Middle East Opinions - opinions about all aspects of the middle east region

Palestinian national anthem

2005-11-10T04:28:00.000-08:00

Very often as English speakers (or at least non-Arabic) we are unaware of what exactly is being said in Arab media about Israel and the West. More often than not there is a disparity between what is said in English and "officially" to what is being said in Arabic. Since I don't speak Arabic I can't go around translating all the news report so I rely mostly on English news and friends and people (or resources) that are credible for this info.

With this in mind I decided to write about the Palestinian national anthem. A national anthem is meant to sum up what the people stand for and hope for. It ususally includes reference to great liberties or accomplishments of the people in question. So I had a look at what is being said in their national anthem (translation care of Shoebat.com). This is meant to be something that all Palestinians are taught and sing regularly with passion and pride, so here goes....

My country, my country
My country, the land of my grandfathers
My country, my country
My country, my nation, the nation of eternity
With my determination, my fire and the volcano of my revenge
The longing of my blood to my land and home
I have climbed the mountains and fought the wars
I have conquered the impossible and crossed the borders
My country, my country, the nation of eternity
With the resolve of the winds and the fire of the guns
And the determination of my nation in the land of struggle
Palestine is my home, Palestine is my fire, Palestine is my revenge
and the land of eternal
My country, my country, the nation of eternity
I swear under the shade of the flag
To my land and nation, and the fire of pain
I will live as a guerrilla, I will go on as guerrilla,
I will expire as guerrilla until I will be back
My country, my country, the nation of eternity

Looking at this 2 things stand out for me:

The repeated use of violent language and reference to blood
The end which speaks of living, continuing and dying as a guerilla

The first point shows that they are more concerned with the means to be used for their aspirations (destruction of Israel!) than the end which should be freedom and a life of their choosing (or something along those lines). When people first decide on the means and then use that exclusively as their path to an end then the end will naturally mirror the means. When that means is violence and murder then we can clearly see the path of their choosing and where it is headed.

The second point is quite scary for me becasue it is the end of the anthem (which is usually a point of psychological emphasis) and it does not speak of anything to do with the hope or the possibility of an eventuality of "success" (whatever exactly that might be aside from just killing Jews). Reading these last lines the message one gets is live fighting (or killing) and keep killing and die killing. There is no mention of a condition or situation e.g. if you are at war or oppressed. This simply tells Palestinians (in language of war) to fight, fight, fight!

This is another good example of Palestinian psychological propoganda and how it clearly must (and has already) influence the Palestinian population, especially the youth. When anthems like the Palestinians speak of peace and hope for a better future, then and only then will then be a realistic chance of peace.

Hamas kills more Palestinians than Israel

2005-09-27T05:48:00.000-07:00

Over the weekend two events occurred in which Palestinians were killed:

Israel bombarded terrorist installations and strongholds in Gaza
Hamas detonated a Katyusha rocket by accident in a military parade

In the bombardment by Israel which was an attempt to stop missile attacks into Jewish areas (there were roughly 50 missiles launched over the weekend) 20 Palestinians were reported injured by Palestinian officials and 12 killed. The Palestinians killed by Israel were terrorists mostly from Hamas and Islamic Jihad including Jihad Islami commander Sheikh Muhammed Khalil.

Hamas in traditional fashion had a military parade where they fired off rounds and marched with the newly acquired Katyusha rockets in Gaza (these have not been publicly in Gaza before, longer range, more damage than Qassam rockets). During this parade a Katyusha rocket went off killing 19 Palestinians. This is not the first time that Hamas has been asked by Palestinian officials to stop their military parades.

These parades accomplish nothing productive for Palestinians (unless you call inciting violence and prancing around showing "power" productive). These military parades ultimately hurt the Palestinian cause and show the true colours of the Palestinian terrorist organisations like Hamas.

Perhaps one day soon we'll see Palestinian parades of accords signed, societal and infrastructural accomplishments and maybe even terrorist attacks halted or prevented! Please G-d this should be the case soon. It is obvious to me as an outsider that this "display of force" and "call to violence" are not helping either Palestinian or Israeli society.

Hamas stops attacks from Gaza

2005-09-26T13:31:00.000-07:00

I heard on the news that Hamas has announced that they will stop attacks on Israel for the rest of the year.

In isolation this seems like a positive step but many facts are missing from this. Upon investigation Hamas actually said that they will stop attacks on Israel from Gaza. What a concession! Amazing how the mainstream media seems to be reporting that Hamas will stop all attacks. Do they not have access to the statement or to choose to ignore the part that says Hamas is still free to mount attacks from any other area? Bear in mind that this decision was endorsed by Egypt. Out of context it seems like Egypt might be helping the Middle East peace process but in reality Egypt is endorsing the fact that Hamas can CONTINUE attacks from other areas. The only process they seem to be helping in this context is the process of the destruction of the state of Israel. This is not my opinion of what Hamas meant but actually a two-part statement where a piece seems to have been omitted by the media.

Now let's look at why Hamas may have decided on this "generous" act. Since Friday over the weekend almost 50 Qassam missiles were launched out of Gaza. Israel decided to stop this barrage of missiles and the Israeli Defense Forces were given the go-ahead to do anything necessary to stop the attacks without killing civilians. I think this statement also shows Israel's high level of morality and concern for civilians of all denominations. Hamas uses high-density civilian areas for its weapons factories and to launch attacks (what brave terrorists!). Despite being attacked constantly Israel still does everything in its power to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. Israel bombarded Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist installations over the weekend killing 12 Palestinians including Jihad Islami commander Sheikh Muhammed Khalil. After the bombardment Hamas decide to stop Qassam attacks from Gaza. Could it be that they are afraid? Either of another attack or of losing face again?

Either way I think this response by Hamas in context of their response to the Gaza pullout says a lot about them as an organisation (other than being cowards). Israel pulls out of Gaza (giving them what they asked for) and Hamas call it a victory and vow to "continue until Jerusalem" and increase attacks. Israel bombards their missile installations and factories and they "decide" to stop attacks out of Gaza for a while! Join the dots on this one! This is who Hamas really are and this is why I believe giving in to their demands will never bring peace. This is an organisation that's objective and purpose is the destruction of the state of Israel; an organisation that only understands one language - violence. Sad but true.

New Middle East Opinions

2005-09-21T13:47:00.000-07:00

I've started a mailing list to alert people to new middle east opinions on this site. Every time I post a new middle east opinion I'll send you a quick mail to let you know (no SPAM!). Please subscribe to the alerts and you'll always know when there is a new article or opinion!

Gaza disengagement and Palestinian education

2005-09-19T11:10:00.000-07:00

This is my first post on the Israeli pullout from Gaza. It has literally taken me months to make up my mind on this issue (usually I have an opinion immediately!), but I finally know where I stand; I am against it. This is a complex and heavily involved issue and it would be impossible to address all aspects of the disengagement in one Middle East Opinion post. So for my first post I choose to focus on the role that Palestinian education (or lack thereof) has played in creating the current Middle East situation.

I heard a speaker the other day compare the Gaza disengagement by Israel to the creation of a garbage dump. Instead of throwing out the trash from Gaza, Israel has chosen to pullout and close off the entire areas as one large garbage dump.

The speaker was Walid Shoebat, an ex-PLO-brainwashed Palestinian who started asking questions and came to realise that what the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) was feeding him was hateful propoganda. Check out his site here (I've also added a link on the right).

I think this comparison is very apt and obviously very scary too! Now as much as I understand most of the motivation for the disengagement I think that previous actions may have led Israel to the point where this seemed a necessity. I think that the fault lay in Palestinian education and a sooner addressing of the Palestinian education system (rather Palestinian propoganda system) would have been much more effective than pulling out of Gaza. Aside from obviously blaming the Palestinian leaders for the propoganda and brainwashing in Palestinian areas, I blame Israel for not addressing it. Already we can see the reactions from many Palestinians to the pullout; One of perceived victory and a renewed vigour to "continue pushing until Jerusalem". I fear that this may have served to greatly fuel the Islamic fundamentalist fire.

I think that Gaza disengagement was unfair to both Israelis and Palestinians and both groups will suffer as a result.

Israel:

What does this mean for the Jews (and other ISraelis) who have fought for (and many die for) the protection of Gaza?
Jews (and other ISraelis) have a right to live there. Regardless of what Palestinians say this is not a case of Jews "stealing" land for 38 years, but rather a case of 38 years back in land that they have struggled to return to for 2000 years.
Israelis now stand a greater chance of being attacked by terrorists from Gaza than ever before (and we have seen this beginning already).
Israel now has no say or control over what happens in Gaza in any regard including policy towards Israel.

Palestinians:

I think Israel is passively screwing the Palestinians over by leaving them to their own leaders and Muslim fundamentalists. Not that Israel has the responsibility to entirely correct the Palestinian fundamentalist issue in Gaza but the Palestinian leaders sure aren't going to!
There is now even less freedom in Gaza for Palestinians. At least when Israel was there, some Palestinian moderates could speak out without fear of being lynched. Now the militants are in charge.
The rule in Gaza is now more tyrannical and one-sided than ever before. It may suck to have tanks in your city but at least it allowed for some range of opposition and difference of opinion in Palestinian society.
There will be even more propoganda and Israel will know less about it. More propoganda means less chance for Palestinian children and more Palestinian terrorists.

Please remember that this is my opinion and I have looked at one aspect of one side of the argument. Please post your comments I would love to hear them!!!

Middle east leaders

2005-05-15T14:39:00.000-07:00

I was looking through middle east cartoons to review and a thought struck me - all (at least most) of the most recent cartoons focus on the leaders only. I know that satirical cartoons are most often targeted at leadership (especially since they are so often responsible for these situations), but we must not forget the man in the street. Since the beginning of the year all attention has been focused on Israel (represented by Ariel sharon), Palestine and Palestinians (represented by Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas) and America (represented by George W Bush or an American symbol.

This is all great and wonderful and these may be the "main players" on the political and world stage but in the bulk of cases and facets to the Arab-Israeli conflict, peace will not come from these leaders. This I believe to be the case for a multitude of reasons. Two of the most relevant are:

Much of the rethoric coming from these leaders is promoting terrorism. Even in the case of Abbas much of what he has promised to different factions of the Palestinians is "arguably" counter-productive to true peace.

Secondly and most importantly the true day to day environment of the middle east will be dictated by the opinions of the man in the street and not the leadership. Leaders may be able to start a process or initiate change but only the man in the street can see it through to success.

Implicit in the above overly simplified version of things are some assumptions, including that leaders do what is best for their people (if things were this simple I wouldn't even have a blog about the middle east!), community leaders encourage peace and tolerance as do religious leaders (that means ALL, not just the "moderate" leaders). There are too many cases of mosques preaching violence and hate as the only answer and too many allowances for "non-moderate" or "hard-line" factions.

For a in-depth look at my thoughts on middle ast cartoons that have been in the media, go to Middle East Cartoons.

Abbas speaks for Hamas

2005-04-28T23:28:00.000-07:00

Hamas was saying on their site. I am not going to link back to Hamas and unless you have a good reason to go visit, it is a waste of time (unless of course you blame "Zionists" for all the world trouble, then enjoy getting some more propaganda!).

Hamas has historically been one of the most vicious Palestinian terrorist groups in Israel. Not only does Hamas see violence (against civilians) as a legitimate political endeavour but they see it as the ONLY means! (I'll deal with their charter in another post). I found this quote on their home page as one of their "news" stories.

Hamas: We won't drop weapons as long our country is occupied

Occupied Jerusalem - The Palestinian Islamic resistance group, Hamas, has rejected remarks by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas over the need to disarm Hamas after the upcoming legislative elections this summer.

Abbas said during a press conference in Ramallah Monday that Hamas would have to hand over its weapons to the PA government after the 17-July elections.

Now two things here worry me very much:

The difference in what Mahmoud Abbas says Hamas has agreed to and what Hamas says they have

That Hamas will not put weapons down until they have freed the entire land of Palestine

If we understand that Hamas is an organisation that sees its political and military operations as one, and do not support negotiations or peace talks, then we have one helluva scary picture on our hands. If one considers that there is fragmentation in Palestinian society with Abbas struggling to unite all Palestinian factions into one voice and that organisations only survive on public support then again one helluva scary picture!

Checkpoints in Israel

2005-04-14T03:00:00.000-07:00

I was speaking to my younger cousin last night about a talk she attended at school from some international delegates regarding the Middle East conflict. There were two factions of delegates:

Refuse-niks (Israeli soldiers that refused to go into Palestinian territories for ethical reasons

A group against Israeli checkpoints

For the sake of keeping posts short I'll address each separately starting with the checkpoints.

Before I begin I would like to make clear that I am responding to a comment made by this group not stating all of my opinions in this regard. The checkpoints are a multi-faceted and complex issue with many considerations. The point made by this group was that:
"checkpoints hinder Palestinian life especially in medical and economic regards, therefore they should be removed".

There are two aspects to this comment, being the statement regarding Palestinians and the conclusion. In terms of the statement I would largely agree with this statement but two very important consideration have been left out:

The effect checkpoints have had on Israel (which speaks to the objective of checkpoints)

How Palestinians are hindered by checkpoints (which speaks to what checkpoints prevent Palestinians from doing)

With regard to Israel, the stated objective of checkpoints has always been to decrease the level of terrorism and therefore Israeli (mostly civilian) casualties. With this in mind we need to look at the success rate of checkpoints. Over the last few years checkpoints have radically reduced the number of successful attacks on Israeli targets by suicide bombers. This is not to say that checkpoints are a solution to terrorism but rather that they do appear to help. It is also important to bear in mind that with the implementation of checkpoints between Israeli and Palestinian areas there have also been checkpoints added at major travel routes within Israel and checkpoints do not only affect Palestinians but Israelis as well. On a recent visit to Israel I was forced to go through a checkpoint in Jerusalem whereby all of my possessions were inspected and I was searched. There was a long line of Israelis waiting to get through and all were subjected to the same search. Too often we assume (thanks to the media mostly) that checkpoints do not affect Israeli citizens. So we know that on paper checkpoints are one of the best symptomatic responses to terrorism from within Palestinian areas. Please note that I said symptomatic. No symptomatic response will solve the situation but some may serve to curb levels of violence. The actual problem is much deeper and will need to be aggressively addressed if there is hope for a true and lasting peace in the region. Once we understand this we can then look at the effect the checkpoints have had on Palestinians. We have seen in the media cases of Palestinians not being able to get to hospitals or work as a result of the checkpoints (bearing in mind that many have no problem in this regard), so it becomes a question of "Is the inconvenience to the Palestinians and Israelis caused by the checkpoints offset by the success they have had in reducing terror levels and casualties in Israel?" For me the answer is a resounding YES! I am not saying that there should be inconvenience but rather that as long as Palestinians choose violence as their channel for resolution then certain steps need to be taken to protect Israeli citizens. If the result of these steps (provided they have some success) is an increased level in inconvenience then it is a relatively small price to pay. In fact the necessity for checkpoints is as a result of Palestinian actions so these actions should be questioned before the reaction is questioned. (This ignores the argument that Palestinian terrorism is a response to initial Israeli aggression, which I would love to address here but will need its own post!)

This brings us to our next consideration - how Palestinians are inconvenienced. According to mainstream objections the major inconvenience is in the areas of medical care and employment. So it is not a question of Palestinians not being able to get to their areas but being restricted in their access to Israeli medicine and employment. Now the argument is for a separate state with no intervention from Israel and that seems to be a reality on the short-term horizon. If this is the case then surely it should be a situation of addressing the lack of medical care and employment in Palestinian areas rather than complaining about limited access to Israeli resources. In other words the world is calling for a separate autonomous Palestine with unrestricted access to Israel and not vice versa. Clearly this is not the normative case for a border and makes one wonder about Palestinian motivation and commitment to development. I agree that this would be a great situation for a new Palestinian state but this would be the first precedent in this regard and not even close to realistic or fair. An analogy if you will. It is like Texas asking to be an entirely separate country from the Unites States with the US government having no control, say, or access to Texas but where Texans have free entry into the US and access to all government supplied facilities. Seriously, take a minute to think about it.

All of the above points do not even address the validity of Palestinian claims or the manner in which they have gone about this situation to date. These simply speak to a more complete picture about checkpoints. So the comment issued by this group could perhaps better be qualified as "checkpoints hinder Palestinian access to Israel especially in medical and economic regards, but have had a positive effect on the reduction of civilian casualties. Therefore Palestinians should concentrate more on their own infrastructure development to prepare for the legal separation they have asked for, while Israel does everything reasonable in its power to mitigate inconvenience.".

Israel pulls out of West Bank

2005-03-21T21:46:00.000-08:00

Once again it looks like "peace" talks are on the move. Israel has begun to hand over control of 5 major (5 of the biggest) Palestinian cities to the Palestinian Authority. The cities to be handed over to Palestinian control (in order) are:

Jericho

Tulkarem

Qalqilya

Bethlehem

and Ramallah

I would like to point out two very important things to bear in mind about this return of control of these cities to the Palestinian Authority. So:

Firstly, this is return of control to the PA, so in order to understand this correctly we need to know when last the PA had control of this cities. The answer is in 2000 before Arafat and his minions released the latest wave of terror attacks on Israel after Camp David. For those who don't remember the Camp David summit was held in 2000 by Bill Clinton and was attended by Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat. Arafat was offered 97% of what was asked for and declined saying he would not compromise with Israel. (97% is not even a true compromise; it's more like a landslide victory. Still enough for Arafat to say no to though. Compromise as I was taught is roughly 50/50 not 97/3. In retrospect, nothing less than everything would have been accepted.) So back to the point. At this stage (Camp David) the Palestinian Authority was already in control of virtually all Palestinian areas in an attempt to prepare for a "Palestine". Despite this level of control and the offer made by Barak, the Palestinian Authority decided to launch a new war against Israel. This war as decided and planned before the Camp David summit (what does that say about the PA?) would be characterized by the virtually exclusive targeting of civilians in an attempt to cause maximum damage and break the spirit of the Israeli people. As a result of this new war (intifada - I'll speak to this term in another post) Israel retook control of these areas. This was not as a means of revenge or tit-for-tat retaliation but an attempt to protect Israeli citizens. In doing so Israel managed to stop almost 90% of attempted attacks (that's right what is on the news are only successful attacks). Unfortunately this situation caused a large setback in the "peace process" as well as in the furthering of the Palestinian quality of life. Once again people are made to suffer for their leaders egotistical and thoughtless actions. So the need for return of control comes from the Palestinian Authority attacking Israelis citizens in a planned and methodical wave of terrorism. It follows logically then that the most important thing the PA can do now with their new control (assuming their interest is the Palestinian people and not the destruction of Israel) is to start improving the lives of Palestinians in these areas, while keeping a short leash on militants. Unfortunately this also means the PA will actually have to punish militants and extremists for violence as well as inciting violence.

Secondly, let's understand what is meant by a "Palestinian city". These cities are not necessarily built by Palestinians or were originally under Palestinian control. In fact at least three of these cities were originally Jewish or Christian (long before the notion of a Palestine). What this means is that these cities are today predominantly Palestinian. In many cases this is so because of Palestinian intolerance towards other people. There are many recorded cases of Jews being expelled from traditionally Jewish cities at the threat of violence or death by Palestinians. In a lot of these situations the cities non-Arab artifacts and landmarks were destroyed and the city called a "Palestinian city". One has to remember that in some of these cases this is simply a political means to a greater end - the belief in the eyes of the world of the Palestinians as a people forced out of their land, merely trying today to return. (A 2000 year old Palestinian city backs this up quite well, especially if we don't understand that it is only Palestinian today and that the city is 2000 years old not the Palestinian claim to it.) The point is simply put that these cities are today Palestinian and that does not mean that they were originally.

So with these things in mind, the handover is positive. It is another chance for the Palestinian Authority to use diplomatic means to further its aims and put a hold on the incredible levels of terrorism within the Palestinian people. In order to successfully and effectively stop this terrorism the Palestinian Authority needs not only to halt the flow of terrorism but dismantle the infrastructure and deal with Palestinian attitudes to Israel (largely due to massive amounts of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda perpetuated by the Palestinian Authority). The point as I see it is that Israel has come to the table but the Palestinians need to respond not only with rhetoric but with actual tangible results in terms of addressing terrorism (and its support) amongst Palestinians.

A warm insurgent welcome

2005-03-17T11:04:00.000-08:00

I was reading about the latest bomb in Afghanistan in Khandar where 5 people were killed and at least 32 wounded. The words that come to mind are bloody ridiculous! This was timed for a visit that Condoleeza Rice had with Hamid Karzai to discuss elections. Earlier on the local news they were commenting on the ways different cultures welcome people (South African delegation to Jamaica). It seems that “insurgents” welcome people by means of a celebratory sacrifice of their own people. Now let’s be fair an insurgent according to the dictionary is “a person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government” or “one that acts contrary to the established leadership (as of a political party, union, or corporation) or its decisions and policies”. Now the “insurgents” in Iraq are opposed to America or its policies and that’s the right. According to them it is for the sake of Iraq and its people. Ok, so we have a group of people out for the good of their people opposing the evil oppressor (end quote).
Now aside from the fact of whether America should be there or not and its policies or even if the question of violence as an acceptable means of “diplomacy”, there is an obvious problem. These Iraqis are killing Iraqis to make their point.

So if we paraphrase – in order to protect the innocent Iraqi people from external forces of evil we will keep killing Iraqis (that the evil forces don’t care about) until the external forces stop.

Now excuse me if there is a slight tinge of sarcasm to this post but this is in essence what is being said by these attacks. Aside from the obvious statement that violence is an acceptable means to bring about political or social change; this definitely seems the wrong target. I won’t go on too long now about the logic of it because clearly logic and truth have very little to do with it. The point is that “insurgents” does not even come close to describing these animals. There is only one word that defines people like this – murderers. Plain and simple murderers.

Middle east opinions

2005-03-14T22:47:00.000-08:00

Welcome to my newest middle east blog!

This blog is a spin off from my first middle east blog - Middle East Cartoons. Whereas MEC was devoted to cartoons about the middle east region with a touch of my opinion, this site will be centered around my middle east opinions!
This blog is a forum for opinions about all aspects of the middle east region from history and current events to anything else that inspires thought or reaction. From news about Israel and Iraq to the changing dynamics of the entire middle east. I hope that with time I'll add some contributors and showcase a multitude of opinions about the middle east and its politics.

In the meantime, I am blogger, hear me roar!