On July 22, Sami Moubayed, a Syrian political analyst and professor, wrote an article in the Gulf News, titled "Women of Valor," in which he questioned the value of dying for your country. Specifically, Mr. Moubayed was undermining the contribution to their nation of the likes of Sanaa Mahaidly and Dalal Moughrabi, the two martyrs who died fighting the Jewish occupation of our land. Mr. Moubayed's analysis was that these were bright young ladies, with their whole future ahead of them, who could have become gifted intellectuals and thus contributed more to their nation by undertaking various intellectual and academic activities. Therefore, according to Mr. Moubayed, living for your country is better than dying for your country.
With all due respect to Sami Moubayed as a political analyst, I believe that his understanding of life and death is completely lacking. First, all nations are made up of individuals who are able to contribute to the advancement and development of their respective nations. We are all productive potentialities endowed with the capacity and duty to enrich our nation in our own respective ways. The nation is thus made up of doctors, engineers, lawyers, teachers, farmers, workers, etc., each of which is able to contribute to the betterment of the nation based on their specific individual ablities, talents, strengths, weaknesses, etc. However, the nation is also in need of fighters; those who are willing to risk their lives, or even give up their lives, for the sake of defending their homeland and protecting the national rights of their people as a whole.
From here, we understand that the life of the nation is more precious than the life of individuals. That is not to say that each individual life is not valuable in its own right. Rather, the continued life of the nation overrides and takes precedence over the idea of individual self-preservation. For this reason, numerous individuals throughout history have willingly sacrificed their individual selves for the sake of their respective nations as a whole. If we are to engage in an analysis of what each of these individuals could have contributed to their nation were they to remain alive, we would be undertaking a futile exercise that completely misses the basis of such acts of selflessness. It is not that these individuals do not value their lives, nor is it that they have nothing to offer to their nations while living, but rather they understood that the continued life and liberty of their nation was in danger and they viewed national life as more important than their individual lives.
Our nation is today divided, fragmented, and many portions of it are occupied by foreigners. More importantly, its continued life is under constant threat from its enemies who are working day and night to subjugate it. In such a state, the nation cannot meet its vast potential, as it is broken and its resources are dispersed. Our nation is currently neither free, nor sovereign, nor independent, because its destiny is controlled by foreign will, it is not allowed to act freely in betterment of itself, and its right over its land has been completely stripped from it. As such, the nation's very existence is threatened, and its life, in all its true meaning, has been stolen from it. In such a situation, it is natural that individuals within the nation would rise to defend their land and protect their nation's life. Such people understand that life is not worth living if it is empty of honor and dignity. That is, they realize that individual life means nothing when the nation as a whole is reduced to mere existence.
It is worth clarifying here the difference between living and existing. Life is a mere stand of dignity. That is, one cannot live unless they are enshrined in glory, dignity, and honor. And whereas life is not possible without glory, mere existence does not differentiate between glory and humiliation. Therefore, while the nation can exist in a state of enslavement and humiliation, it can only live in a state of glory; a state where it controls its own destiny, is in full possession of all its rights, and is occupying its rightful place among the nations. Only then can our nation truly be living in a meaningful sense.
It is with this understanding that our brave compatriots go into battle, insisting on defending their nation's honor. They understand that their individual lives do not take priority when their nation is divided, occupied, and subjected to persecution and oppression. And what people mistakenly conclude, is that these people do not love life, when in fact these are the very individuals who truly love life. But loving life to them is not a cliche. They love life because they love freedom. They would love nothing more than to see their nation living in freedom and their people freely acting for the betterment of their nation. And because they love life, within its true meaning, they also embrace death when death is a way to life. That is, they will gladly give up their individual lives if this leads to the life and prosperity of their nation. Therefore, rather than belittle and demean the actions of courageous, honorable figures such as Sanaa Mahaidly and Dalal Moughrabi, our intellectuals, including Sami Moubayed, should be honoring them and commemorating their sacrifices in a respectful manner.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Distorting the Resistance: The Case of Samir Quntar
With news of the recent agreement between "Israel" and the Resistance in Lebanon over the exchange of prisoners, the story of Samir Quntar, who is to be among the Lebanese detainees to be released by the Jewish entity, has again resurfaced with the official propagandistic version of the "Israeli" government being presented as the factual depiction of the event which led to the capture of Quntar. This version portrays Samir Quntar as a brutal, merciless, cold-blooded killer who killed a Jewish civilian in front of his 4-year-old daughter and then proceeded to smash the young girl's head against a rock with the butt of his rifle. It is an image of a heartless psychopath whose only intent was to terrorize and murder innocent civilians. Unfortunately, although Quntar's version of the event was never heard, most media outlets, including Al-Jazeera, have presented the concoction disseminated by the Jewish state as the true and accurate version of the event.
This depiction of Samir Quntar is in fact part and parcel of the continuous campaign waged by "Israel" and its allies to discredit the Resistance and tarnish its image before the world. The ultimate aim is to conceal the reason for the very existence of the Resistance and to strip it of its cause. The world must be prevented from seeing that the Resistance has a cause, which is to liberate its land from foreign occupiers and protect and defend its people's inherent rights. As such, Resistors are transformed from freedom fighters to murderers and trouble-makers whose sole objective is to terrorize civilians.
The reason that "Israel" chose to fabricate that very story about Samir Quntar is because the tale implies that Quntar organized this entire operation for the sole purpose of killing a civilian in front of his daughter and then crushing the skull of the little girl. In reality, Samir Quntar, and three of his comrades, embarked on an operation on April 22, 1979 the purpose of which was to attack one of the biggest "Israeli" military bases, located in Nahariya, in order to prevent the continued establishment of permanent Jewish settlements on Palestinian land.
The operation initially succeeded brilliantly in that Quntar and his fellow fighters were able to drive their speedboat into occupied Palestine, maneuvre through six squadrons of warships, hide the boat from the seashore guards and "Israeli" radar, and enter the settlement camp of Nahariya after combatting and defeating an "Israeli" patrol squad. However, the subsequent detection of Quntar's group by "Israeli" forces led to a gun battle that resulted in the death of several people including an "Israeli" settler family of four. The exact details of the event are still unclear, but Quntar at the time engaged in a battle in order to escape and return to Lebanon. His intention was thus to get back into the boat and make his way back. However, his plan was stopped short and once the dust of the battle cleared, people were found dead.
The idea that Quntar would take time from his heated battle with "Israeli" forces in order to shoot a father in front of his child and then crush the skull of the child is completely implausible. However, "Israel" needed a tale that would demonize Resistance fighters and all those who dare stand up to the Jewish state and its occupation of their land. It also needed to minimize the success of the operation in the ability of 4 fighters to penetrate "Israeli" security. As such, during the course of the sham trial (this was a trial run by the occupiers to try resistance fighters from among those whose land is occupied) the illegitimate prosecution presented to the illegitimate court fabricated evidence to demonstrate that Samir Quntar was nothing more than a brutal, cold-blooded killer, equivalent to any common criminal.
Unfortunately, this story has floated around for so long that anyone who dares regard Samir Quntar as a hero is seen as a hypocritical, callous apologist for a disgraceful criminal. As such, the successful liberation of Quntar by the Resistance in Lebanon is portrayed as a group of terrorists whose moral bankruptcy allows them to insist on the freedom of a convicted murderer. What is most saddening, however, is not the position of the enemy on this issue, as this is normal and expected, but rather the position of fellow citizens whose very honor and dignity the Resistance is fighting to defend.
After his sentence was announced, Samir Quntar responded saying "I don’t care if the sentence was 9 or even 10 life sentences, the important thing for us is that we made them realize that we are here to stay. Now and tomorrow." These words express the mindset of a person struggling to defend his land and his people against an unjust, brutal occupation, and not that of a murderer. It is in line with the spirit which says that there is nothing easier than for some nations to surrender their right to life for the sake of an "everlasting peace", and we refuse be among those nations.
This depiction of Samir Quntar is in fact part and parcel of the continuous campaign waged by "Israel" and its allies to discredit the Resistance and tarnish its image before the world. The ultimate aim is to conceal the reason for the very existence of the Resistance and to strip it of its cause. The world must be prevented from seeing that the Resistance has a cause, which is to liberate its land from foreign occupiers and protect and defend its people's inherent rights. As such, Resistors are transformed from freedom fighters to murderers and trouble-makers whose sole objective is to terrorize civilians.
The reason that "Israel" chose to fabricate that very story about Samir Quntar is because the tale implies that Quntar organized this entire operation for the sole purpose of killing a civilian in front of his daughter and then crushing the skull of the little girl. In reality, Samir Quntar, and three of his comrades, embarked on an operation on April 22, 1979 the purpose of which was to attack one of the biggest "Israeli" military bases, located in Nahariya, in order to prevent the continued establishment of permanent Jewish settlements on Palestinian land.
The operation initially succeeded brilliantly in that Quntar and his fellow fighters were able to drive their speedboat into occupied Palestine, maneuvre through six squadrons of warships, hide the boat from the seashore guards and "Israeli" radar, and enter the settlement camp of Nahariya after combatting and defeating an "Israeli" patrol squad. However, the subsequent detection of Quntar's group by "Israeli" forces led to a gun battle that resulted in the death of several people including an "Israeli" settler family of four. The exact details of the event are still unclear, but Quntar at the time engaged in a battle in order to escape and return to Lebanon. His intention was thus to get back into the boat and make his way back. However, his plan was stopped short and once the dust of the battle cleared, people were found dead.
The idea that Quntar would take time from his heated battle with "Israeli" forces in order to shoot a father in front of his child and then crush the skull of the child is completely implausible. However, "Israel" needed a tale that would demonize Resistance fighters and all those who dare stand up to the Jewish state and its occupation of their land. It also needed to minimize the success of the operation in the ability of 4 fighters to penetrate "Israeli" security. As such, during the course of the sham trial (this was a trial run by the occupiers to try resistance fighters from among those whose land is occupied) the illegitimate prosecution presented to the illegitimate court fabricated evidence to demonstrate that Samir Quntar was nothing more than a brutal, cold-blooded killer, equivalent to any common criminal.
Unfortunately, this story has floated around for so long that anyone who dares regard Samir Quntar as a hero is seen as a hypocritical, callous apologist for a disgraceful criminal. As such, the successful liberation of Quntar by the Resistance in Lebanon is portrayed as a group of terrorists whose moral bankruptcy allows them to insist on the freedom of a convicted murderer. What is most saddening, however, is not the position of the enemy on this issue, as this is normal and expected, but rather the position of fellow citizens whose very honor and dignity the Resistance is fighting to defend.
After his sentence was announced, Samir Quntar responded saying "I don’t care if the sentence was 9 or even 10 life sentences, the important thing for us is that we made them realize that we are here to stay. Now and tomorrow." These words express the mindset of a person struggling to defend his land and his people against an unjust, brutal occupation, and not that of a murderer. It is in line with the spirit which says that there is nothing easier than for some nations to surrender their right to life for the sake of an "everlasting peace", and we refuse be among those nations.
Monday, July 7, 2008
The Folly of Economic Prosperity through "Peace" with the Enemy
Many misguided citizens of our nation anxious to make "peace" and normalize relations with "Israel" have used a fallacious economic argument to make their case. The assertion is that if we come to a "peace" settlement and normalize ties with the Jewish state, we will find economic prosperity, as western nations will reward us with money and we will benefit from new economic relations with said nations. There are two erroneous assumptions with this theory. The first is the assumption that "Israel" is willing to open the door for the potential prosperity of our nation, and the second is that economic agreements with western nations is the way to economic prosperity.
In their blindness to reality and clear misguidedness of surrounding events, many proponents of the above-mentioned argument find it useful to cite to two prime examples of economic boom following normalization with "Israel." These two examples are Egypt and Jordan. The idea that Jordan and Egypt are exemplary models of economic success is based on superficial observations and a shallow understanding of economics. A simple visit to either of these countries presents one with a facade of economic prosperity. This facade is constructed by the presence of western retail stores, restaurants, and hotels and by the financial wealth of certain capitalists and entrepreneurs, who were able to achieve tremendous financial success. In reality, however, these manifestations merely show that rich people can be found anywhere and that western nations have no problem turning developing countries into consumers of their products. A closer look at the economies of both Egypt and Jordan gives a much more grim and dismal outlook.
Recent developments have exposed Jordan's major economic problems and its inability to eliminate or even reduce the increasing poverty rate in the country. Global price increases have hit Jordan especially hard, as it has proven to lack the ability to cope with this crisis, given that Jordan imports just about all its consumer products, including much of its food. A study on rural poverty in Jordan indicates that because of the arid nature of the land in Jordan, people are unable to produce enough crops to feed themselves. In a statement released on June 24, 2008, the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood called on the government to declare certain extreme poverty areas as disaster zones. Poverty rates in those areas were astoundingly high, as these rates stood at 52.8% in southern Ghor, 62.5% in Wadi Araba, and a shocking 73.7% in Rweished. This means that these percentages of people in those areas are living on no more than $553 per year. Yusuf Mansur, in an article in Bitter Lemons, shows that high inflation, combined with the stagnant double-digit poverty and unemployment rates, is forming a dangerous tripod, and goes on to argue that "last year the average household consumed 20 percent more than it earned, not a sustainable phenomena."
Jordan's normalization with "Israel" has thus failed to pay off in the manner proposed by those supporting normalization. Even as early as 1998 Francesca Ciriaci, writing in the Jordan Times cited the "failure of the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty to deliver many of the promised economic dividends" as a cause for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The situation in Egypt does not look any less grim, as price increases led to riots recently, due to the fact that such increase in the cost of food is unsustainable for a large portion of the Egyptian population. Add to this the fact that Egypt is a net importer of food, and Egypt's economic condition becomes even more fragile. Reports continue to show that poverty is rampant in Egypt's rural areas.
The idea that economic prosperity will come with a so-called "peace" agreement with the Jewish entity is a flawed one based more on the wishful desire to achieve success without having to struggle than on any reality-based findings. Economic prosperity can only be achieved with national unity and with organizing the national economy on a productivity basis. Turning our society into one that merely consumes western products is not a healthy development, and is bound to lead to the economic collapse of our different entities. In addition, basing our economies on services and on opening our markets to the invasion of foreign goods is not a wise or sustainable policy. Economies can only be built on increased productive capacities. If we are to achieve true economic success, we must focus on maximizing our productive potential by investing in industries, research institutions, and agricultural programs. Only with increased production can we hope to alleviate our citizens from the economic disasters they continue to experience. Therefore, rather than normalizing ties with the enemy, our priority should be on normalizing ties with each other, so that we may remove all obstacles to our natural economic life-cycle and realize our productive potential.
In their blindness to reality and clear misguidedness of surrounding events, many proponents of the above-mentioned argument find it useful to cite to two prime examples of economic boom following normalization with "Israel." These two examples are Egypt and Jordan. The idea that Jordan and Egypt are exemplary models of economic success is based on superficial observations and a shallow understanding of economics. A simple visit to either of these countries presents one with a facade of economic prosperity. This facade is constructed by the presence of western retail stores, restaurants, and hotels and by the financial wealth of certain capitalists and entrepreneurs, who were able to achieve tremendous financial success. In reality, however, these manifestations merely show that rich people can be found anywhere and that western nations have no problem turning developing countries into consumers of their products. A closer look at the economies of both Egypt and Jordan gives a much more grim and dismal outlook.
Recent developments have exposed Jordan's major economic problems and its inability to eliminate or even reduce the increasing poverty rate in the country. Global price increases have hit Jordan especially hard, as it has proven to lack the ability to cope with this crisis, given that Jordan imports just about all its consumer products, including much of its food. A study on rural poverty in Jordan indicates that because of the arid nature of the land in Jordan, people are unable to produce enough crops to feed themselves. In a statement released on June 24, 2008, the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood called on the government to declare certain extreme poverty areas as disaster zones. Poverty rates in those areas were astoundingly high, as these rates stood at 52.8% in southern Ghor, 62.5% in Wadi Araba, and a shocking 73.7% in Rweished. This means that these percentages of people in those areas are living on no more than $553 per year. Yusuf Mansur, in an article in Bitter Lemons, shows that high inflation, combined with the stagnant double-digit poverty and unemployment rates, is forming a dangerous tripod, and goes on to argue that "last year the average household consumed 20 percent more than it earned, not a sustainable phenomena."
Jordan's normalization with "Israel" has thus failed to pay off in the manner proposed by those supporting normalization. Even as early as 1998 Francesca Ciriaci, writing in the Jordan Times cited the "failure of the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty to deliver many of the promised economic dividends" as a cause for the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The situation in Egypt does not look any less grim, as price increases led to riots recently, due to the fact that such increase in the cost of food is unsustainable for a large portion of the Egyptian population. Add to this the fact that Egypt is a net importer of food, and Egypt's economic condition becomes even more fragile. Reports continue to show that poverty is rampant in Egypt's rural areas.
The idea that economic prosperity will come with a so-called "peace" agreement with the Jewish entity is a flawed one based more on the wishful desire to achieve success without having to struggle than on any reality-based findings. Economic prosperity can only be achieved with national unity and with organizing the national economy on a productivity basis. Turning our society into one that merely consumes western products is not a healthy development, and is bound to lead to the economic collapse of our different entities. In addition, basing our economies on services and on opening our markets to the invasion of foreign goods is not a wise or sustainable policy. Economies can only be built on increased productive capacities. If we are to achieve true economic success, we must focus on maximizing our productive potential by investing in industries, research institutions, and agricultural programs. Only with increased production can we hope to alleviate our citizens from the economic disasters they continue to experience. Therefore, rather than normalizing ties with the enemy, our priority should be on normalizing ties with each other, so that we may remove all obstacles to our natural economic life-cycle and realize our productive potential.
Monday, June 30, 2008
The Resistance: In Defense of Lebanon
With the news coming yesterday of the approval of the "Israeli" cabinet of a prisoner exchange deal with the Resistance in Lebanon, another accomplishment was recorded in the long list of accomplishments that the Resistance has achieved for Lebanon and the Lebanese. It has become increasingly obvious that the Resistance has taken the role of the true defense force of Lebanon, as it has liberated occupied Lebanese land, confronted and repulsed an attempted "Israeli" invasion, and worked seriously and diligently to secure the release of Lebanese prisoners languishing in "Israeli" dungeons. Yet, even as we recognize and praise the Resistance for all the sacrifices it has made and work it has done in contribution to real Lebanese freedom, sovereignty, and independence (as opposed to the bankrupt version that had been chanted during the farcical "Cedar Revolution") many groups and individuals are working tirelessly within Lebanon to eliminate the Resistance and terminate even the spirit of resistance.
The Lebanese state, since its inception, has never displayed a political will to commit to the defense of Lebanon against external threats. The issue of defense was historically seen as a nuisance to the Lebanese sectarian/tribal politicians, as it was an unnecessary expense that would take away some of the state funds they would be pocketing and because it would act as a disturbance to their personally-motivated political agenda. Therefore, it was always a popular resistance that had to take on the role of the defender of Lebanese territory. When "Israel" pulled out of Beirut and moved back to southern Lebanon, it was due to unrelenting resistance to its occupation, and when it withdrew from most of the south back to Palestine, it was also because of the actions of the national Resistance. The Lebanese political entity had no interest in committing to the liberation of Lebanon, and in fact many saw the south of Lebanon as a mere burden that could be relieved were "Israel" to take a hold of it. As such, absent the Resistance, "Israel" would most definitely have taken complete control of at least southern Lebanon and began building settlements on it, as it has done with all territory it has ever occupied.
Today, the Resistance in Lebanon has evolved and developed into such a major fighting force that it constitutes the only deterrent to the devious schemes and designs of "Israel." The Lebanese Army is no match for the Resistance, as it does not receive even near adequate support from a political class completely unwilling to build an armed forces capable of defending the homeland. However, those same politicians who have expressed complete and utter disdain for anyone or anything demonstrating a serious will and ability to fight the enemy, are committing all their energy and power to combatting and eliminating the Resistance. Not only do they not want to commit to a national defense themselves, but they also want to prevent anyone else from doing so.
Of course such politicians cannot merely come out and declare that they are opposed to the Resistance because they do not want to commit to Lebanon's defense. Therefore, they use justifications and rhetoric that is more likely to give them credibility amongst their constituents. Thus, they claim that the Resistance should be disarmed because its existence flies in the face of state sovereignty, as national defense should be the sole responsibility of the state and not that of an armed militia. The argument is that if Lebanon is to have a true state, then it cannot tolerate an armed militia that is outside of its control. This argument is of course utterly bogus for two important reasons. First, as I indicated in a previous article, these same political forces have, throughout their history, shown nothing but contempt for the Lebanese state. They themselves act outside of the sovereignty of the state, creating their own private fiefdoms in their regions and turning state institutions into their personal business enterprises. Second, their anti-Resistance argument implies that they are indeed committed to defending Lebanon, but that such defense must be consolidated within the Lebanese Armed Forces, when in fact their history has proven that their idea of an armed forces is a ragtag army incapable of standing in the face of a mounting military attack. It is a member of this very political class who once declared that "Lebanon's strength is in its weakness."
Nations and states build armed forces not merely for aesthetic purposes, but rather for concrete objectives, namely the defense of the homeland and the ability to decide the nation's destiny. The goal, therefore, is not the armed forces themselves, but rather the defense of the country. The armed forces are merely a means to achieve that end. The nature of such armed forces is determined by the economic, social, and political circumstances surrounding a given nation or state. Today, Lebanon's position is such that the Resistance has proven to be the most effective tool in confronting an enemy attack and defending Lebanon and the Lebanese against external threats. As such, demanding its disarmament and elimination is effectively a crime against the interest of the Lebanese state, because it is a request to put an end to the only effective means of defending Lebanon. Such demands, therefore, can only be motivated by narrow individual or other particuaristic interests.
The fact of the matter is that Lebanese political groups calling for the disarmament of the Resistance today are working in accordance with a foreign agenda. They are doing so in furtherance of their own selfish interests. "Israel" and its client US administration do not want to see any group within our nation challenging the complete dominance and hegemony of "Israel" over the entire region. They therefore have a heavy interest in destroying all resistance within the nation and demonizing the very concept and spirit of resisting occupation and oppression. They have thus employed local sectarian/tribal chieftains, who form the political class of the Lebanese entity, to undermine the Resistance, strip it of any real cause, and mount an unrelenting, vicious propaganda campaign aimed at vilifying the Resistance and harming its image within the Lebanese public. We thus see recurring accusations of the Resistance being a foreign proxy with a narrow, sectarian agenda unrelated to the defense of Lebanon and the Lebanese. Our people who fought and sacrificed in defense of their land are turned into mere troublemakers and "terrorists" acting merely in furtherance of foreign goals.
Nevertheless, the truth continues to be exposed by the very actions of the Resistance on the ground. Notwithstanding the unrepentent propaganda compaign led by corrupt sectarian groups in Lebanon, the Resistance is proving time and time again that it is working for Lebanon and the Lebanese. It has liberated Lebanese land, repulsed an "Israeli" invasion attempt, and freed Lebanese prisoners held by the enemy. None of this would be happening without the Resistance, which has consistently proven over time that it represents the true spirit of our people and nation.
The Lebanese state, since its inception, has never displayed a political will to commit to the defense of Lebanon against external threats. The issue of defense was historically seen as a nuisance to the Lebanese sectarian/tribal politicians, as it was an unnecessary expense that would take away some of the state funds they would be pocketing and because it would act as a disturbance to their personally-motivated political agenda. Therefore, it was always a popular resistance that had to take on the role of the defender of Lebanese territory. When "Israel" pulled out of Beirut and moved back to southern Lebanon, it was due to unrelenting resistance to its occupation, and when it withdrew from most of the south back to Palestine, it was also because of the actions of the national Resistance. The Lebanese political entity had no interest in committing to the liberation of Lebanon, and in fact many saw the south of Lebanon as a mere burden that could be relieved were "Israel" to take a hold of it. As such, absent the Resistance, "Israel" would most definitely have taken complete control of at least southern Lebanon and began building settlements on it, as it has done with all territory it has ever occupied.
Today, the Resistance in Lebanon has evolved and developed into such a major fighting force that it constitutes the only deterrent to the devious schemes and designs of "Israel." The Lebanese Army is no match for the Resistance, as it does not receive even near adequate support from a political class completely unwilling to build an armed forces capable of defending the homeland. However, those same politicians who have expressed complete and utter disdain for anyone or anything demonstrating a serious will and ability to fight the enemy, are committing all their energy and power to combatting and eliminating the Resistance. Not only do they not want to commit to a national defense themselves, but they also want to prevent anyone else from doing so.
Of course such politicians cannot merely come out and declare that they are opposed to the Resistance because they do not want to commit to Lebanon's defense. Therefore, they use justifications and rhetoric that is more likely to give them credibility amongst their constituents. Thus, they claim that the Resistance should be disarmed because its existence flies in the face of state sovereignty, as national defense should be the sole responsibility of the state and not that of an armed militia. The argument is that if Lebanon is to have a true state, then it cannot tolerate an armed militia that is outside of its control. This argument is of course utterly bogus for two important reasons. First, as I indicated in a previous article, these same political forces have, throughout their history, shown nothing but contempt for the Lebanese state. They themselves act outside of the sovereignty of the state, creating their own private fiefdoms in their regions and turning state institutions into their personal business enterprises. Second, their anti-Resistance argument implies that they are indeed committed to defending Lebanon, but that such defense must be consolidated within the Lebanese Armed Forces, when in fact their history has proven that their idea of an armed forces is a ragtag army incapable of standing in the face of a mounting military attack. It is a member of this very political class who once declared that "Lebanon's strength is in its weakness."
Nations and states build armed forces not merely for aesthetic purposes, but rather for concrete objectives, namely the defense of the homeland and the ability to decide the nation's destiny. The goal, therefore, is not the armed forces themselves, but rather the defense of the country. The armed forces are merely a means to achieve that end. The nature of such armed forces is determined by the economic, social, and political circumstances surrounding a given nation or state. Today, Lebanon's position is such that the Resistance has proven to be the most effective tool in confronting an enemy attack and defending Lebanon and the Lebanese against external threats. As such, demanding its disarmament and elimination is effectively a crime against the interest of the Lebanese state, because it is a request to put an end to the only effective means of defending Lebanon. Such demands, therefore, can only be motivated by narrow individual or other particuaristic interests.
The fact of the matter is that Lebanese political groups calling for the disarmament of the Resistance today are working in accordance with a foreign agenda. They are doing so in furtherance of their own selfish interests. "Israel" and its client US administration do not want to see any group within our nation challenging the complete dominance and hegemony of "Israel" over the entire region. They therefore have a heavy interest in destroying all resistance within the nation and demonizing the very concept and spirit of resisting occupation and oppression. They have thus employed local sectarian/tribal chieftains, who form the political class of the Lebanese entity, to undermine the Resistance, strip it of any real cause, and mount an unrelenting, vicious propaganda campaign aimed at vilifying the Resistance and harming its image within the Lebanese public. We thus see recurring accusations of the Resistance being a foreign proxy with a narrow, sectarian agenda unrelated to the defense of Lebanon and the Lebanese. Our people who fought and sacrificed in defense of their land are turned into mere troublemakers and "terrorists" acting merely in furtherance of foreign goals.
Nevertheless, the truth continues to be exposed by the very actions of the Resistance on the ground. Notwithstanding the unrepentent propaganda compaign led by corrupt sectarian groups in Lebanon, the Resistance is proving time and time again that it is working for Lebanon and the Lebanese. It has liberated Lebanese land, repulsed an "Israeli" invasion attempt, and freed Lebanese prisoners held by the enemy. None of this would be happening without the Resistance, which has consistently proven over time that it represents the true spirit of our people and nation.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Refugees in Syria and Settlers in Palestine
In the aftermath of the US war on Iraq, large numbers of Iraqi civilians were forced to flee the country, most of whom were taken in as refugees in Syria and Jordan. Syria suddenly saw its population increase by at least 1.5 million people as it opened its doors to Iraqis attempting to escape from the dangerous and miserable conditions in their country resulting from America's devastation and occupation of Iraq. Recently, the US State Department coordinator for Iraqi refugees expressed his appreciation of Syria's role by stating: “We salute Syria, the government and its people for its generosity in welcoming” Iraqis who fled the US-led 2003 war. Mr. Foley went on to "recognise the considerable burdens that are shouldered here by the Syrian government and its people... (and) are appreciative of the co-operation that we have on this issue."
Syria in fact has been a haven for refugees throughout its recent history, as people fleeing various wars, massacres, and campaigns of ethnic cleansing have found a haven in Syria, where they were welcomed and treated equally to all Syrians. The list of refugees includes Armenians, Kurds, Palestinians, Lebanese, and today Iraqis. This issue was a subject of debate on Syria Comment, a blog discussing matters related to the Syrian Arab Republic organized by University of Oklahoma Professor Joshua Landis. Within the discussion, one of the comments was offered by an "Israeli" participant, who argued that just as Syria has welcomed "Arab" refugees, Israel has previously welcomed "Jewish" refugees and granted them full citizenship. This claim distorts the whole issue of refugees and misrepresents and mischaracterizes both Syria's welcoming of refugees and the nature of the Jewish state of "Israel."
First, Syria did not only welcome "Arab" refugees as the "Israeli" participant claims, without going further into the definition of what constitutes an "Arab." Large numbers of Armenians and Kurds, as well as some Circassians have all found refuge in Syria. Syria has opened its doors to all peoples suffering from various unfortunate circumstances, regardless of race, nationality, or religion. Second, Syria is not a state founded on exclusionary principles and was not established pursuant to the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous people and its replacement with a foreign group. A Syrian, in this regard, is defined merely as a citizen of the Syrian state and is not required to trace his/her roots back to a particular ethnic/racial group.
This is contrary to the very basis under which "Israel" was created and the reasons why Jews were taken in by the colonial entity. "Israel" defines itself as a "Jewish state" and as "THE state of all Jews." As such, "Israel" has a policy of increasing the number of Jews within the territory it occupies and decreasing the number of non-Jews. It is in fact leading a demographic war, so to speak, so that it may change reality on the ground and create the right environment for the continuation of its existence as a purely Jewish state. The vast majority of Jews who came into Palestine to be part of the new Jewish state were not in fact refugees, but where rather immigrants of choice led by their ideological beliefs in realizing the divine promise of the land of "Israel." In addition, it is now widely accepted and known that various attacks against Jewish targets within the Arab world were organized and carried out by Jewish groups in order to entice Jews of those states to move to Palestine.
Furthermore, the Jews who came into Palestine came not as refugees willing to share the land with its indigenous inhabitants. Rather, they came as settler colonialists intending to remove the natural people of the land and occupy their place. It was part of a concerted campaign to create a state exclusively for Jews on land inhabited by another population. As such, it is utterly ridiculous to compare the refugee situation in Syria to the settlement of Jews in occupied Palestine. The former is a generous humanitarian deed carried out by a people genuinely concerned about the plight of others, while the latter is a campaign based on a racist, exclusive ideology aimed at creating an ethnically pure state.
Syria in fact has been a haven for refugees throughout its recent history, as people fleeing various wars, massacres, and campaigns of ethnic cleansing have found a haven in Syria, where they were welcomed and treated equally to all Syrians. The list of refugees includes Armenians, Kurds, Palestinians, Lebanese, and today Iraqis. This issue was a subject of debate on Syria Comment, a blog discussing matters related to the Syrian Arab Republic organized by University of Oklahoma Professor Joshua Landis. Within the discussion, one of the comments was offered by an "Israeli" participant, who argued that just as Syria has welcomed "Arab" refugees, Israel has previously welcomed "Jewish" refugees and granted them full citizenship. This claim distorts the whole issue of refugees and misrepresents and mischaracterizes both Syria's welcoming of refugees and the nature of the Jewish state of "Israel."
First, Syria did not only welcome "Arab" refugees as the "Israeli" participant claims, without going further into the definition of what constitutes an "Arab." Large numbers of Armenians and Kurds, as well as some Circassians have all found refuge in Syria. Syria has opened its doors to all peoples suffering from various unfortunate circumstances, regardless of race, nationality, or religion. Second, Syria is not a state founded on exclusionary principles and was not established pursuant to the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous people and its replacement with a foreign group. A Syrian, in this regard, is defined merely as a citizen of the Syrian state and is not required to trace his/her roots back to a particular ethnic/racial group.
This is contrary to the very basis under which "Israel" was created and the reasons why Jews were taken in by the colonial entity. "Israel" defines itself as a "Jewish state" and as "THE state of all Jews." As such, "Israel" has a policy of increasing the number of Jews within the territory it occupies and decreasing the number of non-Jews. It is in fact leading a demographic war, so to speak, so that it may change reality on the ground and create the right environment for the continuation of its existence as a purely Jewish state. The vast majority of Jews who came into Palestine to be part of the new Jewish state were not in fact refugees, but where rather immigrants of choice led by their ideological beliefs in realizing the divine promise of the land of "Israel." In addition, it is now widely accepted and known that various attacks against Jewish targets within the Arab world were organized and carried out by Jewish groups in order to entice Jews of those states to move to Palestine.
Furthermore, the Jews who came into Palestine came not as refugees willing to share the land with its indigenous inhabitants. Rather, they came as settler colonialists intending to remove the natural people of the land and occupy their place. It was part of a concerted campaign to create a state exclusively for Jews on land inhabited by another population. As such, it is utterly ridiculous to compare the refugee situation in Syria to the settlement of Jews in occupied Palestine. The former is a generous humanitarian deed carried out by a people genuinely concerned about the plight of others, while the latter is a campaign based on a racist, exclusive ideology aimed at creating an ethnically pure state.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Europe to the Rescue
If anyone out there is wondering what the solution is to the Palestinian issue, Europe has the answer for you. In fact, just yesterday a conference was held in Berlin, Germany, to secure funds for the one missing piece that will make the dream of all Palestinians come true. While I know that readers are anxiously awaiting the substance of this story, I would like to review Europe’s history in this conflict so that we may put the European nations’ current charitable deed in its proper context.
In 1916, France and Britain, being the self-proclaimed rulers of the world, entered into the Sykes-Picot Agreement (named after Sir Mark Sykes and Georges Picot, the respective diplomats of the two nations) which divided the Syrian nation into various zones of influence, leading to the creation of the current statelets we have today. This agreement was followed in 1917 by the infamous Balfour Declaration, issued by Lord Arthur James Balfour, the foreign secretary of the Kingdom, promising the Jews a "homeland" in Palestine. The British at the time apparently wanted to compensate the Jews for their persecution at the hands of Europeans by generously awarding them another people’s land.
Throughout this period, the British were of course actively helping European Jews immigrate to Palestine in accordance with their plan. In 1947, with the European nations taking the lead, the UN General Assembly approved a partition plan which essentially legitimized the occupation of Palestine by granting the Jewish settlers, who made up 30% of the population (after the organized immigration campaigns) and owned less than 7% of the land, 56% of Palestine proper, including the most fertile regions. The British subsequently armed Jewish terrorist gangs before withdrawing, thereby setting the stage for the creation of the exclusively Jewish state of "Israel."
Once it was declared, all European nations raced to recognize the new exclusivist state on Palestinian land, while none raised so much as a voice over the brutal massacres and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian civilians. Since then, Europeans have actively aided the Jewish state in its occupation by providing it with military and financial assistance. France was one of the main providers of military weapons for "Israel" until the 1970's and was responsible for helping "Israel" build its nuclear weapons arsenal. France and Britain also fought side by side with Israel in the 1956 Sinai war and directly assisted the Jewish entity in the 1967 war. Even as recently as a few years ago, Germany provided "Israel" with nuclear submarines.
Moreover, Europe has generally looked the other way at "Israel’s" repeated and consistent violation of UN resolutions, as well as its numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity. Europeans further directly participated in the blockade of Gaza to punish the Palestinians for choosing the wrong candidates in their elections.
So, after all this rich history in the Palestine conflict, what was Europe’s solution for Palestine’s problems? More "Palestinian Authority" police and larger prisons. That’s right; apparently the main problem plaguing Palestinians today is that not enough are being imprisoned. The continued occupation, the killing of civilians, and the suffocation of an entire population are secondary issues according to Europe’s "civilized" nations. If this doesn’t make up for all their prior crimes against our people, then I don’t know what does. Therefore, I say "Europe to the Rescue."
In 1916, France and Britain, being the self-proclaimed rulers of the world, entered into the Sykes-Picot Agreement (named after Sir Mark Sykes and Georges Picot, the respective diplomats of the two nations) which divided the Syrian nation into various zones of influence, leading to the creation of the current statelets we have today. This agreement was followed in 1917 by the infamous Balfour Declaration, issued by Lord Arthur James Balfour, the foreign secretary of the Kingdom, promising the Jews a "homeland" in Palestine. The British at the time apparently wanted to compensate the Jews for their persecution at the hands of Europeans by generously awarding them another people’s land.
Throughout this period, the British were of course actively helping European Jews immigrate to Palestine in accordance with their plan. In 1947, with the European nations taking the lead, the UN General Assembly approved a partition plan which essentially legitimized the occupation of Palestine by granting the Jewish settlers, who made up 30% of the population (after the organized immigration campaigns) and owned less than 7% of the land, 56% of Palestine proper, including the most fertile regions. The British subsequently armed Jewish terrorist gangs before withdrawing, thereby setting the stage for the creation of the exclusively Jewish state of "Israel."
Once it was declared, all European nations raced to recognize the new exclusivist state on Palestinian land, while none raised so much as a voice over the brutal massacres and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian civilians. Since then, Europeans have actively aided the Jewish state in its occupation by providing it with military and financial assistance. France was one of the main providers of military weapons for "Israel" until the 1970's and was responsible for helping "Israel" build its nuclear weapons arsenal. France and Britain also fought side by side with Israel in the 1956 Sinai war and directly assisted the Jewish entity in the 1967 war. Even as recently as a few years ago, Germany provided "Israel" with nuclear submarines.
Moreover, Europe has generally looked the other way at "Israel’s" repeated and consistent violation of UN resolutions, as well as its numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity. Europeans further directly participated in the blockade of Gaza to punish the Palestinians for choosing the wrong candidates in their elections.
So, after all this rich history in the Palestine conflict, what was Europe’s solution for Palestine’s problems? More "Palestinian Authority" police and larger prisons. That’s right; apparently the main problem plaguing Palestinians today is that not enough are being imprisoned. The continued occupation, the killing of civilians, and the suffocation of an entire population are secondary issues according to Europe’s "civilized" nations. If this doesn’t make up for all their prior crimes against our people, then I don’t know what does. Therefore, I say "Europe to the Rescue."
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Jenin Revisited
As I was going through some videos yesterday, I happened to stumble on a documentary film I had seen a few years ago about the massacre in Jenin. The film, Jenin Jenin, was a 2002 first hand account of what took place in Jenin during the "Israeli" vicious assault on the camp. The producer of the film, Iyad Samoudi was subsequently shot and killed by "Israeli" soldiers in Yamun. The film itself tells the story of the Jenin massacre through the words of the camp's residents, as there is no narration in the film. This film, however, is a must see for all those who are interested in seeing the criminal and genocidal nature of the Jewish state, and what effect its murderous actions have on Palestinian civilians.
Ever since its inception, "Israel" has carried out a continuous campaign of oppression and persection against the Palestinian people in order to make life so miserable for them that they would have to leave this land allegedly promised to the Jews by the real estate agent of the heavens. In carrying out this oppression campaign, the Jewish state has continuously and systematically engaged in killing and maiming of civilians, demolition of homes, expropriation of land, uprooting of trees and orchards, looting of homes, theft of people's life-savings, and imprisonment and torture of men, women, and children. The Jenin camp itself was formed after the forced expulsion of residents of Haifa in 1948, who were taken by bus at gunpoint by Jewish terrorist groups in order to clear the area of its indigenous inhabitants and make way for its new Jewish settlers. These natives of Haifa of course have absolutely no right under Jewish "Israeli" law to return to their homes, stolen from them by Jewish settlers.
One of the stories that came out of this ethnic cleansing operation is documented in United Nations archives. A group of former Haifa residents exited the bus in Jenin on a very hot day. As they were suffering from extreme thirst, they pleaded with the Jewish terrorist militants to provide them with some water, to which these militants apparently agreed. A little later these terrorist militants came back with gallons of what appeared to be some type of fluid. As they approached the Palestinian civilians, they dumped the fluid on them and ignited it. This fluid was gasoline and the Palestinian refugees were burned alive. The very nature of this Jewish state is very clearly exemplified in this story. It is a state intent on killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinians, as their entity must be of Jewish purity. It is a state based on a racist, hate-filled ideology which regards the native inhabitants of this land as subhumans.
Today's media, of course, conceals every criminal aspect of the Jewish entity and attempts to portray "Israel" as a thriving "democracy" in a sea of dictatorship and backwardness. This "democracy," however, is in fact a racist theocracy which aims to build a state for Jews only. The massacre of Jenin was not only deliberately hidden from the public eye, but was in fact so twisted and distorted, that the media attempted to imply that the "Israelis" themselves were the victims of the Palestinian inhabitants of the camp. Video footage of Israeli tanks crushing Palestinian men who were forced to strip naked and lie on the ground was not shown to the international public. Investigators were adamantly prohibited from going to Jenin to determine what actually took place without so much as an utterance from the worldwide media. Reporters who were able to gain access to the camp spoke of the smell of death everywhere. It is not known how many bodies were buried under the rubble.
The Jenin massacre was in fact an act completely in line with the nature and concept of the Jewish entity. It was a savage, barbaric act by a terror machine bent on destroying the very livelihood of all Palestinians. It was an act that should have shown the entire world what this "light unto the nations" truly is. However, the world has closed its eyes and plugged its ears to the suffering of the Palestinians. The so-called western "civilized" world is actively aiding in the destruction of Palestine and in the killing of Palestinians, as well as the killing of Syrians in general. As for the Arab World, aside from the occasional outbursts over some cartoons of the Prophet in an obscure European newspaper, we cannot expect much from them. Our only salvation is to unify our ranks across our entire homeland from Iraq to Palestine and collectively confront the threat to our very existence. Otherwise, we can only expect the future to look even more gloomy and grim than the present.
Ever since its inception, "Israel" has carried out a continuous campaign of oppression and persection against the Palestinian people in order to make life so miserable for them that they would have to leave this land allegedly promised to the Jews by the real estate agent of the heavens. In carrying out this oppression campaign, the Jewish state has continuously and systematically engaged in killing and maiming of civilians, demolition of homes, expropriation of land, uprooting of trees and orchards, looting of homes, theft of people's life-savings, and imprisonment and torture of men, women, and children. The Jenin camp itself was formed after the forced expulsion of residents of Haifa in 1948, who were taken by bus at gunpoint by Jewish terrorist groups in order to clear the area of its indigenous inhabitants and make way for its new Jewish settlers. These natives of Haifa of course have absolutely no right under Jewish "Israeli" law to return to their homes, stolen from them by Jewish settlers.
One of the stories that came out of this ethnic cleansing operation is documented in United Nations archives. A group of former Haifa residents exited the bus in Jenin on a very hot day. As they were suffering from extreme thirst, they pleaded with the Jewish terrorist militants to provide them with some water, to which these militants apparently agreed. A little later these terrorist militants came back with gallons of what appeared to be some type of fluid. As they approached the Palestinian civilians, they dumped the fluid on them and ignited it. This fluid was gasoline and the Palestinian refugees were burned alive. The very nature of this Jewish state is very clearly exemplified in this story. It is a state intent on killing and ethnically cleansing Palestinians, as their entity must be of Jewish purity. It is a state based on a racist, hate-filled ideology which regards the native inhabitants of this land as subhumans.
Today's media, of course, conceals every criminal aspect of the Jewish entity and attempts to portray "Israel" as a thriving "democracy" in a sea of dictatorship and backwardness. This "democracy," however, is in fact a racist theocracy which aims to build a state for Jews only. The massacre of Jenin was not only deliberately hidden from the public eye, but was in fact so twisted and distorted, that the media attempted to imply that the "Israelis" themselves were the victims of the Palestinian inhabitants of the camp. Video footage of Israeli tanks crushing Palestinian men who were forced to strip naked and lie on the ground was not shown to the international public. Investigators were adamantly prohibited from going to Jenin to determine what actually took place without so much as an utterance from the worldwide media. Reporters who were able to gain access to the camp spoke of the smell of death everywhere. It is not known how many bodies were buried under the rubble.
The Jenin massacre was in fact an act completely in line with the nature and concept of the Jewish entity. It was a savage, barbaric act by a terror machine bent on destroying the very livelihood of all Palestinians. It was an act that should have shown the entire world what this "light unto the nations" truly is. However, the world has closed its eyes and plugged its ears to the suffering of the Palestinians. The so-called western "civilized" world is actively aiding in the destruction of Palestine and in the killing of Palestinians, as well as the killing of Syrians in general. As for the Arab World, aside from the occasional outbursts over some cartoons of the Prophet in an obscure European newspaper, we cannot expect much from them. Our only salvation is to unify our ranks across our entire homeland from Iraq to Palestine and collectively confront the threat to our very existence. Otherwise, we can only expect the future to look even more gloomy and grim than the present.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
