1 = 1,027

There are several things that come to mind when you hear about the release of Gilad Shalit in return for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners.

• The exchange rate. One Israeli life is worth 1,000 Palestinian lives. Or appears to be, whether in this instance or in the vengeance Israel visits on Palestinians when an Israeli dies in an attack. And it could be more than 1000 when you consider Israel will just round up hundreds more in the next raid.

• How many of the 1,027 have had a fair trial (jury, lawyer allowed to see evidence, allowed to see lawyer, etc) and been convicted and how many are being held without charge, without access to lawyer and family, in unsuitable conditions, tortured, or in any other violation of Israeli or international law. How many or what percentage of ALL Palestinian prisoners are political prisoners?

• The bias toward Israel in the media and dehumanization of Palestinians. We all know about Gilad Shalit and the plight of his family. This is the same with suicide bombing victims' families of the past. Do we ever get a story on a Palestinian whose house was demolished, whose brothers and father were arrested for no reason, whose family members were killed by "stray bullets" to the head, any IDF operation, being an IDF human shield, or violating curfew? Of course not. We give more airtime to Israeli victims than we did Rachel Corrie, a US citizen killed by the IDF! The most you will see is a few pictures of nameless Palestinian women crying over rubble. There will be no human interest story, no names given, no follow up for the thousands (of innocents) who die at the hands of the Israeli Occupation Army. Often, the justification is given that the deaths are so constant that it takes a major extraordinary event, not just the daily struggle to survive to make news and be worth a journalists' effort to write and send to their boss.

• Why not release all the lawmakers and politicians they have arrested so that Palestinians can get on with state building?

• Why release the hundred(s) of prisoners that have been proven in a fair trial to have blood on their hands. Is it worth it to free one guy?

• The large settlement approval that comes on the heels of Shalit being freed. I thought the deal was to promote peace? Why do something immediately that is blatantly illegal, on a large scale and very public?

So that last one seems surprising until you realize Israel likes to announce these things when American officials visit or when everyone seems to be thinking about coming to the table to talk. 

It seems like it isn't often Ban Ki-Moon has anything to say about Israel, but he's calling the recent settlement plan coming in the wake of the release of Gilad Shalit and the PA UN bid unacceptable.

This rabbi makes a good point about Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. They don't get trials, are sometimes tortured, are held in inhumane conditions and if changes to Israel's protocol are made, they could demand the same of Hamas.

I find this sentence in a Telegraph article quite interesting:

Hundreds of those included in the exchange were convicted for their involvement in deadly attacks on Israelis, but the Palestinians regard the detainees as heroes, calling them political prisoners. 

Ok. It says hundreds were indeed convicted for deadly attacks. Let's say this is true. I don't know. I haven't been able to find much out about the Palestinian prisoners. And I don't know if those convicted of resisting the occupation army are considered among these hundreds of guilty, which would inflate the number. If hundreds are guilty that leaves hundreds (a majority? who knows.) that have not been tried or are being held even though innocent. These ARE political prisoners! And whether they are found guilty or not, conditions of prisons are deplorable and treatment can border on torture, so that would be reason enough to consider them heroes- Israel's giving them this reason, this badge of honor or surviving conditions in Israeli prisons- but that could be a reason even the guilty are revered. (Though most or many -again, who knows- could be innocent political prisoners.)

A few lists of the names of the prisoners. No word on the status- political prisoners, fair trial, numbers, convicted. The NY Times makes sure you know kidnappers and murders are being released, though. I'm sure the implication is that all in Israeli prisons are treated like they are here and all are guilty, blah, blah, blah.

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/palestinian-prisoners-names-behind-numbers

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/17/world/middleeast/17shalit-document.html

Palestinian prisoners in general:

http://addameer.info/?cat=71

http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/miftah-waiting-game-about-israeli-detention-policies/

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/04/commemorating-palestinian-political.html

Boycott, Divest, Sanctions

Flash Mob at a grocery store. I'm not sure if this was Boycott, divest, Sanctions, but they do have a handy dandy flash mob toolkit :) Ok, the link is for US Campaign to End Israeli Occupation, not BDS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r114HojWQC0

I don't think I see this many people who know a lot about the conflict in my area, let alone that would come out and do THAT! I figure, you've got to have thousands of people talking and caring about the issue to get anywhere near that many people to come out and plan and execute a flash mob.

***

Barghouti's book on the BDS campaign:

http://www.amazon.com/Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions-Struggle-Palestinian/dp/1608461149

I haven't read it, but it's on the list.

***

In thinking about lists I've seen of companies to boycott, I have a few thoughts...

I am familiar with the Ahava campaign, Stolen Beauty, and others. Or Caterpillar. Yes, I've written them. If you're making the claim of social responsibility and your products are famous for bulldozing homes, sorry, you've asked for it. I would guess there are also certain companies you shouldn't buy feta, hummus, dates, olives, falaffel mix and other Middle Eastern foods from, like Sabra, Tribe, Carmel (Agrexco), etc.

Blog post about Sabra "caving"... I think the ardent Sabra supporter author is still justified in promoting Sabra... but whatever...

There is a 729 campaign for the barcode (1st 3 numbers), but not everything made there has these numbers. I think it matters in which country items made in the Occupied Territories are being sold as to what barcode it has, among other factors, so this hasn't proven terribly reliable. If I see "made in Israel" I'll take that as my hint. I won't buy it. I've never seen 729 on these items, by the way. Yes, I check. I'm curious.

As for boycotting Nestle or McDonald's for doing business over there, I think that is an issue to be taken up by letters, protests, getting prominent people to speak up in ads and other public ways.

This flier lists a few companies, mostly in NY to boycott:

http://adalahny.org/images/image/consumer_boycott_flyer.pdf

***

A UK initiative to twin cities with Palestinian ones;

they also have info on buying Palestinian goods:

http://www.twinningwithpalestine.net/shop.html

No to mosque burning, but collective punishment and ethinic cleansing ok?

Another "Price Tag" attack. 

And in case we are in any doubt about who the targets are, a Christian and a Muslim cemetery was vandalized with slogans like "death to the Arabs" and others.

I wonder what Christian Zionists are thinking in times like these? (My post on Christian Zionism) That Christians deserve to pay or should be glad to pay for the Jewish right to oppress others? Oh, wait - Christian Zionists probably aren't thinking anything about this- this wasn't reported in the US. At least I didn't get it from any American source. And the BBC has something, but it is taking a back seat to Arab Spring progress on the web page.

Here's a link from March about Price Tag: http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/price-tag-terror-becoming-the-norm-in-israeli-society/

Anyway, back to Price Tag...

On graves this time. Classy. The Price Tag movement by definition, though, is just that classy. It's a bunch of people (Jewish settlers mostly? Or have more joined in?) who attack innocent Palestinians when their own government shows any movement toward following the law, which began with "dismantling" illegal settler outposts (ignores that ALL settlements are ILLEGAL). Another fact that seems to be overlooked by all is that this is TERRORISM by most peoples' definition, yet we call it Price Tag or refer to it like an isolated attack. 

Lately, it has been noted by Ha'aretz that Price Tag Terrorsts don't need a trigger, just opportunity. Will we hold these people responsible for the failure of peace talks and start thinking of all Jews in terms of arsonists and grave vandals? Will this justify flying jets over Israeli cities and dropping one ton bombs all over the place? Shall we erect checkpoints and enact curfews that shut down normal life? Blockades? Will we round up and rough up every young Jew and throw them into prison until they get something useful? Shall we deport the suspects to an Eastern European exile? Of course none of this will happen- Israel isn't fighting a state or a people that has this capability. But what if... Never mind. In reality, the suspects probably won't even face jail time.

Two links on the current attacks:

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=427151

 http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/muslim-christian-graves-in-jaffa-defaced-with-racist-slogans-in-suspected-price-tag-attack-1.388822

The contradiction that prompted the post:

Livni: Mosque 'Price tag' attack should be condemned

"Burning of mosques goes against the values ​​of Israel as a Jewish state," Livni said.

 So this is encouraging, right? I suppose it was more relief actually. You never know what's going to be the official Israeli line. Usually it is something pretty preposterous. 1000 Palestinian dead and they used restraint, have the most moral army in the world, tried really hard to prevent casualties. 

They are condemning the mosque attacks. Great. What about the occupation and collective punishment? Does demolishing homes go against Jewish values? Is it a democratic value to continually ban refugees from returning home after war, not allow family reunification, deny visas, erect checkpoints, etc so that you can maintain a certain demographic favorable to you?

More on "Price Tag" (my previous posts):

More Settler Terrorism

"Hebrew slogans" and another reasons settlements should be razed

Sanctions for UN bid; not for Israeli violence??

Write your representatives here:
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=3124


US to sanction Palestinians for going to UN, but no sanctions on Israel's ignoring UN Resolutions, international law, human rights and decency (i.e. not trashing the place and pooping on the floor when you do your illegal searches and seizures) not to mention causing humanitarian crises, collective punishment and using disproportionate force on captive mostly civilian "targets"???

Punishment for nonviolence. What message are we trying to send? Obviously, we were lying when we said all those years that we can't support Palestinians because of suicide bombings- we had no intention of bestowing statehood on them any which way.



Jul 1-6, 2011 S.Res.185

I found this link about the passage and various Senators' statements on the floor regarding it, but no news articles on S. Res. 185's passage. Well worth reading.

A rewriting of 185... I like it.






Text - thomas.loc.gov






H.Res.268 July 6, 2011

The play by play on H. Res. 268- NY Times

A Green Party (GA) notice on the H. Res. 268 vote that day.

Text- thomas.loc.gov



September 19, 2011 in Haaretz- US urges Netanyahu not to impose stiff sanctions??

October 2, 2011 US Congress compared to playground bullies

Counterproductive? Can we not say i-l-l-e-g-a-l ?

Israel OKs 1,100 new East Jersusalem settlement homes 

 The thing that initially caught my eye was Secretary of State Clinton calling this latest settlement building approval (1100 in Arab E. Jerusalem) counterproductive. Counterproductive?! There are so many things they are and counterproductive is way too conciliatory. They are illegal. They violate the Geneva Convention. They undermine the entire process since they are building on land that is internationally recognized to be the future Palestinian state in this two state solution everyone is so keen on nowadays. Their inhabitants burn olive groves, beat farmers, are armed and a danger to civilians and this after stealing the land they build on.

Another thing that comes to mind is the big deal Israel made (or tried to) about the Palestinians' big unilateral move in going to the UN to declare their state. The pot is calling the kettle black. Each new settlement, each expansion of an existing one is an entirely unilateral land grab. What is Israel so bent out of shape about with unilateral moves? I guess if Palestinians succeed in the UN, Israel may not have such a free hand in its unilateral moves! Israel wants Palestinians to beg and plead and offer their weapons, right of return and their capital in return for permission to have a state conditional on who knows what. Does Israel ask Palestinians before they build Jewish only "neighborhoods" (if you want to sanitize it) and Jewish only roads? No. They don't even have to have warrants to enter, search and destroy Palestinian homes even though their law requires it. They answer to no one. Can anyone wonder why Palestinians would want to go another route at the UN?

So that was initially what caught my eye, but look at that title? MSNBC is supposed to be liberal media? Settlement homes? That's how you describe something illegal? Maybe they felt the facts would color things the wrong way? Just report the facts. Illegal is illegal. 

And from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15080160

school rant central

I should have started out by saying that I apologize to any teachers, I probably don't know the half of what your big issues are to deal with. This may make me look pretty ignorant to teachers and administrators in the trenches. This is only the perspective from where I, one parent, am sitting at this moment in time. 


I'll start with a link and status from FB this AM. 

I had more to say, so I'll blog.

http://www.handwritingforkids.com/handwrite/manuscript/texts/index.htm

As I sit making worksheets I'm wondering A) should I have homeschooled and B) what is she doing all day in Kindergarten 'cause it ain't practicing handwriting step by step like I the "old days."

 *** *** *** *** ***

I still feel good about our decision not to send to kids to preschool, but if they are going to expect one to be able to write well and almost read, they should REQUIRE x # years of preschool and make good public ones available. Insert suggestion to invest in our own kids instead of the Israeli Occupation.

And once we sort that out, let's bring music back. I used to love that "break" where you get to sing, play recorder and put on plays and such. I probably learned something about music inadvertently; if nothing else we got introduction and appreciation. Aside from that, I can't see justifying dropping it. Aren't there studies that show that music is good for math skills? It's sad that that won't be a part of my childrens' school experience. I mean, why not replace computer class with music class, unless they are typing or programming or something. I mean, we are kind of to the point that computers are so ubiquitous that teaching kids to use them (I'm not actually sure what goes on in her class) seems unnecessary. Maybe I am way off on that point in some circumstances, but I think music would be a better use of the time, especially if kids have any access to computers, smart boards, and iPads in class.

And don't get me started on school breakfast/lunch. Too late. :) Let's start with breakfast. They talk about reduced lunch and the policy of kids not going hungry. Yes, I think that's good, but when breakfast is a pop tart or super bun (whatever that is- I'm imagining a Honey Bun covered in icing...) I don't think you're helping out all that much. I did notice a few less of those options this month than last, so maybe it just takes them a bit to get organized?

Now, lunch and the potato problem. Yikes. Let me start by listing the "ways with potatoes": oven baked fries, parslied potatoes, baked potato, potato rounds, whipped potatoes, and of course sweet potato casserole (which I'm guessing means marshmallow and brown sugar?). Not so bad, right (except for the last one for which they could sub a baked sweet potato with a little cinnamon...)? 

I do see some positives. French fries and deep fried options don't seem to be there. I'll give them that. But when you are replacing a green veggie with a starch, that is a problem. At least I think so. Maybe it is a failure on the parents' part that a Kindergartener won't choose the healthy option independently? Or maybe elementary students shouldn't have so much choice? My thought is that even if we eat healthy food at home and they like it and eat it, the broccoli, turnip greens, peas and green beans I've seen at various schools are soggy, straight from a can, salt-less and flavorless. I probably would let them choose the main course and set the rest- or let them choose main course and have a choice of "equal" veg-  peas or green beans, broccoli or mixed veg, etc.

Maybe school lunch is a rite of passage and I should just relax. I can accept that because I think we do a good job at home and enjoy family meals and all the rest. Also, there is the money issue. Budget, budget, budget. Federal government and everyone else is living on credit and borrowed time. I know having Jamie Oliver* come and cook all of the meals would not be in the realm of possiblity, but could we demand more, as in a team of nutritionists or something, than one person who may or may not have a science or nutrition background (I don't know) set menus for the entire county or state or however that's done?

*Jamie Oliver reference- His show is  Food Revolution. And here is another can of worms- was there mutiny, did the healthy changes stick, was it real, etc. I think there was a lot in there about how school lunches are set up and how they have to use what they are given...most of which I've forgotten, but I remember coming away with how it is a racket. I thought the premise was good and was hoping it and the revolution would take off.

And in case you are wondering, yes, I am for banning vending machines with soda, sweets and junk also but I guess that's another issue...

Having said all of that, I still think my husband and I made the right choice in schooling for now, despite all of this- what may seem like- complaining from me. I'm an introvert and so I consider myself just more observant, not a big complainer. I notice things. I guess I should have said that when people used to ask me why I didn't talk. Sometimes these observations bother me. Anyway, as a result of our looking at all the school options, I plan to be involved because I think it's as important as if I homeschooled as to how much the kids gets out of it. I guess we can always switch things up if necessary. I still feel the pros and cons are pretty equal either way.

This isn't really the post I set out to write, but I won't delete it. It is what it is, as it is with me.

teaching hate

I saw someone searched for "Hebrew slogans" on my blog, and I have a relevant addition. People love to flash those pics of Palestinian kids with guns and camo and say how hate is taught. No one tends to believe that Jewish children either are taught or learn the same things from their parents.

I'm reading Raja Shehadeh's When the Birds Stop Singing and he talks about Jewish school children being required to write soldiers notes of encouragement as writing exercises, like I remember writing the President as a class exercise in 1st grade. 

Some say Palestinians corner the market on teaching hate, but the Jewish children wrote things like:

• *kill as many Arabs as possible
• *for me kill at least 10
• *ignore the laws and spray them

 see also:
The myth of incitement in Palestinian textbooks
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3923.shtml

Occu-mation: Closed Zone and A Land in Fragments

This is something I've linked to before, but couldn't find it, then found it again. Anyway, it's educational and entertaining.

 

"Closed Zone": 90 animated seconds on the closure of Gaza  

http://www.closedzone.com  

--- 

AFSC 

Israel-Palestine: A Land in Fragments

2-minute video 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ewF7AXn3dg

---

The Debate on a Palestinian State- the Time article

This article inspired the title of my last post because I intended to include it, but I kept remembering stuff and it went longer and longer, much like this sentence, so I didn't include it...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2094388,00.html

On FB:

The Debate on a Palestinian State- Time Magazine- Having only read the title, I say the only thing to actually debate is one binational state or two. The fact that Palestinians deserve and need a state should not be up for debate at all- it is a given and too long overlooked. If statehood is the debate, then to be fair, we should also debate whether Israel's statehood should be revoked or not.

On FB, after reading it:

An Israeli minister (Yossi Beilin), president of the Council on Foreign Relations (Richard Haass), a Palestinian journalist (Daoud Kuttab), and Uzi Landau (of the extremist Yisrael Beiteinu party of all things!). Not exactly variety. If we were talking about Israeli politics, this would be a panel. Wow. There is a range of opinion among just Palestinians and they didn't even go there. And to include the party of the extremist settler Foreign Minister Lieberman! Settlers are illegal, so until there is one state or they move back to Israel, they shouldn't even be allowed in office, print, etc. I mean, if you're going to listen to and seriously consider these guys, there is no reason not to get Hamas or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad in on the action. But, then they couldn't get another Palestinian opinion, so the chances of that are nil.

Beilin- To his credit, he thinks Israel should vote yes the a Palestinian state... but likens it to jumping on the train headed for the train wreck to steer it properly and save the day. Israel can avoid disaster (whatever that means- keeping the occupation, run the show, renounce any claim/ownership to/of any land outside the W Bank and Gaza??) and look like the hero for restarting dead negotiations, shocking the world, and graciously letting Palestinians have some of the same rights God apparently gave Israel and the US. He does believe the bid will not preclude negotiations. I agree.

Haass- Our Bush-era Jewish official. Of course he's on team negotiations only. He thinks the bid is a desperation move. It doesn't matter what Abbas' (or Arafat's before him, for that matter) motivation is. The Palestinian people deserve this. It is long overdue. Too much is made of the leaders' motivations when there is no state. He also thinks rightly that Israel would make life unbearable, but wrongly that this is reason to abandon statehood via the UN. Another "reason" to abandon the bid is it would make America look bad to Arabs (and cause an anti-American govt in Egypt which causes instability) since we would have to veto. That just makes me laugh. So do the right thing- don't veto! Also humorous was, "...direct talks, the only proven method of advancing peace in the region." Since I'm quoting, I'll add one I actually believe: "There can not be peace without justice."

Kuttab- Basically says what I'm thinking. Palestinians have no choice. This is the right move and right time. Negotiations have led nowhere despite cooperation, patience and promises. He is not naive- he knows the UN bid won't end the occupation and negotiations are necessary. The goal is to have 2 states negotiate, rather than the occupied and the occupier. A valid point no one ever brings up.

Landau- Where to begin! I can't possibly list every falsehood, wild accusation and myth because I'd be retyping the whole section. If you can think of a misconception, he said it. And Iran's in there at the end. Palestinians are trying to get a free lunch and are abandoning Oslo with this move. Riiight. Abbas' "flaunting past agreements." Check. Auschwitz mention. Check. (And it was in talking about the internationally recognized 1967 borders, not anyone wanting to push Israel into the sea.) Framing of discussion (explicitly) as not about equality, but about how fragile the state with the 4th largest army is. Palestinians have walked away from offers for a state in the hopes of gaining more and destroying Israel (decoded- Palestinians want equality and sovereignty, not institutionalized occupation). (???) Abbas is a Holocaust denier, has made up with Hamas (uuhhh...hello...unity govt...and you include Yisrael Beiteinu, so what's your problem??) and has never reciprocated any of Israel's good faith measures. Whaaa? Good faith measures. Now that's a good one. He wants a Palestinian Sadat. Not possible. Sadat dropped Palestinian issues in order to make a very profitable deal with Israel. I won't say it couldn't happen, but he probably wouldn't live long. He says Abbas is inciting violence by encouraging a state and UN bid because it's only going to cause frustration. And he brings it home with an Iran is "waiting to reap the prize" scare. 

At least we ended lighter with a little fiction writing for the 4th and final section. It was almost funny. Almost.

Palestinian Statehood "Debate" / Dear President Obama

UN begins weighing Palestinian statehood bid- France 24 - 9/26/11

"US President Barack Obama says the UN bid is an unrealistic shortcut that will not produce real and lasting peace on the ground between the Israelis and the Palestinians."

Right? Israel hasn't respected any other UN resolution, so why would this be any different?!

Very perceptive of him, yet wrong conclusion. Just because the UN bid won't solve the whole deal, doesn't mean we shouldn't support it or that it isn't a positive step. And since Israel won't accept a Palestinian state that is equal in every way to any other state, this is actually the only way to get things done.

 If this is meant to be a two state deal, then sure, you have to send those settlers packing immediately, which is probably a concern and Israel wouldn't be able to go in and demolish houses, forbid the return of ALL refugees, take hundreds prisoner for whatever reason, hold people without charge, control the water supply, attack power and police infrastructure, control the borders and seas, they'd have to get rid of all those checkpoints, and get out of the new state completely. How to get Israel to comply without using force? That's been the dilemma all along, I guess. A state would make this imperative. I would hope. Not that it shouldn't have before.

In a two state solution that leads to one state, all you'd have to worry about was an apartheid situation and equality and I think since these issues have been dealt with before that the beast could be tamed and democracy achieved. Finally.

***

I have to say that the UN bid was one thing that prompted one of few letters I've written to Obama in his term.  The other was a letter asking me to donate. I wanted to respond to their catchy subject line- Will you say yes?? Will he??

Submitted via webform 9/26/2011:

Dear President Obama,

I am writing you to let you know I disagree strongly with your opposition to the Palestinian UN bid for statehood. If we truly believe in the opening paragraphs of our own Declaration of Independence, this is something we need to support, like democratic change in Tunisia and Egypt. The Palestinians have work to do on their own government that can only be accomplished when unfettered by the shackles of Israel's brutal, restrictive, destructive Occupation. We acknowledge and affirm Jews' right to return to their homeland every day and it is time we act on Palestinians' right to a free and normal life in the same homeland that the two peoples must share.

Sharing the land and guaranteeing both peoples' rights to exist in their homeland and return and live freely and equally in that same land is the only way.

***

A past post:

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2011/04/palestinian-statehood-upgraded-status.html

***

I didn't feel like posting this on the day (wasn't up to the hate mail I was bound to receive), so here it is...

9/11/2011

Ten years.

You can't forget the day even if you want to.

I will remember the victims. They deserve respect. And there's the other side of remembrance. I don't think I want to see any "specials" or "go" to a Facebook memorial service, though. It's complicated; it brings back so many feelings and emotions. I have feelings shared by most, but also ones probably not felt or understood by many, which is why I'm posting a day late. I couldn't even decide if I wanted to post this. Everyone's doing/posting the never forget, America is awesome stuff and that just wasn't my experience.

I feel like the day of remembrance was stolen- by the disappointment I felt in the then president and the country in general in the events that followed; by the massive tragedy we caused in Iraq; and by replacing and renewing the Cold War hatred for all things Russian with hatred and or suspicion of Arabs and Muslims (and those who happen to look (anything) like them). It cannot and will not ever be just about the victims because of the way we reacted.

(and continue to react 10 years later- http://news.yahoo.com/passenger-cuffed-searched-over-appearance-003800344.html)

Like everyone in moments like these, I remember first where I was on that day at that time- about a year into my first real job, pretty green still, an hour into the workday. A crowd gathered by the radio, trying to see what's happening and if it's for real. It was and we were in shock. There was the fear there'd be more attacks in NY and maybe even the country. How big was this thing? Coinciding with this and after this, (for me) was the fear for Muslims' and Arabs' (and as it turns out people with brown skin since no one knows anything about the Middle East...) safety if it was determined that Muslims or Arabs are actually responsible. This time, the knee-jerk report was right. Saudis. What will this mean for me, my future husband's family, their friends and family, and our (future) kids? I didn't know then that we'd be conned into a war with Iraq, so while Japanese internment camps were in the far reaches of my mind, I had hope that we were better than that and learned something from the past. This is America, after all. We don't do that. If I knew then what I know now about Bush's intent, methods and determination to be The Decider rather than right, I would have been terrified for them rather than just concerned about the unknown.

Thankfully, there were no internment camps for Arabs and Muslims. Unfortunately, similar things did happen- extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo, torture and prison scandals. Nothing (except the occasional off hand comment or unfortunate email) happened to anyone I know, but things definitely happened and attitudes shifted: "Patriot Act," NSEERS, wiretapping, FBI mosque crawling, people removed from planes for "talking foreign" or wearing a turban (or "Muslim garb" or having a certain shade of hair and skin), violence, graffiti, and then the general discomfort with Arabs and Muslims and language one hears in the news and in general conversation that was shocking ten years ago and today we think is normal, given the times (Juan Williams, response to Juan Williams, "Ground Zero Mosque").

9/11 is also ironically inextricably linked to Iraq. We (or at least a handful of Bush cronies, anyway) started our march to Iraq on this day as it turns out, which is kind of interesting and equally tragic in that Iraqis had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. I remember Americans hungry for revenge, not justice, saying unbelievably hateful things about Muslims and Arabs on all the radio programs. People wanted not just to catch the mastermind, but wanted an equal or greater number of people to suffer or die because of what happened to us. Where did the America I knew and respected go? I had expected us to take the high road and not just lash out. I was disappointed. I remember American flags waving in support of the unnecessary war on Iraq. Afghanistan I thought was inevitable, even if it wasn't the best choice- carpet bombing a country whose population and government didn't even want the group associated with the 9/11 hijackers to be there. I thought Iraq was all posturing and wasn't really going to happen. This is America and we don't do that. And then it happened with no questions asked. Since when did we not question authority? The silence was deafening; it cost us credibility and soldiers lives and many, many innocent Iraqi lives. I hope people take some time to remember those victims as well. We could have taken all the support and sympathy of all nations to be a leader in any way possible- getting off oil, as a Time author puts forward- but instead we chose reckless, senseless all out war on something no one can possibly eradicate. We were like a pack of rabid dogs, opportunistic and deadly. 9/11 was bad enough and then we repaid senseless violence with more senseless violence on innocent people.

I guess this is not really your traditional moving, inspirational tribute. Nor is it a slogan like "never forget" that to my mind leaves to the imagination what is not to be forgotten- the victims, hatred for Arabs, hatred for Islam, the fury you felt that day so that you can go in and lay waste to other countries, the patriotism you felt that was based in vengeance? It's my reflection on my own experience and what I saw. It is my own form of tribute to see how far we've come- or not- and how we can do better.

On a positive note, I suppose it has made me more aware of issues around peace and justice (or injustice as the case may be). I do like the push to make it a day of service and hope that continues.

Three Cups of Tea or Deceit?

I'm reading Three Cups of Tea currently. It strikes me as a great and inspiring story of a guy bummed over his failed climb becoming inspired to build schools in a village in or near Afghanistan. The descriptions are profuse and detailed...a little too much, though. And sometimes the descriptions of Mortenson being unbelievably frugal and selling all his possessions to use it all for schools, asking for traditional clothes and asking to learn to pray, etc are a little over the top or obsequious. I wonder if Mortenson took copious notes on his thoughts, etc during this process or if Mortenson told the narrator about his journey and he may have added his own thoughts or Mortenson wrote it and. I'd be curious about how the book came to be. It seems the narrator is quite smitten, however it was accomplished. His personal story is much the same- it seems a little too good to be true. That can be overlooked, though, if the building success is as advertised...

Which brings us to a problem I hadn't been aware of. So, I got my Pixel of Ink email about discounted ebooks. Usually, there's nothing I like, but Three Cups of Deceit caught my eye, since I was planning to read Three Cups of Tea. ($2.99, by the way) Hmmm. Did someone actually uncover some evidence that I'd be interested in or is this some kind of nut with an agenda or vendetta against Mortenson. The latter is pretty unlikely. I mean, I'm used to sorting out disinformation campaigns in my interest in reading books on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That is the norm in that area. This shouldn't be prone to the same thing- I wouldn't think. Maybe there's something to this.

I guess I've got another book to read!

This stuff seems pretty recent- April and May 2011. His book came out in 2007, I think.

Exclusive: Three Cups of Tea Author Greg Mortenson Sued for Fraud, Deceit, Breach of Contract

The link below mentions the 60 Minutes report on this, as well as and investigation by the BBC and others:

 http://theadventureblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/bbc-investigates-three-cups-of-tea.html

"the most humble day of my career"

--Rupert Murdoch

Maybe this is an appropriate use of the word humble, but I think what he was going for was guilty, shameful or embarrassing (as in glad I did it, but sorry I got caught). When I'm humbled by something, I'm thinking someone did something really, really nice for me that I know I don't deserve. I suppose your own guilt can humble you, but I'm just not buying it from this guy.


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2084067,00.html  

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/flashes-of-passion-from-rupert-murdoch-on-his-most-humble-day-2317217.html

Time for a diet!

There is a lot of talk about how we should cut the debt. Cut social security or medicare. I got an email about cutting Congress' and the president's pay. I read in the news about cutting aid to Israel's neighbors.

Why not put Israel on a diet? Cut 'em loose. Cutting aid to Israel won't harm them, unlike the diet terminology Israel used for Palestinians... see the second and third items below.

***
Lower the Debt -- End U.S. Military Aid to Israel

http://blog.endtheoccupation.org/2011/07/our-proposal-for-debt-ceiling.html

***

***

February 2006:
"The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet but not to make them die of hunger." – Dov Weisglass

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/01/the-palestinians-in-israeli-officials-own-words.html

***

Actual number of calories Gazans need to stay alive was calculated. No joke. The result, the facts on the ground are that virtually nothing gets in. How's that for the "only democracy in the Middle East," the "most moral army in the world ??" Sounds like something else to me.

http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/state-appeals-to-supreme-court-to-prevent-exposure-of-document-containing-minimal-calorie-requirements-for-residents-of-the-gaza-strip/

It's Easier to Reach Heaven Than the End of the Street by Emma Williams

 It's Easier to Reach Heaven Than the End of the Street by Emma Williams

I'm only on the first chapter and I think I may have hit upon a book Americans can relate to and understand the whole of "the situation" at the same time. She has a respect and understanding for both sides (often said, but rarely the case in this thing) and cuts through and explains the propaganda and myths on both sides. I'm pretty amazed and impressed thus far...

I've finished now, so I'll put my overall impressions up here (I had "in progress, notes as I go" here initially). There are a ton of specifics that I either remember reading in the news when they happened, that I'm impressed she included, etc. I'll just leave them below as examples- I stopped noting them after the first half of the book anyway- there were too many.

This is not your typical memoir. But that's a good thing- and actually probably pretty typical when your memoir is set in Jerusalem and you are as thoughtful as she is and have access to UN, doctors on both sides, and officials. There is a lot of politics and references to historical events and recent events, but I can see this as a memoir because she's honestly trying to sort this out while she's over there. It is one of the most honest attempts I've seen. It is a little hard to tell what her own views are, which is kind of strange in a memoir, but appreciated in anything attempting to explain the conflict. When I first started reading the book, I interpreted the news items and her relating interviews and conversations with a pretty wide variety of people as her own.

My impression due to some of her commentary was that she related to Israelis most- that could be due to a suicide bomber blowing up outside her children's school and near it and in places she frequented. Unlike some who have a strong sympathy for Israel, though, she doesn't ignore or deny Palestinian humanity, rights, the fact that Israel is an occupier, the fact that Israel does wrong. I would be curious how she struck people she lived with in Jerusalem; there were a number of times when her friends would say something against Palestinians and she noted that she remained silent. She definitely seems pretty balanced in the book. She really seems to have sympathy for both people and understand the nuance of both sides' politics. Even if she has bias herself, at least she included pretty balanced historical info and accounts of the recent developments.

What also made the book so good was that it covers a wide variety of issues: Israeli denial of absolute facts- like IDF kills children, UN workers, etc; how she and others self censor depending on who they talk to; media bias; the Wall; American attitudes; among others.

I wondered what could make her so reasonable, besides being British :). Maybe I shouldn't wonder, just enjoy. But this is such a rare occurrence, this genuine sympathy and understanding of both sides, I can't help it.

Maybe being a doctor (she worked in many hospitals, Palestinian and Israeli, in her public health research while there) helped her not be able to ignore the facts. Seeing the maimed and hearing doctors' struggles on both sides must have had an impact on helping her see the similarity in the two sides, the brutality and senselessness of the violence, whatever the source.

Maybe being a UN worker's wife also helped her feel sympathy toward Palestinians. She tells of how an Israeli chased her up the street yelling obscenities in her face upon seeing her UN plates because many Israelis feel the UN is "on the Palestinians' side." I guess that could have driven home what kind of hate could be directed at Palestinians by Israelis, if she didn't get it by listening to her Palestinian friends' experiences.

***

Continuing with specifics...

In just the second chapter, the interviews and exchanges (p34 and 40, esp) she records relates so many things Western audiences would be shocked to know. I have been reading widely on this, so I'm not surprised by what she writes, but it was satisfying to see her refute all of the myths and reservations I hear people repeat when I dare suggest that Palestinians have (or should have) rights and a homeland.

People would call her from the States discussing the situation and tell her (who was eyewitness to the contrary) things like all the Palestinian deaths are terrorist deaths, Palestinians who were fired upon on Temple Mount after Sharon's infamous visit were all armed, Palestinian mothers push their children to the front lines- that's why there's a high death rate for them, Palestinians know Israel is militarily superior and will retaliate so it is actually Palestinians' own fault they are being killed, the occupiers are the victims, etc. People actually insisted they were right (b/c they read it in Time or this or that American outlet) and she, practically an eyewitness, was wrong!

One thing that absolutely disgusted me was hearing about the "game" soldiers would play shooting steel/rubber bullets into children's eyes. Apparently it takes precision. I'd like to show that to people who like to tell me that Palestinians teach their kids to hate and accompany it with a pic of a toddler dressed in military fatigues... And on the subject of pride in hate and destruction... she references this article in Yedioth Ahronoth as well: http://electronicintifada.net/content/i-made-them-stadium-middle-camp/4459. Yikes.

She tells about a French journalist friend who was aimed and shot at by a soldier with an M-16, just missing his heart. He explained that it would have hit his heart due to the angle he was standing at, had it not been for the flak jacket. Even more shockingly, Israeli friend of hers completely denied that it happened despite it being taped and played on the news. I hadn't realized the extent of Israeli denial of what goes on. I guess it's only natural that American denial of Israeli atrocities is so prevalent. I am frequently encouraged that Christians reject Christian Zionism and the Jewish claim to land today based on the fact that God said it's theirs- see the Old Testament. Frequently though, as I heard visiting at another congregation, they follow it up with but we should support them for political rather than religious reasons- we are allies, only democracy in the Middle East ??), etc- the usual. Why is it that people who can separate the political and religious still can't see that what Israel is doing is inexcusable. It is not security. It is revenge. It is punishment for wanting rights, a country, a homeland, a life, to live on the land that was stolen by victims of another war. Suicide bombing and killing Israeli civilians is wrong, but how can people so easily get behind targeting journalists, peace negotiators, shooting kids in the eye, shooting kids for sport (pdf), and many other atrocities?? If it's not religious, is it loyalty to the GOP? I can't help thinking that people just don't know what really goes on, but like the author's Israeli friend, if they did, they'd probably just deny it.

She relates another incident that I am familiar with while listening to the radio. The death toll for Palestinians rises exponentially compared to the Israeli one. Yes, I know that all deaths are bad, but this kind of lends credibility to the stories of IDF brutality. She was listening to the radio and the commentator saying that Palestinians must end the killing and violence. (a familiar, tired refrain) Just after that he reports a settler killed a Palestinian ( but of course a Palestinian could still be to blame even though a settler group claimed responsibility) and three Bedouin women were killed by Israeli tank fire. But, Palestinians must stop the violence.

She also tells in passing of one of many events that made her change her plans. I know people probably thought I was exaggerating when I relayed news (I remember, if not this incident, then ones like it) that the IDF bombed Palestinian towns with F-16s, targeting Palestinian police/security forces for a militant attack on an IDF post. What sense does that make? It says Israel considers Palestinian police (and civilians for that matter) militants and does not want Palestinians to make any progress in self governance that agreements supposedly are trying to promote.

In chapter 8, she delivers her baby at Holy Family in Bethlehem. It had been bombed once or twice before she delivered and she described the damage and several accounts of doctors. IDF officials she spoke to and heard from said the IDF is a humanitarian army; it doesn't do things like that. Another one said there was no tank activity there in October- pretty specific- a total lie. At the end of the chapter she talks to a Palestinian Christian who comments that the American Christians are so strange- they have no feeling for fellow Christians- where is their humanity.

I know I am mentioning quite a bit about the Palestinian side. This is because people rarely seem to believe that things are that bad for Palestinians or that the wacky things they hear about Israel, a democracy, doing this or that, isn't just propaganda. Peppered throughout the book are the author's experience with suicide bombings and her sympathy for Israelis who live in constant fear- I feel like people are pretty well acquainted with this- so it doesn't strike me as amazing as the understanding of the Palestinian point of view. The Israeli point of view is no less valid. Just want to make that clear.

Sharon comes to power or at least becomes very active during her stay in Jerusalem. I know I was completely dumbfounded by Bush's total complicity in crimes of the occupation and Sharon's knowing he can get away with murder and acting on it. I knew he was bad when it was happening. Looking back, I think I was probably kind in any analysis I may have done. Rereading the things that were said and done- it's unbelievable. He was a monster- worse than I probably thought back then. She mentions two things (p169 and p251) I remember I couldn't believe hearing and, further, couldn't fathom how things stayed the same after. Sharon stepped away from his carefully constructed straw man of Arafat (he wants the whole thing, wants to push Jews into the sea) and let slip that Arafat wanted to push Israel back to the 1967 borders (the horror!). The second was Sharon admitting there was an occupation and it was bad for everyone. Amazing- suddenly he was contradicting many fans in US government, AIPAC, etc. Through all of this, Bush never changed anything, never held Israel accountable. Those were truly hopeless times- for Iraq nonsense and for progress in the Palestinian Israeli conflict.

Miral by Rula Jebreal

Miral by Rula Jebreal

It was written in several parts: Hind, Nadia, Fatima, Miral, Hani.

At first I wasn't sure I'd like it. The first part, Hind, was written from a distant, omniscient point of view rather than stepping into any one character's shoes. It seemed more like instructions for the movie, but more prose than stage direction.  This sort of thing wouldn't have been so out of place in a memoir, but in a novel, it left me wondering when it was going to pick up or get a little more personal. It was hard to get into, but this first part was definitely necessary to set the story up. You need the info later. I wish there had been a better way to accomplish it, though. We do meet Miral near the end of this part, so I decided to hold on to see what happens with her.

In Nadia's section, Part II, there is an abrupt change. It seems to have no connection to anything else and I was totally confused. The story begins to be told from Nadia's point of view, which is a definite improvement. Maybe that is why the story grabs me at this point and I decide I will probably finish it.

Fatima's part is pretty much about Nadia. Fatima is in prison for a failed terrorist attack, which is an interesting perspective. Also a good part of this section is that Jebreal takes an opportunity through Nadia to explore an aspect of the identity question- are you Israeli, Palestinian, neither, etc.

Miral is Nadia's daughter and that is the name of the next section. Things are starting to be a little more connected. I thought it was interesting that Nadia thought everyone treated her with more respect because they thought she was in jail for what Fatima was (planning an attack). Jamal, Fatima's brother, moved Miral and Rania to Hind's school and changed their last name in part because the family name was tainted by Fatima's attack. Having to send them to the orphanage/school was so sad- as were the orphans' stories.

The way Haifa is described was something I had heard of Jerusalem (Kai Bird's book) pre-1948 or 1967- Arabs and Jews together, many nationalities, politics consciously ignored, harmony, parties, etc. I had never heard that of Haifa; maybe different cities experienced their times of peace at different times. 

I enjoyed the strong, beautiful, independent women with a variety of perspectives as main characters throughout the book. The book focuses on women who don't trust men, who don't follow the predictable path and who want the freedom to find their own way.

One thing I felt was left hanging was that we never really found out what happened to Nadia's first child. She left it with her mother after forgiving her, with the guarantee that her sister and her husband would look after her. In one way, I guess that's enough, but I kind of wanted to know what happened to her, if Miral met her, if she could have been worked into the story- she did find out about her having a different father than Rania. Also, I would have liked to have heard more about Ruba, Nadia's youngest sister. It makes sense that she was much younger and so wasn't as close with Nadia and Tamam, but I wonder if she was abused as well and if she ever saw her mother, Nadia or Tamam.

The personal stories stood out to me. We often group Palestinians into one or two neat categories- Palestinians or Israeli Palestinians, extremist Palestinians or moderates, diaspora or Palestinians in Palestine. This book gives us some food for thought that there are many different reactions to grief and tragedy, different reactions to the occupation, different ways to think of identity. There is occupation related tragedy and the same abuse and death all of us are familiar with (sometimes compounded by the occupation).

Edit:
I ended up really liking the book. I got the movie from Netflix soon after and it was also great, but reading the book first was extremely helpful. I hadn't realized the book was at least partly autobiographical. That added a lot, IMO. I tend to like a memoir more than a novel anyway.  :)

This has an interview with the author:

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/03/25/mirals-rula-jebreal-the-palestinian-woman-who-wrote-the-book-that-started-this-big-screening-war/

Cutting aid to Israel's neighbors

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/20/u-s-republicans-hit-aid-to-israel-neighbors-pakistan/

Cut aid to Israel instead or in addition and free up some serious cash... and our conscience!!! And moving the embassy to Jerusalem in the same bill?! Republicans complain about "activist judges" and they're trying to write international law and preempt negotiations! They are a funny bunch!

And this quote below is pretty hilarious when you consider people like Avigdor Lieberman are sitting in Israeli government, cabinet and positions such as Foreign Minister. I mean we welcomed this guy and talked to him like an equal! But when you consider we are occupiers as well (They understand well that in order to save face and make money and get what you want, you've sometimes got to kill a lot of innocent people, but you shouldn't think too much about that part.), perhaps we feel more of that extra special warm and fuzzy bond people always talk about...

The Republicans would also cut off security assistance to Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and Yemen if Islamic militant movements such as Hezbollah and Hamas hold any position in government.

And what do people always say about the UN or any criticism of Israel? There must be an equal and opposite action against Palestinians? Or is that a law in thermodynamics... or both. Whatever. Anyway, if they are going to support moving the embassy to Jerusalem for Israel, they should also support Jerusalem as the capital for Palestinians and suggest the Palestinian leadership move there, too. I mean, if you're going to insist that any bill or resolution with criticism of Israel also have criticism of Palestinians to be legitimate or at least not blatant anti-Semitism, we've got to bite the bullet and divide the capital. It's only fair.

This cutting of aid to Israel's neighbors is a problem all the way around. We are handing extremist groups a prime recruiting tool on a silver platter! Not to mention, we'd be grouping entire populations of moderates and the whole spectrum with a few extremists. We are definitely asking for more extremists. I mean, when you are a moderate and are treated like an extremist, what incentive is there to take the high road? Why cooperate with the US? Why not attack us?

Edit: I think since this has been in draft form, this has been rejected in the House, but I can't find where I read or heard that...