The One-State Solution Initiative
ما يسمى "بمشروع الحركة الشعبية للدولة الديمقراطية الواحدة على فلسطين التاريخية" مشروع جيد نظرياً ... وخطوة إيجابية ... ينقصه بندان: ١) أهمية إحترام حق الشعب الفلسطيني بالكفاح المسلح أينما كان في الأراضي الفلسطينية وحيثما يريد ... ٢) ضرورة إستقالة جميع قيادات أوسلو اللتي ساهمت في بيع الأراضي الفلسطيني للعدو الصهيوني وقمع الشعب الفلسطيني في الداخل وفي الشتات ..
The so called "Popular Movement for the One Democratic State on Historical Palestine" is a good project in theory and a positive step which is missing two important clauses: 1) the importance of respecting the right of Palestinian people to armed struggle in all of Palestine ... and 2) the resignation of all of Oslo's leadership which contributed to the sale of Palestinian land to the Zionists and the suppression of the Palestinian people inside Palestine and in the diaspora.
"West Bank of Jordan" on the Passport Canada Application Form
According to the Passport Canada Website, Palestine, the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt), or the West Bank or Gaza do not exist.
If a Palestinian was born in the occupied West Bank, and wants to renew his Canadian passport, he must select "West Bank of Jordan - Jordan."
I do not know how long this has been the case on this application. But it is indicative of a corrupt and one-sided Canadian foreign policy that favours Israel under all circumstances.
Birthright Denied:
This is not the first time Passport Canada refuses to acknowledge the Palestinians' place of birth. When Hanna Kawas wanted to include in his passport the fact that he was born on June 2nd, 1948 in Bethlehem, Palestine, Passport Canada rejected his request. They told him he can either have Jordan, Israel or nothing.
About Mahmoud Abbas
I wrote this letter to the Palestinian community in Canada a few years ago (10/10/2009). I think it is still relevant today so I thought that I should share it again.
Dear Friends,
I have a few concerns regarding the direction the Palestinian solidarity movement in Canada and other countries is taking. Following the Palestinian Authority’s infamous decision regarding Goldstone’s report, I, among many people, received a barrage of e-mails and letters expressing condemnation of this decision. I was heartened by the fact that people are still actively concerned about the situation in Palestine which, with the help of Abbas, is getting worse. However, I am deeply worried by the fact that Israel has succeeded with virtually no effort to divert the attention from her unequivocal rejection of the report in its entirety, to Abbas’s so-called “treachery”, incompetence or whatever you wish to call it. However, we have to remember, first and foremost, that Israel is the enemy and not Abbas or the PA; and that should be our guiding principle. Abbas and his corrupt gang are nothing but tools, they form a colonial intermediary, they follow orders, and when your plumber breaks your sink, you blame the plumber not his tools. Furthermore, Abbas does not derive his legitimacy from the Palestinian people (not sure about you, but I was not consulted when he was put in power). Most Palestinians (including myself) claim that he does not represent them; and if somebody does not represent me why should I care about what he thinks in the first place? Is it because he’s in power and he does represent us whether we like it or not? Well, it is true; he is in power because our main, first and foremost enemy wants him to be and remain in power.
The second important point that I want to make is that it would not have made any difference whether the Palestinian Authority endorsed the report or not for several reasons. Firstly, there are two ways a state can appear in front of the International Court of Justice, 1) the state has to agree to do so (which Israel will never do); or 2) the general assembly has to defer the case to the ICJ; which will never happen because due to the convoluted nature of International Law the Security Council is not going to let that happen. So running around in circles making demands that the PA endorse the report and make a “positive” statement is nothing but a waste of effort, time and money. Secondly, Israel is not a signatory on the Rome Statute, which means that Israel is not obliged by law to hand in Israeli war criminals to the International Criminal Court. I apologize for appearing pessimistic, but this is the fact, and no amount of protest, demonstrations, letters or anger is going to change what is in the Rome Statute. I mean, if the ICC cannot get Sudanese President al-Bashir at a time when Sudan is suffering from a severe international alienation and pressure, then how do you expect the same organization to get Israeli war criminals who enjoy international support?
In my opinion, the effort should be directed to countries with “universal jurisdiction”. Those include, among many, Belgium, Spain and the United Kingdom (even Canada). We all know that Ehud Barak was arrested in the UK not so long ago (of course he was released later on). The Israeli Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon changed his plans to visit Britain because his office saw a possibility of him getting arrested. And Sharon was tried and charged in absentia for war crimes in Belgium. These efforts can yield good results if we intensify the work, support our lawyer and social scientists and encourage our youth to go into these fields.
Writing letters, making statements are nothing but means to channel frustration and anger at the status quo. I understand that most Palestinians feel like they were betrayed by Abbas and his following, but he is not the problem, he a symptom of a bigger problem. The problem is those who empower him; the United States, Canada, Israel, Europe and others. The direction the Palestinian solidarity movement is taking in Canada is dangerous and thorny and does not lead to anywhere. Judge Goldstone gave the Palestinians the key to a gold mine. In that report there is enough evidence to indict, try, and throw in jail many Israeli generals, soldiers, officials from all ranks; we can either throw that key in the ocean and complain about Abbas or we can take the key and use it. During the attacks on Gaza in January, everybody focused on Egypt and her betrayal of the Palestinian people and forgot about Israel. Every time something the like war on Gaza happens, everybody tends to (unintentionally and sometimes intentionally) rank Israel second or third or fourth in the list of those who are responsible. Please do not fall in that trap.
Thank you for reading my long e-mail.
Canadian Professors Support Academic Freedom on Campus
Khaled Barakat, a member of the organizing committee of the conference, called the leader of B'nai Brith a racist Zionist, and reaffirmed the Palestinian community's right to invite whoever they wish, wherever the wish and whenever they wish.
The UBC administration made it clear that they respect the academic freedom of its students, and their right to make their opinions heard without obstacles.
But we must also acknowledge a letter sent from the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) to the UBC thanking them and affirming the right to academic freedom.
The letter which was sent by Mr. James Turk, executive director of CAUT, on May 2nd read:
Dear Professor Toope:CAUT was established in 1951 to defend the right of academics to voice their opinions freely and represents more than 69,000 members.
On behalf of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, I want to thank UBC for having stood up for freedom of expression on campus.
“A university is an open community and there are all sorts of groups that think, believe and state their opinions differently,” UBC public affairs director Lucie McNeill said. “You expect different schools of thought to contend on a campus.”
The Globe and Mail reported on Tuesday that there had been a demand that UBC prevent a controversial figure from speaking at a conference being sponsored by a student group on the UBC campus. The University’s response as reported by the Globe was excellent.
More than a decade ago, UBC spoke out equally clearly when one of your wealthiest donors as well as many others demanded that Professor Sunera Thobani be fired for remarks she made as part of a conference panel in the aftermath of 9/11. Freedom of expression and academic freedom can never be taken for granted, yet are the lifeblood of academic work. It is of immeasurable importance when on of Canada’s most respected universities speaks out so clearly.
Yours sincerely,
James L. Turk
....
Are the Zionists Allergic to Research?
First, the University of Manitoba Student Union stripped the Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) from club status. Their argument was that Zionism is a national identity that represents Jewish aspirations in Palestine. To them, the activities of SAIA pose a threat to this "identity" and to Zionists. Without conducting any research regarding the validity of this claim, they concluded that it is appropriate to ban a student club that advocates for Palestinian rights and exposes Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity in Palestine.
Then, the University of Regina Student Union rescinded a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) resolution against Israel. They argued that such a resolution is detrimental to peace efforts in Palestine - as if peace is going to be attained at the University of Regina. They ignored the fact that BDS is the ultimate form of non-violent resistance (something that the West has been calling for) and that BDS does form an environment conducive to constructive debate.
Now the Zionists, with B'nai Brith at the forefront, is attempting to ban Leila Khaled from delivering a speech at upcoming Palestinian conference at UBC. They alleged that she is a "convicted terrorist" (of course they did not bother to substantiate this claim). Not only is this completely false (Leila was never convicted in a court of law), but it ignores the fact that Leila never caused any harm to any civilians.
To add insult to injury, they alleged that Leila's message can, somehow, radicalize Canadian youth and inspire them to conduct attacks similar to the Boston bombings (an attack that, till now, we know absolutely nothing about). They do not even know what Leila's message is going to be, let alone whether it is going to radicalize anybody or not.
In their statement, they said that the event is "sponsored by a university Alma Mater Society." Here I am assuming that they are referring to the Social Justice Centre (SJC) which endorsed the conference and decided that it fits within their general mandate. However, because they did not bother to do any research, they missed the fact that even though the SJC does receive its funding through (not from) the AMS, they are an autonomous group that makes decision independent of the AMS. The AMS has absolutely no connection to the conference, did not contribute to any funding and did not offer any sponsorship.
Moreover, B'nai Brith did not even bother to double check their source of information. In the same statement, they said that Leila hijacked planes for the "Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine." This "entity" does not even exist. Had they spent ten seconds to look into the validity of their information, they would have realized the organization that Leila belongs to is called the "Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)."
This lack of research is indicative of the weakness of the Zionist movement and their intellectual bankruptcy.
Resilient Reaction:
Khaled Barakat, a long time Palestinian activist and a prominent community leader in Vancouver, remarked in Arabic on his Facebook account:
ينسى هذا العنصري ان المؤتمر فلسطيني ، اولا وعاشرا ، ومن حقنا ان ندعو اليه من نريد. وينسى ان ليلى لم تقتل انسانا واحدا في حياتها بينما قيادته قتلت شعبا وشردته وتمنحها حكومة كندا طائرات خاصة وتحرم ليلى خالد " فيزا " للعبور . سوف تتحدث ليلى رغما عن انفك وانف دولتك وانف كيانك العنصري..هنا وهناك.
Translation: The racist - Frank Dimant - forgot that this conference is Palestinian, first and foremost, and we have the right to invite whoever we wish. He also forgot that Leila never killed a human being in her life whereby his leadership killed a people, and dispossessed it. A leadership that the government of Canada provides with private jets while depriving Leila from an entry visa to Canada. Leila will speak in spite of your nose, and your government's nose and your racist entity's nose - here and there.
This is the Palestinian spirit; a spirit that continues to fight despite objections and obstacles, and a spirit that refuses to compromise in order to please a racist bunch that is merely inconvenienced by a speech via Skype.
B'nai Brith's Silly Statement on Leila Khaled
Using the flimsiest of arguments, B'nai Brith Canada issued a statement denouncing the cyber-appearance of Palestinian freedom fighter Leila Khaled at the Conference for Palestinian Shatat in North America.
According to the statement, the CEO of B'nai Brith, Mark Dimant, said:
“Allowing Leila Khaled, a convicted terrorist, a platform at a UBC affiliated event is absurd. Her presence, even if only by video, adds to the real risk of students being influenced by radical ideologies, especially at a time where home-grown Canadian terrorism is a major concern."
I am not interested in debunking propaganda which maintains that Leila Khaled is a "terrorist" (whatever that means anyways). Such literature is readily available on the internet.
However, I do want to point out to the fact that this statement is offensive to the UBC community. It assumes that students at UBC are not capable of critical thinking, assessing Khaled's speech and making informed judgements.
Dimant thinks that by giving Leila Khaled a platform at UBC, students will be influenced by what he refers to as "radical ideologies" especially during the age of "home-grown Canadian terrorism," and it is the job of B'nai Brith to tell these students what and who to listen to. As if students at UBC and elsewhere in the world cannot just google her name and listen to her as much as they want. Would he suggest that we should ask the "internet" to disallow her from having a platform to speak?
Zionist Standards:
By their own standards, persons who perpetuate "radical ideologies" should be banned from speaking in Canada and university campuses. Here I am assuming that by "radical ideologies" they mean extreme, racist and destructive ideologies bent on causing indiscriminate violence against innocent civilians.
According to this standard, B'nai Brith, an organization that is openly Zionist and openly racist against Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians, should be banned and not allowed a platform in Canada. B'nai Brith should renounce their Zionist ideology, join the peace and justice camp and actively campaign against allowing Israeli war criminals to enter Canada. By their own standard, B'nai Brith should actively seek to dismantle all campus groups that actively represent the policies of the Apartheid Israeli state - these include Hillel House, the Israel Awareness (or Advocacy) Club and other groups affiliated with the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA).
By not doing so, B'nai Brith is violating its own principle.
B'nai Brith on the Defence:
B'nai Brith and other Zionist organizations in Canada are excellent in the business of denunciations. They are capable of denouncing almost everything without providing strong arguments to support their positions. They rely on myths and propaganda that have been repudiated numerous times on many fora.
Such a behaviour is indicative of the moral, political and intellectual bankruptcy that they are facing right now. With the sharp increase of websites on the Palestinian struggle against occupation, the Zionists must now find new methods to cover up for the war crimes and crimes against humanity that Israel commits on a daily basis inside Palestine.
Reviewing POLI 461 with Erin Baines and Juliane Okot Bitek
I do not normally review courses at UBC, but I felt compelled to do so this time because of the different nature of the material, message and methodology that the instructors adopted.
When I registered in the course, I was a little cynical and I explained that on the first day of the course. I expected a group of students who think that they can save the poor Black man stuck in a conflict that does not seem to have an end. I expected rhetoric that subscribes to the saviour-victim paradigm where the "White man" feels that he as a burden of saving the world from the backwardness of the Black man. This not surprising given the fact that I took courses that do promote these messages. I found myself, on numerous occasions, defending the right of indigenous populations to select the way they want to resolve their conflict. I argued with many Professors, very aggressively sometimes, about issues of labelling others are terrorists, and reducing conflicts a mere struggle between "terrorists" and "states."
Instead, the course - titled "The Ethical Witness" - was more interested in a different perspective. A perspective that maintains that we, as witnesses to the conflicts of the world, must first investigate the intricacies of the conflict, understand its background, communicate effectively and humbly with the people directly involved, report and teach others with utmost accuracy while paying attention and offer our assistance ethically and responsibly without necessarily imposing our version of a "solution."
In Uganda, you have a situation whereby an aggressive LRA is actively recruiting child soldiers by forcibly removing them from their villages at a very early age, putting a weapon in their hands, raping their beloved ones in front of their eyes, and in many cases forcing them to murder their brothers or sisters or friends to prove their allegiance. The LRA's leader, Joseph Kony, is, under international law, a war criminal; and the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant against him and other leaders of the LRA. From the perspective of those who support this type of action, Kony must be brought to justice not only because he violated the law and committed egregios violations of human rights, but to also demonstrate to other war criminals that their crimes will not pass unchecked and that there is an international body paying attention to him and his lookalikes.
Making things more complicated, this type of action does not take into consideration similar war crimes actively committed by the Ugandan government and army led by Yoweri Museveni. The primary problem with reporting on the Ugandan crisis is that, mainstream media and other "information" websites, depict Museveni as a partner in fighting the atrocities of the LRA. For example, according to Wikipedia, which is often the first to be checked when a person is interested in quickly finding information, Museveni "has brought relative stability and economic growth to a country that has endured decades of government mismanagement, rebel activity and civil war. His tenure has also witnessed one of the most effective national responses to HIV/AIDS in Africa."
I am not interested in analyzing the gross inaccuracy of this a statement here because it is beyond the scope of this review. However, it must be pointed out that such a statement ignores the complexities of the conflict and the fact that this contributes to perpetuating the false myth that he truly is a legitimate partner in the quest to attain peace and stability in Uganda. Furthermore, it sheds light on the more general topic of ethical witnessing.
Talking about ethical witnessing must take into consideration what is done to perpetuate myths and inaccuracies about the conflict in Uganda and other conflict-ridden areas. These myths assists groups like Kony2012 and its main backbone, the Fourth Estate, in promoting "lazy activism." Lazy activists, or slacktivists, are quick to see a very nicely done and funded video, and then share it on Facebook or Twitter, hit like, and move on without critically assessing the consequence of their actions. Generally speaking, lazy activists are not interested in learning more about the conflict; they are more interested in quick "information," getting a little enraged, and pretend that they somehow contributed towards a positive change in the region.
This is not exclusive to Uganda. Lazy activism is popular in Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Myanmar, and other areas in the world.
This course successfully addressed these concerns. It looked at efforts by indigenous communities in Uganda to achieve reconciliation using methods that, to us, might seem antithetical to the notions of justice that we are accustomed to - a type of justice that demands retribution and punishment instead of amnesty and forgiveness. It looked at how different forms of art can be a medium through which messages and modes of indigenous conflict resolution can be communicated. And last but not least, it investigated the issue of the "single story."
Towards the end of the course, I discovered that there are professors at UBC who are very interested in challenging norms, debunking myths and designing more creative and constructive ways of being involved in resolving conflict.
If you are a UBC student and you read my blog, then I highly encourage you to take this course.
.jpg)
