According to a recently published article:

A delegation of young Iranians will embark next week on a singular public relations campaign on North American campuses. Entitled Faces of Iran, the delegation includes Persians, religious and secular, representatives of the LGBT community and Jewish residents who are meant to show the “real face” of Iran.

Sounds messed up right?

But that’s exactly what’s been happening and is going to continue to happen on our North American campuses, except the culprit state is not Iran but Israel.

Yuli Edelstein, the Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs and the initiator of Faces of Israel, said that “We believe this is the appropriate answer to the campaign of delegitimisation occurring against Israel throughout the world. This campaign will bring local students face to face with Israeli students just like them. The delegation will be divided into groups and go to various universities, where they will participate in panels and direct encounters on campus.”

Whether directly through state propagation or through heavily connected to the state and its various institutions American/Canadian campaigns, there has seemingly been an increase in Israeli propaganda on North American campuses in an effort to offset growing activism against Israel and its apartheid policies and its continued occupation and oppression of the Palestinians both within the Territories and those within Israel proper. Israel’s abuses of human rights are well documented and voracious in their frequency as well as numerical capacity. Israel is certainly not the sole violator of human rights in the world and certainly within the region. Yet despite that, Israel’s violations of human rights hold unique characteristics – one of which is the strong international campaigns, particularly in the United States, created to offset any attention paid to them or completely delegitimize such attention. No other state has such pervasive lobby groups as well and is also the recipient of much rhetorical and financial support, as well as military, as Israel. Such ferocious counter-campaigns fail to exist for any other state which conducts human rights abuses, or is pursuing long-term occupation as well as purported ethnic cleansing. Israel Apartheid Week has gained considerable momentum in recent years and while there are certainly some problems with some of the organization, it has proven to be a constructive tool for Palestinian solidarity activists to, at the minimum, bring light to Israeli atrocities against Palestinians – historical and contemporary.

The Israeli state and those who are apologists for its various transgressions of international law and human rights have begun several, albeit not very successful, campaigns which have been aimed at the younger generations and thus have been prevalent on campuses, often through but certainly not always established Jewish campus groups with Zionist inclinations, or members of such groups or young Jewish Zionists associated with national associations built to sustain certain images of the Israeli state and to create and sustain images of  other threats which deflect attention from Israel.

While citizens are free to do as they please in terms of who they support and how they do it (well, there are legal limitations) there is something sincerely morally and politically disturbing about state propaganda on campuses, in particular, with students being used as sort of oddly-defined ‘agents’ and other students being defined as rhetorical targets. Campuses across North America, as well as across the world, have a reputation for generally allowing and/or cultivating, rather, freer thought, working as arenas for activism. Students are equipped with newly gained independence, various faces, different perspectives and new knowledge which in turn sparks passion and commitment at an constructed impressionable age. Counter-campaigns not only seek to some times provide a counter-example to existing campaigns but also, at times, seek to completely repress all types of debate characterizing them as racist or radical, devoid of any rationalism and legitimacy. But to have state-led propagation on campus – for any country – is beyond reprehensible. I cannot help but think that an actual Iranian campaign across North American campuses would be met with a great uproar and efforts would certainly be put forth to deny them entry into Canada and the United States and if not there, then certainly to campuses. Iranian state propaganda has no right on our campuses, and neither does Israeli propaganda.

So, here’s a call to students across North American campuses – find out whether the ‘Faces of Israel’ campaign is coming to your campus, particularly around Israeli Apartheid Week, and make sure to put a mirror up so they can really see what the Israeli state is actually about. It is a tokenizing campaign (see: Arabs and Ethiopian Jews, amongst the worst treated in the country, institutionally and socially) that seeks to paint a complete farcical image of Israel.

The Zionist Adventure (part 4/4)

What the Zionists would really like to do is get the green light from the US (the main corporate host) to drop a couple of daisy cutters on Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, just like Uncle Sam does when he goes to war. The Israeli nuclear warheads are not a real deterrent to Lebanon or Syria due to proximity. Thus, the nuclear deterrence is an illusion. Israel is too small (distance between Tel Aviv and the West Bank is less than 10 miles), and to physically conquer or destroy Tel Aviv is not difficult. So, as long as Israel’s enemies do not have the fire power to do so, and as long as the Saracen populations are under control through various means, Tel Aviv can continue its fragile existence, with Israelis living in daily fear (most of it imagined) of the day that the Arab monsters would flush them out into the sea. That’s why when Israel invades and bombs Lebanon or Gaza, it is supported by almost every Israeli because they see in those actions an expansion of their security (they can sleep better at night).

As aforementioned, the conglomerates can only profit as long as the status quo remains: Israel doesn’t annihilate all its enemies once and for all, and Israel’s enemies remain strong enough to cause minor nuisances every now and then, like a Hezbollah kidnapping across the border, or a Hamas/Jihad bombing. And in order to maintain the status quo, Israel’s leash is released only far enough to barely re-stabilize the region. If, say, Hamas gets too strong, Israel is allowed to cause more havoc and destruction. If Hamas is weakened, the US pulls Israel’s leash, shouting “down boy! down!” and gives it a treat (maybe another nuclear submarine).

But the wind of destabilization has been blowing a bit too hard lately on Israel and its conceivers. Unlike Israel, Hezbollah and many other religious and secularist resistance groups don’t seem to respond positively to monetary and material incentives. In other words, they can’t be leashed. To subdue them back into the profit-generating low-intensity conflict, they have to be bombed into submission, which requires Israel (the leashed) to remain stronger than all its unleashed enemies. But in July of 2006, the conglomerates and the world woke up to a very different equation. For thirty-three consecutive days, Israel had been unable to subdue Hezbollah one single iota. In fact, Israel’s creators have intervened through so-called non-aligned channels to ask Hezbollah to stop, which it did for strategic reasons. Even the Mossad and CIA were shocked at Hezbollah’s display of advanced firepower, and so they went back to their dark rooms to recalculate the stability equation.

Hezbollah could not have done it without Iranian backing. Hence, to eliminate the Hezbollah threat (which is becoming exponentially serious), the math work in the dark rooms keeps pointing to the same target: Iran. But Iran is backed by Russia and China, who also, like the American conglomerates, wish to own oil wells and profit off the Middle East low-intensity conflict. Just like Israel, the Russo-Chinese think, Iran must build a nuclear arsenal in order to deter Israel, not annihilate it. And just like Israel, when Iran gets a little out of hand, the Russo-Chinese smack Iran on its hand to behave itself.

The US (and its conglomerate backers) have shifted strategy. Notice how the media focuses on Iran without alluding much to its weapons suppliers. The Iranian nuclear program could not have been possible without Russo-Chinese support. For America to bomb Iran is like for Russia to bomb Israel. It’s not going to happen. A nuclear Iran is the price the US has to pay for resuming its low-intensity conflict profiteering stability.

The Zionists, however, are interested in their iron-grip security, and that requires the destruction of the Iranian nuclear build-up as a starting point, followed by the destruction of all resistance groups once and for all. The American government and its employers do not share this sense of urgency because, first of all, its not their ass on the line, and second, allowing Iran to develop its military capability is acceptable as long as it serves the overall goal: maintaining low-intensity conflict in the region for high profits.

On the other side, Hezbollah and other resistance groups seek to undo the Zionist project, even if it could only be done by force. Israel, as usual, is crying wolf to Uncle Sam (that their country is on the verge of annihilation). Since the inception of their state, Israelis have been living in that horror, and most of them hold onto their other citizenships/passports from Europe or its offshoots, as a life boat in case their project hits an ice berg. It is this horror that drives the Zionist thirst for war, and justifies every assassination, every bombardment, and every bullet that leaves the barrels of their rifles to kill Arabs. While the Arab resistance fighters of all sects are driven by justice: to get back what is rightfully theirs.

As rational actors, the United States, Russia, and China will allow a nuclear Iran to emerge because the alternative would be a large-scale war with unpredicted devastation to the region and the whole world. Israel, however, doesn’t seem to be rational at this stage. In its incessant fear of annihilation, the Zionist regime might go nuts and attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. And if Iran chooses to retaliate, and most likely they will, all hell will break loose.

There is a way for Arabs and Jews to stop being pawns in the hands of super powers and their low-intensity-conflict profiteering game: racism must be eliminated, and in its place justice must be upheld; the right of return to all Palestinians, and thus Israel becomes the homeland of all its inhabitants as equal citizens. This would mean the end of the Zionist adventure. It is, by far, the most humane, peaceful, and just solution to the conflict. And if it’s true that the nineteenth century European racism is so entrenched in the minds and hearts of Israeli Jews that they cannot imagine living as a minority in an Arab-majority country, then they should be more than welcome to pack their bags and blow the dust off those European passports they have locked away for so long, and buy a one-way ticket back home.

The alternative is to wait for the Middle East to run out of oil, or when the world abandons fossil fuels, whichever comes first. At that time, no one will come to Israel’s rescue. The Zionist stock will drop to bankruptcy, and politicians will sell their Zionist ties faster than you can say hava nagila. It’s ironic how the racist element in Zionism which successfully blocks assimilation, builds roads and settlements for Jews only; security fences and high walls of separation, would become the key to the Zionist project’s demise. Whether through war or peace, now or later, the Zionist adventure will come to an end.

The Zionist Adventure (Part 3/4)

“[this resolution is] another manifestation of the bitter anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish hatred which animates Arab society. Who would have believed that in this year, 1975, the malicious falsehoods of the ‘Elders of Zion’ would be distributed officially by Arab governments? Who would have believed that we would today contemplate an Arab society which teaches the vilest anti-Jewish hate in the kindergartens?… We are being attacked by a society which is motivated by the most extreme form of racism known in the world today… For us, the Jewish people, this resolution based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance, is devoid of any moral or legal value.” ~ Chaim Herzog, Israeli ambassador to UN.

That is how Israel responded in 1975, when the world voted on United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 3379, which “determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” The majority; including all Arab nations, Cuba, Brazil, China, Soviet Union, Mexico, Portugal, Turkey, India, and others totalling seventy-two, voted “yes,” and thirty-two abstained. But given the strong condemnation used in that resolution, abstaining is just a passive “yes.” Those thirty-five who voted “no” were the same nations that conceived, irrigated, armed, and covered for Israel all these years, minus eastern Europe, plus a few weightless states (coalition of the bought).

Interestingly, the resolution was based on other world denouncements of Zionism, such as the 1973 UNGA resolution 3151 (condemning Zionist alliance with Apartheid South Africa), the 1975 World Conference of the International Women’s Year in Mexico City, the 1975 Organization of African Unity resolution 77, and the 1975 Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned Countries, all of them condemning Zionism, the last one accusing it of being a “threat to World Peace.” This should give a clear image of how the world thought and felt in the 1970s towards Zionism.

Despite the absence of any anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic language in those resolutions, the Zionists themselves were the ones who insisted on mixing the terms because it served them best. Regardless, the racism in Zionism is in its very definition: A state for Jews only, on a land that belongs to another people. To a Zionist, to be against this project is to be anti-Jewish, and nothing has been more hurtful to world Jewry since the Holocaust than for Zionists to base the entire Jewish being as an ethnic group and religion on a racist ideology.

If Israel were to eliminate racism from its project, i.e. treat the ten million non-Jewish indigenous population of Israel (1.5 million 48 Arabs, 3.5 million Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank, and five million Palestinian refugees in diaspora) as equal citizens to the five million Jewish-Israelis, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. Thus, for the Zionist project to survive, these ten million Palestinians must, at all costs, be excluded from the Jewish state through expulsion, citizenship revocation and denial, genocide, or all three. They have been getting away with these by accusing their victims (the rightful owners of the land) and their supporters of anti-Semitism and hatred towards Jews (instead of hatred towards Zionism).

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Palestinians are anti-Semitic. How is that grounds for demolishing their homes, razing their orchards, and expelling them out of their land? Under what legal or ethical code in all history can this be justified? Are the Zionists truly incapable of seeing the wrong in this? Of course not. They know exactly what they’re doing, and it’s all justified when their entire framework is based on racism: “I am more worthy than him,” and that view has been consistent with their behavior since the inception of their state.

Zionism, as an ideology, has become bankrupt since global movements came about to uproot racism, sexism, and ethno-centrism in the world, and to uphold human rights and the 4th Geneva Convention above all. This is precisely why Israel has received more condemnation from international organizations (including UN, ICC, and ICJ) than any other nation on earth. And the Zionist response: the world is infested with anti-Semitism. Even non-Jewish politicians in democratic governments justify their support for the Zionist project by expressing fear of being labeled anti-Semitic, as if saying: “look, if I don’t support Israel, they will accuse me of anti-Semitism and that would make me a Nazi, and people don’t vote Nazis into office.”

There lies the roots of the symbiotic relationship between Israel and all corrupt government officials and businessmen around the world: Zionists need anti-Semitism to justify and cover for their project, and politicians and media outlets need more money. Together, they continue the propagation of the Holocaust as though it was the only genocide that took place in history, and as though no one else suffered in the world. Forget the millions of Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Russians, Vietnamese, Bosnians, Rwandans, Armenians, and Native Americans (all who suffered genocide in recent times) but we must focus on the Jewish Holocaust because it reminds everyone why anti-Semitism (and by default, anti-Zionism and anti-Israeli sentiment) can never be tolerated. And that is the Pavlovian conditioning that the Zionists have been so successful at dispensing through global media: Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims are anti-Semitic (read anti-Zionist), and we have all seen what happens when anti-Semitism is tolerated — Holocaust. On this the Jewish people have spoken: never again!

Schmidt admitted that the current system, which relies on “algorithm-driven detection” and user reports was insufficient to prevent extremist videos from going up. The company it seems will no longer allow videos that promote terrorism.

I’m not sure if the company should be prosecuting the war on terror, especially if it does not want to be seen as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. But how can it do so without taking political sides?

The problem lies in how terrorism is defined. This is a problem US policymakers, and international organizations, have long grappled with. They’ve sought to come up with an operational definition that only catches their enemies but not their friends, and certainly not themselves. State terrorism is grossly excluded from their operational understanding except to the extent that enemy states are “sponsors” of terrorism.

So which definition will Google assume? While it’s flagging terms are defined on a help webpage, users can actually also flag videos that promote terrorism, a term not defined in the help webpages.

While Al-Awlaki’s sermons calling for attacks against the United States are likely to get vetted, the numerous videos pushing the United States to bomb Iran will likely not. The following videos are two examples that include calls for military action against Iran:

These videos are also incitements to violence. In practical terms, it is a violence that is much more probable, based on the historical record, than is Al-Awlaki’s. Thus, I would argue, it is much more dangerous, and given the political winds in Washington, nearly at the point of immanency. As criminal as Al-Awlaki’s calls are, so are the claims that attacking Iran is justified absent any Iranian attack.

For Google’s policies to be politically neutral, it should provide a definition of terrorism as one that includes all the manifestations of political violence we see in the world, not just those calls that fall on one side of the “war on terror.”

Anyway. Enjoy this video – not necessarily just for the dramatically delivered punchline (although there’s nothing quite as endearing as a two year old with such strong political opinions) but also for just the fact that this kid knows more world capitals than not only the vast majority of North Americans ..but also those running our countries.

Aljazeera English’s great program about media, The Listening Post, contrasts Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s media blitz in New York with repression of media back at home. Several interview guests point out that the American media stars who interview him fail to ask about the jailed journalists and bloggers. Iran, the report points out, is one of the leading jailers of journalists in the world.

The guests argue that failure of American journalists to probe this in interviews, while sticking to predictable lines of inquiry such as Israel, the holocaust and the nuclear issue, plays into the Iranian leaders’ hands.

I wonder if those interviewed expect too much from American MSM. Most likely, Ahmadinejad’s press people pre-screened the questions, usually a condition for big name interviews. Such one-on-one encounters are highly controlled and staged. While there is always the chance that an interviewee could go off script, the leader may respond how ever he chooses anyways. The corporate, American press essentially show zero prospects for any kind of resistance or really critical, independent reportage — even towards enemy states.

Still, I agree that American journalists have no tendency to show professional solidarity with their professional colleagues in other places through their reporting.

IDF admits doctoring audio of raid on Gaza flotilla

The IDF’s latest version of the audio is actually the third version the military organization has released. Its first audio version of the incident, a one-minute clip released the day of the raid, did not include any of the controversial comments — no voices can be heard saying “Go back to Auschwitz” or “remember 9/11.”

I am still waiting for the mix-tape version and you know it will be coming soon and that doesn’t take a genius,

Read Here

Texas senator defends Israel over killing of US activist

“We don’t know all the circumstances yet,” Cornyn replied. “But it appears to be a premeditated provocation of Israel and an attempt to run the blockade that’s existed since Hamas took over Gaza.”

Cannot Texas separate already from the rest of America? Cornyn does not all the circumstances, but that does not stop him from endorsing the killing of American citizens by “friends”.

Read Here

Doctors group says Bush Administration conducted medical experiments on detainees

The report states that, “Medical personnel were required to monitor all waterboarding practices and collect detailed medical information that was used to design, develop and deploy subsequent waterboarding procedures.”

That’s what you get with a free health care,

Read Here

Iran Red Crescent to send two aid ships to Gaza

“One ship will carry donations made by the people and the other will carry relief workers. The ships will be sent to Gaza by end of this week,” Adibzadeh said.

He said the Red Crescent has called for Iranian volunteers to act as relief workers and accompany the vessels.

“Volunteers who want to go to Gaza and help the oppressed people of occupied Palestine can refer to the Red Crescent website and register,” Adibzadeh said.

If a moderate Muslim country like Turkey cannot help Gazans, the conservatives might pull it off. The Israelis won’t use paintball guns,  to deter the Iranians the Israelis will use bubble gum balls this time. I hope Justin Bieber goes on the Iranian ship.

Read here

Feds arrest analyst who allegedly exposed US Army killing of civilians

Federal officials have arrested a 22-year-old intelligence analyst who they accuse of leaking classified materials to the web site Wikileaks.org, which released video showing the US military killing innocent civilians in Iraq.

I hope no one asks the State Department employees who work to promote more open and free press in other countries, now they might need a local initiative now.

Read here

US used cluster bombs on Yemen civilians: Amnesty

A US cruise missile carrying cluster bombs was behind a December attack in Yemen that killed 55 people, most of them civilians, Amnesty International (AI) said on Monday.

I am guessing those kind of guns worked too well for Israel in Gaza and Lebanon, the people of Yemen had to sample them as well by a different dealer.

Read Here

Egypt: Gaza blockade a failure, border stays open

An Egyptian security official declared the blockade of Gaza a failure Monday and said his country will keep its border with the Palestinian territory open indefinitely.

Keeping that crossing point open long term would seriously undercut Israel’s efforts to isolate and punish Gaza’s Hamas rulers and give the Palestinians back a crucial link to the outside the world.

صباح الخير في الليل President Mubarak Should have had surgery a long time ago. I am guessing he is refusing to be outdone by the Turkish government. It’s a matter of time till Vice President Biden makes him an offer he cannot refuse.

Read here

While the discussion was to be about, well, what the West should do with Iran, the resulting concern was pretty much Iran’s sworn mortal enemy: Saudi Arabia .

Putting it briefly: Turkey would not jeopardise the Nato umbrella by going nuclear unilaterally. Egypt has considered its options and decided it cannot afford to go nuclear and risk losing its annual US grant. The biggest worry is Saudi Arabia, which cannot rely on a US nuclear umbrella for reasons of domestic and regional politics.

According to western intelligence sources (the meeting was under Chatham House rules so I am not allowed to be more specific) the Saudi monarchy paid for up to 60% of the Pakistani nuclear programme, and in return has the option to buy a small nuclear arsenal (‘five to six warheads) off the shelf if things got tough in the neighbourhood.

…

The Saudis and the Pakistanis have consistently denied any such deal, but what I heard in Brussels was billed by an official as being from intelligence sources. Whether or not anything has been signed, however, there are real questions on whether Pakistan would deliver when it came to the crunch.

This should be interesting. The race for influence in the Gulf and the Muslim word, between Saudi Arabia and Iran (Sunni/Shia respectively, so you know it’s historically haut), has been happening for awhile and it is unsurprising that with Iran working on it’s nuclear program that the incentive for Saudi Arabia to build its own program and bomb would grow. Another Guardian writer explored Saudi’s interest in nuclear weaponry back in 2003:

Saudi Arabia, in response to the current upheaval in the Middle East, has embarked on a strategic review that includes acquiring nuclear weapons, the Guardian has learned.

This new threat of proliferation in one of the most dangerous regions of the world comes on top of a crisis over Iran’s alleged nuclear programme.

A strategy paper being considered at the highest levels in Riyadh sets out three options:

· To acquire a nuclear capability as a deterrent;

· To maintain or enter into an alliance with an existing nuclear power that would offer protection;

· To try to reach a regional agreement on having a nuclear-free Middle East.

Until now, the assumption in Washington was that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella. But the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US has steadily worsened since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington: 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi.

Yet while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have a very cozy relationship, it’ll be interesting to see if, as mentioned above, the Islamic Republic will actually go through with the alleged talks and deals considering how it’s own (albeit fragile and of the lackey persuasion) relationship with the United States will influence its decision. I’m guessing increased drone attacks would be how the US might nudge their dislike for the alleged deal.

[tarboush tip: faiz, ali]

The Rocker of Tehran

So I’m really sick of the western media’s over glorification of Arab and Muslim bands just because they are such and play heavy metal or hard rock, especially that they usually suck at it. Somehow playing lousy head banging musing is akin to the resurgence of civilization in this savage world.

So I almost tuned away when NPR had another report about the Iranian rock band Hypernova. I hesitated because the alternative is some Jesus channel, only to find out that these guys are not bad, and I’m usually not a fan of the devil’s music. I especially liked that the lead guitarist did not understand why all the fuss when they first came of the US given that they sucked at the time.

Overall a good interview, though he’s still stuck in a few paradigms of naiveté, like assuming he should be a good [Iranian] guy in the official eye of America because he’s an artist, with the implication that the US has a problem with his countrymen because they are baddies, you know, a side effect of pushing back on external meddling and imperialist interventionism.

Some of the music is pretty cool, Viva La Resistance for example taking to task the Iranian regime… Further highlighting the media’s ignorance and disconnect is their embrace of such bands with the attitude that had they been American they would have been mainstream. Anything but, any American-based band or singer doing something remotely close to “Viva la Resistance” would be considered underground and never allowed near a major label… hell, the Dixi Chicks were excommunicated from the pick-up truck community for far less than that.

I could not find this song on Youtube, but found this one about the 17 year old girl he fell in love with and who is testing his patience… also anti-authoritarian. Confusing? May be, so here is Will summing it up in the common man’s English for you:

“I blame the internalization of clash of civilizations thesis, long running orientalist thought on the Arabs and Muslims, and so much media based on othering. That Americans are constantly reporting on such banal episodes of cross-cutting socio-cultural practices only shows how out of touch with the world the US is.”