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.

Statistics shown that the use of nuclear power raised by some countries while other countries faced difficulties to begin their nuclear programs. The most powerful countries monopolized this power for their own interests, and they allow their close allies from less developed countries to benefit from this power while other countries that have independent or semi-independent policies are facing difficulties to use this power even for peaceful needs. While most countries in the third world are moaning due to lack of electricity, in 2009, 15% of the developed world’s electricity came from nuclear power. In the Middle East especially the need of nuclear power for making electricity is inevitable because of lack of water and countries like Turkey and Jordan doesn’t have oil or other energy resources to get benefit from it, so they need nuclear power to make electricity for their citizens.

Israelis the only Middle Eastern country that has nuclear power for both peaceful and military needs. Very recently, while all countries over the world signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Israelis the only country all over the world that hasn’t signed it. A lot of observers believe that since fifties Israel has gained nuclear power, but until now neither the major powers nor United Nations even discussed Israel’s nuclear program just to make sure if the suspects are right or wrong. In 1974, Israeli President Ephraim Katzir said that “it has always been our intention to develop a nuclear potential. We now have that potential”. That’s despite a lot of other evidences that published in British newspapers which strengthen suspects over Israel’s nuclear power. Based on an article that Mordechai Vanunu a former Israeli nuclear technician published on The Sunday Times, Israel’s channel 10 made 3D video which clearly shows the nuclear plants in Israel(1).  I think Vanunu gave us adequate evidences to make us believe thatIsrael has nuclear weapons for a long time.

Iranwhich is same as Israel situated in the Middle East began its nuclear program in Shah’s era before Islamic revolution in 1979. It has stated its uranium enrichment program solely for peaceful purposes and since February 1992 has permitted the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities. United Nations which is superintended by the five superpowers unfairly wants to assail Iran, and they are going to jostle Iran to quit its nuclear program by announcing new sanctions against it. Those moves are happening while The IAEA couldn’t find any evidences to show that Iran is using its program for not tranquil needs.  As incoming Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano said he had not seen any evidence in IAEA official documents that Iran was seeking the ability to develop nuclear weapons(2).

I think if we even talk about both Israeli and Iranian nuclear programs based on suspects not on manifests, there are more evidences that indicate Israelhas nuclear weapons. According to excerpt from 160-page secret DIA report in 1999 Israel has had 60-80 nuclear weapons inventories while, Iran has had none(3). Western powers are arguing that if Irangets the nuclear bomb it may use it against other nations, but they are neglecting what Israelalready used it against Arabs during Arab-Israeli war in the October 1973. According to a detailed account contained in Time magazine, Israelassembled about a dozen bombs and readied them in this war. Now not because we love Iran, but we have the right to ask the United Nations why you are very harassed by Iran’s nuclear program while, Israel which same as Iran allocated in Middle East has more than 100 nuclear weapons with the components and the ability to build atomic, neutron and hydrogen bombs according to The Risk Report (4(5). Israel’s nuclear program began and still operates under tight secrecy, but Iran’s nuclear program operates under the eyes of IAEA‎ in semi-open place. Not just that in early 1968, the CIA issued a report concluding thatIsrael had successfully started production of nuclear weapons (6).  Here we can see the gap difference on how major powers are acting with nations in this region while, they are talking about justice and equality. I think becauseIran is independent in its policy theUnited States wants impedeIran’s nuclear program by claiming thatIran tries to get nuclear weapons. According to evidences that we exposed aboveIsrael has got nuclear weapon since 70s or even earlier, but becauseIsrael is west’s pampered baby no one can investigate with it.

As I explicated above, we can easily see the differences of the way that major powers acting with the countries in this region. United States the most powerful country in the world is making discrepancy in the way of acting with countries in this region, so that make tyrannized countries to loathe United States and turn their powers against it. Therefore, to end conflicts in this region United Nations should create an equal atmosphere for all nations to use nuclear power for peaceful means, or United Nations and IAEA should halt all of them to use it.

References:

(1) Israel’s Dimona Nuclear Weapons Factory In 3D [Videocassette]. (2004). N.p.: Israeli Weapons Ltd.

(2) Iran and weapons of mass destruction (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved  June 19, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

(3) Rumsfeld’s War (Regnery, 2004), pp. 194-223.

(4) Israel: Plutonium Production The Risk Report Volume 2 Number 4 (July-August 1996).

(5) Israel: Uranium Processing and Enrichment The Risk Report Volume 2 Number 4 (July-August 1996).

(6) The Samson Option. Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy Seymour M Hersh, [New York: Random House, 1991].

Also I have benefitted from:

• Center for Documents of The Imposed War, Tehran. (مرکز مطالعات و تحقیقات جنگ)
• Israel The Nuclear Potential of Individual Countries Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons Problems of Extension Appendix 2 Russian Federation Foreign Intelligence Service 6 April 1995.

Some websites that I have benefitted from:

• http://www.israeli-weapons.com/
• www.aljazeera.net/english
• www.middle-east-online.com

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

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

(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

“Turkey is not able to target armed groups that attack their troops but takes out its anger on innocent people.”

In fact, the article goes on to state that a Turkish rocket had targeted a civilian vehicle carrying 3 men, 2 women and 2 children but that initially the bodies had been charred so badly that not even their sexes could be determined.

No reports yet from Turkey as to how successful these raids have been.

This comes along the heels of a prolonged period of somewhat sustained diplomatic and economic ties between the Kurdistan region and Turkey, and it goes without saying that the Kurdish people are far more reliant on Turkish businesses and goods than Turkey is on the Kurdistan region to simply cut off ties—even temporarily—in response to the attacks. It also goes without saying that in the supposedly unified country of Iraq, the Iraqi central government has done next to nothing both in response to the Turkish airstrikes or the Iranian ones, as the Iranians too have supposedly been targeting PJAK rebels as their excuse for violating Iraqi sovereignty. (PJAK is an offshoot of the PKK in Iran) Recent reports over the past two months indicate that the Iranians have also been building inside Iraqi Kurdistan, and that the Kurdistan Regional Government has been left to fend for itself.

In an effort to promote Iraqi unity and this notion that southern Kurdistan is truly part of a greater Iraq, shouldn’t the central government in Baghdad take a more active stance against BOTH of its neighbors for blatantly crossing its borders over and over again for days at a time? If anything, their inability—or perhaps unwillingness—to do anything sends a clear message to the Kurds that when it comes to their land, they are in fact utterly alone in its defense.

And what does one make of these airstrikes by a NATO member that so blatantly violates international norms and shows a complete disregard for both territorial sovereignty and the loss of civilian life? Turkey would say it is simply in response to a terrorist attack by the PKK against one of its military bases which resulted in the deaths of 7 Turkish servicemen, and thus it has a right to pursue these terrorists regardless of where their safe havens may be—even in Iraqi Kurdistan. The PKK would respond that it made its declaration to end its ceasefire well known when the recent Turkish parliamentary elections resulted in somewhat of a debacle when it came to the handling of the Kurdish result. Initially the Kurdish political party, the BDP, was able to secure a significantly larger portion of seats than it had before, but those seats were ultimately taken back when Kurdish parliamentarians who were elected were either not released when they were imprisoned prior to the elections or imprisoned afterwards. (Most of them had been imprisoned on political grounds, citing that they were sympathizers with the PKK, which is a common charge often used by the Turkish government against Kurdish activists, not unlike the charge by Iran against peaceful Kurdish activists as being a “muhareb”, or enemy of the state.) Rather than replace those parliamentarians with additional BDP members, the Turkish parliament chose instead to replace them with members of the AK Party, the Turkish President and Prime Minister’s political party. These events only added fuel to the PKK argument that the peaceful and democratic method clearly had not worked and that violence was necessary.

One can’t help but wonder how much more of a benefit it would have been to the Turkish government if it had simply embraced the initial outcome of the elections so that both the members of the BDP and Kurds living in Turkey could finally feel as though the years of Turkish oppression and violence, and the subsequent violence that emerged with the creation of the PKK, were over and that a new democratic wave of both transparency and inclusiveness that has been overtaking much of the middle east pertained to them as well. Instead, the Turkish government has foolishly given credence to the PKK cause and has risked its alliance with the KRG. The tragedy here is that there would be no room for the violence of the PKK in that region had democratic values and practices truly been embraced. Whatever sympathy a Kurd in Turkey made have had for the PKK would diminish in the long term as the very soap box that the PKK stands on proclaims that it simply wants equality and the basic human rights and freedoms that all people have the right to demand from their governments.

I’m certainly not advocating that they’re justified in their methods—I condemn acts of terror in all of its forms-but there would be no room for their violent rhetoric had Kurds truly been welcomed into the democratic process without fear of being labeled as “PKK sympathizers” from the moment they spoke up for their desire for equal rights. These airstrikes serve no one’s interests—not the Turkish government’s interests, whose actions show the millions of Kurds that exist within its borders that there is no place for them in Turkey as Kurds, or the Kurdistan Region whose territorial sovereignty it violated, or even the billions of dollars at risk in both country’s economies. Other than a bit of muscle flexing, this latest round of airstrikes against Kurdish civilians will do little to solve the underlying reason for the Kurdish-Turkish conflict in the first place: the TRUE implementation of democratic values that imposes on its government the embracing of equality and human rights for every single one of its citizens, regardless of religion, gender, or ethnic background. If Turkey wants to solve its so-called Kurdish problem, perhaps it should take a page from the books of the countries that currently surround the Kurdistan region: Bombing the Kurds out of existence isn’t going to work. Neither is gassing them. Neither is torturing them. You’ll make more money and solve a lot of your problems if you learn to play nice. I won’t hold my breath on that one though…

“In Turkey on Sunday, police used tear gas and pepper spray to disperse Kurdish protesters who tried to march to a main square in Istanbul to denounce the Turkish raids. In the capital, Ankara, demonstrators marched to protest the PKK.” – Al Jazeera

If you can’t even allow your people to peacefully assemble…or participate in elections…or freely speak and write about what’s on their mind…and whilst systematically oppressing and torturing them and their innocent brethren in neighboring countries you decide that it’s alright to violate another country’s sovereignty because YOU claim you’ve been the target of a terrorist attack…exactly who gets to hold you accountable?

I use the quote whenever I am in the company of less intelligent people and the fact that they do not understand the quote only confirms its meaning.

But ignorance is not fun.

Ignorant people, who either cannot or will not learn, are easily influenced by intelligent people willing to use ignorance in their favour.

Ignorance is especially dangerous for the human being seeing as it is a creature of habit and safety. The human being is willing to give up enlightenment in order to prevent development, seeing as development would mean being forced to give up the well-known, sheltered life.

Ignorance causes prejudices; prejudices that are passed on to the next generation and the next generation and the next generation. These prejudices are hard to fight, almost impossible.

But where there is a will, there is a way, and I will do my part to enlighten.

The terrifying UN Definition

The trial of Roj TV continues. It is expected that the prosecutors must prove that PKK is indeed a terror organization, but in order to prove this one must know what terrorism is.

The question is: do we?

At the UN General Assembly on December 9th 1994 the following definition of terrorism was agreed upon:

“Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”

So, a terrorist causes terror through illegal actions, the illegal actions being to kill people, imprison children, denying people their rights, etc.
According to the dictionary terror is “extreme fear, dread, horror, fear and trembling, fright, alarm, panic” and all other adjectives you associate with horror movies and nightmares.

In the case of the Kurdish people and in the case of all other oppressed people in the world who is afraid? Who causes terror and who suffers terror?

It is not the oppressor who shivers in the office: it is the Kurdish mother in the village.
It is not the oppressor who is trembling with fear: it is the Kurdish girl in the prison.
It is not the oppressor who is fearful: it is the Kurdish youngster speaking Kurdish in public.

Therefore it is the Kurdish people and all other oppressed minorities who suffer terror and the Turkish, Syrian, Iranian and all the other oppressors who are the terrorists.

The Terror was a period during the French Revolution when Robespierre and his companions executed those who opposed to their regime.

We oppose! We, who are oppressed by a regime whether it is the Gabooye people in Somaliland, the Jewish people in Saudi Arabia or the Kurdish people in Turkey, Syria and Iran, oppose!

Therefore it is the Kurdish people who suffer terror and the Turkish, Syrian and Iranian regimes who terrorize.

Not afraid of men and women in suits

Subsequent to the same UN General Assembly in 1994 this, too, was agreed upon:

“Acts, methods and practices of terrorism constitute a grave violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations, which may pose a threat to international peace and security, jeopardize friendly relations among States, hinder international cooperation and aim at the destruction of human rights, fundamental freedoms and the democratic bases of society.”

According to this, Turkey, Syria and Iran can be considered terrorists as well or do these rules not apply when you are a “recognized” nation?

The Turkish, Syrian and Iranian treatment of the Kurdish people is not only aiming at the destruction of human rights but doing it!

The Turkish, Syrian and Iranian treatment of the Kurdish people is not only aiming at the destruction of fundamental freedoms but doing it!

The Turkish, Syrian and Iranian treatment of the Kurdish people is not only aiming at the destruction of the democratic bases of the Kurdish society but doing it!

Why then are the Turkish, Syrian and Iranian regimes not listed as terrorists by the US and the European Union?

The acts of the regimes are provoking states of terror (fear, fright, alarm and panic) for political purposes but apparently these acts are justified because the regimes are nations “with friendly relations” to the other nations.

It seems to me as if terrorism is defined as violent acts executed by non-governmental people, the key word being non-governmental.

The former UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan said in 2005 the following: “It is time to set aside debates on so-called “State terrorism”. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law.”

That may be true but that does not mean the regimes are acting according to the law. It is a fact that Kurdish children are imprisoned for throwing rocks, it is a fact that Kurdish politicians are imprisoned for wearing Kurdish clothes and it is a fact that even publishing an interview with a member of PKK is enough to get you thrown in prison.

Why dismiss “so-called state terrorism” and why does Kofi Annan say “so-called”?

It is terrorism and it is state terrorism. For the love of God, just look around you! There is state terrorism everywhere, “my-position-is-higher-than-yours-“ terrorism everywhere.

Every single person in this world may speak the language they want, practice the religion they want, be of the sexual orientation they want, dress the way they want, eat the food they want, dance the way they want. No one must say this is the right definition of a religion, this is the right way to dance.

Ask yourself this:
Who is the terrorist and who is the terrorized?

Who frightens whom?

Our day started in the beautiful village of Al-Walaja at 11 AM as the villagers symbolically burned a refugee tent and decided to walk to their lands, much of it lies beyond the 1948 “Green line” ( itself dissolved by the Israeli occupation 1967 ). I was video documenting this historic event on the 63rd anniversary of the Nakba (the ethnic cleansing of 500 Palestinian villages and towns). Some 800 people from Al-Walaja, other Palestinians, and internationals walked down the hills to the valley that delineates the 1948 green line. Army jeeps gathered on the road between us and the old land of Al-Walaja. Shireen and Basil approached the officers in an attempt to talk and explain that it is a peaceful march and that we just wanted to visit our lands. The answer was an empathic “get back” and an immediate attack by soldiers on the peaceful demonstrators. I noticed Ahmed down on the ground, pepper sprayed in his eyes and mouth and obviously in severe pain. I tried to help him while trying to film at the same time, within 3-5 minutes I was led away with 4 others including Ahmed. As they roughly and sadistically hit and pushed us into their military vehicle, Ahmed’s conditions was worsening and he was refused medical care. The 4 youth were handcuffed in the back and I was handcuffed in front (perhaps due to my age). As we drove off, we started to hear the sounds of tear gas canisters and stun grenades.

I and the other pleaded with the soldiers and officers to provide medical care to Ahmed, but they would not even give us a paper-towel or a cloth to wipe his face (fluids running down his nose, mouth and ears). I finally used my T-shirt (which says “Got human rights? Palestinians don´t “!) to wipe the pepper spray off his face. Time passes slowly when you are in pain physically and psychologically. But while all of us had bruises (the pharmacist Basil Al-Araj even suspected he has fracture in his rib), we all focused on encouraging and helping Ahmed. 2 hours later we did get paper towels but I was the only one capable of helping Ahmed because my hands were in front of me. We were first transferred to border police vehicle (with a particularly nasty woman soldier). We arrived at the military camp near Rachel’s tomb area. Half an hour after we arrived there (2+ hours after our detention), the doors to the container opened and 8 internationals stream in including one girl. They are not handcuffed and they relay that the soldiers after taking us near the green line chased villagers into the village and began arresting everyone they encountered including internationals. Everyone was just trying to run away they said. We remained at this camp for another 2 hours. I managed to get free from the plastic handcuff which really angered the soldiers when they discovered it, and I was tightly shackled with “Hatts-Made in England” metal handcuffs.

We are then all loaded to drive to the military compound called Atarot. I have been there in my last arrest, the soldiers and the interrogation rooms are elevated and a holding container is about 2 meters “depression” with metal roof. There we are to wait without using our phones (but we do in a clandestine way). Soon 5 more people form Al-Walaja were brought in including 2 children (twins ages 12). The children and 2 of the adults were taken from their houses (one in his slippers). For the rest of my life I will not forget the terrorized look and tears of the children (we tried to encourage and joke with them). Soon 15-20 more people are brought in (arrested at Shufat refugee camp). I noted at least 4 masked undercover plain-cloth thugs accompanying them (these are the notorious “Musta’ribeen”, Israeli undercover agents who infiltrate demonstrations, sometimes throwing rocks to incite others and give excuse for the uniformed officers to shoot.) We are told that hundreds of Palestinians were injured and and hundreds arrested from around the Jerusalem area (Shufat, Qalandia, Eisawiyya).

Two youths from the Shufat group are badly injured; one had his head bandaged by a Palestinian paramedic earlier. The other whom I examined had contusions on his face including what appeared to me a broken bone (zygomatic arch) and a huge swelling around his left eye. He is shaking, dizzy, and in pain. I asked the officers to get him urgent medical care. One officer finally says: wait here. Then he goes and gets another officer who has the form that we all had refused to sign (the one that says “we did not get hurt during our arrest”). The message was clear: sign and we will get you medical care. The guy can´t even see to sign and he refuses. After much fuss and later (to quiet us down) they came back and took the two injured away; we hope they are cared for properly.

After much nagging on our part, one interrogator comes and asks if the two young children have celebrated their 12th birthday yet. The answer was no and he had no choice but decide to “question” them (more though scaring and screaming at them) then tell a fellow officer in Hebrew to call their parents to get them. (This takes another 1.5 hours). Israeli law allows charging and jailing Palestinians above age 12. As I would find out when they took me to prison, the prisons are full of 12-18 year-old kids.

As night fell and we kept nagging, we are brought sandwiches at around 10 PM, fully 10-11 hours after our arrest. Then painfully slow, 40+ remaining prisoners began to get questioned. My turn comes around 12:30 AM (13 hours after our arrest). The lawyer says, you should not say anything; I instead take this opportunity and many others before and after to engage with these apartheid officers to get them to see the absurdity of it all. The bureaucracy meant that actually between the time of our first handcuff and our final release, we interact with over 150 apartheid officials and it is in my opinion good to try to talk to those who would talk (most tell us to shut up). The interrogater tells me I am charged with participating in an illegal demonstration and throwing stones. I tell him I wrote a book on popular nonviolent resistance. He refuses to discuss politics; I refuse to sign paper that had his notes in Hebrew about what we discussed I go back to the pin. More waiting in bitter night coldness that we are not dressed for. The internationals are released once they sign a paper that say that they will not get near the wall and friction points for 15 days (if they do they would have to pay 5000 Nis or $1200 USD). We wail more and our spirits are high as rumors spread of successful Nakba events around the world. Many activists are released; five of us are left from the demo in Al Walaja and four from the Shufat demo. The later will go to Maskubiyya (the Russian compound) and we will go to Ofer. We finally leave this cold miserable place to Ofer at 4 AM. At Ofer, we are transferred to a military jeep with particularly nasty border police that insist I keep my head down. They use foul language and threats and occasional smack. They keep us like sardines in this jeep till 6 AM. We are then taken for “processing” which takes more than two hours from strip-search to photographs in prison uniform (mug-shots), to finger printing, to getting all our belongings logged in and stored, to being asked to change to the dark green prison uniforms. Each step involves changing handcuffs (I lost count how manytimes but must be at least 10 times in those few hours). The five of us get prison numbers 1932710 to 1932714. We are put in a 3 m x 3 m holding cell for one hour they put us in and we are moved around 11 am to another area of the prison.

There an officer asks us individually which faction block we want to go to (Fatah, Hamas, PFLP etc.). He insists there are no sections/blocks for independents like me so I told him that I cannot choose other than to suggest that since we from the Walaja demo have the same lawyer, we should probably be assigned together. He says he will see. Three of us end up in block 15 (Fatah). After some checks, the gate to block 15 opens and they remove our handcuffs and we enter a hall that includes 12 rooms (on two floors). Each small room accommodates 10 inmates. Today the block is near maximum capacity of 120 people in a space is this size of an average famil house in the US. We are greeted by a very friendly “dober” (Liaison between the block and the authorities). Who then takes us into one of the rooms to meet some key inmates and explains the rules to us. I am tired and can’t focus but also I am honored and privileged to meet good people. I was surprised at how many youths are around. I am assigned room 5 with 7 other people already in it (two of whom are teenagers). In a way I was lucky because the room-head (Mohammed Saleh) is also head of the culture/education committee. After a shower (pajama provided kindly by the inmates), I was relaxing in my bed as he held his daily workshop to some 8 teenagers. The subject was the trilateral attack on Egypt and Egyptian-Palestinian relationship.

Prison life is regimented and orderly. When roll call came, we stand up in our rooms next to our beds and the room metal doors are unlocked and several officers are standing tehre and they look at us as vultures while they call either our first or last name and we supply the rest of our name information. Time out is till 6 PM and during time out of rooms, the room doors are opened every half hour for 3 or so minutes in case you want to get something or return to your room. I am told the Palestinian Authority pays Israel 17 dollars /day to keep each prisoner. Israel wants to maintain prisoner number (now in the thousands) as bargaining chips. I am impressed by how organized and clean the prisoners kept their crammed quarters. We agree that if I end up staying, I will learn Hebrew and teach English. In their weekly gathering I was also asked to give them a seminar on my book on history of Popular Resistance in Palestine. They bring me a book about Hebrew and I start to jot down notes about English and give the first two pages about alphabet and pronunciation to Mohammed. We discussed many things.

Around 10:30 PM and as I was beginning to doze off, I heard loud knowck on the locked metal door and my name is called. I am told I am going and to get my things. I quickly change back to the prison uniform, stick my hands out the opening of our room door to be reshackled. The door is open and I find Ahmed (the other Ahmed, not the one injured) sitting and waiting. Then they bring Basil. By that time all the block is up at the doors and small windowns chewcking out what is happening wishing us good wishes. Tears well up in my eyes as we are slowly led away leaving those good people behind. After some processing, change of cloths, reshackling (our feet also shackled), we are loaded onto the a rison transport vehicle. We are told our lawyer must retrieve our identity cards and valuable belongings (wallet, phone). We are dumped with no money and no phone in the middle of the night outside of the prison. The mistreatment upon release is intended to send a message not come back (actually that was the last thing the officer told me). We manage to find a way home.

The first thing I did when I got home after reassuring my immediate family and quickly scanning emails was to watch the video of the amazing and inspiring breach of the borders at Majdal Shams area.

We are sad that 20 people were murdered in trying to peacefully cross the borders (created by an apartheid racist system). We are sad that Munib Masri Jr, 22 year old Palestinian-American and grandson of the famous Palestinian Philanthropist Munib Al-Masri was critically injured (among many hundreds) after being shot by an Israeli sniper using bullets that are paid for by US taxpayers. We are sad and angry about all of this and much more. But we are also inspired and energized by the remarkable collective effort. We are all more certain than ever that this apartheid system is destined to fail like the one in South Africa failed. Perhaps 15 May 2011 will be looked at as the beginning of the end. The Arab Spring is chipping the Apartheid system. The light is at the end of the tunnel. Let us follow it up.

A reporter asked about my arrest at the US State Department Press Briefing. This and your efforts must have had a hand in our quick release http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2011/05/163509.htm#ISRAEL

New York City march on Nakba day

Al-Walaja story (7 new home demolition orders)

And they’re surely all watching this troubling scene on Al Jazeera:

When the ancient impulse of blood lust is stirred up, scary things can happen. At the very least, it makes conciliation ever less likely. The two sides never notice their symmetry. The Times Square guys lack self-awareness, as is always the case with mobs. We train on sports, which help sublimate our tribal impulses. When the primal slow simmer ekes up into a boil, we can find ourselves celebrating real death in exactly the manner we’d previously celebrated our team’s decimation of its rivals.

Me? I’m ashamed, as a fellow human, of bloodthirsty Muslim extremists, I’m ashamed, as a fellow Jew, of bigoted Israeli settlers, and I’m ashamed, as an American, to see these primal impulses increasingly stoked here, where my grandparents brought our family yearning for a more civilized environment.

As I asked a few years ago, “Will we human beings ever learn to react to extremism with enlightened moderation rather than with reciprocal extremism?”

(Cross-posted on my blog.)

Iraq was occupied by the US-led troops from March 20 to May 1, 2003. Five years have passed since the Bush administration launched the war on terror beginning with the campaign entitled “Operation Iraqi Freedom” to topple the Saddam regime in Iraq. Yet the panoramic picture of Iraq continues to remain in a sombre situation. The US was yet to reach its target to “disarm” Saddam Hussein’s regime of weapons of mass destruction in the fight against “terrorism”, but nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons were never found in Iraq after the military occupation.

Iraq war is the most expensive in terms of human and material costs in the US history after the Vietnam War. The official statistics released by the US Congressional Budget Office on December 4, the administration had spent some US $350 billion for military operation in Iraq. Recently, the US Congress approved an additional amount of US $70 billion for the war against terrorism, in which US $50 billion is to be reserved for the war in Iraq. In the next few months, the administration is expected to ask the Congress to gear another US $127 billion for the purpose. This shows that the war in the Iraq has cost the US over US $500 billion in three and a half years, equivalent to the 15-year war in Vietnam from 1960 to 1975. It is noticeable that the expenses for the Iraq war rose year after year from an average of US $217 million per day in the first days of the war to the current amount of US $267 million per day.

According to the estimates by Prof. Joseph E. Stiglitz from the Columbia University, Nobel Prize winner in economics of the year 2001, and Congressman Lee Hamilton, the actual spending for the war in Iraq could reach US $1,000-1,500 billion, accounting for one tenth of the US GDP and ten times higher than the initial estimate. They said that the costs for this war should include all indirect expenses such as health care for war invalids and sick soldiers, compensations for families of dead soldiers, social insurance for all those participating in the war and others.

A report released by the Pentagon on December 18 said that the war had killed 3,195 of coalition troops including 2.984 from the US and injured over 25,000 others. Military experts believed that the US casualties could be much higher. The Pentagon only mentioned those troops killed in action without taking into account the deaths during emergency services and in hospitals. It is estimated that this number should account for 16-30% in the past wars. As a result, the total of US soldiers killed in Iraq should have reached over 8,000, much higher than the war against Vietnam—recent reports talk from about 4000 US deaths.

Despite increasing losses and expenses, it is still far for the US to reach its targets in Iraq. Many people have hoped that following the elections on December 2005, the establishment of an official government on April 2006 together with the killing of Al-Queda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on June 2006, the situation Iraq would be improved. However what is developing in Iraq has gone beyond the US expectation. Iraq is falling in a chaotic situation and the sectarian and religious conflicts are pushing the country in the whirl of bloody violence. In an interview with the BBC, UN former Secretary General Kofi Annan criticised the US-led war in Iraq was illegal, saying that “the level of violence in Iraq was ‘much worse’ than that of a civil war.”

A report completed under Bush by the Iraq Study Group under the US Congress said that as many as 750,000 Iraqi people had been killed and another 1, 3 million were forced to leave their country since the US launched the war in 2003. In fact, Iraq is being divided into three regions: the south dominated by the Shiites, the central part by the Sunnis and the north by the Kurds. The US forces failed to ensure security and daily minimal needs for the Iraqi people, let alone the efforts of national reconstruction.

The increasing problems in Iraq are affecting in the US itself and creating outstanding changes in the face of the region and the world at large. There are more and more critics against the US war in Iraq, marked by the resignations of former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Ambassador John R. Bolton, Permanent US Representative to the United Nations and in 2008 the former commander of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, Admiral William Fallon. President Bush’s prestige reduced to the lowest level since he was elected president in 2001, leading to the defeat of the Republicans during the mid-term congressional elections in November, President Bush had to propose ISG that comprises the representatives from both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party led by James Baker, former Secretary of State (Republican), and Lee Hamilton, US congressman (Democrat) to find a way out of the deadlock situation in Iraq.

As having got bogged down in Iraq, it is difficult for the US to open the second front against the Islamic Republic of Iran which is the main sponsor of terrorism and it has failed to bring pressure to bear on the regime concerning their bilateral conflicts. The US knew under Bush and ignores under Obama the fact the IRI is formed from a group of Islamist thugs, masquerading as a state which is responsible for the main problems of the region. The invasion of Iraq unburden the West to seriously consider the criminal background and the constant violations of human rights of this regime, so the regime became the chance not only to further repress its people, but also to interfere in Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel-Palestine conflict. With a huge military potential, the IRI is emerging as a power in the region.

Bush ’s administration opponent ignoring the black backgrounds human rights in Iran and the ultimate goals of Mullahs islamisation the region, proposed “grand bargain” with the Mullah’s regime and Syria in a hope to stabilise the security in Iraq. The bargain welcomed by the Islamic regime and its lobby groups in the US gave a new chance to the Islamic regime to develop its killing machine both in Iran and Iraq. Mullahs reinforced their repressive forces: under the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a garrison was opened in 2005 to recruit and train volunteers for “martyrdom-seeking operations”. Its commander of this division, Mohammad-Reza Jaafari, called for jihadi operations in the region.

The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was reacted by an escalation of violence and islamisation in the region. Islamists groups like Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon became significant forces. Many analysts said that the US-led coalition against terrorism is facing the danger of disintegration. So far, over 20 countries, including those actively supporting the war in Iraq namely Spain, Canada, Japan and Italy, have withdrawn their troops from Iraq. Meanwhile, China, Russia and EU focused on development with the IRI, emerging as the new strength to possibly threaten the superpower status of the US.

The development of the US-led wars in Iraq proved the failure of the “pre-emptive theory” in the anti-terrorist war. Its powerful military strength could destroy other countries’ infrastructure in a short time, but Washington found it impossible to control and stabilise the security situation. Regarding this issue, former National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger and new Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates assessed that “the US would not gain a military victory in Iraq.” On December 6, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the strongest supporter for the US war in Iraq, also admitted that “the war in Iraq was a “disaster” and was developing in a wrong trend and the US would not be able to win in Iraq.”

Iraq is now overshadowed by sectarian violence and lack of any stability, US troops pretend to do a necessary job for disarming militia groups, persuading all the political and sectarian and religious groups in Iraq to achieve a charter on national reconciliation. It is not an easy decision for the Obama’s admin to withdraw all 155,000 troops from Iraq without letting the arena free for sectarian violence. It is hard to reduce the combat troops and shifting to positive diplomatic activities to improve the situation. The US administration has also been undertaking the contacts and dialogues with resistance groups in Iraq including members of the former ruling Baath party, nothing seems satisfactory. Bush mistakenly entered Iraq and Obama is still bogged, their army has done nothing positive, neither by occupation Iraq nor by withdrawing from Iraq.

The Middle East situation continues to be tense. Violence is still spreading in Iraq and the country is facing the danger of a civil war. The Palestine-Israel conflict is being landed in a cul-de-sac because it has yet to find a way out. The situation in Lebanon and the nuclear issue in Iran are still latent with a possible breaking out. Under such circumstances, it is extremely difficult to find the solutions to all the issues for the whole region. Therefore, it is necessary for all the concerned parties to make greater efforts to step by step establish a real and lasting peace, democracy and stability in the Middle East.

Today Iraq is an arena of war among various Islamic movements, which enjoys widespread and growing support throughout the Arab–Islamic world, encompasses those who believe that all must live in total subjugation to the dogmas of Islamic Sunnite or Islamic Shiite. All these Islamic movement from any Islamic sect conclude that jihad (“holy war”) must be waged against those who refuse to do so. Islamic Totalitarians regard the freedom, prosperity, and pursuit of worldly happiness animating the West as the height of depravity. They seek to eradicate Western Culture, first in the Middle East and then in the West itself, with the ultimate aim of bringing about the worldwide triumph of Islam. This goal is achievable, adherents of the movement believe, because the West is a “paper tiger” that can be brought to its knees by sufficiently devoted Islamic warrior. Bush administration by attacking Iraq while committing civilian crimes in Iraq contributed to highlight such Islamic trends.

In my opinion, islamisation of the region is occurring at a faster speed than its “democatisation” — this term was abusively used by Bush to justify the Iraqi war. Furthermore the Iraqi occupation feed the region on political Islam: not only political Islam in Iran became more brutal, but also Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Syria are today more gravitating towards Islam in their political equations. Islamic trends and violence in the Middle East has gained momentum since the 2003 Iraqi occupation by Bush’s administration.