"IDF" Reservists, Martyrdom in Arab Culture,
and the Social Logic of Human Bombs
Feb. 19, 2002
In this issue of the Free Arab Voice (FAV) we present:
1) Fruits of the Intifada:
"Israeli" reservists "refuse" to serve inside the part of Palestine occupied
in 1967. Why now? What the reservists' statement is and what it is not.. by
Abu Nicola Al Yunani/FAV's Webmaster.
2) The Truth about Martyrdom in Arab and Islamic Culture: what is a martyr
in Arab culture and Islam, and why is he or she revered in the East and
reviled in the West? By Nabila Harb/FAV co-editor
3) (In Arabic) Human Bombs in the Balance of Public Rights: a critique of
the capitalistic mindset which views the political world of the Arab-Zionist
conflict in terms of individual rights, by Ibrahim Alloush. Go to:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/arabi/alQanabiluAlBashriya.htm
4) (In Spanish) Jordania y la estrategia sionista en el Mundo Árabe
http://www.nodo50.org/csca/miscelanea/jordania-alloush_18-02-02.html
#####################################################
"Israeli" reservists "refuse" to serve inside the part of Palestine occupied
in 1967, by Abu Nicola Al Yunani/FAV's Webmaster
On Friday, January 25 an ad appeared in the "Israeli" newspaper Haaretz,
signed by a group of reservists of the Zionist occupation army (the
so-called "Israeli Defense Forces", IDF). In it, the reservists proudly
declare that they have been raised with the principles of Zionism, that they
have served in the occupation army, and that they continue to serve in it
"for long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal
lives". Mind you, "Israeli" men continue to serve in the occupation forces
for a month every year up to the age of 45; "Israeli" women are drafted in
the IDF just the same as men even if that was for lesser periods- those are
the ones called "civilians" every time they are targeted by acts of
resistance. At any rate, the IDF reservists go on to state that "We shall
not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel,
starve and humiliate an entire people". The initial signatories were around
60. Within 10 days that number rose to 150. Their stated aim is to reach 500
signatures, so as to force the beginning of a debate inside the "Israeli"
society on the issues they raise in their statement.
This statement, whose importance is undeniable, has been hyped up and
presented as something different from what it really is. It is therefore
useful to examine it and see what it is, what it isn't, and what we can
learn from it.
What the statement is NOT:
In spite of all the hype, this statement isn't a sign of a progressive
movement gaining strength inside "Israel". The trend this statement shows is
by no means a trend with which Palestinians could work, to achieve a just
and viable solution.
Even the UN has affirmed time and again - most recently in the Durban
conference on racism - that Zionism is a form of racism. Yet the signatories
of the statement take pride in their Zionist roots, in "all the values we
had absorbed while growing up in this country", in their past, continuing
and future service in the occupation army. "[We,] who have always served in
the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission, light or
heavy, in order to protect the State of Israel and strengthen it", "We
hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense Forces
in any mission that serves Israel's defense". Then the reservists'
statement refers to an imaginary glorious past of the IDF and the Zionist
state, which is now being destroyed ("We, who understand now that the price
of Occupation is the loss of IDF's human character and the corruption of the
entire Israeli society").
The authors and signatories of the statement of course refrain from even
touching on the subject of occupation of pre-67 "Israel". On the contrary,
they make clear that this occupation is for them sacrosanct; an arbitrary
distinction for which they are correctly criticized by their right-wing
opponents. Moreover, they avoid to touch on the subject of the racist nature
of their state and the heinous oppression of the Palestinian Arab population
inside the 1948 borders - they aren't even demanding a "binational state".
Reading their statement, one is forced to conclude that an apartheid police
state inside the 1948 borders is for them something normal and desirable.
Moreover, the statement stops short of even unambiguously demanding a
withdrawal from the part of Palestine occupied in 1967. A careful reading
shows that it is written in an ambiguous language, which can mean different
things - some will read it as a call for a unilateral withdrawal from the
so-called "occupied territories", others will read a call for a more decent
and civilized form of occupation, or for efforts to continue the "peace
process" (a process, it should be noted, which would have died a natural
death, having reached a dead-end due to its inherent contradictions, even if
it had not been given the coup-de-grace by Butcher Sharon).
It is significant that the signatories refrain from declaring in no
uncertain terms that they will, under any circumstances, refuse to serve
outside the 1967 borders of their beloved "Israel". Instead, they state that
they will refrain from doing so "in order to dominate, expel, starve and
humiliate an entire people" - does this mean they would fight in order to
dominate, starve and humiliate PART OF a people? Does it imply that they
would be willing to fight in the "occupied territories" if they saw this as
necessary for the defense of "Israel"? They state they will take no part in
the "The missions of occupation and oppression" which do not serve the
purpose of defense. They don't make clear whether they would take part in
missions in the "occupied territories" which would have a different purpose
- e.g., punitive expeditions whose purpose would be to "root out terrorism"
and safeguard the security of the Zionist entity - they don't, but the
overall tone shows they are keeping this option open.
It is also important to note that the signatories are obviously driven by
despair at a war they can no longer hope to win, not by some high moral
principles that they only recently discovered. They don't shrink from
equating the criminal with his victim ("the bloody toll this Occupation
exacts from both sides"). They decided NOW, after 50 years of collective
silence, to speak ("We, who understand now ..."). While serving in the IDF
they "were issued commands and directives that had nothing to do with the
security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our
control over the Palestinian people" - and we must assume that they obeyed
these commands, because they hadn't yet "understood".
What the statement IS:
A careful reading of the statement reveals the motives and wishes of its
signatories, and the nature of the current they represent.
Twice in the text, the authors voice their opposition to the settlements
("[we] know that the Territories are not Israel, and that all settlements
are bound to be evacuated in the end", "We hereby declare that we shall not
continue to fight this War of the Settlements"). Here we are approaching the
crux of the issue: The statement voices a will - and a half-hearted one at
that - to dump the post-1967 "settlers" and "settlements" (as if the entire
"Israeli" society isn't a huge settlement to begin with), in order to save
"Israel proper". The old thief who wants to enjoy in peace the spoils of his
theft proposes to the victim a deal: "leave me alone, and I shall give you
the new thieves".
It is not a secret that "Israeli" society is sharply divided. Not among
supporters and opponents of Zionism, as some would have us believe - this
conception, widely spread in the West, is at best the result of wishful
thinking. Even the class divisions, which are dominant in normal societies,
are in "Israel" secondary in importance. On a political level, the dominant
division in "Israel" is between two sides: 1) those who see the
infeasibility of the original Zionist dream of conquering and keeping by
force the entire region "from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates", and are
willing to settle for something less - provided this "something" protects
THEIR stolen property -, and 2) those, on the other hand, who are not
willing, or cannot afford, to cede a single inch of "their" spoils. Those
who settled in the lands occupied in 1948 form the main force behind the
first current. The 200.000 settlers who live within the lands occupied in
1967 and those living in the land that is constantly being expropriated from
its Arab owners inside the 1967 lines are obviously the more vociferous
supporters of the second. The first side often disguises as dovish,
peace-loving, moral. But we must not forget that Nobel laureate for peace
(and former general) Yitzhak Rabin was the one who, as chief of staff, led
the army that occupied additional territories in 1967. As prime minister in
the mid-seventies, he launched the policy of the "Iron Hand", under which
more than 300.000 West Bank and Gaza Palestinians were tortured in his
jails. As minister of defense, he was the one who ordered his soldiers to
"break the bones" of Palestinians in response to the first Intifada under
the infamous policy of the "Iron Fist". He has proudly admitted to driving
out 50.000 Palestinians from Lydda. His partner in the Nobel peace prize
(and former general), Shimon Peres, launched the 1996 attack against
Lebanon, including the bombing of the UN camp in Qana, where more than 100
civilians were murdered. He is now gladly serving as a foreign minister
under war criminal Ariel Sharon. Former Labor prime minister (and former
general) Ehud Barak was deputy commander during the 1982 invasion in Lebanon
and subsequent massacres in Sabra and Shatila, the most ardent builder of
settlements, and the man who gave war criminal Sharon an escort of a couple
of thousand policemen, when he desecrated al Aqsa mosque and triggered the
second Intifada.
In a sense, both sides are equally quixotic - the one believes it can
subjugate indefinitely a nation which numbers in the hundreds of millions,
which has behind it a history of millennia and an illustrious civilisation,
the other believes such a nation can be bought out and manipulated.
The two currents have been more complementary than antithetic up to now.
They shared the same aims, but differed in the means for their
implementation. But now that the future of "Israel" no longer looks bright,
the differences are becoming sharper. The statement is, more likely than
not, a sign of things to come. It portends the coming total collapse of
cohesion of Zionist society. Yet contrary to the wishful thinking of Western
"leftists" and Arab defeatists, the coming conflict within the Zionist
society will not be between the forces of the past and those of the future.
"Israeli" society is at a dead end. Its only possible future is its demise.
There are no progressive forces inside it. The conflict within "Israel" will
be between two (possibly more) equally doomed, equally corrupt, equally
immoral camps. It will not be a revolution, but a dogfight, where Zionists,
will throw themselves at each other's throat.
Of course, this will make the job or the Palestinian resistance much easier.
Lessons to draw from this statement:
"Leftists" and "pacifists" of various colors, in the Arab world and
elsewhere, support the signatories and claim the armed acts of resistance
should stop, so as to give pacifists inside "Israel" a chance to be heard.
The fact is, although we have in the past seen isolated cases of individuals
refusing to serve in the occupation army, we have never before seen a
reaction on such a massive scale.
The only possible explanation for this is the recent increase in acts of
armed resistance within occupied Palestine. "Israeli" society has shown in
the past, especially in Lebanon, that it is extremely sensitive to loss of
life. The days of Zionist pioneers who were willing to shed their blood have
long passed. Their dream proved to be a nightmare. In an attempt to save
what could be saved, the Rabin-Peres gang started the "peace process". This
bought them almost ten years. But that time ran out. The interim agreements
had to be eventually followed by a permanent one - and such was not
possible. There are issues - such as the refugees' right of return, the
Issue of East Jerusalem - on which no compromise was possible. When the
bankruptcy of the "peace process" became obvious, "Israeli" society made one
last try: if the problem cannot be solved by peaceful means, let's try war.
So they elected the arch-war criminal, the butcher of Kibya, Sabra and
Shatilla, to subdue the Palestinians by force. But instead of bringing
security, as he had promised, his policies have led to an escalation of the
conflict and forced even moderate Palestinian forces to take the path of
armed struggle.
The Intifada has shown that it is here to stay. The more morons like Sharon
try to quench it with naked violence, the more momentum it gains. The
economy of "Israel" is suffering greatly. Foreign investors are fleeing like
mice in a sinking ship. Tourists are not exactly crowding at the borders of
"Israel". Unemployment is rising. The wave of immigration has been brought
to a halt, and many "Israelis", especially the younger ones, are openly
contemplating emigration - a subject that was until recently taboo, but has
began to be discussed openly, even in the press. No end to violence is
visible.
The recent statement by "IDF" reservists was a result of armed resistance.
They have been forced to publicise their dissent not by their conscience,
but by their mortal fear - fear for themselves, for their families, for
their properties, for their "beloved country". The explosives of suicide
bombers proved to be more effective at setting the brains of Zionists to
motion than all the eloquence of defeatist "pacifists".
For our part, despite all our criticism of this statement, for all its
half-hearted and dead-end character, we want to see more such initiatives.
But we understand that the only way to give strength to this current, to
force the "pacifists" to shed their ambivalence and throw themselves at the
throats of the Sharonistas, is to drive them to even worse despair. Only
when they sense the hot breath of the lion at their backs, are they able to
take a stand for their "moral principles". So let's work for peace. Let's
give the "peace camp" in "Israel" a chance. The only way to do it is by
increasing the acts of armed resistance. A bomb speaks more than a thousand
words.
Note: The text of the statement is as follows:
- We, reserve combat officers and soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces,
- who were raised upon the principles of Zionism, sacrifice and giving to
the people of Israel and to the State of Israel, who have always served in
the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission, light or
heavy, in order to protect the State of Israel and strengthen it.
- We, combat officers and soldiers who have served the State of Israel for
long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal lives, have
been on reserve duty all over the Occupied Territories, and were issued
commands and directives that had nothing to do with the security of our
country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the
Palestinian people. We, whose eyes have seen the bloody toll this Occupation
exacts from both sides.
- We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Territories, destroy
all the values we had absorbed while growing up in this country.
- We, who understand now that the price of Occupation is the loss of IDF's
human character and the corruption of the entire Israeli society.
- We, who know that the Territories are not Israel, and that all settlements
are bound to be evacuated in the end.
- We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this War of the
Settlements.
We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate,
expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.
- We hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense
Forces in any mission that serves Israel's defense.
The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose - and we
shall take no part in them.
#####################################################
By Nabila Harb\FAV co-editor
In Arabic, the word for martyr is 'shaheed'. The root of the word is
shahada, which is a verb that means 'to see' or 'to witness'. The
word 'shaheed' not only means martyr; it is the word for evidence,
proof, example, illustration and even a tombstone. The concept of
the martyr in the Arab world is one that is fundamental to Arab
culture, connoting a life that is sacrificed for a cause. The act
of dying is actually seen as an act of 'bearing witness' to the
world, and proof that the cause is worth the ultimate sacrifice.
Some of the most famous and revered martyrs in the Arab world were
relatives of the Holy Prophet Muhammad: Imam Ali, who was struck
down with a poisoned sword while praying at dawn (Fajr) at the
masjid at Kufa, and Imam Hussein, who bravely fought against
incredible odds and died for his faith at Karbala.
It is not necessary to be a warrior, nor to be a Muslim in order to
be considered a martyr. It is the reason for the death that makes
the martyr: women and children killed in their homes by the Zionist
Occupiers of Palestine are considered martyrs although they did not
deliberately place themselves in a sacrificial position. Their deaths
bear witness to the oppression and torment of the Palestinian people
and to the brutality and racist nature of the Zionist Occupation. In
dying for Palestine, no matter what the circumstances, they reaffirm
the identity of the Palestinian people and the eternal tie to the
homeland.
The concept of 'martyr' within Palestinian society in particular
was born during the British Mandate, when Zionism began to threaten
the existence of the Palestinian people in their homeland. Over half
a century of Occupation and the Zionist programme of genocide have
strengthened the concept and created innumerable martyrs. Western
media often shows footage of the 'celebration' of a martyr's family
on the occasion of his/her death, deliberately misinterpreting all
aspects of the rituals associated with martyrdom. In fact, the
'celebration' rituals of martyrdom have less to do with the enemy
and more to do with the martyr himself/herself. Invitations to the
community to those who wish to congratulate them on the martyrdom
of a loved one, the distribution of sweets and feasts that resemble
wedding celebrations are all acts that demonstrate respect and love
for the one who has made the ultimate sacrifice.
Zionist attempts to depict these acts as celebrations of the death
of enemies is illogical and absurd, particularly in view of the fact
that in many cases, regrettably, the only casualty of a human bomb
is himself/herself. How then can the rituals of 'celebration' be
anything but acts of homage to the courage of the martyr?
If the martyr has died instantly, his or her body is carried at
once to the cemetery, to be met by the family and members of the
community. Traditional prayers are offered and all those who wish
to honour his/her memory and sacrifice, bestow a kiss on the martyr's
forehead. Martyrs are buried in the clothing in which they died rather
than the traditional white shroud. The clothes are not cleaned, nor is
the blood washed from the body, and the martyr is buried as he or she
fell. Holy Qur'an states that:
'Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay,
they live, and with their Lord are being sustained. Rejoicing in
what Allah of His Grace has granted them, rejoicing for those who
have not yet joined them from behind them, that no fear shall come
on them nor shall they grieve.' (Surah Al Imran, 169-170).
Again, those 'who suffered in My way and who fought and were
slain, I will most certainly blot out their sins from them, and
I will most certainly admit them into gardens beneath which flow
streams: A reward from Allah! And Allah: truly with Him alone is
the Reward Most Excellent.'
To die 'fee sabeelillah' (in the way of Allah) is the best death
in Islam, and any death that bears witness to the cause of justice
and religion is a martyr's death.
The concept of the martyr in Arab culture is not exclusively a
religious one, however. Martyrs for the cause of Palestine have
followed many different ideologies. They are Muslim, Christian,
Communists, Arab nationalists, or simple patriotic citizens who
sacrifice their life for their occupied land. All are given special
recognition by their communities and the world for having borne
witness to the cause of liberation of the homeland.
Zionist propaganda has been very active with respect to the martyrs
and human bombs. Propaganda usually takes one of the following forms:
That the human bombs are cowards, 'targeting' women and children
deliberately instead of men
That the human bombs are insane religious fanatics, who blow
themselves up because they have been brainwashed into believing
that they will have unlimited sex with virgins in the afterlife
That the human bombs are motivated by hatred of 'freedom and
the lifestyle of the West' rather than love of the cause of justice
and freedom for their people
That the martyrs of Palestine, especially the children, are
deliberately thrown into the path of Zionist bullets in order to
prejudice world opinion against the Zionist Occupation
The fact is that some one who is willing to die for his/her cause
is infuriating to an enemy. The purity of motivation that comes
from willingness to die, not because one is being paid, nor because
of loss of temper or in pursuit of wealth, is a threat to the very
raison d'etre of the enemy. Thus, the enemy attempts to diminish the
intrinsic nobility of such a sacrifice in any manner possible. Beyond
all else, the martyr's death is a challenge to the enemy, a declaration
of freedom from fear of death. For the religious, the human bomb's
willingness to face death is proof of his faith in His Lord. Why
should one who believes and loves Allah fear to leave this world
and meet the One who created him? It is the Zionists and their
international supporters who, while they profess belief and faith
in God and in the afterlife, yet fear death who are the hypocrites
and cowards, using slogans as shields against the truth. It is not
brainwashing nor hatred that spurs the human bomb forward into action.
It is faith and love of Allah, and a true belief that the hereafter
is far better than the life of this world.
The accusation against 'human bombs', labelling them as cowards who
'target' innocent civilians, and especially women and children, is
one of the most common claims. Yet, how can some one who is willing
to die in an explosion be a coward in any sense of the word? Another
form that propaganda takes is to claim that human bombs are 'brainwashed'
into becoming human bombs in the belief that this sort of death will
guarantee instant entry into heaven and the sexual favours of a large number
of beautiful virgins. This is no more than a base attempt to cheapen what is
an act of extraordinary courage and to blacken the reputation of the martyr
and of Islam itself. A martyr's death in Islam is a 'good death' but the
concept of a 'good death' is not restricted to Islam, and has been part of
almost every culture and
civilisation. Native Americans from the Plains Tribes used to cry,
'Today is a good day to die!' as a battle cry. Overcoming fear of
death is an act of courage in itself, and the idea of redemption
through death is a universal one. Human bombs are those who are
more devoted to the cause of justice than they are to life. If
offered the opportunity of a decent life on this earth, not only
for themselves but for the oppressed people for whom they act,
there is no doubt that they would prefer life to death. On the
other hand, the Qur'an declares that one should fear (respect)
Allah more than one fears mankind. This means that human threats
of punishment and human enticements designed to distract an individual
from the cause of justice should be of less significance than serving
Allah. Islam is NOT a religion of Peace, as so many have been declaring
recently. It is a religion primarily of Justice (Adl) tempered by Mercy,
and of Peace with Justice. Peace without justice is to be found in a
prison cell and is worthless.
Moreover, every human bomb would prefer to be able to fight the enemy
on an equal footing, and preferably fight those leaders who carry the
primary responsibility for the crimes committed by the enemy. The
attacks of human bombs are resistance acts of utter desperation,
the last resort of brave fighters who have no hope of confronting
the enemy any other way. In this context, 'desperation' does not
equal hopelessness, but rather a knowledge that eventual victory
for the cause is only possible through resistance of this magnitude
and that, without making ultimate sacrifices of this sort, any
realistic hope for the cause will die. In many cases, the instinct
of self-preservation is replaced by the instinct of preservation of
the cause/society for which the human bomb sacrifices his/her life.
The human bomb is willing to exchange his/her life in return for the
hope of eventual victory for his/her people or cause.
Moreover, human bombs do not 'target' innocent civilians. Nations
who declare war upon THEIR supposed enemies usually kill more
civilians than military, but this is termed 'collateral damage'
and evidently deemed to be justifiable homicide/genocide. The
death of civilians in a human bomb attack is no different except
in the fact that the number of casualties tends to be far smaller.
I would imagine that EVERY resistance fighter would make a standing
offer to engage in hand-to-hand combat with one of the enemy
terrorists, such as Ariel Sharon, and fight on equal terms.
Since the enemies who must bear primary responsibility for all
'sanctioned' crimes against humanity ARE cowards who hide behind
their armies, their military technology and their police forces,
the human bomb's only option of armed resistance is to go into
battle without any weapons, apart from the willingness to sacrifice
his/her own life, and a handful of nails. Once upon a time, even
the West believed in saluting a brave enemy. There is no courage
in pressing a button to send off a 'smart bomb' from a safe distance.
The individual who becomes one with the bomb: that is true courage!
In the particular instance of human bomb attacks in Occupied
Palestine (whether Haifa, Hebron or Jerusalem), it is important
to note that there are NO Zionist civilians. Any Zionist who
has chosen to invade the Palestinian homeland, whether called
'settler' or 'immigrant' as well as all descendants of those
invaders who choose to remain in Palestine cannot be considered
civilians. Their very presence in the homeland is an ongoing
declaration of war against the Palestinian people.
Moreover, it is a blatant form of hypocrisy for individuals who are
quite happy to urge their governments to 'nuke 'em all' to pretend
to some higher standard of morality than the human bomb, who is
resisting a brutal occupation in the only manner given to him/her.
Evidently the helpless and powerless are held to a far higher
standard of morality, ethics and behaviour than ANY government
and certainly a far higher standard than any 'Super-power'. The
U.S. urges the world to deliver Usama bin Laden 'dead or alive'
and mistakenly vapourises villages filled with its own allies in
Afghanistan in its 'war against terror'. Now indeed the U.S. is
following the Zionist example by claiming that it can destroy,
demolish, defeat and crush any supposed enemy as an act of
'pre-emptive self-defence' whether or not that supposed enemy
has expressed any intention of attacking the U.S. or indeed,
whether or not the enemy in question even possesses ANY real
weapons capable of threatening the U.S. in any significant fashion.
The U.S. is quite quick to point out the horrors of a nuclear attack
and yet it is the ONLY nation that has used the atomic bomb, not
against enemy soldiers, by the way, but against civilians.
Moreover, the U.S. used these horrendous nuclear weapons of
mass destruction AFTER the enemy had sued for a cease-fire
and requested peace negotiations. It is the US once again
that has used radioactive weapons in the recent past, poisoning
Iraq, Yugoslavia, even Afghanistan possibly and through its proxy,
the Zionist entity, Palestine as well with depleted uranium. Indeed,
the greatest danger of becoming the victims of an attack by
'weapons of mass destruction' comes from the U.S., whether in
the form of deliberate attack or from an 'accident' in a nuclear
power plant.
There is a curious dichotomy in contemporary Western philosophy.
On the one hand, the cutthroat nature of 'free enterprise' is extolled
and corporate pirates and raiders mistake the ancient code of the
samurai warrior as their example, believing that courage consists
of ruthlessness and an entire absence of hesitation or pity towards
a competitor. Crimes are defined in strictly statutory terms rather
than moral or ethical terms, and there are no real crimes in business
except the crime of getting caught. This is the Western dream of
capitalism. On the other hand, there is a deceptively soft-hearted
underbelly to Western philosophy that substitutes slogans and law
for true compassion with such declarations as 'children have rights'
and punitive legislation purporting to 'protect the victims' as the
answer to everything. Punitive legislation and prison expansion take
the place of any fundamental code of ethics or morality. In the same
way, Bush has increased 'defence spending' rather than addressing the
defects in U.S. foreign policy and exploring the causes of so-called
'terrorism'. Apart from this, what message is being given to children
when the greatest heroes in the U.S. are those who have trampled
ruthlessly upon the competition to achieve an obscene amount of
wealth and status? Money is the only thing that speaks volumes in
the West, and those who have succeeded in becoming kings of the
dung heap known as capitalism are the true role models of the West.
People are appalled by the drug 'lords' and organised crime in the
West, but the drug organisations are simply an extended application
of capitalist 'values'. The 'war against drugs' is as illusory as
the 'war against terror', and its real function is to place a
large part of Latin America under direct US control. Drugs
trafficking is in fact used by the U.S. government to subsidise
its own covert operations and it is an open secret that the CIA
is heavily involved in the whole business of illegal drugs.
In the U.S., the greatest threat from the 11 September attacks
actually was not loss of life but the fact that Wall Street was put
out of commission for almost a week.
It is not surprising then to find a society that extols the value
of material goods and the reality of this world alone recoiling in
horror from human bomb attacks. After all, to those who believe only
in the value of money and material possessions, any threat to this
life and material wealth is the ultimate threat. Furthermore, for
an entity that claims itself to be a 'religious state', it is curious
to find so many Zionist Jews whose greatest fear is meeting their
Creator. They depict those who see no threat in death and who are
willing to show the ultimate courage in bearing witness to the
cause of justice as 'inhuman monsters'. To admit the heroism intrinsic
in such acts would is to force unwelcome comparisons with the enemy's
own cowardice.
Then there is the claim, made by Bush as well as Zionists, that
suicide bombers act through hatred 'of our freedom and our democratic
way of life.' This claim is backed by misquotes from the Holy Qur'an
or phrases taken out of context that purportedly urge Muslims to kill
'unbelievers'. In point of fact, the Holy Qur'an only justifies such
killings when the unbelievers have repeatedly shown 'bad faith' (in
the sense of breaking promises and demonstrating deceit), and/or
threaten the believers and/or their families or religion with
extinction. For the most part, the Holy Qur'an urges believers
to demonstrate patience (Sabr) and to live in Peace when possible,
moreover cautioning against all actions motivated by hatred.
'O ye who believe! Be always upright for Allah, bearing witness
with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite you not to
act equitably...' Al Maidah, 8.
In this context, it is interesting to note that the five-page
document written by Muhammad Atta contained admonitions
against any actions motivated by hatred or anger. In the 'letter',
he declares:
'If you slaughter, do not cause the discomfort of those you are killing...
Do not seek revenge for yourself. Strike for God's sake. One time
Ali bin Abi Talib , may God bless him, fought with a non-believer.
The non-believer spat on Ali, may God bless him. Ali [unclear] his
sword, but did not strike him. When the battle was over, the
companions of the prophet asked him why he had not smitten the
non-believer. He said, "After he spat at me, I was afraid that
I would be striking at him in revenge for myself, so I lifted
my sword." After he renewed his intentions, he went back and
killed the man. This means that before you do anything, make
sure that your soul is prepared to do everything for God only.'
In fact, the letter in its entirety, if genuine, is worth studying
as it gives insight into the spirit and state of some one preparing
for martyrdom. Unfortunately, Western newspapers only published
mutilated and mistranslated excerpts from the document that
made little sense.
The Zionist claim that Palestinians throw their women and children
at Zionist bullets is not even worthy of discussion, except as an
example of the general absurdity of Zionist propaganda.
Propaganda and distortion is often motivated by fear of the
truth. In the case of the human bombs and other martyrs, their
very deaths bear witness to the crimes of the enemy. The enemies
of justice, therefore, will do everything in their power to
prevent the world from comprehending either the causes of martyrdom
or the act of martyrdom itself.
It is clear that the world needs to ask itself what sort of
society defines as terrorism the act of a young man or woman,
driven by desperation to turn a handful of nails into a device
that will rip him or her apart, but considers as admirable the
act of those who pick off their enemies with sophisticated weapons
and bombs from a safe distance.
#####################################################
3) (In Arabic) Human Bombs in the Balance of Public Rights: a critique of
the mindset which views the political world only in terms of individual
rights, by Ibrahim Alloush. Go to:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/arabi/alQanabiluAlBashriya.htm
#####################################################
4) (In Spanish) Jordania y la estrategia sionista en el Mundo Árabe
http://www.nodo50.org/csca/miscelanea/jordania-alloush_18-02-02.html
#####################################################
#####################################################
The Free Arab Voice is an alternative newsletter that comes out
only in cyberspace.
For other FAV issues, please visit:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/favPrevIssues.htm
Sign a real right of return petition at:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/A-RealRightOfReturnPetition.htm
Check out a special slide show on Palestine at:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/RememberPalestine.htm
Read the In Response to Defeatist Thought series at:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/InResponseToDefeatistThought0.htm
To read on Arab contributions to civilization, click on:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/arabCivilMain.htm
For Palestinian Poems in English, go to:
http://www.freearabvoice.org/rhythmsOfTheStorm.htm
The Free Arab Voice welcomes your comments, suggestions, and
submissions. If you do not wish to be on FAV's mailing list,
please indicate as much by writing to us.
|