Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

Gaza: The Logic Of Colonial Power

December 30, 2008 1 comment

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

CNN Sucks

cnn

When I was a child, I always remember CNN as being the place to go to for breaking news around the world.  It was different than the rest of the news networks because, first, they were a 24 hour news network and because of that, second, helped the viewer feel like they were intimately connected to the world at large.  But the last few years have seen the steady decline of CNN and its quality of coverage and programming.

During the ladder half of the 90s, and arguably even before that during the first Gulf War, CNN was always labeled as being a channel for US propaganda.  But there was never any real evidence to suggest that.  This all essentially changed with the Gulf II.  With the run up to the war, it was pretty much clear that CNN was all gung-ho about bombing a sovereign nation state and killing innocent people.  This was clear night after night with their coverage up to the lead up to war.  Wolf Blitzer was a clear example of CNN being a cheer leader for the war.  There were so many instances where a guest would appear on his show who was against the war and Blitzer would literally begin to argue with the guest with Blitzer obviously pushing the Bush line for war.

Ever since the war I have also noticed that CNN has begun to dumb itself down.  Maybe it’s just me but its almost as if CNN has decided that for more ratings, they must appeal to the lowest common denominator.  There is no longer any in depth, analytical coverage of major events both in the United States and around the world.  Jeff Greenfield and others did a decent job back in the day, though not perfect, along with other journalists such as Bernard Shaw worked for a sophisticated audience and actually asked tough questions (for the most part).  Now CNN has Anderson Cooper who’s “keepin’ them honest.” Aaron Brown as you recall was the unique and sophisticated journalist who got fired by CNN for yielding low ratings.  From what I understand, Brown still had higher ratings than Cooper has ever had.  I would argue that the last ounce of sophistication CNN could lay claim to left with the firing or Aaron Brown.

Nowadays, when I watch CNN (If I watch CNN), its more of a charade than anything else.  Its so unbelievably animated that sometimes its embarrassing to watch.  Production of CNN and its programming have focused more on visuals than actual production value and content.  They have lost their way.  The journalists that they got on air right now are horrid.  Rick Sanchez gets so involved in the littlest issues, raising his voice, exaggerating his hand gestures and acting like a plain tool in front of the camera, all in the effort to “help the viewer understand.”  The viewer isn’t 4 years old.  Tony Harris does the news and looks at the camera as if he doesn’t really know where he is, trying to act sophisticated but utterly failing.  Anderson Cooper doesn’t offer much to his program either.  If you have no education and need information to be spoon fed for you, watch Cooper.  You’ll be a fan of his.  Larry King used to be a good interviewer back in the day.  Now he’s gone from inteviewing people who matter, such as world leaders and key actors in international affairs, to having a bunch of rejected idols on for the entire hour.

The CNN sets and graphics add to why I think the channel is so animated.  They try and offer all these visual aids to try and appeal to the viewer but in the end are nothing but distracting.  The best example of this is that stupid wall that they got going right now.  Essentially, its this really large curved screen that spans the literally the entire set of CNN.  On it they have the ability to display multiple clips and graphics and the sort.  The only problem with this thing is is that it barely fits into the field of the camera.  On top of that, the graphics and whatever is displayed on it ends up being so tiny that its pretty much useless to show it on TV in the first place.  The curve that is inherent on the screen is also very distracting.  Distracting is probably the biggest problem with this thing.  For example, last night as I was watching the Obama speech after he fulfilled the delegate requirements, CNN in the middle of his speech switches away from the actual speech and goes to a camera which is filming this giant screen wall where they have the speech on one side, and a bunch of useless clips of him throughout the year at debates and whatnot on the other.  It was completely useless, un-necessary and took away attention from the speech.  The worst part of this screen is that they film it at an angle rather than from the front.  This is probably because they could not resolve certain problems like shadows, bad lighting or just the shear size of the damn thing.  Another stupid gimmick they got going is that stupid touch screen plasma TV they got where they “analyze” key counties and districts for the US election.  Its useless and serves no real purpose, only to further distract the viewer with un-necessary facades of being tech savvy. 

Overall, we are seeing the steady decline of CNN.  A channel that was once considered revolutionary has sunk to such a low that it essentially has no credibility left whatsoever.  Before, it was simple, serious and yet extensive. Now it has become large, elaborate and useless.  No wonder CNN is always the butt of so many jokes.  CNN has turned journalism and news into another form of entertainment, focusing more on superficial things than their quality of programming and content.  We’ll see what crapolla CNN has to offer in the coming years.