Who’s to blame?

January 23rd, 2012 by sleepercell

 

As in all conflicts, each side tries to blame the other.  The same is true of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, some would say.  ”Those guys have been fighting forever,” people like to say.  ”Both sides are responsible for the mess they’re in.”

This lukewarm, wishy-washy, unstudied opinion was recently put forth to me by an acquaintance – OK, by the creator and moderator of this site.  He wrote in the comments section of my last post:

“The Israelis are the way they are today partly BECAUSE of the action of the palestinians in the past. You cant comdemn them unreservedly as the sole aggressor and try to construct a narrative that places them squarely on one side of the moral ledger. You just cant.”

Of course, no people are blameless.  Everyone has made, and will continue to make, mistakes.  But is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict really this eternal tit-for-tat struggle, with no clear side being the aggressor?

Rather than giving you my reply, or simply re-printing what I wrote back to the acquaintance, I give you the words of Jesse Lieberfeld, an 11th-grader at Winston Thurston High School, and winner of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Writing Award for Prose in 2012.  Here is an excerpt from his award-winning essay:

“I realized then that I was in no way part of a ‘conflict’;—the term ‘Israeli/Palestinian Conflict’ was no more accurate than calling the Civil Rights Movement the ‘Caucasian/ African-American Conflict.’ In both cases, the expression was a blatant euphemism: it gave the impression that this was a dispute among equals and that both held an equal share of the blame. However, in both, there was clearly an oppressor and an oppressed, and I felt horrified at the realization that I was by nature on the side of the oppressors. I was grouped with the racial supremacists. I was part of a group that killed while praising its own intelligence and reason. I was part of a delusion.”

Et voila.

===

I should have ended there, with Jesse’s powerful words, but I’ll offer one less powerful anecdote – and then I’ll direct you to the comments section of my last post to see how I replied to my acquaintance above, since my wife is trying to sleep and I haven’t the time to rehash my argument in full.

An African friend of mine once said to me, regarding Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein (two “pro-Palestinian” scholar-activists), “You have to admit, this proves that Jews are more open-minded than Arabs.  After all, where are the Palestinians who support Israel instead of their own side?”

I asked him where the black South Africans were who supported apartheid, and whether the lack of their existence proved that whites are more open-minded than blacks – since some whites, after all, were against the apartheid regime.

I asked him where were the black leaders in the 1960s who supported segregation (well, Malcolm X at one time, but that was for an altogether different reason)?

Of course, he had no answer for me.  He started to say, “But that’s not the same thing.”  He left his sentence half-finished and over the next year began to study the history of the Israel.  Today, he would no longer ask such a meaningless – and obviously loaded – question.  (I’m compressing events some in the interests of clarity/time.)

OK, now go back and read my reply to the acquaintance about casting one side as the aggressor in the conflict – both of you people who actually read this blog.  G’night.

 

Israeli Spokesman Admits Israel is a Terrorist State

November 20th, 2011 by sleepercell

 

“If you knew what I know, you’d be radical, too.”
In the first minute or so of this video, Israeli spokesman Mitchell Barak admits publicly that Israel is committing terrorist crimes against the children of Gaza, and that those kids deserve it because their parents used their democratic rights to elect the “wrong” government.


Norman Finkelstein (son of Holocaust survivors), then asks Barak if the people of Israel should be collectively punished for electing Netanyahu, the “wrong” leader.


Keep in mind that collective punishment – terrorising an entire civilian population for the supposed crimes of a few its citizens – is illegal under international law.  It would be like if Britain decided to bomb the U.S. and starve the population because an American murdered John Lennon.

—-

Don’t need to add this, but:

Someone might say, “Yeah, but Qaddafi committed a lot of crimes, too.  Why aren’t you talking about that, Mr. Sleepercell?”  

Qaddafi’s crimes are universally acknowledged and unquestioned.  Israel, on the other hand, enjoys a reputation as “the Middle East’s only democracy”, and a guardian of human rights.  It would be as if the world recognised the South African apartheid regime as a leader in human rights in the 1980s.

Keep in mind that both Mandela and Desmond Tutu have said repeatedly that Israel’s apartheid regime is far worse than anything they faced in South Africa.  This is lost on BET host Tavis Smiley, who is offended that Jimmy Carter dared even use the word “apartheid” to describe Israel.  Tavis Smiley claims that all black people should be offended by Carter’s use of the word “apartheid”.  I guess he meant all black people except Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu – you know, the guys who actually put their lives on the line to resist apartheid while most American blacks were buying Air Jordans and watching the Cosby Show.

Netanyahu Speech Disrupted by American Jewish Protesters

November 9th, 2010 by sleepercell

Yesterday in sweet New Orleans, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech was disrupted several times by American Jewish youths with nonviolent slogans. They were forcefully escorted from the premises.

Watch the cool video:

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/video-of-activists-disrupting-netanyahu-at-jewish-federations-general-assembly.html

The slogans the young people chanted include:

The Occupation delegitimises Irael

Settlements betray Jewish values

Silencing dissent delegitimises Israel

The siege of Gaza delegitimises Israel

The settlements delegitimise Israel

I’m an Israeli and you [Netanyahu] delegitimise us!

My favourite part occurs at 2:41, when an old man in a kippa with flowing white beard stands up and tears, with his teeth, a sign a protester dropped after security manhandled him. The crowd goes wild.

American kids, Jewish kids, protesting against Israel? Will Jon Stewart cover this?

War Criminal Running for Congress in North Carolina

October 29th, 2010 by sleepercell

Ilario Pantano, a known war criminal who murdered two unarmed Iraqi civilians by unloading 60 rounds into them at point-blank range (even stopping to reload and continue firing), is running for Congress in North Carolina.

Pantano brags about his record of being a war criminal. He is proud to have killed two unarmed civilians, saying he was “sending a message” (isn’t that the definition of terrorism: murdering civilians to “send a message”?). He even wrote a note and hung it round the necks of the dead men, whose bullet-ridden bodies were found in a kneeling position. The note read: “No better friend, no worse enemy.”

Unsurprisingly, he has won the acclaim and support of the Tea Baggers, Rudy Giuliani, and Sarah Palin.

More details:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/gop-candidate-killed-unarmed-iraqi/

Pessimists’ Corner: Why the US will NEVER have an even-handed policy toward Israel/Palestine

September 24th, 2010 by sleepercell

Irish musician and activist Raymond Deane wrote today that “Ireland and the rest of its EU accomplices have just rescued Israel at the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Time to acknowledge that the EU as a whole sees Israel as a protectorate and will NEVER relinquish support for it, whatever its crimes.”

A friend then wrote to me that it was the US, not the EU that was more responsible for protecting Israel from international sanction.  He went on:  ”If American public opinion changes on this issue [the Israeli-Palestinian conflict], and applies pressure to the US govt., the govt., must respond, accordingly.”

I disagreed most heartily.  My speculative reply was thus:

Right, assuming they actually put pressure on the government. But even if American public opinion changes on this issue, it’s extremely unlikely they’d apply pressure to the US gov’t. And even if they applied pressure, the government would be unlikely to listen. Call me a pessimist, but it seems the US gov’t will do what it perceives is in its interest, public opinion be damned.

This may apply to some European states as well:

In March 2003, 97% of Spaniards expressed an aversion to invading Iraq. The (conservative) Spanish government refused to believe the polls, so it conducted its own poll, which showed that fully 92% of the public opposed invasion. (Just think, you couldn’t even get 92% of people to agree that chocolate is delicious, or that health is better than disease.)

There were millions-plus-strong protests erupting in the streets throughout Spain, and what did the government do? It joined the US in invading Iraq.

Despite the public’s fury, a year later, they only BARELY, by the narrowest of margins, voted out Aznar and his party. And that, in fact, was only because he was involved in a coverup regarding the 11 March train bombings just days before the election. If the Madrid train bombings hadn’t occurred just then, Aznar would have maintained his hold on power.

What does that tell you? Regarding an issue in which 97% of Spaniards agreed, they didn’t care about it enough to vote based on it. I have a handful of Spanish friends, and when I asked them about this, they said, and I’m summarising, “We were very opposed to military adventurism in Iraq. But most Spaniards voted based on economic and regional interests. Foreign policy doesn’t win or lose elections.”

I believe the same applies to the US. Even if the silent majority of Americans were somehow pro-Palestinian (which they are currently far from), they wouldn’t vote based on it.

In the same way, an overwhelming majority of Americans are in favour of abortion being legal (by a 2:1 margin, per some polls) but it’s the 30% of Americans who are opposed to abortion who make the most noise and who become single-issue voters based on it. Those in favour of abortion don’t centre their lives around this one hot-button item.

And so, even if the silent majority of Americans sided with the Palestinians, the rabid Christian right and activist Zionists would likely continue to hold their spell over Congress and US foreign policy on this issue. See, for example, the disparity between US policy toward Cuba versus US public opinion on Cuba. Or check out Americans’ attitudes on health care versus the policies we have in place.

I apologise for my wildly rambling reply. Keep in mind this is pure conjecture on my part, not necessarily backed up with any hard evidence. I’m just projecting what I think would happen. Now, if 200 million Americans marched in the street in defence of Palestinian human rights, perhaps things would change. Anything shy of that will likely not affect the status quo.

Lebanon Rebuilds Ground Zero Synagogue

September 1st, 2010 by sleepercell

[First six paragraphs are mine and are essentially a summary of the full story reprinted below it, with link.]

If only Americans would take a lesson in tolerance and diversity from those “evil A-rab terrorists” in the Middle East.

Lebanon, which experienced roughly one 9/11-scale massacre PER DAY in July/August 2006 courtesy of Israel, has rebuilt a synagogue in downtown Beirut, their Ground Zero.  The Jewish community of Beirut is only 500, but the Lebanese government, with its Muslim Prime Minister, have spent public funds to repair and renovate the synagogue.

The synagogue is not located in a nondescript structure that gives no indication of being a house of worship (like the “Ground Zero Mosque”), but in a bright, bold, beautiful building that stands out against the downtown skyline of Beirut.

Hezbollah, a Lebanese political party designated as a terrorist organisation by the U.S. government, fully supports the project.  The leader of Hezbollah recently praised the project and expressed his admiration for Judaism.

So, lemme get this straight:  the leader of an A-rab terrorist organisation is smarter, more tolerant, and more gracious than our own Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, and – lest we neglect to include a Democrat – Harry Reid?

The Lebanese people differentiate between Israel’s terrorist actions and the right of Jewish citizens of Lebanon to worship and pray as they please.  If only Americans were so thoughtful.

Link:

http://www.zeropartypolitics.com/2010/08/ground-zero-synagoguelebanon-becoming.html

Full text:

“There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.”— Newt Gingrich

Has Lebanon officially become more tolerant and progressive than the United States?

Let’s talk about Lebanon’s Ground Zero and you can decide for yourself.

One must first understand what “Ground Zero” means to most Lebanese.

In a country with about the same land mass as Los Angeles County which has been at war off and on for nearly four decades, “Ground Zero” for the Lebanese is arguably their entire country—and at the center of their Ground Zero is downtown Beirut, captured and occupied by the Israeli Defense Force in 1982 and which was almost entirely reduced to rubble from Muslim West Beirut to Christian East Beirut, and all points in between.

Once upon a time not too long ago, there was scarcely a building left standing or unscarred by shrapnel in all of Beirut.  I know, because I was in Beirut in 1991, and witnessed first hand a city once described as “the Paris of  the Middle East” reduced to ruins, pock marked with unexploded munitions and a haphazard “network” of open sewers.

Miraculously,  Beirut was rebuilt and reclaimed its prominence.  It once again became the jewel of the Arab world, remarkably able to bridge the ancient mystique of the east with the modern allure of the west.

Upon the first completion of its ”rebuilding” process however–after 15 years and tens of billions of dollars spent on reconstructing Lebanon and its Ground Zero from rubble to splendor, Israel did what Israel does…

In July and August of 2006, Israel again followed through on its promise to “bomb Lebanon back into the Stone Age,” and in so doing displaced 1,000,000 Lebanese civilians (nearly a quarter of the country’s population), completely destroyed the country’s infrastructure (again), its only airport, at least 64 bridges, leveled entire buildings and neighborhoods to rubble (again), including the country’s largest milk factory, a food factory, two pharmaceutical plants, water treatment centers, power plants, grain silos, a Greek Orthodox Church, several mosques, and a handful of hospitals (in a country which only had a handful of hospitals to begin with).

Over 1,200 hundred Lebanese civilians were killed and over 5,000 wounded.

Israel routinely talks about “proportionality” when comparing their “terrorism deaths” to American 9/11 deaths. In order to shock the sensibilities of a gullible American public, they portray a figure “in American terms,” by multiplying their dead by a number which reflects their population in comparison to the American population.

Well, what’s good for the Israeli goose is good for the Lebanese gander. I will play their game: 1,200 dead Lebanese civilians are the “proportional equivalent” to 90,000 American dead when accounting for the two countries’ population differences. Therefore, according to Israeli goose math, that’s the equivalent of roughly thirty 9/11’s Israel exacted on Lebanon in July and August 2006 over the course of 34 days—nearly one 9/11 a day for an entire month without relent.

Incidentally, July and August of 2006 only tell a small part of the story when it comes to Israeli aggression against Lebanon. There have been decades of invasion, devastation, and occupation which predated 2006. Several thousands of Lebanese have been killed at the hands of the Israeli Defense Force. Tens of billions of dollars of damage have been levied on the Lebanese infrastructure and private and public property courtesy of the IDF over the course of decades.

“Ground Zero” for Lebanon is an ever expanding, never ending, open wound that never heals.

So what now Newt?

Should you expect the Lebanese to allow a synagogue to be built on their Ground Zero, in the aftermath of a 9/11 that occurred 5 years after ours and which, “proportionately” speaking, was 30 times the size of ours?

Well guess what you hateful, misguided, twit?

THEY DID.

In the process of re-building Beirut yet again, in 2008, renovations began and have now been completed on the Maghden Abraham Synagogue located in the middle of newly renovated downtown Beirut in an area known as the “Solidere” which has become the focal point and showcase of Lebanon’s rebirth.

This isn’t some hole in the wall, nondescript, “excuse me” synagogue hidden out of view so as to not “offend” Lebanese non-Jews—this is an elaborate, ornate, beautifully designed, cathedral-style house of worship built for a Lebanese Jewish population that totals less than 500 in a country of more than 4,000,000 (in stark contrast to the eight million American Muslims living in the United States).

And wait until you hear Hezbollah’s response to the building of this Ground Zero Synagogue.

(To those expecting a Newt Gingrich equivalent response, prepare to be woefully disappointed).

Courtesy of Hassan Nasrallah himself: “We respect Judaism, just as we respect Christianity. Our only problem is with Israel.”

Did you hear that Newt (and the rest of you idiots)?

An Arab democracy, with a Muslim Prime Minister and a Christian President, allowed the building of a synagogue, squarely in the center of their “Ground Zero” in the heart and pride of downtown Beirut which used to be a dumping ground for Israeli military ordinances.

An Arab democracy allowed this, without so much as a protest being made by its citizens, or allegations by politicians that this was sacrilege, or hateful commentary by the media that the Jewish faith was barbaric, or any of the other stupidity I have seen and heard plastered all over American television, talk radio, and internet-blogs regarding a certain “Ground Zero Mosque” and the Islamic faith.

Regardless of whether you perceive Israel to be justified in perpetrating the devastation it did on Lebanon is irrelevant. The purpose of this article is not to debate that.  What cannot be debated, is that Israel (a Jewish State, flying a Jewish flag) unleashed hell on Lebanon for 34 straight days in July and August of 2006 (and for decades prior in its wars against Lebanon). Regardless of whether or not you feel Israel had a right to do that, you cannot deny that Lebanese civilians harbored, and continue to harbor, a very real resentment against the government of Israel—this Jewish state—for those actions and the devestation those actions caused.

Yet these very Lebanese, who are so quickly labeled as “blood thirsty terrorists” by Newt Gingrich and his army of xenophobic morons, were able to draw a distinction between the Jews “flying those planes” in July and August of 2006 working at the behest of the Israeli government, and the Jews whom are citizens of Lebanon who had no connection with those attacks.

Lebanon rebuilt that Ground Zero Synagogue for its Jews.

Not for Israel. Not for the world’s Jewry. Not as a monument to mark a “Jewish victory” over Lebanon.

Lebanon rebuilt that Ground Zero Synagogue because its Jews lived in that neighborhood and they had every right to build a house of worship in a place they called home.

For crying out loud, Hassan Nassrallah and Hezbollah can even draw the distinction between a Lebanese Jew and an Israeli soldier who happens to be a Jew. So how is it that Americans can’t distinguish between American Muslims who were victims of 9/11 and Saudi Muslims who were the perpetrators of 9/11?

Thank you Mr. Gingrich for allowing Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah to outclass you and the Republican Party (and you Democrats aren’t too far behind–yes Harry Reid, I’m talking to you). When the former Republican Speaker of the House and the current Democratic Senate Majority Leader start sounding less tolerant and less reasonable than a “terrorist,” we need to start sounding the alarm bells.

What a sad state of affairs for America.

Media failed us on “Ground Zero” Mosque

August 23rd, 2010 by sleepercell

Much ink has been spilt on the subject, and I do not wish to contribute to any further beating of a horse that’s long since been dead – at least on this website – but looking back at my last blog post, I see that I took up the banner of the Ground Zero Mosque (which isn’t at Ground Zero, and which isn’t a mosque) three months ago, at which time it was already, no doubt, a passe subject.

That being said, I must point out that our American media has failed us in the most basic way on this issue.  There are, no doubt, differing opinions on what should be done and what should not, yet there are facts, basic, undeniable facts which should be so obvious by now that no one should be able to continue to repeat blatant lies that contradict them.

Here is what spurred this blog post:  a reader comment on MSNBC* regarding the Middle East’s “relative quiet” on the issue of the community centre in lower Manhattan.  The reader, who identifies himself as “Paul B”, writes:

The Mideast better be quiet over the NYC mosque showdown. In fact, they better STFU since building a Christian church just about anywhere in the Molsem world would be considered grounds for beheading. One word out of the middle east and I’ll come over there and blow up the first flying carpet I see. You hear me Feisal? [Emphasis mine.]

This reader is echoing the comments of Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and numerous television pundits who point out that since Mozzlems don’t allow “us” to build churches in “their countries”, so why should we allow “them” to build a mosque in “our” country?  Leave aside all that’s wrong with the characterisation of Muslims as “them”, excluding them somehow from ever being Americans themselves, and all the other tremendous loopholes of logic present in that argument, and let’s just focus on the facts.

By now, this argument should have been thoroughly and utterly demolished – by anyone interviewing Gingrich or Palin, by any Associated Press reporter (who do insert facts and editorial comments when supposedly correcting, say, a claim Ahmadinejad makes) – with the simple observation that there churches in the Mozzlem world!  [See blog entry immediately prior to this one, dated 29 May 2010.]  There are churches and synagogues in Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, etc.  (No doubt Saudi Arabia is a different matter; of course, Saudi Arabia is but one of 57 or so Muslim-majority states, and Saudis constitute less than 1% of the world’s Muslim population.)  So no, building a church in a Muslim country is not grounds for beheading anywhere.

The only reason such a preposterously fallacious argument can be promulgated ad infinitum is because no one in the media understands the most rudimentary facts.  How do I say this nicely?  Most white people are fucking morons.  That includes our American journalists.  They are ignorant, nearly illiterate, and simply repeat the tripe their barbarian leaders tell them.  They are unable to read a book, to research, to learn the most basic

“We” – the United States – have been dealing with and/or in conflict with “the Mozzlems” for a at least three decades now (longer, but let’s cut it down to 30 years to give Americans a break).  How long does it take to get the most basic fucking facts down?  In thirteen minutes I could construct a simple handout correcting the most obvious mistakes Americans and American journalists repeatedly make about “the Mideast” and about “Mozzlems”.  A simple handout with population numbers, percent of adherents by religion in each country, and a chart explaining what an Arab is, what the Middle East is, and what a Muslim is (a good 95% of Americans think these terms are interchangeable) could go so far to educating people.  But no such handy info is ever produced by our media.  Never mind the flat-out lying and misreporting of facts, as in the Gaza flotilla massacre, or the Qana massacre, to name but two off the top of my head; our media simply don’t report basic facts in such a way as to mislead their readers, whether intentional or not.  This could be a case of laziness, malice, or ignorance, but regardless, it is negligent.  Our journalists have failed us.

For example, although no one in the media has trumpeted the lie:  ”There is not a single church in Jordan or Pakistan,” they have collectively portrayed Muslims in such a way that people actually believe that.  Unti-unless the media portray broad, accurate depictions of the Muslim World, and strive to dispel patently false notions of it, Americans will continue to be a racist, hateful, and angry people.

White trash sure does talk tough from behind a keyboard, it’s true, but the lamentable reality is that it’s not merely white trash who oppose the “Ground Zero” Muslim community centre.  Fully 70% of Americans are against it (are 70% of Americans white trash? are 70% of Americans even white?), including Democrats and, yes, readers of MSNBC, a supposedly left-leaning news organisation (see footnote below), as well as mainstream politicians like Rick Lazio and Peter King, both of New York.  Are rich New Yorkers white trash, too?

This media failure occurs spectacularly in all crises regarding Muslims.  Take the cartoon controversy.  The way it was reported ad nauseum, even by liberal and progressive news outlets in the U.S., is that Mozzlems took offence, to the point of becoming violent, because it is a sin to depict his likeness.  In reality, it’s true that Muslims widely consider it a sin to depict Muhammad, but throughout history many Islamic civilisations have produced paintings of him, including the Persians and the Turks – and yes, some Arabs.  The real offence of the cartoons** was that they portrayed Muhammad as a terrorist, a rapist, a criminal.  This was what “enraged the Mozzlem street”.

Yet somehow, not a single major Western media outlet that I read, including the usually informative Financial Times, mentioned this.  They simply repeated the same stuff and nonsense that the resultant outcry was due to Muhammad having been drawn at all.  Not a single Western journalist, it seems, knew of the long artistic history of depicting Muhammad, nor did they bother to consult any professors of Islamic history.

I apologise, finally, for the rambling post.  It’s easier to write about something when you don’t have quite so much to say about it.  When your thoughts are overflowing, it becomes a challenge to organise and explain them all.  I left out so many things out of mercy to you, the reader.

Two footnotes, followed by notes I never expatiated upon above:

*Supposedly a “leftist” news organisation by American standards.  Not just Fox News’ standards, but even compared to CNN, this network is supposed to be the cheerleader for the left, led by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.  Of course, this is the same website on which countless hundreds of American readers have raucously cheered on the deaths of flood victims in Pakistan.  (Someday, at some time, when I can muster the outrage, I’ll write a blog post about that.)

**And let’s be honest:  the whole “controversy” was a politically manufactured football by a few Muslim leaders, and was generated months after the cartoons were originally published.  However offensive or racist the cartoons may have been, their creation did not justify mobs burning down a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in Lahore (not before first eating the food, according to witnessses) or some of the other absurd actions some Muslims around the world took.

-If “mosque” to be “terrorist command centre”, per Palin/Gingrich/Limbaugh, then why is it acceptable to them that it be located elsewhere in Manhattan?  So it’s OK to place a terrorist command centre with a radical imam who has ties to Hamas, Iran, Hizbullah, Satan, and Hitler in the Upper West Side (damn hippies and college kids)?  The opponents of the mosque support terrorist command centres so long as they’re not within sniffing distance of the hallowed Ground Zero?

- Rauf, the supposedly radical imam who regularly consorts with the Devil and Daniel Webster, was appointed by Bush regime to speak in Muslim nations as representative of U.S.  Rauf sent by State Dept abroad several times as ambassador.

- NewsCorp’s #2 money man is Saudi prince who has funded Imam Rauf.  Newscorp owns Fox.  Does this mean Fox News funds terrorism?

NYT Actually Prints a Few Words on Gaza Flotilla!

May 29th, 2010 by sleepercell

Here is what they wrote, a single paragraph on page A6 (imagine how much coverage if there were an international delegation going to Iran to oppose the regime there):

Organizers of a flotilla of up to nine vessels carrying hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists and thousands of tons of supplies for Gaza protested on Friday against what they called an Israeli disinformation campaign aimed at their mission. Israel has vowed to stop the boats from reaching Gaza, which is controlled by the Islamic militant group Hamas, and insists that there is no humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian coastal enclave. “For over four years,” the organizers said in a statement, “Israel has subjected the civilian population of Gaza to an increasingly severe blockade, resulting in a man-made humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions.” The boats were expected to approach the coast sometime over the weekend. The aim, the organizers said, was to break through the “illegal” Israeli blockade “in non-violent direct action.”

***

I love the way the NYT has to put “illegal” and “non-violent” in quotes like that, as if these are mere claims and not established facts.

They can hide behind the defence that they’re simply quoting the flotilla organisers’ statement, but they could just as easily have written, “The organizers stated their aim was to break through the illegal Israeli blockade in non-violent direct action.”

When you put the quotes around a single word like “illegal” it has the effect of stigmatisation, like making air-quote gestures with your hands while speaking.

The way even a few words are framed greatly alters readers’ perceptions of reality.

(Or perhaps I’m just hypersensitive and overanalysing.)

And how about calling them “tons of humanitarian supplies” instead of just “tons of supplies”?  It makes the flotilla activists less sympathetic figures, and also leaves open the possibility of “military supplies”, etc.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of those “pro-Palestinian” (NYT‘s words) activists?

(Were Mandela’s supporters called “pro-black”? Or were they just “anti-apartheid activists”?)

Mosque at Ground Zero vs Church in Mozzlim Country

May 29th, 2010 by sleepercell

More than one white man has made it clear that he’s against a mosque being erected a few blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan.

From Peter King, a New York Congressman who calls the building of a mosque “offensive”, to former Houston city councilman Mike Barry, who said, “I hope somebody blows it [proposed mosque] up,” the white man has made it clear many of his kind are not only against freedom of religion but openly advocate terrorism against those of other religions.

Let me get this straight: American Muslims who live or work in lower Manhattan don’t have a right to worship in a mosque? Are any of the Muslims who live or work in that area among the 19 hijackers? Are they personally responsible for the criminal savagery of 9/11?

If so, then would it be equally “offensive” to build a church near the old Alfred Murrah Building in Oklahoma City (after all, Timothy McVeigh was a self-professed Christian)? Would American Muslim leaders promote through our public airwaves bombing such a church?

How is this even a debate? It only can be because many of those belonging to the White Man Race are morons. Not just morons, but homicidal, armed morons.

It would be easy to dismiss Michael Berry’s comments as those of a fringe radical, but even the shallowest perusal of reader comments under reports of his on-air incitement show that a majority support him.

(No doubt there are morons – and homicidal ones – in every group – but can you show me even one instance where a majority of American Muslims support bombing this or that church or other specific terrorist acts?)

***

Let’s imagine for a moment the government of Pakistan refused to allow construction of a church* at a given site. No, not the site of a U.S. drone attack that murdered 72 civilians, but just a random site in a city like, say, Rawalpindi. The U.S. media would jump on the story (and not just the right-wing tea baggers or Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs, but the Associated Press and the so-called “liberal media”) and use it as further proof that Muzzlims are anti-West, anti-Christianity, anti-democracy, and “hate us because of our freedoms”.

And if such a development occurred, I would lambaste the Pakistani government. If a Pakistani argued with me that it is “offensive” to build a new church in Pakistan after Christians from the U.S. have murdered so many Pakistanis, I would argue with them that Christian worshipers in Pakistan are not responsible for the actions of the U.S. government. Even if there were, say, Dutch and Finnish people (Western Christians, that is, not Paki ones) working with their respective nations’ embassies in Islamabad, I would argue that they, too, have a right to worship in a church in Pakistan without interference or hindrance. Dutch and Finnish individuals are not responsible for the U.S.’s “War on Terr” and the hideous atrocities it commits in its name.

One crucial difference, however, is that while we can’t blame every war crime committed by a white Christian nation on every Christian in the world, it must be noted that the war crimes committed by Christian U.S. soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere were conducted as part of a policy of a government that was democratically elected by the people of said majority-white Christian nation. That is, the people who voted in the government that commands the soldiers who commit rape and murder of teenage girls are by extension directly responsible for those grisly acts. After all, the government of the United States is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Whereas the actions of a handful of unelected bandits operating out of Afghanistan cannot be blamed on Muslims as a whole. No Muslim governing body voted for al-Qaida. There are no Muslims houses of parliament passing resolutions in favour of al-Qaida, cheering al-Qaida, or promising weapons or billions of dollars in funding for al-Qaida. So, let us be clear, the Muslims of lower Manhattan who wish to worship freely are far more innocent with regard to 9/11 than are the majority of white Christian Americans who stay silent with regard to (or actively participate in) the destruction of entire countries abroad.

***

Fair is fair. Analyses must be made reasonably, with the same rules applied to all. I feel I have succeeded in this regard where almost all discussion of The Ground Zero Mosque in the U.S. has failed. Point out my shortcomings in this matter and I will correct them.

***

*Totally irrelevant aside regarding churches in Pakistan: In 2005 I volunteered to aid in the medical relief of Kashmir after an earthquake there killed over 83,000 people. Out of the hundreds of volunteers I met, only one was American – and she said everyone she knew in the States urged her not to go because they insisted the Mozzlims would kill her. However, there were about 30 Canadian nurses working in my hospital and nearby medical relief tent cities. A local man took us a on a tour of some of the destruction, showing us a girls’ school that had collapsed, a decimated hospital containing Kashmir’s only CT scan machine, cemeteries rent in half, and a church with a knotted fissure running down the centre of its facade.

One of the Canadian nurses whispered to her friend, “A church? In Pack-kiss-stan?” Her friend whispered back, “I think he means a mosque. He’s just translating it into English and calling it a church. He just means a temple or whatever.”

I mentioned to the nurses that there were millions of Christians in Pakistan, and that they worshiped in churches. They dismissed me with wan smiles. One of them said, “But Pack-kiss-tan is a Muzzlim country. Muzzlim countries don’t allow churches.”

I explained that my mother had gone to a convent school in Pakistan and had been taught by nuns. I offered to take the Canadian nurses on a brief detour from the rest of the group so we could go back and enter the church-with-a-crack and see the icons, crosses, and stained glass windows white people demand of their churches.

It’s a story for another irrelevant aside elsewhere, but it’s always amazing how white people know all the laws of all the “Muzzlim countries”, like how women can’t drive in any Muzzlim country, how anyone anywhere will get arrested for holding hands in public in a Muzzlim country, how there’s no freedom of press in any Muzzlim country, etc. Where do they learn this stuff? If you don’t blame our American media – after all, U.S. news orgs that report accurately that women don’t have the right to drive in Saudi don’t misinform the reader by going on to say, “as women are not allowed to drive ANYWHERE IN THE MUZZLIM WORLD” – you must concede, at least, that the media is doing a poor job by failing to inform fully, and that the media is failing its most basic mission when readers come away with the impression that no churches can be built in any Muslim nation, that every woman in every Muslim nation is required by law to cover her face, etc.

Last irrelevant irrelevancy:
I had an American patient this week who claimed that she lived in Iran for several years and was furious that women aren’t allowed to drive there. Again, this is a story that should be reserved for another irrelevant aside at another time, but why did she believe this? It’s an outright lie. Women in Iran have the legal right to drive. Do white people just hallucinate and then speak authoritatively as if they are actually in touch with reality? I’m not angry about this phenomenon (thought I am a bit scared), I just want to understand the mechanism by which it occurs. If anyone can explain it to me, I would be very pleased.

(I have a good dozen more of these examples of white people clearly hallucinating in front of my eyes; if the reader is interested, I can detail them in a future post.)

DNC 2010 Presidential Survey

May 19th, 2010 by sleepercell

For some reason, the Democratic National Party considers me one of their brethren, and annually mails me a survey asking for my “valuable” opinion – with a little oh-by-the-way begging at the end for funds.

Here are my replies (shown in italics) to this year’s survey:

Five choices are available: Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Undecided.

1. How do you rate President Obama’s performance in addressing the nation’s economic situation?

Fair. Fat cats getting fatter. Let’s just give Goldman the keys to the White House.

2. How do you rate President Obama’s performance regarding the passage of health insurance reform?

Fair. Still no single-payor system, still no public option. We are a backward nation compared to Canada and Western Europe.

3. How do you rate President Obama’s performance regarding our nation’s energy policies?

Fair. No demonstrable commitment to alternative fuel. Oil companies still running roughshod over the world.

4. How do you rate President Obama’s performance concerning foreign policy?

Poor. Apartheid in Israel is acceptable to our president. No human rights for Palestinians is A-OK with BO.

5. How do you rate the President’s performance in handling the war in Afghanistan?

Poor. He is a war criminal.

6. How do you rate the Obama Administration’s efforts to hand over responsibility to the Iraqi people?

Poor. He is personally responsible for the murder and rape of millions of innocents.

He has no desire to hand over anything to the Iraqi people. He wants total domination of their lands and their resources. He has no commitment to democracy whatsoever.

7. How do you rate President Obama’s overall performance?

Poor. If there were a Nobel Prize for mass murder and atrocities, BO would surely win it.

Democratic Party Priorities: Please rank the following 5 goals for the DP by their level of priority, with the number 1 signifying the most important and the number 5 signifying least important.

1. Organizing Grassroots Support –> There’s no such thing. The Democratic Party is bought and sold by corporations like a publicly-traded stock on the NYSE.

COMMENTS. Please tell us your thoughts about President Obama the DP, and the issues our nation is facing:

If we are content to commit war crimes abroad and have the spilt blood of millions of innocent children on our hands, we have lost our moral compass. We are no position to dictate to other nations how to behave. Kucinich in 2012!

CONTRIBUTION. Are you willing to offer your support to President Obama and the DNC at this critical time? If so, please indicate the amount of your contribution:

$25
$50
$100
Other: -$10,000 –> You should pay me $10k for my advice, and give every Iraqi and Afghan civilian $100k each.

PAYMENT METHOD (The DNC does not accept contributions from currently registered federal lobbyists.)

That is a goddamned lie.