You’re Also Right

Sagi Melamed

There is a well-known story about a rabbi who was called upon to settle a dispute between two of his followers.  The first man poured out his complaints to the rabbi, and when he finished, the rabbi said, “You’re right.”  Then it was the second one’s turn.  When he finished, the rabbi said, “You’re also right.”  The rabbi’s wife, who had been listening to the conversation, said incredulously to her husband, “What do you mean, ‘You’re also right’? They can’t both be right!”  The rabbi thought for a few moments, and then replied, “You know, my dear, you’re also right.”

If an alien were to land in our general vicinity, his response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would probably be like that of the rabbi in the story: You’re both right.

The Palestinian people are right when they expect and demand independence.  The Palestinian father is right to long for a life in which he can sleep safe at home without fearing a midnight pounding on his door.  The Palestinian woman is right to want to go from place to place without having to go through security checkpoints or risk arrest.

The Jewish people were also right when they returned to their homeland after a 2,000 year exile, establishing their own national home.  Jews are right to fear hatred and persecution, right to believe that only by relying on their own resources, can they prevent the nightmare of another Holocaust.  Jews are right to state that they entitled to all they have achieved through their own efforts.  The Jewish people are correct when they point out that the world has totally unreasonable expectations of them, expectations that are never imposed on any other people.  And they are also right to fear that if they give away some of their land today, then tomorrow the Palestinians might demand it all.

Friends and neighbors may say, “Why do you, the grandson of a refugee from Germany, offspring of kibbutz founders, army officer, and member of a religious community in the Galilee, feel the need to justify the position of our enemies?”  I reply, “I don’t have to justify anything, but I do have to understand.”  It is not hard to find untruths, gross exaggerations and significant holes in the Palestinian version of the conflict.  But even the most extreme among us cannot deny that Palestinians lack freedom, live in very difficult conditions, declare themselves to be a people and are hungry for independence.

In the 90s I believed, along with many others, that we could find a way to live side-by-side.  We had the feeling that it was beginning to happen, that it would come to pass soon.  I remember that I was even somewhat concerned, during my MA studies in Boston, that peace would break out before I could return to Israel.  What would we only give to be able to have such concerns nowadays! 

The speeches of Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas at the UN General Assembly might have been the last nails in the coffin of the dream of living side-by-side – if not actually in peace, then at least living without war.  But this does not seem possible any time in the foreseeable future.  Both speeches focused on why I am right/fearful/angry/threatened and why the other side is threatening/thieving/untrustworthy.  From their own perspectives, they were both right.  And with “right” like that, who needs “wrong”?

Sagi Melamed lives with his family in the community of Hoshaya in the Galilee.  He serves as Vice President of External Affairs at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College, and as Chief Instructor (4^th Dan) of the Hoshaya Karate Club.  Sagi received his Masters degree from Harvard University in Middle Eastern Studies with a specialty in Conflict Resolution. He can be contacted at: melamed.sagi@gmail.com. 

September 2011

When Ismail Sidqi pasha refused that Egypt would get-in the war of 1948, he wasn’t a traitor to Egypt or loving Israel. All about it is that Ismail Sidqi was responsible for an economic renaissance in Egypt; he was the one to develop Alexandria and its beaches… The man feared that the war would destroy all the economic steps which Egypt took in the past years preceding the war.

But, Ismail Sidqi didn’t continue on his stance, El-Wafd party took a populist stance and went with the flow, supporting the war decision. Ismail Sidqi felt as a politician that he would lose people if he kept his stance, so he withdrew and supported the war, preferring popularity between the people over the interest of Egypt.

We are all subjected to Ismail Sidqi’s situation and we are required to to ask many questions, such as: Is this war in the interest of Egypt? Are we obliged to get involved into the war? Would we choose between the interest of Egypt and our desire to go with the flow along with the crowds to achieve personal political gains? This article discusses these barbed questions.

Firstly: Peace and Democracy
We all know that Egypt had a democratic parliamentary life till the coup d’état of 1952, and since this coup till this moment, we suffer from a totalitarian bloody militarist rule. But, we have to ask ourselves: Why did a coup happen? Does that have a relation with the case of peace and war?

The historical sequencing of events… Egypt entered a war in 1948 despite it wasn’t qualified to fight Israel from the side of development of weapons and efficiency of combatants, so this war changed two important elements:
1- Egypt’s commitment to the treaty of 1936 concerning to the evacuation of the British of Egypt. The treaty included the emergence of the British army after 20 years (in 1956) on a condition that the Egyptian army be advanced and able to defend Egypt. The palace deliberately intended to plunge Egypt to the war, from one hand for king Farouk’s desire for becoming a caliph of Muslims and on another hand, to destroy the Egyptian army, therefore to disable the evacuation process. That exactly what happened, after the defeat of the Egyptian army in the war, the weakness of the Egyptian army appeared to everyone, everything which was already built inside the army was destroyed, therefore, Egypt lagged what it pledged in the treaty of 1936, therefore, the evacuation won’t be on its time… That resulted dangerous political complications, most importantly the cancelation of the treaty of 1936, cutting-off of the diplomatic solution to solve the conflict, which paved the ground for a coup d’état solution to the evacuation issue. The war occurred on the way of Egypt independence.

2- The Egyptian soldiers were subjected to a huge defeat in the war of 1948, the toughest of it was the fall of many Egyptian soldiers under the siege of the Israeli army, the Egyptian soldiers became under the mercy of the Israelis who allowed the passage of food to them in order not to die of hunger. Then, in February 1949, Egypt was compelled to sign the armistice agreement with Israel in order to be able to get back its besieged soldiers. Those soldiers came back to Egypt in shame and dishonor (Gamal Abdel Nasser was personally of them), they went to a war and strongly lost it and were besieged, because of them Egypt was compelled to sign an armistice agreement with Israel to get them back.

In order for those soldiers to take away their shame of themselves, they created the lie of the corrupt weapons, despite the nonexistence of any proof on it. When the judiciary investigated in these rumors and proved their falsehood, they accused the regime of corruption. They didn’t have the courage to admit that the war was lost because of their failure. Starting from here, the claims to cleaning the army began, so the movement of the soldiers happened, which was at its beginning (as the statement of Muhammad Naguib) a movement of military soldiers aiming at cleaning the army, then the army would move back to its barracks. But, after the soldiers found themselves in control of everything, they didn’t abandon the authority, despite that the revolution court proved the nonexistence of any corrupt weapons in the war of 1948 which was the rumor that the coup d’état happened for.

We lost democracy and we suffered from oppression for 60 years, we were obliged to make the 25 January revolution, all of that because of a rumor or the soldiers shy of their defeat in the war of 1948. If we hadn’t entered the war, there wouldn’t had been the defeat and there would had been the rumor, there would had been the coup d’état and we would have been now celebrating 90 years of parliamentary democracy in Egypt. The relationship between peace and democracy is very strong. War opens the door for internal tyranny under the slogans “military secrets, the homeland interest, national security, no voice comes above the battle”. In wars, countries enforce “state of emergency/marshal law”, these are procedures to limit freedoms of citizens, not the enemies. In wars, armies inflate, opening the way for military coups (that’s why Ancient Rome banned the entrance for armies to the capital). Moreover, tyrants exploit wars to turn away the attention of their peoples from democratic reform, we all see how Arab tyrants exploit Israel to distract the Arab peoples from democratic reform issues and to distort the image of honorable opponents with silly charges of the type “Zionism, normalization, agent…”.

Secondly: Peace and Economic Growth
Regardless od the case of Ismail Sidqi which started my article with, Tawfik el-Hakim narrates, in his masterpiece “The Return of Consciousness”, information uncovering for us how wars destroyed the Egyptian economy.

- Tawfik el-Hakim narrates how the Egyptian army, under commands of Nasser, threw sacks of gold to the tribes of Yemen during the Yemen war, in order to sway them to the Egyptian side, which cause the depletion of the Egyptian gold stock… At the time when simple Egyptians were happy with Nasser who made them employees in the government, earning a few Egyptian pounds monthly!

- Tawfik also includes, the cost that Egypt paid during the 6 years between 1967 and 1973. He spread the numbers and said that what Egypt spent on the wars, if it had been spent on internal development, the share for each village would have been a million dollars (noting the difference between the value of the currency at that time; a million dollars in 1967 is equivalent to 5 million dollar by today’s standards). Imagine, what would Egypt look like now if we didn’t enter those wars, and spending this money on building schools, hospitals, streets and developing the civil society? What’s really silly is the governmental non-sense, in order to escape this question says that Israel was the one to start the war and occupied Sinai, when in reality, Nasser had announced the war in his speech on 15 July, 1967, before that he had used the right of land blockade against Israel which is of the rights of the the belligerent country… That if we ignored the historical novel which says that the decision to expel the international forces was taken by the Field Marshal “Abdel Hakim Amer” without Nasser knowledge, at the time when the Field Marshal the Army Chief of Staff, contesting Nasser in his authority!

Taking a look at the world around us… Look how America was hit from its war budgets and how America is solving the problem now by pulling its armies from Iraq and Afghanistan, also by dismantling some of the military bases in Europe.

See how the civil war weakened the Somali people and turned them into poor people despite the natural resources which Somalia has. See how the nuclear ambition of North Korea transformed the citizens into poor people, thousands of them die of hunger monthly. Look at the Axis countries in the second world war (Japan, Germany, Italy) and how they entered the war as strong countries and went out of it smashed under foreign occupation, and still are paying the price of this war till our day.

Peace is the strategic choice for all the people who want to live in luxury. On the other hand, the people who choose the wars would suffer poverty forever till they realize that wars drain their resources and the effort of their people.

Thirdly: Peace and Life of Humans
Does the one who takes the decision of war realize that he is making a decision of execution tens of thousands of humans, including who are going to have permanent disabilities in the war? The life of the one who takes the decision of the war won’t be subjected to danger, he would keep sitting in his air-conditioned office in the capital, while the youth and the patriots from both side are paying their souls because of the failure of the political leadership in reaching a diplomatic peaceful solution.

I can’t believe any official numbers regarding the Egyptian victims in our wars with Israel. Some militarists estimated the victims of Egypt in the war of 1973 as million martyrs! Other than the injured, the lost and the prisoners of war. I can say that when Israel aired the documentary “Spirit of Shaked” about executing Egyptian prisoners of war, Egyptians asked themselves if there were still Egyptian prisoners of war in Israel, but none of the officials knew the answer of the question.

What is the reason to make a country enters a war to lose its youth and the rest lose their limbs, imagine the population percentage between both genders (as what happened in Germany after the second world war, the percentage was one man for every 5 women)! Why all that when there are alternative solutions to solve conflicts?
I know that in the last decades, suicidal orientations have appeared under the naming “martyrdom.. industry of death, asceticism in life, challenging death…), but here I speak to reasonable who seek the interest of their homeland and not committing suicide, who search for life not death.

The goal of any conflict is to solve the conflict, not to exterminate the other. The goal of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is to achieve the full Palestinian right, not exterminating the Israelis. If you were looking for the Palestinians’ interests, then the solution is in peaceful negotiation, not in entering war which both sides die in, the Samson style (on me and my enemies)? But, if you were seeking suicide, please, commit suicide quietly without killing millions of innocents with you.

Epilogue
When I was choosing the title of the article, I wanted to title it “Peace to Egypt, not Israel”, but I preferred it to be “Peace to Egypt Before it is to Israel”… Because, peace would benefit everyone, Egypt, Israel, Palestine, even Iran and Turkey. Peace will benefit the whole world. Our role as Egyptians is to think sanely of the interest of our homeland, the interest of our revolution, the project of democratic transformation, our ambition for economic growth and our fear on lives of our brothers, our children and friends.
The peoples have to choose and each reasonable society have their mind and know their own salvation.

Maikel Nabil Sanad
El-Marg prison – 2 ع [‘ayn]
2011/8/7

(A picture of the “sign of peace”)

Over 6 decades, Egyptians tried many strategies for opposition, starting from opposition from within the ruling party (and it’s the weakest strategy), to the militant opposition (and it’s the most violent strategy) – all these attempts failed. Till Egyptians discovered a new strategy, “the peacefulness” and the Egyptian revolution came out chanting “peaceful… peaceful”, and the peacefulness succeeded in achieving what the Kalashnikov couldn’t.
6 weeks as well is approximately the period of the Arab-Israeli conflict… For 64 years, Arabs tried many strategies dealing with Israel (starting from being agents to terrorism), and also all the attempts failed… So, why don’t we start adopting a peaceful strategy dealing with the state of Israel to reach full rights to all the peoples of the region? That research paper is an attempt of me to explain how peaceful means can end that conflict completely, thus all the peoples of the region rest and their suffering ends.

However, dear reader I have to warn you, if what leads you to deal with that case is the motivation of revenge and the desire to get-rid of Jews then that research isn’t directed towards you, so don’t waste your time reading it. This research is directed toward who wish to end the conflict by fair way giving all parties their legitimate rights.

The first scene: Security Council decision – November 1947
The first scene which I’m going to concentrate on between numerous historical scenes I’m going to present. It’s the events which followed the decision of Security Council to divide Palestine in November 1947… What were the reactions on the decision? Were these reactions correct or wrong?
After 6 days of issuing Security Council decision, the Arab League met and took a decision to prevent Security Council decision by force (by weapons)… Arabs ignored the peaceful and the diplomatic ways, they didn’t resort to a dialog and didn’t discuss Security Council in its decision. All they did was each one of them went to bring his weapon and chant “death to Jews”.

At the time when Arabs were drunk with the fever of blood-shedding Jews, Israelis were making a world-wide diplomatic campaign to convince the whole world to support the born state of Israel. The United States of America felt that Security Council decision will ignite a war in the region, so it provided a recommendation that to Security Council demanding canceling the partition plan. As usual, Arabs were busy preparing violence, they didn’t care for that American step, and Israelis didn’t go back to their homeland until they convinced the Americans to take back their recommendation from Security Council.

Here, a question arises: What if Arabs thought about peaceful means, and traveled as well to to convince the Americans with their point of view, also the rest of Security Council members? What if America didn’t take back its recommendation about canceling the partition plan? Arabs could have canceled the Security Council decision, therefore obstructing the establishment of the state of Israel from the first place, but unfortunately they were busy with violence, weapons and the desire to kill, so they lost everything.

The second scene: declaring the state of Israel – 15 May 1948
Days passed after the decision of Security Council and it wasn’t canceled. Based on the decision, Israel declared its independence as soon as the British mandate for Palestine ended. So, why didn’t also the Palestinians declared their state at that time, backed by the legitimacy of Security Council decision, and it’s the decision in which Israel adheres to strongly because it’s the decision which gave it legitimate existence? The answer simply is that Palestinians and Arabs were busy with war and blood, and they weren’t interested in peaceful ways, of the type of holding a parliament and heading to the United Nations to declare a Palestinian state.
Once more, Palestinians wasted a golden chance because of being busy with violence.

The third scene: Moshe Sharet initiative – 1953
After declaring independence, David Ben-Gurion headed the Israeli government, who was a Zionist leader adopting radical stances firm against Israel. The chance for achieving peace at his era was very weak. In the year 1953 the Israeli Knesset had its second Prime Minister for Israel who was Moshe Sharet, who was contrary to Ben-Gurion, believing in peace and giving Arabs their rights. Moshe Sharet demanded from the Israeli Knesset to delegate him in making peace talks with Arabs. The Knesset agreed to delegate Moshe Sharet in negotiating on anything and everything (including the right of Palestinian refugees to return inside the Israeli lands).
Moshe Sharet went to all Arab leaders asking for dialog, all of them refused and insisted to settle the conflict by war and violence. Gamal Abdel Nasser agreed on the dialog on the condition of secrecy, because Gamal Abdel Nasser didn’t have the courage to face his people that he was making peaceful negotiations with Israel.
Thus, Moshe Sharet fell in 1954 because of Moshe Sharet failure to convince Arabs of peaceful mechanisms to settle the conflict. David Ben-Gurion became once again to be Prime Minister closing many doors for a peaceful solution to the conflict.

Why Arabs don’t ask themselves: What if they accepted Moshe Sharet initiative? What if these negotiations succeeded and the Palestinian state was established at then, and the refugees came back home? Once again, Arabs lose because of their adherence to violent mechanisms and their objection to peaceful mechanisms.

The fourth scene: the assassination of king Abdallah – 1951
After the Arab defeat in in 1948 war and the truce agreement with Israel in Rhodes – February 1949, and because of not declaring a Palestinian state, Gaza became under the Egyptian administration while the West Bank under the Jordanian administration.

King Abdallah Ben Al-Sharif Hussein, king of Jordan, realized the importance of reaching a peaceful solution to the conflict after the failure of the military attempt. He went to visit Jerusalem along with his peaceful efforts, but the Palestinian terror was waiting for him. He was assassinated inside Aqsa mosque, so that the first peaceful Arab effort be assassinated towards Israel.

After 60 years of assassinating king Abdallah, we ask ourselves: did Abdallah’s benefited Palestinians? Of course not, because Jordan was dragged to a conflict with Israel which didn’t end except after the agreement of Wadi Arabah in 1994, while the West Bank was subject to Israeli occupation and still to that day suffering of a spread of the Israeli army and Israeli settlements in. If king Abdallah hadn’t been assassinated, the West Bank would have now been without settlements and Jordan wouldn’t have lost in its economy and its youth in a conflict for 40 years with Israel. Once again, Arabs lose because of their inclination toward violence and their objection to the peaceful means.

The fifth scene: the Egyptian peace treaty – 1979
In the year 1977, Sadat realized the importance of what king Abdallah was doing in the year 1951, so he decided to start an Arab peace initiative. He visited Jerusalem in November, 1977 and afterward, immediately the Egyptian-Israeli peace talks started. All the Arab parties in the conflict were invited to to join the peace talk, but the Arabs found it hard to make a peaceful work. They launched the “The Three No’s of Khartoum”, objecting any peaceful solution to the conflict, adhering to militarist settlement.

Today, after 32 years of signing the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, we ask ourselves: what if Arabs accepted the peaceful negotiations in Sadat era? What would the Arabs have lost if they negotiated at that time without a result? Was what Jordan take in 1994 more than what it would have taken if it joined Sadad initiative in 1979? Was what the Palestinians take in Oslo, 1993, more than what would they have taken in 1979?
Once again, Arabs waste the chance because of their adherence to the armed solutions not the peaceful solutions.

The sixth scene: Camp David 2 – year 2000
In the year 2000, many positive circumstances gathered. President Bill Clinton was at the end of his presidency and wanted to end the conflict in the Middle East before he leaves office. At the same timing, Israel was lead Ehud Barak of the Labor Party of Israel – Labor Party is a leftist political party known by its support to peace process. Israel was on the eve of parliamentary elections, so Barak needed a success facilitating obtaining many seats in the next Knesset.
The talks had actually started at Camp David, Yasser Arafat, Ehud Barak, Bill Clinton, and who views what Israel offered at that time, would realize that Israel offered an offer in which Palestinians won’t obtain a similar offer forever. A state on the borders of 1967, Eastern Jerusalem the capital city, dismantling of settlements and the return of a percentage of refugees. Palestinians will go after two month from now (in September 2011) to the United Nations too declare a Palestinian state and they know well that they won’t obtain what Israel offered them in Camp David 2.

Yasser Arafat signature was only required and the United States guaranteed the agreement, in other words America would compel Israel to implement. However, Mubarak was annoyed of his absense in the talks, so as, he realized that it is of his interest that the conflict continues, so the relationship between Yasser Arafat and the Egyptian Intelligence was exploited, and he was pressured into objecting to sign the treaty. Emotionally provoking vocal phrases were raised, of the type: resistance, occupation, martyrs, uprising, treason, agents, Zionists. Arafat apologized and didn’t sign the treaty saying to Bill Clinton, “if I signed the treaty, you’ll walk in my funeral soon”.

What happened later on? George Bush, the son, came to White House, he wasn’t a man of peace of any kind. In the Israeli elections, Israelis felt that what Labor Party says is useless with Arabs, so Labor Party together with Meretz lost most of their seat and the Israeli right rose to authority, represented by Likud of the militarist background, allying itself with religious political parties of type of “Shas” and “The Jewish Home”. It objected to Camp David 2 and almost destroyed Labor Party, to the extent it’s now a very weak political party in Israel which isn’t influential in political life. Ehud Barak who used to be a hero of peace, didn’t forget at all the Arabs destroyed his strength and transformed him from a strong leader to a chief of a weak political party, so, Barak became an impeder to peace more than a supporter to it.

So, what do Arabs benefit of objecting Camp David 2? Did the Palestinian uprisings give the Palestinians 1% of what would have Camp David 2 give them? What would Arabs do now after the partners of peace in Israel have been destroyed and the governance there was took-over by fanatics and religiously-biased? Do Arabs imagine that they would get more than what was offered to them? What would happen now to any peace agreement after half of what Israel offered in 2000 became unacceptable and not possible to be offered in 2011? What did the Palestinians benefit of being the “sons of stones”? Wouldn’t be better for them to be the “sons of peace”?

Seventh scene: Arab Spring – 2011
When the Tunisian revolution started in December 2010, everyone looked at it as an exceptional case specific to Tunisia, and everyone dealt with the approach of “Egypt isn’t Tunisia” and “Libya isn’t Tunisia”. But, when the revolution succeeded in Egypt in overthrowing Mubarak and when the revolutions in Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain erupted, everyone realized that the Arabic-speaking peoples knew the strength of the peaceful revolutions.

The Israeli right stood confused in front of a fateful question: “what if the Palestinians started a peaceful revolution”? Israel was accustomed to that the Palestinian resistance is militant, because using violence against Israel allows it to use its army in the framework of self-defense and no one would blame Israel when it chases child-kidnappers or killers of civilians. But, if the Palestinians started a peaceful revolution, Israel won’t be able to use its army, so what would it do? No one in Israel (and specifically the Israeli right) found an answer on that question, and the fear remained to them of a Tunisian revolution.
But, as one of Israel leaders said that “Israel’s success doesn’t depend on its smartness, but on the stupidity of its enemies”. The Palestinians wasted the chance in the second uprising in 15 May 2011, contrary to the rest of the Arab peoples, the Palestinians didn’t look for a Palestinian Tahrir square to protest in peacefully. Palestinians didn’t realize that the peacefulness has no relation with penetrating the borders, infringement on the territorial waters of Israel and chanting racist words. A peaceful sit-in disseminating racist ideas is exactly as the sit-in of Mostafa Mahmoud square, where peaceful protestors chanting shit thought, and of course that won’t lead to a result. The chance is still available for Palestinians to adopt the peaceful method of Tahrir before it’s too late.

(A picture of the biggest demonstrations in the history of Israel, Tel Aviv, 6 August 2011)

Peaceful Strategies toward Israel
- Why won’t we start trying peaceful strategies with Israelis and see if it would succeed as the peaceful Egyptian revolution succeeded? We tried violence for 6 centuries, so why don’t we try the peacefulness for 6 months?

- Before the eruption of the Egyptian revolution, the Egyptian demonstrators were at the beginning of their demonstration giving flowers to police officers and tell them “we’re not demonstrating against you,but against the regime”… So, why don’t we send flowers to Israelis and tell them “we are not antagonize you as individuals, but we are against your policies toward us and Palestine”?

- Also, before the Egyptian revolution, one of the opposition groups published on the internet a list with telephone numbers of Egyptian police officers and we started a campaign of calling those officers, trying to convince them to stop assaulting demonstrators… That campaign succeeded in attracting numerous police and army officers and ex-officers and their families, and they participated in our revolution.

So, why don’t we start in the same thing with Israelis? Why don’t we start communicating with ordinary Israeli individuals and tell them that the Mossad and the Israel Defense Forces actions are unacceptable, inhumane and obstruct peace in the region? Why don’t we convince try to them with the justice of our cause, if we really believe-in its just.

What if we each Egyptian person started adding two Israelis on his friends list on Facebook? If there were million Egyptians, each one of them can only affect two Israeli citizens, that means that we are affecting 2 million Israeli citizens (or a quarter of Israel census)… So, what if we put in consideration that Egypt has approximately 10 million Facebook users, and that each on of them has the ability to add 5000 friends to his friends list. The soft force is much stronger than any other violence you imagine.

It’s of my interest, of your the interest and the whole world’s interest that the conflict ends in Middle Easy, therefor I wish that we start a true beginning in Arab peaceful attempts for the sake of putting an end to the conflict and blood-shedding, and to establish a fair warm peace built on coexistence between the peoples of the region.

Maikel Nabil Sanad
El-Marg general prison
2 ع [‘ayn]
2011/7/29

      With profound respect

            Maikel Nabil Sanad Ebrahim
            A pacifist activist and the chief of No for Compulsory Military Recruitment Movement
            and the first prisoner of conscience after the revolution
            1 August, 2011
            El-Marg general prison

This is my first time posting here. I wanted to introduce myself. I am an Egyptian immigrant to North America and have spent all of my adult life here – yet, I remain strongly connected to the Egyptian community. I have been so inspired by the January 25 revolution, and did not have to look much in order to find others like me. We then started working together toward supporting the pro-democracy movement in Egypt. There really was no shortage of people who are excited and eager to work for Egypt’s future, and I pray that we never lose this excitement.

We started building on our ideas and most importantly, we started connecting with activists in Egypt and others who are working for a better Egypt, whether in political activism, human rights, or development organizations.

Whenever any of our efforts are completed, I’ll certainly share them on here.

Additionally, I wanted to introduce my blog. I can’t promise any level of regularity yet – I’m just starting out, but here is my most recent post about attitudes toward Egypt’s future. Let me know what you think!

So what is it about the Kurds that makes so many view them as negligible?

After all, the Kurdish name surely was once revered at a time when a warrior by the name of Saladin raised an army that would recapture some of the Middle East’s most holiest places in the name of Islam. And even the West and its Crusaders with all their spite towards Saladin could not help but romanticize stories about the Kurdish Islamic leader who was said to show the utmost respect to his adversaries and who advocated unprecedented tolerance towards other religions – Judaism, Christianity – and their followers.

Today, we are in an age of rising nationalist sentiments; an age where strong nationalist ideologies of the Middle East leave no room for the Kurds. This is not new. The Kurds have been short of much luck for most of history, and before and after Saladin, had become subjects of the large empires that expanded into their mountains from the east and the west. Today, similar states have expanded into those mountains as the world’s strive for power persists. The difference is that today’s hunger for power is impartible from the strong feelings and connections with one’s own culture and heritage thereby rendering nationalist sentiments that disregard the rights of other nations.

A strong case can be made in favor of the Kurds when it is about inalienable rights of people. The Kurds have been subject to the same internal displacements and encroachment of their territories that pro-Palestinian activists have argued against when Israeli settlements are the topic. The Kurds have been stripped of their language, and in some several hundreds of thousands of cases, their citizenship and all the benefits that come with it, in countries like Turkey and Syria. They were dumped in mass graves across Turkey, and in Iraq where they fell victim to genocide. And Kurds are being killed, whether by the noose or by the bullet, on almost a daily basis in Iran mostly simply for speaking out in favor of the rights that they have been stripped of.

However, make no mistakes. In the words of the murdered Kurdish teacher, Farzad Kamangar, “The purpose of this [article] is not to pinpoint the problems of the Kurds and deny the inequalities that exist among the Baluchis, Turks, Persians, and Arabs,” or any other ethnic group that has been subjected to brutality in and outside of the Middle East.

The purpose is to express that the attention given to the plight of the Kurds is insufficient. In much of the Middle East’s mainstream political discourse, which has been plagued by the ultra-nationalist sentiments of today’s age, the words Kurds and Kurdistan imply anti-security connotations. Rather than hearing and heeding the calls about violations of human rights that are ongoing against Kurdish populations in the Middle East and that should and must be stopped, the audience of the discourse hears the security issues and the possible disintegration of their beloved Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran and makes that their concern. Such is the power of the propaganda machine manufactured by the states of Iran, Syria, Turkey and the old Iraq (and some elements of the new Iraq). To them, the Kurdish question is not a question at all. It’s an issue that must be solved with suppression.

This propaganda machine has not stopped short of diverting people’s attention away from the innocent Kurds being killed by states’ military and police to the Kurdish rebel groups fighting the various regimes. It has gone as far to manufacture lies to further nurture the anti-Kurdish sentiment that already exists. The Arab World is provided with fabrications to stir the peoples’ emotions against the Kurds by attempting to define the semi-autonomous rights of Kurds in Iraq as nothing more than an American project. It is unfortunate that many cannot see the fact that Kurdish rights to statehood in their native region should be no less than the right of Palestinians. And even if deprived of statehood, shouldn’t the Kurds be able to live free from the discrimination that they face in the countries they live in?

Middle Eastern media propagates a number of invented stories that generate anti-Kurdish sentiment that are beyond the scope of this article. Yet, despite what those stories are meant to do, Kurds are still fortunate to find those who believe in justice for all people, Kurdish or non-Kurdish. The MidEastYouth (MEY) has become a platform for all ethnic groups and nations of the Middle East to voice their opinions and address the pressing concerns of our shared subcontinent of the world. MEY has shown again and again that it is blind to the cultural and linguistic differences between peoples, and instead, has a sharp vision for the inequalities between peoples. MEY truly defends the rights of all people, regardless of their ethnic background, as a true activist would. And the Alliance for Kurdish Rights, and the Arabs, Kurds and others who have joined together to make it possible, has become a model of solidarity that can exist against tyranny if we are all willing to stand together and say enough is enough.

In the past few weeks, the Alliance for Kurdish Rights (AKR) – a site with a sole purpose of speaking out against the violations of Kurdish rights and with no political motivation whatsoever – was attacked by anti-Kurdish groups such as the so-called “Turkish Islamist Hack Team”. The site was subsequently brought down and the attacks then spread to MEY and the other affiliated website projects. Despite the fact that MEY serves ALL ethnic groups from the Middle East and North Africa and hosts a number of sites ranging from bloggers rights inspired by the killing of an Iranian blogger (OR318), Free Kareem! dedicated to an Egyptian activist, and a Israelis for Palestine website just to name a few, this did not deter anti-Kurdish groups from taking down everything affiliated with MEY just so the anti-Kurds’ main target, the Kurds, would be silenced.

MEY was one of many anti-Kurdish targets in the last several weeks. The non-profit and cultural Kurdish American Youth Organization’s website, cultural websites such as Kirmashan.com, and websites of online publications such as NetKurd and Kurdish Herald were also targeted and brought down. And many who followed and understood the attacks with great disappointment are struck again with the realization that such anti-Kurdish sentiment inspired by ultra-nationalist propaganda is alive and kicking well into the second decade of the 21st century. However, disappointment must not deter but strengthen our insistence that such racist attitudes are a thing of the past and that activists and others who believe in the rights to freedom and liberties for every person will not stand for inequality where ever it may exist. As all young voices of the Middle East were silenced by the attack on Kurdish Rights at MEY, we can learn that if we do not continue to speak out for everyone and try to rid our world of racism, we will all be silenced together.

In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr (and what may be a more uplifting proverb to conclude with): “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Allow me to shed light on the absurdity of your actions which highlight your imbecile and chauvinistic character. Your pathetic vacuous pride and disgusting intolerance and racism is a disgrace to me being part Turkish, and to the rest of the Turks who do not share your idiotic and cockamamy ideology. You can keep on trying to hack MEY and particularly the Alliance for Kurdish Rights website, but that will not stop MEY’s staff and certainly not me from highlighting the discrimination and persecution that Kurds go through.

You are nothing, your actions are insignificant and pitiful. I have to pity a person like you who indulges themselves in feelings of senseless hatred towards people who are no less of a human than you are, that is… if I can call you a human.

You are no different from Zionists who oppress Palestinians, no different from Imperialists who wage war on Iraqis and Afghans. No different from neo-Nazis & white supremacists; you’re probably no different from a Turk who thought it was okay to kill all those Armenians all those years ago.

To me, you come somewhere in between a dried cockroach’s carcass and the white stuff that accumulates at the corner of your mouth when you’re really thirsty. Simply to be eliminated and washed off and forgotten, or perhaps become a laughing material in our daily conversations and perhaps even posts on this website THEN fade, like a petty memory.

You enjoy being anonymous because it is a release from the normal world: no anonymous has an identity, no anonymous is a preening fabulous person. An anonymous realizes he is just a jack-off fucking around on the internet. Anonymous knows others of his kind enjoy this fact too. You despise the furfabulous person, the gaiafabulous person for one reason; you act like the internet is the real world, a place where actions actually have social consequences and where there needs to be a pecking order.

A pale, pimple faced, skinny (or most probably fat) dude who would most likely burn up if he came into contact with natural sunlight. Spends all of his time attacking people over the internet to compensate for his lack of a life and hatred of humanity for not accepting him.

Needless to say, you suck… Asshole.

So keep em coming “tough” guy. You will fail… and we’ll be here to watch.

For the love of GOD, please stop spewing these kinds of statements. Have not you seen the repercussions of the so-called Justice Restoration revolutionary movement in the recent past? Did you forget the poems like “Dharti hogi Ma’ kay Jaisi”?? Can’t you recall the politicians chanting slogans and singing Habib Jalib’s poetry to get the 10mins of fame and cash the sentiments of the “18 Karore Gadhay”?? Can you now (after almost 3 years) get to the bottom of the “Democracy is the Best Revenge” theme?? And the biggest con played by pseudo-revolutionists is “Awaam ab Baa’sha’oor hain”.

Pakistani Awaam is yet the most gullible nation in the world. Where in the words of a Poet;

“Ameer-e-Sheher Ghareebo’n Ko Loot Laita Hai,
Kabi Ba Heela-e-Mazhab, Kabi Ba’naam-e-Watan”

[Translation: Ruler of the city loot the poor (subservient); Sometimes in the name of Religion and sometimes in the name of Motherland]

And the pseudo-revolutionists, politicians and the media personnel too are exploiting the sentiments of the poor to con them. These con masters and tricksters have their own vested interested in maneuvering the public sentiments to the best of their advantage. Ironically, the “Awaam” do not possess the memory any longer than 15days and that’s the real dilemma.

I can remember the Mr. Khadim-e-Ala’ Punjab reciting and commending Habib Jalib as the best and one of the honest poets of Pakistan. Let’s remind him of one of his verse which was dedicated to his elder brother and party when the elder (former Khadim-e-Azam) stepped into flood water (1990s floods) and publicly tried to en-cash the slogan with “Qaum kay liye ja’n o Dil day dain gay”.

Jalib Replied,

“Na Ja’n day do na Mill day do,
Jo kiya hai qaum ka ziya’n tumnay,
Bs us ka aik Bill dy do”

Consequently, later Jalib was denied by Shareef Govt. the visit to U.K for his treatment and he succumbed to death. Alas! Same happened with the Judiciary movement. Mr. Aitzaz one of the leading pseudo-revolutionist in the Justice Restoration has disappeared from the scene ever since his political party came into power. No one now remembers “Dharti hogi Ma’ Kay jaisi”.

All of these tricksters and con masters are found in the every political party and revolutionary movement. Who can forget “Ms. Asma Jehangir”?? – Another pseudo-revolutionist, expropriating all resources in the name of NGOs, embezzling funds and evading taxes. Sole purpose of these pseudo-politicians and revolutionists are to exploit the sentiments of the public to expropriate the public resources.

Do not forget the bureaucracy. Tax evaders of unique kind. These bureaucrats are no different than politicians. They enjoy all the perks and expropriate all the possible resources for their personal use. Bureaucrats show politicians the way to convert their black money in to fair. The unjustified discretionary power of the bureaucrats is promoting the social and moral injustice in the society. A prime example of the street level bureaucrat is the police or traffic police. Yep you are right! You won’t need further explanation as it (Police) is self elucidating.

I have not read history a great deal but I know all the revolutions that I read has one thing in common. All the revolutions i.e. Iranian, Chinese, Cuban and French were against the monarchy. In Pakistan there is no monarchy at the moment. So, what are these revolutionary people are looking to overturn?? Just wondering……….. Is it the democracy they want to overturn??

We are in dire need evolution rather than revolution. Evolution takes time. It is slow and gradual process. Nations which evolves better can tailor their destiny better. We do not have the patience to evolve. We are looking at the horizons for the new leader to emerge. It is like nearer the Church farthest from GOD. Look around yourselves you may find someone who can be a good leader, any person pure at heart. We need to produce pure hearts. Hearts which are more patriotic and more selfless. If we cannot produce pure and selfless hearts we cannot bring revolution. With corruption at heart pseudo-revolution will bring moral and social intolerance. The so-called revolutionary movement in the recent past has produced nothing except Black Coat Terrorists. Attacking courts, paramilitary, civilians and media. Everyone here is willing to wear crown, but no one is willing to get the accompanied headache.

I say No to Revolution because we are not pure at hearts. We need to purify ourselves first. It may (will) take generations. We desperately need evolution than revolution. Evolution will pave the way for real, selfless and pure at heart revolution. There is no need for the bloodshed to call it a revolution. It would be up to the leaders to choose what medium they use to bring the revolution. i believe a sensible can plus Awaam can do it without bloodshed. My say is;

Yes to Evolution, No to Revolution

Cross Posted @ I’m No Superman!

Let at this moment when flood is wreaking havoc but we as a Nation with our zealous spirit and doggedness try to surmount this colossal loss and turn it into a meager hiccup by donations and demonstrations of fraternity to our grieving Brothers, Sisters and Children in this hour of help. (We must extend our EID celebrations to the flood affectees by the spirit of sharing. Let’s not forget the oppressed Muslims of Jammu Kashmir and Palestine, who are fighting for their freedom). May Allah shower His choicest Blessings on Pakistan. (Ameen).

Eid Mubarak

May Allah (SWT) bless us with the needed breakthrough.

Pakistani Muslims will tone down Eid celebrations this year amidst flood havoc and 9/11

Pictorial View of Devastating Floods in Pakistan

When Humanity Suffers

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_v-7lq74t0[/youtube]

*Cross posted at I’m No Superman!

Syed Abdul Wahab Gilani
Author is an MS scholar of Management Science.
Member Youth Parliament Pakistan (Sargodha Youth Assembly).

Many reports in Israel and some abroad detailed the manifestations of such racism, including residents of Tel Aviv protesting against the decision to open a kindergarten for children of migrants (which will not be built), Tel Aviv Rabbis signing a petition calling on Jews not to rent apartments to migrants,^[1] and a general sense of fear of the asylum seekers. Most of the reports don’t go beyond describing the phenomenon, and if they do attempt to explain the attitudes toward the asylum seekers, it is usually attributed to legitimate reasons like a supposed increase in crime that migrants bring, or to the backwardness of the racist by pointing out their social status, mizrahi (Arab-Jewish) origin or religiousness.

I think that such explanations are either simplistic or racist. While there is truth in the fact many of the people interviewed on the subject who expressed racist opinions toward the asylum seekers are religious, mizrahi or poor, labeling these sects and classes as racist allows the Israelis who don’t belong to these under-privileged groups to escape accounting for their own culpability in the racism manifested toward African asylum seekers in Israel. Instead of labeling some groups in society as racist, I wish to show how prevalent views in Israel about national security and identity result in lack of empathy toward the Africans within our borders, which inevitably leads to racism. In my opinion, the lack of empathy is the result of three main ways of thinking: Jewish ethnocentrism, preoccupation with national security threats and the myth of the migrant “leech”.

The lack of empathy toward the suffering of the African asylum seekers is firstly based on a clear distinction between “us” (Israelis/Jews) and “them” (Africans/gentiles). While such distinctions are common in all societies across the globe, the othering of the asylum seekers in Israel is based mostly on the fact that they are not Jewish, since other Africans (mostly Ethiopian Jews) have been accepted in Israel, albeit with manifestations of discrimination and occasional racism. Judaism, like other religions, makes a clear distinctions between the inner group (the Jews, the Chosen People) and the outer group (the gentiles), with whom the Jews are not to mix. This clear distinction is very influential among religious circles in Israel and their attitudes toward migrants and refugees.^[2]

While the view of gentiles as lesser-humans in uncommon among most Israelis (who aren’t religious), the sense of Jewish brotherhood in the face of everyone else is still potent in definition of Israeli identity. Therefore, the common view in Israel, which is based on the ethnic-religious distinction, is that even if the asylum seekers live in our midst, they are still the “other” and there is no sense of empathy toward them, let alone some sense of obligation.

A second cause for the lack of empathy toward the asylum seekers is the discourse of national security in Israel which is dominated by a preoccupation with threats: the Iranian threat, the demographic threat, the rocket threat, the delegitimization threat, etc (we even have the “Ministry of Strategic Threats”). The asylum seekers are placed within this discourse by being categorized as a national security threat, which is clear from the common way of addressing the asylum seekers – infiltrators (mistanenim). The term was first used to describe Palestinian refugees who attempted to enter Israel after 1949 first to return to their homes and work in their fields, and later to perform terrorist and sabotage acts. The insistence of the Netanyahu government and the Israeli media on calling the asylum seekers “infiltrators” is intended to mark them as a threat and stoke fear. The asylum seekers are described as potential terrorists, just like the infiltrators of the 1950s, and as those who cause “cultural, social and economic damage, and pull us towards the Third World”, as Netanyahu stated. The proposed solutions to this national security “threat” range from construction of a fence along the Egypt-Israel border, deportations of asylum seekers (in violation of international law) and construction of labor camps where the asylum seekers would live.

The third motivator for the lack of empathy toward the asylum seekers is the myth that is often repeated by Israeli governments and guides their policy toward migrant workers, and that is that illegal migrants are “exploiting” Israel to gain better living standards than they would have back home. Asylum seekers are included in the group of illegal migrants, despite the fact that they cannot be deported (and illegal migrants are), because of the widely held belief and government proclamations that the asylum seekers aren’t really political refugees but work migrants. According to this logic, Israel is stuck with the burden of the “fake refugees”, unable to deport them lest it violates international law. Looking at the asylum seekers this way leads to the logical conclusion that these Africans are not hard-working people who are helping the Israeli economy, taking jobs that Israelis won’t do, but leeches sucking up the public goods intended for the Israeli population alone.

Studies have shown that lack of empathy leads to racism, while the default state is empathy and racism is taught. The common ways of thinking that I’ve described transform the poor African asylum seeker, who would naturally evoke empathy, to be seen as a leech exploiting Israel and a threat. On the fertile ground of this lack of empathy and suspicion toward the asylum seeker, racism can flourish with the smallest incentive. The State of Israel provides such an incentive by not recognizing the asylum seekers as refugees and abandoning them to their own fate. The asylum seekers are granted permits to stay and work in Israel but are not supported by the state. They end up moving to poor urban areas where they can afford to pay rent and do whatever jobs they can get their hands on. The result is that Israelis who are primed to lack empathy toward the asylum seekers and see them as a threat, now encounter them and are forced to compete for the few jobs available in the area and the little resources the state offers them. The locals are unwilling to share their resources, due to their own poverty and lack of empathy toward the migrants. Why share with people who are threats, foreign and just not “us”?

Thus, the under-privileged Israelis protests against admitting children of migrants to their overpopulated and underfunded schools and correctly state that the willingness of the African asylum seekers to work for less than minimum wage deprives them of low-skilled jobs that once belonged to them. The migrants are blamed for stealing jobs, increasing crime and racist stereotypes abound – they are seen as thugs, drunkards, sex-maniacs, Muslim subversives, Christian interlopers, etc.

Labeling these under-privileged Israelis as racists may be correct, but it also absolves the state of its responsibility toward asylum seekers and lower-class Israelis. Labeling religious Jews as racists ignores the fact that most Israelis make the distinctions between people deserving of empathy and those who don’t, and the migrants are on the wrong side of that divide. Labeling different groups as racists ignores how the government, the media, and general apathy and lack of empathy lay the foundations for the racism manifested toward the other in the Israeli society.

——–
Notes

[1] The prohibition on renting to migrants was based on the religious edict “lo techanem” with regards to gentiles (some limit it to pagans alone) which means both “do not have mercy on them” (as you should with a Jew) and “do not let them stay (park)” in the Land of Israel.

[2] A recent poll showed that 100% of ultra-orthodox, 85% of orthodox and 56% of moderately-religious Israeli Jews voiced opposition to granting citizenship to children of undocumented migrant workers, while the secular Israelis were much more likely to support this measure (43% of support).