Dear Hussam, father of Ahmed, may he rest in peace,

I learned of the death of your son, Ahmed Musa, through a one-sentence newsflash on the Palestinian news station Ma’an last Tuesday: “Ahmed Musa, a young boy, was killed by a bullet of the occupying forces in Nil’in.” I was immediately overcome with shock and grief and bitter tears. And above all, that relentless feeling of powerlessness that I know too well. We Palestinians cannot protect our children from being killed. Not because they are soldiers on the battlefield, but because we cannot imprison them in our homes. They must live their lives, play outside the house, go to school. We tell ourselves that there must be in our land a safe place to protect our little ones. Should not our villages be safe? Should not the courtyards of our homes be safe? And the safest place of all—should this not be the schoolyard?

But our children are still murdered in cold blood in front of our homes, in the heart of our villages and in our schools. For on another black Tuesday a year and a half ago, soldiers of the occupation killed my own beloved ten-year-old daughter. Abir Aramin was shot in the head in front of her school in the village of Anata on January 16th, 2007. Ahmed and Abir passed on the same day of the week, at the same age; both were shot in the head by the same kind of killer: one of the Israeli border patrol guards.

The moment I heard the news of your son’s death, I found myself speaking aloud to him. “Ya Ahmed, please give my regards and my love to Abir. Your two pure souls will meet in paradise. Go in peace, beloved, do not fear for you are not alone—there are others there waiting for you. Ready to greet you are more than a thousand Palestinian children who have been killed since the year 2000. And though I hope with all my heart, Ahmed, that you will be the last victim of these legitimized Israeli war crimes, I cannot help but wonder—who will be killed next?”

We Palestinian parents—are we not fully responsible for what happens to our children? For why do we allow our children to go out into the streets in the light of day? Why do we permit them play outside the house? Why do we not only let them, but actually encourage them to go to school and be educated? And even more importantly, I place the blame our martyred children—how dare you let your heads get in the way of the Israeli sharpshooters? Let’s try to be reasonable: the soldiers of the occupation don’t really want to kill our children, it can’t be a deliberate policy of intimidation and violence—they are simply trying to help us keep our children in a safe place. And clearly they believe that the safest place for our children to be, where no one can harm them, is in their graves.

When I heard what happened to Ahmed, I was in the middle of reading a book about international human rights and the specific laws pertaining to children in times of war and armed struggle. Every Palestinian should read these laws until he knows his rights, and every Israeli should read these same laws until he understands the enormity of the criminal and fascist practices of the Israeli army against the Palestinian people.

Major General Gabi Ashkenazi, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Occupation Forces, has said that “My greatest fear is the loss of humanity [among Israeli troops] because of the ongoing warfare.” I must inform the distinguished General that he lost his humanity a long time ago. He and his army should fear for their loss of humanity, for under his leadership the Israeli army killed Ahmed Musa. And if he doesn’t care about Ahmed because he is a Palestinian, General Ashkenazi should at least be afraid that his army has lost its humanity in its treatment of Israelis as well. We have all seen how Israeli soldiers treat their own people who join us Palestinians in peaceful protest in Bil’in and Nil’in and Artash and in the Galilee and in Tulkarem. Did the General see when soldiers fired rubber bullets at Dr. Tsfiyah Shapira and her son Itamar, who were participating in a peaceful march in the village of Shufa near Tulkarem alongside many peace activists? I’m guessing that he did witness this, in fact I would guess that General Ashkenazi ordered this operation and the many others like it. Look closely, General, and you will find the source of your fear.

Hussam, Ahmed and Abir have gone to the hereafter, and I promise you that in eternity they will outlive their murderers. Our children are the epitome of innocent humanity, and their killers are the most despicable of criminals. But while such ruthless men exist as part of the occupying army, please know that there are thousands of Israelis who refuse to participate in these crimes, who are ashamed at the bloody stains that soak the uniform of the Israeli army and all those who would call its conduct moral or democratic. There are Israelis like Tsfiya and Itamar who feel it is their moral, and human, duty to stand with us.

They have killed our children, Hussam. What can we do but fight on? We will never lay down our arms. For despite the advanced military technology and deadly force that we face, it is we who posses the most dangerous weapons of all. These are the weapons of morality and justice. We will not surrender these in the face of brutality, and we will be steadfast in demanding justice for our children. Ahmed and Abir’s murderers must be judged and sentenced as criminals. Let me be clear: we do not seek revenge. Justice for our beloved, dead children will not be served by the murder of a young Israeli girl in front of her school, or by the murder of a young Israeli boy by a bullet to the head. We will refuse to mirror the violent means of the occupation. You and I, and every Palestinian, must let our morals and our humanity and the teachings of our great faith be our guides.

Yours in bereavement and steadfastness,
Bassam Aramin

Immediately, according to Haaretz, Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called for high-level talks on what kind of retribution/deterrent is appropriate for Israel to practice against Palestinians who are legal residents of Israel who perpetrate crimes against Israelis. Ehud Barak, former Prime Minister and current Defense Minister, answered promptly: house demolitions.

If politics were about poetic justice, I’d have to hand it to Mr. Barak. You take a bulldozer into our streets and kill civilians, we take a bulldozer to your home and leave your family on the street. But the person who perpetrated the attack is dead. Though three different groups have claimed responsibility for the attack, the motives of this 30-something remain unclear and he may have acted alone and without disclosing his plans. Should his wife and children and his neighbors be punished? In a democracy, a civil suit for damages may be brought against the estate of the perpetrator of a crime. This is a far cry from a bulldozer arriving at his door the following morning. The families of Yigal Amir (Rabin’s assassin) and Eden Natan Zada, two Jewish Israeli terrorists who murdered Israeli citizens, did not face home demolitions.

On my way to the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Anata in February, I heard two Palestinians in the bus with me talking about the Caterpillar bulldozer driving in front of us. “Man, I could really use one of those to help with my home renovation,” said one. “It would make the work go so much faster.” “My cousin knows a guy…” said the other.

I was startled at the light tone of this conversation, given the symbolism of the bulldozer for the Palestinian people since 1967. Today was not the first time this machine was used as an instrument of murder. A bulldozer killed Jamal Fayad of Jenin refugee camp in his home in 2002, and there are many more incidents of similar fatalities in the West Bank and Gaza. A bulldozer infamously killed Rachel Corrie, an American volunteer in Rafah in 2003.

B’Tselem and the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions document the use of bulldozers in violation of the human rights of Palestinians. House demolitions as retribution or as a deterrent are a form of collective punishment. This policy is therefore against international law, but has been used in the Occuped Palestinian Territories. The complexity of the issue of house demolitions was recently broken down for the novice by Seth Freedman in the Guardian. There have been many international calls to boycott the Caterpillar company for being complicit in the policies of an illegal occupation. Poetic justice may have become a bit too complex for the Defense Minister to handle.

The question posed by Prime Minister Olmert about Israel’s deterrence policy as it applies to East Jerusalemites, to demolish or not to demolish, brings up the much more complex issue that today’s attack has brought into high resolution: how does Israel feel about its Palestinian citizens and those whose ID cards allow them to move freely anywhere inside the Green Line?* Uncomfortable, uneasy. The phrase “fifth column” is often whispered and sometimes shouted. After I took a moment to pray for those who were injured or lost their lives today, my thoughts turned to my friends in East Jerusalem. Will they be able to go to work, to travel? Will students registered for summer camps or activities in West Jerusalem be able to attend? What additional security measures will they face? The Prime Minister of Israel today referred to the “potential terrorists” in their midst: will they be viewed with a renewed suspicion?

What happened in Jerusalem today? A nightmare. A bulldozer, the monster beneath the collective Palestinian-Israeli bed, came alive and turned on civilians. A horrific act of violence that is unjust, unpoetic. And so is the reaction of certain members of the Israeli government.

*The East Jerusalem ID and the regular Israeli ID differ slightly with regard to voting rights and international travel.

My speaking copanelist was Jens Kutcher, a young German doctoral student who was impressed at our collaboration with Zuender. He talked about his research on online fatwas and websites like Ask Imam and Islam Question and Answer.

I lectured about Mideast Youth both during a conference panel and also in an Ethics course at the university. I started by telling people that it was a lie for me to stand in front of them and represent Mideast Youth, firstly because most of us only interact online and not in person, and secondly because one person cannot hope to represent the diversity of voices we see here daily. Many people nodded their heads when I mentioned the Free Kareem campaign, and one professor from Roger Williams college said that the top administrator of his school was a huge supporter.

I have to say I learned a lot about my reasons for being committed to this site. In articulating what we are, I explained that the old paradigm of virtual/real doesn’t apply anymore; the real binary is virtual/physical. Today, “imagined communities” become real communities with real interactions online, and communities that couldn’t exist suddenly take on the shared values, practices and goals of real communities. Mideast Youth is no less real than a community group that meets together in the same space – and our activism is no less effective. In fact, because our mode of interaction is already the internet our campaigns by default virtual and viral and therefore cutting edge and in some cases very successful. Our commitment to help bloggers who experience oppression and repression signifies that we feel we have a responsibility to one another and are indeed a real community.

There were some other interesting presentations about use of the internet; Boston professor Solomon Schimmer talked about Orthodox American Jews blogging anonymously to criticize their religious establishments. Tomorrow, Sarah Whedon from UC Santa Barbara will talk about “Fundamentalist Mormon polygamous women and the internet as a site of resistance.”

I showed the Bahai rights/Egyptian tourism video, and one student asked a banal yet provocative question. “If your campaign was successful in getting the Egyptian government to allow every religious affiliation to obtain an ID card, why is the video still on Youtube? How will people know the campaign was a success?”

She does have a point. Nevertheless, people think what we are doing is cutting edge, brave, and outrageous.

פרח הערים / القدس الذهبية
Arrangement: Miriam Asnes

لأجلك يا مدينة الصلاة أصلي
لأجلك يا بهية المساكن يا زهرة المدائن
يا قدس يا قدس يا مدينة الصلاة أصلي

אויר הרים צלול כיין
וריח אורנים
נשא ברוח הערביים
עם קול פעמונים

عيوننا إليك ترحل كل يوم
تدور في أروقة المعابد
تعانق الكنائس القديمة
و تمسح الحزن عن المساجد

ובתרדמת אילן ואבן
שבויה בחלומה
העיר אשר בדד יושבת
ובליבה חומה

يا ليلة الأسراء
يا درب من مروا إلى السماء
הלא לכל שירייך אני כינור
ירושלים של זהב
ושל נחושת ושל אור
عيوننا إليك ترحل كل يوم و انني أصلي

For your sake, O city of prayer, I pray.
For your sake, O most beautiful of dwelling places,
O flower of cities
O Jerusalem
O Jerusalem
O Jerusalem O city of prayer, I pray

The mountain air is clear as wine
And the scent of pines
Is carried on the breeze of twilight
With the sound of bells.

Our eyes turn to you each day
They wander in the corridors of the temples
They embrace the ancient churches
They wipe the sadness from the mosques.

And in the slumber of tree and stone
Captured in her dream
The city that sits solitary
And in its midst is a wall.

O night of Mohammed’s ascent
O path by which they traveled to the heavens
Behold I am a violin for all your songs.
Jerusalem of gold, and of bronze, and of light
Our eyes turn to you each day
And therefore, I pray.

(cross-posted here.)

Blogs from The Daily Howler to the San Francisco Sentinel are abuzz with this “new” finding–that Obama as president would be at risk of assassination. Luttwak notes that Muslim law “prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.” The security ramifications are huge, Luttwak claims:

At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.

So, ye citizens of the Islamic world: is this alarmist writing, or a real concern? My interpretation is that this is alarmist thinking. Foreigners of all religions receive exemplary treatment in Muslim countries most of the time; the isolated incidents to the contrary that I have personal experience with involve Israeli-Palestinian politics (the few Jews left in Syria), extremist elements (the kidnapping of an international reporter), and cultural ignorance on the part of the foreigners (miniskirts in Cairo). Obama, as someone who technically converted out of Islam (his father had reportedly renounced the religion previously and did not bring up his son as a Muslim), presents a slightly more sensitive and definitely more high-profile case.

However, actions speak louder than birth circumstances. If indeed Obama is committed to a less expansionist Middle East policy, he should be welcomed with open arms Muslim or ahl-al-kitab or otherwise. At the very least, the same respect accorded other leaders is his due. The reaction of fundamentalist extremist Muslims is less clear, but isn’t it always? I can’t imagine such groups hold much love for President Bush. An American president will likely receive the same mixture of respect, adulation, contempt and outright violent sentiment regardless and his or her religious history is a footnote at best.

And now (drumroll please)…The New York Times has stepped in to set the record straight. In the front page lead article in print and for a two-page spread in the News section, reporter Andrea Elliot lets the story that we heard at MASKED reach every doorstep and kitchen table and computer screen where the newspaper is read. Debbie and her supporters, notably Alan Levine (her lawyer) and members of Communities in Support of KGIA are remarkable educators, activists and proponents of the ideals that this country supposedly stands on. I very much hope that this new wave of attention will turn into the desired, simple result: that Debbie can return to guide the school she worked so hard to make happen.

Oh yes–and we officially scooped The New York Times

“An American Ship kills an Egyptian near the Suez Canal:

“Egyptian security sources say that an American ship opened fire on an Egyptian boat in the Suez Canal, killing one Egyptian and wounding two others.”

“Further investigation reveals that a small boat came close to a ship carrying US goods in order to sell local commodities [we can assume that this is one way locals make money, bringing goods to bigger ships passing through] when the US boat opened fire. Scores of Egyptian boats gathered in a formation near the American ship in a protest demonstration demanding an investigation of the incident. But they then vacated the waters.”

The article goes on to gather information from various sources; the ship was privately owned, it’s name is the “Global Patriot” (sp) and it was on its way from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean when it opened fire.

Thanks to Khaled for the tip on this story. Crossposted at http://3asl.blogspot.com/2008/03/egyptian-killed-by-american-ship-near.html

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

In terms of acknowledging and moving beyond racial politics, this speech was a smart move. Obama moves well beyond soundbytes that will appease white voters, but not so vis-a-vis the Israel lobby. To break down the quote above, Obama implies that his view is that that “stalwart allies [of America] like Israel are not the primary cause of conflict in the Middle East; instead, these conflicts emanate from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.” Well, “conflicts in the Middle East” is not a valid category, I’ve never seen a definition of “stalwart” that includes “in defiance of international law and in violation of the freedom of movement of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza,” and I wonder how many Americans are going to get the distinction of “radical Islam” as belonging to the radicalized form of religious ideology that has “radical Judaism” and “radical Christianity” as bedfellows, not referring to Islam in general. Of course, any American role in Middle East conflict is not mentioned.

I notice that in talking about people’s religious leaders and their relationship to them, Obama says:

Did I strongly disagree with many of [Wright's] political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

It’s interesting that Obama does not add “your imam” to help people understand that his previous opening remarks about “radical Islam” do not apply to Islam in general He later says:

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

So true, so true; here’s hoping he listens to his own words. This speech is primarily an amazing precedent to a more open dialogue about race and racial politics in America; I recommend everyone listen to it who would like to learn more about this topic. I heard a lot of what I thought Americans are not ready to hear about race; here’s hoping we’ve found a candidate who, once elected, can talk to us about what we think we aren’t ready to hear about US foreign policy.

Joint Palestinian and Israeli groups are speaking out against it. So what can we do?

MidEast Youth can change the colors of the site to grey and black or add a black banner in solidarity with people in Gaza who have no reliable electricity to say, “as long as Gaza is dark, so are we” until Olmert’s government vows not to use Israel’s provision of electricity to Gaza as a “dangling carrot.” We can express outrage to our own respective governments. And we can work with an organization like Avaaz to hold a virtual “candlelight vigil” and send in pictures of ourselves (identifiable or not) with candles to be aggregated, with a note about where the candle has been lit.

(I apologize for not writing something sooner, but I have just regained internet access after a 4-day absence.)