Contrary to what the Turkish government would like you to believe, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, was not born out of thirst for baby’s blood. No, the Kurdish guerrillas in the mountains of Turkey are not all callous sociopaths who gain pleasure from terrorizing villages and kidnapping women and children. The propaganda machine, that is the Turkish state, has been hard at work since the 1970’s trying to paint the most horrific image of the Kurdish movement, and it has been relatively successful in swaying the opinions of major world powers, and a large portion of the general public.

The PKK is listed as a terrorist organization by a number of countries and international institutions, including the United States and the European Union. Since what constitutes “terrorism” has yet to be defined in international law, let’s take a look at what the word means according to Turkish law. In Article 1 of Turkey’s Anti-Terror Law (TMK), “terrorism” is defined as “any kind of act done … with the aim of changing the characteristics of the Republic as specified in the Constitution.”

Based on that description alone, one can infer that in Turkey any form of dissent can be categorized as terrorism. And when you take the racist nature of the country’s constitution into consideration, it becomes disturbingly clear that any advocacy of minority rights is severely punishable under Turkish law. This is the reason why dozens of local and international organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have called for the abolition of TMK.

Nevertheless, the US and EU stand firmly behind Turkey’s “war against terrorism”.

So what is it about the word “terrorism” that gives states license to persecute and harass without repercussion? In fact, when the term first appeared in the English language during the 18th century, it meant “systematic use of terror as policy”. Today, however, the word is vastly distorted and abused by oppressive governments to incite fear and intolerance in the populace. In recent years, we have witnessed a transformation of the term “terrorism” from denoting an instrument of governance to being synonymous with “opposition”.

It was Noam Chomsky who said “the terrorism they don’t like is called ‘terrorism’ and the terrorism they do like, because they carry it out or their allies carry it out, is called ‘counter-terrorism’”, which brings us to the Turkey-PKK issue.

Turkish intellectuals, in an effort to complicate the matter, present the conflict as a “chicken and egg” dilemma; an endlessly looping question of which came first and who is at fault. While the Turkish state cunningly uses the expression “counter-terrorism” to give the illusion that it is simply defending its sovereignty from vicious criminals who emerged suddenly to quench their thirst for destruction. But what they neglect to mention is the decades of brutal oppression and genocide that was imposed on the Kurdish population before they took to the mountains and began to fire back. It is noteworthy that when the PKK first began the armed struggle, most of its commanders and leaders had served prison sentences for pursuing civil and political rights for the Kurds within the democratic and legal boundaries of the Republic.

At this time, I’d like to pose this question to the dear reader: Who is the terrorist, the state that systematically arrests, represses, tortures and slaughters, or the disenfranchised minority who finally stands up and defends itself?

True, both parties employ violence in pursuit of political aims, but considering the scope and scale of the Turkish military and police forces – not to mention the state propaganda system – there is no way the two can be compared logically.

Perhaps even more damaging than the physical violence inflicted on Kurds in Turkey is the psychological terror. Since the country was established on false notions of cultural homogeneity and linguistic uniformity, the indigenous Kurdish population has suffered a distinctive sort of ethnic cleansing. Immediately following the formation of the Turkish Republic, the Kurdish language, along with schools, associations and publications – all manifestations of Kurdish identity – were prohibited. The term “Kurd” was banished. Turkish Army General and the country’s second president, Ismet Inonu, summarized the ideology of the new state in these terms: “Before the Turkish majority other elements have no kind of influence. At any price, we must Turkify the inhabitants of our land, and we will annihilate those who oppose.” Thus began the psychological war.

The policies and practices of devastation, depopulation and dismantlement of the Kurdish society continued into the 21st century, but these appalling facts are presented to the public under a different light. In a letter sent to his prime minister, former President Turgut Ozal suggested: “The scope of our activity in releasing press statements, leaking news, and if need be, spreading ‘disinformation’ should be increased.” This has been the government’s number one weapon in maintaining the status quo, as founder of Kurdish Institute in Paris, Kendal Nezan, explains, “Skillful and effective misinformation convinced a segment of the public that the Turkish state was in essence only defending its territorial integrity against terrorist maneuvers.” While sustaining this false appearance of virtue, Turkey has succeeded in rallying international support for its war against the Kurdish people.

Storming through neighborhoods, kicking down doors, snatching mothers and fathers away from their petrified children during late hours of the night; is this not terrorism? Perpetual arrests are standard for Kurds living in Turkey. Police regularly raid homes and offices of Kurdish individuals and organizations. Being Kurdish is all that’s necessary to fit the state’s vague depiction of a terrorist. Turkish prisons are overflowing with thousands of Kurdish activists and human rights defenders, as well as children, journalists and lawyers.

Violently attacking peaceful demonstrators; is this not terrorism? One characteristic of a democratic society is freedom of assembly, but in Turkey almost every nonviolent gathering organized by Kurds is brought to a bitter end by brutal police intervention. Time and again, peaceful protesters have been killed or severely injured by gas grenades, high pressured water cannons, rubber bullets, and – in the recent cases of Ayhan Yildirim and Murat Elibol – actual bullets.

Deliberately dropping bombs on civilian areas, killing scores of innocent children, and leaving others orphaned; using illegal chemical weapons; proudly posing for photos with mutilated corpses; continually shelling and conducting military raids during a ceasefire; are these acts not the embodiment of terrorism? And can the men and women who order and engage in such behavior not be regarded as terrorists, notwithstanding the flag under which they serve?

On the subject of terror and violence, Nelson Mandela famously stated that, “it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor.” The PKK’s “terrorism” is an easy scapegoat for Turkey, but we mustn’t let be forgotten the decades of merciless persecution the Kurdish people endured before they resorted to armed action. The Kurds have repeatedly declared that they do not wish to change the borders of Turkey. And although making it clear that their struggle is for equality and fundamental human rights for minorities within a democratic Turkey, the state continues to label Kurdish activists as “terrorists” and “separatists”. Through official propaganda, the Turkish government breeds racism, intolerance and ignorance in the populace, allowing for this vicious circle of terror to persist.

In essence, Turkey’s Anti-Terror Law is an instrument of institutionalized racism, as it gives the government consent to round up Kurdish politicians and civil servants under the fallacious pretext of wiping out terrorism. Turkey is further emboldened, not only by the west’s continuing silence in regards to atrocities committed against the Kurds, but by its willingness to provide weapons and arms under the spurious justification of “fighting terrorism”. Additionally, the international media continues to accept and regurgitate Turkey’s psychological warfare of misinformation and lies, leading to the utter criminalization of the Kurds’ legitimate struggle for basic rights and freedoms. Only after Turkey abolishes its undemocratic Anti-Terror Law and, together with its western allies, decriminalizes the legitimate demands of the Kurdish people, will a peaceful and political solution to Turkey’s most fundamental issue be possible.

The unexplained video went viral, and the US Marine Corps is supposedly launching a thorough investigation into the origins and perpetrators of the video, and released a statement saying “While we have not yet verified the origin or authenticity of this video, the actions portrayed are not consistent with our core values and are not indicative of the character of the Marines in our Corps.”

All this is fine and well from a media standpoint, but is the desecration of both the living and dead bodies of “enemy combatants” really not a core value of the United States Marines? The whole incident is reminiscent of the United State’s 2004 “publicity fiasco” when photos of US army soldiers abusing prisoners in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, where detainees were stripped naked, forced into degrading positions, scared by dogs, and a long list of other abuses, all caught on camera by the perpetrators themselves.

10 years ago today, the United States cleared the way for 20 detainees to arrive at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. Since then, 775 detainees have crossed Guantanamo’s gates, and as of January 2012, a year after President Obama promised he would have GITMO closed, 171 detainees remain behind bars there, denied their fundamental rights and subject to psychological and physical torture. 89 detainees are even cleared for release, but because of bureaucratic debate about where they should be “sent”, they remain in Guantanamo’s grasp.

But US has not limited its illegal detention and torture of detainees to Guantanamo. The US controlled Bagram prison in Afghanistan has been under suspicion since the homicide of two civilian Afghan prisoners. For the last 10 years, there have been regular reports of torture and abuse coming out of Bagram prison. Even now, as Afghan president Hamid Karzai and the US battle for control of the prison, a new investigating commission has revealed not so new continued abuses. Crowdvoice has documented articles and videos related to the past and present torture allegations, linked below.

Thrilled and captivated by the protests that have swept across the Middle East and North Africa, the United States no longer dominates media coverage about the region. And indeed good riddance. However, on this somber anniversary, with yet another piece of evidence of the dehumanizing tactics of the US military, this point must not be forgotten. The effect of US policies continues to wreak havoc on other countries and on their citizens. The human rights abuses of the US military are not exceptions to a set of “core values”; they are a systemic method of marginalizing the bodies and voices of people in the way of US policies, a marginalization that we must fight against. The suffering of Afghanistan and Iraq must not be forgotten; in fact, it must be a key part of our region’s rebirth. When strong proud voices of change from the Middle East are louder than the voices of ignorance and violence both within and outside of the Middle East, then our revolutions will be solidly on their way to success.

How to participate in the Essay Contest:

In 600 words or less, answer the question: “What does it mean to be a Kurd living in America, and how do you balance both your Kurdish and American identities?”

Submit your essay on our website!

Eligibility, and Terms and Conditions:

• Essay must be no more than 600 words
• The participant must be a current undergraduate student, or a high school senior applying to a college or university
• Essays will be checked using anti-plagiarism software and returned to us with an originality report
• Deadline for submissions is December 15
• Selections are based on the best written responses to the assigned question
• The names of the two winners will be announced at the festival
• Participants are not required to attend the festival to be chosen

Obama celebrated the killing of Gaddafi. He did not talk about Gaddafi’s cozy relationship with the US and the west for the past 8 years including torturing people for the CIA**. On several occasions, the US administration said that revenge should not be practiced yet no western leader said a word about lynching happening daily in Libya. A Libyan rebel leader told Al-Jazeera that Gaddafi came out and greeted them but was shot anyway. I spent two months in Libya (studying its fauna) and know how bad the regime was and I am certainly happy that his rule ended. Congratulations to the Libyan people. But we must be cautious. The US government considers this its first victory in getting a government moved from an erratic despotic western stooge to a government that will be (at least they hope) more reliably dominated and subjugated. My inside information tells me that they hope Syria would be next so that it will be two for two: Egypt and Tunisia changing from pro-US/Israel to perhaps a democracy (which would mean against US and Israeli interests) vs. Libya and Syria changing from unpredictable western allies to more predictable western puppets (not democracies). Let us not forget that Bashar Assad (and before him his father) and Gaddafi were not bastions of support for Arab causes. After all, both had close CIA ties and were more than happy to receive and torture prisoners captured by US forces (a process known as rendering which was never stopped under the Obama administration). The Syrian regime was also an ally with the US in the destruction of Iraq (including the genocide of over 1 million civilians).

By US/Israeli calculations, if the Yemeni or Bahraini dictator is toppled first then the score will be 3:1 and they want Syria’s dictator first. In their chess game, they are also trying to turn the loss of Tunisia and Egypt into a gain. The US and Israeli governments are meddling in Egypt and Tunisia to stop them from having governments that reflect the will of the people (including the people’s will to boycott Israel and stop helping the US/Israeli designs). I think they underestimate the Arab people. In Libya, they believe that Abdul Jalil will stay in his self appointed seat and then open the country (like Iraq) for Western oil exploits, for the US military base (closed in 1969), and establish friendly diplomatic ties with Israel (which already met with the so called national transitional council or NTC). The NTC is talking about elections “maybe in two years” (in other words after they consolidate power and money and can manipulate the system). US lawmakers in congress (prostituting themselves for their AIPAC masters) are talking about Libya and Iraq paying (financially) for their “liberation” and that they expect these countries to have friendly relation with Israel! But there are already voices within Libya and Iraq who say “enough” BS. I think the Arab spring and Arab people will surprise the (Zionist) US foreign policy makers. Democracy is coming. Stay tuned.

PS: A note to my Kurdish friends and people with contacts in Kurdish areas of Iraq and Turkey: you do have a right to freedom and self determination but please do not (continue to) accept the recently offered support of the regimes in Damascus and Tel Aviv (both regimes have no future in the new democratic Middle East).

** For examples on Gaddafi’s CIA ties see this.
(Recall Saddam Hussain’s similar CIA ties)

A Living Movement: Toward a World of Peace, Solidarity, and Justice: Joint Conference of the Peace & Justice Studies Association (PJSA) and the Gandhi King Conference. Hosted by the Christian Brothers University, Memphis, TN, October 21-23, 2011

Secret CIA/FBI files of NUMEC nuclear diversions to Israel could aid $170 million toxic cleanup [see this]

You may well ask: Why do these seemingly two unrelated news items point to the possibility of peace?

Iran’s assassination attempt underscores the threat that the current regime poses to the Sunni Arab world, and for that matter, to the world at large. It is seemingly inconceivable, in light of the threats that confront Iran’s leadership, that they would even attempt such a bold and brazen attack, against a Saudi diplomat, on U.S. soil no less. Who in their right mind would do such a thing? And yet, as the last few years clearly demonstrate, Iran’s leaders have not hesitated to finance and carry out terrorist attacks of all shapes and sizes, including the bombing of a Jewish synagogue in Argentina, with over 100 killed, as well as the murder of over 100 dissidents throughout Europe.

And as we all know, Iran makes no secret of her desire to develop nuclear weapons, and to use that umbrella, and her proxies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, to wield an even greater influence throughout the entire region. There is no doubt that at least some of Iran’s leaders wish to remake the Middle East in their image. Even if it turns out that this plot was perpetrated by a rogue faction, still: Would you want a rogue faction to have its finger on a nuclear trigger? Is that a risk we can afford to take?

It would be natural, therefore, for Saudi officials to be quite worried about Iranian intentions, especially considering the historical enmity between Shiites and Sunnis, the acts of terrorism sponsored by Iran, the attempt to become a nuclear power, and the recent attempted assassination of the Saudi Ambassador. Taken as a whole, the assassination attempt is just further confirmation of Iran’s intent to take charge, and of her willingness to use extra-ordinary means to do so.

So why does this point to the possibility of peace? Because as Saudi looks around, and searches for a way to keep Iranian designs in check, she may have no choice but to look to Israel and the U.S., because only they have the wherewithal to accomplish such a mission, and the self-interest to do so. And therefore, a strategic alliance between Saudi, the Sunni Arabs, Israel and the U.S. may soon be in the offing. And what will be the price for such an arrangement? That is easy enough to fathom; assistance in closing the deal on peace between Israel and Palestine, and leveraging that into an overall understanding between Israel and the Arab world.

The second hint that peace may be in the offing is Hamas’ apparent willingness to release Gilad Shalit in exchange for Israel’s release of over 1000 Palestinian prisoners, 300 of whom are serving life sentences. Why does this prisoner swap bode well for peace, you may well ask. And the answer is quite simple. Because it shows, in a rather perverse way, that Israel and Hamas can cut a deal, even though both are sworn to each other’s destruction, and have vowed never to negotiate with one another. Still, somehow, a deal was cut, and if that deal could be cut, it follows that other deals could be cut as well.

Ask yourself a simple question: Why did Hamas cut this deal? Because it wants to look good in the eyes of the people, and bringing home 1000 Palestinian prisoners looks good. Well, what if the people begin demanding jobs and a greater measure of freedom, which they are? What then? Is it just possible that if Hamas needs to deliver on jobs and freedom, that it too will look to Israel and the U.S. to help in this regard, because in reality, they are best able to do so? And if that is the case, what will be the price that Hamas has to pay? Well, that too is easy to fathom…peace! Nothing more, and nothing less.

      So in the end, when push comes to shove, peace may be possible, not because people love one another, God forbid, or because they want a better world for their children, or because they believe in the sanctity of life. No, none of that crap. Peace may come one day because as we face some very common existential threats, we may finally come to realize that we actually need one another, for a change, to stave off these threats, and to save our very own necks.

Please visit us at www.sellingavisionofhope.org

BDS Success 1: 218 signed the call for a Swedish academic boycott of Israel

Action Group at KTH for Boycott of Israel

Coordinating Committee of BDS Sweden

BDS Success 2: Ahava finally closes its doors in London.

Cosmetics company Ahava is finally to close its controversial Covent Garden store this week, and manager Odelia Haroush said that the company had no plans to move elsewhere in the city, at least for the foreseeable future. Demonstrations by pro-Palestinian activists have dogged the store for years. Protesters claim the products sold in the store are manufactured in a factory in Mitzpe Shalom, an Israeli settlement. [Link]

From “If Americans Knew”: Ethnic cleansing has been an integral part of the Palestinian tragedy from the earliest days of the Partition of Palestine and the creation of Israel. October marks the anniversaries of 10 massacres of Palestinian villagers in 1948, as well as a massacre carried out by a unit led by Ariel Sharon in 1953 and another in 1956 in which Israeli border police killed 48, including 6 women (one of them pregnant) and 23 children aged 8–17. To commemorate these dates, we ask you to help fight the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by sharing the booklet “Palestinian Right to Return and Repatriation,” by Mazin Qumsiyeh, which details the plight of Palestinian refugees and lists the many massacres Palestinians suffered during the creation of Israel. Please order copies to give out to your neighbors, friends, coworkers or strangers, on your campuses, in your congregations, on the street, at a public event or at a private gathering. [Link]

Riding on the heels of his latest album release, “difrent,” Stephan Said has been keeping busy with a project of the same name which aims to erase the borders that separate us with the power of music. His vision, in everything that he does, is to unite people under the common desire for peace; not just the older generations which most cater to. He wants to showcase and, at the same time, inspire the youth of the world. To give them the incentive to continue speaking out with music as their guide to a better world for all. His journey in music, starting in early childhood years, led eventually to a reconiclation with his own bi-racial heritage and that inner peace fuels every action that he has taken since. Difrent, the album and project, are a direct palpale manifestation of that. It is a movement as powerful as humanity’s capacity for empathy, something that I feel is the core of music itself. With that said, I thorougly enjoyed the experience of getting to know him a bit more on a personal level and I hope that you do too while you listen in on this interview. Podcast posted at the bottom of the post. Enjoy!

Recently, Stephan has been partaking in the Wallstreet protests which you can check out live footage of here:

Over the years, different people the world over embraced different interpretations of “freedom.”

Janice Joplin used to sing of freedom as “…nothing left to lose.” Is that what it means to be free? Or is that the state of mind that is needed to put everything on the line, and to venture forth in search of freedom?

The framers of the U.S. Constitution thought of freedom as conferring certain inalienable rights to the citizenry, such as freedom of religion, speech, a free press, free assembly, and free association.

On January 6, 1941, President Roosevelt spoke of the four fundamental freedoms that people “everywhere in the world” are entitled to: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear.

However you define it, the notion of freedom has captured hearts and minds of people in all four corners of the world. And still somehow, it is often difficult to define what exactly it means to be free. Yet we realize, as we fight for freedom, that it is important to understand what it is to be free, so that at the end of the day, we know what it is we’re looking for, and recognize what it is when we finally find it.

Certainly there is a role for government to play in assuring to their people the basic right of freedom. Liberty is enhanced to the extent that governments undo the shackles of oppressive rule, external control, interference, regulation, etc. Freedom also grows as a person comes to believe that he is the master of his destiny and that he can make the decisions to chart his course in life, without excessive and unreasonable interference from government. And of course, freedom connotes a fundamental respect for human life, and the protection of a person’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

However, just as government can play its role, the individual himself has a role to play as well, in fighting for and sustaining a sense of personal freedom. It could well be argued that the greatest freedom of all is the freedom to think. Rene Descartes famously said, “I think, therefore I am.” Inherent in the human condition, and our existence as free human beings, is our ability to think, and I would add, our ability to think clearly, with common sense and personal dignity, unhampered by the biases, suspicions, prejudices and superstitions which are thrust upon us, at an early age, by the societies we find ourselves.

As we search for freedom in such diverse places as the Middle East, or the Far East, or the West, or wherever the need arises; if it is really freedom we’re after, and if we dare to be true to ourselves, then we have no choice but to let go of past prejudices and wrong-headed thinking, in favor of what makes sense, and what promises hope for the future.

Our challenge, as freedom fighters, is not an easy one. All too often, we are called upon to put everything on the line, in hope of finding something that may never be found. But perhaps the greatest challenge of all, as we seek our freedom, and the freedom of others, is to break the chains that bind us to the thinking of the past, and that keep us imprisoned in the psychological cages that we have built for ourselves. If we find the courage and the wisdom to break these chains of the mind, then, and only then, will we shine the light on the path to freedom.

Please join us, with your comments, at www.sellingavisionofhope.org

The Taliban were not exactly a friendly bunch when they ran things in Afghanistan. They made life difficult for the people with their distorted version of Islam. They kept women covered up and hidden away in the shadows. And they allowed al Qaeda to recruit and train in preparation for 9/11.

The consequences of the terror attack ran deep and have changed the course of human destiny forever. Three-thousand innocent civilians were murdered, and things would never be the same. A War On Terror was launched. Regime change was undertaken in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in recent months, perhaps as an indirect consequence, the Arab Spring has taken hold in the Middle East, bringing with it the prospect of regime change throughout the region, in response to a call by the people for freedom and jobs.

Yet still somehow there is little that has been resolved in the Middle East, even ten years since the towers of the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And there are few prospects, at this point in time, that the hopes and aspirations of the Arab Spring will bear fruit. We can see, lurking in the shadows, all sorts of shady characters who remain poised to pounce on the opportunity to assume the reins of power, and to impose on the people their lopsided versions of right and wrong.

9/11 was a defining moment in American history, but what did it mean? The Arab Spring is a defining moment in Middle East history, but where will it lead? Will the hopes and aspirations of the people be realized? Or will the War On Terror and the Arab Spring be footnotes in the annals of history; cast aside as missed opportunities to bring about real change?

In order for 9/11 and the Arab Spring to achieve the measure of meaning they deserve, we need to raise the fight on the ground, against terror and against oppression, to a higher moral plane, by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose. We need to make sense of it all, for it to make a difference in the day to day lives of everyday people. To bring moral clarity to the confusion of our time, we must embrace a vision that makes sense, and that inspires in people a sense of hope. And then we must find the courage to give substance to the vision and make it real.

 The vision for our time is, and must be, a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom. It is a vision that makes sense of the wars that we are waging, and that inspires in us the belief that things can get better, if people of good will, people like us, choose to make it so. Positioned in the proper context, our struggles assume a greater sense of purpose. We are not fighting a “War on Terror.” We are fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope, a vision of Peace, Prosperity and Freedom. There’s a big difference. We are not fighting to kill Gadhafi, or to execute Mubarak. We are fighting to bless our people with the dignity that comes from decent jobs and personal freedoms.

To bring justice to those who lost their lives on 9/11 and in the Arab Spring, build 100 Green Industrial Zones throughout the region, using Arab capital, along with Arab, Israeli and American knowhow. Create jobs that grow our economies, that protect the environment, and that help to weaken the hold of extremist thinking. Use state-of-the-art green technology to address the environmental issues of the region such as clean water, food production, green energy and healthcare. Show that the lives lost, and the battles waged, served a greater purpose, a purpose that inspires a sense of hope in things to come.

The tenth anniversary of 9/11 is a time to reflect and to remember. As we remember those who lost their lives in such a brutal fashion, let us also reflect on how best to do justice to the sanctity of those precious lives, by embracing a Vision of Hope, and giving substance to that vision with changes which will inspire in people a sense of hope for the future, and a belief that their struggles will not have been in vain.

Please visit us, with your comments, at www.sellingavisionofhope.org

September brings back memories of atrocities ranging from the massacres of Palestinians in Jordan September 1970, to the CIA’s involvement in the coup that installed General Pinochet in Chile (9/11/73), to the massacre of Sabra and Shatila on 15 September 1982, and to the attacks of 11 September 2001 on the US (my second home). These tragedies are demonstrably intertwined beyond the coincidences of date and they each claimed the lives of hundreds of civilian victims. I was with my late father during the first two of these four events and his pain at hearing and seeing the news of these events on TV remains etched in my memory. In Mid September 1970 and after some Palestinian groups acted in ways that threatened his Hashemite rule in Jordan, King Hussain declared martial law and sent his tanks to the refugee camps. Routing the PLO out of Jordan meant “collateral damage” (the term Israel and the US use) of massacres of hundreds of Palestinians. Horrific stories of atrocities are recorded. Two years later, a CIA-led coup d’état against the democratically elected socialist government of Salvador Allende succeeded to place a right-wing dictator by the name of Pinochet in power. It was on September 11, 1973, that the government was toppled and Allende was assassinated. The US-supported reign of terror that followed against the Chilean people left thousands of murdered. Thousands were tortured and thousands disappeared.

Ten years later, the US-supported Israeli army invaded Lebanon June 1982 to route the PLO out of Lebanon. The invading army pounded cities and refugee camps and killed thousands of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. Under a deal arranged by Israel’s patrons in Washington, the PLO was forced out of Lebanon on 1 Sept. 1982 in exchange for promises that refugees would not be harmed. US promises were not kept and Israel was given US weapons and diplomatic cover to commit further acts of violence. A ruthless General known to Israelis as the bulldozer (because nothing stood in his way) commanded Israel’s invading army. On 11 September 1982 he announced that the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila had 2000 “terrorists” and unleashed mercenaries to do his ghastly deed. The 150 Phalangist killers who went into the camps on September 15 not only received Israeli salaries and weapons but a direct Green light (the camp was surrounded by Israeli soldiers, and Israeli floodlights allowed continuation of the massacre throughout the night). For 40 hours straight, women were machine-gunned, children’s throats were slit, and elderly men were hacked to death. Estimates of the number of victims ranged from 750 (Israeli figure) to 2500 (Red Cross figure).

I was living near New York on 11 September 2001. The horror was felt first because for many of us, friends and relatives were in New York City and we were very worried for them and for the country as a whole. The attacks also killed many Arabs and Muslims. Immediately, the Zionist strategy was developed and implemented to blame Arabs and Muslims and use the attacks to bolster Israeli colonial activities. Some 2000 Palestinian civilians were killed by Israeli forces in the two years that followed the attack (and the Palestinian groups killed over 500 Israelis in retaliation). Later, the commission of inquiry into the events hid many facts; the most important of which is what any crime investigator asks about– the real motive of the crime. US policy in support of apartheid Israel was (and to a large extent continues to be) a taboo subject. But the official attempts to stifle discussion and force the US public to be consumers rather than citizens largely failed. (Bush’s speech after the events told citizens to simply go shopping and leave things to him and his government). People actually had a gut feeling that there are things they are not being told and they looked for sources of information.

Our activism before 2001 for Palestinian human rights meant that we were in the spotlight (both in the negative and positive sense) after the attacks. Just in the six months after the horrific attacks, I gave over 40 lectures and interviewed and appeared in media over 50 times. More than any other time in my life in the US, I experienced directly both the goodness of the US public and the treachery and meanness of those who only cared for Israel. In my upcoming book about my life in the US, I devote some pages to describe these things. Both the kindness and curiosity of average US citizens and the attacks carried on us by those in the political Zionist camp. We were subjected to email spams, computer hacking, mail fraud, FBI investigations that came from Zionist sources, physical and verbal attacks, and to deluge of letters calling us names (from terrorists to anti-Semites) sent to media, politicians, and even our academic colleagues. Not only did we weather that but we got strengthened in our resolve and much of it backfired on the aggressors and gained us even more sympathy among the American public.

Here we are 10 years after 11 September 2001 and we still have choices. Thanks to US/Israeli miscalculations and stupidity, Iran is stronger than ever as a regional power. The dictatorial governments of the friends of Israel are toppled by popular revolt (Egypt, Tunisia) or about to be toppled (Yemen). Others in the so-called “moderate” camp have been weakened or had to reassess their positions (Jordan, the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah). And while the US policy tried to balance things by working to remove dictators who are less friendly to it (Gaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria), the outcome is far from certain (and people there may still get to decide).

But there are also other changes related to the stupidity of US/Israeli policies after 11 September 2001. Israeli forces executed nine Turkish citizens (one of them also US citizen) in a humanitarian ship in international waters and Israel refused to apologize. Turkey now expelled the Zionist ambassador and cut trade and military ties with Israel. Egyptian activists managed to enter the Israeli Embassy in Cairo and the staff had to flee with the ambassador on his way to Tel Aviv. The carrot and stick approach with the Palestinian authority was used successfully in the past to force compliance with US and Israeli demands. Now it seems to have begun to fail. David Hale and Tony Blair failed to get their way as spokespersons for Israeli policy to force a retreat in the issue of going to the UN to recognize a Palestinian state in the 22% of historic Palestine that was occupied in 1967. They are now trying to get a language that abrogates Palestinian rights (especially the right of return).

Thus, at the 10th anniversary of the attacks on 9/11, questions abound about how Israel and neocons took US policy in the past 10 years in directions that strengthened adversaries, promoted war, wrecked the American economy, and destroyed the sympathy and solidarity shown by people around the world to the US. Ten years after September 11, 2001, we still have the choice of continuing the same policies that lead to war and conflict or to insist on human rights and hold violators accountable.

On this sad anniversary, the US government can no longer afford to remain a vassal and occupied country whose congress stands obediently to applause a war criminal like Netanyahu. People shake their heads as they see 81 US Congressmen and Congresswomen take a propaganda trip to Israel during their August recess instead of spending the time dealing with the economic destruction in their own districts caused in part by the lobby that paid for their trip. People wonder how a proud country like the US could allow Israel to get away with attacking a US ship in international waters killing 28 US servicemen. How could this government then appoint lobbyists for Israel as US ambassadors to Israel (e.g. Martin Indyk) and US envoys to the Middle East (e.g. Dennis Ross)? Is it any wonder that we now learn that previous US Secretary of Defense Bill Gates had big differences on issues of policy? Many US officials now speak out while still in office not just after they leave office. It is urgent and critical.

On this sad anniversary, there are a lot of “what if” scenarios being discussed and healthy reflections around the world. For example, what if the US and Israel obeyed international law? What if we did not illegally invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan? What if Israel was forced to comply with UN resolutions on withdrawal from illegally occupied areas and forced to allow the ethnically-cleansed Palestinians to return to their homes and lands? In short what if we did not send the message that might makes right but rather that rights make things right? Would that not have been the most rational response to extremists whether they are wearing Turbans or wearing Kippas or wearing crosses?