more on american rascism

So, we are all up in arms... not because we are killing Arabs in the Middle East, but because some of their rich are going to finish a deal soon that would give them ownership of several American ports.

The rich in question are, specifically, the government of UAE, which is our ally... right? But here we are, watching the ruling cadre of evil in Washington trying to outdo each other on who can hate Arabs more and, in consequence, protect Americans.

I guess the Democrats particularly are convinced that there is a worldwide brown-skinned Arabic speaking conspiracy to destroy America by investing in our country in upwards of millions of dollars. Yes... I can imagine the room full of cigar smoking Shiekhs... "yes... lets pour our money into their economy... it will be the downfall of the infidel West..." I'm sorry, but I find it easier in fact to imagine a room full of Democrats smoking cigars and plotting the downfall of the Arab rich, not the other way around. I don't like the Arab rich any more than I like white rich people, but honestly, folks, there is no Arab speaking conspiracy out there to which all brown skinned Arab speakers are a part of... they aren't taking over the English company with their primary objective finding a way of destroying us. You'd think Americans would get this... the UAE's primary objective is money, not helping a rag tag bunch of idealogists perpetrate bombings in our ports. Most of those guys hate the UAE too; the UAE has no interest in helping them out just because they happen to share a skin tone and a language. Get the fuck real, you idiot democrats, and stop trying to out-rascist the Bush administration.

Stop talking for a while, Cindy Sheehan

...otherwise known as "why the Americentric antiwar movement annoys the piss out of me".

I was informed by a friend of mine several months ago, that during the beginning of the Camp Casey phenomenon, I was shown for a split second on the Daily Show's segment covering the new sensation (which, true to American tradition, held the public's attention for all of one month. This wasn't just because of Katrina... the "spirit of Camp Casey" would have lost momentum, fizzled, and lost the public's attention within a few weeks of it ending anyway). Apparently, the cameraman for the DS caught a moment of me attempting to talk to Cindy Sheehan, her acting bored and stuck up, and me giving her a "drop dead, fucking celeb bitch" look. It was only up for a second, but according to my friend it caught the entire essence of the moment.

So, yes, anti-war movement... Cindy Sheehan fucking annoys me. She doesn't annoy me just because she acts like she is the only American who really feels the pain of this war or only "Gold Star Families" (way to play into the military's system of giving us military families rewards in the form of color coded stars (!!!) that our neighbors can admire and envy) can talk about this war. This has been really exaggerated by the cadre of handlers that glommed onto her in August, and I don't think it is totally her fault. She, Military Families Speak Out, and Gold Star Families for Peace, all annoy the hell out of me because they refuse to talk about the real issue in this war and, at least at Camp Casey, they quashed anyone who did. The real issue here is imperialism- fucking imperialism. Bold, unabashed, militant imperialism. Racism and economic supremecy are driving forces behind our imperialism... not the only driving forces, but extremely strong ones.

However, MFSO and GSFP will not- they refuse- to talk about these issues because it will "alienate their base"... ok... who'se your base? The right-wing family members are already alienated by what they perceive, with some accuracy, that Cindy Sheehan is pimping Casey to end the war. She is perceived as someone craving a spotlight, as someone putting herself in front of every Americans face as often as she can, then demanding that they feel sorry for her. Something went really wrong sometime in August up there in Crawford, and unless they were really in her camp before, military families have stopped paying attention to her, if they haven't flat out started hating her. My mom liked her until about halfway through August. I get the feeling that she feels dissed... her kid didn't die, so no one is paying attention to her. She only has a blue star, not a gold one, so who cares?

I was at Camp Casey all of one day at the beginning, and I could not make myself go anywhere near it after that. I was part of the "really left" crowd, as identified by the vets, MFSO, and GSFP, which included pretty much everyone there with Code Pink and some of the "independants" (me, for example, since I can't stand any of those sheeple groups). At one point, when Bush was going to drive by the camp on the way to a fundraising dinner, MFSO called for all the family members to get behind a banner that said "bring them home" or something. I, being the sister of a wounded vet of this most recent imperialistic venture, naturally went up and got behind this banner. I was told three times to leave. As I was explaining my military cred (does it bother anyone else that you have to basically flaunt your military cred in today's antiwar movement? I am too young to know, but it seems like during Vietnam, you kinda didn't want the military cred... right? what the fuck happened?), I was told that "I'm not a part of MFSO" and yes, believe it or not, that I was with the "activists" not the "families". This is giving me so much hope for the future of this movement, I stand there thinking, when finally an executive decision is made that yes, I can stand with the families since... ummmm. .. by definition I am a military family member, even though I was an activist first and still am and will be. I guess I am a "premature anti-fascist" (if you know what I am referring to, consider yourself very well educated, since the Spanish Civil War is never talked about in the US even though thousands of American leftists went to Spain to fight against the fascists).

Perusing the MFSO website, at www.mfso.org, one can find several speeches given by MFs, mostly parents of soldiers. I am now coming to the thing that annoys me the most about these organizations and the entire war movement in general. These speeches reveal the same kind of token reference to the real 100% victims of this war... not the soldiers, who although stupid and in many ways coerced, did sign up for the military (are we soooo stupid to think that the military doesn't kill people? I keep hearing families say "my boy didn't sign up to kill anyone"... uhhhh... its the military folks... especially after 9/11, what the hell did you think it was about? I mean, we as a country are really seriously stupid, its like our national disease, but we aren't that dumb. We've all seen war movies.) and they did not miss movement when their unit was sent to Iraq. The real 100% victims are Iraqis, and it is rascist and americentric to talk about this war like no one suffers more than the aggressor, the invading army and its soldiers. I am sorry... I've seen it first hand, but nothing I've seen compares to what Iraqis are enduring, and often, dying of as their country remains occupied by those "heroes" in uniform. There are bigger victims than soldiers. Absolutely. And it is wrong for the anti-war movement to talk about the 2,000+dead like 1) they are saints who were in the wrong place at the wrong time... nu-uh, again that's the Iraqis, or 2) like that number is the biggest tragedy in the war. When is an MFSO member going to get up and say, "over 100,000 extra Iraqis died as a result of an occupation my son helped to perpetuate. He added to that figure, and I am sorry." It hasn't happened yet. We are in denial that these sweet kids are killers. My family member who is a vet is a killer, and it haunts him. He did not kill in self-defense. he was part of an agressor army force that went to someone else's home and attempted to control it. That is a decleration of war, and Iraqis shot back at him. That entire sequence of events makes him anything but a saintly victim, and as an anti-war movement we need a serious, long moment of mia culpa and stop this shit. MFSO speeches ramble on and on about the damage done to the troops... the deaths, the injuries, the lack of support when they come home... and all of that is true. Americans frankly don't care. They know full well the casualty figures, etc, and they don't care and those who do don't know what to do about it. I don't know why we insist on always beating the drums of figures which Americans already know... like if we just 2150 one more time, everyone's mind will change. Anyway, we go on and on about the price Americans have paid, and formulaicly and predictably, we then waive our hand for one second to the fact that 50 times more (at least! at the very least!!) Iraqis than Americans have died in this war of aggression. Many more thousands have been injured, driven from their homes, made to live in completely chaos, and have suffered preventable illness and suffering that are a direct consequence of this imperialistic war of aggression. We knew better when we went in. It wasn't like we were making an honest mistake then, no matter what any evil entity in Washington says. We were imperialistic and aggressive then, and nothing has changed. We say it once: "of course we ALSO mourn for the Iraqis..." and go back to what we were saying (emphasis the author's) about how victimized we and our colonial troops are.

Its part of a larger problem that Americans have that we can't see past our noses and that we believe we are entitled to perfect lives, so whenever anything gets in the way of that we cry like someone cut our big toe off. Its sickening, and I'm fucking tired of it, and it sucks that it has taken root in such a strong way in the only "opposition" to this war that America has yet to produce. If we can't be anti-imperialist and anti-americentric, who will be? If we are scared of alienating our "base" by telling them the truth, who will tell them? Who will change anything? We have to be the ones to understand that yes, our base is rascist and imperialist, and perhaps lots of activists are too, but we have to work to eradicate that, not pander to it. Let's get some gumption... some grit... lets "stop singing and start swinging" (thanks Malcolm X, for challenging us to do something strong to challenge power instead of whining amonst ourselves about how bad things are...)

Curling...best sport ever?

Curling is the butt of everyone's winter olympics jokes, including mine... until today. I just spent the last 15 minutes watching a curling match between the US and Finland. Man those Finns are tough sons of bitches, and not just cause they curl like some mutherfuckers. They fucking beat the socks off the Soviets too... and while doing so gave birth to the great Alpine Sniper winter olympics sport, the biathalon.

Anyway, I was thouroughly entertained by this curling thing. It was great. What a great bar game... I could totally see myself watching people in the bar, or outside rather, curl over a nice pitcher or something. It just amazes me how one's climate really affects one's cultural standards... I mean, I have seen snow somewhere between 5-10 times, so obviously winter sports are sort of lost on me. However, if I had been born someplace where 3 out of the 12 months it is so cold you can't even really go outside without harming yourself, then I would have totally loved this shit, instead of swimming and baseball.

So folks, I must say that I was really wrong about curling and I highly recommend that everyone check out a match before this whole winter 2006 game is done. It is quite entertaining and really, I can see it taking off if marketed as a bar game, in the way of darts, pool, and GoldenTee3000 or whatever the hell that golf game is called.

Notes on Ashura and Muslim protests over Danish cartoons

Presented here are some random thoughts on Ashura and the global almost-uprising of Muslims around the world in response to the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed:

On Ashura:

It seems that every year since 2001 the American television media has carried live footage of Ashura commemorations in Shii countries, notably Iran and Iraq. Ashura is an extremely important holiday to Shii Muslims; Sunnis don't recognize it. It is the rememberance of the death of Ali. Every year, Shii Muslims gather in the holy city of Karbala and in other cities as well and march. During the march, the men especially flaggelate themselves about the face, neck, and upper chest, usually bringing blood that they then don't wipe away.

Why have we shown this footage in the US since the spring of 2002 (the first commemoration of Ashura since 2001)? Because it is scary. Americans witness thousands of brown skinned Muslims walking together, crying loudly, beating themselves, and covered in blood. Americans can't tell what they are saying, right? Many are probably afraid of the sounds of Arabic or Farsii whether they know this consciously or not, since so many of the "bad guys" in our television shows and movies speak Arabic. The mourners could be crying "death to America" for all they know. They aren't, though. In fact, they are doing something that most Americans, especially the most conservative among us, should be intimately familiar with: the Shiis are marking a day that is analogous to Christians' Good Friday. They are mourning the taking of their leader, honoring his sacrifice for Islam, and pledging through their flaggelation to be prepared to sacrifice themselves. These tenants are identical to what Christians are supposed to feel year-round, especially during the lenten time and on Good Friday. Our monks, although the practice was far more common 1000 years ago, still flaggelate themselves as a sign of repentance. This is exactly what the Shiis do on Ashura, but they do it in public. Shouldn't the American Christians honor this kind of religious fervor and aspire to be more like Shiis, willing to feel that kind of passion and display it in public for the honor of God? However, that is not the picture we see, and that is not what we are inspired to feel when CNNFOXMSNBCABCCBSNBC show us Ashura footage. We are supposed to be horrified, scared, and shocked that the Shiis are doing something so brutal and barbaric. We find the thought "today their own skin... tomorrow ours"... creeping into our heads, thinking bloody jihad is what they are preparing for with those beatings instead of repentance.

Muslim Protests over Danish cartoons

I am not going to say much about this except to point out two things:

1. European and American newspapers apparently feel that certain groups are ok to ridicule and certain ones aren't. Case in point: a emotionally charged headline today is that Iranian newspapers are seeking cartoons that poke fun at the Holocaust. The point is not that either should be ridiculed, necessarily, but at least we have to realize that in the end we are defending politically incorrect cartoons because they attack people we inherently distrust and view as inferior. We view Islam as crazy and silly. Would we defend a cartoon making fun of Judiasm or the crucifixion of Jesus Christ? If the answer is no, then we aren't defending freedom of speech or the press here, because if we truly are, we are willing to defend even the things that offend us personally.

2. Notice where these protests have been the worst. Some of those places, while populated by Muslims, some of whom are extremist, are not exactly the biggest hotbeds of right-wing extremist Islam. However, it seems that they are all places where in recent times Muslims have felt under attack by the West and the "war on terror." Palestinians in Gaza... do I have to explain how they might feel under attack? Afghans in Kabul... again. Muslims in Syria... Syria has been isolated since the "war on terror" began and Washington has issued rhetoric condemning the government and their support of "terr". Some bandied about that Syria might be next after Iraq. It seems that a good chunk of those protesting and damaging property, etc, are viewing the cartoon as a direct overture of the West's desire to subjugate the Arab world.

Its about time...

Once again, GM's faithful workers are taking a hit. Not only are workers at 12 plants facing losing their jobs, but all workers are going to have to pay more for their health care plans and take cuts in their pension benefits.

HOWEVER... here's the good news! The CEO is going to take a 50% pay cut (the poor thing will only make 1.1 million dollars next year, while all the workers he put out on the line are going to be looking frantically for jobs as Wal-Mart greeters and taxi drivers) and some of the other top managerial staff are going to take a 30% hit. The general council is going to lose 10% of his salary. Hahahahaha! Even though that still leaves these people shamefully filthy rich, and they should still be put out on the line (the firing type, perhaps...) It is good to see that they are going to feel a little stick in their side too. Take that, and hopefully alot more in the coming days. Remember guys, we can do this the hard way or the easy way. As Brother Malcolm said, its either the ballot or the bullet. Take your pick, and don't choose lightly.

Are they our enemies, our friends, what? I'm confused W...

What's up with this? Not only is it yet more inane, right-wing religious bigotry coming out of this administration, but look who we're teaming up with!!! I thought we wanted to bring "the benefits of an open society" and "democracy" to these countries. Aren't these countries the "bad guys"? I guess we want human rights and secular democracy for everyone except sexual minorities. GRRR! Write Sec of State Rice and tell her how fucked up this is: http://contact-us.state.gov/cgi-bin/state.cfg/php/enduser/home.php

United Nations: U.S. Aligned With Iran in Anti-Gay Vote
Rice Must Explain Repressive UN Ban on LGBT Rights Groups(Washington, D.C., January 25, 2006) -

In a reversal of policy, the United States on Monday backed an Iranian initiative to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, a coalition of 39 organizations, led by the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called for an explanation of the vote which aligned the United States with governments that have long repressed the rights of sexual minorities.

"This vote is an aggressive assault by the U.S. government on the right of sexual minorities to be heard," said Scott Long, director of the LGBT rights program at Human Rights Watch. "It is astonishing that the Bush administration would align itself with Sudan, China, Iran and Zimbabwe in a coalition of the homophobic."

In May 2005, the International Lesbian and Gay Association, which is based in Brussels, and the Danish gay rights group Landsforeningen for Bøsser og Lesbiske (LBL) applied for consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council. Consultative status is the only official means by which non-governmental organizations (NGOs) around the world can influence and participate in discussions among member states at the United Nations. Nearly 3,000 groups enjoy this status.

States opposed to the two groups' applications moved to have them summarily dismissed, an almost unprecedented move at the UN, where organizations are ordinarily allowed to state their cases. The U.S. abstained on a vote which would have allowed the debate to continue and the groups to be heard. It then voted to reject the applications.

"The United States recklessly ignored its own reporting proving the need for international support for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "The State Department's ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices' show severe human rights violations based on gender identity and sexual orientation occur around the world."

As the U.S. government acknowledged in its 2004 country report on Iran, Iranian law punishes homosexual conduct between men with the death penalty. Human Rights Watch has documented four cases of arrests, flogging, or execution of gay men in Iran since 2003. In its 2004 country report on Zimbabwe, the U.S. government noted President Robert Mugabe's public denouncement of homosexuals, blaming them for "Africa's ills." In the past, Mugabe has called gays and lesbians "people without rights" and "worse than dogs and pigs." The U.S. has reversed position since 2002, when it voted to support the International Lesbian and Gay Association's request to have its status reviewed. Officials gave no explanation for the change.

"It is deeply disturbing that, at the UN, the United States has shifted gears toward an aggressive stance against human rights for LGBT people," said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. "Unfortunately, denying LGBT groups a voice and a presence within the United Nations – the world's most important human rights institution – is fully in keeping with the U.S.'s assault on basic human rights principles worldwide."

In voting against the applications to the NGO committee, the U.S. was joined by Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Votes in favor of consultative status came from Chile, France, Germany, Peru, and Romania. Colombia, India, and Turkey abstained, while Côte d'Ivoire was absent. "It is an absolute outrage that the United States has chosen to align itself with oppressive governments – all in an effort to smother the voices of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people around the world," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "It is deeply disturbing that the self-proclaimed ‘leader of the free world' will ally with bigots at the drop of a hat to advance the right wing's anti-gay agenda."

In addition to the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the organizations signing the letter are:
Advocates for Youth
Al-Fatiha Foundation for LGBT Muslims
Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School
Amnesty International USA
Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE)
Center for Women's Global Leadership
Colombian Lesbian and Gay Association (COLEGA)
Congregation Beth Simchat Torah
Equality Now
Family Care International
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
Gay Men's Health Crisis
Global Rights
Immigration Equality
International Women's Human Rights Clinic, City University of New York School of Law
Ipas
Jan Hus Church
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
Latino Commission on AIDS
L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center
Legal Momentum
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center (New York City)
MADRE
Mano a Mano
Metropolitan Community Churches
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Coalition Building Institute Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Caucus
National Center for Lesbian Rights
New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition
Open Society Institute
Queer Progressive Agenda
Queers for Economic Justice
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.
Women's Environment and Development Organization

To view this document on the Human Rights Watch web site, please visit: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/25/iran12535.htm

Sarah Silverman is MY Girlfriend

I noticed that no one commented on my post regarding Hamas winning the elections. Bitches! Is it too long? People wanted to comment on my stripper post, but not on my Hamas post? It is rather long, but seriously, its brilliant and all, since I wrote it, and you should read it so you know how to deal with this whole Hamas thing. My opinion is the right one.

I am sitting here having beer at a National Lawyers' Guild meeting that wasn't. I don't like drinking anymore because I get really really horny, and there isn't anyone around here worthy of sleeping with me. Just kidding. I sleep with anything that has two legs. OK... joking again. Anyway, my full-time boyfriend is gone to go "teach at NYU for the semester". OOOOOO! You're so cool. Anyway, where is Sarah Silverman when you need someone to sit on your face and tell you that she loves you?

How many times do I have to say it?

I have interviews today with the interest organizations that I want to work for this summer. I have sporting kick ass, fixed hair, a suit with a sweet shirt, and knee high black stripper boots. I'm even wearing make-up.

This woman working at one of the name tag tables stopped me and told me I had a string hanging out of my skirt (its part of my undies) and that I was showing a little "skin". She whispered skin. She meant there was a gap between my skirt and shirt and jacket so that a little of my back showed. I know she was being nice. I know, I know. Its better that she told me and I fixed it. But what's with whispering "skin" like we don't all have it and it doesn't show sometimes when clothes move. And how many times do I have to say it? You know... say it with me. Stripper goes to law school here! What do you people want from me? Goddamn it. Super Stripper Girl is doing her goddamn best. Bear with me. Get it- bear/bare... hahaha.

Speaking of stripping, I just downloaded some AC/DC onto my computer. Yes, bitches, I stole the motherfucking music through LimeWire. Angus, folks, I love yall but you got enough money. I used to dance every night to Dirty Deeds... it was my closing song of the evening. Listening to it makes me want to swing around a pole a few times. I wonder if I would feel more comfortable doing that then being in class around all these people that are not like me being forced to think about affluence and rich clients every day. I know I'd rather swing around a pole than study.

petition drive that would make anyone an activist

Lick here... yeah, right there....

This is a real email I just read:

Please Sign the Petitions to Oppose Anti-Immigrant Bills!An Appeal from National Immigrant Solidarity Network
January 20, 2006URL: http://www.ImmigrantSolidarity.org

Please Lick Here to Sign the Petition!

We are asking you for your help in collecting signatures for a petition (please see attached) addressed to the Los Angeles City Council requesting they adopt a resolution in favor of the immigrant community. The petition will be hand delivered to City Council on February 2nd. Our voices need to be heard and we need to defeat H.R. 4437 the moment it reaches the Senate. Currently, folks in D.C. are speculating that the issue of immigration will be taken up in mid February. If City Council approves the resolution it will be an issue the lobbying committee of the city takes on in D.C. as a priority.

Please Lick Here to Sign the Petition!

(Powered by ActionLA Coalition)

If you haven't figured it out (you fucking moron), it was supposed to be "click".

you know you want it!

OK, bitches, I fixed the comments part so that you don't have to have a blogger id to leave me a comment. So leave me a comment and tell me how much you hate me, how much you wish you were me, how bad you want to see me naked, or how you feel just plain flat out sorry for me. Do it!

C is for CANDY!

Are you ever next to someone, say in class, at work, standing in line at the post office or at the movies, or in an elevator, and the person takes out and begins to unwrap a peice of candy and you just want to grab it? "Gimme that!' Yoink! And then pop it into your mouth like nothing happened?

hahahahahah

funniest shit ever...

www.obeybutterstick.com

now for a moment of silence

Advisory: if you are looking for raucous remarks about a day in law school, this post will not satisfy. Also, if you would like to retain some kind of romantic, one-sided view about the Israeli occupation (from whosever side) I would direct you to look elsewhere.

I am posting here a statement from the Women's Coalition for Peace/Women in Black leader, Gila Svirsky, whom I met during my visit to Palestine (and Israel, though I didn't spend much time at all in Israel). I thought about adding my commentary below, but I think my cynicism inclines me to actually interweave them among her text, in red. Here we go.

Hamas and UsGila Svirsky 1) Who’s to blame? What a question... occupier(whose citizenry is so convinced that the land is theirs through either Manifest Destiny or a 5000 year old decree from a desert god that many of them actually asked me "what occupation?") vs. the occupied. Who should we blame FIRST? Listening to the reactions of passersby at the recent Jerusalem vigil of Women in Black (I have been to precisely two of these vigils and while I am impressed with their diligence, I was quite unimpressed with their analysis), you would think it was our peaceful little group that put the Hamas into power. This stems from Israeli right-wing politicians who are asserting that Hamas won because of the Gaza withdrawal and other conciliatory overtures, i.e., “rewarding terrorism”. Is it just something that colonizers tend to arrive at, or is Israel taking a page from the US? It seems however that the US is not the first imperial power to indignitly characterize indigenous resistance, in whatever form it might be, as illegal, barbarous, almost ungrateful? There is never any effort to understand or even realize anything basic about the motivation behind the attacks. For example, it seems that the British in Kenya where unbelievably brutal in their attempt to quash the Kikuyu resistance (came to be known as the "Mau-Mau Rebellion", a racist term mimicing a sound made by fighters), all the while villifying the Kikuyu for their unfair, unjust attacks on British "innocents", ie the Brits doing the actual physical colonizing. It's a basic "its ok when we do, but not you" thing. I think its so strange when people talk about how terrible and evil it is when anyone attacks US soldiers in Iraq. Its a war, dude. That's what happens. You attack them, they attack back, repeat. Are we really so convinced of our moral infallability that we think we can start a war and not get shot at in retaliation? Maybe that is the difference between an invasion type war and an occupation- in the second, the agressive force thinks its unfair and wrong when the other side attacks. Indeed, Bibi Netanyahu & co. are delighted with the Hamas victory, on which they can now build a fear-saturated election campaign, and return voters to the fold who lately had slipped into something more moderate (a nicer, more gentle genocidal occupation). I agree with the above to some extent. In the short term at least it will provide a reason to wreak even more havoc in the Occupied Territories. It will surely provide a new justification for the Wall. However, even the most brutal, rascist war-mongerers do not actually want an endless, perpetual state of war. The masses don't like it. There is a reason Israel and the US spent millions trying to influence people to vote for the ruling Fateh party. It has been easier to convince Fateh leaders, even Arafat although they were not ultimately completely successful in his case, that they are powerless to get more than what Israel and the US wants to give them and concede. The powers were able to set up a top-down, rent-payer, ineffective Fateh/PA ruling infrustructure throughout the country, many of whom were readily available and willing to fight with each other, undermine each other, and serve themselves instead of their constituents. It isn't like they were taking orders from Israel necessarily; its just that they could be trusted to not have their priorities straight ever. But here’s my take on what made Hamas victorious in the recent elections: (wait for it... my guess it will be something very profound and original) Israel’s failure to sit down and negotiate an end to the occupation. OK So I was wrong. Someone give her a prize. After the five hundreth explanation, someone finally got it. This is often phrased as “the failure of Fatah to make progress on peace”, but they amount to the same thing: the Fatah failed because Israel refused to offer any reward for moderation, refusing to sit down and negotiate with them. Fateh has degenerated into a disempowering force among the people. They continued to grasp onto hopes that if they wait it out, bear with the leaders, they would eventually get something. And so they did just that- wait. There is no transparency, little grassroots participation at the government levels, and again, very little effort on the part of many Fateh members to make the people and their needs a priority. The very deep dependency of the "mainstream" resistance on the international community, ie ineffectual rulings by the UN, to pressure Israel into doing the right thing is, while needed, hurting the will of the average Palestinian to continue working for an end to the occupation. It hasn't brought any real result, so people have been left feeling hopeless and desperate. And what about the corruption claim – that voting for Hamas was also a vote against the corruption of the Fatah politicians? It was a secondary reason, surely. There is lots of anger toward Fateh, especially the Fateh members who act like they are the rightful leaders of the Palestinians and don't have to do anything to stay in power. Plus, there was an obvious intention on the part of many Palestinians to vote for ANYONE besides those who have been apparently chosen and sanctioned by Israel and the US. Is that so strange, that Palestinians would purposely not vote for America and Israel's candidate? Taking money from your enemies to secure your place is also corruption. Obviously the PA taking money from the US and Israel to do projects right before the election made many Palestinians angry enough to not vote for them. Secondly, many Palestinians are convinced that their Fateh leaders are secure no matter what- they make money off the Occupation (Abas making money off the concrete sold to Israel for the Wall is an oft-cited example) and will make money afterward too, while the rest won't. This may have played a role for some voters, but since when does corruption bring down a politician? Certainly not in Israel, where Sharon’s corruption has been an open book, but forgiven by those who support his politics. Westerners will support corrupt leaders as long as the leaders are macho strongmen-types and the corruption isn't so noticeable that it actually starts affecting their daily lives in an obvious way. Corruption is tolerated when approval ratings are high in other respects. The corruption of the previous Palestinian government would have been overlooked, had the politicians only managed to show some progress on ending the occupation. It's not that they even have to show progress in the short term as they have to keep acting like strong leaders. Bush has shown no progress on Iraq, actually much the opposite, and although his support for the occupation has decreased, he hasn't lost it completely. He keeps a strong rhetoric and promises results, not in the short term, but overall.

When terrorists become politicians

I remember standing on the balcony of my home in Jerusalem on a lovely May morning of 1977 and gasping when I heard who had won the Israeli election: Menahem Begin, former head of a Jewish terrorist organization that had killed 91 civilians by bombing the King David Hotel in 1946. Further proof that it is only collateral damage if the agressor is white. And then it was Begin who returned the Sinai Peninsula and negotiated peace with Egypt. In 2001, Israel elected Ariel Sharon, responsible for blood-soaked episodes in Qibiya, Beirut, Gaza, Sabra and Shatila, and more. And then it was Sharon who returned Gaza – imperfect, but a singularly important precedent. I condemn terrorism, whether ‘rogue’ or state sanctioned, and I would never have voted for Hamas (or Begin or Sharon). But who is better positioned than Hamas to reach a compromise peace agreement? We have the mirror image of Israel in the Palestinian election: Just as the Israeli right (Begin and Sharon) could more easily make concessions than Yitzhak Rabin, who had to fight our right wing all the way, so too the Hamas can mobilize more support for concessions than the more moderate Fatah could now undertake. That's because their leadership is more respected. It looks different for a group that has devoted itself solely to the liberation of a people or land to make certain concessions than one who appears that it hasn't been in that fight for a long time. It will look necessary (even if it isn't or shouldn't be) as opposed to mealy-mouthed and weak. They are also less likely to give up things that can be won with more pressure exerted over time. It is also possible that Hamas will go through the same transformation Fateh did after it became the ruling party institutionalized in the PA. It is hard to continue as a liberation movement after you become a ruling power that has to do the actual work of governing.

About creeping fundamentalism

Yes, I am worried about Hamas rule, particularly its domestic agenda in Palestine: I worry about women, non-Muslims, journalists, gays, people in the arts, and all those who benefit from the open society. You're worried? What about me? I live in the US, and unlike Palestine, no one in the international community is talking about the rise of radical right-wing Christianity in our country and the subsequent loss of our liberties and rights. To what extent will the Hamas increase the role of Shari’a (Muslim) law in civilian life? To what extent will the Republican Party in Texas legislate a literal, extremely conservative reading of the Bible as law? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? The world may never know. Or religious education in the schools? Once, when I was in the seventh grade, one of my teachers in Oklahoma told us, under the guise of the mandatory sex-ed lesson, told us to keep our knees shut. Darwin was never mentioned in class until I went to a special science magnate school. On the other hand, it’s quite evident that Palestinians have experienced democracy and will not easily tolerate a closing of their society. Hopefully they won't tolerate it in the same way Americans have. Or Israelis. Sharon had to give up his Saturday afternoon tennis game to court the more Orthodox vote; Kerry had to promise us (so radically different than Kennedy promising to NOT be religious just 50 years before) that he really did believe in Jesus. Seriously though folks, far be it from us to talk about the rise of conservative, radical Islam in Palestine. It is true that the majority of Palestinians are Muslim, the women wear hijab and conservative clothing (so do the men for the most part), and Palestinians for the most part abide in a traditional, conservative culture (marriage and family are supposed to be more important to women then their careers,for example; although many women are very educated, they often times will not pursue careers outside the home, due in part to not wanting to give the appearance of neglecting their children and due in another part to the worsening state of the economy- there are not enough jobs to employ men and women both, so women give up opportunities so that men can have them. This is no different fundamentally than America 50-60 years ago.) However, there are plenty of non-extreme, even non-practicing Muslims in Palestine and there are many Christians (some of whom also don't practice). A vote for Hamas in this election would not always indicate that the Palestinian had become more conservative in his/her religion. There are unknown massive numbers of Palestinians who would not tolerate, for example, women being denied education, the right to drive, or subjected to mandatory hijab or, for another example, armed gangs of young conservative Muslim males driving around closing down stores that sold alcohol. Many of these same ones would not "deny the right of Israel to exist", ie demand that the country be blown off the map and all the Jews driven back into Europe. They will act as a moderating force in Hamas, as they already have. In Bethlehem municipality, the majority (although it is slimer than it once was) is Christian and the large minority is Muslim. Christians are allowed to vote for both and Muslims are allowed to vote. The city council is mandated to be half+1 Christian (personally, not necessarily belonging to a religious party) and the rest Muslim. In the last election, almost all of the Christian representatives elected were members of the socialist Party for the Liberation of Palestine and all the Muslim representatives were either members of the Islamic Jihad party or Hamas. This means that Christians voted for these parties in the election. Do they want to live under a radical conservative Islamic regime? No way. Do they want strong leadership who is going to fight to improve Palestine domestically and end the occupation? Yes. They see these two Muslim parties as able to do that, but they of course do not agree with the idea of a Muslim theocracy set up in Palestine.

I take heart from this week’s survey of the Palestinian population, published in the Palestinian Authority’s Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda and reported in the Jerusalem Post*: 84% of Palestinians support a peace deal with Israel. Peace with justice. Let's see how many Israelis want peace, and then start the name calling. Palestinians aren't monstervilliandemons. They aren't vampires. They don't like blood and guts. Of course they want peace. Who doesn't? Oh yeah, that's right... the people in the West who have become monstervilliandemons and vampires. In case you wondered if this includes the Hamas, 75% of Hamas voters are opposed to calls for the destruction of Israel. Yeah. Please see above. Hamas knows that seculars comprise a large portion of their constituency.

And who benefits from ending foreign aid? Three guesses. Is it the American taxpayer? Hmm, its not... so... So along come American and Israeli politicians advocating for a policy that would isolate and punish the Palestinians by withholding financial aid. The American press is jabbering like monkeys in a tree about the whole election. I guess they want to give aid when it could sway an election in their favor. Hey guys, remember that whole democracy thing? If you push for elections, then you sort of have to abide by what happens. No one in Washington had a problem with funding Indonesian terrorists for 25 years; since they have just reinstated that military aid, I wouldn't imagine that they would have an actual problem funding Hamas. Everyone knows this would destabilize the fragile economy, harm the innocent (but not the politicians), and foster increasing bitterness against the secular west. Secular? hehehe. A much more reasonable approach would be to extend support and see how responsibly Hamas uses it. How many rocket launchers does $20 million buy? Or maybe we should take that money and reinvest it in the States to see if we can buy our government, our media, and ourselves a collective brain. One amongst all of us might be worth it. It might do more good for the Palestinians than a brand new rocket launcher for every adult over 18 in the West Bank. Hamas actually has a lot to prove right now, and they had one of the best grassroots charity systems set up in Gaza without financial aid from the West. I can only imagine what Palestinians could get out of them if they actually had money to spend. Or does someone have an interest in sowing chaos in the Palestinian territories? Yes, I too would like to demand a renunciation of terrorism and violence as a precondition for talking I think Hamas should issue a pre-emptory statement saying they don't negotiate with or take money from terrorists. …I’d like to demand it from both sides. But realistically this has to be done as part of the negotiations. Hey boys, just in case... bring the rocket launchers.

Gila SvirskyJerusalem