Fresh Squeezings

WHY PALESTINE? A speech on Solidarity prepared for the G-8 Protests

To all of you gathered here together to protest this meeting of leaders in secret, when the fate of nations is determined by the nodding of a few tired old men, where the gathered so-called leaders of the countries bent on dominating the world meet, on the day when they parade their anointed puppet leader of an occupied nation and falsely proclaim him true president of the Iraqi people, we in Atlanta Palestine Solidarity send you this message of support and solidarity.

This is a significant time in the history of the Arab Palestinian People. Thirty-seven years ago, on June 7, 1967, to the day 859 years after the Crusader armies besieged it, Jerusalem fell to Israeli troops. Entire neighborhoods and villages were destroyed; hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled as refugees to join those who had already suffered too long in exile. The longest lasting military occupation in the world had begun. The destruction of Palestine begun fifty years before was nearly complete.

But we do not just protest that, reason enough though it might be. We must work to help build a movement in this country working in solidarity with the people of Palestine and helping them to gain their freedom to the greatest extent that we can. Some may wonder why there is need for such a movement. Some may wonder why we even have groups like Atlanta Palestine Solidarity. And the reason is easily told:

Our government, our dollars, our names all of them are used to justify the oppression of the Palestinian people. Our silence is our complicity in the crimes that have been committed and are being committed against them. We, all of us, directly pay for their suffering. We are bound to help them relieve that, to do more than turn away in disgust and to actively work to change a situation we, all of us, have helped to create.

We have helped in the dispossession of the hundreds of thousands who fled before Israeli guns in 1948; we have helped deny those refugees their right to return to their homes for all these years and caused them to languish and suffer in their exile; we have funded occupation; we have given comfort to theft and murder; we have stood silent as a people have slowly been driven to the brink of destruction; we have aided a state where apartheid is the law.

There are other causes, worthy causes throughout the world but few where our complicity is more obvious, few where our failure to speak out and resist has done more harm. We cannot let it remain so forever. We must act, we must organize, we must resist. Our voices must be heard saying that we will no longer tolerate the oppression of the Palestinian people, we will no longer pay for it, we will no longer be silent, we will no longer ignore them in their travails. Some will say that to imagine that a few voices here in this state can do much. Perhaps. And that is why we must not limit ourselves to just one day or one deed; we must act, we must resist, we must work to change the way the struggle for Palestine is viewed in this country.

We can look back at how slavery was abolished world wide, at how equal rights came to America and how apartheid was ended in South Africa to know that struggles such as this one can be won and we can even see how they were won. Some struggled within, using a thousand tactics. And, outside, activists shown the bright lights of public scrutiny onto the dark places of oppression. They spoke, they talked they organized and what had once been viewed as normal came to be seen as abhorrent throughout the world. We can do the same for Palestine.

We in ATLANTA PALESTINE SOLIDARITY have begun to work in this time and this place to support the survival of the Palestinian people and to end the illegal, immoral, and brutal Israeli occupation through education, advocacy, and action. We are committed to the principles of self-determination for the Palestinian people and full civil and political rights for all Palestinians. We have called for:
-- an end to U.S. aid to Israel.
-- the United States government to cease its uncritical support of Israel in international forums.
-- the removal of all illegal Israeli settlers and settlements from all the territories occupied in 1967.
-- the recognition of the Right of Return with compensation for the Palestinian refugees as per UN. Resolution 194.
-- an end to the illegal, immoral, and brutal Israeli occupation from all of the Palestinian territories in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
-- self-determination for the Palestinian people and full civil and political rights for all Palestinians.
-- recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to resist Occupation and struggle for their rights and freedom by whatever means are necessary to achieve them.

For too many years, too many in this country fell silent when it came to Palestine. Too many who had important things to day about a thousand issues, who sought to change the world in a thousand ways fell silent when it came to addressing the dispossession and oppression of the people of Palestine. But that has begun to change.

Now, more and more voices ring out to speak of Palestine, more voices in this country tell of what is going on and what must be done by us.

Already, we've actually accomplished a lot in changing things if we think of all the things that haven't happened. In 1948, the Palestine Solidarity movement was miniscule outside a few of the Arab cities; the world witnessed massive ethnic cleansing. Today, because of the work of millions around the world, the Israelis do not dare to implement transfer and speak of leaving Gaza and the West Bank (just as they left Lebanon); that is a victory of this movement ... millions mobilizing against the war on Iraq stopped the war repeatedly (under Clinton and in 2002) and placed some restraints on the invaders. Look at their rhetoric and you can see that we are heard and that we have had an impact; they worry now not just about US casualties (the legacy of Vietnam) but also attempt to convince us that they are careful and concerned about Iraqi civilians.

But we cannot relax. Every day, the objective conditions in Palestine worsen. News comes to us of vast home demolitions in Rafah, of massacres committed by the occupation forces against peaceful demonstrators, of a vicious wall snaking its way across the West Bank and engulfing all before it, of widespread despair and even of hunger. We must go on.

We must realize that the Arab Palestinian people suffer under the weight of three mountains of oppression as the forces of Zionist Colonialism, Western Imperialism and local Arab reaction conspire and combine to squash their just and legitimate struggle for freedom in a trident-like vise of destruction.

At the beginning of the century now past, Europeans cast their covetous eyes upon the fast crumbling Ottoman Empire and conceived the notion of forming a colonial state, a state exclusively for Jewish immigrants and built on the blood of the native people. This Zionist movement robbed the Arab Palestinian people of their birthright and their patrimony, of their chance to develop as a free and independent people. This movement aligned itself with the forces of Western Imperialism and made itself the point of the spear with which the empires of the west would work to rule the Arab East. First, the Zionist movement gladly served as proxy for the British and then the French until those powers, weakened, left the Middle East. And the, Israel made itself the attack dog of the United States, waging war through blood and fire against the peoples of the Middle East and beyond. Meanwhile, other states and forces in the region, especially those that wished to gather the crumbs left over from the imperial plundering of the world, worked to suppress the Palestinian people, locking them in refugee camps and stomping on any attempts of the Palestinian resistance movement in exile to link up with local progressive and national forces. This tale of blood and woe brought massacres in Jerash and Amman, in Tel Az-zaatar and Shatila.

But, even though the blood of the Palestinian people stains many hands, outside of Israel herself, the most vicious enemies of the Palestinian people are the same ones as now slaughter and torture the people of Iraq. Yet, George Bush and the rest of his coterie claim that they are working to achieve peace between Palestinians and Israelis. It is a strange peace they envision for, in this peace process, no Palestinians are included, not even those classes who formerly aligned themselves with American Empire. Instead, the negotiating is to be done by Bush himself.

Bush has neither the right nor the power to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people and certainly has no authority to give away their lands and their rights any more than the Palestinian Authority (or anyone else) has the power to cede California to Canada. By bypassing the Palestinians and even the other Arabs, Bush has demonstrated that the United States is not an impartial arbiter in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Rather, the United States is fully partisan and stands squarely behind Ariel Sharon and the expansionist right wing within Israel. George Bush has spoken forcefully of his full support for Sharon's past crimes and future plans, throwing out any hopes for negotiations in his rush to quash the Palestinians' legitimate rights to their own homes and a life free of occupation and dispossession. In doing so, Bush gave Sharon and his minions the go-ahead to carry out further acts of brutality and terror; without doubt, the vicious murder of Palestinian political and religious leaders and the destruction of Rafah must be added to the butcher's bill of all those people George Bush has had murdered. Their names join the sadly long list of victims that number in the tens of thousands, from Texas to Afghanistan and Iraq and now on to Palestine, all of them killed
by Bush's decree.

The only way to prevent further violence is to bring about a complete end to the Israeli occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine. So long as the occupiers continue to use murder, destruction and brutality as the instruments of their repression of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, there will be resistance and some of it will be violent. If the cycle of violence is to broken, then the time has come for a truly free and democratic Palestine.

So long as George Bush and his cohorts continue to back the most brutal and vicious policies of the Israeli state with full force, this seems unlikely. The only path left open to the people of Palestine is to continue their legitimate resistance and to continue the struggle.

It is this American governmental support for Israel that makes the Palestinian cause a moral imperative for Americans would be true regardless of whether we see the moral issue as one of "occupation" or as one of "apartheid". Other anti-occupation movements in this country, such as the "Free Tibet" movement, have less of an imperative for Americans because there is less American culpability -- and, no matter how much noise is made in the US calling for Chinese withdraw from Tibet, Dr. Hu et al in Beijing couldn't care less ... while building a sturdy grassroots Palestinian solidarity movement in this country can -- and, I dare say, will -- have an effect on both American and Israeli policies. But, in terms of morality, we need to distinguish several issues.

We all, I believe, support the principle of national-self-determination. Yet, we are not out in the streets decrying the lack of rights for many small nations (Kurds, Baluchis, Oromo, Lapps, South Sudanese, etc, etc). Lack of self-determination clearly is not what makes the Palestinian case "special".

We all, I think, agree that military occupation is wrong. I doubt that any of us would have defended the brutality of Indonesian rule in East Timor, the long occupation of the Baltic States, Kuwayt under Saddam, the Serbs in Krajina, Eritrea, or any of a hundred others now, thankfully, ended or of the ongoing repression in Kashmir, Western Sahara, Tibet or anywhere else.

To dismiss these as merely "disputed territories" fails to make a crucial difference; legally speaking that IS what the status of the West Bank and Gaza IS. Israel did not occupy an existent Palestinian state; as the Israelis are fond of reminding us, the West Bank was under Jordanian military rule (that is, occupation) on June 1, 1967 and only the United Kingdom and Pakistan had ever recognized it as anything but Occupied land. Gaza was, quite openly, "UAR Occupied Palestine" at that time.

So what is it that makes Israel a special subject of ire? It has to be what can best be described as "apartheid'. Yes, the use of that term to describe Israel's system of government is new. In 1948, when Israel was created, apartheid was just a Dutch word; it did not become the term for South Africa's racialist system until that year (before then, South African blacks had had more rights). But, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, this Afrikaans term so rich with history carries exactly the right weight and meaning to describe Israeli policy. Yes, in 1967, few people railed against Israel's racist system. But there were some even in this country then.

And, we must not forget, that it was a different world then. Israel was far less an aberration than it is now. South Africa had only just been kicked out of the Commonwealth and, only months earlier, been first condemned for its rule in Namibia. Zimbabwe was still Ian Smith's Rhodesia; Portugal enforced race laws in Angola and Mozambique; five years earlier, massacres of Arabs were still going on to protect the settlers of "Algerie Francaise"; Catholics had few legal rights in Ulster; most of Africa was just emerging from long years of European rule; Johnson had signed the Civil Rights act only two years earlier and America's milder "Jim Crow" form of legal apartheid was still dying.

A generation later and the world has changed as surely as it did when, in a few short generations (1789-1868), chattel slavery went from first an unquestioned commonplace to a hotly debated issue to a memory throughout the western world. Now, race-based apartheid states are fast becoming a memory. Yet, still, Israel abides.

It took years for a global struggle against South African apartheid to grow from being a few frail voices to an unstoppable movement; we are still, unfortunately, in early stages of this struggle yet we cannot lose sight of why we struggle. A new generation has grown up here, there, and everywhere that rejects the concepts of Apartheid out of hand.

To say that a full Israeli withdraw behind the green-line would somehow make things perfect is to deny reality. The Palestinian resistance did not wait until Nablus was taken to take up arms; it recognized that the struggle was about equal rights in Jaffa and Haifa as well as in Ramallah and Gaza.

If anything, the struggle for equality inside the green lines is even more crucial; when Israel ceases to be a Zionist, Jewish exclusive state and the refugees can return home in peace, it will not matter what is occupied. If anything, to concede the struggle for freedom and the right of return is a tacit admission that Israel has been far too gentle in its rule over the West Bank and Gaza; if only they had applied the methods of barbarism of 1948 and expelled the majority of the Palestinians in the June War, then there'd be no debate.

But we cannot, we must not allow the idea that might makes right to stand and we must not allow the idea that even a single square foot of earth anywhere should be ruled by an apartheid government to stand. We must struggle ceaselessly to end apartheid everywhere it remains; in Jaffa and Haifa, in Khan Yunis and Ramallah, everywhere!

Some have argued that challenging on Israel's Apartheid structure isn't a good use of time but is futile because Israel is unlikely to make such concessions and that it makes more sense to put pressure where it will have an effect. But merely saying that Israel is unlikely to unmake itself as a Zionist state is looking at too narrow a horizon. It is entirely possible that at some point in the not too distant future, Israel may unmake itself as a Zionist state.

Such change is not without precedent; South Africa leaps to mind as an immediate example. In South Africa, de Klerk and the rest of his faction knew perfectly well that they were surrendering white political power forever. Yet they did it nonetheless. Most of the Soviet-bloc states similarly unmade themselves without a shot being fired.

And, if anything, Israel's leaders are in a better position to unmake their own ideology than were the South African Nationalists; in the unlikely event that every Palestinian exile returned home immediately, they would only slightly outnumber Israeli Jews at the polls, not overwhelm them in the way that black South Africans outnumber Afrikaaners: a Jewish head of state is imaginable in a post -Zionist state in a way that a white president of South Africa is not.

But we need not just look to South Africa for inspiration. Outside Haiti and the American South, slavery was unmade peacefully; in the British Empire, the northern American states, Brazil (which has a proportionately much larger black population than the US), the Dutch and French West Indies, and the Spanish states, the slave-owners undid their own power. Desegregation in the US involved the granting of a great many concessions by whites (the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was, after all, signed by a southerner).

And all these struggles do tell us something about our own role: the anti-slavery, anti-apartheid, and civil rights movements would NOT have succeeded in getting those concessions if they had simply said, we'll never win. Instead, movements of the oppressed inside the oppressing societies worked hand in hand with some degrees of military pressure and large political movements outside.

Abolitionists and anti-apartheid activists both worked to build awareness and bring economic pressure to bear (there were boycotts in western Europe of slave-sugar, the divestment campaigns of the 1980's, etc) ... and they created a situation where the once "favored sons" were gradually socially and politically isolated, made to feel economic hardship, etc until, at last, they threw in the towel …

we can do the same.

We must do the same.

We must, all of us, struggle alongside our comrades in the Arab Palestinian resistance movement, we must express our solidarity with them, we must do all we can not to let them down but to build the struggle against Zionism, Imperialism and Reaction here until a day will dawn when a free Palestinian Arab Palestinian people take their place among the other free peoples of this Earth.

We must join them in struggle and solidarity, join them in calling for a FREE PALESTINE!
LONG LIVE THE ARAB PALESTINIAN REVOLUTION!
FREE PALESTINE!

ULSTER: A NATION?

Sinn Fein and its friends and allies bombard us with claims that they are the progressive voice of the people of Ireland and that they are a purely secular group. They merely want, they say, to expel the British and the Settlers from All Ireland. Simple enough, eh?

Of course, this is premised on several shaky notions, such as the idea that, because Ireland is a geographical unit, it has and should be a single state and that the 'non-Settlers' (that is non-Protestant, non-Jewish, ie, Roman Catholic) people of All ireland form a single whole.

Personally, I think that Northern Catholics share far more in terms of language, culture, and other aspects of civilization with their Protestant neighbors than they do with their co-religionists in the Free State. (A simple line to me is the scallions/green onions line; Ulsterfolk regardless of sect eat scallions -- as do Scots -- while Free Staters, like English, eat green onions). In Angela's Ashes, one sees folk in Limerick look at Northern Catholics as something alien and that, I think, is very true. North and South are, in my mind, as separate as Canada and the USA, if not more so; two nations sharing much (including a language) but not the same.

Much of how things are looked at in the present (or envisioned for the future) is shaped by how one views the past. If one begins by saying that the conflict in Northern Ireland is between Irish Nationalists and colonial settlers, one inevitably will see SF as the correct path; if one sees it as a sectarian conflict, one throws ones hands in the air and waits for the Messiah; if it is seen as one between the forces of law and order and subversives, the British crown seems the answer; and, if as I do, one sees it as a struggle between a minority identifying with a foreign state and a majority seeking self-determination, Ulster Nationalism seems almost inevitable.

To me, an examination of the history of the North (whether the Six
Counties or the larger Province of Ulster -- the six plus Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal), makes clear that the North has had a separate identity from the South going back well before Plantation or Reformation. In an age before Christianity, even, the Tain Bo Culaigne celebrates the resistance of the Men of Ulster led by Cuchulhain to the Men of Ireland (incidentally, the last name MacCullough comes from Mac Cu Ulaidh -- son of the Hound of
Ulster -- and is a Scots and Scotch Irish name raher than an Irish one). Eventually, of course, Ulster was conquered by the Southern invaders and the Ulster leaders and many of their followers (the Scotti of Dal Riada) were pushed into the sea, moving to Pictland which they then conquered and renamed Scotland after themselves. Some of the descendants of these Ulster exiles ultimately returned a thousand years later and joined with the Protestant descendants of the Ulster folk who hadn't left to become the Ulster protestant community (in addition, the North of Antrim was settled by Scots Catholics who to this day remain ambivalent about both camps).

These new settlers of the early 17th century soon set down roots
and formed a culture distinctly their own. Interestingly, the vast
majority were Protestant sectarians rather than Anglicans and had no
political rights as such any more than did the Catholics (the lie that Presbyterians and other dissenters are at the forefront of Catholic oppression shows how well the English plans worked; the English killed and dispossessed the Irish and then set up the Scots to take the blame).

Actually, the whole use of the term "Settlers" by ultra-Republicans really hits the heart of the issue and is one of the things that most frightens Ulster Protestants with its echoes of how 'settlers' have been dealt with around the world and how the term is used to dehumanize them.

It also comes off as a word loaded with anti-Protestant bigotry. In Eire, the most common last name is Walsh, a name that means 'Welsh' and denotes the origin of the family in Wales. Other common names (esp. in Leinster) are names like Evans (purely Welsh) or beginning with Fitz- (a Norman French name). My own Irish ancestors were mainly from Meath and Tipperary and bore names like Kerwin (Breton) and Evans (Welsh). But, these 'settlers' were Catholics who had come to Ireland after the Pope gave the
French Norman king of England (Henri II) sovereignty over a land he didn't rule (just as the Papacy had granted England to the Duke of Normandy a hundred years before). So, they are not considered foreigners while those who are of 'pure' Irish origin and had, during the Reformation or later, joined one of the new churches are.

It seems odd. Too, people recall things like how a quarter of a million protestants were forced out of the Irish Free State (many from Eire's part of Ulster; Monaghan was abt 40% Protestant before partition) between 1922 and 1930. Irish Nationalism came, after partition, to mean essentially Church rule -- not soemthing much welcomed in the North.

Anyway, after 400 years or more, it is odd that Settler is a term for Protestants only.

The north was never a part of a United Ireland, except under the British Crown (1594-1800) so, logically, there is no real argument for it except that it makes a fair amount of geographic sense; both Ulster and Eire are on the Island of Ireland so they should be one. But it isn't as simple as that. To me, it is the same logic as saying that Portugal and Spain, Sweden and Norway or the USA and Canada ought to be unified. In each case, geographically a certain logic argues for it, and, in each case, the cultures and peoples are closely related. But unity is not desired by the majority in the smaller state. Forcible unification has failed in the
past (like when the US invaded Canada or Spain annexed Portugal) and one can, I think, safely say that, regardless of geography or culture, the fact that Canadians don't think of themselves as 'lost' Americans should suffice just as whatever their origin, the fact that Ulsterfolk don't want to part of Eire should be enough (and, with canada, of course, Anglo-Canada has a the strong parallel of basically being founded by the Loyalist refugees and the Maritime colonists who didn't want to leave the Empire).

Anyway, the British don't much want Ulster and would leave if the
Ulsterfolk would let them go. The Republic hasn't in the past much wanted the North either; before recent secularization in the South, having 1/3 of the country non-Catholic would have much complicated life and even now importing sectarian conflict is in no one's interest.

So, the way out strikes me as one that almost happened; turning the
Province of northern Ireland into the Dominion of Ulster, constitutionally on a par with Canada or Australia inside the Commonwealth and on a par with Eire and the UK in the EU & UN. Then, Britain can declare a victory and go home and the Republican paras can claim the British have been driven out.

Slowly, I think, large parts of the Loyalist community are moving towards a view like this, even though a separate Ulster has always been the unspoken option and much of Ulster has been moving that way and away from British Identity. Several of the smaller parties (esp. the PUP and other more working class Protestant movements) are close to that view and even Trimble has made some noises towards a free Ulster.

RETURNING REFUGEES

A group of Iraqi exiles who fled when the monarchy was overthrown are considering taking legal action in Iraq to recover former properties while the United States remains in control. Perhaps, they will do it, perhaps not. But what does precedent tell us?

Interestingly, the US authorities and puppets in Iraq could look to
American law for a perfect precedent on this question.

At the end of the American War of Independence, almost half a million people (white, black and native) fled the new United States, mainly to Canada, the Bahamas, British Florida and Sierra Leone. Their properties were seized by the American government and redistributed to regime supporters (properties included most of lower Manhattan, northern Virginia, and the vast Iroquois lands in New York state) and their right of return was explicitly denied in American law. No US court has ever recognized any right to property for Loyalists or their decendants (probably because two of the greatest beneficiaries of the stolen land were John Marshall and George Washington). Similair actions were taken towards the Confederado diehards who fled for Latin America as well as
refugees of conscience who fled to Mexico, Canada or elsewhere at various times (Mormons and Mennonites fleeing religious persecution at the end of the 19th century or during the world wars, Muslims more recently)

A case has been filed in Canada for recovery of properties looted in the USA and for reparations; they are estimated to be now worth several trillion dollars.

I would think that any Iraqis who left (for whatever reason) should be welcomed back except for those who took up arms against their homeland. For those who migrated to Israel, there ought to be some sort of penance process (denunciation of Israel, Israeli citizenship, etc). Other states (Yemen, Egypt) could follow and welcome back any Arab Jews who were willing to denounce Zionism fully.

Anything less would show that Iraq is a fully owned subsidiary of Israel and the United States.

DO WE REALLY NEED LEADERS?

I keep hearing calls from self-proclaimed progressives to develop something called 'leadership' in individuals and 'leaders'. While I'm sure some mean something else than what their words imply, the words themselves raise serious hackles for me.

Come on, do we really need leaders? The term itself implies that the majority of people need to be lead. I think that it is one of the most positive things that can be said about any group that no one can be pointed at and called 'the leader' but instead all are "leaders" and none are led.

Breaking away from the old models of needing a dichotomy of leaders/followers to me is one of the most positive advances of recent years and is something that should be embraced, not scorned. It's certainly far more democratic than sitting around waiting for the Man on a White Horse or whatever hero or messiah is to come to lead a movement.

While truly egalitarian movements may be more messy in terms of getting done and may spend longer getting through the process of getting to decisions (and may often appear unfocussed), I think that is a good thing in and of itself. We could have a very tight, focussed movement that was organized strictly hierarchically, and avoid some of these pitfalls but end up with a movement that "the leaders" could sell out at the drop of a hat or might disintegrate with the loss of one or two crucial people. Unless the ends justify
the means and what happens on the journey doesn't matter except the
arrival, then I, for one, see no need for leaders.




RECENT FAILURES?

Another criticism that I have heard of late is that these movements of the recent past are failures. Yes, electoral politics have shifted rightward in some ways. But to look at that alone is to fail to see that things move as a dialectic.

Already, we've actually accomplished a lot in changing things if we think of all the things that haven't happened. In 1948, the Palestine Solidarity movement was miniscule outside a few of the Arab cities; the world witnessed massive ethnic cleansing. Today, because of the work of millions around the world, the Israelis do not dare to implement transfer and speak of leaving Gaza and the West Bank (just as they left Lebanon); that is a victory of this movement ... millions mobilizing against the war on Iraq stopped the war repeatedly (under Clinton and in 2002) and placed
some restraints on the invaders. Look at their rhetoric and you can see that we are heard and that we have had an impact; they worry now not just about US casualties (the legacy of Vietnam) but also attempt to convince us that they are careful and concerned about Iraqi civilians.

It's a dialectic process and we are changing things, gradually but surely.



TODAY'S MOVEMENT

Some of the gray-hairs say that today things are a hodge-podge of mixed ideas and issues forming an incoherent whole, not as in the pas. But to say this is to forget that that is nothing new: I recently saw a film (Berkeley in the Sixties) and saw the
movement of those days depicted as at least as much a hodge
podge (free-speech pro-civil rights activists singing Zionist youth
movement songs, etc), counter-cultural dropouts combining with old left and new left ...

An even earlier generation saw a movement against slavery to which other causes attached themselves (an 8 hour day, woman suffrage,
spiritualism, etc) ...

It's part of the nature of the struggle for increased democracy that we won't all agree on everything and that some will be pushing stonger on some aspects that others might think should be
secondary ... and that is a good thing ...

THE KING'S MEN

Recently, we encountered some die-hard Iraqi monarchists (children of those who had fled after the Revolution of 14 July) and they were probably more rabid in denouncing Arab Nationalism and the Palestinians than in theoir spewing of hate towards other Iraqis (Saddam for these guys is only a secondary devil after Abd'el-Karim Qasim).

It is, in my mind, fairly ironic that some of these Iraqi royalists would be so anti-Palestinian; the actual record of the Kingdom of Iraq was that it had one of the better (for the states of that time) policies towards Israel -- King Ghazi personally set up radio stations for Palestine and sent aid as early as the outbreak of the first Intifada in 1936 and the Iraqis alone refused to sign a
truce with israel in 1949. (Arguably, Qasim, Aref, Bakr, and Saddam
merely continued policies towards Israel and Palestine that they had
inherited from the monarchy; the Iraqi treatment of Palestinian refugees in Iraq wasn't a Baathi policy). (On a side note, the couple of actual Hashemites I've known have been pretty pro-Palestinian)

Anyway, I think some of it is that 'enemy of my enemy' thinking and some of it has to do with the fact that a lot of these guys who 'got in bed' with the neo-cons accepted the whole thing. I think that it's worth remembering that a lot of the anti-Saddam Iraqis who have a genuine basis in the masses are also very
pro-Palestinian. I don't think we need to go further than Muqtada al-Sadr, a man who fought Saddam and has declared himself to be a representative of Hamas or the fact that during the Shia uprising in 1991, the Shia called it an "intifada" and all their propaganda made the parallel of Saddam = Israel.

I have heard pro-west Turks and Persians be very pro-Israel though much of that seems to come from a hostility to Arabs and Islam and a desire to appear as past of a superior Europeanoid civilization. I don't know too much about the Kurds (of course, they did get arms from Israel ...)

SUICIDE BOMBING OR MARTYRDOM OPERATION?

I can honestly say I do not understand how anyone can disparage suicide bombing while remaining silent about other forms of violence. Perhaps, I am either very stupid or hopelessly naïve. All I know is that I cannot comprehend what it is about those Palestinian “suicide-bombers” that earns so much moral condemnation from, first, various establishment figures in the US and Israel and, now, from our so-called friends and allies who expect us -- including me -- to do the same. It bothers me that we are
expected to condemn this when they are the ones who remain silent on so much else.

I keep expecting that, as soon as I hear yet another condemnation of
‘suicide bombers” that it will shortly be followed by condemnations of killers who strike from aircraft, from tanks, or from behind
fortifications. I expect to hear of the depravity of the stock-pilers of nuclear weapons. I assume that anyone who finds someone blowing himself up and killing a handful of occupiers so repugnant will surely have his stomach turned when he learns of men who kill by the hundred from the safety of an aircraft at thirty thousand feet and, rather than dying alongside their victims, knock off from the killing fields to relax behind a cold can of Pabst Blue Ribbon with a clear conscience.

Is that somehow more moral? Is it better to kill and then go home
afterwards and receive a medal? To kill and live to brag about it?

I'm sorry, but to me, the suicide-bomber is a far more moral creature than the homicide bombers they hold parades for and tie yellow ribbons around trees in anticipation of.

Those ones live free of the moral consequences of their act. In the
Torah, the teaching stands "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". Does not the suicide bomber pay that consequence? Does the occupier? Who is on a higher moral field?

Like I said, I fear I'm being very naive here so correct me, please, if I'm not catching it. What is it that is so terrible about a suicide bomber as opposed to any other type of warrior? I'm not speaking of whether such tactics are wise but whether they are moral -- and I've got to admit I just don't get it.

THE LAWS OF THE WORLD

A friend has been arguing that using the texts of UN Resolutions, international conventions, and so on as a basis for arguing the Palestinian case is wrongheaded. While I do agree that the UN is often little more than a club of rulers and as the recent history of Iraq shows, is often a tool of oppression, it is the closest thing to a world legislature and as such has a very important role (along with the international judiciary system) in terms of the Palestine Struggle.

First off, the UN, world court and the body of international law form a set of binding rules for conduct and can be appealed to; in terms of this body, the Palestinians have a clear and legal case. The morality of it doesn't need to be argued as, in my opinion, the law is fairly clear.

I think it is very much like looking at the role of US Constitutional law in ending slavery and later in civil rights; regardless of who had written them, the law stood as such and the goal of forcing the American State to live up its stated principles was certainly worthy.

The Palestinian case is a matter of getting the stated laws and principles to be applied. We have to work with what we have and try to get those real existent institutions to live up to their high and lofty goals. At the very least, it makes our job easier.

FRESH MEAT

I did a little research on-line and asked a few people about the question of whether eating raw meat was forbidden in Islam. And, it appears that it isn't but ... some of the rulings I found said it was ok so long as it was of animals with no blood, others said always ok, others that it was permissible but disliked.

I also spoke to some more people and got the same mix of answers, ranging from totally forbidden to 'what's the big deal?' I did learn that in Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan, the consumption of raw meat (kifto, etc) is considered haram for Muslims even though it is very popular amongst the Christian and Animist communities (there, it is a marker of Islam since little pork is eaten by anyone); I also found an article saying that HIV is very rare among the Muslim communities there partially due to not eating raw meat (it is very prevalent in Ethiopia).

Anyway, even if it isn't forbidden, I think it interesting that at least some people believe that it is (which would then, I suppose, make it part of 'folk Islam', like some of the people who believe women should be clad in Ninja garb without Quranic support) ...

Next question? Where to get kibbeh nayeh in Atlanta ...

QUICK DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE

Today, the US occupation authority is saying that they have captured
members of the Saddam Fedayeen - Baathi holdouts - and say that they are responsible for the execution of Nick Berg. The news says that a nephew of Saddam planned and ran the operation but he is still at large.

Last week, they announced that they had conclusively identified the
perpetrators as Abu Musab Zarqawi and other foreign Islamicist fighters. The US even imposed sanctions on Syria as a result.

Has anyone else noticed that they are assuming we have no memories?

Over the past couple of years, I've noticed several of these memory hole stories -- the experts, etc assert something fairly clearly and as being more than conjecture, then do an aboutface to the new oficial reality and assume we don't remember last week's truth.
Orwell (or maybe even Dick!) seem more prophetic daily ...

On the Berg thing, here's something to think of: the guys in the video look military (all are about the same size, build, etc all in shape) while when we see images of groups of alQaeda or other militants, they are in all shapes and sizes (a scrawny little guy next to a fat guy next to a really tall guy, so on) ... so, one assumes whoever is in the video, they are probably from a state-military formation (ex-iraqi army? US army?) Anyway, the whole life history of Berg is very, um, odd ... almost makes
one smell a conspiracy ...

ABU GHRAIB

(I'll post more on this, I'm sure, but for now ... )


The thing that I've heard that really sends chills more than anything else
is the story about the insurgent attack on Abu ghreib a few weeks ago; at
the time, it seemed very bizarre. Guerillas shelled the prison and
prisoners ran into the gunfire. No one understood and it sounded like
Iraq was a land of the insane. Now, it appears taht prisoners inside
asked their friends on the outside to come kill them as an act of mercy.

That has really shaken me, that the prisoners would rather die. It sounds
to me like the sort of story one could easily imagine in Poland in 1943;
Jews in a work camp asking partisans to come kill them rather than
continue to suffer, not something that I would ever have imagined to be
happening with American involvement.

A statement on a statement and a state or two

On the issue of the Rantissi statement that I drafted and the apparent controversy and concerns that it has elicited, I'd like to make a few points.

Several persons have found the last paragraph objectionable and wondered if it meant a change in APS's lack of a position on the One-State-vs.Two-States question. The paragraph reads:

"As Dr Rantissi said last month, "we will fight them until the liberation of Palestine, the whole of Palestine. Even if the Zionists kill all of us leaders, they cannot kill the resistance.""

First off, I would like to state that when I composed the piece, I intended the close to be a chance to allow the man who had been silenced for speaking to have a last say and wanted to include his own words of a few weeks before his own death as a fitting 'epitaph'. I found them eerily prophetic and thought others would, too. (The quote actually reminded me of Churchill's first speech as Prime Minister with its defiance and willingness for self-sacrifice.) I thought that others might also see the futility of Israel's murderous policies as a supposed 'path to peace' made clear by Dr. Rantissi own words. I thought others would recognize in these words a clear expression of the idea that the Palestinian resistance springs not from one or two men, whatever the power of their ideas, but directly from the suffering of an entire people and their natural desire to obtain their rights and freedom. Perhaps, I was wrong and others don't see these things or find them objectionable. I really don't know.

I do see, though, that some might object to the phrase "until the liberation of Palestine, the whole of Palestine". My personal belief is that simply ending the Occupation, while materially and immediately beneficial to several millions of human beings, should not be the end process to the struggle for Palestinian liberation so long as Israel continues to exist as a racist and apartheid state denying equality for all its citizens and denying several millions of Palestinian refugees their most fundamental right to their own homes. I believe that the liberation of Palestine will not be completed until all of Palestine is free and democratic, not simply the West bank and Gaza. Just as anti-apartheid activists refused to accept the South African homelands as they left most of South Africa under racism (even though the creation of the homelands for Black South Africans was far more generous with land and resources than even the most 'generous' offers made to the Palestinians), I don't believe that we can speak of justice in a Palestine 22%-free and 78-under apartheid. As to whether Palestine should be divided into two states or be one, I really don't think it matters so long as there is freedom and equality for everyone in all of it. I don't think a one state solution is fundamentally better (or worse) than a tw, three, or a fifty state solution, so long as all are founded on principles of Justice and Equality. It could be called Israel, Palestine, Canaan or Cloudcuckooland -- I don't think that matters as much as the issues of freedom and equality.

But, I realize that this is a concept not shared by all. Many of those who support an end to the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza do so out of a desire to de-link their vision of a Jews-only State from the fate of the victims of Occupation or a simple (and understandable) desire to end or alleviate bloodshed without serious attempts at justice or democracy. And I understand that we do work with many who desire a 'beautiful Israel' freed of the blemish of the pesky Palestinians and I in no way meant to drive them off.

Certainly, had anyone suggested that the draft I submitted sounded like I was committing APS to a position on the One vs. Two State Question, I would gladly have changed the text, perhaps to read something like:

"Less than a month before he died, Dr. Rantissi said, "we will fight them until the liberation of Palestine, the whole of Palestine. Even if the Zionists kill all of us leaders, they cannot kill the resistance.""

or perhaps:

"Dr Rantissi said last month, "even if the Zionists kill all of us leaders, they cannot kill the resistance.""

Perhaps, such a text could be the one that is posted on the web-site. I, for one, would have no objection to such ammendation.

WHY WE STARTED APS
I think it might be worth rehashing why we started APS almost two years ago rather than simply working through
other organizations and coalitions (like IAC, ADC or NION) that agreed with most of our views:

as i recall it, our idea was that by forming a group that was specifically focussed on Palestine and solidarity with the Palestinian people, we could make sure that, in Atlanta, the Palestinian issue was always on the table and was consistently upheld rather than simply being a subpoint of other campaigns.

We decided that, by being somewhat separatist, we could insure that a constant supply of energy went into building solidarity on behalf of Palestine. At the same time, we also intended to work in coalition with other organizations that shared many of our goals and values. By being a formally separate organization, rather than simply a loose affiliation of
people who shared concerns, we thought we could achieve far more and could work with many, many more other organizations.

As we close in on the two year mark, I think we've been tremendously succesful in doing so; March 20 was a great reminder of that. Our hard work and constant presence has helped place the issue of Palestine front and center in the anti-war movement here; that's simply undeniable. We have developed positive working alliances with a wide
range of other progressive groups and have gotten many of them (at least locally) to really put our issues on the front burner. i don't think that that is osmething we could have done if we simply subsumed ourselves into broader coalitions.

ETHNIC SUCCESS

Someone recently told me that WASPs (a term I find objectionable) are the most successful group in the USA followed by Irish catholics. But ... Ever been to Appalachia? Plenty of Anglo-protestants with no money, no shoes, nothing ... or go to Southie and places like that to see 'Irish America' ...

With the descendants of English settlers, one definitely finds many wild successes amongst the descendants of the planter classes but there are just as many (often descendants of the indentured) who never prosepered. Rural America is full of 'poor whites' (or WASPs if you prefer) and for every George Bush there are a hundred 'Swamp Yankees' or others who never joined in the wealth. The same holds true for Irish Catholics; there are many spectacular success stories but far more who were left behind.

While I have heard that, in terms of wealth per capita, Iranian-Americans have the highest household income in the USA and that, as of 1990, Egyptian-Americans were the best educated (though that was probably skewed by a lot of grad students and few children), I think ethnic success can be seen in more ways that one

Certainly, in terms of relative lack of poverty within the group, overall economic success and high over all education, Jews in America are in the top tier of ethnic groups. And, if success is seen in influence relative to numbers, American Jews have been tremendously successful in such fields as literature, film, music as well as journalism and politics -- Jews in
America have had a huge impact (domestically overwhelmingly positive) here, probably far more than some groups who are more numerous and of a similar age (like Italians or Poles).

politically, again, in terms of numbers versus influence, Jews have been extremely successful in influencing American opinion and policy. Some of that has surely been shaped by the confluence of ethnic-politics and foreign policy goals; in the same way, the relatively small Cuban exile community has shaped American policy towards Cuba (by pushing it further
to the right) while some well organized groups with a large amount of money have largely failed (I think of Armenians and Greeks trying to shape US Turkey-policy). What is unusual about the Jewish Community is that in most cases, political passion towards a 'homeland' withers after a few generations (even if sentiment remains) -- two large groups, the 20 million or so Ulster Protestants or the 35 million or so African Americans far outnumber Jews in the USA but have had little influence on US policy in Northern Ireland or Africa as they are far away in time and thus in concern. In other groups, such as Arab-Americans, Irish Catholics, East european Slavs, etc, one finds high levels of interest and concern about the homeland in the immigrant generation and its children -- after that, concern seems to fade. Among Jews, though, it is not unusual to find individuals whose grandparents and great grandparents are all US born but are still very passionately committed to Israel --- that is definitely a major difference ...

WHITE SUPREMACY, CAPITALISM AND ZIONISM

White Supremacy in the USA and South Africa was invented by capitalism as a means of imposing upper class rule; before the middle of the seventeenth century, race simply wasn't a conscious factor in determining the course of empire but race was'invented' as a concept to divide working people against one another as a form of false consciousness so as to prevent social upheaval and maintain the status quo. In that, capitalism triumphed; three hundred plus years later, racial divisiveness remains one of the most important facts of American politics and obstacles to serious social change. The fact that we are even discussing it now shows how well they succeded.

Capitalism doesn't prop up white supremacy; white supremacy was created and, for much of its history was propped up by capitalism.

Israel is distinctly a separate case in that Zionism as an ideology was formulated as a supremacist system not to augment capitalism but for its own goals. This makes it that much harder to dislodge.

Outside non-ideological supporters of Zionism (in Britain, France or the USA) however have interpretted Zionism as a form of white supremacy/colonial rule and have treated Israel as though it were merely an economically driven settler state with the same sort of place in the international system as other such states (liek SOuth AFrica, Australia, or, before it achieved hegemonic power on its own, the USA); Israel would be the regional bridgehead for the West and hegemonic within its region, keeping the neighboring states subservient to global Empire. Those supporters of Israel have also pushed things like the Roadmap and other plans that propose maintaining Israel as hegemon while ameliorating
Palestinian suffering and, perhaps, allowing a number of Arab faces to be involved in management. Israel's repeated rejection of such proposals has been caused by its own ideological needs; if Israel were simply a South African-style state, there would almost surely be a small subservient Palestinian state by now.

The Arab collaborationist classes (those groups & states that have made their peace with Western world domination like theArab princes, the current Egyptian rulers and the new ruling class in Iraq) have made the same mistake; they have started from the assumption that Zionism is on a par with white supremacism in South Africa and that it is based on
economics. They have repeatedly made known that they are willing to make peace with Israel so that both groups can get wealthier in the world economy. And those drives have all failed because Zionism is not driven by the goal of maximizing profits.

COLONIALISM'S PLAN B

On the issue of Christians & colonialism in the Middle East, I think it might be worth recalling that, just a few miles north of Palestine, there is an Arab Christian community that made itself readily available for European dominance: the Maronites of Lebanon. This community approached the West asking that it be able to play a role as colonial wedge into the Middle East and regional hegemon in an age of European Empire well before European rule actually arrived in the Arab East.

As with the Zionist settlers, a Maronite Greater Lebanon would be dependent for its independence from Muslim rule on its relations with the West (and, thus, both Zionists and Maronites were much better colonial subordinates than any Muslim state could be) while, unlike the Zionists, being better placed culturally to serve as an economic/political bridgehead into the region (the Maronites after all are Arab-speakers).

The Maronites (primarily vis-a-vis France) and the Armenians (who had similar relations with Czarist Russia) were not the only Christian communities in the Middle East but, unlike the others (Melkhites, jacobites, etc), they formed geographically compact proto-nations that could play a role as local fronts for imperial rule. The British might have prefered to work with one of them over the Zionists, but, they were 'already taken" by France and Russia; to achieve he same kind of local
bridgehead, the British needed to help in the inventing of a new people in the region.

I think that the history of Greater Lebanon shows a great many parallels to that of Zionism in Palestine and, had Zionism not worked out so well for its patrons, one miight now wonder why the USA sends billions to the Phalangists ...

WHAT'S WHITE?

I've been in some discussions lately about white supremacy and it seems to me that a fundamental question is often unanswered:
-- What is 'white'?

It seems like it is used in several non-synonymous ways. Is it a racial/physiognomic description and if so what does that
mean (the old paper bag test?)? Is it an ethnic description and if so where do 'white' people come from historically? If so, that needs to be precise. Is it a cultural thing? Linguistic? What?

(Many of the terms one finds in these discussions are of mixed origin: white and black are colors, arab and semite are linguistic, jewish is religious, palestinian and american are geographic ... etc)

These aren't easily answered and have been answered variously: white at one time had a legal definition in this state, one that Arabs and Jews successfully lobbied to be included in (notice where the old synagogues and Arab churches are in this town vs. the old segregation lines) -- is that what we mean? "Not African American"? Or "not otherwise defined with a hyphen"? "Caucasian"? "European"? "Pale-complected"?

further:

-- What is a nationality? What defines one? Are religions nations?
-- Are Jews a nationality (oppressed or otherwise)? This is also one of the core questions for discussions of Zionism, anti-Semitism, etc. If the 1943 Warsaw ghetto rising was done by Poles of Jewish faith, it has one meaning; if it was of Jews who happened to be in Polen it has another ...

And, if Jews are a nationality, esp. an oppressed one, then the quest for a Jewish national home is reasonable; if not, then the end of Jewish oppression would be tolerance and assimilation in the assorted countries they live in ...

It might help to have some clarity on such when such topics are raised.

to that end, here are my own definitions for two:
white and jewish.

On the first, WHITE, my own usage is to term as white anyone who would have been labelled as such in the segregated south (to be specific, that is anyone I or my sister could have legally married in the Commonwealth of
Virginia prior to the overturning of miscegenation laws in 1967). As defined at that time, anyone came from or who was descended from the historic peoples of Europe, Africa north of the Sahara, the (now former) USSR, and Asia west of Pakistan (Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, and the Arab lands) was considered white with all the legal rights that that meant.
(Of course, that doesn't mean that all such were accorded equal rights in practice -- religious bigotry and ethnic chauvinism also play a role, sometimes more than racism).

Anyway, in my personal usage, to refer to Jews, Irish, Poles, Lebanese, etc 'becoming white' is nonsense as they were always white and most certainly never experienced the de jure and de facto effects of slavery and segregation; I would refer to becoming assimilated to the dominant American culture (initially that of English settlers) -- as did other,
earlier waves of French Huguenots, Ulster Scots, Palatinate Germans, New Amsterdam Dutch, Sephardic Jews, etc ...

(on a similar note, I also find the use of the term "anglo-saxon" problematic and not just as a synonym for white; the descendants of the Anglo-Saxons aren't the ruling class anywhere, certainly not in England except under Oliver
Cromwell -- England itself was conquered by the Norman French and their descendants -- the British aristocracy -- are by no precise meaning Anglo-Saxon; but that is just a further quibble)

As to JEWISH, that also has several meanings; in Israel, there've been serious debates as to 'who is a jew' and what that even means. Of course, the easiest definition is 'whoever says they are' but quickly we run into
the confusion: is Jewish a term for practicing members of a religion, those born into it but no longer practicing, an ethnic group, a race ... ?

On the last, one finds that many anti-semites and Zionists agree; Jewish-ness is heritable and one doesn't have to be aware of it to possess it (hence, the various degrees of mischling under the Nazis or the granting of immigrant status to Israel of Russian Christians and Ethiopian Muslims) ...

I think that jewishness has varied over time so that some, but not all, Jews are the biological descendants of people who emigrated from, essentially, the southern West Bank, some are converts and the descendants of converts to the religion of those emigrants, and so on ...

I don't have a precise definition beyond that of self-identification -- (of course, can one be 'half-jewish' if jewish-ness is purely a matter of religious practice? i don't think one can be half-muslim or half-presbyterian ...)

WHEN A JOLT IS NEEDED

Sometimes, one finds that one cannot help but to offend; calling a racist a racist or a fascist a fascist may cause them to turn a deaf ear but ...

and sometimes a jolt is needed, even though it may turn people off.

A personal anecdote:
Growing up in the South in the 70's and 80's, I had never thought of the Confederate flag as being particularly racist. it was simply a symbol of courage, honor, and chivalry from the past even if it were a bit declasse to wave one. If it were offensive, I and the people I grew up around, thought of it as being offensive to the people who hated white Southerners and deserved to be offended. We knew it as 'the rebel flag' and, if any connotation other than Southern heritage clung to it, it was one of rebellion against authority. I left the south at 15 and moved to Ohio. There, I was beaten up by other kids for having a (since lost) Virginia drawl and heard repeatedly that southern people were mentally deficient, toothless inbreds ... something one gets from the media culture. Anyway, not long after, I put up a little Confederate flag and a picture of Robert E Lee in my locker as symbolic defiance (alongside an anarchy symbol and various communist and punk stuff; part of a general adolescent 'fuck alla y'all').

As soon as I came of age and proved I was smarter than any of the Ohio kids, i went back to the south (and have stayed basically ever since), no longer needing to carry much southern pride ...

Anyway, when I was in college, a black student graphically equated the Confederate flag with the swastika. I was initially offended; it struck me, initially, as far-fetched and really offensive to make the comparison between a bunch of racist thugs and a valiant lost cause. But I didn't simply turn a deaf ear -- I thought about what was being said, talked with friends and realized that i was being totally oblivious to how such a symbol appeared to African-Americans. And my thinking on it changed drastically.

Sometimes, being less than polite does work; I doubt if I had merely heard that black students found the Confederate flag bothersome would I have given more than a second's thought to the matter where seeing something initially shocking did arrest my thinking and caused me to reconsider.

HOW NOT TO SPEND YOUR WINDFALL

Once upon a time, there was an Arab state that had huge oil reserves and, rather than investing its money in US banks while the common people languished, built roads, schools, hospitals and invested heavily in building factories for import-substitution of everything from cigarettes to cars --

They also spent some money on funding inter-Arab cultural and political organizations but that money was seen as a threat as was the fact that, not only had they nationalized oil, but they were now using it to better themselves ...

so, of course war was made against them and that country was destroyed. The oil was redivvied up among western concerns ...

and not just Iraq; the only other Arab state to have as its goal the use of oil wealth for the betterment of the common person (rather than the enriching of the elite and investors in western banks) was Libya ---- and they too ended up bombed by the USA and under sanction ....

odd that the two Arab states that the USA has waged open warfare against and the UN has imposed economic sanctions on happen to be those two,

is it?

BUSH MEETS SHARON

On April 14, American President George W. Bush met with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and afterwards publicly announced a new American policy that contradicts stated American policy goals of the past and effectively endorses all the worst aspects of current Israeli policy. Some are already calling Bush's announcement a 'new Balfour' (after
the 1917 British declaration that officially endorsed the notion of establishing a Jewish state in the newly conquered and overwhelmingly (92%+) Arab Palestine) and are warning that it could lead to catastrophe for the people of Palestine on a level not seen since the 1940's.

What has happened and what are the consequences of this reversal of policy? What does it imply for the future?

Sharon came to Washington seeking three commitments from the USA: backing for the unilateral Gaza withdrawal, American recognition that Israel would hold on to large portions of the West Bank, and an American rejection of the right of millions of Palestinian refugees from the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 and their descendants to return to their lands in what is now Israel.

Bush gave him all three in return for a promise by Sharon to trade something Israelis overwhelmingly do not want any more: the Gaza settlements and a handful of settlements in the West Bank. Further, Sharon won these without having to negotiate with the Palestinians themselves.

Sharon had previously announced his intention of removing Israeli settlements and most (though not all) military installations from the occupied Palestinian Gaza Strip as well as Israeli pull-outs from small portions of the Occupied West Bank. In return, Israel would keep large portions of the West Bank and prepare them for eventual annexation into the Israeli State. In addition, Israel intends to maintain control over Gaza's links to the outside world.

Sharon has packaged the planned pull-out from Gaza as a 'painful concession' but this is patently nonsense; Gaza, with its seething camps and restive population, has been a burden rather than an asset to Israel, a wretched place full of poverty and violence, and has neither historic resonance nor religious significance for Jews and Zionists, never having been part of any of the historic Jewish kingdoms. Since at least the late 1980's when Yitzhak Rabin spoke of his desire that Gaza fall off into the sea, Israeli leaders of both the left and right have searched for a way to 'get rid of' the
burdens and responsibilities occupying Gaza has brought them.

Bush responded to Sharon's plan by calling ut "historic and courageous actions." This is a complete break not only from Bush's own road map - which called for a negotiated rather than imposed settlement - but also from 37 years of US policy, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The abandonment of even the attempt to appear to be an honest broker in the Middle East is a departure from the post-1945 US consensus without precedent.

The new developments have several obvious meanings and consequences:

1. Ends the Peace Process: ever since the Madrid Conference organized by the administration of the first President Bush in 1991, the United States government has been publicly committed to engaging all the parties to the Middle East conflict in talks and negotiations with the goal of ending conflict through negotiation and peaceful settlement. While often rocky and frequently leaving itself open to charges of pro-Israel bias, for thirteen years the USA has been the driving force keeping Israel committed to the various peace talks and plans -- Madrid, the Oslo process, Wye River, Taba, and so on through last year's Road Map. Bush has now effectively tossed that history and all that it has attained out the window, instead endorsing the position of one side with no regard for the others.

2. Legitimizes the concept of "land through war": Bush has taken the unprecedented step, contrary to all International Law and previous American policy of recognizing military invasion and conquest as legitimate. Previous American policy, as stated by President Bush's father, that "occupation is provocation and it must end" and applied towards the Iraqi-Kuwaiti conflict is turned on its head. American policy is now to back military conquest and occupation as legitimate.

3. Legitimizes an illegal land grab: no longer does Washington regard settlements as illegal and "obstacles to peace" but instead sees them as "new realities on the ground" to be recognized. For the first time in American diplomacy in the Middle East, Bush announced that major Jewish settlements on the West Bank had achieved the status they aimed for: rooted "facts on the ground," or, as Bush called them, "already existing major Israeli population centers." Every American president since 1967 (including Bush himself) has said that all settlements are illegal (as per the Geneva Conventions which names such settlements as a major war crime); now they are to be supported.

4. Nullifies the Right of Return: Bush has stated that "seems clear that an agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, as part of any final status agreement, will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than Israel." This is far from just or fair and flies in the face of International law (the Geneva Conventions), UN resolutions (194 and after) and Israel's own agreed commitments (UN resolution 278, admitting Israel to the UN on the condition that Palestinian refugees
had the right to return to their homes). The Palestinians who were driven forcibly from their homes within Israel in 1947-1949 and have languished ever since as refugees have the moral and legal right to return to those homes and to receive compensation for their losses. This is undeniable. Their homes are not in Gaza and the West Bank and it is not negotiable. Israel has a moral obligation to allow these people, many of whom still possess the keys and the titles to
their lost homes, to return to their homeland.

5. Recognizes Israel as a racial state and not a democracy: Bush stated that "the United States is strongly committed to Israel's security and well being as a Jewish state". Denying the rights of the indigineous people of Palestine to self-determination and the right of return (see above) on the basis that such a move might jeopardize the "Jewish character" of the State of Israel is deeply immoral and problematic. It flies clearly in the face of America's stated commitments to democracy and self-determination.

6. Undermines US allies: British Prime Minister Tony Blair persuaded a reluctant parliamentary Labour party to vote for war on Iraq last year with the promise that he would push Bush to act on Israel-Palestine. His reward was the much-delayed publication of the road map, which was hardly a great triumph: merely a set of toothless guidelines and a hoped-for timetable. Other European and Arab allies similarly have called for American action on behalf of the people of Palestine.
Yet, Bush has shown his contempt for commitments made to Britain and other historic American allies, turning away from them in his embrace of Sharon. This hardly enhances American security or any remaining credibility in American stated policy objectives.

7. Leads towards further violence and away from peace: by negating the possibility of gaining anything through negotiations and peaceful tactics of resistance, Bush sends the clear message to the Palestinian people and the world that the only way to achieve self-determination and other goals is through armed struggle. As Palestinian President Yasser Arafat said Wednesday afternoon, the endorsement would end "the chances of peace, security and stability
in the area" and would unleash "the cycle of violence." One cannot imagine that anyone desires this yet, sending the message that the United States will back what is gained by force (the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza) and will torpedo anything gained by negotiation (the former Middle East peace process), this is exactly what Bush has done. As Mohammed Hindi, a senior leader of the Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip, said of the agreements "they prove that resistance is the only choice that will benefit the Palestinian people."



Bush has neither the right nor the power to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinian people and certainly has no authority to give away their lands and their rights any more than the Palestinian Authority (or anyone else) has the power to cede California to Canada. By bypassing the Palestinians and even the other Arabs, Bush has demonstrated that the United States is not an impartial arbiter in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Rather, the United States is fully partisan and states squarely behind Ariel Sharon and the expansionist right wing within Israel.

The only way to lasting peace in the Middle East is by returning to the concept of the precedence of internationally agreed upon standards of conduct as detailed in the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Charter, and numerous UN Resolutions. From that basis, genuine peace can be acheived on a basis of fairness, justice and democracy. To that end, we call for:

-- an end to U.S. aid to Israel.
-- the United States government to cease its uncritical support of Israel in international forums.
-- the removal of all illegal Israeli settlers and settlements from all the territories occupied in 1967.
-- the recognition of the Right of Return with compensation for the Palestinian refugees as per UN. Resolution 194.
-- an end to the illegal, immoral, and brutal Israeli occupation from all of the Palestinian territories in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
-- self-determination for the Palestinian people and full civil and political rights for all Palestinians.
-- recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to resist Occupation and struggle for their rights and freedom by whatever means are necessary to acheive them.

STATEMENT ON RANTISSI

Atlanta Palestine Solidarity Condemns the Assassination of Dr Abd al-Aziz Rantissi
October 23, 1947 - April 17, 2004

Atlanta Palestine Solidarity condemns in the strongest terms possible the cowardly assassination of Dr Abd al-Aziz Rantissi Saturday by Israeli Occupation Forces. We extend our sympathies and condolences to the families, friends, comrades and compatriots of all those who died in what APS considers to be the essence of state-supported terrorism. We voice our outrage at an American Administration that has aided and abetted this act of criminal barbarism.

Yesterday, Dr Rantissi's car was attacked by missiles launched from a helicopter of the Israeli Occupation Force while he was driving through Gaza City. His two companions and his son were with him in the car and died instantly while Dr Rantissi was rushed to Shifa Hospital where he died from his wounds. With this terrorist act of extra-judicial murder,
Israel finally silenced one of its strongest and most consistent critics.

Like so many Palestinians, Dr Rantissi's entire life had been shaped by the force of Israeli dispossession and occupation. He was born on October 23, 1947, just as the Nakba, the Palestinian Catastrophe, began. His home village of Yebna was attacked and destroyed by Zionist forces in early May 1948 (before Israel had declared its existence) and its people were driven out in a brutal campaign. Dr Rantissi and his 11 siblings spent their youth in the Gaza Strip refugee camp of Khan Yunis, living for some years in a tent while their home was turned into a settlement for European Jews.

Rantissi remained in Gaza until 1965 when he left for medical studies in Alexandria. Six years later, he returned to work as a pediatrician in the Camp hospital and found Gaza under brutal occupation. Soon, he began to work against the Occupation and he was first jailed in 1982 for refusing to pay taxes to the state that had taken first his home and then imposed the Occupation. Two years later, he was dismissed from his post at the hospital for his beliefs by the Israeli Occupation Authority.

Dr Abd al-Aziz Rantissi did not let this stand as an obstacle but quickly became one of the most forceful proponents for the right of Palestinians to resist occupation. He was one of the seven founders of HAMAS (the Islamic Resistance Movement) in 1987 and, for many years, was considered by many as second only to the group's spiritual leader, the late Sheik Ahmad Yassin, in its political wing. Dr. Rantissi had a long standing commitment to his Islamic faith and to his fellow Palestinians, especially the refugees consigned to the camps of Gaza. He gained prominence both for his social work in establishing free clinics and schools in Gaza and for his political activities opposing Israel's continued misrule of Gaza.

In late 1992, the doctor was among more than 400 Palestinians deported to Lebanon and summarily dropped on a freezing mountain side. There, he gained world notice as the spokesman for his fellow deportees in the Marj
al-Zahur Camp. Returning to Gaza after Oslo, he proved no more popular with the Palestinian Authority than he had been with the Israeli government. Iin 1998, he demanded that a number of senior PA figures resign due to corruption and the failure of their politics. The PA placed him under arrest but the High Court of Justice ordered his release two
months later. Despite his imprisonment, he remained one of the most outspoken critics of the PA, condemning it for its apparent willingness to compromise with Israel as part of the roadmap peace plan and he criticized Prime Minister Mahmud Abbas for participating in a conference with Sharon and Bush in Jordan in June 2003.

That same year, his eventual murderers attempted to assasi nate him. He did, however, suffer leg, arm and chest wounds from the US-made Apache helicopter gunship attack. The helicopter fired seven missiles on his
car, and killed two passers-by - a mother and her five year-old daughter. Despite this attack and many threats against his life by the Israeli Occupiers over the years, Dr Rantissi refused to go into hiding or alter his stance to mollify his eventual killers. Instead, he lived a public life and continued to the day he died to be one of the most outspoken and
consistent critics of Israel, its supporters, and its collaborators.

Dr Rantissi's ?crime?, like that of so many others before him, was in the words of his assassins to ?provide inspiration?. Likewise it appears that the stone throwing teenagers mowed down by Israeli tanks and the men, women and children whose lives have been torn apart by zealous aggression on the part of the Israeli security services are criminalised as terrorist for receiving this inspiration though the right to defend oneself and one?s land is enshrined in the UN Charter and throughout international law. Time and again the Palestinian cause has been shown to be legal, moral and right yet Palestinians are condemned when ever they exercise any sort of right of self-defense or resistance.

After the death of Yassin, Sharon took this policy to a further height of lunacy, vowing that Israel would murder, not just those accused of 'terrorism' but anyone who so much as thought about harming a Jewish life. Sharon's mentality of murdering men, women, and children, pregnant women, the disabled and all others is not new to the Palestinians. The IDF, with Sharon?s full support, has killed close to 3,000 civilians and injured over 30,000 since Sharon instigated the current intifada in the year 2000. Earlier, he was the mastermind of literally tens of thousands of deaths of Lebanese and Palestinians during the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and has a history of mass murder dating back into the 1950's.

Nor will this be the last such terrorist act of murder, the Israelis promise. One of Sharon's cabinet ministers, Gideon Ezra named HAMAS's political bureau chief Khalid Mishal as the next target, barely seconds after Dr Rantissi's funeral procession had gotten underway and before he was even buried. Ezra threatened Mishal with "an identical fate" to that
of Rantissi and the wheel-chair bound Sheik Ahmad Yassin. Though Mishal lives in exile in Syria, the Israeli minister vowed that his "fate will be identical to that of Rantissi. When the opportunity comes to strike at Damascus, we will do it."

The assassination of Dr Rantissi, like that of Sheik Yassin before him, will not bring the Palestinians to their knees as Sharon hopes. The Palestinians are determined to continue the struggle until the liberation of their land is complete. Israel has not been able to defeat the Palestinians militarily and will not be able to as every Israeli act of
repression has sown the seeds of a hundred acts of resistance. Dr Rantissi's death at the very moment when the true face of Israel and its ally has become clear will no doubt unite the people of Palestine and their supporters all over the world in redoubled efforts to resist the terror of Zionist colonialism.

The murder of Rantissi by missiles from a US supplied Apache helicopter is but the latest of over 200 other similar extrajudicial executions carried out by Israel. It has sent off a storm of protest by governments and leaders across the world, from Europe through the Middle East even to the South Pacific, as the international community has condemned this terrorism as a violation of international law and as a war crime. This horrific act further shows that Israeli leaders are only interested in perpetuating violence and state-sponsored terrorism to avoid having to address the root cause of the conflict: the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Practically the whole world has condemned this blatant act of terrorism and murder. Yet the American government has praised Israel's action in fighting what it. hypocritically, condemns as 'terrorism'. It does not even acknowledge that Israel has violated American law (the Arms Export Control Act of 1976) by using American supplied weaponry in this illegal
act. The United States ignores the numerous UN resolutions that have called for an end to the Israeli Occupation (242, 338, et al.) and the Right of the Palestinian Refugees to Return home and, while condemning the lawful and just resistance of the Palestinians to occupation, condones the illegal and immoral use of force to repress them.

This past week, George Bush has spoken forcefully of his full support for Sharon's past crimes and future plans, throwing out any hopes for negotiations in his rush to quash the Palestinians' legitimate rights to their own homes and a life free of occupation and dispossesion (see APS's previous statement). In doing so, Bush gave Sharon and his minions the
go-ahead to carry out this latest act of brutality and terror; without doubt, this vicious murder must be added to the butcher's bill of all those people George Bush has had murdered. Dr Rantissi's name joins the sadly long list of victims that number in the tens of thousands, from Texas to Afghanistan and Iraq and now on to Palestine, all of them killed
by Bush's decree.

The only way to prevent further violence is to bring about a complete end to the Israeli occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine. So long as the occupiers continue to use murder, destruction and brutality as the instruments of their repression of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, there will be resistance and some of it will be violent. If
the cycle of violence is to broken, then the time has come for a truly free and democratic Palestine.

So long as George Bush and his cohorts continue to back the most brutal and vicious policies of the Israeli state with full force, this seems unlikely. The only path left open to the people of Palestine is to continue their legitimate resistance and to continue the struggle.

As Dr Rantissi said last month, "we will fight them until the liberation of Palestine, the whole of Palestine. Even if the Zionists kill all of us leaders, they cannot kill the resistance."

RACISM AS MOTIVATING FORCE

I believe that there is a crucial difference between the role of racial supremacy in Israel/Palestine on the one hand and in the USA or South africa on the other. And that is that, fundamentally, racism here or in South Africa was always a secondary consideration while, in Israel, it was primary. Realizing that is something fundamental to our understanding of what can be taken from the struggles for freedom and equality in the American South and in South Africa and applied to the Palestinian cause and what cannot.

To begin with, I think it necessary to briefly review the origin of White Supremacy in America before seeing how that stacks up against that in Palestine.

At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Virginia was established not as a haven for English people or for any ideological consideration but, rather, as a commercial proposition with the goal of maximizing profits for investors. The initial colonists weren't particularly racist (they weren't anti-racist either) and saw the Powhatans and the other indigeneous peoples simply as people who could be exploited for a higher return on yield. Due to the unintended demographic collapse of the First Peoples in Virginia under the impact of European germs, American Indians were not numerous enough to be easily exploited but were quickly pushed aside. Yet, in the early days of colonization, intermarriage occured with non-white indians (famously Pocahantas who was an ancestor of much of the Virginia elite) without particular racial stigma.

Similarly, in 1619, when the first Africans arrived in the Chesapeake as indentured servants, they didn't face particular racial hostility but only the same sort of conditions as poor white contract laborers arriving from Britain met. At that time, the only racial dividing lines were between those who took part in the new English-speaking Christian and technological society (whether from England, Africa, or assimilated Indians) and those who did not. Of course, early Virginia was hardly idyllic but was in many ways practically a hell-hole (high mortality, super-exploitive labor, etc) but it wasn't a racist society. Africans who had ended their indentures took part in the head-right system of land distribution and in the early days of commercial tobacco growing as equals to white laborers who had similarly completed tehir indentures.

By the third quarter of the seventeenth century, however, major class divisions had emerged within the new society. On the one hand, a white elite that had vast landholdings along the James and other waterways employed large numbers of heavily exploited indentured field laborers (both black and white) participating in a growing trans-Atlantic economy had emerged and, on the other, there was a growing class of the poor who possessed little beyond their labor and, at most, small plots of land back from the prime real estate along the tidal estuaries or up-river from the fall lines. Social revolution broke out along the frontier in Bacon's Rebellion (1676). Poor whites and blacks united to seek to overthrow the planter elite and establish a more equitable society. After initial successes, they were crushed and, in the aftermath, the Planter-elite struggled to come up with ways to prevent a repeat.

They were tremendously successful; the last three hundred years of American history have been intensively shaped by the decisions that they made in the late 1670's. In short order, the importation of African slaves increased rapidly while the importation of indentured servants from either Europe or Africa declined. The ruling class began to invent an ideology of racial supremacy; bars were placed on the advancement of non-whites, African no longer were free at the end of their indenture but became chattell slaves and slavery was made heritable, and slavery became the main source of labor in the plantations. The poor whites were divided from poor blacks through the advancement of a growing ideology of white-ness; they were encouraged to view themselves as part of the ruling elite based on the color of their skin and to align themselves with the Master class on that basis rather than with black fellow workers on the shared conditions of their class and labor.

As we all know, the scheme worked; the danger of social revolution in Virginia (and, later, throughout America) subsided and , when slave revolts occured later, the Masters could count on white workers siding with them in putting down the blacks. Poor whites imbibed the notion of an innate superiority of their white skin; they might have it rough but, at the very least, they were 'better than any nigger'. The rest of American history is filled with the history of class solidarity being broken down by racial division being sown. So successful was the hoodwinking of the white working class that, by the end of the twentieth century, racism was widely viewed as a cheif characteristic of them (and an accusation used by the upper classes to put them down).

A similar process happened at the Cape of Good Hope where a colony that was set up initially as no more than a larder for passing Dutch ships became a commercial proposition in its own right. When profits were threatened, an ideology of racism emerged.

In both South Africa and the American South, white supremacy emerged as a convenient tool of early modern capitalism for the maintenance of elite rule. In both, over time the notions of white supremacy took on a life of its own but, fundamentally, neither society was founded with racism as its core proposition; racism was simply the easiest way to maximize profits and maintain the rule of the wealthy. American racism (or South African) is not, fundamentally, a failing of American capitalism but, rather, one of its crowning success stories.

In both societies, legal white supremacy was ended not so much when it became clear that it was wrong but when the elite was persuaded that it was no longer profitable. Here, in Atlanta, the white elite (the Buckhead coalition and other such groups) decided that power-sharing with African-Americans would allow them to better maintain their economic control and to see continued economic growth where fighting to hold on to white racial rule would soon lead to political convulsions and economic disaster. When African Americans were brought into city government here it was because they (people like Maynard Jackson, Shirley Franklin, et al) were seen as 'non-threatening' to the economic interests of the wealthy and as potential members of a new, multi-racial coalition of the rich and powerful who would continue to suck the profits off the working classes (black, white, etc). A black elite and black middle class would arise that would share in the riches.

In South Africa, Apartheid ended when Afrikaner and other white (English, Jewish, etc) members of the ruling elite became convinced that the ANC was not going to take over the mines on the Rand or the diamond fields but that having black members of the Board of Directors would see continued -- and increased -- profits (a black ruled South Africa would not be subject to sanctions and could take its 'rightful place' as the economic powerhouse of a sub-Saharan Africa where black and white rulers would get wealthy together while ruling over the poor of all races).

But the same scheme is not what has occured in Palestine.

Zionism, unlike Jim Crow, the Slave Trade, or even Apartheid, is not an economically driven ideology of white supremacy. It is, instead, fundamentally, an economy driven by ideology. Jewish settlers in Palestine arrived with the notion of forming an exclusively Jewish homeland, even at the cost of economic hardship, rather than arriving with the idea that they were there to make money; if the Jewish State turned a profit, that was wonderful, but that was never the motivation. (Jewish emigres from Europe who wanted to make money went to the USA or other settler-societies rather than to Palestine)

From the beginning, especially in Labor Zionist writings, we see the notion of "Jewish Labor" as being crucial in building new industries, agriculture, etc, even when significantly cheaper Arab labor was readily available. Rather than exploiting an already existing Palestinian peasantry, Zionism drove them from the land and has accepted the costs of their dispossession, politically and militarily, as being worth paying even though a system of agricultural exploitation like that found in Southern africa probably would have been both more profitable and easier for the rest of the world to digest.

The fact that racial separatism (the 'race' in question being the self-defined 'Jewish People') was the motivating force rather than the usual capitalist/imperialist drive for maximum profits explains some of the more apparent contradictions of Zionism. Unfortunately, it makes our struggle much harder. Divestment and economic sanctions worked in South Africa because they ultimately convinced white South Africa that racism didn't pay as well as non-racism; in Israel, it is not so easily repeated because the profit margin is not the ultimate arbiter of Israeli politics. Zionism was formed as an ideology that needed a colony rather than as a colonial project that needed an ideology. In fact, one sees emerging from Israel's current economic problems a harsher ideological line rather than a more compromising one.

Today, from a straight economic viewpoint, it could be easily argued that Israel should be begging the Palestinians to have a state in all the West Bank and Gaza; ending the occupation would save Israel billions in direct costs while an end of the Intifada would bring back tourists and foreign investors. A meaningful peace with the Palestinians could, potentially, open huge markets for Israeli business throughout Middle East and the world (in the way that ending Apartheid has meant South African investment throughout formerly hostile states). But, the ideologically driven engine of Zionist politics is not primarily interested in that; a poorer but more Jewish state is more desirable to the Zionist than a compromised wealthy one.

In all three cases (South Africa, the USA, and Israel), the combination of technological superiority and the apparent ease with which the indigenous peoples (or in the USA, imported Africans) have been exploited has helped to build notions of racial superiority. That, though, I think is a fairly widespread human instinct of any successful conquering people. One finds the same sort of smug sense of racial superiority elsewhere where conquest and exploitation have been easily achieved (among the Japanese towards the native peoples of Japan, among the Han towards their conquered neighbors, in Peru and Mexico, the Normans in England, and, quite explicitly, one finds it in the records of the Early Caliphate where Arab racial superiority was lauded over the easily conquered Persians, Egyptians and Aramaeans). Of course, such notions have, in the present and in the past broken down over time through the assimilation of conquered and conquering or when the conqueror is overcome. Perhaps, Zionism's racism could be overturned if it is defeated or if a bi-national state were to emerge. I don't know.

YOUTHS WITH GUNS

Recently, I ran into a series of pictures of Palestinian youths training with what appeared to be guns and hand grenades. I was told that I should be shocked and dismayed by this slander.

But I'm not.

I personally don't see much particularly disturbing about images of children with guns. Of course, that may be because of my own background; where I grew up (in rural Appalachia), probably half the boys in my elementary school could have produced photos of themselves with guns and, for all I know, there may well be a photo somewhere of me age 12 or so in a paramilitary looking scout uniform blazing away with a rifle.

Heck, in my public school, we had to take a gun safety class (how to clean, proper storing, etc) -- of course, that was well before Columbine and all that but still it wasn't anything sinister.

Regularly, I see youths here dressed in military fatigues or playing at war.

If american youths are (or at least were in the recent past) able to pose with guns, why shouldn't Palestinians have the same right of (at worst) being stupid?

Also, in the context of the West Bank and Gaza, I do think it is also worth bearing in mind that, before Oslo, it was illegal for Palestinians to possess firearms; that was a privilege reserved only for Jews. I know personally of numerous Palestinians from the territories who bought guns in the USA not because they intended to use them but because it was a 'badge' of finally being free (rather like going out drinking on one's 21st birthday) ...

In the American South, gun ownership was for a long time similarly restricted and developed a similar cachet of being a mark of full citizenship. and, just as Palestinians inside enjoying images of youths training with weaponry, one need only remember groups like the Black Panthers who similarly relished an image of American blacks in paramilitary garb toting guns -- which had similar shock value to those who preferred to see them defenseless.

Jewish youth groups do weapons training in Israel (and Jewish youths undergo compulsory military training) so, to me, to be upset to see Palestinians doing the same suggests almost an odd doublestandard; Palestinians are to remain defenseless either (if one is pro-Israel) to make them easier targets or (if one is pro-Palestinian) to enhance an image of angelic victims rather than as simply human beings, no better and no worse than any other people, who are simply trying to survive and protect themselves under horrendous pressures.