Showing posts with label Mary Rizzo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mary Rizzo. Show all posts

Israeli Deputy FM Ayalon lies through his teeth about the flotilla massacre

ayalon_danielWRITTEN BY MARY RIZZO

It is impossible for one to maintain calm while reading lies. Today’s dosage of lies (called Hasbara, and from now on, when an Israeli is lying, I will start to use the very “to hasbara”, conjugated appropriately) was more poisonous than usual. It runs under the topic of “defending atrocities”, which is only slightly less frequent than the “defending racist policies” rubric. My comments to these obscene utterings from the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministy in Rabid Red.

Seizure of the Gaza flotilla: Press conference with Deputy FM Ayalon

DEPUTY FM AYALON: Good morning, everyone. I want to report this morning that the armada of hate and violence in support of the Hamas terror organization was a premeditated and outrageous provocation.

Thus begins the greatest lie/hasbara of the day. The invention of a catchy little phrase that only the most audacious would utilise word for word, but the hasbarists will have time to refine it. That they choose to put Hamas and “terror” right in the first line, though is the most important part. This is what may pass to the international news agencies, which is the whole point, and the statements made earlier in the day by outraged politicians the world over are being softened as the minutes pass. Of course the flotilla was premeditated, and of course it was a provocation! How else can one do things with Israel there? Spontaneous, improvised and expecting applause? The intent, however was not violent and there’s not a stitch of evidence for this, but the violence that follows such an act of a bloody massacre indeed is spontaneous and very real. People are enraged. It is right to be enraged by such an attack on humanitarians bringing aid!!! However, let’s assume that cement powder can be lethal if the bags are swung around, and that paper can cause lots of cuts on the fingers that make it hard to pull triggers of Uzis.

The organizers are well-known for their ties to Global Jihad, Al-Qaeda and Hamas. They have a history of arms smuggling and deadly terror. On board the ship we found weapons that were prepared in advance and used against our forces. The organizers' intent was violent, their method was violent, and unfortunately, the results were violent.

Oh! This one is good, unfounded, but good for the masses who will believe whatever Israel tells them. Pull out the big bad monster of Global Jihad (what is that? Does it matter?!) the terrorist for all seasons Al-Qaeda and Hamas for good measure. As well, it’s pretty clear from the film that when you have commandoes storming down on top of you, you are going to expect to be attacked violently, and you grab whatever it is that is near to you, the videos seem to show just parts of the ship itself! No guns on board that were not carried by the Israelis. We see parts of the ship itself, swung around in attempts to stave off the attack. My only question here is, why does the speaker consider the results “unfortunate”? The special ops commandoes could have stayed off the boat and if they couldn’t resist that, at least not brought automatic rifles that are famous for being violent.

Israel regrets any loss of life and did everything to avoid this outcome.

This phrase is repeated on so many occasions, I think they must have a copyright on it and get royalties each time it’s said.

We repeatedly called upon the organizers and all those who were associated with them, through diplomatic channels and any other means we could, to stop this provocation.

Of course, they called on the organisers to do nothing for the people who are suffering in Gaza, but fortunately, there are humans who think for themselves and act upon their consciences. It all could have been avoided had Israel just delivered what is required of it by International law, that is, if they allow goods and money in for reconstruction and basic life needs and allow people in and out.

The so-called humanitarian aid was not for a humanitarian purpose.

No? Do they think that now Gazans will start a cottage industry of paper airplanes and cement rockets?

Had it been for a humanitarian purpose, they would have accepted our offer to deliver all humanitarian supply through the appropriate channels which are used on a daily basis, as we make sure that Gaza will not be in short of humanitarian supplies.

How do you spell “liar”? “h-a-s-b-a-r-i-s-t”. Daily basis? Israel makes sure on a daily basis that Palestinians are hanging on a thread and surviving only by their own wits and tunnels.

On a daily basis, we do that.

Suuuuure, sure you do!

We ask them to send this through the appropriate channels, whether it's the U.N., whether it's the Red Cross, whether it's our people, but to no avail.

The channels have been asked and implored for years in the words, “open the damned crossings! Lift the damned siege! Free the Gazans from the prison you have closed them into!” To no avail indeed.

In fact, what they said was that it's a humanitarian campaign, but they said repeatedly that their intent and purpose was to break the blockade, the maritime blockade, on Gaza.

Exactly. It is humanitarian to bring in aid if aid is being denied through “appropriate channels”.

The maritime blockade on Gaza is very legal and justified by the terror that Hamas is applying in Gaza.

Very legal? As in what laws precisely? And I don’t mean Israeli laws, I mean international laws. There is nothing that justifies denial of construction material, food, medicines, school supplies, clothing, cigarettes, petrol, diapers, balsam, soap, wheelchairs…. Everything that makes life possible.

Allowing these ships to go in an illegal way to Gaza would have opened in fact a corridor of smuggling arms and terrorists to Gaza, with the results, inevitable results, of many, many thousands of civilian deaths and violence all over the area.

There’s the contradiction, if things aren’t allowed in (because legally – according to Ayalon – they can’t go in because the blockade is "legal") the only option is to circumvent the Israeli law. There is no law in Gaza prohibiting a ship’s entry, unless Israel will violate international maritime law or impose their own control over Gaza which “they left” to Palestinians, in their earlier propaganda. To bring in things, anything at all, they call “smuggling” because they will not legally allow it. Therefore, they see many thousands of (Israeli) deaths (the other deaths don’t count for them) because the paranoia is extreme and bringing life to Palestinians by means of goods for survival means Israeli death, logical n'est pas? They must confound people into thinking that all goods brought into Gaza (“Terrorland”) are naturally meant just to harm Israeli lives. Of course, we must understand the priorities! If Israel would leave Gaza to Palestinians, maybe there would be less violence to begin with? But that thought is just too rational to consider!

After these repeated calls where not heeded by the organizers, we told them that they will not be allowed to break the blockade, as according to maritime law we have the right to do that.

Not in international waters you don’t! And this is where you undertook your operation. But what counts is that already all the other hasbarists are repeating your lies word for word, even adding some exciting details to it such as “people on the boat chanting anti-Semitic songs” (from the AJC org. press release http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=2818289&ct=8418965&notoc=1).

Unfortunately, they also, people, the organizers upon the ship, did not heed the calls of our forces this morning to peacefully follow them and bring a closure, a peaceful closure, to this event.

They do not have to give in to acts of piracy on the seas. This is what they bravely did. You will be judged for this, and perhaps they know it too.

No sovereign country would tolerate such violence against its civilian population, against its sovereignty, against international law.

This is the reason you hasbara yourself blue in the face to make certain Palestine is never sovereign. They might just repeat your words sooner than you like. And, to call on international law from the greatest violator of international law on the planet is the definition of chutzpah itself.

And we in Israel call today upon all relevant parties and all relevant countries to work together on calming the situation. Thank you very much.

You call for calm since you know that you have murdered activists and civilians in cold blood, and this will only bring about more and more unrest. You have brought down the rage of the world upon your shoulders. But, like all the other times, you will hasbara your way out of it and the world media and governments will help you. In a few days it will all be forgotten. Hell, there’s a World Cup to dispute! People are distracted!

Share:

Interview with Khalida Jarrar, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

Let’s start with the PFLP opinion about the Obama administration and the new Israeli government. Do you think that the new US administration will bring any change to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
We do not think individuals can do a lot for the policy of a country. I believe that Obama will not bring any substantial change, at least with regard to the American foreign policy. We are talking about institutional policies, not those of individuals. Of course, each President, each party has a different approach on how to implement foreign policy, and there will be no crazy policies anymore like Bush did, but Obama cannot change the system, and the contradictions are within the system itself: the capitalist economic system, the imperialist view that led to the military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Toward the Middle East and especially the Palestinian cause, they are still talking about the “peace process,” that does not mean anything for us, it is not a real peace process. And I think the priority for the US now will be the financial crisis and the economic problems inside the capitalistic system itself. Therefore, we are not optimistic, Obama will not alter the system and consequently for the Palestinians, the situation will not change a lot.
What about the Israeli government? It seems they will not even be engaged to the two-state solution…

The Israeli government!? The elections show the Israeli government is going more and more to the far right-wing. The new thing is that Lieberman succeeded to gain more consensus and a seat in the government as Foreign Minister. He himself clearly represents, now at official level, the racism, the ethnic cleansing policies of the Israeli government towards the Palestinians. They are increasing the number of settlements, the house demolitions in Jerusalem; so, talk or not to talk with them? I belong to a party that has been saying from the beginning that this peace process will not lead to any peace or justice for the Palestinians. We have been asking to stop any kind of negotiation with the Israeli governments, especially with this one. We do not believe in a peace process based on personal individual talks, without really implementing the international resolutions related to the Palestinian cause and recognizing the fundamental rights of the Palestinians. I am not just talking about the right to create a fully independent Palestinian State, but also the right to self-determination and the right of return for the Palestinian refugees. There is no need to discuss or compromise on such fundamental inalienable rights; they should be just implemented through an international conference according to the international law and the relevant UN Resolutions.
Cairo talks: do you think any kind of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah will be realistic?
I am pessimistic about the possibility of a reunification. I do not think there are real talks between the two parties on national reunification, but individual talks. Each party will use its power to create mechanisms to gain more power and rule the area it already controls. We think there should be an overall discussion without any external preconditions and interferences on how should be formed the new government. As Palestinian political parties, we share the situation of being under occupation: for that we should respect each other and use only democratic instruments to solve out problems, instead of controlling things through the use of force. We need to hold elections, change the electoral law in order to give all the political parties the opportunity to participate. We should stop this terrible mechanism where Hamas-Fatah feud, also thanks to external interferences, controls everything.
An increasing number of critics and dissidents of the PA leadership is becoming a target for the PA's security apparatus in the West Bank. Do you think the PA are becoming increasingly authoritarian and the security forces militarized? What about the coordination between them and the Israelis?

This aspect is part of the Road Map agreement. We totally refuse the coordination between the Palestinian security forces and the Israelis and we think it should be immediately stopped. Any security forces should help the Palestinians in their struggle and implement their citizens’ rights, instead of collaborate with the occupier. This is one of the issues now on the table of the dialogue. We are against any kind of security forces related to political parties, as it is now in the West Bank and Gaza. I am really concerned about the violation of the human rights of the Palestinians: both in West Bank and Gaza there are political prisoners, assassinations, closure of institutions of the rival party. In Gaza Hamas does not allow Fatah to hold normal political activities, and vice versa in the Fatah-controlled West Bank. The first victims of these policies are the human rights of the Palestinians themselves.
The Palestinian Authority still believes that the peace negotiations are the best way to achieve peace and justice for the Palestinians. Do you think the PNA represents the interest of the Palestinians people?

I am member of a party that has opposed the so-called peace process from the beginning. We do not agree on the track of individual and continuous negotiations and we call on the PA to end this policy that leads nowhere.
We see that Israel uses the peace negotiations as a tool and a cover for their actions on the ground, their constant aggression and attacks against Palestinians and their land.
Is there the need for another form of representation for the Palestinians? Is not even the PLO behind the times?

We do not need to create another institution. We see the PLO as a political representation of the Palestinians both inside and outside Palestine and a symbol of their struggle. PNA does not represent all the Palestinians, the majority of whom are the refugees outside, it should just be an institution to help the Palestinians surviving under occupation. So, we need a political representation: I think we should save the PLO by reforming it. First of all a political review is needed: we have to learn the lesson from the past and stop the political approach of the futile peace negotiations and agreements.
Second, there should be a democratic reform inside the PLO itself.
Elections for a Palestinian Nation Conference should be held in order to give all the Palestinian people the opportunity to be adequately represented. From this election a Central Committee and an Executive Committee will be created.
You see, another aspect of the conflict between Hamas and Fatah is the issue of representation: Fatah does not want Hamas to enter the PLO in order to maintain the hegemony over it. On the contrary, Hamas wants to have an alternative form of representation because they won the elections.
We see that PLO is the home of all the Palestinians and an instrument for their representation in the struggle for the self determination.
Let’s turn the discussion on the Palestinian Left. Can a divided Left represent a realistic third way between Hamas and Fatah?

The criticism on the fragmentation of the leftist parties is right, that is a great weakness. We think the Left should be unified. I am not talking about a new party or an immediate unification, but a coalition of all the leftist and progressive groups, grassroots organizations and individuals around a minimum political platform. This could be the first step toward a process that might lead towards a unified Left. Otherwise this situation in which Hamas and Fatah control everything will guide us for a long time. Only if the Palestinian democratic and leftist parties, along with individuals, unify in one coalition, the Left can represent a third way. We are working hard on that. In some student councils they have already held election together; the leftist women movements are discussing a paper to form a coalition…
Which are the concrete obstacles against the unification of the Left?
The main obstacles are political. For examples we have different views on the peace process: some parties agree with the Oslo agreements, the Road Map, etc. Others not. However, as I said before, this should not prevent us from agreeing on a minimum political agenda.
It seems to me that the leftist groups in general, and the PFLP, are facing a crisis of consensus in the Palestinian society: Why? Where has the Left gone? What are you doing to be more present and visible in Palestinian civil society (NGOs, grassroots organizations, popular movements)?
This is the challenge: no leftist political party can do a lot by itself. Now the leftists are facing a difficult situation: we have no power, no money, no international support. Even in the Arab world, the Islamic groups are now getting the lion′s share. We are facing internal problems, like the economic one. We are poor parties, and if you want to raise social programs, you need money to do it. How can we compete against Hamas that has a lot of infrastructure and funds? People do not want just talks, but actions on a social level. We also need to rely on voluntarism. Here comes the question: how to encourage voluntarism when you have to face so many geographical obstacles? At the international level, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we lost support, coverage, and any kind of protection. We feel vulnerable: if you say you are a member of the PFLP, you end up in prison the same day. But your criticism is right; we should review our policy, come back in the grassroots movements, be more present…
…like in the nonviolent popular resistance against the Wall…
We already share the activities in Bil’in, Ni’lin, al-Ma’sara, we are in these popular committees.
Have you got relations with the Israeli and international anti-occupation movement?
We think that our national struggle needs the active support of the international solidarity movement. With regard to the Israeli movements, we ask them for the full recognition of the Palestinian rights…
Do not you think the time has come for the PFLP to put more efforts on the grassroots and popular struggle, and attach less importance on the military confrontation?
PFLP believes in all kinds of resistance, and of course the main resistance is the popular one (the boycott of goods, the cultural and academic boycott, the peaceful demonstrations against Wall and the settlements). No party is supporting only the military resistance. The armed struggle can be shared just by individuals, and it changes according to the situation, but the popular struggle is the great part and can be joined by a lot of people. I do not criticize in principle the armed resistance, because we are not facing a nice occupation at all, this is a military one. I agree we should increase our popular resistance against Wall, the settlements, etc. There is a linkage between the two kinds of resistance.
Maybe it is not the right time for a third Intifada, also seeing that the reaction in the West Bank during the Israeli attack on Gaza was not so strong as one could have expected…

The reaction was not strong because of the role played by the Palestinian security forces and because, and this is the main reason, we are divided at the national level. Listen, an Intifada needs leaders, but we do not have leaders. And it needs us to be united, but there is no unity at all. I think the moment for a third Intifada will come, the people will not wait for the situation to worsen forever, but now the priority is to be united as Palestinians.
The PFLP is a secular and Marxist party, but you have political positions much closer to a religious party like Hamas than to other secular parties. How do you explain that contradiction?

I do not think politically we are so close to Hamas. For example, we criticize its political approach and its belief on a long-term ceasefire as a way to put an end to the occupation. There are similarities, of course: we are both against the Oslo agreements, the Road Map, the trap of the peace negotiations. And like other revolutionary movements, for instances in Latin America, there can be in certain historical moments some kinds of relations between Marxism and religion. We should define the stage in which we find ourselves, in order to set priorities: as Palestinians, we are facing a national and democratic struggle. You should look at the political agenda related to the occupation: now our national united struggle must be the priority, other times the social and democratic issues will be at the top of the political agenda. First of all, I think we should work to create a united national front among all the parties to immediately end the occupation.
Enrico Bartolomei, for the Alternative Information Center
Mary Rizzo is an art restorer, translator and writer living in Italy. Editor and co-founder of Palestine Think Tank, co-founder of Tlaxcala translations collective. Her personal blog is Peacepalestine.
Share:

Israeli “Peace” discussion groups, common pitfalls and how to recognise them.

By Mary Rizzo
May 13th, 2009


Discussion groups are the salt of activism and networking. Even newspapers and magazines such as Newsweek and the NYT have realised that comments blocks of blogs are probably just as relevant to the discussion as the article itself.

So, we all have to know the best ways to get the most out of these situations and one of the key things to do is to avoid the pitfalls of letting Gatekeepers and Trolls dominate discourse and deviate the issues.What they are "there to do" (in my view) can be divided into several branches:
1) Isolate opinions that are not to their liking, and in our case, ones that directly cite Israeli responsibility. These opinions are "imposed" as being off topic, irrelevant, beyond the pale, etc. The opinion is then discarded very rapidly and the gatekeeper cuts to a very routine "attack the person who did that", leading to point two:

2) Ostracise people who point out the inconsistencies of the arguments of those who are spreading Hasbara (pro-Israel propaganda, often masked as being moderate or seeing that both sides have equal responsibility for the conflict). No one wants to be in the position of the isolated person, and many will not find others who defend them, so this is usually the most effective mechanism they use to keep all issues only where the Gatekeeper wants them. It also creates divisions within the group, which is useful in establishing new (or initial) leadership roles, all of them informal, but very much used.



3) Lead discourse into areas where there is no risk of bringing up difficult or uncomfortable issues, which would invariably exacerbate the weakness of the Gatekeeper's position.

The role is generally NOT assigned, but it is often the person or persons who post the most often and speak in the plural "We think this issue has been covered", who speak making global assumptions about the group, "No one is listening to you", and the insinuations that behind the scenes you are disapproved of, therefore, the person has a position of authority that is recognised (but undemonstrated) and it implies you are in a minority and others who are too busy or shy would like action to be taken, but delegate it to another. They often will point out in a very general way to “rules of conduct”, (such as treating others with respect), which are broad, vague and certainly not even related to what is going on or to the actual discourse that is being made. I call this “rule smokescreening”, since they insinuate that agreed-upon rules are being violated and that is a way to cover over all of the uncomfortable arguments. Most of those pointing out the rules (often by reposting them in the heat of a discussion), by the way, are actually the most frequent violators of them! They do this almost always to Pro-Palestinians who they consider “extremists”, (differently from the “good Palestinians” who tow the line that they like to call “moderate”), even though there is nothing extreme in them at all besides extreme disgust at injustice.

The Gatekeepers often (always, actually) misquote, take out of context, manipulate your and other comments and imply that you personally are not acting in an orthodox or appropriate way, while they are certain they are behaving correctly. They believe you are not onto what they are doing, but they need to be exposed. They also will deny they are doing it, which makes it more interesting. One very interesting example of what they do is to refer to “banned members” who will serve as an example. On many boards, which I will illustrate more in detail below, the banned person’s entire history of intervention is wiped out. Only those who assiduously participate may even remember the content or context of the interventions, but the name of the banned person remains as the “evil uncle reminder”, so that others can know that there is someone out there who paid for his misdeeds and they must have been so terrible to have caused him to be banished from the family, therefore, the interventions are gone, and the memory of what the banned person did is left in the hands of the gatekeepers themselves to manipulate as a fear factor to keep everyone else in line.



I will state what I believe they are trying to achieve, besides controlling the way persons interact in discussion. They want to assume a position of authority and leadership. If they don't have a majority, they will make a “ghost majority”, just like the "People have told me this and that" and "You are wasting bandwidth here" and "What are you here to do?" (as if the others are standing in an orderly queue and you have jumped it and need to be shoved back down the line). So, that is a group dynamic thing of POWER. But WHY? Why do they do it? Because they themselves do not have a strong argument that is watertight. It is very hard to declare "I'm democratic but I want a Jewish State" and to insist upon "being realistic" since of course, they are the ones with the privilege. (Like Dylan sang, if you ain't got nothin, you got nothin to lose" but those with privilege hang onto it with tooth and nail). Being realistic means accepting normalisation immediately. Accepting a moderate position (favourable to Israeli hegemony) and especially, being the critical voice of Israel, but not TOO much… “Israel is here to stay as a Jewish State” seems to be the sentence they use to frame all discussions. For them, it is forbidden to even question the status quo at all, as if it’s all been settled and any mention of what it means to continue in this way is going against peace and is instead seeking war.

These “moderates” want to pretend they support your cause, but the problem is YOU, that you are intransigent and stubborn and if you are not Israeli or living in Occupied Palestine. You obviously can't speak as you do with authority because you are defective from the outset. "You don't live here" is a common “insult”. An international can really, at that point, only thank their lucky stars they don’t (that is, if they are not Palestinian, in which case they lose no matter where they are living).

Now, those Zionists who live in Europe and the West have another game going. They want to believe they are at the progressive vanguard. If you show them the holes in their argument, they turn it into an ad hominem attack. At that point, it gets personal, because they insist upon that kind of interaction. A load of them say, "you never saved a single Palestinian life", "You are damaging and breaking the movement", and make attempts at putting all kinds of huge failures onto your shoulders. You see, all of this has almost nothing to do with the comments you are making, the discourse you bring and the arguments you present. It all turns into a kangaroo court against YOU!



Another interesting occurrence is that many will claim that they are not Zionists, although they talk and act like Zionists, even believe in the same things as the ideology and pragmatic actions of Zionism and were raised with this belief and never have countered it. It is an interesting phenomenon, but one I have only seen on these boards. I think it is a tactic the Hasbarists have told them to try to use, because there really is no other explanation for it.

Trolls are those who establish a truly "counter" position and rather just want to steer conversation to another topic and distract everyone, especially those who are not experts, (because they themselves are far from being experts in the argument). They are generally going to put in a million facts, all of them totally irrelevant to any discourse going on, so that you waste time with arguments you are not even engaged in. They always find a group of other trolls to work with them, and they are probably more coordinated than Gatekeepers, because they can leave one board and then troll another. They also use the word "censorship" a lot.



In boards about Israel/Palestine, the hot trolling topic is to bring up one or many of the following arguments, often in a distorted or false way: women’s rights, gay rights in other Middle Eastern countries, Sharia Law including events they think are to be condemned in Muslim historical narratives, the Talibans, Saddam Hussein and WMDs, infibulation and female genital mutilation, Muslim traditional dress, the reactions to the Danish cartoons, internecine Palestinian political relations, holocaust denial, the childhood of the Catholic Pope, Wahabism and its restrictions, Iran (yes, just the word Iran conjures up the thickest of prejudices and is an all-purpose troll device). All of this serves to avoid confronting the arguments presented and to set the parties on “equal footing”. If one is talking about an Israeli human rights violation, it is natural for the Hasbarists to simply counter that with a human rights violation in Pakistan rather than to look in the mirror or to actually allow the opponent in the debate to articulate his thoughts and expect relevant debate in return.



Then there are the things I call “fear triggers”, which the gatekeepers and trolls are convinced are the most effective tools they have. They are codewords that they simply assume you are going to be trembling and in a state of mental distress the moment you see these words associated with you, and it is all a game of how they can associate things in the most "useful" way to what they are trying to achieve. They know we are public persons, or at any rate, in at least one social network, therefore, in relations with others, thus the need not only to control the "adversary" but to make sure he doesn't repeat the crime, they use words and concepts that are intended to make us back off. Some of them are realistically threatening. Years ago, one person who threatened me on an internet forum (Beliefnet) because I said he should not be using the school computer to harass others during teaching hours, told me he would report me "to the US authorities" and I would "never be able to travel there again"… How he could do this, I don't know, but he felt threatened because I exposed his weakness and his harassing me and others on time the US govt was paying him to work! I didn't take his threats seriously, but I reported him to the site, which banned him and he hounded me for a few years anywhere I tread! He opened up a hate site against me, (which I don't even look at, much less read) and of course put his students on assignment to troll my sites! So, this harassment can be something real, or… it is fear of being associated with ideas that either we do not adhere to or ideas that get bad press where we live.

The key words in these Palestine/Israel boards that are launched as fear triggers are the accusations of being Anti-Semitic or supporting terrorism. This is another way to deviate the discussion. They love this argument, especially in Europe, since Europe has some laws prohibiting certain discussion, including historical events following WW2.



Try to think how it might be for those who are Hasbara activists if they were subjected to the kind of ploys they use against us. If they mentioned a crime against in Israeli Jew and we decided to talk about the bombing of Hiroshima by the USA, or about the incestuous father in Austria. It would be as off topic and irrelevant as the mention of the Talibans is in a discussion about Palestinian events. But, people who promote Palestinian rights stay on topic. They have facts they want to present, and they don’t need to demonise the West or to point out its war crimes. A pro-Palestinian activist has got to ignore the diversion. Doing so isn’t always easy, and sometimes the alternative is simply to disengage and waste less time. Either way, the Palestinian discourse is thwarted.



I will close this presentation with a brief illustration of my own personal experience at some Ning boards.



Google developed a type of site that is quite interactive, known as Ning, which is a sort of social club where people join, assume a “persona” and then interact with one another. There are spaces for submitting blog posts, videos, etc., but the most dynamic element is the forum/discussion board, which functions more or less like a traditional Bulletin Board forum. Ning sites require an “owner” who often serves in the role of moderator and would ideally set the rules for participation, which should exist to 1) keep the Ning board dedicated to the argument that it is registered as (no one wants to see a political board turn into a place where one sells resort apartments or become a place for stalkers to pick up victims); 2) to keep the community relatively active. In this, there is generally no requirement that one post after joining, in fact, most members simply do NOT participate at all, and the active membership settles to its average, always incredibly lower than the listed membership; 3) to restrict certain material that it deems unsuitable which is generally determined by consensus as to what the site itself is dedicated to and almost always is only to prevent advertising spam and pornography, since both contain violations against some international communications laws.



The owner generally is expected to participate, or at least to motivate decisions taken such as banning, accepting re-admittance, accepting re-admittance under a new pseudonym, and other administrative tasks. The owner is not obligated to enforce opinions (although sometimes this seems to be his major task), nor is the owner granted a right to obligate or restrict any kind of activity by any of the members in any other venue whatsoever unless it is operating as if on behalf of the Ning. This means: if I use the name of the Ning group to host a meeting without prior consent or permission, I violate the owner’s rights, and this would be an acceptable motivation for removal of my account. If instead, I express my opinion on that site regarding issues the site deals with, or on any other site, expressing opinions about that site, it is fully within my rights to do so and membership in a Ning board does not entail surrender of my freedom of opinion. To be banned for this reason is an abuse of power.



Ning groups have a few conditions, actually. There are some that you must join if you want to have reading access. This creates membership, but that does not mean it creates “members”. There are others that allow you to consult them freely without needing to give any information at all, and if you like the group or only want be included as a member, it becomes a thought-out choice, that is, you didn’t join out of curiosity, but because you decided that your participation was something you wished to occur. Both groups share the feature that if you wish to participate in comments, you must become a member. Becoming a member requires you to give biographical information and assume a “persona”, which can be your own self or a pseudonym.



I found my first Ning group in Palestinian Mothers (http://www.palestinianmothers.com). It was founded by a friend of mine, Iqbal Tamimi. I fully support the platform of the group, and I joined because I wanted to be part of a discussion community that was outspokenly Pro-Palestinian. Since I have no problems with my own opinions being known, I join with my full name and my photograph. At a later point, a Palestinian friend of mine invited me to join a Ning called MePeace. Essentially, this group expected to be a dialogue group where “both sides” had a chance to contribute and members are automatically labelled as “peacemakers”. It didn’t take long to find out that this group was really very hostile to any kind of specific criticisms towards Israel, and when it happened the mechanisms illustrated above were set off. This occurred time and time again, with myself and with other members who were critical. Some members were banned or left because they felt mobbed, and some of them would come back with a new persona. I found out from these members that this was happening, because they told me. I would not interact much with the “new” personas, but watched as they attempted once again but with invented personal stories and other things that I personally find damaging to a sense of trust in a community. I want to know who I am dealing with and I don’t like it that some are peddling totally bogus stories. However, if this was the only way to remain on a board that cast them off, and they were determined to remain, that is the motivation of their choice, fooling people and making them believe something false is only a contingent result of it.



This group has an owner who was not participating for a long time. Actually, the active participants are limited to maybe only 5% of the members, with the same persons participating in the same way over and over again. One day, he decided to open a thread to allow people to ask him anything. I asked him what gave him the power to change certain very unorthodox membership rules as he was proposing, so that one had to “support the community” in all internet activity, which would mean, if we criticised it (and there was so much to criticise!) we would be the cause of our own exclusion. He did not answer that, but responded to autobiographical questions asked by others about how he studied in a Yeshiva in the USA. When I asked him where he received the money to travel in the name of this group, what became of donations made to the group, and questions of the sort, I found myself banned the very next day. Banned after a letter from him just a few hours earlier thanking me for my participation in the group! To be banned obviously eliminates all the interactions you have made, not only comments but complete posts and private messages, it removes your account and makes it impossible for you to obtain the email addresses of those you had been in contact with and might like to continue to interacting with. It is totally Zionist occupied territory and there are a few brave souls who still battle there, but I honestly can’t see what the point of that is.



The next group I joined was Palestine Israel Crossroads, founded by one of the banned members from MePeace, who at the time was also a friend. It was (and I believe still is) a very small group of mostly Israeli peace-seeking people. The discussion was generally acceptable, but I soon learned that some of the rules carried forward from MePeace. That is, if you are an “international” (this does not include if you made Aliyah, because in that case you are Israeli when it suits you and something else when it fits the argument better) you are considered to be not really involved and you are open to more criticism, should you begin to question some things that disturb the belief these people have of being the vanguard of the Israeli peace-seekers. You are expected to simply ignore racist jokes against Muslims, to accept that the discourse of an exiled Palestinian is called a “stunt” and to be considered to be “extremists” if you support full right of return and don’t consider Gilad Shalit a valid cause for launching a war against a nation.



It’s slightly more civil than the Hasbara “let’s not play the blame game” then followed by semi-intellectual blather about new-agey spiral dynamics or other gatekeeping discourse that serves no function but to isolate anyone who promotes full Palestinian rights, but all the same, it’s a kind of framing of political discourse into an area that takes the comfort level of Israelis into account before all else. I left the group of my own accord after not liking the accusations one of the Israeli members was making in “explaining” my thought to others and getting it wrong. My suggestions for the principles, however, had remained intact. I don’t know if they still are. Last time I checked, it was basically a place to exchange recipes.



Lastly, I was urged to join Ipeace (how about those names, folks!), where supposedly many who were not satisfied with MePeace had transmigrated. I actually had to join before I could even take a look at it. (So don’t believe all those high membership claims made! The active members here are probably closer to 1%). Another “peace” group by an Israeli! The rules would be more or less the same: meaning, Zionists would control the discourse and if you were not going to go along with it on some level, you were to be ostracised. This did not take long to happen. Most of the members, at any rate, are into a generic kind of peace that is about rainbows, flowers and unicorns, as well as a lot of spiritual stuff spanning everything under the sun. Very little people knew about or were able to engage in discussion on Palestine, and when those of us who know and sought to engage tried, we were told to “tone it down” by the Israeli moderator. I basically ignored the site for months. Then I was told that there was a notorious post by the Israeli singer Noa (Achinoam Nini) which was justifying the Israeli war crimes against Gazans. I saw that the commenters were not engaging much, most of them thanking her for her “courage” and others telling her how humane she was. That is not a joke! At the time friends and acquaintances of mine in Israel were running the campaign to ask Noa to not do a charity performance for Gazan children, given her declarations. We all considered it hypocritical to on the one hand say about the destruction of Gaza with everyone in it, “this is the only way” and then to act all innocent and sing “there must be another way”. One can’t have it both ways. I mentioned this on the site. I was immediately banned. Apparently, if you don’t condone war crimes against Gazans, you are not a real peace-seeker!



So, with this experience under my belt, what are my conclusions? First of all, there is so far no such thing as an Israeli board that truly supports justice 100%. There are always some tricks that get pulled out of the Zionist hat. Some sites are just more blatant about it than others. Secondly, there is a group dynamics created on all boards, and not all boards are open about what their real agenda is. However, sooner or later, the agenda does get exposed. It is simply forbidden for Palestinians and their supporters to get a fair hearing, to be treated with correctness and for their arguments to remain on the table. My suggestion: dialogue and refine arguments with those who support the cause of justice for Palestinians, and that means, avoid the time-wasting and frustrating Israeli peace boards. They would have fit quite well in an Orwellian world where “War is Peace”. Comment and participate on sites that do not have gatekeepers, and learn to recognise their tricks and traps.
ShareThis Bookmark and Share
Tagged as: Hasbara, Internet activism, Israel, Israeli peace groups, Ning groups, Palestine, Zionism

Mary Rizzo is an art restorer, translator and writer living in Italy. Editor and co-founder of Palestine Think Tank, co-founder of Tlaxcala translations collective. Her personal blog is Peacepalestine.

http://palestinethinktank.com/
Share:

Get this slideshow here Israeli Army's Heart of Darkness



By Mary Rizzo
News has come out, which normal people with eyes have seen anyway, that some IDF soldiers have admitted that killing civilians was routine and they knew it. Haaretz has started a series of the accounts, but I urge you to visit Richard Silverstein's blog, where he translates the bits the English Edition didn't really want others to see, the worst parts, obviously… and they are revolting.

Yet, for the moment, I'm not going to address this issue. I'll wait until the MFA lie factory comes out with their excuses. In the meantime, I present another side to the fun and games that is life as an Israel soldier, and that is, the company unit t-shirts that they wear for bonding reasons. If anyone has any doubts about the Morals of this Moral Army, read this article from Haaretz written by Uri Blau. No Virgins No Terror Attacks shows the utter banality of evil.

'No virgins, no terror attacks'
The office at the Adiv fabric-printing shop in south Tel Aviv handles a constant stream of customers, many of them soldiers in uniform, who come to order custom clothing featuring their unit's insignia, usually accompanied by a slogan and drawing of their choosing. Elsewhere on the premises, the sketches are turned into plates used for imprinting the ordered items, mainly T-shirts and baseball caps, but also hoodies, fleece jackets and pants. A young Arab man from Jaffa supervises the workers who imprint the words and pictures, and afterward hands over the finished product.

Dead babies, mothers weeping on their children's graves, a gun aimed at a child and bombed-out mosques - these are a few examples of the images Israel Defense Forces soldiers design these days to print on shirts they order to mark the end of training, or of field duty. The slogans accompanying the drawings are not exactly anemic either: A T-shirt for infantry snipers bears the inscription "Better use Durex," next to a picture of a dead Palestinian baby, with his weeping mother and a teddy bear beside him. A sharpshooter's T-shirt from the Givati Brigade's Shaked battalion shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with a bull's-eye superimposed on her belly, with the slogan, in English, "1 shot, 2 kills." A "graduation" shirt for those who have completed another snipers course depicts a Palestinian baby, who grows into a combative boy and then an armed adult, with the inscription, "No matter how it begins, we'll put an end to it."

There are also plenty of shirts with blatant sexual messages. For example, the Lavi battalion produced a shirt featuring a drawing of a soldier next to a young woman with bruises, and the slogan, "Bet you got raped!" A few of the images underscore actions whose existence the army officially denies - such as "confirming the kill" (shooting a bullet into an enemy victim's head from close range, to ensure he is dead), or harming religious sites, or female or child non-combatants.

In many cases, the content is submitted for approval to one of the unit's commanders. The latter, however, do not always have control over what gets printed, because the artwork is a private initiative of soldiers that they never hear about. Drawings or slogans previously banned in certain units have been approved for distribution elsewhere. For example, shirts declaring, "We won't chill 'til we confirm the kill" were banned in the past (the IDF claims that the practice doesn't exist), yet the Haruv battalion printed some last year.

The slogan "Let every Arab mother know that her son's fate is in my hands!" had previously been banned for use on another infantry unit's shirt. A Givati soldier said this week, however, that at the end of last year, his platoon printed up dozens of shirts, fleece jackets and pants bearing this slogan.

"It has a drawing depicting a soldier as the Angel of Death, next to a gun and an Arab town," he explains. "The text was very powerful. The funniest part was that when our soldier came to get the shirts, the man who printed them was an Arab, and the soldier felt so bad that he told the girl at the counter to bring them to him."

Does the design go to the commanders for approval?

The Givati soldier: "Usually the shirts undergo a selection process by some officer, but in this case, they were approved at the level of platoon sergeant. We ordered shirts for 30 soldiers and they were really into it, and everyone wanted several items and paid NIS 200 on average."

What do you think of the slogan that was printed?

"I didn't like it so much, but most of the soldiers wanted it."

Many controversial shirts have been ordered by graduates of snipers courses, which bring together soldiers from various units. In 2006, soldiers from the "Carmon Team" course for elite-unit marksmen printed a shirt with a drawing of a knife-wielding Palestinian in the crosshairs of a gun sight, and the slogan, "You've got to run fast, run fast, run fast, before it's all over." Below is a drawing of Arab women weeping over a grave and the words: "And afterward they cry, and afterward they cry." [The inscriptions are riffs on a popular song.] Another sniper's shirt also features an Arab man in the crosshairs, and the announcement, "Everything is with the best of intentions."

G., a soldier in an elite unit who has done a snipers course, explained that, "it's a type of bonding process, and also it's well known that anyone who is a sniper is messed up in the head. Our shirts have a lot of double entendres, for example: 'Bad people with good aims.' Every group that finishes a course puts out stuff like that."

When are these shirts worn?

G. "These are shirts for around the house, for jogging, in the army. Not for going out. Sometimes people will ask you what it's about."

Of the shirt depicting a bull's-eye on a pregnant woman, he said: "There are people who think it's not right, and I think so as well, but it doesn't really mean anything. I mean it's not like someone is gonna go and shoot a pregnant woman."

What is the idea behind the shirt from July 2007, which has an image of a child with the slogan "Smaller - harder!"?

"It's a kid, so you've got a little more of a problem, morally, and also the target is smaller."

Do your superiors approve the shirts before printing?

"Yes, although one time they rejected some shirt that was too extreme. I don't remember what was on it."

These shirts also seem pretty extreme. Why draw crosshairs over a child - do you shoot kids?

'We came, we saw'

"As a sniper, you get a lot of extreme situations. You suddenly see a small boy who picks up a weapon and it's up to you to decide whether to shoot. These shirts are half-facetious, bordering on the truth, and they reflect the extreme situations you might encounter. The one who-honest-to-God sees the target with his own eyes - that's the sniper."

Have you encountered a situation like that?

"Fortunately, not involving a kid, but involving a woman - yes. There was someone who wasn't holding a weapon, but she was near a prohibited area and could have posed a threat."

What did you do?

"I didn't take it" (i.e., shoot).

You don't regret that, I imagine.

"No. Whomever I had to shoot, I shot."

A shirt printed up just this week for soldiers of the Lavi battalion, who spent three years in the West Bank, reads: "We came, we saw, we destroyed!" - alongside images of weapons, an angry soldier and a Palestinian village with a ruined mosque in the center.

A shirt printed after Operation Cast Lead in Gaza for Battalion 890 of the Paratroops depicts a King Kong-like soldier in a city under attack. The slogan is unambiguous: "If you believe it can be fixed, then believe it can be destroyed!"

Y., a soldier/yeshiva student, designed the shirt. "You take whoever [in the unit] knows how to draw and then you give it to the commanders before printing," he explained.

What is the soldier holding in his hand?

Y. "A mosque. Before I drew the shirt I had some misgivings, because I wanted it to be like King Kong, but not too monstrous. The one holding the mosque - I wanted him to have a more normal-looking face, so it wouldn't look like an anti-Semitic cartoon. Some of the people who saw it told me, 'Is that what you've got to show for the IDF? That it destroys homes?' I can understand people who look at this from outside and see it that way, but I was in Gaza and they kept emphasizing that the object of the operation was to wreak destruction on the infrastructure, so that the price the Palestinians and the leadership pay will make them realize that it isn't worth it for them to go on shooting. So that's the idea of 'we're coming to destroy' in the drawing."

According to Y., most of these shirts are worn strictly in an army context, not in civilian life. "And within the army people look at it differently," he added. "I don't think I would walk down the street in this shirt, because it would draw fire. Even at my yeshiva I don't think people would like it."

Y. also came up with a design for the shirt his unit printed at the end of basic training. It shows a clenched fist shattering the symbol of the Paratroops Corps.

Where does the fist come from?

"It's reminiscent of [Rabbi Meir] Kahane's symbol. I borrowed it from an emblem for something in Russia, but basically it's supposed to look like Kahane's symbol, the one from 'Kahane Was Right' - it's a sort of joke. Our company commander is kind of gung-ho."

Was the shirt printed?

"Yes. It was a company shirt. We printed about 100 like that."

This past January, the "Night Predators" demolitions platoon from Golani's Battalion 13 ordered a T-shirt showing a Golani devil detonating a charge that destroys a mosque. An inscription above it says, "Only God forgives."

One of the soldiers in the platoon downplays it: "It doesn't mean much, it's just a T-shirt from our platoon. It's not a big deal. A friend of mine drew a picture and we made it into a shirt."

What's the idea behind "Only God forgives"?

The soldier: "It's just a saying."

No one had a problem with the fact that a mosque gets blown up in the picture?

"I don't see what you're getting at. I don't like the way you're going with this. Don't take this somewhere you're not supposed to, as though we hate Arabs."

After Operation Cast Lead, soldiers from that battalion printed a T-shirt depicting a vulture sexually penetrating Hamas' prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, accompanied by a particularly graphic slogan. S., a soldier in the platoon that ordered the shirt, said the idea came from a similar shirt, printed after the Second Lebanon War, that featured Hassan Nasrallah instead of Haniyeh.

"They don't okay things like that at the company level. It's a shirt we put out just for the platoon," S. explained.

What's the problem with this shirt?

S.: "It bothers some people to see these things, from a religious standpoint …"

How did people who saw it respond?

"We don't have that many Orthodox people in the platoon, so it wasn't a problem. It's just something the guys want to put out. It's more for wearing around the house, and not within the companies, because it bothers people. The Orthodox mainly. The officers tell us it's best not to wear shirts like this on the base."

The sketches printed in recent years at the Adiv factory, one of the largest of its kind in the country, are arranged in drawers according to the names of the units placing the orders: Paratroops, Golani, air force, sharpshooters and so on. Each drawer contains hundreds of drawings, filed by year. Many of the prints are cartoons and slogans relating to life in the unit, or inside jokes that outsiders wouldn't get (and might not care to, either), but a handful reflect particular aggressiveness, violence and vulgarity.

Print-shop manager Haim Yisrael, who has worked there since the early 1980s, said Adiv prints around 1,000 different patterns each month, with soldiers accounting for about half. Yisrael recalled that when he started out, there were hardly any orders from the army.

"The first ones to do it were from the Nahal brigade," he said. "Later on other infantry units started printing up shirts, and nowadays any course with 15 participants prints up shirts."

From time to time, officers complain. "Sometimes the soldiers do things that are inside jokes that only they get, and sometimes they do something foolish that they take to an extreme," Yisrael explained. "There have been a few times when commanding officers called and said, 'How can you print things like that for soldiers?' For example, with shirts that trashed the Arabs too much. I told them it's a private company, and I'm not interested in the content. I can print whatever I like. We're neutral. There have always been some more extreme and some less so. It's just that now more people are making shirts."

Race to be unique

Evyatar Ben-Tzedef, a research associate at the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism and former editor of the IDF publication Maarachot, said the phenomenon of custom-made T-shirts is a product of "the infantry's insane race to be unique. I, for example, had only one shirt that I received after the Yom Kippur War. It said on it, 'The School for Officers,' and that was it. What happened since then is a product of the decision to assign every unit an emblem and a beret. After all, there used to be very few berets: black, red or green. This changed in the 1990s. [The shirts] developed because of the fact that for bonding purposes, each unit created something that was unique to it.

"These days the content on shirts is sometimes deplorable," Ben-Tzedef explained. "It stems from the fact that profanity is very acceptable and normative in Israel, and that there is a lack of respect for human beings and their environment, which includes racism aimed in every direction."

Yossi Kaufman, who moderates the army and defense forum on the Web site Fresh, served in the Armored Corps from 1996 to 1999. "I also drew shirts, and I remember the first one," he said. "It had a small emblem on the front and some inside joke, like, 'When we die, we'll go to heaven, because we've already been through hell.'"

Kaufman has also been exposed to T-shirts of the sort described here. "I know there are shirts like these," he says. "I've heard and also seen a little. These are not shirts that soldiers can wear in civilian life, because they would get stoned, nor at a battalion get-together, because the battalion commander would be pissed off. They wear them on very rare occasions. There's all sorts of black humor stuff, mainly from snipers, such as, 'Don't bother running because you'll die tired' - with a drawing of a Palestinian boy, not a terrorist. There's a Golani or Givati shirt of a soldier raping a girl, and underneath it says, 'No virgins, no terror attacks.' I laughed, but it was pretty awful. When I was asked once to draw things like that, I said it wasn't appropriate."

The IDF Spokesman's Office comments on the phenomenon: "Military regulations do not apply to civilian clothing, including shirts produced at the end of basic training and various courses. The designs are printed at the soldiers' private initiative, and on civilian shirts. The examples raised by Haaretz are not in keeping with the values of the IDF spirit, not representative of IDF life, and are in poor taste. Humor of this kind deserves every condemnation and excoriation. The IDF intends to take action for the immediate eradication of this phenomenon. To this end, it is emphasizing to commanding officers that it is appropriate, among other things, to take discretionary and disciplinary measures against those involved in acts of this sort."

Shlomo Tzipori, a lieutenant colonel in the reserves and a lawyer specializing in martial law, said the army does bring soldiers up on charges for offenses that occur outside the base and during their free time. According to Tzipori, slogans that constitute an "insult to the army or to those in uniform" are grounds for court-martial, on charges of "shameful conduct" or "disciplinary infraction," which are general clauses in judicial martial law.

Sociologist Dr. Orna Sasson-Levy, of Bar-Ilan University, author of "Identities in Uniform: Masculinities and Femininities in the Israeli Military," said that the phenomenon is "part of a radicalization process the entire country is undergoing, and the soldiers are at its forefront. I think that ever since the second intifada there has been a continual shift to the right. The pullout from Gaza and its outcome - the calm that never arrived - led to a further shift rightward.

"This tendency is most strikingly evident among soldiers who encounter various situations in the territories on a daily basis. There is less meticulousness than in the past, and increasing callousness. There is a perception that the Palestinian is not a person, a human being entitled to basic rights, and therefore anything may be done to him."

Could the printing of clothing be viewed also as a means of venting aggression?

Sasson-Levy: "No. I think it strengthens and stimulates aggression and legitimizes it. What disturbs me is that a shirt is something that has permanence. The soldiers later wear it in civilian life; their girlfriends wear it afterward. It is not a statement, but rather something physical that remains, that is out there in the world. Beyond that, I think the link made between sexist views and nationalist views, as in the 'Screw Haniyeh' shirt, is interesting. National chauvinism and gender chauvinism combine and strengthen one another. It establishes a masculinity shaped by violent aggression toward women and Arabs; a masculinity that considers it legitimate to speak in a crude and violent manner toward women and Arabs."

Col. (res.) Ron Levy began his military service in the Sayeret Matkal elite commando force before the Six-Day War. He was the IDF's chief psychologist, and headed the army's mental health department in the 1980s.

Levy: "I'm familiar with things of this sort going back 40, 50 years, and each time they take a different form. Psychologically speaking, this is one of the ways in which soldiers project their anger, frustration and violence. It is a certain expression of things, which I call 'below the belt.'"

Do you think this a good way to vent anger?

Levy: "It's safe. But there are also things here that deviate from the norm, and you could say that whoever is creating these things has reached some level of normality. He gives expression to the fact that what is considered abnormal today might no longer be so tomorrow."

Share:

Obama: collective adoration hits the Old World


Mary Rizzo, Palestine Think Tank]
So Obama is the man, and the wave of collective adoration has embarked the shores like the Normandy Invasion. As I wrote in a recent article, to people who live in other parts of the world (and that means almost the absolute majority of humanity), the self-proclaimed position of the USA not as a world leader, but the world leader is too much of a tight fit, akin to a chokehold. In fact, most of the problems that other nations face are the consequences of the decisions America has made to ensure that its own interests are the ultimate priorities of the world. The effects of this primacy are the wars we’ve been dragged into (even against our own interests) as allies or "enemies", the economic disasters in the stock markets of the countries that weren’t directly involved in the subprime loan con, the results of which have devastated the economies of business, industry and the consumer, the trade policies that governments are forced to have as being subject to American hegemony. And these are just a few of the literally hundreds of examples of how what happens in America has a domino effect with the potency of an atomic bomb. It would be great if there were some positive effects trickling down, but it’s really difficult to list some, and I leave that task for someone better suited to it.I don’t need to make a list of the various grievances, and I am not talking about ones such as "they (the terrorists) hate our freedoms", but rather the trickledown effects of American policy that insists upon being world policy. It is clear that the corporate-military complex (some say industrial, but the tertiary level is where the middle class works, and industry is being outsourced to third-world nations) that we can call America has spent decades shaping the planet to suit its appetite, at the expense of billions of individuals, including its own citizens. No American could have been oblivious to the fact that "we’re the best" is not only used for sports teams, but is a genuine patriotic sentiment, the rest of the world has had it up to here with that arrogance. How other populations view America has never been that important to Americans, convinced as they are that everyone sees them as the model to aspire to, but aware that there isn’t the love or admiration one would have towards a model. Americans, at least up until 4 November, were still careful to act as if they were Canadians when abroad.



So, along comes a candidate that is handsome, young, and - at least on a superficial and probably symbolic level - represents what Americans think they are, (cool, smart, honest, an average guy with charisma) and the infatuation became hope which turned into a cult of personality. So, he is black, and that means that this is an epic and historic result. To understand what the pundits say, it is his skin colour that makes him special. And, in fact, those who have been commenting on the victory state this obvious fact once every 90 seconds, just so that with the force of repetition we believe that it really is a watershed moment that means that America has changed, that it is the land of opportunity, hope and glory, the land of milk and honey, a place where blacks and whites have equal opportunities and anything is possible.



So, Obama got elected, and that means we have to believe that this is proof that "anything is possible"? Obama had a lot of popular support and money, but he had a LOT more corporate support and money. That is not within the reach of any average guy, but one who is a player in all the right arenas, who will have to deliver when payment time comes up. Seems as if with the bailout, even before elected, Obama was ready to hand out that blank check to his benefactors, and that means the banks, ladies and gentlemen.



But, what Obama really is or really means isn’t what I’m interested in at this moment. I am concerned at how the Obamamania crossed the shores and was converted into a real victory for everyone and the sweet revenge that the Americans will have for the fact that there is an intolerable level of anti-Americanism around. It is the acquisition of virginity, the real issue at stake. The image has been salvaged, and what is below the surface becomes irrelevant. What I witnessed the night of the election and especially the night after when the commentaries were slightly more refined, was a coup de théâtre that meant that there was nothing behind all of us (even though we were following American policy lock, stock and barrel) but the end of something and now, all (good) things were possible. "We are all Americans", was one of the comments made while politicians from the left and right were claiming a special relationship with what Obama stood for. The leader of the Italian left who brought his own party to dismal failure in the spring elections with the slogan "Yes We Can", said that Obama was the transatlantic counterpart to his party. In what way is anyone’s guess, given that "No They Couldn’t".



A really jovial "Americanophile" Renzo Arbore, musician, showman and staple of Italian television for decades, guest at the American Embassy for the election results said, "Tonight I am even prouder to be American (sic). Obama is the heir of Kennedy. I was a fan of Kennedy from the first moment. He is an heir of Lincoln. I was a fan of Lincoln from the first moment." That alone was a bit comical since he’s been on TV forever, but can’t be as old as Lincoln, but then he continued to inform the Italians who were certainly not as versed in Americanophilia as he was that Lincoln was the famous president against slavery and "author who declared that all men are equal." No one corrected him that while it was indeed cited in the Gettysburg address, the author of a phrase very similar was Thomas Jefferson, brilliant thinker, but alas, a slave owner. To compare words and deeds would have been a very interesting discussion but this would have required more accuracy and we were in "pass me another glass of Champagne" mode. Someone did however correct him that Lincoln belonged to the Republican party, I imagine in the days when it was somewhat different than it is today.



Not to be outdone, his sidekick, a television has-been who tried to make a comeback with advertising dietary snacks, Maurisa Laurito said, "He’s good-looking, a bit black (un po’ nero)" Wow, was that a weird thing to say! I immediately thought that someone would have to comment on that particular statement, but no one did. She’s not really known for her intellectual finesse. Becoming a bit tired of the low level interventions, I changed channels, and lo and behold, they were talking about gaffes regarding labelling people according to their skin colour.



A debate was raging about an insult from the Northern League racist fanatic Roberto Caldaroli (whose sporting a t-shirt with one of the Danish Cartoons that enraged millions of Muslims was the incitement for a riot at the Italian embassy in Libya, resulting in the death of ten people). He had months prior called a Palestinian journalist, Rula Jebreal "the tanned woman", and then commenced debates on skin colour and how historic it was that people had overcome race (as if there are only white people) and voted for a black man. All of this, mind, a day before Berlusconi called Obama "tanned". As much as I don’t like Berlusconi, and believe he is 90% problematic, I don’t think he is racist. He in fact was trying on an Americanism with his macaroni-esque translation of "tall, dark and handsome", by using the Italian word for "tanned", which generally substitutes "dark", as dark has negative connotations in this language. Big mess with the Italian Democratic Yes We Canners spending many hours calling foul, rather than looking honestly at the variations of the theme that had been played out for over two years. Would it EVER be possible for them to say, Candidate Obama? No, it was always, Black Candidate Obama and so on.



"America gave the world a great lesson in democracy," it was repeated over and over again. What was this lesson? That the most costly campaign ever, endless and tiring even for those who were exposed to it only superficially, brought about two corporate candidates in a two party system that did not allow any exposure of alternative views? No, of course not, that’s not even as democratic a system as what most of the world has in Parliamentary elections where the winning party assigns a candidate and there are a variety of contenders. It is sad that they still believe there is a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats over here. What the lesson was had shades of the absurd: "The Americans came out to vote in European numbers." Yes, the lesson to teach the (at least) Europeans about US democracy is that now they vote in quantities similar to European elections. That is some spiral logic, but it again, no one blinked an eye when this kind of phrase was uttered, such was the exhibition of rhetoric.



Let’s look at how the analysis of the voters was handled. On "Porta a Porta", the major news analysis program that also features gossip and news that comes close to gossip, such as the Mededith Kerchner murder, they analysed the "racism factor" of the voters. Interesting, extremely interesting, was the comment made upon the exposition of the composition of white voters. "54% of the white vote went to McCain," was the exit poll statistical summary. "This means that whites were still by and large voting for the white candidate, and they could not overcome the race issue." Then the statistic for the black vote appeared on the screen, "98% of the black vote went to Obama." No similar comment was uttered.



Let me try to understand this, when a white votes for a white, he is voting based on skin colour, but when a black votes for a black, he is voting based on other factors. Is that what they mean? Or is it natural for a white to make a choice but the black would automatically vote for a black candidate because he or she has to? No one in the studio questioned the interpretation of the analysis of the numbers given, so we are left anyway to believe that only whites are capable of voting someone due to racial factors. The subtext is indeed this. A more interesting analysis would have been the vote as analysed according to wage earnings.



Obama is painted as the paladin of civil rights and absolutely able to do what he promised for the good of America but also the world, this was the message given again and again. I would love it if it were true, but is it? His first acts mystify me, the appointment of an Israeli to the Chief of Staff and the threats towards Iran were not really that civil, and I don’t think they are right either, and they don’t go in the direction of peaceful resolution to two of the hotspots of the globe. He promised so much nice stuff before he got voted in, and people are so ready to believe it, I can only say I hope their dreams come true.

But one dream that did come true was the restyling of the American Image. In the space of a few hours, no one thought any more about the real problems that America has, about the real problems it has with the other nations, with the real problems that it will continue to have unless it dramatically changes its course and does become one of all the nations and not the nation above other nations. All it took was a few nights of rhetoric, a bit of strange analysis and a lot of believing in vague concepts such as change and hope. We do need the change, and probably not the change Obama is able or willing to bring. As for hope, I leave that to dreamers and optimists.
source
Share:

Israel Foreign Affairs Ministry: Lies are Truth


By Mary Rizzo

The people in the press staff of the
Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry are talented
science fiction writers. Almost nothing that
they write has any bearing on reality, and
it seems that they use Orwell’s 1984 as a
guidebook for news dispatches. All that
they need to do is look at the facts on the
ground (terminology that was invented by the hasbara
commission, more than likely, because it is something
different than reality. It has a bit of the sense of
imposition of a negative reality that cannot however be
challenged by ‘ordinary’ people), and turn them on their
heads. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
That’s exactly how the Israeli PR staff represents reality with
their warped mirror.

I do suggest, for those who, like myself, find some pleasure
in reading nonsense, to subscribe to their newsletter or to
read it on their site. It is just about as absurd a thing one
can find to read. The trouble with it is: it’s taken seriously
by the Big Mass Media and a lot of the dispatch services
never verify any of the information that is released. If you
wonder just why everyone is so wrong about Israel and
Palestine, look no further.

On 7 May, this was their press release. I will
deconstruct it. Their original in Israeli Blue.

Behind the Headlines: Hamas

holding civilian population

in Gaza hostage.

How’s that for a shock headline? It is as if the people of
Gaza are in a concentration camp and kept hostage.
Well, they are, of course, but it’s not Hamas who has
locked them in and thrown away the keys, but this
does not matter. Israel KNOWS that people are going
to notice sooner or later that Gaza has become the place
on earth where the greatest number of people are
confined and held hostage, but passing the stick to
Hamas is going to resolve any nasty questions about
who is keeping them prisoner.

By seizing the fuel, food, and medical supplies that Israel is
transferring to the Gaza Strip, and using the supplies itself,
the Hamas terror organization is basically holding the
civilian population of Gaza hostage.

Ah, so all of these wonderful things have been delivered by
generous Israel to Gaza? No one has seen any of it, so it must

be the bad guys of Hamas who have diverted all of it and

probably are storing everything in warehouses, or selling

it on the black market. The crossings have all been closed,

but no one should become aware of the fact, unless they

wonder how a million and a half people can get by without

replacement of the material that is consumed. Naturally,

it’s not a good idea to indicate to people that a blockade

has been made in order to break the resistance of these

people, which at least are classified as civilians by the

people who bomb them indiscriminately when it suits

them. But for Israel, all that material has arrived, in

fact, Israel itself is transferring it to the Gaza Strip!

But since things have a material presence, they don’t

just disappear, the culprit for these enormous quantities

of goods simply NOT BEING THERE has got to be the

bad guys. Hamas can’t let anyone see all the truckloads

of material, including fuel, that Israel is donating. Seizing

it for political purposes, so they can justify the uprising.

Well, of course, none of that is true. Since the siege started

last fall, little to nothing has entered into the Gaza Strip,and

very little has gotten out. The population is indeed being

held hostage, but Israel is doing a three card shuffle –

blame it on Hamas (repeat as well that they are a

‘terror organization’) so that it’s easier to insert in a copy

and paste journalist report.

Israel has continued to supply fuel, food, medical supplies and
other humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip, despite Hamas
attacks precisely on those crossings Israel must use to transfer
the supplies.

Israel has supplied nothing, nor have they let anyone else
do so. Yet, to deny material sustenance would be a crime
against humanity, because the occupier is obligated to
provide for the people who are being occupied. However,
Israel will state that they no longer occupy the Gaza Strip.
“We left! The settlers are gone,” they say. Well, one does not
have to have colonial presence to exact control over a territory.
All that needs to be done is to control its borders, and Israel
does just that: stick them in the prison and let them fight it
out between themselves is the policy that Israel has decided
to enact in order to bring Gazans to their knees or, failing that,
make them beg for Fatah to take control of the elections
Hamas won, therefore, giving Israel the electoral results they
wanted but were denied. Israel controls the air space,
territorial waters, offshore maritime access, and the border
between Israel and Gaza, with most of the crossings being
closed even for those needing medical assistance. Egypt controls
the southern border. This means that they are committing
crimes against humanity by denying Gazans aid, food, fuel
and freedom of movement. But, they won’t admit it. In fact,
that’s what the lie about Hamas taking the materials is
there to cover.

It is apparent that Hamas is targeting the crossings in
order to prevent the transfer of humanitarian aid to the
civilian population, thus both needlessly depriving its
own population as well as causing an artificial humanitarian
crisis in the Gaza Strip. Clearly, Hamas wants to create
a crisis in order that international pressure will be placed
on Israel.

It is apparent to those who invent this lie, and it is tragic that
many believe it! Hamas does not have any control over the
crossings of incoming goods. Nothing has been turned back
or stashed away for the simple reason that nothing has been
delivered! The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is far from artificial.
It is real and evident to anyone who has access to view it.
Clearly, the crisis was created by Israel, but passing the buck
of the ‘international pressure’ is the only remedy that Israel
can come up with. They have no intention to break the siege.
It is in their interests to continue it to the bitter end.
Unfortunately, neither Gazans nor Hamas can do anything to
change this. We are going to see a long, hot summer ahead,
and Israel is doing damage control.

Recent reports indicate that not only is Hamas depriving

the civilization population, it is allocating the supplies for

its own use.

Then, we get a flaming headline:

Hamas steal fuel from the civilian population

A Jerusalem Post report

, on the 29th of April, ( ) states that Hamas stole 60,000 liters
of fuel from the civilian population of Gaza. This was confirmed
by the head of the Palestinian Authority’s gas agency, who
added that Hamas gunmen had raided the Palestinian side of
the Nahal Oz fuel terminal, stealing at least 60,000 liters of
fuel meant for the Gaza power station, for use in their own
vehicles.

Of course, this quote is in quite a few papers, all of them
stating that Mohahed Salama stated as such to Israeli
Radio. I’ve been unable to find any other source to
confirm this. As a matter of fact, Israel doesn’t like to quote
him when he stated something much more sinister:

Mojahed Salama, head of the PA Petrol Agency in Gaza, said
that fuel imports Sunday showed a 40 to 50 percent reduction
in diesel and benzene supplies and a 12 percent reduction in
fuel for Gaza’s power plant. “We sent the supplying company
the same daily requests, but they said they were sorry and
that because of the new imposed sanctions they could only
send us a reduced quantity”, Salama told Reuters. A spokesman
for Dor Alon, the Israeli energy company that supplies Gaza,
said the company had “received instructions” from the Defense
Ministry and was “acting according to those instructions”.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-172296528.html

So, who is stealing fuel from the civilian population?
Ask the Israeli Defence Ministry all about their instructions.

Of course, these international reports are very worrying if one
takes them by the soundbites provided by Israel. Take the
London Independent report:

The London Independent

reports on the artificial crisis caused by Hamas, which even
caused the UN to suspend food aid to 650,000 refugees in
the Gaza Strip after running out of fuel for its delivery
vehicles. An emergency tanker sent to the Nahal Oz terminal
was turned back by demonstrators, and was forced to return
empty. EU condemns Hamas actions which lead to further
suffering of the Palestinian population.

Now, that sounds really awful. But,
if someone actually did read the article they would
find these quotes:

Both sides agree that storage tanks on the Gaza side of the
terminal are full, with stocks of up to 1 million litres of fuel.
But Mahmoud Khozendar, the distributors’ vice-chairman,
said that was only enough to meet three or four hours’ demand.
They needed at least 10 times as much as Israel was prepared
to deliver.

Did you see what I saw? That last line kind of sticks like a
pin in the cheek. They needed at least 10 times as much
as Israel was prepared to deliver.

And this quote from the same article:

Last night Hamas proposed a six-month cease-fire with
Israel, saying the Gaza Palestinian group would stop firing
rockets into the Jewish state if Israel lifts its blockade of
the coastal strip at the same time, Egypt’s state run
Mena news agency reported.

The report came after a day of closed-door meetings
between Egypt’s powerful intelligence chief Omar
Suleiman, who has been mediating between Hamas and
Israel, and Hamas’ strongman, Mahmoud Zahar.

Under the international boycott imposed after Hamas
seized Gaza by force last June, Israel’s declared policy
has been to allow in enough fuel, food and medical supplies
to keep people alive, but not enough for them to live well.

So, even the best article that Israel propaganda experts
could fine from an independent source point out something

that doesn’t make Israel look too wonderful:

Namely, Hamas has offered a cease-fire of the Qassam
Rockets (which at any rate cause limited damage). It is
willing to come to a solution to have the blockade lifted.
Evidently, while this is what Israel claims is behind the
blockade, when action is taken to do so, they refuse to
accept it and blame Hamas of being terrorists and depriving
their own people of things they need to live. Ah, but
remember, Israel admits it will KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE,
at some level of survival, but they are going to have to
suffer. Sounds like Auschwitz to me.

On 24 April, the Presidency of the EU

stated that Hamas activities were obstructing and even
preventing humanitarian work by the United Nations
Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).

This is terrible news. Let’s see what else is on that
press statement by the EU:

…the Presidency urges regular and unrestricted delivery of
fuel supplies to the Gaza Strip in order not to aggravate further
the humanitarian crisis there. The Presidency reiterates the
EU’s call on all parties to work urgently for the controlled
re-opening of the crossings in and out of Gaza for both
humanitarian reasons and commercial flows.

In other words, they are calling on Israel to put an end to
their policies and to urgently act so as not to aggravate the
humanitarian crisis that everyone knows is in full swing.

But let’s conclude this press release.

Hamas nationalizing fuel supplies meant for the civilian
populationIn another report, Nissim Keinan of Israel’s
Second Radio channel reported on 4 May that Hamas
was in fact holding the civilian population hostage.

Who is this reporter? I never heard of him, but he’s very
famous in Israel. Here is something to give us an idea of
who our source is:

Nissim Keinan, nationally famous for his Voice of Israel
broadcasts from the Sderot and Gaza regions, told
Arutz-7 the IDF Gaza offensive accomplished a
“drop in the ocean” of what needs to be done.

Nissim Keinan is the voice heard several times a day on

national radio, reporting from the south on Kassam

rockets in Sderot, terrorist activity from within Gaza,

and nearly everything else that goes on in that area

of the country.

Speaking with Arutz-7´s Hebrew newsmagazine on

Monday, Keinan said, “Yes, it was a successful operation,

but it appears that the terrorist activity will simply revert

right away to the way it was before. We’re talking about

looking for a needle in a haystack - because Beit Hanoun,

where the offensive took place, is just a small town of

30,000 people; but what about Beit Lahiya and all its

terrorists? And what about Jebalya, and the entire area

of the Shati refugee camp, and the Khan Yunis area, and

Dir el-Balach - I mean, the entire place is swarming with

terrorists. Just because you took care of one place and

confiscated weapons and ammunitions, it still doesn’t

mean that you´ve achieved the goals.”

“In any event,” Keinan continued without stopping,

“it´s strange to hear the army talk of such great successes,

when really it was just a routine operation. They moved

the Kassam launchers southward, true - but you can fire

Kassams from the south too, you know, and they also fire

them from the north. Yes, the accuracy of the firing has

been impaired, but they were never accurate; they just

shoot and it hits wherever it hits.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com

/News/News.aspx/115008

The Summer Rain Offensive was a Drop in the Ocean of
what needs to be done? So, Keinan thinks that
197 civilians and 48 children killed by the IDF
is a good and
positive thing? Sounds again, a hell of a lot like Auschwitz
to me. So, I leave you to speculate on his final words here:

He stated that Hamas has nationalized all the fuel supplies
transferred by Israel for the civilian population, and for
operation of the electricity plant, and is using it solely for
its own purposes. In addition, food sent by the donor
countries is allocated in accordance with Hamas instructions.
Of the thousands of tons of grains, food and fuel that were
transferred, none was able to reach the civilian population.

All of a sudden, he cares about the civilian population of
Gaza? And I am Santa Claus.

See also Israel has what you like! Hasbara Instructions

Share: