Abbas’s rousing speech in the UN arguing for Palestinian statehood belies the impotence of the PA to stop further Israeli appropriations, with crowing zionists announcing another 1,100 illegal Israeli colonial homes to be built on Palestinian land in the West Bank. Within Israel, 30,000 Bedouins are to be ethnically cleansed and their lands confiscated to make room for more jews-only settlements. From the Palestine Papers, it’s clear Israel has rebuffed the most generous of offers by Abbas in the past and that Abbas colludes with Israel to suppress Palestinian resistance. No matter what concessions Palestinians make, Israel always raises the bar, most recently with Nutanyahoo’s demand for recognition of a ‘jewish’ (racist) state. Israel has no intention of offering a viable state for Palestinians or equal rights for all – a brief glance at the Likud platform attests to this fact. Palestine has all the resources, most importantly, water, and without them, Israel would choke. As long as the US and EU remain merely ‘deeply disappointed’, ziocode for ‘business as usual’ and fail to insist on Israel’s adherence to international law, there is no impetus which can make Israel stop its oppression save steadfast non-violent resistance and BDS, BDS and more BDS.
The best antidote for Abbas’ deceptive two state euphoria is Ali Abunimah’s interview about it. Ali sees Palestinian people beginning to focus increasingly on a struggle for equal rights.
If the October Knesset vote for annexation of the West Bank is affirmative, the necessity for equal rights with one and a half million illegal settlers presently occupying Palestinian land will become urgent.
The Palestinian Authority’s bid to the United Nations for Palestinian statehood is, at least in theory, supposed to circumvent the failed peace process. But in two crucial respects, the ill-conceived gambit actually makes things worse, amplifying the flaws of the process it seeks to replace. First, it excludes the Palestinian people from the decision-making process. And second, it entirely disconnects the discourse about statehood from reality.
In a speech today, Ashton congratulated herself for increasing Europe’s involvement in something called the Middle East peace process. “I have worked to achieve a greater EU role as I believe we are ideally placed as a friend of both parties,” she said.
Three United Nations independent experts Tuesday called for an immediate end to the Israeli demolitions of Palestinian owned-houses and other structures in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, which have seen a dramatic increase since the beginning of the year, according to a press release by OHCHR.
– At my meetings, I said, all right, Turkey is a model of democracy, a secular state, a social state with the rule of law upheld. We are not intentionally trying to export a regime — we couldn’t care less. But if they want our help, we’ll provide any assistance they need. But we do not have a mentality of exporting our system.
…
Turkey is getting stronger as time goes by, and the situation of many European states is quite obvious.
Most wars in the world end when the leaders of both parties come to understand that continued fighting will not bring them any benefit. In many cases the benefit in question is any personal profit leaders themselves. In other cases, when a nation gets the leaders deserve, benefit at heart is the good of society.
Israel is significantly inferior in its war against the people of Palestinians, that does not go unnoticed by any one who looks with open eyes on the balance of power in the Middle East. Israeli – Palestinians can not end Israel’s victory on the first model. Not difficult to conclude that this strategic situation assessment – History and basic rational considerations. However, this conclusion is also from the experience and the historical facts themselves, without any theory.
In June 1967 the State of Israel was close to the end of war from the first model than ever before, and above all close she could reach it in the foreseeable future. But war is not over. On the other hand, the Arab side during Israel – Filastin be theoretically possible to win and bring the war to end the first model.
The moral is that the Israeli Government to end the war, according to the second model. To do this, create a situation of East – Mediterranean in which no Arab ruler, including leaders of the Palestinians, there will be nothing to gain personally for the war, and none of them has a strong emotional stimulus will be enough to start a global campaign to another.
“The current Israeli leadership unfortunately is racist and aggressive, especially Leiberman and his team which is only tolerated for the sake of the coalition government. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis have gathered to protest economic situation in the country. Change in Israel hinges on how far Lieberman will be tolerated”.
The Turkish deputy premier said Israel had lost Egypt’s friendship in the Middle East as well.
“Egypt used to be one of the closest allies Israel had in that region. Now Egypt is friends with Turkey and it had cut all diplomatic ties with Israel. Everyone knows very well what kind of a position an isolated Israel will be in when devoid of ties with Turkey.”
James Brandt from the JDEF makes it clear that the zionist lobby had a political agenda when censoring the “Child’s View from Gaza” exhibit scheduled months ago to be held at MOCHA.
Upon hearing about the exhibit, Jewish community representatives met with MOCHA staff to voice our concerns. First, the exhibit’s violent, even gory images are wholly inappropriate to be viewed by young children. Second, the exhibit and its associated programming were designed to further MECA’s well-documented agenda to delegitimize Israel.
But violent images of Israeli suffering are OK.
Certainly, an appropriate context could be created for MECA’s exhibit. Professionals could determine the appropriate minimum age for visitors. Images could be added to present a balanced context.
These would depict the shelling of Israeli schools, Israeli families praying for the return of kidnapped soldiers and Israeli children grieving for parents killed in terrorist attacks.
Got that? images of violence of Palestinians GOOD, images of Israeli violence BAD.
The Museum of Tolerance held a workshop for children to respond to drawings of children from Darfur of the genocide which they witnessed. These drawings are being used as evidence of war crimes by the Sudanese government in the International Criminal Court. Are Israel’s defenders worried that Gazan children’s drawings may be used similarly? Regardless, the Israel lobby’s double standards on violence and children are shockingly apparent.
This exhibit constitutes propaganda aimed at indoctrinating our children under the guise of art. There is no context given to understand the complex issues facing Israel and the Palestinians.
Brand Israel bullies children. Palestinian children endure apartheid, occupation and oppression, and their art is deemed unacceptable because it challenges the monopoly on victimhood held by Brand Israel. The obsessive need to control the narrative of oppression was a striking characteristic of the apartheid South African regime also.
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which appealed against the ban on Route 443, dared suggest the word apartheid and was reprimanded for it. In her ruling, Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch wrote that “the great difference between the security means adopted by the State of Israel for defense against terrorist attacks and the unacceptable practices of the policy of apartheid requires that any comparison or use of this grave term be avoided.”
Today, a demonstration of many community groups concerned about the political censorship of Gazan children’s art was held in Oakland outside MOCHA. Here’s an account of the protest and related events on the MOCHA facebook page:
Mocha partially changed its opinion half an hour before the demo after it saw the public and many artists rally behind the exhibit and also after realizing that MECA found a place nearby to show the kids’ drawings. Many Mocha staff members are outraged by the decision of the board and many Mocha members ended their membership after walking into the museum and throwing a fit because of the shameful behavior of Mocha. There were many angry emails and phone calls too. The presence of the media today also compelled Mocha to reconsider. Mocha’s scandal grew every day and public scorn grew with it too.
Mocha missed the Thursday deadline that was given to it by MECA and today, it was too late. Mocha realized that it made a big mistake and MECA was not going to save its ass from public scorn. Besides, Mocha refused to show all the drawings and wanted to pick and choose and that is still censorship. So yes, it’s still about censoring the artwork of the Palestinian children.
Some of the advocates for censorship of the exhibition also revealed an underlying motivation to attack BDS, unstated elsewhere publicly.
David Marshak: We are trying to respond to the BDS campaign, which is very well-funded and organised. We can’t match the funding and numbers but we can improve our ability to respond to attacks like these. We have a lot of work to do. JVP is very good.
Crayons of mass creation speak truth to power. The Israel lobby art censors quiver and quake at their impact, and struggle to suppress images and language which attest to Israel’s war crimes and collective punishment perpetrated against the civilian population in Gaza subject to Israel’s oppression – apartheid, occupation and siege. Yet since Israel’s survival apparently depends on censoring children’s drawings of its crimes, Israel has surely doomed itself.
An exhibit of controversial drawings and paintings by Palestinian children was shown in a downtown Oakland museum’s courtyard Saturday, after the Museum of Children’s Art canceled the display three weeks ago.
After criticism from exhibit founder Middle East Children’s Alliance, the museum made a late offer Friday to reschedule the event at a later time, but the organizers said they had already found their own space.
…
The Alliance’s executive director, Barbara Lubin, said she received a call Friday afternoon from a museum representative asking to meet with her group to discuss rescheduling the exhibit.
“I just laughed,” she said. “I said, ‘You must be crazy; we have spent the last three weeks looking for a place to display (the artwork.) … I
can’t believe you have the chutzpah (audacity) to call me at this late date.’ I have just signed a lease on a space for (an exhibit) for the next two months.”
…
On Saturday afternoon, a band played while people held up the drawings in the courtyard, and patrons filed into the Museum of Children’s Art.
The museum’s interim executive director, Masako Kalbach, was sympathetic to the views of museum critics.
“We do understand their feelings about our offer of being too late,” she said. “We would really like to talk to them.”
Also at the showing Saturday were about a dozen people from StandWithUs/San Francisco Voice for Israel.
“I think an exhibition that also shows the suffering of children of Southern Israel who have had (thousands) of rockets aimed directly at them could be a much more balanced exhibit,” said group spokesman Mike Harris.
The museum’s decision to cancel the exhibit triggered an outcry against what critics called censorship of Palestinian children’s art, especially since the museum has presented similar wartime artwork, including an exhibit of Iraqi children’s drawings depicting the U.S. war in Iraq.
A museum representative originally said the art was “not appropriate for an open gallery accessible by all children.” But late Friday, museum board member Randolph Belle issued a statement.
“When we canceled the exhibit ‘A Child’s View from Gaza’ earlier this month, we did so both because we lacked a formal policy for sensitive content, and because we were not confident that we had the resources to deal with the numerous concerns we received regarding the exhibit. In response to input from the community and careful consideration by our board of directors and staff, the Museum of Children’s Art has developed a new policy governing the exhibition of items with sensitive content,” the statement said.
Belle’s statement said the Middle East Children’s Alliance has been invited to reschedule the exhibit in keeping with the new policy.
Lubin said she had not seen Belle’s statement Saturday.
She is traveling to Gaza next month to collect new artwork from the children based on how they feel about having their exhibit banned from the museum.
Lubin said she will consider working with the museum to show this set of artwork as long as they do not censor the show.
Board member Randolph Belle said the decision was based on the violent nature of some of the work in the show. “Basically we got some [calls from] concerned parents, the Jewish Federation and MOCHA community members,” Belle said, “stating that they didn’t feel that children should be exposed to these images in a public space.”
On Friday, dozens of protestors in front of MOCHA, organized in part by the San Francisco-based Arab Resource and Organizing Center (AROC), shouted “Shame!” and accused the museum’s board of censorship. “It is very hurtful,” said AROC Youth Program Coordinator Lubna Morrar, who spoke at the protest. “We had been working with [MOCHA] for so long, and if they felt like they didn’t want to take on this project then they shouldn’t have even implemented it to begin with.”
Ziad Abbas, associate director of the Berkeley-based Middle East Children’s Alliance (MECA), said that during the six months of preparing for the exhibit, which was to include various workshops, “the staff was very supportive, very helpful.” But just two weeks ago, Abbas said, MECA was informed that the event would not take place.
He said the MOCHA representative who called him did not explain in detail—”just that it is an internal issue they are having,” Abbas said. “But we know, we understand that the moment you talk about Palestine, or mention Palestine, you will find the pro-Israeli groups try to put the pressure to silence or to shut you down.”
Abbas said he understands MOCHA was under pressure from various groups. “That is what we saw on the Internet later,” he said. “Many people supporting Israel were congratulating each other after the museum cancelled the exhibition.” Specifically, Abbas and his associates point to both the Jewish Community Relations Council and the Jewish Federation of the East Bay as playing a role in the exhibit’s cancellation.
Faith Metlzer, of San Francisco Voice for Israel, said she was relieved the exhibit would not be shown at the museum. “The art has anti-Semitic, as well as anti-American, symbolism,” she said. “To me, things like this—bombs with Jewish stars on them—it’s just a way of demonizing our people and our religion.”
Metlzer said she worried about how the exhibit would have affected Jewish children in Oakland. “How would you go around with a Jewish star on a T-shirt or on a chain, when the symbol of your people and of your religion has become a hate symbol?” she asked.
In addition to complaints about the violent imagery included in the show, Belle acknowledges that MOCHA did receive calls from people worried that the exhibit was “painting the Jews in a negative light.” But he says the cancellation was not political, and was instead done to protect children from inappropriate, graphic images.
“We are being painted as censors, we’ve been portrayed as having caved in,” Belle said. “We’ve been portrayed a lot of different ways that are just not accurate. We would never have taken the show had we ascribed to any kind of censorship.”
Belle describes MOCHA as a small organization that was caught off-guard and overwhelmed by the emotional reaction the exhibit generated. “We probably did not diligently look at the implications of having this show,” he said. “I don’t know if it was naïveté or just a misjudgment, but there were some mistakes made, and we are paying for them right now.”
Before this controversy, MOCHA had no official exhibition policy, and the “Child’s View of Gaza” exhibit was accepted with a simple up-and-down vote by the board. “In retrospect,” Belle said, “we should have done things differently.”
While “no one threatened to pull [MOCHA] funding or anything else like that,” Belle said, the burden placed on the organization by a controversial exhibit was just too great a risk. “We can make a statement, or we can serve our constituencies,” he said.
In the past, MOCHA has featured work by children of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a WWII exhibit. “Those exhibits did not generate the kinds of passionate responses that this one did,” Belle said.
Abbas also points to those exhibits in questioning MOCHA’s actions. “Why is Palestine different?” he asked. “Children paint what they see in the street. They paint what the Israeli army did. They try to reflect the reality of where they live.”
The Middle East Children’s Alliance received a call from MOCHA on Friday afternoon proposing an alternate exhibit. “They used the terminology ‘modified some pictures,’” Abbas said, which he described as another form of censorship. “We told them ‘Shame on you…it is too late.’”
…
‘Eleanor Levine, a member of the non-violence advocacy group Code Pink, said Friday, “This is not about religion, it is about a very powerful lobby, the Zionist lobby, that exerts a tremendous amount of power. And they are simply not interested in having the Palestinian voice heard.” Levine called the conflict “a great shame and pity,” and said she hopes MOCHA has “the opportunity to show different cultural art and values” to the people of Oakland.’
Pro-Israel lobbying groups claimed that the Gaza exhibit was anti-Israel and fought to kill it. They asserted that the art could not possibly have been created by children.
Museum officials insisted that their abrupt about-face had nothing to do with pressure from the Jewish Federation of the Greater East Bay and other pro-Israel Jewish groups that threatened to withhold funding if the museum went ahead with the exhibit. But these same groups gloated on the Internet about getting the exhibit canceled.
Instead, museum officials asserted that their decision to pull the plug on the exhibit less than two weeks before its scheduled opening last Saturday stemmed from concerns from parents, educators and other community members over the violent war images and their appropriateness for young children.
But past exhibits belie that rationale. In 2009, MOCHA held an exhibit of children’s art from the war in Bosnia and Iraq. It also depicted graphic images created by children who had been witnesses to war and was, as one might expect, difficult to view.
Indeed, the curator for that exhibit, Joan Miro, says she is “appalled and mystified” by MOCHA’s decision to cancel the Gaza exhibit.
The museum’s actions have drawn justifiable condemnations from critics, including progressive Jewish groups who have demanded the museum reverse itself and allow the art work to be shown.
The entire event is troubling that certain individuals have prevented the public from viewing art they don’t want us to see. What’s to stop other organizations from using the same strong-arm tactics to silence opposing viewpoints?
The Middle East Children’s Alliance in Berkeley, which organized the exhibit, showed the artwork Saturday — in the courtyard in front of MOCHA. Museum officials have only themselves to blame for this public relations fiasco.
We understand the enormous pressure the museum faced — including funding threats. But the decision is a violation of MOCHA’s own mission to give a platform to children’s expression from around the world.
Shamefully, pro-Israel groups have long strategized to silence Palestinian voices and those in solidarity. For 23 years, MECA has challenged such censorship and fought to raise the voices of Palestine, especially those of children.
In 1991, when we invited Professor Noam Chomsky for a speaking engagement, 19 professors from
UC Berkeley signed a letter to bookstores selling tickets to the event. The professors threatened to picket their stores, but the owners refused to be censored.
In December 2005, MECA, in collaboration with Alliance Graphics and the Berkeley Arts Center, presented Justice Matters: Artists Consider Palestine, an exhibit displaying the artwork of 14 Palestinian and North American artists. Fourteen rabbis visited Mayor Tom Bates of Berkeley demanding that he cancel the show. They further insisted that the city withdraw funding to the Berkeley Arts Center and to be given the right to inspect any future art exhibit. Despite the rabbis’ objections to the art, the mayor rejected censorship and the show opened to a huge crowd of supporters.
MECA has always respected and loved MOCHA, and continues to support the museum and those who work there. Our support for the museum has not ceased — rather, our anger and our frustration is directed at the board of directors for lacking the courage to withstand bullying and intimidation.
What is so frightening to these pro-Israel forces that they are willing to put millions of dollars into a campaign to shut down protests on campuses, muzzle speakers who advocate for human rights for all, and even silence the voices of children by censoring their art?
Outraged activists spread the story far and wide via listservs, Twitter, Facebook, etc., and MOCHA’s e-mail account and Facebook page (apparently now closed down) were barraged with indignant messages.
‘Since March 2009, various organizations, including Amnesty International,1 Human Rights Watch and the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission2 have produced reports on the entire operation or specific aspects of it. In addition, Israeli human rights organizations, both in joint statements3 and in individual publications such as those by B’Tselem4 and Gisha5, have also related in a critical manner to the IDF’s (Israeli
Defense Forces) actions during the operation. All these publications have arrived at the general conclusion that was expressed in one report:
“Much of the destruction was wanton and resulted from direct attacks on civilian objects as well as indiscriminate attacks that failed to distinguish between legitimate military targets and civilian objects. Such attacks violated fundamental provisions of international humanitarian law, notably the prohibition on direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects (the principle of
distinction), the prohibition on indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks, and the prohibition on collective punishment.”6’
The No-Risk Policy
‘Kasher’s argument is that in an area such as the Gaza Strip in which the IDF does not have effective control the overriding principle guiding the commanders is achieving their military objectives. Next in priority is protecting soldiers’ lives, followed by avoiding injury to enemy civilians.
“Sending a soldier there to fight terrorists is justified, but why should I force him to endanger himself much more than that so that the terrorist’s neighbour isn’t killed? I don’t have an answer for that. From the standpoint of the state of Israel, the neighbour is much less important. I owe the soldier more. If it’s
between the soldier and the terrorist’s neighbour, the priority is the soldier”.25″
The Dahiye Doctrine
Two years later, in the beginning of October 2008, the Commanding Officer of the IDF’s Northern Command, Maj. General Gadi Eisenkott, gave an interview to Yedioth
Ahronoth newspaper, in which he unveiled what he called the “Dahiye Doctrine”:
“What happened in the Dahiye Quarter of Beirut in 2006, will happen in every village from which shots are fired on Israel. We will use disproportionate force against it and we will cause immense damage and destruction. From our point
of view these are not civilian villages but military bases.
This is not a recommendation, this is the plan, and it has already been authorized.”46
Israeli Parliamentary thug Avigdor Lieberman has done it again, clumsily threatening Turkey with arming the US terrorist group-designated PKK, the Kurdistan Workers Party, as well as using the Armenian genocide despicably to ignite the US congress against Turkey. These threats are likely to backfire heavily against Israel amongst the Turkish population who support their leaders’ firm stand on the Palmer Report. Erdogan consistently has demanded Israel apologise to the families of those it killed on the Mavi Marmara, pay them compensation and lift its illegal blockade on the people of Gaza. [UPDATE: Nutanyahoo has distanced himself from Lieberman’s extravagant threats.] {UPDATE 13/9/11 The PKK isn’t keen on Israel either: “PKK leader Murat Karay?lan told the pro-PKK Firat news agency on Monday that his group is a “principled organization” and that it is not a movement that “could be used against any state”]
As Israel strengthens its anti-Turkish hasbara, it is useful to be aware that some political interests in Turkey are either in concert with Israel and or use Israel for their own political ends against Erdogan and his party, the AKP. Turkey’s leaders have been explicit about the regional plan – the ‘zero problems with neighbours‘ policy – they are implementing. Maturely, the Turkish leadership is setting up strategic economic cooperation in order to harmonise and stabilise the region. These moves seem calculated to integrate with US hegemony and security concerns. Some of Turkey’s critics trivialise these initiatives as ‘neo-ottomanism’.
Turkey has a strategic interest in minimising Israeli belligerence which runs counter to regional security. Yet also, present Turkish leaders have displayed in common with the populace generally, an undeniably visceral reaction to Israeli crimes, notably on the international public stage from Erdogan’s walk-out at Davos following Israel’s Operation Cast Lead massacre.
Political analyst, Levent Basturk, explains the ethno-political context of PKK moves against the AKP-led Turkish government.
“This ethnicity issue in Turkey is definitely a “regime” issue. Unfortunately, the years of violence between the Kemalist regime and the PKK, which actually helped the cause of the status quo more than the Kurds, have created some sort of discontent among different groups, but seeing this conflict in terms of Turks vs Kurds is totally wrong.
First of all, the two populations are extremely mixed with each other. I am originally one of Eastern towns which is mixed with Kurds and Turks. If you look at the AKP leadership today, Erdogan is NOT ethnically Turkish; he is a Georgian. His wife is an Arab and he says this openly and publicly in demonstrations in mostly Turkish populated towns. And he is not losing votes, he’s gaining votes. The ministry of treasury, what could be the most valuable to a country other than this, is Kurdish, who addresses people in the local TV sometimes in Kurdish. I would say, at least one third of Erdogan’s cabinet are Kurdish. Don’t get me wrong. Turkey have always had Kurdish cabinet members. But here is the difference: these are the Kurds who don’t deny their Kurdishness, they even declare it proudly. AND the AKP party hierarchy includes many Kurds who don’t deny their Kurdishness. Let me add Erdogan’s advisors too. At least half of them are Kurdish. And one more note: outside Turkey, everyone is calling the Mavi Marmara victims Turkish, yet half of them were anti-PKK Kurds (pro-PKK Kurds in Israel celebrated the Mavi marmara massacre in front of the Turkish embassy in Tel Aviv, youtube has the video).
Today, the city with most Kurdish population is NOT Diyarbakir or Erbil. It’s Istanbul. In Istanbul, the AKP is the most popular party among the Kurds. In the area which the PKK map shows as Kurdistan, in many cities the PKK-supported party doesn’t have even a serious presence. The area where they are popular is mostly the southeast. Even there, AKP is ahead of BDP in popular votes.
What has happened with minorities in Turkey has nothing to do with the Kurdish-Turkish divide. The problem was the nation-building project of the Young Turks in the last decade of the Ottomans and Mustafa Kemal following them. This is a complicated matter, which requires a book to explain. Amazingly, the ethnic Turkishness of some of the people who put this project into practice is a matter of dispute too! But they had a view of the world and wanted to design their society in accordance with it.
During the Mustafa Kemal era, after 1923, this project had two major components: secularism and being a Turk. Still, being a Turk was not again an ethnic category. It was actually being a good citizen and living in conformity of the norms of the new republic. If you were an ethnic Turk and didn’t fit those two categories, you were doomed too. Of course they denied the practice of any language other than Turkish. BUT they destroyed Turkish too. Today, a young person cannot understand books written 25 years ago properly. And don’t even mention the books written in the 60s, 50s and before. The idea, they said, was that the Persian and Arabic words must be eliminated from the Turkish language to create a national language. In fact, the main goal was to create a secular nation devoid of its historical Islamic roots and devoid of ties with the Islamic world because, otherwise, Turkey would not be able to catch up with contemporary western civilization. They were influenced by the French idea of “citizens of republic” not any sort of ethnic nationalism. This French idea of citizenship accepts every citizen as equal but denies the difference because you don’t need to be different if you are equal.
The issue is deep, so it’s impossible to explore it in every detail here. Let me mention the PKK version of the story: the PKK actually is an almost identical Kurdish imitation of the Kemalist model. That’s why it’s not very attractive to many Kurds as Kemalism has not been very attractive to many Turks. Those who call the PKK’s fight “Kurdish cause” are unfortunately looking at it from a certain ideological angle without looking at the reality on the ground.
Erdogan has done many things for the Kurdish issue; he says that they were not enough. BUt he says this clearly: the time of negation and assimilation is over. And he’s planning to have more reforms. There is criticism of him that he has been in power for almost a decade, yet he has done so little. This argument is missing a lot of things. Without depreciating the power of civilian and military bureaucracy he could not be able to do anything. There have been 7-8 coup attempts against him! Moreover, due to the violence since 1984, there is a discontent in the public. That must be handled carefully too. Today, the aim of the leadership of the BDP that refuses to take the oath in parliament is NOT really Kurdish rights! Their goal is to get the PKK leader, Ocalan, out of jail and they are playing with the Kurds for this purpose. Erdogan has mentioned many times: ‘I will have a new constitution and I want to negotiate with you’. But like the kemalists had Ataturk, the BDP has an atakurd, who is Ocalan. For them, the Kurdish matter is associated with getting him out of jail. Well, sorry foxes, this may happen perhaps 4-5 years later, but now, it’s almost impossible for the 90 percent of the people including more Kurds than the ones supporting Ocalan. There’s a lot to say, time is limited, space is not enough. These are my instant thoughts without giving much though about what I would say. So, if you don’t like them, don’t be quick in your judgement.
BUT LET ME SAY THIS CLEARLY: if anyone thinks Erdogan is acting as a Turkish nationalist or an ethnic Turk, they are wrong. He’s not an ethnic Turk and he has never been a Turkish nationalist in his life. Turkey is acting now this way under his leadership because Turkey has had a great social transformation within the last 3-4 decades. The old codes of society and state have changed. If you use the same parameters to judge Erdogan’s Turkey with old Turkey, you are wrong. He still has not entirely won his battle. That’s why you will see sometimes backward and forward steps. He may fail too. The fight is not over and the others want to return to power. Look at the criticism of the main opposition party CHP/RPP regarding developments after the Palmer report. They want to come back and their choice is Israel. I don’t think the PKK stands on the side of change in Turkey. It’s using the international public’s lack of information about what’s going on Turkey by giving an image that it’s same old turkey. No, the PKK is actually is part of the old Turkey with the Kemalist model it imitates and is on the side of Israel like the Kemalist party RPP/CHP.”
These Israelis, Zionists and their friends only remember Kurds when their relations with Turkey are strained and when they are criticized by Turks. In other times, they are busy applauding Turkey, enjoying strong relations with and engaging in military co-operation with Turkey.
What is more, instead of supporting Turkish democracy in one way or another, these right-wing Zionists have always preferred to work with the anti-democratic Turkish generals and bombarded them with medals. These Israelis do not have any moral right to remind us of the Kurdish problem. Not because it does not exist, but because we are the ones who keep writing about it and criticizing what Israel’s good old friends in Turkey, the Kemalists, have done to the Kurds.
As ancient geezers ourselves, we support the principle of keeping
going. So, the Yardbirds still playing gigs – excellent. The
Yardbirds playing a gig in Israel, which illegally occupies
Palestinian land and shows no sign of withdrawing – surely not.
Chris Dreja and Jim McCarty, founder members of the band –
when you were enjoying such success during the 1960s, the British
Musicians’ Union had a policy of boycotting apartheid South
Africa. We’ve been looking on-line for evidence that the Yardbirds
broke that ban, and we’re happy to say we can’t find any. The
world famous Yardbirds appear to have respected the South
African liberation movement’s call for artists and musicians to
assist them by denying legitimacy to the racist state.
Have you thought through the implications of your appearance at
the Barby Club in Tel Aviv on October 29? You’re telling
Palestinian civil society organisations that are similarly calling for
a cultural boycott of Israel that their dispossession and their
oppression don’t matter. The Palestinian Teachers’ Federation;
the Writers’ Federation; the League of Palestinian Artists; the
General Union of Palestinian Women; and many others – your
performance at the Barby will in effect tell all of these people that
you side with the Israeli military occupation, that you don’t mind
helping to airbrush the cruelties of racism and ethnic cleansing,
and that you’re happy to behave as if there isn’t a Palestinian
struggle for liberation and justice.
So we’re hoping you might think again.
Here’s Roger Waters talking about why he supports the Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel. Here are
Faithless and other musicians singing ‘Freedom for Palestine’.
Here is Elvis Costello explaining why he withdrew from his two
scheduled concerts in Israel.
There’s a wave, Yardbirds – a whole international wave of people
supporting justice for the Palestinians via consumer boycotts,
academic boycotts, cultural boycotts. You can cancel your gig and
ride that wave – or you can let one night at the Barby dash you on
the shore. Please think again. Please don’t go.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Haim Bresheeth
Mike Cushman
Professor Adah Kay
Professor Jonathan Rosenhead
Please reply to: BRICUP, BM BRICUP, London WC1N3XX
email: www.bricup.org.uk
‘There were 4.05 million Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) as of
mid-2010—62.1% in the West Bank and 37.9% in Gaza.
An estimated 1.97 million, or 48.6% of the
total population, were under the age of 18 (or an estimated 1.22 million children in the West Bank and
746,630 children in Gaza).
‘The Palestinian economy continued to grow in 2010 (9.3% growth in real GDP up from 6.8% in 2009). Gaza saw significant economic growth (15% up from 1% in 2009) while growth in the West Bank was less dramatic (7.6% down from 8.5% in 2009). The opening of crossings into Gaza allowed
for goods to flow to the manufacturing and agricultural sectors. Nevertheless, this economic growth
was primarily driven by donor assistance and not viewed as sustainable under current conditions.
Unemployment rates went down marginally (23.4% at end 2010, down from 24.8% at end
2009). Unemployment remained higher in Gaza at 37.4% (39.3% in 2009) compared with 16.9% in the
West Bank (18.1% in 2009).
In 2010, 31.9% of households in Gaza suffered from poverty compared with 16% of households
in the West Bank. Nearly 27 percent (26.9%) of children in the OPT were poor (living in households
with income below the national poverty line)—38.4% in Gaza and 19% in the West Bank.
In Gaza,
households that remain above the poverty line are highly vulnerable to becoming poor.
52% of households in Gaza faced food insecurity and an additional 13% were vulnerable to
food insecurity during the first half of 2010 (compared with 61% in 2009). In rural areas of Gaza, 69%
of households faced food insecurity.
This translates to more than 90,000 children at risk of food insecurity in Gaza.
Similar to 2009, 71% of families in Gaza received at least one form of social assistance, mostly
in the form of food assistance, which plays a crucial role in alleviating poverty.
Still, almost one-third
of households did not maintain a diet with varied and nutritious foods.’
‘Nearly 95% of primary school students
and 95.8% of preparatory school students in
Gaza had insufficient electricity at home to
complete their homework either some or
most of the time.’
In 2010, 3 cases of Palestinian children used by Israeli security forces as human shields in the West Bank
In 2010, 320 Palestinians died & were injured in settler-related incidents
In Area C of the West Bank, Israeli authorities destroyed in 2010 at least 40 water cisterns affecting 7500 children
Up to 48% of Palestinian residents in East Jerusalem are at risk of displacement by Israel
13 Palestinian children in detention were threatened with sexual assault by Israel military in 2010
In 2010, 70% of detained Palestinian children were beaten or kicked by the Israeli military
30,000 Gazan Palestinians & thousands of children remain displaced 2 years after Cast Lead
10,000 Palestinian children are unregistered in East Jerusalem with no access to education or health care
70 Palestinians, half children, were forced from their East Jerusalem homes by Israeli settlers in 2010
In 2010, Israel forcibly displaced 299 Palestinian children due to its demolition of their homes
Israel shot 23 Gazan children collecting building material or grazing livestock in 2010
Not mentioned by Palmer report – 85% of maritime areas for fishing are blocked to Palestinians
At the end of 2010, less than 1% of the homes destroyed by Israel in Cast Lead had been rebuilt
Thanks to Israel’s illegal Gaza blockade, by early 2011, asthma medication for children was completely out of stock
In 2010, there were 24 documented cases of attacks by Israel on schools in the OPT including demolition orders
~ 95% of children in Gaza had insufficient electricity to complete their homework some or most of the time.
Over 44 percent (44.4%) of children were refugees.
In the West Bank, 29% of
children were refugees; in Gaza, the percentage was much higher at 67%.
‘the people in the Government-created towns reportedly rank at the bottom of all the indicators used by the State to measure social and economic wellbeing. Furthermore, the Bedouin have complained that they cannot continue to live in their traditional manner in these urban areas, given that raising crops or animals in the towns is not allowed.’
…
?’Reportedly, out of approximately 155,000 Bedouin living in the Negev today, around half live in the recognized towns created by the Government and half live in 47 so-called “unrecognized villages”. According to the information received, although officially unrecognized, the majority of these villages were established prior to the creation of the
State of Israel, and virtually all were established prior to the creation of the Government-created towns. The unrecognized villages are denied all forms of basic infrastructure and are not allowed to build or develop in any way. Building permits may not be issued in unrecognized villages, resulting in Bedouin individuals being indicted continually for “illegal” construction and in countless Bedouin homes being subject ot demolition orders.
It is further alleged that, since the early 1990s, Bedouin people living in unrecognized villages throughout the Negev desert have experienced ongoing demolitions of their homes and
villages by Israeli authorities.”
The Special Rapporteur gives the racist Israeli government a hard smack.
‘First, the Special Rapportuer acknowledges the position of the State of Israel that it does not accept the classification of its Bedouin citizens as an indigenous people given that
Bedouin tribes arrived to the Negev area late in the Ottoman era, mainly from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to an already existing legal regime. The Special Rapporteur notes, however, the
longstanding presence of Bedouin people throughout a geographic region that includes Israel, and observes that in many respects, the Bedouin people share in the characteristics of indigenous peoples worldwide, including a connection to lands and the maintenance of cultural traditions that are distinct from those of majority populations. Further, the
grievances of the Bedouin, stemming from their distinct cultural identities and their connection to their traditional lands, can be identified as representing the types of problems
to which the international human rights regime related to indigenous peoples has been designed to respond. Thus, the Special Rapporteur considers that the concerns expressed by
members of the Bedouin people are of relevance to his mandate and fall within the ambit of concern of the principles contained in international instruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. ‘
Some of the advocates for censorship of the exhibition also revealed an underlying motivation to attack BDS, unstated elsewhere publicly.