Two comments on Henry Lowi, Amira Haas, and her article titled "Finally, a popular uprising":
Some gangster once said that if you point a gun at someone's head and threaten to kill him but then let him go, that person will be grateful to you for the rest of his life.
The Zionists do this all the time. They starve Ghazza and then expect to be called humanitarians for letting some food in as 'relief' for the suffering population - but who caused the suffering in the first place?
They put the gun to the Palestinian head and then expect to be called 'humanitarian' when they don't pull the trigger.
And this kind of gangster mentality is regarded as "progressive" or "enlightened" by some people.
But Zionists' idea, of course, is simply to shift the issue from one of national liberation to one of humanitarian relief - which the Zionists naturally go for because that leaves them in charge. In fact that's how they seek to manage the situation; manage the Palestinians.
As far as attracting "criticism of 'Israel'" is concerned, actually the July war of 2006 got a lot more negative press for the Zionists than the Ghazza situation, so I don't think this 'non violent protest' stuff necessarily arouses more popular international interest. But of course, if you want to measure 'international interest' you have to keep in mind that 'interest' is largely seen through the lense of the imperialist media, and the imperialist powers would rather manage the Palestinian "humanitarian crisis" (that they are all helping to cause) rather than confront the national liberation struggle as such. In fact, media attention on 'non-violent protest' largely a deliberate 'trick' to turn attention from national liberation to 'humanitarian' issues.
So if "international interest" just translates into the Zionists agreeing to send in a certain number of Care packages to Ghazza through their own blocade, then that 'international interest' is not of much use, because it is reinforcing the Zionists' own framework for managing the situation on their terms. That's not solidarity with the Palestinian struggle at all.
It should be clear that Amira Hass and Henry Lowi aren't "friends" or in any sense on the Palestinian side, because what they're doing is precisely the opposite of promoting the national liberation of Palestinians - in fact they're trying to eliminate the national liberation struggle by replacing it with a humanitarian issue that the Zionist entity will play a major role in 'solving' - after it created it in the first place.
In other words, they're playing that gangster trick of putting the gun to our head and then - 'under humanitarian pressure' - agreeing not to pull the trigger. But let's not fall for that trick. We need to get together to fight to get rid of the gangsters; not let them continue to run the show and then feel grateful to them when they don't pull the trigger.
Revolutionary greetings,
Muhammad Abu Nasr
______________
While it is right to resist the Zionist occupation of Arab Palestinian land, it behooves me to refer to Lowi as a "friend." And, to Amira Hass, the Zionist journalist disguising herself as a woman in "solidarity" with the Palestinians and their national liberation struggle.
Some of them have developed a sense of guilt because of their illegitimate presence on a land they stole and continue to occupy. Unfortuntely, not enough guilt to purchase a one-way plane ticket off our land. But, why should they, when there are Arabs and Palestinians who make open declarations that they are now "citizens" on a land they [Zionists] stole and continue to occupy?
And, when there are Palestinian Arabs who condemn the Zionist entity, but only to condemn its so-called "racist" and "Apartheid" nature, still giving "Israel" recognition. When occupation has become "sexy", and it has become acceptable to humanize the occupiers because a few of them,
perhaps a handful, stand behind the land grab Wall with our people, or write a few articles "admitting" to the atrocities committed by their kind.
When we take these positions openly, these defeatist ideologies, while the genocide and occupation continue, not to mention the resistance, then we lose the position to comment against a Zionist who thinks she has the right to condemn or judge our resistance or the methods our people choose to resist.
In other words, we can't have it both ways. Either Palestine is occupied, or its not. Either the Zionist Jews are invaders on our land, or they are not. And either Palestine is Arab, or not, and it most certainly is, every inch of it from the river to the sea.
Salaams,
Samia Saleh
Some gangster once said that if you point a gun at someone's head and threaten to kill him but then let him go, that person will be grateful to you for the rest of his life.
The Zionists do this all the time. They starve Ghazza and then expect to be called humanitarians for letting some food in as 'relief' for the suffering population - but who caused the suffering in the first place?
They put the gun to the Palestinian head and then expect to be called 'humanitarian' when they don't pull the trigger.
And this kind of gangster mentality is regarded as "progressive" or "enlightened" by some people.
But Zionists' idea, of course, is simply to shift the issue from one of national liberation to one of humanitarian relief - which the Zionists naturally go for because that leaves them in charge. In fact that's how they seek to manage the situation; manage the Palestinians.
As far as attracting "criticism of 'Israel'" is concerned, actually the July war of 2006 got a lot more negative press for the Zionists than the Ghazza situation, so I don't think this 'non violent protest' stuff necessarily arouses more popular international interest. But of course, if you want to measure 'international interest' you have to keep in mind that 'interest' is largely seen through the lense of the imperialist media, and the imperialist powers would rather manage the Palestinian "humanitarian crisis" (that they are all helping to cause) rather than confront the national liberation struggle as such. In fact, media attention on 'non-violent protest' largely a deliberate 'trick' to turn attention from national liberation to 'humanitarian' issues.
So if "international interest" just translates into the Zionists agreeing to send in a certain number of Care packages to Ghazza through their own blocade, then that 'international interest' is not of much use, because it is reinforcing the Zionists' own framework for managing the situation on their terms. That's not solidarity with the Palestinian struggle at all.
It should be clear that Amira Hass and Henry Lowi aren't "friends" or in any sense on the Palestinian side, because what they're doing is precisely the opposite of promoting the national liberation of Palestinians - in fact they're trying to eliminate the national liberation struggle by replacing it with a humanitarian issue that the Zionist entity will play a major role in 'solving' - after it created it in the first place.
In other words, they're playing that gangster trick of putting the gun to our head and then - 'under humanitarian pressure' - agreeing not to pull the trigger. But let's not fall for that trick. We need to get together to fight to get rid of the gangsters; not let them continue to run the show and then feel grateful to them when they don't pull the trigger.
Revolutionary greetings,
Muhammad Abu Nasr
______________
While it is right to resist the Zionist occupation of Arab Palestinian land, it behooves me to refer to Lowi as a "friend." And, to Amira Hass, the Zionist journalist disguising herself as a woman in "solidarity" with the Palestinians and their national liberation struggle.
Some of them have developed a sense of guilt because of their illegitimate presence on a land they stole and continue to occupy. Unfortuntely, not enough guilt to purchase a one-way plane ticket off our land. But, why should they, when there are Arabs and Palestinians who make open declarations that they are now "citizens" on a land they [Zionists] stole and continue to occupy?
And, when there are Palestinian Arabs who condemn the Zionist entity, but only to condemn its so-called "racist" and "Apartheid" nature, still giving "Israel" recognition. When occupation has become "sexy", and it has become acceptable to humanize the occupiers because a few of them,
perhaps a handful, stand behind the land grab Wall with our people, or write a few articles "admitting" to the atrocities committed by their kind.
When we take these positions openly, these defeatist ideologies, while the genocide and occupation continue, not to mention the resistance, then we lose the position to comment against a Zionist who thinks she has the right to condemn or judge our resistance or the methods our people choose to resist.
In other words, we can't have it both ways. Either Palestine is occupied, or its not. Either the Zionist Jews are invaders on our land, or they are not. And either Palestine is Arab, or not, and it most certainly is, every inch of it from the river to the sea.
Salaams,
Samia Saleh
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق