Netanyahu on TIME's list of influential people

Several things are pretty funny about this...

Netanyahu being called influential, rather than a criminal.

The title of the mini-article is "Israel's loyal servant"... written by Eric Cantor, a US Congressman and another of Israel's loyal servants.

Netanyahu's and other Israeli leaders' "oversized challenges" were mentioned without elaborating. Could he by chance be talking about maintaining a Jewish majority in a majority Arab area by any and all means necessary, even ethnic cleansing and getting people to criticize the people being "cleansed"??

On the not so funny side, Cantor used half the article as a petition to gain support for attacking Iran and support for Israel. Both things Americans need to seriously call into question and analyze with a clear head and knowledge of what has happened-- not since the last Israeli tragedy, but since 1948 and before.

Maybe someone could have convinced me Netanyahu deserved to be on this list if they had spoken honestly about his crimes and shortcomings, as we do when discussing the leadership skills of other evil dictators and people of that ilk, but I remain unconvinced by this obsequious, half blind representation.

Married to Another Man

Married to Another Man 

by Ghada Karmi

I did actually read this just after Pappe's The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. They are very similar, but from slightly different perspectives. Pappe gives a lot of background on the Israeli failings and Karmi gives more background on Palestinians that is typically known or acknowledged.

Karmi discusses Arab peace overtures that are often overlooked or totally dismissed. She also touches on the issue of connection or association (or lack thereof) between Israelites of the Bible and Jews of today. A very interesting part of the book was the discussion of the various peace efforts- we rarely heard what Arabs offered or thought, so it was fascinating to read something other than the US/Israel filtered news. Finally, the thing that drew me in was the promised discussion of a one state solution.

One thing that I vaguely remember and couldn't find when I went back to look for it in the book was that Soviet Christians were let into Israel as Jews. That would be interesting to find more about. I knew about them going to remote areas in Peru and things and converting people to bring into the country to "combat the demographic threat".

The vicious cycle was alluded to- The US calls Israel a strategic interest in the region, but if Israel weren't there or tried to integrate, those problems the US deals with wouldn't be there.

We are conditioned to assume that Palestinians won't stop terror, won't come the the peace table, and Israel has no partner for peace and that's why negotiations stall and the conflict isn't solved. This book can help you understand the whole picture and why things tend to stall.

At the beginning of chapter 7, she lays out all the advantages of two states versus two that I have listed in the past about settlers not having to go anywhere and refugees and Jewish immigrants being able to all be citizens, everyone has access to holy sites, everyone has freedom of movement, etc. I really hadn't thought much about the type to state, but she really goes into detail on different one state models, which was very interesting.

A binational state would imply some degree of separation. This would apparently be more palatable, but she also suggests it could be a phase on the road to a secular democracy (one person-one vote). I know very little of the Belgian, Czech and Swiss models, but it is interesting how they blend these on state models to fit the needs of their population.

Palestinians have advocated for one state before the renewed push of the 90s or 2000s. At that time, Israel accused them of trying to commit genocide or the equivalent when Palestinians should have been commended (by the international community) for wanting to share versus desiring a fair solution where the invaders/colonizers were sent packing. I myself have said something like this. I like this Karmi :)

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe

See also:
Bab al Shams Elias Khoury- epic novel about Nakba
Possibly called Gate of the Sun?

This is a fascinating, but not necessarily easy read. Everything Israel has said Palestinians have done or wanted that is evil and immoral, Israel has actually done to the Palestinians. It's kind of an eye opener. I have always heard the counter claims to the Israeli myths or standard line, but I honestly didn't know what was true or not, so I took it with a grain of salt... but this book makes one take a hard look at what many people consider to be Palestinian propaganda--you'd be surprised how much of it is in fact true.

Americans maybe won't believe Pappe, or will call him a self hating Jew or a traitor, but he dispels Israel's founding myths (of victimhood especially) and leaves no doubt that Israel was and is engaged in ethnic cleansing and has even succeeded in cleansing history. The proof of the latter you sill find in talking to Israelis and Americans about the likelihood that ethnic cleansing or war crimes were committed by Israel in it's founding or currently. The proof of the former is apparently readily available in diaries and other historical records, yet everyone seems to ignore these. With operations named Broom and Scissors and your ethnic cleansing operations are referred to like tihur (cleansing), biur (as in get rid of the leavening agents for Passover) and nikkuy (and cleaning), the intent is obvious. Co-existence and peace were never really in the plan.

The first similarity that struck me between Israel's past and present crimes was how the leaders told one story of a second Holocaust and existential threats to the public and another story, one of knowledge of a superior military might and confidence was written in diaries, correspondence between leaders and private meetings. It essentially does the same today with complete success with the "Palestinians want to push Israel into the sea" myth and reference to it's offensive moves as retaliation.

There is apparently a pervasive Israeli history myth that April 1948 was a turning point in the so called "war" where Israeli troops switched from defense to offense after a near annihilation. In reality, Dec 1947- end of March 1948 saw the completion of the first stage of Plan Dalet and the attacks on Palestinians were more widespread than before.

It is commonly said that the Hagana was the regular army and wasn't privy to any ethnic cleansing- that was the splinter groups of the Irgun and Stern Gang who differed with the Hagana. This is to enforce the myth of "most moral army in the world". That's only part true- in the beginning. At the start, the Irgun would go off and do more than requested (attack rather than retaliate for a small offense or get additional villages not on the list) and maybe there would be an apology, but later it would be included in the Hagana's list of victories, so there was approval after the fact. The more extreme methods were even adopted by the Hagana and ethnic cleansing was spoken of openly as they encountered less resistance and the British left and Jordanians neutralized.

The methods haven't changed over the years either. Recently, settlers have been caught poisoning the water supply and there are known issues with the supposedly shared water supply getting mostly diverted to Israel and the settlements. In Acre and Gaza in 1948, they began that method. (p100)

Israel commonly contends that Palestinians left their land on their own. Pappe notes that the Hagana and other groups would blare such things from loudspeakers as "surrender or commit suicide" and "we will destroy you to the last man". With this and rumors of massacres, summary executions and waves of refugees/witnesses passing through various towns, I don't know how one could really call this a voluntary move. One of so many lies.

Another common Israeli myth is that is that Palestinians want to (or can) push Jews into the sea. What is tragic is that Israelis stole this, too. You see, in an effort to escape the massacres and "clearing" operations of the time, Palestinians were actually pushed into the sea and drowned by Hagana and other forces who would close in on 3 flanks and leave only one way open (when they chose to let people live). The population of 50,000 (plus refugees from other cleansed areas) tried to escape by the only route left open under heavy fire in small fishing boats.

One of many reasons Israel charged ahead with ethnic cleansing unchecked was that it decided to subdivide the Palestinian portion of the "spoils" and "share" with Jordan. That reminded me of the peace treaties Israel has made with Jordan and Egypt more recently than 1948. On both occasions they took out the main military force that could possibly match Israel. Then as now they felt free to broadcast inflammatory rhetoric, discuss transfer of Palestinians openly and threaten countries with military action with no adverse consequences whatsoever.

p111
Nasr-al-Din massacre near Tiberias
Tirat Haifa near Haifa
Ayn al-Zaytoun near Safad

p136
Tantura massacre- large city, 230 dead. They simply rounded up Palestinians and shot them dead because a soldier said lost a brother, cousin, etc. That is what we would call terrorism today. That's justice Israeli style- do unto others as is your whim today and others must abide by laws and international standards. The same double standard exists today.

p156
Count Folk Bernadotte stands out as one UN emmisary who stood up for justice. He insisted on the Palestinians right to return under international law and for Palestine to be re-divided more fairly. Israel initially agreed to let him mediate because he helped many Jews under the Nazis; when he tried to do the same for Palestinians, Israel assassinated him. Justice, Israeli style.

p162 Another bit of sad irony is that the peace camp took care of some old Arab houses surviving from ethnically cleansed villages, but instead of allowing Palestinians back or advocating for justice, they made an artists' colony out of them.

p196 Dawaymeh massacre was worse than the famous Deir Yassin and worst one until 1956 Kfar Qassim. Tantura, Safsaf, Sa'sa also had large numbers of atrocities. One observation I had here was that Jordan often gave Palestinians' land to Israel for peace and Israel kept cleansing it of Palestinians. A common Israeli refrain has been that land for peace doesn't work. I wonder if this is how it knows?

p202 The two realities- the same then and now. This really stuck with me:
Yisca Shadin's situation was given as a case in point for two reasons because people indicted for crimes against Palestinians aren't brought to justice and remain in power to afflict them. (Example: In 2000, Israeli police killed 13 Palestinians.)

p221 Several myths were created as Israeli towns were built on freshly removed rubble of Arab homes. This rubble, by the way was cleared by Arabs in labor camps. I was surprised to learn Jews employed this tactic. Again I am reminded that "never again" must not be inclusive... The myth of Israeli concern for the environment was spawned while planting on top of Arab villages and gardens. The popular "making the desert bloom" myth was also born while building on top of destroyed mosques, demolished architectural sites.

Near the end, Pappe tells how peace depends on recognition of 1948 and Israel's block of this and peace. He also offers insight into so-called peace negotiations like Oslo and the infamous Gaza pullout, how these are a way to sidestep the refugee issue, while continuing ethnic cleansing.

The last chapters offered some hope and said what many know, that the problem isn't Judaism, it is Zionism.

Guenter Grass, Israel and freedom of speech

April 9, 2012

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/08/gunter-grass-barred-from-israel

Someone is Israel has said Guenter Grass is "fanning the flames of hatred" with his political poem. I say Israel- with its policies that if not are by definition ethnic cleansing or apartheid, closely resemble them- fans the flames of hatred quite effectively. The hatred is about policies, not anti-Jewish sentiments. It is a reflex to call someone anti-Semitic when they disagree with Israeli policies against Palestinians.

An Israeli on the PRI program I caught on the radio today said there is no silence, that people in Israel are talking about this and about not wanting to invade Iran. Maybe. I think it depends on how you look at it. I'm sure Israelis have many points of view. But, there is a sort of effort coming from somewhere- Zionists, American Jews, the hardline right, some combination- that seeks to paint anyone who disagrees with Israeli policies or who wants to tell the Palestinian point of view as anti-Semitic (banning people from Israel, getting American profs fired for saying Palestinians deserve rights, too, etc). And let's talk about America. You can't talk about the Palestinian point of view or say Israel might be wrong in its approach to Palestinians and Arab countries without a high probability of people thinking you are anti-Semitic or crazy. If you write to Congress to oppose specific illegal or unfair actions Israel is taking against Palestinians, they will write you a letter about how great Israel is. On the floor of Congress, Senators and Representatives preface any remarks that could be construed as trying to get Israel to respect settlement freezes, for example, with how great a friend their state is to Israel and how awesome it is. In these types of actions and bias, there is a kind of silencing going on. So, while I get that Israelis discuss things and this is great and free, there is still a kind of silence surrounding these things that prevents anyone from being able to make progress on pressuring Israel to comply with UN resolutions and other standards everyone else has to comply with.

The part about Israel wanting to annihilate Iran is being debated as well. Many Israelis don't want to, if the much publicized messages of love to Iran are any indication. But the government is terrorizing Palestinians, preventing their return and normal life, and advocating attacking it's neighbors on a regular basis. It goaded the US into attacking Iraq. It's trying to do the same (and would succeed under and Republican administration) with Iran currently. 

Some say the Iran comparison is unfair. I'd say not entirely. Obviously, one is democratically elected and the other not so much. That is a difference. But I think the point is that Israel with its policies to deny Palestinians rights is less democratic than one would think. Also, the rhetoric coming from each of these entities is, at times, equally bellicose and divorced from reality.

This article from above also says some are angry about the moral equivalence shown between Iran and Israel, but if Israel would let refugees come back and adopt a one state strategy in which all had equal rights and freedom of movement, I bet Iran would change its tune or set the Arab world against it. If Israel started following the law, no one would have any reason to have anything against it. They want to talk the talk, but not walk the walk.

I think the only debate is whether one can call it poetry. Maybe the German translation would qualify, I have no idea, but I'd guess it's more of an editorial.

The etch-a-sketch man calling out Obama??

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/us/politics/romney-says-obama-is-hiding-his-true-policy-aims.html

Romney says Obama hides his agenda. 

Hmm. Two things come to mind, the first being Obama foreign policy successes and contrast with the dismal republican foreign policy we recently experienced.

He's going to question (I don't have a problem with questioning, but rather going on and on when you don't really have a firm basis in fact...) Obama on his foreign policy? Really? After he's done quite a bit to restore our image abroad after Bush dragged us through the mud?

These two pieces on Obama I quite enjoyed:
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/home/Articles/Entries/2012/1/19_The_Strategist.html

http://swampland.time.com/2012/01/19/inside-obamas-world-the-president-talks-to-time-about-the-changing-nature-of-american-power/


The second issue I have with Romney's calling out of Obama is-- isn't this a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black? 

Romney or his aide or whomever said:

"You hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again."


 And Romney's positions on guns, abortion, taxes, gay rights and healthcare have undergone quite the 180 over the years.

So...who's hiding what? Well, I guess we know Romney's going to erase everything and start over, but who knows what his positions will be. That's comforting...to both sides!  ??

And this is equally entertaining, but not new, from John McCain (on Romney)...

He says the etch-a-sketch comment was blown out of proportion, much like his "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" during the campaign in which the bottom dropped out.

That might be a point to argue, except he's ready to jump on Obama for something that's well known in politics- you can't take risks, even to achieve something positive, right before the election. (Obama was "caught" on mic saying his position would be more flexible toward Russia after the election. Never mind that he was referring to having talks ahead of both leaders' campaigns- if one started now, and either leader loses, you'll have to start over. So why start now?) It isn't done. I wish it was done- both sides are to blame. A republican wouldn't do it. And, more troubling, I guess we know the republican position toward "those foreigners"- they have to do what we want or we'll invade or freeze them out- bellicose threats, 48 hour ultimatums, diplomacy's for sissies, bring 'em on. 

I'll take Obama's statement of the obvious over that any day, please!

Obamacare (cue the Halloween/scary music)

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the Affordable Health Care Act, or Obamacare as Republicans call it.

They oppose the individual mandate by calling it socialism. The funny thing is that it was their idea in the '90s and it was all good- a way to protect small businesses--- then. What was that other thing they call socialist? Oh. Taxes. I'm sure there are more.

Making everyone opt in is not a new concept. Car insurance is the same. You are required to have this if you have a car. I realize this is regulated by the states and not federal, so this may make all the difference to a Republican, but it is the same concept to me. Everyone pays who may have to use it at some point to cover the costs of those that do. If you choose to go without and then have an accident, no one is required to cover your cost, unlike in a medical situation where doctors are required to treat you, so the need for the individual mandate seems to be greatest in this case. Why so little complaint about car insurance and so much about everyone being required to have health insurance, something that you'll probably use more than car insurance and for something you're guaranteed service for?

Republicans are against welfare and other social programs because it is a free ride. They have no problem with people who don't get insurance while they're healthy or apparently healthy, then go when the problems can't be ignored and have ballooned into something uncontrollable at everyone else's expense because- hey- I didn't see this coming- I'm healthy- I can't afford this- I need help. Is that not the point of insurance, to pay into it before you need it? Take for example life insurance or car insurance. (Yes, I realize life insurance is totally optional and car insurance is regulated by the state, but I'm talking about the allegedly strange new socialist concept of pooling resources.) I would think Republicans would be for something that prevents people from gaming the system and getting services they never intended to pay for (either because they couldn't or because they thought they didn't need it just yet).

Or maybe I have it wrong and Republicans would like to do away with the concept of doctors helping those who can't pay. I admit I don't know their position on that. I'd be curious to find that out.

Or I wonder if the individual mandate gets struck down if people who opt out could carry a card that says- I waive my right/wish to be treated- so the cost wouldn't be incurred. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't affect the doctors' responsibility to treat people, though. Besides it makes me feel kind of horrible just writing that. I definitely believe those who can't afford it should be subsidized and treated, but those who opt out because they're feeling fine now or oppose it ideologically or opt out for another reason than financial need...maybe I don't feel that bad writing it.

Children's literature about Palestinians/ Arab culture

We had considered attending a Girl Scout event at school where admission was a new or gently used book to donate to the school district. Other things intervened, so we didn't go, but I thought about what I would have liked to donate and may yet still. 

Arabs are under represented in literature and human interest stories and over represented in coverage of terrorist acts and war, so this got me thinking and searching. I didn't come up with a ton, but I suppose I could still donate to the school district or public library. Or just get for my own kids for summer or supplementary reading...

Elementary:

One City, Two Brothers by Chris Smith......................ages 6 and up

The Butter Man by Elizabeth Alalou & Ali Alalou .....Kindergarten and up

Sitti's Secrets by Naomi Shihab Nye .........................ages 5 and up

Snow in Jerusalem by Deborah DeCosta ...................ages 6-10

Mystery Bottle by Kristen Balouch ............................K - grade 3

Late Elementary- Middle School:

Figs and Fate (5 short stories) by Elsa Marston ......grades 4-8

A Little Piece of Ground by Elizabeth Laird ....... grades 4 and up (ages 9 and up)

The Grand Mosque of Paris: A Story of How Muslims Rescued Jews During the Holocaust ............................................................ grade 3 and up (age 8 and up)

---

Running on Eggs by Anna Levine .......................grades 5 and up (ages 10 and up)

Habibi by Naomi Shihab Nye ...................................grades 5-9

A Bottle in the Gaza Sea by Valerie Zennatti ............grades 6-8

If You Could Be My Friend by Mervet A. Sha'ban.....grades 6-10

A Stone in My Hand by Cathryn Clinton ...........grades 6 and up (ages 11 and up)

Also interesting for a classroom, maybe...

http://www.adc.org/education/arab-contributions-to-civilization/

I guess high school suggestions might be the same as adult suggestions? I have no idea.

Mornings In Jenin by Susan Abulhawa

Bastard of Istanbul by Elif Shafak

maybe Miral... you could do a movie compare/contrast...

Crescent by Diana Abu-Jaber (The Language of Baklava or Aarbian Jazz may also be good)

Sharon and My Mother-in-Law: Ramallah Diaries by Suad Amiry

It's Easier to Reach Heaven Than the End of the Street: A Jerusalem Memoir by Emma Williams

The Lemon Tree by Sandy Tolan

***

Edit 3/12/12: Some very good points recently were made with regard to the wrong and right way to do things of this nature. I agree completely. 

If I'm (or you're) going to donate, I will definitely have to go about it in the correct way so as not to just drop books in administrators' lap for them to possibly interpret as some sort of a sinister agenda. I don't know that I necessarily have the tools for this, so maybe I will just buy some for my own kids...


The donation(s) would, I suppose, need to be in the context of a dialogue about diversity (in a broader sense than maybe we tend to think about). We need to discuss and read about Arabs who aren't engaged in terrorism -get beyond the stereotype- since we have been engaged in the Middle East more prominently since ~2001. A general trend with various wars we have been engaged in  is that we tend to see more people from those regions in the US in later years. I think it would benefit everyone to get a complete picture of the people we generally see portrayed in only one way in this country.

I don't know that donating one book would have an ill effect- which was more in line with my original thought that kind of turned into... what if all these were available for kids and teachers... Oh well. I will keep brainstorming I guess- I can't stop thinking sometimes. They aren't all good ideas, but maybe I'll hit on something one day.

Obama Netanyahu meeting

So, these guys met again yesterday. Why do we agree to meet and grovel to a war criminal?? I don't know. That's American politics. I won't quote Churchill with the riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, but ...  :)

A link for the meeting...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17260083

I don't know if it was supposed to be a general meeting on all issues, but if it was, Netanyahu succeeded in steering the conversation away from Palestinians to focus on Iran. Very convenient, given how someone involved in ethnic cleansing may not be in a strong position to demand we make good on our pledge to always support Israel - they are on the verge of "annihilation". When is the existential threat lie going to go the way of the boy who cried wolf? How many times will it take? There has not been an existential threat against Jews since Hitler, yet Israel cries wolf all the time- Palestinians Iraq, Iran, etc. Very interesting it is that Israel always berates us for not being "Johnny on the spot" whenever it perceives an "existential threat" (we actually are, but since we aren't pre-emptively striking everyone who talks dirty and we occasionally express concern about illegal settlements, they perceive it differently) while being involved in Judaizing neighborhoods, fixing visa laws such that Palestinians can't come back home, refusing to allow refugees back since 1948, and built their state on ethnic cleansing campaigns that involved blowing up innocent peoples houses and killing women and children intentionally to scare others away.

Aside from ignoring Israel's war crimes and treating them like a nation that deserves normal relations and our blind and full support, Obama did a good job repeating his desire for diplomacy and establishing our position that the time for war has not yet come. Netanyahu was ready for war a long time ago. They are always ready for war. They are a military society. I don't even know if they have any diplomats or know what that is.

I think it was wrong not to talk about the Palestinians because the Iran "problem" ties into it. I mean, if Israel had let refugees back after 1948 and all of the conflicts and was a democracy for it's citizens and not just for Jews, Iran would feel less like attacking a state in which Arabs were participating. And perhaps the Arabs would help moderate Israel's rhetoric and positions and would be able to conduct diplomacy with Iran instead of just threatening war all the time. Israel as it is today is really no better or more rational than Iran. They kind of mirror each other in a kind of weird way. They both threaten war all the time and support terrorism in indirect ways and tolerate extremism in government. The only difference is we accept Israel as a normal, Western nation and see Iran for what it is.

Israel as a state for Jews rather than ALL of its citizens is kind of a common denominator for conflict in the Middle East. They are either fighting with another country, exchanging heated rhetoric, or selling arms and info to both sides to keep other parties fighting. It all boils down to "defending" (and I use the term very loosely as they do with demographics) a majority Jewish state in a predominantly Arab area on a land they ethnically cleansed to create. Israel uses the term defense interchangeably for life and the Jewish majority it works hard to keep by illegal and lethal means, which makes some of their cries of annihilation a bit ridiculous, sadly, because that kind of thing shouldn't be spoken of so lightly.

There has always been a discrepancy between the facts and what Israel tells the public to rile them up. Even before 1948, in public, leaders spoke of annihilation and death and destruction and second Holocaust; in private meetings and military planning, they knew they had the advantage militarily and politically. Things have not changed one bit. They are the world's 4th largest military power and yet continually say they are under an existential threat, people want to push them into the sea, and all manner of doomsday scenarios. Particularly disgusting, though, is not just that discrepancy in facts, but that they are actually at the same time engaged in threatening others' existence and expunging them from the history of the region

(For more on Israel's intent and plans in and around the 1900s, read Ilan Pappe, Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.)

While I know that Obama is obligated to state the obvious (we support Israel- if you write to Congress on any Middle East issue, you will clearly learn that, if nothing else) and grovel and reassure Israel that we have their back even amid accusations by the right, AIPAC, and Israel that America under Obama isn't supporting Israel the way they want. How they can make such demands coming from a state built on ethnic cleansing and still engaging in illegal and immoral acts absolutely defies logic. I realize presidents have to do that to get elected, but why don't politicians get together and stand up to Israel in a effort to do right by our own citizens? That way, no one would be standing out on a limb election-wise and the American people would get money for our health care and education rather than supporting ethnic cleansing and apartheid overseas. It's a win-win.

Other nations with human rights issues and UN violations, we maintain a workable but frosty relationship with. In the case of Israel, they accuse us of not supporting them, and we seemingly have no choice but to promise greater love and support despite illegal activity (both the acts we acknowledge and oppose and those we tend to ignore...). What is wrong with us? Why can't we see how backwards this is??

The ONLY thing under existential threat is possibly the myths that Israel was ever under existential threat of a second Holocaust, that it didn't actually make the desert bloom, that it didn't expel, kill and terrorize most Palestinians to seize a state for Jews only, that it didn't engage in ethnic cleansing or doesn't today, etc as people gradually wake up and read for themselves about history and the issue instead of trusting famous pastors and politicians to draw conclusions and think for them.

pen pals... not just for kids

I have written a few times about starting some kind of activism that involves Americans and Palestinians talking...

I'll repost the second half of this fair trade post here, since I should have separated them in the first place:

*** *** ***
I'm not exactly the go-getter type, but I think from time to time about stuff like this or getting something going. Petitioning the government is certainly (or seems so) one way to influence policy, but if Americans are talking to Palestinians and start to see them as people with perhaps more in common with themselves than they think (rather than The Others, terrorists, etc), maybe this will make people re-think the "Israel's way or the highway" mentality that holds us captive and causes common sense to escape us.

Here goes:
I have heard of (and have been inspired by) various efforts lately to aid Palestine like Galloway's convoy, Kite Gang (NPR), Gaza Surf Relief, etc:
http://www.vivapalestina.org/events.htm,
(edit 7/2009- A convoy actually left the US on July 4 and went to Gaza July 13)

http://www.kitegang.org/what_we_do/jordan
(http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_496_Kites_and_Plastic.mp3/view ),

http://www.gazasurfrelief.com/Start.html ,

https://www.canaanfairtrade.com/about ,

various programs among elementary students/schools from the US and Palestine exchanging letters, pictures, goodies, etc (why don't cities or peace groups in the two areas do the same sorts of things?)
*Facebook comments about Flat Stanleys around that time kind of re-inspired that one. I thought- what if Flat Stanley went to a Free Gaza event or protest...

and even http://www.provoforpalestine.org/ (go figure!)

And with that, I'm all brainstormed out. Maybe something will come of it one day. If not from me, then from someone reading this. I feel less cluttered having put all this on "paper", so I guess I've accomplished something.

*** *** ***

And recently, I signed up with postcrossing, which is really cool, but you just can't choose what country you write to (though I wouldn't want to change the randomness of that particular site). It is kind of the thing I had envisioned finding or starting for US-Palestine.

There are programs for student pen pals on this site:  http://www.twinningwithpalestine.net/ , that I linked to in my BDS post.

And I found this one, Pen Pals for Peace, for students as well: http://www.ippnw-students.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=59&Itemid=65

This one sounds great, but I do believe it's only for students.

I had wanted my chapter of Al-Awda or other group to maybe start a subgroup that would write (men to men, women to women) letters and postcards (actual, not electronic) to tell about life, news, and whatever else in their country (Palestine- US exchange).

If that worked, I had wanted to try and get people who don't know or think much about the conflict on a daily basis involved for the educational and outreach experience. People in the US sometimes just buy into the "Israel is always right" (or Arabs are always wrong) line of thinking simply because they don't hear anyone or anything challenging that and causing them to evaluate it.

time magazine- the upside of being an introvert

I posted a bit on this in November. 

Time Magazine - 'The Upside Of Being An Introvert.' 

I hear others talk about being shy or how we must get out of our comfort zone, but I don't think they know the half of it sometimes. These things mean entirely different things to introverts and extroverts. Not that we introverts shouldn't try and get out of the comfort zone once in a while, but our culture is such that we are often expected to live outside of it- and the thought of being expected to go even further out of it sometimes makes me want to blow a gasket. Ok. More realistically, it makes me want to disengage.

Maybe I'll start with the quiz. Of course there is a quiz! 

Some of the items made me smile. You let calls go to voicemail. I hate to admit it, but can't deny that one. I don't do the phone thing unless I have to. 

Prefer writing to talking, enjoy solitude, etc. Of course! This is one of the main reasons this blog exists. The usual suspects when you're talking about introverts.

It was interesting to find that being "less concerned with wealth, fame and status" is a trait of introverts. I have spent a lot of time thinking about why these things are important and tempting to so many and why I am so uninterested in them (i.e. What's wrong with me?? Where's my ambition??). 

Dislike small talk, but enjoy talking in depth about what matters to me. 

This was a point of confusion I had growing up. I have been described and have even described myself as not liking to talk. This clarification (in the quiz) of this generalization is kind of perfect. 

Prefer to not show my work until it's finished. That one stuck out big time! I have thought I was a perfectionist, but sometimes that doesn't fit. I can relate to this whether it was school work, an informal note, or even this blog.

I feel drained after being out, even if I've had fun. 

This one is one that stuck out. It was hard for me to accept or took a long time to understand. I always wanted to love parties and social gatherings as much as everyone else seemed to. And easy solution is to not participate, but that can be lonely. And then you think it's your fault you are lonely because you made the decision not to go. This conundrum isn't recognized all that much. You either like people or you don't. Be decisive! 

I am reminded of when I was a teenager and my poor mom flipped out when I said out loud that I hated people. I don't think I meant that exactly. I was probably just frustrated with this supposed dichotemy and feeling like I was living in a world made for someone else. Why don't I like to have fun (as everyone else defines it) and why does no one value what I'm good at? I was made to question a lot of good traits I had/have (not just the typical good girl, good listener stuff) and I imagine I didn't articulate it well. Ok. So it did sound pretty horrible. 

I don't enjoy multitasking. Now there's an understatement. I guess I didn't really think of that as a trait of introverts, either. That probably got me in trouble at work more than once. :) I wonder what would be my perfect career. This isn't the first time I've wondered this. I would say law because I could pay attention to details and would have the passion to be a voice for the voiceless since I could relate. Then there's the public arguments and all that... An introvert (former) lawyer is mentioned in the article as having a personality not fitting the career, but I think there were parts that fit quite well...

 I said I'd start with the quiz, but I probably hit on some points of the article that struck a cord with me, so I'll probably just end with it as well. They also talk about a study that more of less predicted the introverts out of a group of 5 month olds. Interesting stuff.

Just after it is an article by Dr. Oz that is not worth reading at all. Well, he does eventually make the point that you shouldn't force your kid to be what they aren't. That's a good point. I'll give him that.

But, he concedes that it's ok to be an introvert in some cases, but shyness ("genuine maladaptive shyness" as he calls it) is usually a sign of disease (not enough blood to the brain), autism, anxiety disorders, OCD, etc. It's possible that's not what he's saying, but in a one page article, at least half, maybe more, was talking about these cases and ways to medicate. From the title (Charms of the Quiet Child), I guess I assumed it would be a little more on the benefits of shy/introverted personalities than about when one should worry or seek medical intervention.

And he generalizes that it's easy to cheer for extroverted athletes, but the introverted math and science inclined should be equally cheered on. I think he's trying to make a good point, but ends up being too specific. Maybe he's talking about his own family, but it came off like painting with a broad brush, like he doesn't get it.

Nothing to Lose But Your Life: An 18 Hour Journey with Murad

Nothing to Lose But Your Life: An 18 Hour Journey with Murad
by Suad Amiry

I read Amiry's "Sharon and My Mother-in-law" first and loved the mix of explaining the Palestinian situation and humor and resilience. The first part of this one didn't hook me like that book, but the second part more than made up for it.

In chapter 10, she realizes they have been in the West Bank all this time (they are about to cross at The Wall) and the dangers, fear of arrest, running, bullets, hiding, etc happened on what is supposedly their own turf. Even for Amiry, who knows about things like this, the shock is palpable.

Chapters 11 and 12 struck me as out of place at first, but after some thought, they capture the situation perfectly. Chapter 11 is a fable or a few fables and 12 is about The Wall and a particular graffiti artist. I didn't realize at first that most of these images are actual Banksy "paintings" on the Wall; I only had seen a few in pictures. This chapter, like the art, is profound.

In chapter 14, this quote was great:

"I don't know what it is about Palestinians; they all believe they can pass for an Israeli, regardless of how typically Arab they look, the second they put on sunglasses."

It comes amid the various adjustments the workers are making to their appearance as they prepare to "blend" in with Jewish Israelis. I was aware of the plight of Palestinian workers, but not so much with this aspect. Very interesting.

Last sentence of chapter 14: 

"Only then did I realise that for me, and many others, Israel was virtual. For Murad, Israel was 'home.' Israel was a reality; a harsh reality."

At a cafe (deciding whether or not to continue), she defines the ultimate love-hate relationship, being out of ones' skin, out of place and history as being in her homeland Palestine.

Nearing the decision to quit the search for work for the day and distance themselves from the actual workers who they have slowed down some, they rest in a park and she tells a bit about what an Israeli park actually is- a peaceful green space that, by contrast, was taken by force from Arab villagers. For instance, most Palestinians are referring to Petah Tikvah as Mlabbis, it's original name.

This several pages long daydream about Mlabbis/ Petah Tikvah is brilliant. I wonder if she knew or researched the history, heard bits from Murad, or simply recounted the familiar 1948 Palestine or Nakba memory shared by many people and villages and retold by more.

In chapter 16, she talks about missing the Tel-Aviv (Lod) airport and the firman Sharon issued that no Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza could use this airport. Also on this portion of the bus ride she remembers various Palestinian villages while looking for the rubble.

At the end, she takes off her worker's clothes and steps back into her life and reflects on the situation- real risks and dangers- that they face every day just to get a day's work. And the author's note! It is an article she reads the day she gets home about a worker getting shot doing what she just did.

Kayak.com second to explain ad pull on TLC show

 Before we get to Kayak, the Florida Family Association says 65-75 companies pulled the ads, but apparently this is a misrepresentation. Many placed the ads for a specific number of episodes and are distancing themselves from the bigotry of the current Lowe's /FFA/ All-American Muslim (and Kayak?) problem.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/14/389225/fact-check-most-companies-not-caving-to-intolerance-will-continue-to-advertise-on-all-american-muslim/

***

Kayak.com has pulled ads for the same reason as Lowe's. There is an apology out there. I don't know if they are just backtracking or if they are sorry for the bigotry of the situation.

Initially Kayak said it pulled the ads because TLC was not up front about the nature of the show (which sounds like they could be headed in the same direction as the FFA complaint- how dare TLC air a show that shows Muslims as normal rather than the terrorists we know they are) but I guess it could mean anything.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/travel-site-kayak-pulls-ads-tlcs-american-muslim/story?id=15159617#.Tuu10Dj0tko

Part of Kayak's initial statement using the "lighting rod" terminology like Lowe's:

"It's a worthy topic, but any reasonable person would know that this topic is a particular lightning rod," Birge says in the letter. "We believe TLC went out of their way to pick a fight on this, and they didn't let us know their intentions."

I would like to know more about the above before I decide whether the next statement about pulling the ads because it was simply a bad, poor quality, boring or whatever show is actually true. I tend to think "the show sucked" thing is a cop out and a good way to get out of this without looking as bad as Lowe's if they can get people to believe it.

Kayak does say it was disappointed in the vitriol of the ad pulling campaigners and said those opposing the ad pulling were more civil. I guess that's something. Maybe.

-----
Quote from this site:

“When TLC pitched All-American Muslim to advertisers, it was characterized as a fair-and-balanced look at the life of an American Muslim,” Birge says. “However, what was not disclosed was the preexisting controversy surrounding race, religion and specifically the divide between the Muslim and Christian communities in Dearborn, Mich. Dearborn has been a center of controversy for right or wrong; however, that was omitted by TLC when it pitched the show.”

Also on that site, it says Kayak's first blog post was about this issue (it is sorry to say) and that it has been interacting with critics on Twitter. Interesting...


The first sentence makes it seem like they were headed in the direction of the FFA - hey- this shows Muslims as "too normal."


The other part makes it seem like they just didn't know Dearborn had a large Arab and/ or Muslim population, uncharacteristic of the rest of the country- which is where charges of misrepresentation may occur. But if you want to see how Muslims are living here, it would make sense you'd go there. But as to them not realizing Dearborn was a center of controversy- that's ridiculous. Look at the heat Muslims have taken after 9/11. Any show about them is going to be (considered) controversial. They really should have known that, even if they didn't know much of anything about Dearborn.

-----

Their apology and current position is that they pulled it because it was not a good show, and are sorry it came across as bending to bigotry. Backtracking? Hmmm.

http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/dispatches/post/2011/12/kayak-on-pulling-all-american-muslim-ads-we-handled-this-poorly/584847/1

 *** Lowe's-- additional info ***

 A good article on the Lowe's ad pull. Author says ad was pulled due to dozens, not hundreds or more emails, says company:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-12-12/muslim-reality-show-american/51836318/1

Gingrich says Palestinians are an "invented people"

Perry stumbles and falls, Cain's past (and present) catches up to him, and now the man of the hour is spouting this garbage? It's inaccurate and if it were said about another people, anti-Semitism charges would abound...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/newt-the-jews-and-an-invented-people.html

Lowe's letter- All American Muslim ads

My letter to Lowe's Home Improvement:

I, a formerly satisfied customer, am writing to inform you of my extreme displeasure in the recent events with which you have been involved: The so called Florida Family Association got you to pull ads from TLC's All-American Muslim, you made a statement admitting as much, then amid backlash you backtracked saying that you received emails from a broad spectrum of customers which actually only amounted to dozens rather than thousands or hundreds of thousands of letters.

The decision to pull the ads was not only hasty and premature, but also bigoted and cowardly. You obviously didn't investigate the claims of your dozens of Muslim hating customers because if you had, you would have found that TLC's show does not advocate one way or the other on any societal or political issues. All-American Muslim simply depicts the daily life of several members of a community many Americans know very little about. This show has much educational value and it naturally prompts discussion of important issues anyone encounters in life. This show is about life in America as much as any other show that you fund with your ads; I'm very confused as to how this one violates your ad guidelines.

I can only assume Lowe's has Muslim customers. I would have hoped, had you acted after some thought, that you would have been able to stand up for these customers who may or may not write to express their displeasure. Your actions rather said you would rather not be associated with one segment of the American population. Is that true? Do you only offer your products to certain people? I expected you to stand up for the fact that Muslim or Christian or anything else- we are all Americans instead of caving to a minority of bigots. I expected a large corporation like Lowe's to have a backbone and be able to stand up to a dozen emailers or even thousands on the very American value of all men being created equal.

Maybe I was wrong to expect your company to stand for what is right and American. Bigotry has won- unless you have a plan to turn this around.

Maybe it is not possible to buy back your ads for All-American Muslim, but what is needed is a massive sensitive, well-thought out apology and/or campaign to repair your image with those who are Muslim, those who are American and those whose intelligence you insulted by siding so quickly and decisively with those who want us to believe all Muslims are terrorists. I wouldn't know where to begin, so wish you much luck with that.

Or maybe your pulling of your ads from All-American Muslim have effectively highlighted the discrimination Muslims face in America and a boycott of your company will be a lesson in human rights and equality for many.

Peace to you,

NC based Lowes pulls funding from show All-American Muslim

Holiday wishes from Lowes!

So, I'm wondering, what do they have the problem with, Americans or Muslims?  ;)  

Did they buy into that idiotic email about Muslims not being "good Americans"? I (probably unreasonably) have had more faith in people than that recently.

The Florida Family Association will play a role, if you read anything about the controversy. A web search for their campaign/petition text yields a "404 Not Found" message, but this site quotes some of it as well as trying to link to it (full FFA letter)...

A one man show??

Whatever the reason- pretty trashy move, Lowes!

Let's go on and post this link to the petition to talk some sense into Lowes (and contacts for Lowe's and TLC):

• http://signon.org/sign/defend-our-american-values.fb1?source=s.fb&r_by=1781139
• And Lowe's Corporate webform (had to keep deleting, but I got in a few good paragraphs)... or this email execustservice@lowes.com
• And TLC viewer relations while we're at it (1500 character limit, I think)...

What do they have to say for themselves (not much- pretty weak, Lowes!):

The North Carolina-based Lowe's issued a statement apologizing for having "managed to make some people very unhappy."

"Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lightning rod for many of those views," the statement said. "As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance."

Way to cave to a little pressure, Lowes! So much for socially responsible business. Like Caterpillar and the bulldozing of homes overseas. Wow. NC and Lowes aren't looking too good right about now. All those "Home of this and that" signs across the state might as well say bigot now. "Managed to make some people unhappy"??? I'd rather see "oops, that was racist/bigoted, we'll try and have more respect for fellow human beings in the future, we're sorry for reflecting poorly on NC and the US, guess what we're starting a Muslim scholarship fund (or at least reinstating ads)."

Really?!?! I mean if a bunch of bigoted white people emailed Lowes hate mail about black people, would Lowes fire all black employees? Or stop ads during shows with majority black casts? 

Or is it just Muslims that it's OK to discriminate against and or hate?

It's best to defer to bigots? When? On what planet? I mean, where do we live? What decade is this again? We never learn. Come on, Lowes!

On wikipedia:

A chain spokesperson said it was because of "...concerns, complaints or issues from multiple sides of the viewer spectrum", while also telling the association in an e-mail that it had "brought [the show] to our attention."

Multiple sides? Really? Spectrum? Would that be the Christians the hate Muslims, the Jews and hate Muslim and atheists who hate Muslims? We've got FFA and sites like this one (yikes). I'm afraid I can't fathom more than one side on this. I'd like to see some sort of graph or explanation of the spectrum.


Lowes on Twitter (for even less clarity):
Lowe’s values diversity of thought in everyone, including our employees and prospective customers.

We did not pull our ads based solely on the complaints or emails of any one group. It is never our intent to alienate anyone.

Really, Lowes? Because it looks like either your other comments are a lie or these tweets are a lie. I wonder which it is.

I wonder if Lowes has the same feeling about TLC's other shows- Extreme Couponing (I've got a disease similar to hoarding, but it's cool, I'm saving money), 19 Kids and Counting (trying to make a fringe extremist Christian group mainstream- if I were to make a complaint similar to the AAM haters'), Sister Wives (polygamy is illegal- Lowes wants to promote that but not Muslim Americans??). I really don't know if All-American Muslim is the only show Lowes has pulled it's ads from on TLC or on any other network, but I have to ask.

If you watch the show, you see that that could easily be a show about a bunch of Christian families- maybe different denominations or differing levels of "devoutness." They discuss Islam on the show (both in reality and discussion formats), so you don't have to hear about it from hateful people or evangelicals who know nothing about it. You also see that outside of the religion they also struggle with  exactly the same things everyone else does. 

And I suppose (with all 3 items) therein lies the danger- once you see others as human and there's no one to demonize, you have to look inward- and we can't have that, now, can we? Who knows what we would find.

Another issue- There are Lowes in or around Dearborn. What are they going to do??? Maybe Muslims shop there. (?!?!? The horror!) Are they going to ban Muslims from the stores to save their sorry image and make this evangelical group happy? Do they accept Muslims' money? Lowes needs to poop or get off the pot. Do you have a problem with Muslims or Americans or peace and understanding? Be consistent. If you get rid of the ads, get on with it, put the sign on your door. Take us back to the pre-civil rights era. Get it out there so we can have this thing struck down. Or you could admit you were wrong and headed in a very un-American direction and make amends yourself.

On a different note:  Previews after the 5th episode show what looks like Fouad, the football coach, the cast at a memorial service, with the eulogy including something like "when will the violence end." Yikes. Could be several events crammed together by TLC (like all networks like to do) to look exactly like something it isn't, but it looks serious. We'll see!

Also good points on:
http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2011/12/12/387101/lowes-all-american-muslim/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-12-12/muslim-reality-show-american/51836318/1

http://www.thetakeaway.org/2011/dec/12/lowes-pulls-ads-reality-show-all-american-muslim/


Not to get big brother on you, but my Feedjit tool tells what people search for and some crack me up:

muslims hate lowes
lowes says they hate muslims
what is going on between lowes and the muslims
lowes muslim problem