American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein

I came to learn of a new documentary that has recently come out entitled, American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein.  It chronicles the life of American political scientist Dr. Norman Finkelstein, the son of parents who survived the holocaust.

For those that are not familiar with Dr. Finkelstein, he used to be a professor at DePaul University before he was denied tenure in 2007.  Through his academic work, he is best known as one of the greatest opponents to the occupation of Palestine and a fervent critic of Israel and the United States vis a vis Palestine.  It is speculated that because of his critique of the Israeli and US body politic through his academic work and a famous debate with himself and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz on Democracy now that DePaul regarded Finkelstein as being ultimately a liability to the University.  Dr. Finkelstein has written 5 books, all of which have gained a significant amount of notoriety.  Finkelstein, a Jew himself, was banned from entering Israel in May of 2008, citing Finkelstein as being a security threat which landed him a ban from Israel for ten years.

I have not yet seen the film but based on the trailer, it seems to offer a fascinating look into the life of one of America’s foremost scholars.  The film shows clips of various confrontations with anti-Palestinian protesters during his talks, chronicles the whole DePaul University debacle and interviews people close to him and even those that are enemies of Dr. Finkelstein, including Professor Dershowitz, who many claim is the primary reason why Dr. Finkelstein was overlooked for tenure.

The film first premiered at the Chicago Underground Film Festival on September 17 , 2009 and is slated to premier in Europe at the Scheffield Doc Fest on November 4, 2009.  The film has also been chosen to premiere at the Montreal International documentary Festival on November 11, 2009.

Have a look at the trailer and if you get a chance, go and see the film.

A Song of Hope for the Palestinians in Gaza

We Will Not Go Down (Song For Gaza) – Michael Heart

Gaza: The Logic Of Colonial Power

As so often, the term ‘terrorism’ has proved a rhetorical smokescreen under cover of which the strong crush the weak

Nir Rosen

guardian.co.uk, Monday 29 December 2008 08.00 GMT

________________________________________________________

I have spent most of the Bush administration’s tenure reporting from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia and other conflicts. I have been published by most major publications. I have been interviewed by most major networks and I have even testified before the senate foreign relations committee. The Bush administration began its tenure with Palestinians being massacred and it ends with Israel committing one of its largest massacres yet in a 60-year history of occupying Palestinian land. Bush’s final visit to the country he chose to occupy ended with an educated secular Shiite Iraqi throwing his shoes at him, expressing the feelings of the entire Arab world save its dictators who have imprudently attached themselves to a hated American regime.

Once again, the Israelis bomb the starving and imprisoned population of Gaza. The world watches the plight of 1.5 million Gazans live on TV and online; the western media largely justify the Israeli action. Even some Arab outlets try to equate the Palestinian resistance with the might of the Israeli military machine. And none of this is a surprise. The Israelis just concluded a round-the-world public relations campaign to gather support for their assault, even gaining the collaboration of Arab states like Egypt.

The international community is directly guilty for this latest massacre. Will it remain immune from the wrath of a desperate people? So far, there have been large demonstrations in Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. The people of the Arab world will not forget. The Palestinians will not forget. “All that you have done to our people is registered in our notebooks,” as the poet Mahmoud Darwish said.

I have often been asked by policy analysts, policy-makers and those stuck with implementing those policies for my advice on what I think America should do to promote peace or win hearts and minds in the Muslim world. It too often feels futile, because such a revolution in American policy would be required that only a true revolution in the American government could bring about the needed changes. An American journal once asked me to contribute an essay to a discussion on whether terrorism or attacks against civilians could ever be justified. My answer was that an American journal should not be asking whether attacks on civilians can ever be justified. This is a question for the weak, for the Native Americans in the past, for the Jews in Nazi Germany, for the Palestinians today, to ask themselves.

Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do. The powerful – whether Israel, America, Russia or China – will always describe their victims’ struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan – with the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and terrorising them was the purpose.

Counterinsurgency, now popular again among in the Pentagon, is another way of saying the suppression of national liberation struggles. Terror and intimidation are as essential to it as is winning hearts and minds.

Normative rules are determined by power relations. Those with power determine what is legal and illegal. They besiege the weak in legal prohibitions to prevent the weak from resisting. For the weak to resist is illegal by definition. Concepts like terrorism are invented and used normatively as if a neutral court had produced them, instead of the oppressors. The danger in this excessive use of legality actually undermines legality, diminishing the credibility of international institutions such as the United Nations. It becomes apparent that the powerful, those who make the rules, insist on legality merely to preserve the power relations that serve them or to maintain their occupation and colonialism.

Attacking civilians is the last, most desperate and basic method of resistance when confronting overwhelming odds and imminent eradication. The Palestinians do not attack Israeli civilians with the expectation that they will destroy Israel. The land of Palestine is being stolen day after day; the Palestinian people is being eradicated day after day. As a result, they respond in whatever way they can to apply pressure on Israel. Colonial powers use civilians strategically, settling them to claim land and dispossess the native population, be they Indians in North America or Palestinians in what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories. When the native population sees that there is an irreversible dynamic that is taking away their land and identity with the support of an overwhelming power, then they are forced to resort to whatever methods of resistance they can.

Not long ago, 19-year-old Qassem al-Mughrabi, a Palestinian man from Jerusalem drove his car into a group of soldiers at an intersection. “The terrorist”, as the Israeli newspaper Haaretz called him, was shot and killed. In two separate incidents last July, Palestinians from Jerusalem also used vehicles to attack Israelis. The attackers were not part of an organisation. Although those Palestinian men were also killed, senior Israeli officials called for their homes to be demolished. In a separate incident, Haaretz reported that a Palestinian woman blinded an Israeli soldier in one eye when she threw acid n his face. “The terrorist was arrested by security forces,” the paper said. An occupied citizen attacks an occupying soldier, and she is the terrorist?

In September, Bush spoke at the United Nations. No cause could justify the deliberate taking of human life, he said. Yet the US has killed thousands of civilians in airstrikes on populated areas. When you drop bombs on populated areas knowing there will be some “collateral” civilian damage, but accepting it as worth it, then it is deliberate. When you impose sanctions, as the US did on Saddam era Iraq, that kill hundreds of thousands, and then say their deaths were worth it, as secretary of state Albright did, then you are deliberately killing people for a political goal. When you seek to “shock and awe”, as president Bush did, when he bombed Iraq, you are engaging in terrorism.

Just as the traditional American cowboy film presented white Americans under siege, with Indians as the aggressors, which was the opposite of reality, so, too, have Palestinians become the aggressors and not the victims. Beginning in 1948, 750,000 Palestinians were deliberately cleansed and expelled from their homes, and hundreds of their villages were destroyed, and their land was settled by colonists, who went on to deny their very existence and wage a 60-year war against the remaining natives and the national liberation movements the Palestinians established around the world. Every day, more of Palestine is stolen, more Palestinians are killed. To call oneself an Israeli Zionist is to engage in the dispossession of entire people. It is not that, qua Palestinians, they have the right to use any means necessary, it is because they are weak. The weak have much less power than the strong, and can do much less damage. The Palestinians would not have ever bombed cafes or used home-made missiles if they had tanks and airplanes. It is only in the current context that their actions are justified, and there are obvious limits.

It is impossible to make a universal ethical claim or establish a Kantian principle justifying any act to resist colonialism or domination by overwhelming power. And there are other questions I have trouble answering. Can an Iraqi be justified in attacking the United States? After all, his country was attacked without provocation, and destroyed, with millions of refugees created, hundreds of thousands of dead. And this, after 12 years of bombings and sanctions, which killed many and destroyed the lives of many others.

I could argue that all Americans are benefiting from their country’s exploits without having to pay the price, and that, in today’s world, the imperial machine is not merely the military but a military-civilian network. And I could also say that Americans elected the Bush administration twice and elected representatives who did nothing to stop the war, and the American people themselves did nothing. From the perspective of an American, or an Israeli, or other powerful aggressors, if you are strong, everything you do is justifiable, and nothing the weak do is legitimate. It’s merely a question of what side you choose: the side of the strong or the side of the weak.

Israel and its allies in the west and in Arab regimes such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have managed to corrupt the PLO leadership, to suborn them with the promise of power at the expense of liberty for their people, creating a first – a liberation movement that collaborated with the occupier. Israeli elections are coming up and, as usual, these elections are accompanied by war to bolster the candidates. You cannot be prime minister of Israel without enough Arab blood on your hands. An Israeli general has threatened to set Gaza back decades, just as they threatened to set Lebanon back decades in 2006. As if strangling Gaza and denying its people fuel, power or food had not set it back decades already.

The democratically elected Hamas government was targeted for destruction from the day it won the elections in 2006. The world told the Palestinians that they cannot have democracy, as if the goal was to radicalise them further and as if that would not have a consequence. Israel claims it is targeting Hamas’s military forces. This is not true. It is targeting Palestinian police forces and killing them, including some such as the chief of police, Tawfiq Jaber, who was actually a former Fatah official who stayed on in his post after Hamas took control of Gaza. What will happen to a society with no security forces? What do the Israelis expect to happen when forces more radical than Hamas gain power?

A Zionist Israel is not a viable long-term project and Israeli settlements, land expropriation and separation barriers have long since made a two state solution impossible. There can be only one state in historic Palestine. In coming decades, Israelis will be confronted with two options. Will they peacefully transition towards an equal society, where Palestinians are given the same rights, à la post-apartheid South Africa? Or will they continue to view democracy as a threat? If so, one of the peoples will be forced to leave. Colonialism has only worked when most of the natives have been exterminated. But often, as in occupied Algeria, it is the settlers who flee. Eventually, the Palestinians will not be willing to compromise and seek one state for both people. Does the world want to further radicalise them?

Do not be deceived: the persistence of the Palestine problem is the main motive for every anti-American militant in the Arab world and beyond. But now the Bush administration has added Iraq and Afghanistan as additional grievances. America has lost its influence on the Arab masses, even if it can still apply pressure on Arab regimes. But reformists and elites in the Arab world want nothing to do with America.

A failed American administration departs, the promise of a Palestinian state a lie, as more Palestinians are murdered. A new president comes to power, but the people of the Middle East have too much bitter experience of US administrations to have any hope for change. President-elect Obama, Vice President-elect Biden and incoming secretary of state Hillary Clinton have not demonstrated that their view of the Middle East is at all different from previous administrations. As the world prepares to celebrate a new year, how long before it is once again made to feel the pain of those whose oppression it either ignores or supports?

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/gaza-hamas-israel

In Solidarity With Dave Cournoyer

 I feel obligated to come to the defence of a fellow political science student who is being bullied by the premier of his province of Alberta.  Premier Ed Stelmach is suing a U of A poli student Dave Cournoyer because he failed to register his domain name on the Internet.  Seeing that it was available, Cournoyer decided to purchase the domain for 14 dollars.  Steady Eddie finally decided to catch up to the times and create a website dedicated to all the failures of his government and chronicle the decline of the Conservative dynasty in Alberta when, to his surprise, edstalmach was already purchased!  Now, the honourable member for Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville is suing the U of A student to try and get the domain back.

To Ed, I say pick on a guy your own age.  There are plenty of other ways to resolve conflicts with people but hurling lawyers at students is not one of them.  Plus its not very good PR.  Frankly speaking, if you waited this long to register your domain, you really don’t have a case.  I mean, you were first elected in what, 93?  Ok so the Internet wasn’t all that big back then.  But in 1997 you entered into the cabinet as Minister for Agriculture.  Alright fine, I’ll admit, even in 97 the Internet was still relatively a new phenomena and people didn’t really understand the full potential of the net; certainly not politicians.  But come on, by the year 2000, everyone knew what the Internet was and people were fully aware of the potential of it.  OK but even then, lets just say you were naive and still didn’t realize what the net could do for you.  By 2004 you had become the Minister for Intergovernmental affairs.  SURELY you would have realized what the Internet was by then.  But I guess you didn’t and now you are suing a student because you didn’t know what the hell the Internet was.  Like really, do you not feel that this is in some way your fault? Or at the very least the fault of your staff for not having the brains to take up your domain.  Nowadays people register their domain even before they think of running for nomination.  You got elected in 93, became premier in 06 and you are just now thinking of having your site up?

Before this whole fiasco came about, Cournoyer blogged on Daveberta under the auspices of the edstelmach.ca (via redirection) domain.  The blog was used as a means of legitimate political descent against the Stelmach/tory government.  There are some Canadian experts in the field of E-Commerce that argue that by virtue of Cournoyer using the domain for means of political discourse, it is rightfully his. Also, there are some that argue that Stelmach isn’t even popular enough to lay claim that his name a legitimate trademark (I’ll spare the jokes for you guys). 

Typical of the Conservative attitude in the province, there are some that claim this is the workings of the Alberta Liberal Party because Cournoyer was a paid employee for ALP.  Here’s a good example of the typical rant and cry by the right wing Alberta conservative.  Note the infuriatingly flawed logic that’s inherent in the article. 

So in Liberal logic it’s Internet open season on anyone who doesn’t own all the domain names that are slightly connected to them.

So yea, like its that black and white. Mind you, the above article is from the Sun, a newspaper that uses a grade 5 reading level, pictures of semi-nude women, advertisements for call girls, strip clubs and escort agencies to attract readers. So really, I don’t expect any type of sophisticated logic to come out of that paper. But I think you guys get my point. It seems that any type of descent that the Conservatives face is always some sort of ploy by the leftists to gain political points. I am sure that suing a 24 year old university student is perfectly honourable.

If Dave was legitimately slandering Eddie’s name then I would agree that Stelmach has a case against Cournoyer. But because his criticism is of a political nature, there it cannot be considered as being that at all. In fact, I would argue that Cournoyer is being censored by the Premier. I am sure that if Cournoyer were praising Stelmach, calling him God of all of Canada, Eddie would be tipping his cowboy hat at him, at the very least; patting him on he back. I can’t remember them off the top of my head but there were a few federal MPs that found that their domains were taken by special interest groups (I think they were pro same sex marriage when the MPs were anti same sex) and there was really nothing they could do about it. It wasn’t until after the whole same sex marriage was declared legal in Canada that they got their domains “back.”

I got the perfect solution for Stelmach. Go to Register.com and type in your domain. Near the top of the page will be a set of options for you. Choose C, make an offer. If you really care about your name, don’t tarnish it by using bullying tactics. Use the good old free market approach to settle your dispute. The good thing about this solution is that:

1. You won’t make yourself look like a crying baby
2. You’ll spare yourself the criticism of picking on students
3. If you offer enough money, you’ll help out a fellow highly indebted student who lives in the only debt free jurisdiction in the western hemisphere, just in time for the start of the winter semester
4. You’ll be helping out the Alberta economy.

Its a win-win situation.  You’ll get your domain and he’ll won’t have to pay tuition for a semester.  Or at the very least, he won’t have to reach into his own pocket for text books.  Law suits are for weaklings.  This is the real Conservative way of doing things. 

Good luck with your battle Mr. Cournoyer.  Your fellow students are with you.

Is Bilawal The Right Choice?

 

Yes…possibly.  I say possibly because we barely know anything about him.  There are people that have said that he is too young and doesn’t know enough about the country and all of this.  My response to that is simply this:  Perhaps for the first time in the history of the PPP, there is the potential for a leader to emerge that is void of corrupt elements, is a fresh, new, young face that has the potential to unite the country the way his Mother had.  And this is one thing I have to concede, Benazir is perhaps the only actor in Pakistan that has united all four provinces.  Bilawal has the same potential.  He brings to the table a slate that is clean.  My only fear is that Zardari (seen to the left of Bilawal in the above photo) will take him astray and corrupt elements will follow.  If that is the case, he will have been no better than anyone else.  But the thing here is this, it is perfectly ok that he lacks experience and that he is of a young age because the fact of the matter is, the traditional politician has never really succeeded in Pakistan.  Bilawal brings something different to the table, as did his mother.  When Benazir was trust into the political theatre she was 26 I believe.  She did not have any experience either and today the PPP is the largest political party in Pakistan.  Bilawal has a great foundation that has been set by his mother.  He needs to take advantage of that, be principled, be his own man but at the same time listen to key people in the party and take on as many mentors as possible.  I believe Sherry Rehman has the potential to emerge out of this and become a good minister when Bilawal one day becomes the leader of Pakistan.  Zardari himself admitted that he is a divisive figure in Pakistan and it appears that the PPP didn’t really have an alternative other than Zardari so I think the PPP has taken a positive step in naming Bilawal co-chair of the party.  Time will tell how well all of this plays out.

*fingers crossed*

The Case For Musharraf – The National Post

I came across an interesting article written by Conrad Black that essentially outlines the notion that despite the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the United States must continue to support Musharraf so as to further their interests vis a vis the war on terror.  I am not a fan of Black at all but its an argument worth reading.  Who knew I would share the same opinion as Conrad Black!

Read here.