Your Voice in a World where Zionism, Steel, and Fire, have Turned Justice Mute

 

 

"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

#####################################################

1) Fruits of the Intifada:

"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.
#####################################################

2) The Truth about Martyrdom in Arab and Islamic Culture

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.




  

    

    

    
FAV Editor: Ibrahim Alloush Editor@freearabvoice.org
Co-editors: Nabila Harb Harb@freearabvoice.org
  Muhammad Abu Nasr Nasr@freearabvoice.org
FAV Home Page - > Please click on the logo above, and we'll FAV you there :)