Sadah, who was hit in the head.

“I was hit in the head by a rock from a distance of 3 meters (10 feet). I ran away. I thought I’d die,” said Sadah, 44, who spoke from a nearby hospital after getting six stitches.

Police said settlers threw rocks and burned tires in the area but that only one man was slightly wounded. The attackers fled and no arrests were made, they said.

A few hours later, settlers torched a wooded hilltop near Nablus and set trees and Palestinian agricultural land on fire near the village of Hawara, local council chief Ali Eid said.

Romel Sweiti, a Hawara resident, said the fires torched nearly 1 acre (0.40 hectares) of land. He said about 50 teenage Israeli settler girls gathered on a main road and blocked traffic as Israeli paramilitary police stood in the background.

Settler activist Daniella Weiss, who lives in the area, said she was unaware of the violence. But she vowed that Jewish residents would resist any attempts to move them, “no matter how harsh the policy of the Israeli government will be against us.”

“The policy of dismantling outposts is an opening phase for withdrawal,” she said. “This will not ensure the future security of the state of Israel.”

Nearly 300,000 Israelis live in the settlements among 2.4 million Palestinians in the West Bank. Another 180,000 live in Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem. The Palestinians claim both areas — captured byIsrael in the 1967 Mideast war — as parts of a future independent state.

The U.S. considers the settlements an obstacle to peace, but traditionally has done little on the issue, a policy that appears to be changing under President Barack Obama.

The rampage underscored the difficulties Netanyahu faces.

On one hand, he is wary of picking a fight with the U.S., his most important ally. But settlers have a vocal leadership with many allies inside Netanyahu’s government, constraining his ability to take action.

“Anyone with a basic understanding of this issue could have predicted that as talks of evacuations of illegal constructions begin, Jewish terror cells will rear their heads and set the West Bank on fire,” warned Yesh Din, an anti-settlement watchdog group in Israel.

Netanyahu has dispatched his defense minister, Ehud Barak, to Washington this week in hopes of winning approval to allow at least limited construction to continue in the settlements. But the Obama administration has so far signaled it is not willing to budge.

Let’s Blame Saddam! (We are all innocent.)

March 20th, 2009 by sleepercell

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy.  Saddam Hussein is dead.  In life, he made a convenient scapegoat for everything that went wrong in the world.  9/11?  Let’s blame Saddam.  Economy tanking 2000-2002?  Let’s blame Saddam.  Mysterious “Tuck Rule” in 2002 that cheated the Raiders out of a playoff victory?  Let’s blame Saddam.  (I do blame him for that one, actually.)

 

The McClatchy Newspaper Service – on average, a far more credible source than the Associated Press - recently published an article detailing how millions of Iraqis still do not have access to clean drinking water (“Baghdad’s Water Still Undrinkable Six Years After Invasion”, 18 March 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090318/wl_mcclatchy/3191674). 

In a bad month, they report that 90% of the water in Baghdad is undrinkable.  Who gets the blame for this?  Is it the country that destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure (including every waste water purification plant) in 1990, rendering it to “the Middle Ages”, as a U.N. official decried on a visit there in 1991?  Is it the country that repeatedly denied Iraq the ability to refurbish its water purification system, punishing millions of children and other civilians (way to “disarm” Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction)?

Nope and nope.  Saddam Hussein is responsible – not the country that inflicted crimes against humanity, the United States.  As Matthew Schofield writes, “Baghdad’s water network was due to be upgraded in 1984, but Saddam Hussein went to war with Iran instead. Then he invaded Kuwait .”

I see.  So Saddam Hussein is at fault for not upgrading the water network, is that right?

Not according to every expert on the subject, including Professor Joy Gordon of Fairfield University.  As she brilliantly detailed in an expose for Harper’s in November 2002, the U.S. used “security concerns” as a facade for “legitimising mass slaughter” of Iraq’s civilian populace by denying them of the most basic humanitarian goods and tools, including clean drinking water.

This was a deliberate, carefully orchestrated campaign, as you can read here:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2002/11/0079384

As terrible a man as Hussein was, it cannot be denied, as Gordon writes, that under his regime, “the well-being of [Iraqi] society at large improved dramatically.  The social programs and economic development continued, and expanded, even during Iraq’s grueling and costly war with Iran from 1980 to 1988, a war that Saddam Hussein might not have survived without substantial U.S. backing.”

Wait a minute, wait a minute.  You’re telling me that Hussein, monster that he was, actually expanded social programmes and economic development during that “gruelling and costly war with Iran”?  Wow.  Then who, pray tell, destroyed those waste water treatment plants?  Who for over a decade denied Iraq electricity, essential foodstuffs, and the spare parts needed to fix destroyed sewage treatment facilities?

It’s all there in Dr. Gordon’s article.  Don’t take my word for it; do your own indepenent research and draw your own conclusions.

In the aftermath of George W. Bush we are all so quick to congratulate ourselves for finally “getting the Iraq thing right”.  Everyone agrees now, it seems, that invading was wrong, not just tactically, but even morally.  Well, Republicans don’t admit to the moral part.  At least no Republican today pounds his chest and brags that “the world is better off without Saddam”; Chris Hitchens has fallen perplexingly silent on this issue, as well.

We all agree that invading was a catastrophic error, and we are all in agreement that each of us was against invading in 2003.  Each of us was rational-minded and humane, each of us weighed the evidence carefully.  Each of us, in retrospect, marched in demonstrations and held placards in rallies to convince our leaders not to invade.  Each of us was – and is – innocent.

Who ever were those (few) misguided, benighted bad guys who wanted to invade Iraq?  Where did they go?  Those in the media and those among us, where are they now?  They are not us, certainly, because we are all innocent, as we have just established.  We did not vote for George Bush in 2004, a year after he/we invaded Eye-rack.  Only a few crazy people did, and they are not representative of the American people. 

(Only Eye-rackis are responsible for getting the leaders they deserve, remember.  Only brown-skinned people are personally guilty for having bad leaders, as it reflects poorly on their moral composition and their society’s collective character.  Winston Churchill told us as much, and we still carry that ethos with us today.) 

 

I will explore this issue of American collective guilt and memory with regard to Iraq in further detail tomorrow, or very soon, at the latest.  I have a good deal of personal experience with it, and possibly, a good memory to go with it.  But we all remember things perfectly, right?