http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/31101164#31101164
By Rabbi Michael Lerner
Jews did not return to Palestine in order to be oppressors or representatives of Western colonialism or cultural imperialism. Although it is true that some early Zionist leaders sought to portray their movement as a way to serve the interests of various Western states, and although many Jews who came brought with them a Western arrogance that made it possible for them to see Palestine as "a land without a people for a people without a land," and hence to virtually ignore the Palestinian people and its own cultural and historical rights, the vast majority of those who came were seeking refuge from the murderous ravages of Western anti-Semitism or from the oppressive discrimination that they experienced in Arab countries. The Ashkenazi Jews who shaped Israel in its early years were jumping from the burning buildings of Europe--and when they landed on the backs of Palestinians, unintentionally causing a great deal of pain to the people who already lived there, they were so transfixed with their own (much greater and more acute) pain that they couldn't be bothered to notice that they were displacing and hurting others in the process of creating their own state.
Their insensitivity to the pain that they caused, and their subsequent denial of the fact that in creating Israel they had simultaneously helped create a Palestinian people most of whom were forced to live as refugees (and now, their many descendents still living as exiles and dreaming of "return" just as we Jews did for some 1800 plus years), was aided by the arrogance, stupidity and anti-Semitism of Palestinian leaders and their Arab allies in neighboring states who dreamt of ridding the area of its Jews and who, much like the Herut "revisionists" who eventually came to run Israel in the past twenty years, consistently resorted to violence and intimidation to pursue their maximalist fantasies.
By the time Palestinians had come to their senses and acknowledged the reality of Israel and the necessity of accommodating to that reality if they were ever to find a way to establish even the most minimal self-determination in the land that had once belonged to their parents and grandparents it was too late to undermine the powerful misperception of reality held by most Jews and Israelis that their state was likely to be wiped out any moment if they did not exercise the most powerful vigilance. Drenched in the memories of the Holocaust and in the internalized vision of themselves as inevitably powerless, Jews were unable to recognize that they had become the most powerful state in the region and among the top 20% of powerful countries in the world--and they used this sense of imminent potential doom to justify the continuation of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for over thirty years.
From Tikkun Magazine
OF ALL the beautiful phrases in Barack Obama’s inauguration speech, these are the words that stuck in my mind: “You are on the wrong side of history.”He was talking about the tyrannical regimes of the world. But we, too, should ponder these wordsIn the last few days I have heard a lot of declarations from Ehud Barak, Tzipi Livni, Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Olmert. And every time, these eight words came back to haunt me: “You are on the wrong side of history!”Obama was speaking as a man of the 21st century. Our leaders speak the language of the 19th century. They resemble the dinosaurs which once terrorized their neighborhood and were quite unaware of the fact that their time had already passed.DURING THE rousing celebrations, again and again the multicolored patchwork of the new president’s family was mentioned.All the preceding 43 presidents were white Protestants, except John Kennedy, who was a white Catholic. 38 of them were the descendants of immigrants from the British isles. Of the other five, three were of Dutch ancestry (Theodor and Franklin D. Roosevelt , as well as Martin van Buren) and two of German descent (Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower.)The face of Obama’s family is quite different. The extended family includes whites and the descendents of black slaves, Africans from Kenya, Indonesians, Chinese from Canada, Christians, Muslims and even one Jew (a converted African-American). The two first names of the president himself, Barack Hussein, are Arabic.This is the face of the new American nation – a mixture of races, religions, countries of origin and skin-colors, an open and diverse society, all of whose members are supposed to be equal and to identify themselves with the ”founding fathers”. The American Barack Hussein Obama, whose father was born in a Kenyan village, can speak with pride of “George Washington, the father of our nation”, of the “American Revolution” (the war of independence against the British), and hold up the example of “our ancestors”, who include both the white pioneers and the black slaves who “endured the lash of the whip”. That is the perception of a modern nation, multi-cultural and multi-racial: a person joins it by acquiring citizenship, and from this moment on is the heir to all its history.Israel is the product of the narrow nationalism of the 19th century, a nationalism that was closed and exclusive, based on race and ethnic origin, blood and earth. Israel is a “Jewish State”, and a Jew is a person born Jewish or converted according to Jewish religious law (Halakha). Like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, it is a state whose mental world is to a large extent conditioned by religion, race and ethnic origin.When Ehud Barak speaks about the future, he speaks the language of past centuries, in terms of brute force and brutal threats, with armies providing the solution to all problems. That was also the language of George W. Bush who last week slinked out of Washington, a language that already sounds to the Western ear like an echo from the distant past.The words of the new president are ringing in the air: “Our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please.” The key words were “humility and restraint”.Our leaders are now boasting about their part in the Gaza War, in which unbridled military force was unleashed intentionally against a civilian population, men, women and children, with the declared aim of “creating deterrence”. In the era that began last Tuesday, such expressions can only arouse shudders.
By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN
The record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.
Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one; to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.
And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas.
As was documented in the April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair by the writer David Rose, basing himself on internal US documents, it was the United States in cahoots with the Palestinian Authority and Israel which were attempting a putsch on Hamas, and Hamas preempted the putsch. That, too, is no longer debatable or no longer a controversial claim.
The issue is can it rule in Gaza if Israel maintains a blockade and prevents economic activity among the Palestinians. The blockade, incidentally, was implemented before Hamas came to power. The blockade doesn’t even have anything to do with Hamas. The blockade came to—there were Americans who were sent over, in particular James Wolfensohn, to try to break the blockade after Israel redeployed its troops in Gaza.
The problem all along has been that Israel doesn’t want Gaza to develop, and Israel doesn’t want to resolve diplomatically the conflict, both the leadership in Damascus and the leadership in the Gaza have repeatedly made statements they’re willing to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border. The record is fairly clear. In fact, it’s unambiguously clear.
Every year, the United Nations General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled “Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question.” And every year the vote is the same: it’s the whole world on one side; Israel, the United States and some South Sea atolls and Australia on the other side. The vote this past year was 164-to-7. Every year since 1989—in 1989, the vote was 151-to-3, the whole world on one side, the United States, Israel and the island state of Dominica on the other side.
We have the Arab League, all twenty-two members of the Arab League, favoring a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We have the Palestinian Authority favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We now have Hamas favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. The one and only obstacle is Israel, backed by the United States. That’s the problem.
Well, the record shows that Hamas wanted to continue the ceasefire, but only on condition that Israel eases the blockade. Long before Hamas began the retaliatory rocket attacks on Israel, Palestinians were facing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza because of the blockade. The former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, described what was going on in Gaza as a destruction of a civilization. This was during the ceasefire period.
What does the record show? The record shows for the past twenty or more years, the entire international community has sought to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border with a just resolution of the refugee question. Are all 164 nations of the United Nations the rejectionists? And are the only people in favor of peace the United States, Israel, Nauru, Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Australia? Who are the rejectionists? Who’s opposing a peace?
The record shows that in every crucial issue raised at Camp David, then under the Clinton parameters, and then in Taba, at every single point, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. Israel didn’t make any concessions. Every concession came from the Palestinians. The Palestinians have repeatedly expressed a willingness to settle the conflict in accordance with international law.
The law is very clear. July 2004, the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice, ruled Israel has no title to any of the West Bank and any of Gaza. They have no title to Jerusalem. Arab East Jerusalem, according to the highest judicial body in the world, is occupied Palestinian territory. The International Court of Justice ruled all the settlements, all the settlements in the West Bank, are illegal under international law.
Now, the important point is, on all those questions, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions. They made all the concessions. Israel didn’t make any concessions.
I think it’s fairly clear what needs to happen. Number one, the United States and Israel have to join the rest of the international community, have to abide by international law. I don’t think international law should be trivialized. I think it’s a serious issue. If Israel is in defiance of international law, it should be called into account, just like any other state in the world.
Mr. Obama has to level with the American people. He has to be honest about what is the main obstacle to resolving the conflict. It’s not Palestinian rejectionism. It’s the refusal of Israel, backed by the United States government, to abide by international law, to abide by the opinion of the international community.
And the main challenge for all of us as Americans is to see through the lies.
Washington Watch
January 12, 2009Dr. James J. Zogby (c)PresidentArab American Institute
As in past Mideast conflicts, both the media story line and political commentary here in the U.S. has closely followed Israel's talking points on the war. This has been an essential component in Israel's early success and in its ability to prolong fighting without U.S. pushback. Because it recognizes the importance of the propaganda war, Israel fights on this front as vigorously and disproportionately as it engages on the battlefield.
Here's how they have done it:
1) Define the terms of debate, and you win the debate. Early on, the Israelis work to define the context, the starting point, and the story line that will shape understanding of the war. In this instance, for example, they succeeded by constant repetition, in establishing the notion that the starting point of the conflict was December 19th, the end of the six-month ceasefire (which Israel described as "unilaterally ended by Hamas"). In doing so, they ignored, of course, their own early November violations, and their failure to honor their commitment in the ceasefire to open Gaza's borders. They also ignored their having reduced Gaza into a dependency, a process which began long before and continued after their withdrawal in 2005. Because they know that most Americans do not closely follow the conflict and are inclined to believe, as the line goes, "what they hear over and over again," this tactic of preemptive definition and repetition succeeds.
2) Recognize that stereotypes work. Because, for generations, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been defined with positive cultural images of Israel and negative stereotypes of Palestinians, Israel's propagandists have an advantage here that is easy to exploit. Because the story has long been seen as "Israeli humanity confronting the Palestinian problem," media coverage of any conflict begins with how "the problem" is affecting the Israeli people. As Golda Meir once put it, "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we can never forgive them for making us kill their children." And so, it was not surprising that, despite the disproportionate suffering of the Palestinians, media coverage attempted to "balance" the story, giving an extensive treatment, with photos of anguished and fearful Israelis and the impact the war was having on them. Early on, when media treatment mattered most, Palestinians were reduced, as always, to mere numbers or objectified as "collateral damage."
3) Anticipate and count on your opponent's blunders. Hamas' stupidity played into Israel's strategy. From the outset, Israel could count on the fact that Hamas would launch rockets and issue the kind of threats that Israel could then parley into sympathy in the West. Knowing that these would most certainly come, and could be exploited, was an advantage in their propaganda war.
4) Be everywhere, and say the same thing -- and make sure your opponents remain as invisible as possible. Israel begins each war with a host of English-speaking spokespersons (many born in the West) available at any time for every media outlet (it's no accident, for example, that Israel has an "Arab" Consul General in Atlanta - that's where CNN is). The work of their propaganda operation, which spreads multiple spokespersons in venues across the United States with consistent talking points, guarantees success. At the same time, they are able to deny media access to Gaza, only allowing the Western reporters to operate near the war zone under IDF supervision, guaranteeing Israel the opportunity to shape every aspect of the story while removing the possibility of independent verification of the horror unfolding in Gaza.
5) Give no ground. Since half of the story will be determined by what political leaders say and do, the political apparatus in Washington is also pressed into service, ensuring that White House and Congressional leadership will "toe the line." Statements issued by Congress, therefore, reflect the talking points and, together, the Israeli spokespersons, the political commentators, and the Congressional statements serve as echoes of one another
6) Deny, deny, deny. When events and reality break through, contradicting the Israeli-established narrative, creating stories that run counter to the imposed story line, the propaganda machine works overtime to deny, deny, deny (saying quite boldly, "Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes?"), and/or concoct a counter-narrative that shifts the blame ("We didn't do it, they made us"). In this instance, that means asserting that the death of Palestinian civilians is always the fault of someone else, or that reporters or their opponents are staging the photos of grief (as if to say, "Arabs don't really grieve like we do").
7) The last refuge.... When all else fails, point to a few examples of outrageous anti-Semitism, generalize them, suggesting that that is what motivates critics. It stings, and may be over-used, but it can silence or put critics on the defensive.
November 17, 2008
Lessons That
Should Be Learned
Dr. James J. Zogby (c)
President
Arab American Institute
On November 5th, my office sent an email to tens of thousands of our members and contacts congratulating President-elect Barack Obama. In our message, we noted the historic transformation his victory represented and commended the thousands of Arab Americans who participated in this winning campaign.
The initial and near universal response was heartwarming, with many sharing moving anecdotes of their campaign experiences, their reactions to the victory, and their hopes for change.
One day and one announcement later, the tide turned.
With the naming of Congressman Rahm Emanuel as Obama's White House Chief of Staff, the euphoria of some, not all, turned to despair. The emails and calls to my office were both troubled and troubling because much of the reaction was based on misinformation and because of what the entire episode revealed about the larger political dynamics involved.
First, the facts.
Rahm Emanuel is a brilliant strategist and a practitioner of hard-ball politics who in campaigns, his time in the Clinton White House, and more recently in Congress has demonstrated that he knows how to get a job done. Because there will be critical legislation the President-elect will need to move through Congress, from an economic recovery package and health care reform to a comprehensive approach to alternative energy, Obama has tapped Emanuel for his proven political skills. It is that simple.
This, of course, was neither the content nor the concerns raised by the emails I received. Some charged that Emanuel was an Israeli citizen or a dual U.S.-Israeli national (he is neither, he was born in Chicago in 1959); or, they alleged that he served in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and lost his finger confronting a Syrian tank during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon (he did not serve in the IDF, and lost his finger in a freak accident while working as a teenager in an Arby's restaurant). A few accused Emanuel of skipping U.S. military service to join the IDF in 1991 (also not true - in the midst of the 1991 Gulf War, while U.S. forces were manning Patriot missile batteries in Israel and the Arab Gulf, Emanuel volunteered for a few weeks, as a civilian, doing maintenance on Israeli vehicles). The most recent story alleges that Rahm Emanuel was fired from the White House in 1998 after being implicated by the FBI, together with Monica Lewinsky, in a Mossad plot to spy on then-President Clinton (a total fabrication, compliments of a shady character who claims to have been a U.S. intelligence official and is a purveyor of many bizarre tales).
That stories such as these have been circulating, and have taken hold, is as reprehensible as the "Barack Obama is a secret Muslim/Manchurian candidate" tale, or the anti-Arab anti-Muslim canards to which I and many of my colleagues have been subjected over the years.
Putting aside the fiction or, more accurately, the slanderous myths, the truth is that Emanuel is an effective leader in Congress. He is a strong supporter of Israel. But then, how many members of Congress are not?
Emanuel is Jewish and his father is an Israeli. Arab Americans should be especially sensitive to attacks on anyone based on religion or ethnicity. He has worked closely with and is liked by the Arab American Members of Congress from both parties, and he was the architect of the 1993 White House lawn signing ceremony for the Oslo Accords that brought Arab Americans and American Jews together. When, in 1994, Rahm accepted my invitation to a luncheon with Arab American community leaders, those who met him were impressed by his openness and honesty.
Beyond these facts, however, there are two concerns that must be addressed.
It is deeply troubling how quickly, for some, the excitement of Barack Obama's victory was eclipsed by cynicism and suspicion, and how receptive some were to wild tales. This could only occur, on one level, because the victory itself was not understood. If it had been, the excitement would have been tempered by an appreciation of political realities.
Obama's victory, no doubt, demonstrated that change is possible - but incremental change. Pressures remain, from the right and the left as well as the interest groups of all sorts that continue to have influence, limiting political options. The economy is in free-fall and, after eight years of Bush neglect and recklessness, dangers abound in the world. An Obama victory doesn't alter those realities. And so our excitement was justified, but our euphoria should never have taken us so high as to lose our grounding and understanding of the limits of what is possible.
My concern is that, for some, the need for change became so great as to make them susceptible to wild swings - from unrealistic expectations to unwarranted despair and, therefore, to become prone to believe the worst.
But the fault here should be shared. I am concerned by the slowness of the Obama camp to respond more quickly or effectively to address the situation. Modern political operations have learned the need to confront false stories, to manage perception, and to anticipate problems -- and, here, the Obama team had been especially masterful.
During the campaign, for example, they repeatedly demonstrated how tuned-in they were to public perception - and in particular to matters that might have created discomfort in the Jewish community. They knew that these stories needed to be shot down quickly. (American Muslims understood much of this, despite feeling slighted, at times.) But in this most recent instance, the Obama camp displayed both inattentiveness and tone-deafness to Arab misperceptions about who Rahm Emanuel is, and what role he will play. (Aside from the flap over the comments made by Rahm's father, for which Rahm, himself, has now profoundly apologized.) As a result, the situation festered.
The campaign is now over, and the President-elect is playing on a world stage with more than one audience at stake. And in the Middle East, especially, sensitivities are as great and (perceived) sleights are felt as acutely as they are among any people in the world. With feelings having been rubbed raw by decades of U.S. policy miscues, with U.S. favorability ratings at all-time lows, and with extremists preying off resentment and fear - perceptions matter.
If we are to succeed in making changes in U.S.-Arab relations - and I believe that an Obama Administration can - greater attentiveness and sensitivity is in order.
Bottom line - there are lessons to learn and work to be done. Arabs and Arab Americans need to ground their expectations in political realities and be wary of slanderous attacks smacking of anti-Semitism, and U.S. political leadership must learn to be as attentive to Arab sensitivities as they are to the concerns of others.
Best ad so far!
It should bring McPalin's campaign down a notch or two.
This ad should have continued for another 30 seconds: We urge you to vote for Barack Obama! He is the true candidate of change who will begin our journey to undo the damage done by George Bush and his corporate fascist friends, .............
I am donating $25 for this ad in few minutes.
See ad ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3Y1KPzW9k&eurl=http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5q24
Our recent slip in the polls should be a reminder to all of us that nothing should or can be taken for granted.
1) We need to trip McCain and define him as the candidate he is: The same old politician, and the face of corporate fascism just like his Republican predecessor.
2) The gloves are off.
3) O needs to get mad. He needs to speak from conviction and enough of the self doubt about his funny name and him being from a different pedigree as other presidents.
4) Go for the gusto.
5) O needs to understand that he represents the hopes of hundreds of millions of Americans and act accordingly.
Dear Care2 Member,Hi, I'm Jeremy Ben Ami, Executive Director of J Street, and I'm so pleased you've joined J Street's email list through our petition asking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to halt Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank.
Welcome aboard!
We started J Street to mobilize political support for a new direction in American policy in the Middle East.
Our goals are to end the conflicts between Israel and its neighbors peacefully, to bring about a two-state solution between the Israelis and Palestinians, to avoid war with Iran, and to promote real American leadership to help resolve the conflicts in the Middle East through tough, smart diplomacy.
To do that, we have to change a crippling dynamic in American politics - namely, that a small number of neo-conservatives, right-wing Christian Zionists, and right-wing Jews monopolize the political landscape when it comes to Israel and the Middle East.
A majority of Jewish and non-Jewish Americans support smart, sensible policies that promote peace and security in the Middle East, but their voices have been drowned out by this vocal, right-wing minority.
Thanks to J Street, we are silent no more in the political arena. Today, we're 55,000 strong and growing - Americans who are tired of seven and a half years of Bush-Cheney policies that have undermined not only American interests, but also the long-term security of Israel and the stability of the Middle East.
We are already making our voice heard in the corridors of power both through J Street's advocacy and the work of its sister organization JStreetPAC. Together, we are starting to flex our political muscles:
We have lots of hard work ahead of us to make an impact on this critical election and to translate those political gains into policy change next year. In these next few crucial months, we plan to:
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- Mahmoud Darwish, whose prose gave voice to the Palestinian experience of exile, occupation and infighting, died Saturday in Houston, Texas. He was 67.
The predominant Palestinian poet, whose work has been translated into more than 20 languages and won numerous international awards, died after open-heart surgery at a Houston hospital, said Nabil Abu Rdeneh, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Born to a large Muslim family in historical Palestine, now Israel, he emerged as a Palestinian cultural icon eloquently describing his people's struggle for independence while criticizing both the Israeli occupation and the Palestinian leadership. He gave voice to the Palestinian dreams of statehood, crafted their declaration of independence and helped forge a Palestinian national identity.
"He felt the pulse of Palestinians in beautiful poetry. He was a mirror of the Palestinian society," said Ali Qleibo, a Palestinian anthropologist and lecturer in cultural studies at Al Quds University in Jerusalem.
Darwish gained prominence in the 1960s with the publication of his first poetry collection, "Bird without Wings." It included the poem "Identity Card," which defiantly spoke in the first person of an Arab man giving his identity number, a common practice among Palestinians when dealing with Israeli authorities and Arab governments, and vowing to return to his land.
Many of his poems have been put into music -- most notably "Rita," "Birds of Galilee" and "I yearn for my mother's bread" -- and have become anthems for at least two generations of Arabs.
He wrote another 21 collections, the last, "The Impression of Butterflies," in 2008.
Qleibo described Darwish's poetry as "the easy impossible" for Darwish's ability to condense the Palestinian narrative into simple, evocative language, breaking away from the more traditional heavy, emotive and rhythmic verse of other Arab poets.
Darwish wrote the Palestinian Declaration of Independence in 1988, read by the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat when he unilaterally declared statehood. The declaration was symbolic and had no concrete significance.
Darwish's influence was keenly felt among Palestinians, serving as a powerful voice for many.
"He started out as a poet of resistance, and then he became a poet of conscience," Palestinian lawmaker Hanan Ashrawi said. "He embodied the best in Palestinians. ... Even though he became iconic, he never lost his sense of humanity. We have lost part of our essence, the essence of the Palestinian being."
Last year, Darwish recited a poem damning the deadly infighting between rival Palestinian groups Hamas and Fatah, describing it as "a public attempt at suicide in the streets."
Darwish was born in the Palestinian village of Birweh near Haifa, which was destroyed in the 1948 Mideast war that led to Israel's independence. He joined the Israeli Communist Party after high school and began writing poems for leftist newspapers.
"When we think of Darwish ... he is our heart and our tongue," said Issam Makhoul, an Arab lawmaker and veteran member of the Israeli Communist Party.
Darwish left Israel in the early 1970s to study in the former Soviet Union, and from there he traveled to Egypt and Lebanon. He joined the Palestine Liberation Organization but resigned in 1993 in protest over the interim peace accords that the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat signed with Israel. Darwish moved to the West Bank city of Ramallah in 1996.
His work is widely admired on the Arab and Palestinian street. In Israel, it evokes different feelings.
In 2000, Israel's education minister, Yossi Sarid, suggested including some of Darwish's poems in the Israeli high school curriculum. But Prime Minister Ehud Barak overruled him, saying Israel was not ready for his ideas in the school system.
In 1988, a Darwish poem, "Passing in Passing Words," was read by then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir inside Israel's parliament as an example of the Palestinians' unwillingness to live alongside Jews. The poem suggested that Darwish called for Jews to leave the region.
Adel Usta, a specialist on Darwish's poetry, said the poem was misunderstood and mistranslated.
"He created a national Palestinian identity that no other poet could achieve," Usta said.
Darwish married and divorced twice. He does not have any children.
Siham Daoud, a fellow poet and longtime friend of Darwish, said he traveled to a hospital in Houston, ten days ago for the surgery and asked not to be resuscitated if it did not succeed. She said Darwish had a history of heart problems and had been operated on twice in the past.
Akram Haniyeh, editor in chief of Al Ayyam newspaper and a close friend of Darwish's, was at Darwish's bedside in Houston. He said that Darwish underwent an operation Wednesday and that there were complications.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SV_mvc4zKw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igzUtGMF9Uw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2ACJ1wjVA4&feature=related
Orwell rolls in his grave.
News Release July 15, 2008 from Tikkun MagazineTikkun magazine today announced that Rabbi Michael Lerner has accepted the invitation extended to him by the King of Saudi Arabia to attend an international conference of Muslim, Christian and Jewish religious leaders that will begin Wed. July 16 in Madrid, Spain. The conference seeks to foster interfaith dialogue and mutual understanding.Lerner expressed some degree of hope and some degree of skepticism about this gathering. On the one hand, Lerner believes that bringing together Muslim, Christian and Jewish leaders can only be for the good. Lerner's synagogue, Beyt Tikkun (in San Francisco and Berkeley, California) is currently working on recreating the Noe Valley Ministry in San Francisco as a place of worship for all three Abrahamic faiths, sharing the same building and sharing some religious teachings and spiritual wisdom. Last year on Rosh Hashanah Rabbi Lerner brought Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, a Muslim scholar who has been a major voice for interfaith cooperation and respect in the Muslim world, to read and chant in Arabic at Beyt Tikkun the Muslim story in the Koran of the binding of Isaac immediately after the Jewish version in the Torah was read. Often, in part because of the fear that Muslims have been living under in the US post-9/11, it has been difficult to get many Muslims to participate in these interfaith gatherings, so Rabbi Lerner praised the role of the King of Saudi Arabia in arranging for many Muslims to be present in Madrid. On the other hand, Rabbi Lerner also acknowledged the possibility that this might simply be a cheaper way of the Saudis earning public relations credit globally at a time when they could have earned those credits in a more significant way--by dramatically increasing oil production in Saudi Arabia which would have then lowered the cost of oil around the world, a step that would have benefitted the world's poor who are suffering from the rising oil prices. Or, Rabbi Lerner contends, they could have announced an end to the Saudi ban on the practice of other religions in Saudi Arabia besides Islam--a ban that is not shared by any other Muslim country in the world. Or they could have indicated a willingness to fund Palestinian refugees living in refugee camps around the Arab world. Lerner noted that the Saudis have done very little to provide the billions of dollars of material aid to the Palestinian people that they desparately need while suffering under the Israeli occupation. Significant Saudi investment in the West Bank and Gaza could have provided for housing and indoor plumbing and jobs for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had the solidarity the Saudis often expressed for their Muslim brothers and sisters been turned from anti-Israel rhetoric to concrete material support for the Palestinian people. Still, Lerner said, the King is obviously trying to turn the tide of Muslim sentiment away from the violent extemists, and this deserves some real credit. Rabbi Lerner says that if the King would meet with him in Madrid, he will raise these issues, as well as the need to start educating the Muslim world to seeing Israel as a potential ally rather than a permanent enemy. A first step in that direction, Lerner says, is to sit and talk together, and he hopes that religious leaders like himself can elevate the dialogue from the "who is to blame for what has happened" to "how can we move forward to create more love, kindness and generosity of spirit between these three religious communities.Other religious leaders attending the gathering include the Archbishop of Canterberry (head of the Anglican church), representatives of the Vatican, the religious historian Karen Armstrong, the most respected Catholic theologian in the world Hans Kung and the Chief Rabbi of England, Jonathan Sachs. Rabbi Lerner is editor of Tikkun magazine and one of America's most respected contemporary theologians. His book Jewish Renewal: A Path to Healing and Transformation (Harpers, 1995) was hailed as "taking its place alongside the work of Martin Buber and Abraham Joshua Heschel" and Professor of Religion Cornel West, commenting on Lerner's book The Left Hand of God: Taking Back our Country from the Religious Right (2006--a NY TImes national bestseller) said that Lerner "is the most significant prophetic public intellectual and spiritual leader of our generation." Lerner is also well known as editor of Tikkun Magazine, started as "the liberal alternative to Commentary magazine and the voices of Jewish conservatism," and as the most prominent rabbi in America who is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, and for insisting that Palestinians and Muslims are equally precious to God as Israelis and Jews (a view that has made him controversial among some in the Jewish world). Lerner is also chair of the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives--NSP (www.spiritualprogressives.org), an organizaiton with thousands of members throughout the US and Canada. The Network of Spiritual Progressives-NSP primary focus is on what it calls "A New Bottom Line" in American society, one that values love, caring, kindness, generosity, ethical and ecological sensitivity, and awe and wonder at the grandeur of the universe. Many people who don't affiliate with any religion or traditional beliefs in God have joined the Network of Spiritual Progressives which proclaims that it is open to "spiritual but not religious" people as well. The major way that the NSP advocates for a New Bottom Line is through advancing a detailed NSP version of a Global Marshall Plan (to change the terms of international trade agreements, and to have the US and other G8 countries dedicate 1-2% of their GDP each year for the next twenty to "once and for all end domestic and global poverty, homelessness, hunger, inadequate education, inadequate heath care, and to repair the global environment), a plan which was recently endorsed by several Congresspeople who introduced it as House Resolution 1078. Lerner will be presenting these ideas both in Madrid and at meetings in Denver with the delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Rabbi Lerner can be reached for interviews through Tikkun Magazine: Will@tikkun.org or 510 644 1200.The conference begins with an initial presentation by Saudi King Abdullah . King Juan Carlos of Spain and Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and Muslim World Leagie Secretary-General Abdullah Al-Turki will address the opening session.The fist session, titled "Dialogue and Its Religious and Civilizational Foundations," will be chaired by Bawa Jain, secretary-general of the Millennium World Peace Summit. Hussain Hamid Hassan of Dubai Islamic Bank will speak on "Dialogue in Islam," while Lebanese Minister of Culture Tariq Mitri, a member of the World Council of Churches, will speak on "Dialogue in Christianity." Arthur Schneir of Appeal of Conscience Foundation in the US and M.M. Verma, director of Interfaith Foundation in India, will also address the session.Saleh Bin-Humaid, president of the Saudi Shoura Council, will preside over the second session that will focus on "Dialogue and Its Importance in Society." Nichiko Niwano, president, the Committee of World Parliament for Religion and Peace, Japan, will present a paper on "Dialogue and Interaction of Cultures and Civilizations," while professor Federico Mayor Zaragoza, president of the Cultural Foundation for Peace in Spain, will speak on Dialogue and its Impact on Peaceful Coexistence. Abdulhadi Tazi, a member of the Moroccan Academy, will present a paper on "Dialogue and Its Impact on International Relations," while Redwan Al-Sayyed, chairman of the International Institute for Islamic Studies in Lebanon, will speak on the topic, "Dialogue in the Face of Calls for the Clash of Civilizations and End of History."The third session on "Common Human Values in Areas of Dialogue," chaired by William F. Vendley, secretary-general of the World Conference of Religions for Peace in the US, will be held on Thursday. Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); Muhammad Ali Taskheeri, secretary-general of the World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought in Iran; Shankaracharya Omkar Anand Saraswati of India; and Miguel Angel Ayuso Guixot, rector of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue at the Vatican, will present papers.The fourth session on "Evaluation and Promotion of Dialogue" will be chaired by Rabbi Caudio Epelman, secretary-general of the Jewish Congress in Latin America and the Caribbean. The speakers are: Ezzuddin Mustafa of the UAE, Xue Cheng of the Buddhist Association of China, Econos Haddad of Jordan's Center for Religious Coexistence, and Nabil Luka Bibawi, member of Egypt's Shoura Council.The concluding session will start at 10 a.m. Friday when Abdul Rahman Al-Zaid, assistant secretary of the MWL, will read out the final communiqué.More Info: Will@tikkun.org 510 644 1200 or RabbiLerner@Tikkun.org
Obama on the FISA 'Compromise' ...
"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders. "That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past."After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act."Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act. "It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."
"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.
"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."
By George Lakoff
Barack Obama should not move, or even appear to be moving, toward right-wing views on issues -- even with nuanced escape clauses. Arianna Huffington, Paul Krugman, and the NY Times Editorial Page all agree, for various reasons. I agree as well, for many of the same reasons, as well as important reasons that go beyond even excellent political commentary. My reasons have to do with results in the cognitive and brain sciences, as discussed in my recent book, The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain. But before I get into the details, it is important to get a sense of why Obama might be "moving to the Right." There are at least three possibilities. The first is for political expediency. The second is to reassure voters that he is a responsible leader, not a crazy radical. The third is that he thinks that nuanced positions don't have the effect of the moving to the right. Let's start with the first possibility -- expediency, the one assumed by most observers. The Political Expediency Argument The usual political wisdom is (1) voters vote on the basis of positions on issues, (2) there is a left-to-right spectrum of voters defined by positions on issues, (3) most voters are in the "center." Polls are constructed to appear consistent with this tri-partite hypothesis. The Dick Morris strategy, based on this hypothesis, says: if a Democrat moves the Right, he will get more votes because he will "take away" the other side's issues. If Obama and his advisors believe this, then the more they more to the Right, the bigger their win should be. But all three hypotheses are false, and so is the conclusion based on it. First, voters mostly vote not on the details of positions on issues, but on five aspects of what might be called "character," as Richard Wirthlin discovered in the 1980 Reagan campaign. They are Values (What are the ethical principles that form the basis of your politics?); Authenticity (Do you say what you believe?); Communication (Do you connect with voters and inspire them?); Judgment; Trust; and Identity (If you share voters' values, connect with them, tell them the truth effectively while inspiring trust, then they will identify with you -- and they will voter for you. Positions on issues matter when they come to stand symbolically for values. Reagan and George W. Bush understood this. Carter, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry did not. And in the primaries. Hillary Clinton did not get it (she focused on policy, while Obama and McCain focused more on character, on who he was). Values, authenticity, communication, judgment, and trust are not irrational reasons for voting for a president, even over positions on specific issues. The reason is that situations change, and what you rationally wind up depending on are just those virtues.
Read More >>>
I have just received a message from a person with a profile at this site promising quick million bucks in my bank account.
Here is the message I received from http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/public/gDGVj
Dearest One,
Greetings, I'm mahdi amadou jnr. from Sierra Leone. i am 17years am an orphan being that i lost my mother at a very tender age and my father dr. mahdi amadou I'm writing you from Republic of Cote d'Ivoire where I have been taking refuge after the brutal war and Murder of my parents by the rebels during the renewed Fighting in my country Sierra Leone. Because of the war my late Father sold his shipping company and took me to a nearby country Cote d'Ivoire where he deposited US$8,000,000.00 Million (Eight Million United States Dollars) in his foreign account with one of the bank here in Cote d'Ivoire.
Please, I have prayed before contacting you with the trust that you will be a help to me with the current political situation in Ivory Coast now, I'm seeking for your assistance to transfer this Money to your account for a good investment Project in your country and also relocate to your country to further my study. I'm willing to offer you 20% of the total sum for your assistance.
Please for your good information this transaction Is risk free and prove in no way connected with any illegal transaction, Please Help me to get out of this terrible situation and as soon as you receive this mail Please kindly call me for more details or better still send me an email to my emailbox; mahdiamadoujr@hotmail.com (is very important) The bank here is ready to transfer the money to your account.
Best Regards,
mahdi amadou jnr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cOJNC2EuJw
Obama needs to clarify his position on Jerusalem. His statement at AIPAC raised ire in the Palestinian quarters and seems to be contrary to the US official stance on Jerusalem.
Was it too much pandering, misstatement, or a new position?
The Obama community needs to know.
From Tikkun
Archbishop Tutu, who won a Nobel Prize for courageously standing up against
apartheid in South Africa, has now entered the struggle for Middle East peace.Agence France Press / May 28, 2008Tutu plunges into heart of Israeli-Palestinian conflicthttp://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jow3Bdcr0FrklTdwhbiL28llUgCgBEIT HANUN, Gaza Strip (AFP) — Nobel Peace laureate Desmond Tutu on Wednesday plunged into the harsh reality of the conflict in Gaza where a tearful Palestinian family recounted losing loved ones in an Israeli attack and the ruling Hamas movement expounded its hardline stance.The South African cleric, heading a team of UN human rights observers, listened to members of the Assamna family tell of a 2006 Israeli shelling of their village that killed 19 civilians, including eight children, while they were sleeping.On the top floor of the Assamna's bombed home, the glass in the windows is gone and there is a hole in the ceiling and the blue sky can been seen through the rusted iron frame of the house."I was here with my son. I was holding his hand when he died. Can you imagine a mother holding the intestines of her own son," said Tahini al-Assamna through her tears, describing the scene after the attack.Tutu commented that the purpose of the visit was to gather information to write a report for the UN Human Rights Council, "but we wanted to say that we are quite devastated."The Palestinian woman told Tutu and his UN team that she also lost three brothers-in-law in the attack. And her husband was killed two days before the bombing during an Israeli army operation against rocket firings from Gaza.Imad Okal, a UN representative in northern Gaza, looked around the Assamna house and commented that it was "very evident that this building was a residential home."Leaning against a scorched wall of the house, Saad Abdallah Assamna, 52, said he only hoped that "there will be an inquiry and those responsible will be judged before an international tribunal.Tutu also met with the mayor of Beit Hanun, a member of the Islamic Hamas movement which has ruled Gaza since last June after ousting forces loyal to moderate Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas."The Israelis do not need any pretext to kill civilians. The only goal is to kill," the mayor, Mohammed Naziq al-Kafarna, told Tutu and British professor Christine Chinkin who is accompanying the mission."What we have seen confirms that what has happened is totally unacceptable," said Tutu, also conveying his sympathies to the townspeople.But the longtime anti-apartheid and peace activist pointed out that there is also suffering on the other side of the border in Israel."We also say that the people of Sderot suffer from the Qassam rockets. We care about them too," said Tutu, referring to the southern Israeli town that is the frequent target of rockets fired by Palestinian militants from Gaza.""The two people, Israeli and Palestinian, can live peacefully together but it cannot happen through acts of violence," he said.The Palestinian mayor frowned and responded: "You must realize that the Palestinians are fighting for their rights. The rockets are one reaction" to Israeli military operations."Rockets are nothing in the face of Israeli Apache helicopters and F-16s which kill our children day and night," he added.But Tutu interrupted the mayor to say "any attack against civilians, whatever their motivations, is a violation" against human rights.Israel has refused to allow the UN rights observers to visit Sderot to speak with the victims of rocket firings from Gaza. It also refused to issue visas to the UN Human Rights Council team sent to Gaza to investigate the 2006 slaughter.Tutu and his team on Tuesday circumvented Israeli restrictions by entering the Palestinian territory through the crossing with Egypt, which was opened especially for them.As for the killings in Beit Hanun, the Israeli army announced in February that no charges would be brought against Israeli soldiers over the attack.After an internal investigation, Israel concluded that shelling the civilians' homes was "a rare and grave technical error of the artillery radar system."The army said it had been aiming its artillery at an area from which Palestinian militants were firing rockets at Israel but, due to the technical problem, the shells instead hit two homes.
By Jake Tapper
June 04, 2008 9:37 PM
Sen. Barack Obama's speech to AIPAC has convinced Hamas that he and Sen. John McCain are interchangeable. If the group had its druthers, neither one would win.
"Obama’s comments have confirmed that there will be no change in the U.S. administration’s foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict," Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters in Gaza.
"The Democratic and Republican parties support totally the Israeli occupation at the expense of the interests and rights of Arabs and Palestinians," he said. "Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win."
Hamas had never actually endorsed Obama. In April, Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef told WABC radio that "we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance."
The campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., at the time characterized this as an endorsement, and made hay out of the kind words.
But today it wasn't just the terrorists of Hamas expressing chagrin at Obama's speech.
Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas took issue with Obama's assertion that Jerusalem would remain the "undivided" capital of Israel.
"We reject these words," Abbas said. "Jerusalem is one of the files under negotiation. The entire world knows perfectly well that we will never accept a state without Jerusalem. That should be clear."
And Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said that Obama's "remarks on Jerusalem cast doubt over the chances of peace...We reject the positions of Barack Obama because they are in contradiction with the traditional positions of the United States which considers that east Jerusalem is under occupation."
