Friday, June 5, 2009

Obama's Basic Message: Recognize "Israel" and do as we tell you, and we won't kill you

The ecstasy with which President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo has been received by many circles in the Arab World is truly befuddling. Nothing in the speech was a cause for celebration or even reassurance. The entire speech sounded more like a scolding of our position toward the usurping entity and the United States for the crimes they have committed against our people. He stood in Cairo and told the Arab World that the United States' relationship with "Israel" is "unbreakable," that Jewish suffering is more important than the suffering of your people, that you must recognize the "legitimate right" of "Israel" to exist as a Jewish state, and that you must stop opposing US imperial agendas. And if you do all that , o Arab World, then perhaps we will not kill you. This was the essence of the speech and this was its central, deeply offensive, message.

President Obama took a few minutes to lecture us about Jewish suffering in Europe and about the holocaust, as if this issue has anything to do with us. He implied that because the Jews were killed and oppressed in Europe, that we must then allow them to take our land and kill our people. Not one mention was made of the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land, and the deep psychological trauma this has caused to an entire people. Not one mention was made of the brutal, gruesome massacres committed by Jewish Zionist gangs against innocent civilians during their terror campaign to found a racist, exclusive state for Jews only. Therefore, the clear implication of his words is that while we will continue to recognize and mourn Jewish suffering throughout the ages, and demand that you do the same, we will not ever mention your suffering and will deny that any wrong was done unto you. In other words, we believe that the lives of Jews are more valuable and precious than the lives of Palestinians.

Then Obama tied the suffering of Jews in Europe to the requirement that we recognize the "legitimate right" of "Israel" to exist as a Jewish state. He said it is "deeply wrong" to call for the destruction of "Israel," and implied that such language was comparable to a crime of genocide. It is of course quite outlandish to claim that the demand to dismantle what is a racist, cancerous, illegal entity that has brought about nothing but pain and suffering to an entire people is akin to committing genocide against innocent populations. Moreover, Obama failed to denounce genocidal language used by the other side, when that language is actually followed by actions on the ground. It is of no concern to him that an "Israeli" minister would threaten the Palestinians of Gaza with a "holocaust" or that the war minister would promise that Lebanon would be burned from north to south. Both actions and threats of destruction of other countries by "Israel" are not considered "deeply wrong" by Obama, while he is so greatly offended by the notion that someone would demand the dismantlement of an inherently racist system.

He then went on to specifically identify "Israeli" "victimization" at the hands of Palestinians. He denounced Palestinian armed resistance and blasted Palestinians telling them that it is "not courageous to fire missiles at innocent children or to blow up elderly women on buses." Such a vile statement reeks of utter hypocrisy and callousness. It has not been five months since "Israel" brutally and mercilessly massacred over 1400 civilians in Gaza, and yet Obama finds it appropriate to lecture Palestinians on the proper means of struggle. He has the nerve to demand that Palestinians renounce violence and abandon violent resistance, while "Israel" is allowed to continue using savage violence against an innocent population whose only crime was living on a land desired by others.

But Obama did not forget the Palestinians. He gave them token recognition when he said that they have "suffered in their pursuit of a homeland." Apparently, the Palestinians have been pursuing a homeland and it is this pursuit that has caused them great suffering. It is such a general and broad statement that you would think the Palestinians have been suffering from some mysterious phenomenon, or maybe natural disasters, while traversing the globe searching for a homeland. This is of course a completely warped view of the Palestinian struggle and anything but "truth-telling" as Obama likes to brag he does. The Palestinians were never "in pursuit" of a homeland. They have a homeland, and it was stolen from them by Jewish zionists aided by western colonial powers. They were forcefully evicted from their land through massacres, ethnic cleansing, and terror campaigns, and were turned into refugees on their own land as well as in other countries. But President Obama conveniently skips over all the crimes committed against the Palestinians and reduces the cause of their suffering to some unfortunate circumstances.

Obama then proceeded to find an ostensible solution to the Palestinian struggle. His solution was that each side had to recognize the "legitimate aspirations" of the other. In other words, we are required to recognize the "legitimate aspirations" of "Israel" to build and maintain a state exclusively for Jews on land we live in. What a difference a political career makes. Here, I would like to quote from Obama's book "Dreams From My Father," where he was reciting a speech he gave in college at an event in support of the struggle of the African National Congress against Apartheid rule in South Africa. His words were:

"It's happening an ocean away. But it's a struggle that touches each and every one of us. Whether we know it or not. Whether we want it or not. A struggle that demands we choose sides. Not between black and white. Not between rich and poor. No--it's a harder choice than that. It's a choice between dignity and servitude. Between fairness and injustice. Between commitment and indifference. A choice between right and wrong..."

If those words were used by President Obama in his position on the Palestinian struggle, then I would have accepted and believed his claimed commitment to "truth-telling." Unfortunately, however, as President of the United States, it is politically too risky for Mr. Obama to utter such truly expressive words in support of the Palestinians' legitimate struggle against opprression.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Egypt: From "Mother of the World" to Joke of the World

With every further action that the Egyptian regime takes against Hizballah it digs itself a deeper hole. It is becoming ever more clear that Egypt is a puppet of the west and a collaborator against Palestinians and the Palestinian cause. According to Egyptian calculations, Hizballah aiding besieged Palestinians in Egypt is a violation of Egyptian sovereignty and a threat to Egyptian security, but "Israel" attacking the Sinai side of the Rafah border and forbidding Egypt from increasing its security presence in the Sinai does not in any way affect Egyptian sovereignty or security.

What has become clear is that Egypt is actively participating in the war against our people in Palestine. Egypt has become a lackey and a tool of "Israel" to be used against our people in the Jewish state's continuing attempt to subjugate us for the purpose of expanding their racist entity. After all, it is the foreign minister of this very state who threatened to "break the legs" of any Palestinian who dared cross the Rafah border crossing. No amount of empty rhetoric or baseless propaganda will now change this image of Egypt.

The regime's attempt to accuse Hizballah of engaging in "Shiitization" is laughable to say the least, and only adds to the utter patheticness of this collaborative dictatorship. To think that a few Hizballah operatives aiding Palestinians from the Gaza-Sinai border are going to carry out mass conversions of millions of Egyptians is of unsurpassed ridiculousness and is merely a smokescreen to attempt to distract people from the true nature of the Egyptian regime and the role it is playing today as puppet and collaborator.

Egypt has for sometime now been actively working to prevent any and all supplies from entering Gaza in order to aid "Israel" in its siege of the Palestinian civilians living in the Strip. Egypt has done its part in closing and sealing the border and in attempting to destroy all smuggling tunnels going from Sinai to Gaza. What it has been having a hard time with, however, is controlling the Bedouins of the Sinai, who have been admirably and courageously aiding the Palestinian resistance in anyway they can.

These Bedouins of course are not of Egyptian origin and have no loyalty to the Egyptian state. Rather, they feel that the Palestinian cause is their cause because they are of the same people. Egyptian security forces have been doing all they can to go after these Bedouins of the Sinai but have been reluctant to confront them as they don't want to create any unnecessary problems for themselves.

The Arab World in general, and the Syrian nation in particular, now see Egypt as nothing more than a tool in the hands of foreign occupiers. Egypt has been at the forefront of the war against the Resistance and has done all it can to deny our people their right to resist foreign aggression and occupation.

Moreover, the Egyptian regime has done nothing to improve the situation of its people, while it continues to beg foreign powers for economic assistance in order to sustain its disastrous hold on power. Mubarak has unleashed a security force of a million and a half in order to control 80 million Egyptians, most of whom are living in poverty. The state's infrastructure has been completely neglected and utter corruption is pervasive all across the government, such that the people's wealth is being stolen by a destructive regime. It is for this reason that Egypt has been trying to serve the US and "Israel" loyally, hoping to continue to obtain economic aid which it deems wholly necessary for the continued survival of the regime. And of course the US has no problem with a corrupt, totalitarian regime so long as it serves the US's interests in a slave-like manner.

In a previous time, Egypt was referred to by many in the Arab World as "mother of the world," an endearing term they used to describe what they saw as a large, rich, powerful country with tremendous potential. I have always disagreed with this characterization of Egypt, but nevertheless Egypt definitely had its admirers. Today, however, Egypt has relegated itself to "joke of the world" as it has reinforced its role as slave and puppet to western colonial powers.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

"Not a Mirage" (ليس سراباً)

I recently watched the entire 32-episode Syrian series called "Not a Mirage," or ليس سراباً in Arabic (pronounced laysa saraban). The series tackles several important and controversial issues present in our society, the most important of which is sectarianism and religious fundamentalism, but also includes such prominent topics as women's rights, civil society (or absence thereof), honor killings, and love relationships. The story revolves around a divorced single "Christian" mother, Hanan, who happens to fall in love with a divorced "Muslim" father of two, Jalal, and the ensuing relationship that arises out of this love. But the prevalent social attitudes prevent the couple from making their relationship public, and create a host of obstacles and problems that keep them from leading normal lives together. Their obligation to keep the relationship secret, due to the social ills from which our people suffer, is a clear recipe for disaster.

The series does a good job of addressing controversial topics and breaking taboos in a courageous and thought-provoking manner. Our society's attitude toward women is expressed and demonstrated by the roles to which most members of our society believe women should be confined. A prime example is the attitude of Hanan's father toward her being a divorced woman, which he views with utter disgust and disdain, even though Hanan's ex-husband was a corrupt figure who regularly abused his wife physically and psychologically. The position of the father was that many things happen between a man and a woman that should remain inside their home. That his daughter was being beaten, and that her dignity and honor were being stepped on, is of no concern to him, as it is more important that his daughter resort to her natural role of the obedient wife. This is a mentality that is quite pervasive in our society, as women are viewed, to a large extent, as servants of their husbands who are required and expected to obey their husbands and remain under their control, irrespective of how they are treated.

The series also ponders the proper role of religion; whether it is to be a pure spiritual and moral guide being completely separate from matters involving the state and the political system, or whether it should govern all aspects of our lives, including political and judicial national matters. Michel, the owner and publisher of a controversial magazine prints an article in his publication criticizing the role that religious institutions have played in involving themselves in issues that are outside the natural role of religion, calling for the inception of a secular system. His article becomes the target of ire and revulsion from members of all religious sects in our nation, as they all view it as an attack on religion, rather than a mere criticism of the contribution of religious institutions to sectarianism, religious fundamentalism, and the absence of the civil society.

This leads to another article printed by Michel's magazine that addresses the absence of the civil society, as our laws, especially those dealing with family and personal status, are governed by religious jurisprudence and institutions. As such, citizens are not treated as members of a single nation with equal rights and duties, but are rather subjected to different rules and procedures depending upon their confessional background. This article again draws intense anger from members of society, as they see it as a blasphemous call for secularism. The feeling is such that, Jalal's son, who becomes indoctrinated as a fundamentalist Islamist, regards Michel as a "sectarian Christian" who is introducing a "corrupt, western" idea of secularism in order to advance a sectarian agenda.

It is highly important that such matters begin to be discussed and addressed in our society, as we suffer from many ailments that need to be treated and cured if we are to experience a renaissance and come out of the coma in which we continue to be stuck. When young men are shown cheering and encouraging a fellow citizen for murdering his sister for "honorable" reasons, attention is brought to a sick mentality that drives many of our people. It is a step in the right direction that will hopefully open the door to further self-examinations and self-critiques that can help make us a better, more advanced, more dynamic society.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Arab "Reconciliation": The Latest Joke

As we've recently heard in the news, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad met on Wednesday with King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt as part of an effort to reconcile the so-called "differences" between the Arab states that had caused relations to sour in the last few years. The reports coming out of this meeting is that it was "positive" and "constructive" and that a "mechanism" was agreed upon to help these states deal with future issues that may be a cause of discord.

First, to suggest that this was an attempt at reconciling the differences that have arisen between different Arab states, while at the same time uninviting Qatar, an important party to those so-called "disagreements," at the request of Egypt appears quite disingenuous and leads one to believe that alterior motives are at play. It is illogical for "Arabs" to be negotiating an end to the rift that has materialized in the last several years when a major Arab player is left out of the negotiations.

Second, the argument that there are mere "disagreements" between the two "camps" of the Arab World which need to be reconciled is completely contrary to the truth and to the reality of the events. There are no "Arab disagreements" between Syria on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia and Egypt on the other hand. It is not as if these states were working toward achieving a common goal and serving a common interest and had mere disagreements on the best means of achieving that goal and serving that interest. What there was in reality is clear collaboration by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Egypt with the enemies of our nation and an active participation of these states in the war against our people. Egypt and Saudi Arabia both played a dirty and sinister role in joining forces with the US and "Israel" to help them destroy our honorable Resistance against the brutal and criminal occupation of our land. Because these Arab regimes failed miserably in their endeavor, as their master "Israel" was defeated in its wars against our people, and because Syria stood steadfast with our people's right to resist their oppressors, these Arab regimes began to hold a grudge against Syria as it denied them their chance to please and obediently serve their masters.

The actions of these Arab states were not simple disagreements over a means to a common end. They were clear, unambiguous crimes against our people and their right to fight and struggle for their dignity and freedom. Egypt's role in helping the Jewish state starve and kill our people in occupied Palestine made it into a tool for the enemy. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's endless efforts to help "Israel" destroy the Resistance in Lebanon once and for all puts it in the same column with the Jewish entity. There is therefore nothing over which to reconcile. There are not mere "differences" between various parts of a common cause. There is rather a clear collaborator and criminal on one side and a clear defender of just rights on the other.

Unless and until these Arab regimes recognize their crimes and desist from denying our people their national rights, including their legitimate right to resist a brutal occupation and defend themselves against a barbaric enemy, then all these meetings and negotiations are futile, as they cannot possibly produce any fruitful results.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Let "Them" Accept Secularism First

It has become a common declaration among many of our people whenever they are confronted with the issue of secularism. "If 'they' accept secularism, then we would be happy to have a secular country." That is, they justify their sectarian mentalities and feign support for secularism by claiming that it is the other sects that refuse to accept secularism and therefore they have no choice but to embrace sectarianism. This is of course a bogus argument intended merely to rationalize their deeply embedded sectarian sentiments and their vehement opposition to secularism.

To claim that the only thing keeping you from accepting secularism is "their" sectarianism and "their" rejection of secular principles demonstrates a clear, unambiguous sectarian, divisive mentality, as you divide our people into "us" and "them." There is a clear matter of principle that we have to decide. Do we view our nation as one society and one people with one interest and one life? Or do we treat our nation as a collection of sects with differing and competing interests? If your position is in line with the former, then you should, under this principle, reject any notion of "us" vs. "them" and apply your ideals equally to the nation as a whole. If you believe in the latter, then no amount of explanations and rationalizations can disguise your inherent sectarian view of society.

As for the very logic behind such statements, its nonexistence is clear to the astute and conscious citizen. An individual who claims that he/she cannot embrace secularism until the "other side" does so first is merely a declaration that he/she does not wish to let go of his/her sectarian attitude. And just who is this individual expecting to embrace secular principles? There are citizens of our nation of all backgrounds who have adopted secular ideals, so who is this individual referring to when they proclaim that "they" must first accept secularism? They are in reality astoundingly implying that sectarian groups from other sects must accept secularism before sectarian groups from this individual's sect can be expected to transform into secular organizations. Such an outrageous condition is placed knowing full well that no sectarian organization is ready to tolerate, much less promote, secularism, or they wouldn't be sectarian to begin with.

Until we forever drop all divisive thoughts from our mindset, we can continue to expect to experience woes and disasters. The categorization of our people into "us" and "them" is representative of a diseased mentality of which the nation must rid itself. The only solution to all our ailments is the realization that we are one nation with one interest in life.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

The Propaganda of Michael Totten

Michael Totten has a new entry here in which he tells his version of the "bravado" story of Christopher Hitchens being roughed up by members of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party after defacing one of their memorials. The story is filled with so many lies and distortions that I don't even know where to begin. In any case, here are a few observations:

1. Michael Totten, Christopher Hitchens, and Jonathan Foreman, are three western neoconservative commentators and self-proclaimed intellectuals who can't read, speak, or understand Arabic, and who have never read any material on or by the SSNP, who nevertheless find themselves qualified enough to make judgments about the Party. It appears their entire display of arrogance was intended to make the claim that the SSNP is a Nazi tool of the Syrian regime employed in Lebanon to do the dirty work of Bashar al-Assad. Michael Totten even went as far as accusing the SSNP of committing all the assassinations in Lebanon, thereby bypassing the investigation and the "international court" that they so proudly flaunt and issuing a full and final verdict. Never mind that there is absolutely no evidence linking the SSNP to any of the assassinations, but then again, propaganda doesn't need or even want evidence.

2. Michael Totten and Co. apparently have a problem with the emblem of the SSNP, to which they refer as a "swastika" when in fact it is a Cyclone with no ties or relations to the Nazi swastika. The Cyclone is in fact a historical Syrian symbol that represents continuous movement and dynamism. In addition, it has a specific meaning in the SSNP flag, as its four corners represent the motto of the SSNP, namely "Freedom, Duty, Discipline, Strength." And in any case, whatever their distaste is for the Party emblem, it is quite an arrogant argument they make that they have a duty to deface any poster or memorial which contains a "swastika." What if a different person thought they had a duty to deface any object that contains the British flag? I wonder how they would be viewed in the western world in general and in Great Britain in particular. And I wonder if anyone would pity them if they were to be roughed up upon being caught engaging in such an act.

3. Michael Totten, who quite clearly and openly displays his utter ignorance when it comes to any matter relating to the Middle East in general and to the SSNP in particular, makes it a point to insist that the SSNP is a "nazi" party, thereby justifying their criminal actions in the streets of Beirut. It is of course of no surprise to anyone who has read the writings of Antoun Saadeh (founder and leader of the SSNP who was murdered by the Lebanese government) that the type of nationalism espoused by the SSNP is one of SOCIAL nationalism, which includes all elements of society within the definition of the nation, and is completely contradictory to the RACIAL nationalism of National Socialism and the POLITICAL Nationalism of Fascism.

But Michael Totten doesn't bother with actually reading up on a matter on which he is utterly ignorant, as he dismissively and mockingly states "Many say they cannot be National Socialists, as were the Nazis, because they identify instead as Social Nationalists, whatever that means." So the intellectual vigor of this individual leads him to the brilliant conclusion of "whatever that means." What that means Mr. Totten is that while National Socialism is a racist ideology, which excludes all elements not of a specific racial origin from the definition of the nation, combined with a socialist economic philosophy, Social Nationalism is one that includes all elements of society and does not discriminate between one racial group or another. In fact, if Mr. Totten or his pals had bothered to read Antoun Saadeh's book on sociology, The Genesis of Nations, they would find that the founder of the SSNP was very critical of European racism which he believed to be irrational and not based on any scientific principles. Moreover, if they bothered to read the Principles of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, they would find that in the Fourth Basic Principle Saadeh states that "the alleged purity of the blood or race of any nation whatsoever is a groundless myth," and he goes on to argue that "this principle would free the nation from blood-tie bigotries that are apt to cause the people to neglect the national interests and to direct their energies towards internal strife, corruption and apathy. For those Syrians who believe or feel within the country or nation that they are of Aramaic extraction would no longer be actuated to fan Aramaic blood-loyalty, so long as the principle of Social Nationalist unity and the equality of civic, political and social rights and duties are guaranteed, and no discrimination between one blood or race in Syria is made. In the same way, those Syrians who claim to descend from a Phoenician (Canaanite), Arab, or Crusader stock, would no longer care also for any other than the cuase of their community, within which all matters affecting them would take place, and on whose fate would depend the fate of their family and of their descendants, their hopes and their ideals." Instead, Michael Totten relies on an analysis of the SSNP made by an "Israeli" in a publication called the Atlantic, whatever that means.

4. Michael Totten, again in a show of utter ignorance and pure propagandistic nonsense, accuses the SSNP of wanting "to resurrect the ancient pre-Islamic and pre-Arabic Syria and annex Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Israel, and parts of Turkey and Egypt to Damascus." Of course, there is nowhere in the writings of Saadeh or any of the Party intellectuals any mention of annexing any part of the Syrian homeland to "Damascus". The truth is that the SSNP believes that the people of the entire fertile crescent form a single nation that was historically known as Syria. This has been established by historical, sociological, and anthropological findings. The SSNP merely advocates for the national unity of the people of this homeland and aims to persuade them of their true national identity. This is a far cry from wanting to forcefully annex different parts of the nation to a single city or political entity.

5. Mr. Totten goes on to state that the SSNP is made up of predominantly Christian members. I don't know how Totten comes to this conclusion as the SSNP has never conducted a census to determine the sectarian make-up of its members, for it is a truly secular party completely opposed to sectarianism or any other divisive mentalities. I can also guarantee that Michael Totten did not himself conduct a survey of SSNP members to arrive at his conclusion. The truth is that Social Nationalists include Syrians from all political entities and from various religious and ethnic backgrounds, and the SSNP does not know, nor will it ever care, what the specific sectarian and ethnic breakdown of its membership is.

6. Michael Totten then propagates the myth that the anthem of the SSNP is sung to the tune of the German anthem under Nazi rule, "Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles." Given that Mr. Totten and his friends have most assuredly never heard the anthem of the SSNP, and probably have never even heard the Nazi German anthem either, it is most likely that Mr. Totten merely regurgitated this information from some other propagandist, perhaps Daniel Pipes, without even bothering to check its veracity. The fact is that the SSNP anthem, which is titled "Syria, peace be to you" and not "Syria, greetings to you" as the ignorant Totten proclaims, is not sung to the tune of the Nazi German anthem nor does it have any relation to it. But again, the likes of Hitchens and Totten are more interested in spreading propaganda to further their own agenda then they are in relaying accurate information.

7. Michael Totten makes the argument that Beirut in general, and the Hamra area in particular, is a "liberal and cosmopolitan “March 14” stronghold," and that the SSNP has no popularity there. Well, what would probably be shocking news to Mr. Totten, is that the SSNP is in fact the oldest party in Lebanon and has had a strong presence in Beirut and elsewhere since long before the current "March 14" groups ever existed. Furthermore, to call the parties that make up the "March 14" alliance "liberal" is akin to calling Rush Limbaugh tolerant.

8. The most arrogant position by Totten and Co., however, is their justification of their own actions. That they went to another country and defaced a memorial there is treated as an act of heroism when in fact it was a criminal act of vandalism over which they would have been prosecuted in any other country. Had they done the same in the US they would have been arrested and at the very least fined for their offense. Had they committed vandalism in Singapore, they would have been caned.

In the end, Michael Totten and Christopher Hitchens prove they are but neocon propagandists, who are willing to support sectarian, feudal, reactionary groups such as the Future Movement and the Progressive Socialist Party (which is neither progressive nor socialist and is run by a feudal, sectarian, war criminal who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Lebanese) in order to further their own agenda. I believe it is a good lesson they learned that they don't in reality have a right to go into a foreign country and deface and vandalize whatever objects they dislike.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Clowns of February 14

Everytime I witness an event organized by the February 14 (or March 14) clan I am amazed at how the so-called "leaders" they have to offer combine ignorance, dullness, stupidity, opportunism, and thuggery all into one. There is not a speech I hear by these clowns that is not full of empty slogans, vitriol, and nonsensical emotional rhetoric and empty of any substance. How any normal person can take such farcical characters seriously is beyond me, and is quite disturbing. And those were the drivers of the so-called "Cedar Revolution." If that's considered a revolution then Barnum & Bailey must be showcasing regular revolutions across the United States.

Beautifying the Enemy

I am especially digusted by attempts made in certain media outlets in the Arab World at beautifying the image of the terrorist leaders of the occupying entity. When terrorists like Rabin, Peres, Livni, or Barak are turned into peace doves and presented as advocates of human rights in general, and Palestinian rights in particular, I truly shudder and cringe. It is also quite obnoxious that some in the Arab World actually express preferences in "Israeli" elections, as if any result is going to matter for our people and our cause. Our land will remain occupied, and our people will continue to be oppressed, as all sides in the elections are representative of the same racist, hateful, colonial ideology.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

This is NOT a War on Hamas

Contrary to the propaganda spewed by much of the mainstream media, this latest "Israeli" terrorist aggression is not a war on Hamas; rather it is part of the continuous war on the Palestinian people that has been ongoing for decades, since the inception of the Jewish entity. The war increases in intensity and severity every so often because "Israel" has had a continuous policy of terrorizing civilians for the purpose of intimidating them into submission and capitulation. Everytime "Israel" launches another one of its destructive, terroristic attacks, it justifies it by claiming self-defense and laying the blame on whatever group is resisting its murderous ambitions. This case is no different.

The bottom line is that "Israel" is a racist, colonial state that cannot be sustained except through military force. It is an unnatural entity that was built for a particular group of people on land inhabited by another people. As such, this entity could not possibly have materialized without the ethnic cleansing and driving out of the indigenous population, which is exactly what took place in 1948, and what has been continually taking place since that time. The Palestinians have been forced to live under occupation and siege while the Jewish entity has been doing everything in its power to make life unbearable for them, in the hope that this would make them go away.

This is the essential root of the problem and the source of the conflict. It is NOT Hamas. Hamas is merely a natural reaction to the problem, as is any resistance group against a brutal and oppressive occupation. However, the mainstream media, along with the leaders of western nations and collaborative Arab states, would like to ignore the problem, pretend like there has been no injustice inflicted on the Palestinians, and merely hope that the Palestinians can be bullied into accepting their fate and just submitting to the hegemony of "Israel." However, the Palestinians have refused to just lie down and continue to fight for their rights, which is making "Israel" and the nations mentioned above increasingly frustrated. The Palestinians are thus continually blamed for their plight and "Israel" is given a free pass to do what it wishes to them. However, unfortunately for "Israel," the Palestinians are going to continue to fight, and ultimately Palestine will be free, and the Zionist state will be brought down. This is the fate of an unnatural entity built on the blood and bones of another people.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Gaza on My Mind

The distortion of the facts in Gaza being perpetrated by the mainstream media today, specifically in the US is truly appalling and grotesque. It is of course no surprise, as the US media has always took it upon itself to beautify the image of "Israel" and conceal its ugly nature from the public. However, the deceptive propaganda campaign being waged by these self-described "objective" journalists, reporters, and analysts is quite outlandish. Justifications for the killing of civilians are being made on a regular basis through the ludicrous claims that Palestinian civilians are hiding weapons stockpiles in their homes, schools, and medical clinics. (I of course don't have any problem with anyone helping the resistance in anyway possible, as it is the duty of every patriotic Syrian to aid the resistance against this cancerous, rotten entity) Moreover, "Israel" is continuously and consistently being portrayed as defending itself against brutal attacks by "terrorists," when reality has clearly shown that "Israel" itself is the true terrorist and criminal in this conflict. In addition, once again our people are being stripped of any legitimate cause in the media (with the participation of saudi-funded propaganda outlets) by arguing that the resistance is made up of proxies causing trouble for the sake of advancing a political agenda of another country. The suffering of our people and their endurement of one of the most brutal occupations in human history is thereby denied and relegated to minimum importance and our righteous cause in fighting for our basic national rights is thereby stripped. It is up to us to correct these misstatements of facts and distortions of the truth by using every possible avenue available to us to bring the truth to the public. I urge all our people to organize and become active as we are engaged in a struggle of life or death, whatever the outcome, we are the ones to answer for the consequences.

Monday, January 5, 2009

"Israeli" Crimes in Gaza

Norwegian doctor and Gaza aid worker Mads Gilbert gives an accurate account of the carnage, destruction, and deliberate civilian targeting that the Jewish entity is visiting upon Gaza.


1. Contrary to the myth being disseminated in the mainstream media, "Israel" Broke the Cease Fire, Not Hamas. Under the Truce agreement signed on June 19, 2008, all sides were to cease fire and "Israel" was to lift the siege on Gaza and open all border crossings so that much needed aid may enter the strip. Since that date, "Israel" continually failed to abide by its side of the agreement, as it kept the border crossings closed to everything but a very limited number of supplies and aid. Furthermore, on 4th November, Israel launched a series of raids into Gazan territory, killing 6 Palestinians, and subsequently completely tightened its siege of Gaza by sealing all border crossings, causing a humanitarian catastrophe. Richard Falk, the UN human rights rapporteur, argued that these actions constituted a "crime against humanity".

2. The fire power between the Jewish entity and Hamas is disproportionate. "Israel" dropped 200,000 pounds of artillery on the Gaza Strip in one day, December 27, killing over 200 people. More than 275 people were injured in the strikes. On the other hand, Israel is the largest recipient of military foreign aid from the United States, receiving $3.2 billion in advanced, sophisticated, and very deadly weaponry yearly. Although Hamas has sent rockets to the Jewish settlements built on Palestinian land in an attempt to protect its people against genocide, these rockets are generally ineffective and cause very little casualties.

3. The International Court of Justice has found "Israel" guilty on fourteen counts of violating human rights. Included among these violations are the Apartheid Wall, the settlements, the "Israeli" blockage of food, medicine, fuel and other life resources from coming into Gaza and the imprisonment of the Gazan people.

4. United States law prohibits the president from providing military aid to any country which engages in a persistent pattern of gross violations of international human rights. Under the 1976 US Arms Export Control Act, it is illegal to use US weapons to carry out extrajudicial-killings. Since September 2001, the "Israeli" army has used attack helicopters, tanks and F-16 fighter jets to target Palestinian civilians, homes, buildings and demonstrations.

5. As of January 5, 534 Gaza Palestinians have been killed since the December 27 "Israeli" attacks began. Over 2500 Gazans have been injured (many critically), 35% women, children and elderly. The Al Mezan Center for human rights rationally states that most Gaza victims are civilians.