In India and Israel, the burden of protest falls on the victims of injustice - By Pankaj Mishra - THE GUARDIAN

OBAMA preaching non-violence to 'Muslim World' appears as world's most stupefied hypocrite, nominally ruling over world's most brutal warmongering mafia that has ever assembled on the face of earth. US at the moment is more lethal and dangerous than Hitler ever could have been. The world rose up to tackle Hitler's convoluted world-view. Millions of innocents perished. It is an open question, what forces will be needed to defang the new menace threatening the world. Ironically, Pankaj Mishra, an Indian Brahmin, is able to single out world's two most notorious conspirators, that are always in the forefront of immense blood baths that world has ever witnessed. The world has to know and recognize its tormentors, who pose as victims and are relentlessly infiltrating civilized world to turn it into hell on earth.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
------------------------------

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/06/india-israel-obama-non-violence?INTCMP=SRCH

In India and Israel, the burden of protest falls on the victims of injustice

The moment of truth is approaching for Obama and his like who preach the high morality of non-violence to the powerless

• Comments (382)

• 
• • Pankaj Mishra
  • The Guardian, Monday 6 June 2011
  • Article history
At a dark moment in postcolonial history, when many US-backed despots seemed indestructible, the great Urdu poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz, whose centenary falls this year, wrote: "We shall witness [the day] when the enormous mountains of tyranny blow away like cotton". That miraculous day promised by the poet finally came in Egypt and Tunisia this spring. We have since witnessed many of the world's acknowledged legislators scrambling to get on the right side of history.   Addressing – yet again – the "Muslim world" last month, Barack Obama hailed "the moral force of non-violence", through which "the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades". But Obama failed to acknowledge to his highly politicised audience the fact that the United States enabled, and often required, the "relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity". And he gave no sign that he would respect the moral authority of non-violent mass movements ranged against America's closest allies, India and Israel.   Let's not forget: before the Arab spring of 2011, there was the Kashmiri summer of 2010. Provoked by the killing of a teenage boy in June last year, hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris took to the streets to protest against India's brutal military occupation of the Muslim-majority valley. Summer is the usual "season for a face-off in Kashmir", as the Indian filmmaker Sanjay Kak writes in Until My Freedom Has Come: The New Intifada in Kashmir, a lively anthology of young Kashmiri writers, activists, rappers and graphic artists. There is little doubt that Kashmiris, emboldened by the Arab spring, will again stage massive demonstrations in their towns and villages.   The chances of a third intifada in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel are just as high, as Binyamin Netanyahu devises ever greater hurdles to self-determination for his Arab subjects. In the next few months we will see more clearly than before how India and Israel – billed respectively as the world's largest, and the Middle East's only, democracy – respond to unarmed mass movements.   Certainly, they have shown no sign of fresh thinking, even as the victims of their occupations grow more inventive. India's security establishment fell back last summer on reflexes conditioned by two decades of fighting a militant insurgency during which more than 70,000 people, mostly civilians, have died; 8,000 have "disappeared", often into mass graves; and innumerable others have been subjected to "systematic torture", according to a rare public outburst by the Red Cross.   Last summer soldiers fired at demonstrators, killing 112 civilians, mostly teenagers (Kashmir has many of its own Hamza al-Khatibs). The government imposed round-the-clock curfews (one village was locked in for six weeks) and banned text messaging on mobile phones, while police spies infiltrated Facebook groups in an attempt to hunt down demo organisers.   Faced with non-violent Palestinian protesters, who correctly deduce that their methods have a better chance of influencing world opinion than Hamas's suicide bombers, Israel hasn't varied its repertoire of repression much. For years now the West Bank village of Bil'in has campaigned against the Israeli government's appropriation of its lands. Israel responded by jailing its leader, Abdallah Abu Rahmah, often called the Palestinian Gandhi, for 15 months – "solely", according to Amnesty International "for the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression and assembly".   Encouraged by Egyptians and Tunisians, masses of unarmed Palestinians marched last month to the borders of Israel to mark the dispossession of 750,000 Palestinians in Mandate Palestine. Israeli soldiers met them with live gunfire, killing more than a dozen and wounding scores of others.   Of course, occupations damage the occupier no less than the occupied. Revanchist nationalism has corroded democratic and secular institutions in both India and Israel, which, not surprisingly, have developed a strong military relationship in the recent decade. Hindu nationalists feel an elective affinity with Israel for its apparently uncompromising attitude to Muslim minorities. In 1993 the then Israeli foreign minister, Shimon Peres, reportedly advised the Hindu nationalist leader LK Advani to alter the demographic composition of the mutinous Kashmir valley by settling Hindus there. Advani, later India's deputy prime minister, fondly quoted from Netanyahu's book on terrorism, given to him by the author. Israeli counter-insurgency experts now regularly visit Kashmir.   India and Israel, both products of botched imperial partitions, were the Bush government's two most avid international boosters of the catastrophic "war on terror", fluently deploying the ideological templates of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – democracy versus terrorism, liberalism versus fundamentalism – to justify their own occupations.   Aggressively jingoistic media helped hardliners in both countries to demonise their political adversaries as terrorists or terrorist sympathisers. Meanwhile, liberal opinion grew almost inaudible. Writing recently in the New York Review of Books, the Israeli scholar and activist David Shulman lamented: "Israeli academic intellectuals as a group have failed to mount a sustained and politically effective protest against the occupation." This is also true of the Indian intelligentsia.   So the burden of non-violent protest in India and Israel has fallen almost entirely on the victims of the occupation. Indeed, many liberal commentators try to condone their passivity by deploring the absence of non-violent protests in Kashmir and Palestine (never mind the fact that the first intifadas in both places in the late 1980s turned violent only after being savagely suppressed).   The moment of truth is fast approaching for those powerful men who preach the high morality of non-violence to the powerless. Only an American veto seems likely to prevent the member states of the UN from declaring a new Palestinian state in September. But Palestinians may rise up against their colonial overlords well before this expected rejection. And, as the political philosopher Michael Walzer points out, Israel would then confront "something radically new. How can it resist masses of men and women, children too, just walking across the ceasefire lines?"   The tactics of young tech-savvy Kashmiris have already confused and bewildered the Indian government, whose recent actions – censoring the Economist, forcing spying rights out of BlackBerry and Google – evoke the last-minute desperation of the Arab world's mukhabarat (secret police) states. The mass movement in Kashmir, which has emerged after two decades of a futile militant insurgency and has no compromising links to Pakistan, poses, as the Kashmiri journalist Parvaiz Bukhari writes in Until My Freedom Has Come, an unprecedented "moral challenge to New Delhi's military domination over the region".   The stage is set, then, for a summer of protests, of unarmed masses rising up to express, in Obama's words, "a longing for freedom that has built up for years". They may well meet with live bullets rather than offers of negotiation and compromise. It will be fascinating to see if Obama makes good his claim last month that the United States "opposes violence and repression" and "welcomes change that advances self-determination". Certainly, as the corpses of the Palestinian and Kashmiri Hamza al-Khatibs pile up, there will be the usual flurry of intellectual rationalisations – the bogey of Islamic terror will again be invoked. And we will witness how the "enormous mountains of tyranny" in the world's greatest democracies do not blow away like cotton.

Question in public arena around the world : Will US invade Pakistan? - Ghulam Muhammed

Question in public arena around the world : Will US invade Pakistan?

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

------------------------------

http://rt.com/news/usa-pakistan-afghanistan-war/

US a very young nation with too much power – ex-Pakistani spy chief

permalink email story to a friend print version

Published: 31 May, 2011, 12:25

US a very young nation with too much power.
(46.6Mb) embed video

TAGS: Conflict, Military, NATO, Asia, Interview, Middle East, Politics, Terrorism, Afghanistan, USA

Amid the fallout between Washington and Islamabad over the killing of Osama Bin Laden, RT spoke to Hamid Gul, former chief of Pakistan's Intelligence Agency. He calls the US a haughty empire spoiled by a sense of authority.
­“You have to understand the arrogance of the West, especially the US. They are a very young nation that received too much power. They created the image of Bin Laden to justify war with Afghanistan,” said Gul. “They wanted to finally look as if they are victorious and make the world believe it, because they can’t forget the defeat in Vietnam.”

Hamid Gul stated that while US had been using the image of Bin Laden for the past several years, the terrorist had been dead for a long time already:

“Osama Bin Laden was not killed. He died of natural causes years ago. In any case, even if he was alive, he was a living dead. Because if he was hiding in Pakistan, let’s assume that the story is right, then how effective could he be from there?” stated Gul.

According to former chief of Pakistani Intelligence Agency the US had an obvious aim in staging Bin Laden’s death.

However, Gul maintains Bin Laden’s death will on no account cause terrorism to double.

“Osama was not a symbol of resistance. I don’t think he did much, I don’t think he carried out 9/11,” he said.

---------------

Google ---

Rogue USA Shadow Regime Staging & Kickstarting WWIII – Alex ...

6 May 2011 ... He warns America, 'YOU CAN NOT AFFORD TO LOOSE PAKISTAN AS A FRIEND ... Former Pakistani ISI Chief Hamid Gul: “God Help America! ... (Turn off your TV) Protest Rogue SAS Murders & Your Oppressive Regime ..... French flag, Spanish flag, Japanese flag, Arabic flag, Russian flag, Greek flag, Dutch flag ...
powerpointparadise.com/.../rogue-u-s-shadow-regime-staging-kickstarting-w-w-iii-a-jones-pakistani-gen-hamid-gul/ - Cached

Gen. Hamid Gul: US will start WW3 if war expands to Pakistan

1 Jun 2011 ... Hamid Gul: US will start WW3 if war expands to Pakistan ... Prison Planet TV · Infowars.com Twitter · Alex Jones' Facebook · Infowars store ... But if a person suggests America should take responsibility for a mess of America's .... fought in the Russian Labor Revolution in 1905, alongside Trotsky, ...
www.prisonplanet.com › Featured Stories - Cached

1

2

3

4

5

6

The Identity card By Arati R. Jerath - Timecrest - The Times of India - Mumbai

The most welcome development of Muslim mainstreaming in India is, that unlike all Brahminical political formulations from Congress to BJP to CPM, Muslim regrouping is not based on hate, insecurity and divisionary politics. On the contrary, Muslim leaders are fully aware of the power of inclusion in their quest to provide a healthy, moral and peaceful alternative.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

------------------------------

http://www.timescrest.com/society/the-identity-card-5458

TIME CREST, THE TIMES OF INDIA

COMMUNITY CALCULUS

The identity card

Arati R Jerath | May 28, 2011

CHANGING COLOURS

The emergence of Muslim political parties is expected to fracture India's complex electoral mosaic even further

The Congress party's hat trick in Assam in the recent state polls almost overshadowed a significant development that marks what could be a new chapter in the Indian Muslim narrative. Here, in only its third election, the six-year old Muslim-dominated All India United Democratic Front, floated by perfume baron Badruddin Ajmal, beat the BJP and the AGP to emerge as the main opposition force. It almost doubled its seats, from 10 to 18, came second in another 17 constituencies and bumped up its vote share from 9 per cent in 2006 to 13 per cent in 2011.

It was a remarkable achievement. Muslim political parties - with two honourable exceptions, the Indian Union Muslim League in Kerala and the All India Majlis-Ittehad-ul-Muslameen in Hyderabad - have rarely been more than a flash-in-thepan phenomenon, never surviving beyond one election. But, as the rise of the AIUDF indicates, things seem to be changing. Indian Muslims, like the Dalits and the OBCs, are increasingly rejecting the politics of patronage and opting for identity politics through community-based parties. In Assam, they've put their faith in the AIUDF. In Uttar Pradesh, it's the Peace Party of India that, in just three years, is making waves in Muslim pockets. And more recently, the ultra-conservative Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, which has consistently opposed electoral politics as "haraam", announced its political debut with the launch of the Welfare Party of India.

The trend is bound to fracture India's complex electoral mosaic further. At the same time, it signals the start of a long over-due process of mainstreaming. For six decades, Muslims have functioned on the margins of Indian politics, haunted by insecurity to seek protection and patronage from the so-called secular parties. In the aftermath of Partition and widespread communal violence, they turned to the Congress. Later, as the BJP rose, and the Congress declined, in the wake of the demolition of the Babri Masjid, they surrendered their votes to regional secular formations like Mulayam Singh's Samajwadi Party and Lalu Yadav's Rashtriya Janata Dal.

Today, they are emerging from the shadows of fear to behave like other social groups that are leveraging their numbers through political parties of their own for a better deal. And like these groups, Muslims too are staking claim for their share of resources and more equitable development. What is significant is that unlike past efforts by Muslim groups to mobilise community votes, the political idiom of the newer parties is notable for the absence of emotive, or communal, rhetoric. Mobilisation is no longer on the basis of religion. Parties like the AIUDF and PPI talk mainly of education, employment, health care and social justice.

The push for a new politics, according to Manzoor Alam, chairman of the Institute of Objective Studies, is coming from the youth who have understood the dynamics of the democratic electoral process and want to leverage it to fulfill their aspirations for a better life. "The idea is developing a better bargaining capacity for the community by influencing votes in Muslim-dominated pockets. It is a strategic and tactical move, nothing to do with communal polarisation, " he says. "Dalits and OBCs have their own resistance. Why not Muslims ? They are only trying to get their due within the constitutional framework."

The eye-opener was the Sachar Committee report which, in 2006, mapped the community's falling human development indices in excruciating detail to declare Muslims as worse off than Dalits. "Muslims realised that mainstream secular parties have done nothing for them. They use Muslims during elections and then forget about them. They make promises without delivery, " says Alam. Since then, the community has been introspecting for effective ways to use its considerable numbers to get ahead.

Given the high level of trust deficit between Hindus and Muslims, there are many who see this as a dangerous trend. Certainly in Assam, the growing political strength of the AIUDF polarised the Hindu vote in favour of the Congress, especially in the communally-sensitive districts. But political scientist Yogendra Yadav of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies disagrees. "I would say that Muslim politics is finally becoming normal, " he maintains. "Muslims are using their identity like everyone else. They trade it, bend it, stretch it, gerrymander it. Let me stress that it's not communal. The appeal is not Islam. It is identity. Muslim-ness is very much constitutive of that identity. "

The discernible shift in the mood on the ground has sent a frisson of anticipation through the community. It's the hot topic of debate in Urdu newspapers and on Muslim websites which have become platforms for avid discussions on the Jamaat's new political face or the success of the AIUDF. Interestingly, a survey done by psephologist Yashwant Deshmukh's C-Voter in November 2010 found that more than 50 per cent of Muslim students in minority colleges and madarsas wholeheartedly supported the idea of having political parties for, of and by the community.

While the Sachar Committee report was the catalyst for change, the BSP seems to have been the role model. "Muslims have seen how the BSP has given respectability and status to the Dalits, " says social activist Tanweer Alam. "White collar Dalits are coming forward and bargaining with Brahmins. They are talking as equals. After seeing the success of the BSP, Muslims have started realising the value of their vote."

Certainly, the AIUDF and PPI are trying to use the electoral calculus of the BSP to do their poll mathematics. In other words, cultivate a core community vote base and then add to it by putting up candidates from other social groups. The AIUDF, for instance, fielded as many as 30 non-Muslim candidates in the 80 odd seats it contested in Assam. Two of them actually won. The PPI in UP has recently entered into a coalition with seven non-Muslim parties including Ajit Singh's Jat-based Rashtriya Lok Dal.

The alliance has potential in western UP where the Jat-Muslim combination was used by Singh's father, Charan Singh, to lethal effect. Deshmukh acknowledges that he has started factoring in the PPI in his pre-poll surveys for UP where assembly elections are due in 2012.

These are early days yet, but community analysts believe that Muslim politics is finally coming of age in India. "Muslims have moved on, " says Aijaz Ilmi, editorial director of the Kanpur-based Siyasat group of publications. "For decades they were fed on a diet of Islam being in danger. Now they have realised that Muslims themselves are in danger of economic and educational obliteration. So they are taking matters into their own hands and realising that they have other options."

He believes that the Muslim psyche changed after the BJP was comprehensively defeated in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections. Suddenly, the BJP no longer looked invincible and it happened through the power of the ballot. It was a huge affirmation of democracy. This is borne out by Yadav's findings of the Muslim vote share in 2004. The morale of the community was so poor that it recorded a low voting percentage that year. But with their faith in the electoral process restored, Muslims came out in large numbers to vote in 2009, a trend that was seen again in the recent assembly elections.

Muslim politics is still evolving and it is too early to predict whether a pan-India Muslim party can come up or be successful. The community is as disparate and as divided on caste and regional lines as the Hindus. But Manzoor Alam believes that the community is realising the importance of political mobilisation, if only to act as a pressure lobby. In West Bengal, for instance, where Muslims voted almost wholesale for Mamata Banerjee's Trinamool Congress (she won 70 per cent of the seats with sizeable minority populations ), the All India Milli Council has formed a watchdog to monitor delivery on the party's election promises. At the very least, it expects her to implement the recommendations of the Sachar Committee report by increasing the community's representation in government jobs, educational institutions and grassroots political bodies like panchayats and municipal boards. "If she fails to deliver, another Muslim political party may emerge in the state where Muslims are 28 per cent of the population," he warns.

Tanweer Alam too sees the trend increasing unless mainstream secular parties like the Congress start addressing the developmental aspirations of the community. "Muslims should vote for mainstream parties," he says. "Unfortunately, mainstream parties have ignored their needs for too long."
arati.jerath@timesgroup.com

Obama has to tread most carefully with its own media's vested interest agenda - By Ghulam Muhammed

Obama has to tread most carefully with its own media's vested interest agenda
CNN, heavily staffed by Islamophobes and Zionists, has tried its best to put Former Pakistani President on the spot over Pakistan's very genuine reaction to America's blatant rape of Pakistan, a UN member's sovereignty. It is all a planned conspiracy to bring Pakistan into the neo-con planned next targeted nation for the US armed forces to move in.

In this abbreviated report, CNN Wire Staff has not given the full details of the Piers Morgan's goading Musharraf into discussing the subject in the most insensitive direct Q&A interview.

Musharraf did stress that technically it is an act of war, but it is not a declared war by the US. Neither Pakistan is necessarily forced by its people, its military and its politicians to declare a 'war' on the US, for its act of wanton violation of a proud nation's self-respect and dignity.

America and the rest of the Western world are fully aware that Pakistan is an 'epicenter' of terrorism. Obama cannot go far by so arrogantly racking up the same rage from Muslim and Arab lands, that he is at least trying to posture as going an extra mile to damp down.

Obama should beware of the adviser in his own team, who are closet Zionists and find all logic to justify another war front for America to open up.

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai
----------------------------------

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/27/pakistan.musharraf.obama/?hpt=T2

Musharraf: Obama is arrogant

By the CNN Wire Staff

May 27, 2011 -- Updated 0957 GMT (1757 HKT)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• A Navy SEAL team kills Osama bin Laden during a raid in Pakistan on May 2
• Musharraf says the raid violated Pakistan's sovereignty and was an "act of war"
• The former prime minister calls bin Laden's death "absolutely illegal"
• Pakistani intelligence commits a "terrible failure" in not knowing where bin Laden was

(CNN) -- U.S. President Barack Obama is showing "arrogance" in the aftermath of a mission that killed terror leader Osama bin Laden, said former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in an interview that aired on CNN Thursday night.

Musharraf further called the May raid an "act of war."

"Certainly no country has a right to intrude into any other country," Musharraf told Piers Morgan. "If technically or legally you see it, it's an act of war."

The American president said this week in an interview on British television that, if the opportunity arose, he would do the same thing again to take out al Qaeda terrorists.

"I think such arrogance should not be shown publicly to the world," Musharraf said. "I think it is arrogance that: 'We don't care. We don't care for your national opinion. We don't care for your people. We will come in and do the same thing.' This is arrogance."

Musharraf conceded that it was a "terrible mishap, a terrible failure" that Pakistani intelligence didn't seem to know more about bin Laden's whereabouts, saying they should have know he was living in a compound in Abbottabad, a short distance from a Pakistan military academy.

A Navy SEAL team killed the al Qaeda leader during a 40-minute assault on the compound in the early morning hours of May 2.

Musharraf called bin Laden's death "absolutely illegal."

Asked by Morgan if it was an unlawful assassination, he responded: "I don't want to get involved in these legalities of the issue," but "technically, theoretically, I'll agree."
 

CNN's Ed Payne contributed to this report

BOLLYWOOD'S OWN CONTRIBUTION TO THE WORLD TERRORISM DEBATE

BOLLYWOOD'S OWN CONTRIBUTION TO THE WORLD TERRORISM DEBATE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYK4j0u4Ah8&feature=player_embedded

Netanyahu relegated himself to the footnotes history By Gideon Levy - HAARETZ

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-relegated-himself-to-the-footnotes-history-1.364110



Thu, May 26, 2011 Iyyar 22, 5771

• Published 02:51 26.05.11
• Latest update 02:51 26.05.11

Netanyahu relegated himself to the footnotes history

Now it is certain: Netanyahu will go down in the history of Israel and of the world as a forgotten footnote.

By Gideon Levy

The "speech of his life" must now quickly become the speech of Prime MInister Benjamin Netanyahu's political demise. The hour is pressing, there is no time and nothing is going to come of Netanyahu any more. Even the snake oil peddlers who proffered masses of expectations in advance of the speech, who told us that Netanyahu 2 is different from Netanyahu 1, that the man had "matured," "internalized," "grown wiser" and "become more moderate," that he has learned the lessons of his previous term in office and that we can expect "sensational surprises" from him - they, too, must now admit the bitter truth. 

The Israeli Leonid Brezhnev is occupying the Prime Minister's Bureau. A man of yesterday, frozen and rigid, uncompromising, deaf to the sounds of his surroundings and blind to the changing times. His term in office, heaven forbid, must not drag on for nearly 20 years, the way Brezhnev's did.

In the coming days, he might still be able bask in the warmth of the American legislators' hollow ovations. But once this foam on the surface of the water disperses, the question will arise in full force: What now? Then it will become clear that this prime minister has got us in trouble. Big trouble. We lost the Palestinians a long time ago, and now also the White House's America. Once the speech ended, the chances ended. Before it, we didn't know (ostensibly ) where the prime minister was heading. After it, we know the crystal clear answer: nowhere. To some more gained time after which there is nothing, except for increasing dangers and a chance missed once again.

To Netanyahu's credit it must be said he is not the first. Quite a number of his predecessors wallowed in the belief that empty and lost time will heal all ills. For way too much time here, the belief in time has been the only belief. But the times they are a-changing, there's a battle outside and it's raging and Netanyahu isn't budging from the old road. No and no and no. No to the 1967 borders, no to Jerusalem for two nations, no to the right of return, no to the Palestinians' justified demand to be free, like all peoples.

Now it is certain: Netanyahu will go down in the history of Israel and of the world as a forgotten footnote. What did he do? What did he coin? That we live in "the land of our forefathers" and the settlers are not occupiers. Good job, Bibi. That he is prepared to be "generous," without understanding that we are the occupiers and occupiers, just like robbers, can never be "generous."

Rather, what we have to be is just. We are not "giving up" anything; we can only restore what we have stolen to its rightful owners and restore justice. Who is going to buy the tiny crumbs he has thrown to the Palestinians and to the world? At one time, perhaps, there were buyers in the world for this stale merchandise. No more. There is a new world around us, and Netanyahu refuses to acknowledge its existence. What is he going to tell this world now, a world of popular uprisings, struggles for freedoms and human rights? That he is in favor of freedom for the Arab peoples, just not in our backyard?

What is he going to tell the demonstrators at the fence before September and those who will raise their hands in favor of a Palestinian state in September? That this is the land of our forefathers, exclusively our forefathers? That Congress applauded him? At the end of this oratory season, the Israelis, too, will have to ask themselves: What next? Blind and deaf, will we continue to follow this Brezhnev of ours? And how will we confront the storm raging around us? And what will we do with U.S. President Barack Obama, who at long last will have to act and not just talk?

Netanyahu could have been a successful businessman. He could have been flying around in private planes to his heart's desire, without anyone asking where they came from; he could have been hobnobbing in the palatial abodes of the world's zillionaires, enjoying life's pleasures and having fun with his wife as much as he liked, without anyone asking anything. The most fateful mistake of his life was going into politics. Why did he need this for, all the Mimounas and the primaries, the deals and the spins, the Danny Danons and the Hotovelys, if this is what he's planning to leave behind? Why did he have to run a first time and a second time, if all he's going to leave behind is such emptiness and disaster? Why does he deserve this and, above all, why have we deserved this?

Lessons From Tahrir Sq. By Thomas L. Friedman - The New York Times

"May I suggest a Tahrir Square alternative? Announce that every Friday from today forward will be “Peace Day,” and have thousands of West Bank Palestinians march nonviolently to Jerusalem, carrying two things — an olive branch in one hand and a sign in Hebrew and Arabic in the other. The sign should say: “Two states for two peoples. We, the Palestinian people, offer the Jewish people a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders — with mutually agreed adjustments — including Jerusalem, where the Arabs will control their neighborhoods and the Jews theirs.”

If Palestinians peacefully march to Jerusalem by the thousands every Friday with a clear peace message, it would become a global news event. Every network in the world would be there. Trust me, it would stimulate a real peace debate within Israel — especially if Palestinians invited youth delegations from around the Arab world to join the marches, carrying the Saudi peace initiative in Hebrew and Arabic. Israeli Jews and Arabs should be invited to march as well. Together, the marchers could draw up their own peace maps and upload them onto YouTube as a way of telling their leaders what Egyptian youth said to President Hosni Mubarak: “We’re not going to let you waste another day of our lives with your tired mantras and maneuvering.”

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

--------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/opinion/25friedman.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

Op-Ed Columnist

Lessons From Tahrir Sq.

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: May 24, 2011

Cairo

Josh Haner/The New York Times

Thomas L. Friedman

 

Being back in Cairo reminds me that there are two parties in this region that have been untouched by the Arab Spring: the Israelis and the Palestinians. Too bad, because when it comes to ossified, unimaginative, oxygen-deprived governments, the Israelis and Palestinians are right up there with pre-revolutionary Egypt and Tunisia. I mean, is there anything less relevant than the prime minister of Israel going to the U.S. Congress for applause and the leader of the Palestinians going to the U.N. — instead of to each other?

Both could actually learn something from Tahrir Square. To the Palestinians I would say: You believe the Israelis are stiffing you because they think they have you in box. If you resort to violence, they will brand you terrorists. And if you don’t resort to violence, the Israelis will just pocket the peace and quiet and build more settlements. Your dilemma is how to move Israel in a way that won’t blow up in your face or require total surrender.

You have to start with the iron law of Israeli-Arab peace: whichever party has the Israeli silent majority on its side wins. Anwar Sadat brought the Israeli majority over to his side when he went to Israel, and he got everything he wanted. Yasir Arafat momentarily did the same with the Oslo peace accords. How could Palestinians do that again today? I can tell you how not to do it. Having the U.N. General Assembly pass a resolution recognizing an independent Palestinian state will only rally Israelis around Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, giving him another excuse not to talk.

 

May I suggest a Tahrir Square alternative? Announce that every Friday from today forward will be “Peace Day,” and have thousands of West Bank Palestinians march nonviolently to Jerusalem, carrying two things — an olive branch in one hand and a sign in Hebrew and Arabic in the other. The sign should say: “Two states for two peoples. We, the Palestinian people, offer the Jewish people a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders — with mutually agreed adjustments — including Jerusalem, where the Arabs will control their neighborhoods and the Jews theirs.”

If Palestinians peacefully march to Jerusalem by the thousands every Friday with a clear peace message, it would become a global news event. Every network in the world would be there. Trust me, it would stimulate a real peace debate within Israel — especially if Palestinians invited youth delegations from around the Arab world to join the marches, carrying the Saudi peace initiative in Hebrew and Arabic. Israeli Jews and Arabs should be invited to march as well. Together, the marchers could draw up their own peace maps and upload them onto YouTube as a way of telling their leaders what Egyptian youth said to President Hosni Mubarak: “We’re not going to let you waste another day of our lives with your tired mantras and maneuvering.”

 

Crazy, I know. Bibi is reading this and laughing: “The Palestinians will never do that. They could never get Hamas to adopt nonviolence. It’s not who the Palestinians are.”

That is exactly what Mubarak said about the Egyptian people: “They are not capable of being anything but what they are: docile and willing to eat whatever low expectations I feed them.” But then Egyptians surprised him. How about you, Palestinians, especially Hamas? Do you have any surprise in you? Is Bibi right about you, or not?

As for Bibi, his Tahrir lesson is obvious: Sir, you are well on your way to becoming the Hosni Mubarak of the peace process. The time to make big decisions in life is when you have all the leverage on your side. For 30 years, Mubarak had all the leverage on his side to gradually move Egypt toward democracy — and he never used it. Then, when Mubarak’s people rose up, he tried to do it all in six days. But it was too late. No one believed him. So his tenure ended in ruin.

Israel today still has enormous leverage. It is vastly superior militarily and economically to the Palestinians, and it has the U.S. on its side. If Netanyahu actually put a credible, specific two-state peace map on the table — not just the same old vague promises about “painful compromises” — he could get the Americans and Europeans to toss in anything Israel wanted, including the newest weapons, NATO membership, maybe even European Union membership. It could be a security windfall for Israel. Does Bibi have any surprise in him or do the Palestinians have him right: a big faker, hiding a nationalist-religious agenda under a cloak of security?

It may be that Israeli and Palestinian leaders are incapable of surprising anyone anymore, in which case the logic on the ground will prevail: Israel will gradually absorb the whole West Bank, so, together with Israel proper, a Jewish minority will be ruling over an Arab majority. Israel’s enemies will refer to it as “the Jewish apartheid state.” America, Israel’s only true friend, will find itself having to defend an Israel whose policies it does not believe in and whose leaders it does not respect — and the tensions between the U.S. and Israel displayed in Washington last week will seem quaint by comparison.