Mondoweiss Online Newsletter

NOVANEWS

• Vetoing Palestinian bid will damage US relationship w/ Muslim world for years to come –former ambassador

• Sweeping Iraq under the 9/11/11 rug

• September uprising? Hopes, prospects and obstacles for Palestinian popular struggle

• Chris Matthews has no excuse now (even Star-Ledger cites 2012 role of ‘Jewish votes and money’)

• ‘Tennis in Nablus’ – well worth the trip to Hudson

• Arab Sources: Hamas on UN bid

• It’s open season! Tom Friedman says Obama is ‘hostage’ to ‘powerful pro-Israel lobby’

• Netanyahu planning end-zone dance in Brooklyn’s new Republican district

• Isn’t this torture? ‘Haaretz’ says Israel mulls using ‘force’ against detained Palestinian protesters

• Raji Sourani to teach session at Columbia Law School

Vetoing Palestinian bid will damage US relationship w/ Muslim world for years to come –former ambassador

Sep 18, 2011

Philip Weiss

There seems to be a late effort to lobby Obama not to veto the Palestinian bid for statehood at the Security Council. Jimmy Carter was on NPR’s All Things Considered today urging the president to stand out of the way (and host Guy Raz seemed incredulous). Now this letter to Obama from a former ambassador, Charles O. Cecil, ambassador to Niger under Clinton, is getting wide circulation in email lists I’m on.

Dear Mr. President:

Just think for a minute—what would happen if the United States abstained when the Palestinian question comes before the UN Security Council in the next week or two?

The resolution would pass. The world would be stunned. The United States would enter an entirely new era in our relations with the Muslim countries of the world. The vision you outlined in Cairo for better relations with the Islamic world would take the largest step forward of your presidency. The United States would once again have regained the high moral ground we so often claim to occupy. The energies loosed by the “Arab spring” would continue to be devoted to their own domestic affairs rather than being diverted into condemning the United States. We are hypocrites when we claim to want justice for the Palestinians but we do nothing meaningful to help achieve this.

On the other hand, if the United States vetoes the Palestinian request for statehood, we will damage our position in the Islamic world—not merely the Arab World—for untold years to come. We will become the object of retribution throughout the Muslim world, and will give new energy to the lagging efforts of al-Qaida to retaliate against us. I served my country 36 years in the Foreign Service of the United States, ten assignments in ten Muslim countries. I know the power of this issue. Why would we want to give new impetus to anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world?

Mr. Netanyahu’s office has issued a statement saying “Peace will be achieved only through direct negotiations with Israel.” You know, and I know, that Mr. Netanyahu has no intention of concluding a just and fair peace with the Palestinian Authority. His only concern is to continue the inexorable construction of more settlements, creating more “facts on the ground” until the idea of an independent Palestinian state becomes a mere memory of a bygone era. When Israel declared its independence in 1948 it did not do so after direct negotiations with Palestine. If Israel really wants to negotiate with the Palestinians, why would negotiating with an independent Palestinian government, on an equal footing, deter it from engaging in these negotiations?

The Reagan administration launched an international information campaign under the slogan “Let Poland be Poland.” It’s time we let Palestine be Palestine.

Abstain from this upcoming vote. Just think about it.

Sincerely yours, Charles O. Cecil U.S. Ambassador, retired

Sweeping Iraq under the 9/11/11 rug

Sep 18, 2011

Paul Mutter

I said to myself two weeks ago, “I’m not writing anything about 9/11/11.” I knew I would eventually break that promise, though, in spite of my disgust for the 10th anniversary media hype – from People’s ‘Children of 9/11’ feature and National Geographic’s George W. Bush interview to documentary after documentary hyping “previously unseen footage” as though new footage of the deaths of over 3,000 people constituted a director’s cut edition. And Herman Cain. Don’t let me get started on Herman Cain.

As repugnant as all this coverage was, I thought we might be using the 10th anniversary of the attacks to discuss war powers, torture, bigotry anddomestic surveillance, a realization that far too few outlets have demonstrated now – or on earlier 9/11 anniversaries.

I am now breaking that promise to myself. Paul Krugman really surprised me with his “Years of Shame” op-ed, and Chris Hedges, Ron Paul, John Stewartand Noam Chomsky’s perspectives on 9/11 ten years later were all spot on. So why didn’t we hear these voices in greater volume on 9/11/11 – or for that matter, on 9/11/06, or even on 9/12/01?

Because it would have been too politicizing, argues Judith Miller, formerly of the NYT’s Iraqi WMD reporting debacle. She seems to have taken Paul Krugman’s op-ed rather personally.

I wonder why that is? Krugman explained that one of the main reasons he decided to write his op-ed was to remind readers that the al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein WMD “evidence” exploited up after 9/11 to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq was, at best, fabricated. And who was front and center of the media frenzy passing off this tripe as news?

Why, the NYT’s own Judith Miller!

Miller has said that 9/11 was a day that did not “teach” us lessons: it is a day that “exhausts . . . defies . . . negates. And it raises disturbing questions about being human.”Miller’s grief sublimated itself into jingoism and easy explanations, all of which climaxed in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but a mood that many Americans share to this day.

That it may be, but this response is a cop-out. Journalists must not look away and philosophize, look for easily explanations that ascribe events to existential crises. That’s what politicians do. Journalists have to confront what has happened and explain why it happened, explain what comes out of it, and warn against what might come out of it when people in power try to take advantage of events like 9/11.

Miller is by no means the only journalist to ignore the reality of what happened after “the day that changed everything.” Many Americans refuse to accept that they let “the day the changed everything” change everything – just look at the booing and incredulous looks Ron Paul got from his fellow presidential contenders when he dared to offer an alternative explanation to the “they hate our freedoms” narrative. Any one of these men or women could be our next president – and they think Paul’s suggestion is crazy. Other media outlets, and not just “conservative ones,” have been castigating Krugman as a cynical, fame-seeking bastard.

As Glenn Greenwald puts it, the real reason politician and journalists have taken offense is because:

“Krugman’s sin wasn’t that he inappropriately politicized what was otherwise an apolitical day. His sin was the opposite. He deviated from the approved, mandatory political script for that day: by pointing out that it isn’t only the Terrorists but also ourselves who engaged in deeply shameful crimes. He didn’t politicize an apolitical day; to the contrary, he subverted the most politically propagandistic day that now exists in American political culture.

9/11 made us “stronger,” the Obama Administration claims. We are not strong, we are weak. After 9/11, American politicians and journalists let the people who wanted “to change everything” have their way, whether they were neocons or Islamists. We often forget that both camps got their ideal war narratives: they wanted a “clash of civilizations” thesis and they got it.Krugman might have needed to be a bit more circumspect in his 9/11/11 op-ed. And I didn’t agree with his decision to block comments on the piece. But I agree with the content of his “Years of Shame” editorial 100%.

Judith Miller might have been more circumspect in every article she wrote about Iraq after 9/11. Every journalist might have been.

Most weren’t. The embedded reporting and top-level interviews were just too good to pass up. Look where it got us, and Iraq.

 

September uprising? Hopes, prospects and obstacles for Palestinian popular struggle

Sep 18, 2011

Alex Kane

residents of the village of nabi saleh demonstrate in support of the united nations bid for statehood (photo: activestills.org)

The Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations (UN) was on the mind of the Tamimi family. Tea flowed and the coals on top of the nargileh pipe smoked on a warm Ramadan night last month in the West Bank village of Nabi Saleh as a snapshot emerged of the divisions across Palestine regarding the bid for recognition at the UN.

“The UN move is a mistake,” one woman remarked, worrying aloud about some US officials’ threats to cut funding for the Palestinian Authority (PA). Her husband works for the PA’s security forces, and any further strain on the PA budget could prove detrimental to their livelihood.

Bashir Tamimi, though, was unequivocal in his support for the PA strategy of asking for UN membership at the upcoming General Assembly session in September, although he too wondered about the future. Tamimi is a member of the popular committee in Nabi Saleh that organizes weekly demonstrations against the nearby settlement of Halamish.

“It will be a long month. It’s difficult to understand what will happen,” he said, dragging on a cigarette as a Real Madrid vs. Barcelona soccer game crackled over the radio. “As leaders of the popular committees and popular resistance, we will demonstrate all over the country in order to support this decision of our leaders in order to make pressure on the world.”

The lines of thought expressed in the village about the Palestinian leadership’s decision to apply for some kind of membership at the United Nations are only two of many. There remains uncertainty about what exactly the Palestinian Authority is looking to attain this month, and what might come next. Perhaps the biggest question is what the reaction on the ground will be.

And so as debate over the UN strategy among the Palestinian disapora, those in refugee camps and Palestinians living under occupation continues, Palestinian activists are preparing the ground for a renewed wave of popular nonviolent resistance to Israel. Still, there is little consensus in occupied Palestine and around the world about the UN bid’s effect on the Palestinian struggle.

Palestinians “appear to be greeting the entire UN episode with considerable skepticism, a result of growing frustration with the leadership and of concrete questions regarding the impact of the move,” reads a recently released reportby the International Crisis Group. “Ironically, [many Palestinians would be] hostile to a decision to drop the bid, viewing it as yet more evidence of the leadership’s powerlessness and vulnerability to outside pressure.”

Negative sentiment is even more pronounced in the Gaza Strip, where the Hamas leadership has criticized the UN bid and young bloggers have spoken out against what they see as an undemocratic and potentially rights-damaging move by an unrepresentative leadership.

The skepticism that exists, though, is not stopping West Bank popular committee leaders from preparing to seize the spotlight the UN bid will give Palestine.

“I don’t think the people here will be quiet,” said Mousa Abu Marya, a soft-spoken popular committee coordinator in the village of Beit Ommar.

His village, located near Hebron and surrounded by six settlements, has been a target of the Israeli military in recent weeks. “Maybe in September, many demonstrations will happen. But not only because of September, but because of the situation. [After], the Israelis will cut the money [to the PA]. The people will have no salaries and no good food…They will do something.”

Abu Marya, Tamimi and a host of other popular committee organizers are busy trying to turn their “maybes” into definite answers. They are planning to take action in the form of rallies and demonstrations against the occupation. The fate of their plans, while depending mostly on their ability to mobilize large numbers of Palestinians to challenge the occupation, will also be determined by the response of Israel and the US, the PA and the newly empowered Arab public in surrounding countries. The big question mark is whether a fragmented Palestinian polity can catch the winds of the Arab uprisings and put intense pressure on Israel’s occupation regime. It’s a high-stakes moment for the Palestinian popular struggle.

Going to the UN “is a positive step,” said Hassan Mousa, spokesman for the Nil’in village popular committee. “We expect Palestinians to continue their struggle through a comprehensive strategy…It needs struggle on the ground and diplomatic and political struggle at the United Nations. So both struggles come together.”

In July, the Palestine Popular Resistance Conference was held in three villages: Beit Ommar, Nil’in and Budrus. The conference was dedicated to the protests Palestinians continue to hold in villages affected by the separation barrier and settlements. It ended with the drafting of a statement that laid out the coalition of West Bank activists’ position on the PA going to the UN.

“Next September is the immense popular battle for the recognition of the State of Palestine,” the statement read. “The committees commit themselves to initiate to work in order to develop intensive action and mobilize people to expand the struggle for recognition of a Palestinian state in the Palestinian and the international arenas using an immense popular struggle program.”

The conference closed out amidst the firing of tear gas canisters by the Israeli military in response to an unarmed protest in Budrus—the usual response of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The response to the Budrus protest and other popular resistance campaigns by Israel, though, could pale in comparison if Israeli media reports pan out.

The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that the UN move could lead to “violence and bloodshed.” But Palestinian activists, based on the crushing experience of the second intifada, say that there is no place for armed struggle anymore in resistance against Israel’s occupation.

“The nonviolent resistance is the important resistance at this time,” Abu Marya said. “The second intifada was a big mistake. It moved Palestine 100 years into the past. So now the people are starting to think about something new.”

The IDF, though, has been instructed to meet any mass demonstrations by Palestinians in September with force. Last month, the Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported that if Palestinian protesters cross a “red line” in approaching illegal settlements, “soldiers will be allowed to open fire at the legs of the demonstrators.” In addition, the IDF has armed settlers with tear gas and stun grenades to confront Palestinian protests with.

There have been recent previews of how the Israeli army will react to any large-scale Palestinian protests. Last May’s actions to commemorate the Palestinian Nakba, or catastrophe, ended in bloodshed as thousands of unarmed Palestinian refugees in neighboring countries calling for the right of return marched to the border with Israel. Over a dozen were killed and scores injured when the Israeli army opened fire on the Syria and Lebanon borders. However, recent events, like the September 9 Egyptian protest that resulted in the Israeli embassy being broken into, will also be on the mind of the Israeli military establishment.

“Everybody feels that everything in the Middle East is changeable. The people will change the situation at any time,” well-known Palestinian activist Ayed Morrar told me as we sat in an office of Fatah, the political party Abbas belongs to. “So I think the Palestinian issue after the Arab movements will be different in the future than what it was before.”

To stem the possibility of large protest actions in the West Bank, the Israeli military is working closely with PA security to respond. To prepare, the PA has reportedly purchased tear gas grenades and rubber bullets from Israel.

Although PA President Mahmoud Abbas has called for mass protests in September in support of the UN strategy, the PA has also made it clear it wants to keep them confined to major urban centers under its full control (Area A under the Oslo agreement).

Having the PA control protests in the West Bank could also put to rest Israeli worries about the regional reaction in response to their soldiers opening fire on unarmed Palestinian protesters.

The PA, it seems, is hoping that the combination of the UN bid and controlled protests are a way out of their quandary: having to both show the Palestinian public that they are doing something to end the occupation and pleasing the US and Israel by keeping control.

But while some Palestinian activists are loath to commit to actively confronting their own leadership as the occupation remains present, criticism of the PA has been heard loud and clear.

“If they decide to fight us in any way, we will never turn back. This is our official stance,” said Morrar. “[PA Prime Minister] Salam Fayyad succeeded in controlling the situation this time because after seven years of oppression, and suffering [as a result of the Israeli response to the second intifada], the people need the time to take rest. But sooner or later they will wake up and discover that their targets are not achieved yet.”

The PA has, in fact, stopped protests from reaching Israeli checkpoints. On the May 15 Nakba protest, PA security stopped demonstrators from approaching a checkpoint.

Morrar criticized the PA’s protest strategy. “It will not make pressure on the occupation to force them to feel that there are another people that need their freedom,” he said. “We must pressure the occupation, to force them to feel that this is a loser project. And all these activities, we don’t aim to kill anybody from the other side, from the Israelis. We want to initiate a nonviolent struggle in order to achieve freedom and justice.”

Besides the PA and Israel, Palestinian activists also have to worry about galvanizing a tired and frustrated Palestinian public. Some are skeptical.

“I don’t expect that huge of a reaction on the ground. It will be a little bit more than now, but not huge. I don’t expect that. We are working to push it that way to make it huge, and I wish, I hope I’m wrong,” said Younes Arar, the executive manager of the Beit Ommar-based Center for Freedom and Justice and a popular struggle activist. “People they are really, really frustrated. They are frustrated with the situation…. Somehow they give up. And that’s bad.”

In the meantime, popular struggle leaders are continuing to push to use the UN bid as an opportunity to focus the world on the Palestinian plight.

“This is a decisive stage,” said Mousa. “It is a matter of life or death…When Palestinians realize that their existence is at stake, I think they will be having the courage, the resolve to participate and join in our struggle.”

Alex Kane is a New York City-based freelance journalist who blogs on Israel/Palestine at alexbkane.wordpress.com. Follow him on Twitter @alexbkane.

Chris Matthews has no excuse now (even Star-Ledger cites 2012 role of ‘Jewish votes and money’)

Sep 18, 2011

Philip Weiss

It’s open season on the Israel lobby. Thank Palestinian statehood initiative, thank Bob Turner in Brooklyn. Tom Friedman sounded the bugle this morning and the hounds are in the hedges. John Farmer in the Star-Ledger:

Palestinians look to America, Israeli’s can’t-do-without ally, to squeeze concessions out of Netanyahu. But they’ll look in vain. Why? The Tip O’Neill rule again.

Facing a tough re-election fight next year in which U.S. Jewish votes and money will be critical, Obama’s in no position to make demands of Netanyahu. He’s already in trouble with American Jews who think he’s insufficiently sympathetic to Israel, as witness the loss of a House seat last week in a New York congressional district heavy with angry Orthodox Jewish voters.

Obama has promised Israel he’d veto any Palestinian statehood bill that reaches the U.N. Security Council, even though it further damages U.S. standing in the Arab Muslim world. What he’s hoping for is a deal that diverts the issue to the General Assembly, where no veto is involved and the PLO is given the fig leaf of non-member status.

Another kick-the-can-down-the-road solution.

‘Tennis in Nablus’ – well worth the trip to Hudson

Sep 18, 2011

David Samel

This site already has published an excellent review by Lisa Mullenneaux of Ismail Khalidi’s Tennis in Nablus, which is running for one more week in Hudson, New York. My wife and I saw the play last night and loved it. I cannot recommend it too highly.

Lisa gives more details, but every single member of the cast was brilliantly talented and energetic. It is impossible for me to pick out a single actor especially worthy of praise. The set is ingenious and the direction perfect.

The superb production was a labor of love for the remarkable play. Khalidi’s aim is to explore a relatively-unknown chapter of Palestinian history, shedding light on the revolt of the late 1930’s and showing how these events helped to shape the 70+ years that have followed. He ambitiously analyzes not only the conflicts between the Palestinians, British, and Zionists, but the conflicts within each of those groups as well. There is tension between the Palestinian rebel and the collaborator; and between the racist, brutal and pompous English officers and the Irish and Indian soldiers who are other victims of Empire forced by circumstances into British uniforms, who form a natural alliance with the Palestinian prisoners.

Khalidi wisely portrays Samuel Hirsch, the sole Jewish character, as a sensitive and sympathetic escapee from the madness overtaking Europe whose principal sin is blindness to the future. Khalidi manages to convey the conflicts in the Jewish community between Hirsch, the long-standing Jewish community in Palestine that enjoyed close relationships with their Muslim and Christian neighbors, and the European Zionist leadership bent on conquest at any cost to the indigenous population. He also manages to throw in a realistic and worthy sub-plot of feminist struggle within the Palestinian community.

One line that caught my attention was a character’s reference to Ben-Gurion and Avraham Stern as two men with a shared goal of achieving Jewish supremacy through violent means. All Zionist and most other historical narratives are careful to distinguish between the supposedly responsible, moderate statesman B-G and terrorist extremists such as Stern, who spawned the notorious Lehi (Stern Gang). Khalidi’s decision to lump them together despite their rivalry is quite interesting and appropriate, especially from the point of view of the Palestinians of that period.

Khalidi’s injection of a fair amount of humor into the play was a risky decision, but one that pays off. It is neither forced nor silly. The humor appears as the natural expression of the well-developed characters and not the artificial efforts of a playwright trying to give his audience an occasional break from the highly-charged story.

Throughout, Khalidi never forgets his craft. Political theater can often appear forced or clumsy, with drama taking a back seat to message, and characters mouthing background information or propaganda. Khalidi makes sure he avoids this trap, and expertly constructs his plot and characters with realistic dialog. Someone with no interest in the history of Palestine would find this play quite entertaining. This is great theater.

The play had a respectable turnout, including Amy Goodman by the way, but it truly deserves a full house, which is difficult to achieve because of its distance from New York City, about two hours by car, and Boston, about three hours. There are two silver linings to the inconvenience of traveling there. First, because it is a small community theater, the actors emerge afterward and mingle with the audience (informally when I was there, but I believe there are more formal talkbacks at some performances). They are thrilled to be part of this production and happy to share their views and experiences.

Second, the play is not the only attraction in Hudson, which is a very interesting small city, located right on the river, and filled with galleries, stores and restaurants. My wife and I have taken a number of day trips there the past few years with no theater to entice us. The “Opera House” in the middle of town has an unusual autobiographical exhibit that is well worth seeing. We saw the first hint of fall foliage on the way up, and next weekend should have a little more color. I hope some MW readers will make the trek as well.

Arab Sources: Hamas on UN bid

Sep 18, 2011

 Simone Daud

Hamas has issued a statement today regarding Palestine’s UN bid. Its interest for me is in the way Hamas describes what it thinks is the Palestinian national consensus. It seems that Hamas’ only substantive objection to going to the UN is its own lack of involvement in the bid and the emphasis by Abbas that the appeal to the UN is part of the negotiations process.

My translation follows. I have changed typographic features of the statement to highlight Hamas’ notion of national consensus.

On the application by the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah for membership of Palestine as a state in the United Nations

Proceeding from the national political program that has been agreed upon by all the Palestinian national force:

• the establishment of a Palestinian state with real sovereignty on the lines of the fourth of Huzairan/June 1967,

• Jerusalem as its capital

• the return of the refugees

• the dismantling of settlements

• without recognizing the Zionist entity.

We in the Hamas movement support any effort or political maneuvers that afford international support and solidarity for

• the right of our people to liberation and self determination

• the establishment of a fully sovereign state

• the achievement of Palestinian national rights

• and that result in the condemnation of the Zionist entity, the rejector of our rights, and reveal its true outlook.

But political maneuvers cannot be at the expense of any of our national rights.

Unfortunately, the application by the brothers in the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah for membership of Palestine as a state in the United Nations has a unilateral character that is far removed from the Palestinian national consensus. Further, it does not come from within the context of a coherent agreed upon national liberationist strategy. It is, however, an extension of the [peace] process and its perspective of insistance on the ideology of negotiations is far removed from the choice of resistance and “owning the power cards” [position of strength].

We emphasize our firm conviction that resistance in its essential sense, and peripherally all forms of political mass struggle, is the true way to liberate our land, to gain our rights, and to establish a Palestinian state with genuine sovereignty.

The urgent need of our people is the actual liberation of our land, so as to establish upon it a truly independent sovereign state of Palestine. [The urgency] is not for continued discussion about a state that does not exist on the ground. [The urgency] is not for the continued preoccupation with symbolic steps with limited impact and [associated] mixed results that are confounded with some risks.

In this occasion we appeal to our brothers in the leadership of the Authority in Ramallah, the brothers in the Fateh movement, and all the Palestinian forces and factions, for dialogue and an in depth political review. With the aim of achieving a strategy that is Palestinian, patriotic, struggle-like, and agreed upon nationally. We will muster for its foundations all of “our power cards” [advantages, positions of strength], principally resistance, to be truly ready to accomplish the right to self-determination, and liberate our land and our national rights from the Zionist occupation, with God’s permission.

Islamic Resistance Movement-Hamas
Media Office
Saturday, 19 Shawwal 1432 H
Approved September 17 / September 2011

حول تقدم السلطة الفلسطينية في رام الله بطلب عضوية فلسطين كدولة في الأمم المتحدة

انطلاقاً من البرنامج السياسي الوطني الذي توافقت عليه مجمل القوى الوطنية الفلسطينية، بإقامة دولة فلسطينية ذات سيادة حقيقية على خطوط الرابع من حزيران/يونيو 1967، عاصمتها القدس، مع عودة اللاجئين، وتفكيك المستوطنات، دون الاعتراف بالكيان الصهيوني، فإننا في حركة حماس مع أي جهد أو حراك سياسي يحقق تأييداً ودعماً دولياً لحق شعبنا في التحرر وتقرير المصير، وإقامة الدولة الفلسطينية كاملة السيادة، وإنجاز الحقوق الوطنية الفلسطينية، ويؤدي إلى إدانة الكيان الصهيوني الرافض لحقوقنا ويكشف موقفه الحقيقي، على ألا يكون هذا الحراك السياسي على حساب أيّ من حقوقنا الوطنية.

إن تقدم الإخوة في السلطة الفلسطينية في رام الله بطلب عضوية فلسطين كدولة في الأمم المتحدة يأتي بصورة منفردة – للأسف – بعيداً عن التوافق الوطني الفلسطيني، كما أنه لا يأتي ضمن إستراتيجية وطنية نضالية متكاملة متفق عليها، وإنما كامتداد لمسيرة التسوية، وفي سياق الإصرار على نهج المفاوضات بعيداً عن خيار المقاومة وامتلاك أوراق القوة.

إننا نؤكد على قناعتنا الراسخة أن المقاومة بشكل أساسي، وإلى جانبها كل أشكال العمل والنضال السياسي والجماهيري، هي الطريق الحقيقي لتحرير أرضنا، وانتزاع حقوقنا، وإقامة الدولة الفلسطينية ذات السيادة الحقيقية.

إن حاجة شعبنا الملحّة هي تحرير أرضه فعلياً، ليقيم عليها دولة فلسطين ذات السيادة والاستقلال الحقيقي، وليس استمرار الحديث عن دولة لا وجود لها على الأرض، واستمرار الانشغال بخطوات رمزية محدودة التأثير، بل ملتبسة ببعض المخاطر.

إننا بهذه المناسبة ندعو الإخوة في قيادة السلطة في رام الله، والإخوة في حركة فتح والقوى والفصائل الفلسطينية كافة، إلى حوار ومراجعة سياسية معمقة، بهدف الوصول إلى إستراتيجية وطنية فلسطينية نضالية نتوافق عليها وطنياً، ونستجمع على أرضيتها كل أوراق القوة، وعلى رأسها المقاومة، لنكون بالفعل قادرين على إنجاز حق تقرير المصير، وانتزاع أرضنا وحقوقنا الوطنية من الاحتلال الصهيوني بإذن الله.

حركة المقاومة الإسلامية ـ حماس
المكتب الإعلامي
السبت 19 شوال 1432 هـ
الموافق 17 أيلول/سبتمبر 2011 م

It’s open season! Tom Friedman says Obama is ‘hostage’ to ‘powerful pro-Israel lobby’

Sep 18, 2011

Philip Weiss

I always said that Walt and Mearsheimer were writing Jewish history. A day after the Washington Post at last referred to the powerful Israel lobby, look what came out from under the mustache in the Times today:

This has also left the U.S. government fed up with Israel’s leadership but a hostage to its ineptitude, because the powerful pro-Israel lobby in an election season can force the administration to defend Israel at the U.N., even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America’s.

An important moment, because Friedman is such a mainstream figure. GlennGreenwald gets it:

Walt and Mearshiemer merely voiced a truth which has long been known and obvious but was not allowed to be spoken.  That’s precisely why the demonization campaign against them was so vicious and concerted: those who voice prohibited truths are always more hated than those who spout obvious lies.  That the foreign affairs columnist most admired in Washington circles just expressed the same point demonstrates that recognition of this previously prohibited fact has now become mainstream.

Netanyahu planning end-zone dance in Brooklyn’s new Republican district

Sep 18, 2011

 Philip Weiss

The Guardian has a piece on the Israel lobby pressuring Obama. Ends like this:

Netanyahu will be in New York next week for the opening of the UN general assembly and to try to mobilise opposition to a Palestinian state. He plans to take a side trip to congratulate the Republican winner of the election in the congressional district where Obama’s Israel policy cost the Democrats dearly.

Isn’t this torture? ‘Haaretz’ says Israel mulls using ‘force’ against detained Palestinian protesters

Sep 18, 2011

 Philip Weiss

Haaretz piece on Israel’s ministry of public security considering “emergency measures” to deal with “massive protests and disruption of order” in the occupied West Bank, i.e., Palestinian protests.

One proposal would allow police to use force against those being detained – and not only against those being arrested, as they are now authorized to do.

Using “force” against someone who is under your complete power? Thanks to weareallmadeofstars.

Raji Sourani to teach session at Columbia Law School

Sep 18, 2011

Philip Weiss

In ten days Columbia University Law School will be hosting a hero of human rights in the occupied territories, Raji Sourani, at a continuing legal education credit course. The Sept. 26 session is about the U.S. and Israel in international law– from tribunals to factfinding missions– and features Colonel Desmond Travers of the Goldstone mission and Michael Ratner and Maria LaHood of the Center for Constitutional Rights. What a session!

Lawyers who need credits, this is your chance to hear a man who has documented war crimes and condemned honor killings inside Gaza, too. Theannouncement:

The Center for Constitutional Rights and Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute are sponsoring a CLE on Monday, September 26th, entitled “International Justice in Practice: Challenges in the Search for Accountability.”

The CLE will be at Columbia University’s Faculty House* from 9:00 am – 4:00 pm, and will provide an overview of the international human rights and humanitarian law framework and examine a series of case studies illustrating the challenges and successes encountered when applying this framework to mass atrocities or serious violations of international law.  The agenda is attached.

And here’s the Sourani panel, in the afternoon:

CASE STUDIES FROM THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL This session will present case studies from the United States and Israel, which will demonstrate efforts for accountability in various fora, including national courts, under universal jurisdiction, in regional or international tribunals or through fact-finding mission.

Maria C. LaHood Senior Staff Attorney Center for Constitutional Rights

Michael D. Ratner ’69 President Emeritus Center for Constitutional Rights

Raji Sourani Founder & Director Palestinian Center for Human Rights

Desmond Travers Colonel (Ret’d.) Irish Army & Member 2008-2009 Gaza War UN Fact-Finding Mission

Stéphanie David, Moderator Director of North Africa-Middle East Regional Office International Federation for Human Rights