WTF?? Part 3, Guest Blogger: Hanadi Riyad

I asked a former classmate of mine to write an essay on her views on the the Gaza incursion.  Hanadi is from the region, which makes this situation all the more immediate for her--my hope is that some of this urgency will be conveyed to my readers.

Without further ado, Hanadi Riyad:

"Cast Lead and ME Shift"

As I was thinking of what to write exactly for this short essay, I elected to write from my own personal perspective as based on my daily life and observations as a Middle Easterner. I decided that it is very important for us to realize what a lot of analysts are neglecting to discuss: the reverberating impact of the Israeli invasion of Gaza on the region and the shifts of political roles and landscapes it caused in the Middle East. The on-going blockade aside, the Israeli genocide against the Palestinian people of Gaza, otherwise known as "operation Cast Lead," was a turning point in Middle Eastern politics and public opinion. On the bright side, Palestinians were made to feel less abandoned by the people and citizens of the world. On the dark side, the international community's failure to respond proportionately to the Zionist aggression against Gaza enhanced the Palestinian people's feelings of separation and alienation from the official international system and its ultra-statist institutions. It also widened the gap between the Palestinian and Arab public and their leaders and "representatives."

The numerous public and civil protests against the Israeli aggressions against Gazans first came as a surprise to everybody in the Middle East; they displayed an unfamiliar feeling of human solidarity with the people of the world. In 1948, the Palestinian people were officially abandoned by both the international powers and their people. The feelings of guilt that plagued the people of Europe over the Holocaust presented the perfect chance for the colonial powers to present Zionist Jews with Palestine as compensation. This is the first time since then that the world has witnessed that number of protests against Israel. In France, Spain, the US, Russia, and many other European countries, protestors showed the increasing disenchantment with the Israeli state and its Zionist "cause." I think some of those protests were also driven by the sense of guilt some people, especially Europeans, are feeling over their governments' complicity in the extermination of the Palestinian people and support of the Israeli occupation. The frequent use of the word "holocaust" to describe the latest atrocity against Gaza indicates the people of the world's awareness of the connection between the Holocaust and the Israeli extermination of Palestinians.

However, what did not come as a surprise to anybody in the Middle East was the lack of action on the part of the international powers; some of the blatantly biased and pro-Israeli stances many governments took on the Gaza invasion produced a feeling of repulsion and disgust with those governments. Indeed, the famous and atrocious statement made by the EU presidency spokesperson Potuznik, calling the ground op "defensive," is one example of such a stance. Only either total ignorance of Middle Eastern politics or total inhumanity could have compelled that Czech official to say something as biased as that. I mean, even Olmert and Peres called the op "offensive." What is really significant though is the resulting public disrespect for the UN amongst the Middle Eastern public; this was mainly produced by the Israeli disregard of the UN cease-fire resolution passed on 8 January and its constant targeting of the UN schools where civilians had taken refuge. Not only the sanctity of educational institutions was violated, but also the authority of the UN was dismissed and attacked. There is this conviction now that the UN has backed Israel for too long now that it cannot stand in its face anymore. Only armed resistance is capable of that.  

The gap between the Arab regimes and the Arab public has been there since the artificial states of the Middle East were formed by the colonial powers at the time; now, it's wider than ever. The way that Arab governments split into two camps, the "moderate" or "pro-Israeli" and the "radical" or "pro-Palestinian" was predictable. However, never an embassy of an Arab state was attacked in another Arab country. Egyptian embassies all over the Arab world were attacked vigorously and repeatedly by protesters against the Egyptian refusal to open Rafah crossing into Gaza. While people threw shoes at Egyptians embassies, a lot of Cuban and Turkish embassies were thrown with flowers and roses. For the first time in my life, I heard Arab opposition leaders call, loudly and clearly, for coups and revolutions against various conspiring Arab regimes. Of course, these would be the ones that have the same interest as Israel and the US to terminate the Palestinian resistance and keep their regional hegemony intact, such as Saudi Arabia.

These are only my views and I do not presume to represent neither all Middle Easterners nor the majority's opinion. This is how I see things standing right now in the Middle East in the aftermath of the Israeli ground op in Gaza.

WTF?? Part 2: What is Hamas?

For Part 2 of our series on the Israel/Palestine conflict entitled "WTF??" we will address the question: What is Hamas?

In my research, I have come to fully realize the extent to which American media distorts what Hamas really is. Check out this segment from the Fox News Network:



So let us analyze what how this interview describes the Hamas group. For one, the "expert" who describes to us Hamas and its motivations is a man who works for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies-- a neoconservative think-tank dedicated to "promoting pluralism, defending democratic values, and fighting the ideologies that threaten democracy." This is a very pro-Iraq War group that strongly supports the policies of Israel's ruling party.

Anyways, from the FOX interview, we gather a few assumptions:
1. Hamas is a terrorist organization, dedicated to the "destruction of Israel"
2. It was founded in 1987, and began suicide attacks in the 1990s
3. Hamas has established "major social services program" as a public relations "booster"
4. They were elected democratically-- gaining 62% of the vote
5. Compared to the governments of Hitler, Mao, Mussollini
6. Part of a global terror network-- at the center of which is Iran (and according to the neoconservative dude, nothing fundamental can be done as long as the current Iranian regime is in power... hmm, I wonder what that means??)
7. The caption at the bottom of the screen states: "Hamas wants Israel Gone, Palestinian State in its Place"
8. If Israel leaves without destroying Hamas, it will be seen as a "humiliation"

OKAY, enough of FOX, now I'd like you to see an interview done with Eric Margolis-- author of the book American Raj, a study that seeks to answer why there exists Middle East hostility towards the West (addressing historical, political and religious factors). Margolis was a journalist in the region for many years. Check out the interview, and then we will discuss:



Let's review:
1. Western media distorts what Hamas really is
2. It is a "national liberation movement" ... an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
3. Founded in opposition to the the corrupt and ineffective Palestinian Liberation Organization
4. Israel, in fact, quietly supported Hamas as a means to disrupt Palestinian unity
5. Has Hamas used "terrorist" tactics?
-they HAVE targeted civilians
-they HAVE used suicide bombers
-Why can't we call them "terrorists"?
-Well, the argument is that if Hamas had the same sophisticated weaponry that Israel uses, they would do the same... suicide bombers are the poor man's cruise missile
-But what about the civilians being targets? Margolis says that Hamas is morally wrong in this, and I agree. Civilians should never be the targets!
-But many of these attacks are "revenge" attacks... in retaliation for the attacks on Palestinians

6. The Palestinians have suffered 10-40 times more dead than the Israelis (but this doesn't excuse any attacks on civilians)
7. Hamas is a socio-religious movement, preaching "resistence to Western and Israeli dominance" ... and they remain hardliners against corruption
8. Provides many social services... schools, sewage, street-cleaning, etc... THIS is the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of Hamas.... making them respected and admired by their people
9. The armed resistance wing
-claim to be defending the "rights of 5-7 million displaced, homeless Palestinian refugees"
-won't recognize Israel until Israel recognizes the rights of those 5-7 million

10. Hamas is NOT a "threat" to the "existence of Israel"
-at most, they have 3,000 poorly trained gunmen
-basically, they are totally overpowered by Israeli forces ... they are like 'fish in a barrel'

11. The fearmongering by the Western media and Israeli government has made it nearly impossible for meaningful negotiation
12. Anti-semitism is infecting the Arab world like never before... it is as a result of the Israeli bombings and incursions

**Clearly this issue is more complex and dynamic than one FOX interview may suggest... and don't just take Margolis's word for it. Do some reading on your own and learn the history behind this conflict. What is Hamas? Why does this conflict exist (it hasn't been around forever, you know.)? What is "terrorism"?

Tomorrow evening, a guest blogger will be sharing her very personal views on the situation. Please stay tuned.

WTF?? Part 1: The Crimes of Israel... can you even imagine?

Welcome to Part 1 of a new Israel-Palestine segment I call "WTF??"... The point is to try and be more responsible citizens of the world by understanding what is really going on in the region.

As I prepare for a major post on the situation, I just want to show you some of the atrocities that have been going on.  

Have you ever heard of white phosphorous?   Well it's a nasty chemical weapon that is dispersed via smoke screen, and incinerates anyone who gets caught in its way... and no, kids aren't immune.

Politics aside for now... I want you to watch these videos and try to appreciate the human side of this conflict.  If you have any thoughts, please share.

Cracking Down on White House Lobbying... Your thoughts?

As I work on a piece on the Israel/Palestine conflict (researching and whatnot), I'd like to hear your input on President Obama's executive order, which cracks down on the lobbying in the White House. Check out the blog, and let us know what you think. Feel free to reply to the comments of others, and have some fun.

Obama's Ethics Policy Upsets Would-be Staffers

by Sam Stein

The decision by Barack Obama to restrict lobbyists from working on the same subject in his administration for two years was greeted with nearly unanimous acclaim among the pundits in Washington D.C. If there is one thing that unites congressmen and good-government groups it is support -- at least rhetorical support -- for limiting special interests.

But not everyone was overcome with joy over the Executive Order. For Democratic operatives who have the word "lobbyist" on their resume, Obama's move was a dagger to their dreams of administration jobs.

"All Appointees Entering Government," the new rule reads, "will not for a period of 2 years from the date of [their] appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to [their] former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts."

The issue, ironically, may not matter as much for the most senior of prospective administration officials. Obama maintains the right to skirt the restrictions. For instance, his deputy defense secretary will be William Lynn, who has previously served as a representative for the defense contractor Raytheon. Rather, the individuals squeezed most tightly by the restrictions could end up being those lower on the political totem pole.

"Today, I received the news that I won't be working for an Obama administration," said a Democratic friend of mine, who was part of a briefing team for the president's transition efforts but happens to be a registered lobbyist.

By instituting the most transparent and open ethics policy of any presidential administration, Obama was bound to step on some toes. And he may have disadvantaged himself in certain ways. A high-ranking party operative told the Huffington Post back in December that he disagreed somewhat with the transition team's decision to restrict lobbyists from working on their areas of focus. He'd rather have the experts on staff.

"I understand not having a lobbyist for the NRA working for Obama," the went. "But I want someone who has spent their careers lobbying for stronger gun control laws formulating gun policy in the next White House."

For good government groups, this is a faulty hypothetical. The administration not only needed to make a clean break from special interests, they argue, but can easily fill its ranks with qualified individuals from outside the beltway.

"I think that stance assumes that lobbyists are the only free thinkers and knowledgeable thinkers in Washington that can help the government run better," said Scott Amey of the non-partisan public interest group, the Project On Government Oversight. "The ethics pledge that President Obama put out yesterday was only limiting lobbyists. And the one thing you have to remember is that lobbyists are representing clients that have financial interests at stake ... The Obama team has the waiver provision in there. If it determines that it is in the public interest, a lobbyist can still come and work for the administration. And there are certain times when those waivers may be more appropriate and reasonable than other cases."

POGO, in the end, did not think that such an exception should apply to Lynn, who has become the current face of Obama hypocrisy for the Republican National Committee.

Other watchdogs agreed.

"It appears to be a black-and-white case. I am unaware of what makes it so gray in the mind of President Obama," a former congressional budget staffer now with the Center for Defense Information told ABC News. "It certainly does not bode well for his effectiveness in the job," added Lawrence Korb, a military expert with the Center for American Progress.

But Gibbs justified the move in during Thursday's presser, making sure to reaffirm that the President is, at this point, setting a gold standard for White House ethics policy.

"We have experts who have studied the issue of transparency and ethics who have applauded the steps that the president took yesterday," he said, during his first press briefing. "That exceeds what any administration has previously done in this country. That's what the president pledged during the campaign and that is exactly what he did yesterday in signing these executive orders."

"Any standard is not perfect," he added. "A waiver process that allows people to serve their country is necessary."

Goodbye Señor Bush, Hello Ambiguous Future

As an eleven year old, I wasn't much into politics. I had a faint grasp that Clinton got into trouble over something with a lady (not his wife), that we had bombed someplace far away (which my family watched on the news... in night vision), and that Bush beat Gore after some confusion in Florida. Yes, George W. Bush claimed the presidency before I became politically aware; and for millions of young Americans like myself, this is truly significant.

Tomorrow we say goodbye to the man who played a crucial role in shaping the views of so many in this country. After 9/11, I remember the leadership the President showed... I remember how much support he had. Bush was confident and on message-- he assumed the role of valiant leader during a time when so many were confused and afraid... including myself.

W. told me to stand with the country. He assured me that this great nation would prevail and defeat evil. I believed and defended him for many years. But George Bush did not teach me how to be a patriot-- he did not teach me the inspirational power of our ideals. Instead, he showed me that in times of terror, we must fear and act with that fear in our hearts. No, Bush will never be known as the man who reassured us, once again, that "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror..."

George Bush, along with nearly every member of the Congress, taught me that the United States could do whatever it wanted. That our government is free to spy on Americans. To torture. I was duped, and became cynical. Bush's words brought American arrogance to center stage, and his blunt style made this country a laughing-stock. He is an embarrassment to liberty and to the Republic... forever a stain on the American tale.

But in this final night of his presidency, perhaps it is time to put a hold on the character assassination; perhaps a moment of self-reflection is in order. Let's start with a question: Who is truly responsible for the last 8 years? The blame-game is fun, but not so much in a democracy-- for in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

It was ultimately American apathy, disillusionment, and ignorance that brought us Bush. Our inability to understand clear threats to the democratic fabric, and unwillingness to demand the best possible representatives has put us in a truly unfortunate position--one where the very essence of our ideals are slipping away.

But perhaps we are beginning to wake up... Obama did win an astonishing victory. He seems too good to be true, and maybe there is more truth to this statement than people would like to admit. Americans have, at the very least, denounced the ways of the Bush Administration, which is a start. But the complicit Democrats have escaped the wrath of voters, and will one day have to be reckoned with.

It is clear that Americans are ready for a new day, and tomorrow the next chapter of our story begins. The new President must help lead us out of the darkness that we have brought upon ourselves, but as he has said time and time again: this movement is about what we can do ourselves. President Bush is no more responsible for the economic crisis than a weatherman is for the weather, and a President Obama will not be able to fix the world. We must demand receptive and honest lawmakers. We must fight for reform and for our vital causes. We must rethink what place corporate America has in government, and what place America has in this world. And, indeed, we must develop the tools of the Internet so that we may enter an age of unprecedented civilian involvement in government.

President-elect Obama has taken serious strides, but America must be wary. Simply electing new people will not be enough. The restoration of responsible citizenship is the only way for us to survive.

With optimism and resolve.