Hana Ahmad Eid Abu Me’tiq (3 year)
Rudeina Ahmad Eid Abu Me’tiq (4 year)
Saleh Ahmad Eid Abu Me’tiq (5 year)
And may the media apologists open their shameful eyes and atone for their own criminal complicity.
"Armed resistance to occupation is legitimate and legal under international law, under the strict condition that it does not target civilians. But as someone who truly believes in the sanctity of human life, and as a doctor who always puts human life first, I have an inherent belief that non-violence is a fundamental philosophical choice.Barghouthi also makes this salient point about the selective presentation of Palestinian resistance by the media - usually labelled 'militant' and 'extremist' activity, rather than 'resistance' - and the multiple other ways in which resistance can be effectively expressed:
Besides this, in a more practical way, I think that armed resistance is a narrow and elitist approach, involving only a select few and leaving the rest of the people out. And it is based on the assumption that armed force is the only force that exists in the world."
"This choice may seem utopian after sixty years of conflict and so much violence and bloodshed. But this is only an appearance, because the media only reports on acts of violence, creating the misleading impression that violence prevails. This is exacerbated by the dominant Israeli narrative which consistently portrays Palestinians as aggressors and not as a people under occupation struggling for freedom, justice and independence.In seeking justice and peace for the Palestinians, it's helpful, if difficult in these dark times, to see that any 'happy resolution' of their suffering will more likely come about through non-violent resistance. As the peaceful mass protests in Gaza and recent 'breakout' through Rafah show, it is, quite simply, the most powerful and attention-building form. Moreover, as Israel's dismissal of Hamas's genuine truce shows, this kind of resistance is the most alarming for the oppressor, for it completely undercuts their own false claims of peaceful intent, revealing themselves to the world as wolves in sheep's clothing.
In truth, Palestinians are masters of non-violence. They have been resisting the all-pervasive violence of a forty-one year old military occupation every day since it began. Forty-one years of resilience, of silent and stubborn efforts to live a normal life, to work, to raise children, to love and to exist, simply to exist, despite the hundreds of checkpoints, the incursions, the arrests, the killings, the house demolitions, the land dispossession, the discriminatory laws, the arbitrary and unjust actions of the Israeli military.
In such a situation building a school, choosing to become a doctor, cultivating your ancestral olive grove are all acts of resistance."
"The production also lacks political courage. The overwhelming tenor of the piece (not least in the emails which a senior Black Watch officer sends home to his wife) is one of criticism of the politicians who ordered the Iraq War, but something dangerously close to glorification where the imperial history of the Black Watch regiment is concerned.Which, with that reminder of Britain's own dark deeds in Palestine, returns us to the real purpose of Israel's current terror and serial execution of children.
The famous "uniforms" scene (in which a soldier takes us on a tour of Black Watch deployments past) sanitises the dirty business of colonialism. If the play's international engagements had included Nairobi and Ramallah (where people remember the brutal events in which the Black Watch were involved), I suspect it would have received a less fulsome welcome than was the case in New York and Sydney."
"The atrocity at Deir Yassin is reflective of what happened elsewhere. Israeli historian Ilan Pappe has meticulously recorded 31 massacres, from December 1947 to January 1949. They attest to a systematic reign of terror, conducted to induce the flight of Palestinians from the land of their birth. As a result, nearly all Palestinian towns were rapidly depopulated and 418 villages were systematically destroyed.Meanwhile, a who's who of war criminals, corporate tyrants and celebrity apologists will be flown in to mark Zionism's big birthday bash next month:
Israel will soon mark the 60th anniversary of its establishment. In so doing, Israelis and the Zionist supporters would do well to acknowledge the reasons why, for Palestinians and freedom-loving people throughout the world, there will be no cause to celebrate. Indeed, it will be a period of mourning and protest action; a time to recall the countless victims that lie in Israel's wake, as epitomized by the suffering inflicted on the inhabitants of Deir Yassin, the original site of which is ironically located just a stone's throw away from where the present day Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, was built."
"Shimon Peres, Israel President Shimon Peres is bringing in top personalities from around the world to celebrate Israel's 60th birthday. United States President George W. Bush, Barbra Streisand, Tony Blair, Mikhail Gorbachev and Rupert Murdoch are among those expected to attend a May conference focusing on Jewish and Israeli contributions to humanity....The list of confirmed guests also includes Henry Kissinger, Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, former Czech President Vaclev Havel, Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz, Google founder Sergey Brinn, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerman, Ratan Tata, chairman of India's Tata group, U.S. billionaire Sheldon Adelson, and Abdurrahman Wahid, former president of Indonesia, a country with no diplomatic relations with Israel." (Associated Press, 9 April 2008.)While Bush, Blair and Kissinger pose with Olmert for the hall of infamy, statisticians can, at least, use the gruesome spectacle to number-crunch the millions who have perished through their collective war crimes.
"The Foreign Ministry said Tuesday that it will not allow the United Nations official appointed to investigate Israeli-Palestinian human rights to enter the country, after he stood by comments comparing Israelis to Nazis. Richard Falk is scheduled to take up his post with the UN Human Rights Council in May, but the Foreign Ministry said it will deny Falk a visa to enter Israel, Gaza and the West Bank". The Foreign Ministry spokesperson called Falk's comments "unacceptable and, in fact, a little strange." "To compare Israel to the Nazis is not just a total falsehood, it's also a personal insult to everybody," he said, adding that the choice of Falk is indicative of the Human Rights Council's negative attitude toward Israel."(AP, 9 April 2008.)One might more reasonably suggest that Israel's own descent into Nazi-type barbarism is the real historic insult to the six million murdered Jews. The other uncomfortable fact here for Israel is that Falk says this not only as an esteemed academic but as a Jew himself, adding massive empirical and emotional weight to the claim.
"Hamas and the recognition of Israel
Posted by Sonmiani on April 1, 2008
The following is a copy of Helen Boaden's reply to an e-mail I sent her following up John Hilley's correspondence with her concerning the BBC's repeated misrepresentation of Hamas not being prepared to recognise the State of Israel:
The quotes attributed to Khaled Meshaal, may indeed be a straw in the wind, but they are strikingly similar to comments by previous leaders which have not led to any change in the organization's stance and they do not, per se, seem to indicate formal recognition of Israel.
For example, on 17 June 2003, Abdul Aziz alRantissi gave an interview to the English language Israeli newspaper Haaretz in which he suggested that a 'long term truce' could be possible without recognition of Israel: "'No one can guarantee that Hamas will be able to bring about tha land's liberation within 100 or 200 years. Without dramatic changes in the region, it will be impossible. We can't tell our people to continue in an unequal struggle But we also can't tell them to give in.'
This led Rantissi to a view that has hitherto been associated with those defined as the movement's "moderates" - if Israel would withdraw from all the land it captured in 1967, dismantle all the settlements and enable an independent Palestinian state, 'there will be an end to the struggle, in the form of a long-term truce.'"
But the signals from Hamas are not, and have never been, unambiguous. For example, in December 2002, Sheik Yassin predicted Israel's destruction by the year 2025 (see BBC News Online, 6 June 2003).
Since forming the government, Hamas has been under intense international pressure to recognise the state of Israel. The international community, led by the Quartet (the US, UN, EU and Russia) issued the Hamas government with three obligations - to renounce violence, recognise Israel and recognise all past agreements with Israel. Hamas certainly appeared to accept the vision of a Palestinian state based on the territories occupied since 1967 in a 'National Conciliation Document' agreed in June 2006. But it has not fulfilled the other demands made upon it, nor indeed renounced its charter which, for example, declares that the "liberation (of Palestine) is an individual duty, binding on every Muslim wherever he may be."
pp Helen Boaden Director,
"Clearly she has missed the vital point about the timing of recognition, which Hamas has made clear must be dependent upon negotiations, and she has made no mention of the UN's recognition of the right of an occupied people to resist their occupiers, or, consistent with all BBC reporting on this subject, of Israel's far greater use of violence. Furthermore, her claim that Hamas' stated position (that it is prepared to recognise Israel subject to conditions) is ambiguous is not the point. The BBC consistently fails to report the position - indeed misrepresents it as being opposite to that stated, irrespective of any ambiguity."Indeed. These replies seem determined to demonise Hamas as an unambiguous enemy of peace. There's a similar blanket refusal to countenance the idea that Hamas might be reluctant to 'recognise' - in Israel's and the West's demanding use of the term - a state engaged in the ethnic cleansing and continuing oppression of the Palestinian people.
"are increasingly convinced that the Charter as a whole has been more of a hindrance than a help. Many would admit that insufficient thought went into the drafting and publication of the Charter. Once it had been drafted, Hamas institutions inside and outside Palestine were never adequately consulted over its content. According to Khalid Mish'al [head of the Hamas political bureau] the Charter was rushed out to meet what was perceived at the time as a pressing need to introduce the newly founded movement to the public. Mish'al does not view it as a true expression of the movement's overall vision...He sees the Charter as a historical document, which gives an insight into Hamas's original philosophy at the time of its establishment. However, it 'should not be regarded as the fundamental ideological frame of reference from which the movement derives its positions, or on the basis of which it justifies its actions.' " (pp 148-149)None of this more complex and revealing picture can be detected anywhere in the BBC's version of the Hamas 'worldview'.
"Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal said that his movement supports the united Palestinian position that calls for the establishment of a fully sovereign state within the 1967 borders, including Jerusalem, and refugees’ right to return.(Also carried by Haaretz.)
In an interview published yesterday in Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam, Meshaal referred to the 2006 prisoners’ document as proof of this. “There is a Palestinian document and in it all organizations say they agree to a state in the 1967 borders.”
The prisoners’ document, also known as the National Reconciliation Document, was drafted by members of different Palestinian factions held in an Israeli prison, including Fatah and Hamas. It calls for the “establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital on all territories occupied in 1967.”
The Damascus-based leader said the Palestinian position had received a vote of consensus during the national accords of 2006 and that this position is considered acceptable to the Arab world. He called on ordinary Israelis to pressure on their government to stop aggression against the Palestinians in light of this document."
"Someone said 'football is more important than life and death to you' and I said 'Listen, it's more important than that'."The Kop legend's quip is still treasured for its witty profundity. In truth, it was a crude absurdity.
"As a licence payer, I am requesting a formal review of the terms used in this and other such reports.""Licence payer"? Shouldn't that be "As a human being, I am requesting..." or, perhaps, in more existential mood, "As a person of conscience I am..."?
"As one of your parliamentary constituents, please could you explain your support for allowing deadly armaments destined to murder innocent civilians in (select from long list of countries) through UK airports."In contrast, the "as a Guardian reader" line of complaint presupposes a prior importance of our consumer ethics rather than any more fundamental ethical responsibility over our fellow human beings' oppression.
"Except it did not quite happen that way. Instead of being a huge step forward against global terrorism, Iraq has turned out to be the worst diplomatic disaster of modern times."
"I cannot think of a more sorry episode, or one that has caused so much international mayhem or so profoundly dented Britain's reputation."
"Even the military campaign did not live up to its billing. The 'shock and awe' aerial bombardment proved air power can only achieve so much."And so the 'painful' reflecting and selecting goes on, from using Iraq Body Count's false "80,000" civilian death figure (rather than the Lancet's and ORB's million-plus fatalities) to the "of course, there have been some gains" line in queasy apologetics for 'Our Great Mistaken Adventure'.