Volume 5 Issue 16…Dedicated to the Dialogue on Race…April 26, 2002

Agreement to abide by certain standards of conduct is a cornerstone of civil society. Among the most basic constructs for establishing such conduct are sovereignty and self-determination. Sovereignty is the right of people to exercise their independent will. Self-determination is their ability to express that will in terms of their unique perspective and relationship to the universe. No concept is more elemental to coexistence and mutual benefit than the right of people to have and control their own space. An intuitive kind of realization, it is tied to one's sense of worth or self-esteem. Commonly refereed to as pride, it is the glue that bonds a civil society.

Conversely, research has shown that humans, without the ability to express such basic needs, experience depression, despair and desperation. Stolen lives, these individuals cease to have meaning and purpose. They look for relevance through connection to some entity larger than themselves. Locked down by an oppressive society or occupation force, like diamonds, human time bombs are created. In such situations, radicals are like jewelers, cutting and polishing the rough edges. Shards of Israeli occupation and oppressive brutality, radicals do not create bombers, as jewelers do not make diamonds, they simply reveal their hidden brilliance. Exploding in frustration, young Muslims believe they are exercising the only independence and freedom left: the right to choose the time and place of one's death!

America's current foreign policy denies Muslims and nonwhite people the right of sovereignty and self-determination. Bush's so-called "war on terrorism" denies people in an occupied region the right to resist oppression. Disguised as support for democracy, America is moving into counties like Somalia, the Sudan, and the Philippines. Bush has labeled local opposition forces in these nations 'terrorists.'

Totally disregarding international conventions and treaties, America has effectively outlawed struggles of national liberation. US imperialism says, only whites have rights. Therefore, for everyone else, whites determine the amount of freedom and kind of democracy they must have. Moreover, there will be no debate on these decisions because, as Bush proclaimed, "You're either with us or against us." Unilaterally, as with Kyoto, the ABM Treaty and tariffs, America and Israel have abrogated all basic principles of civil societies by eliminating choice for everyone except whites and Jews. Regardless of antidotal evidence uncovered by a non-binding handpicked "fact finding mission," Palestinians must see the wisdom of forcing Israel to defend the legality of its policies and actions before the International Court of Justice and the War Crimes Tribunal. John 2002

Comments from the Bat Cave

The Dark Knight-Batman/White Ninja/Zorro is a fierce competitor. When asked for his comment, the Dark One/Ninja/Zorro revealed, "Tomorrow is field day, and I plan to be number one in every event."

Arabs angry over US Middle East policy have called for a boycott of US products. Iraq cut back its oil production, but pro-US nations, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, refused to use oil as an economic weapon to influence US policy. A general boycott of US products may prove more effective as individuals, rather than countries, can change consumption. Everyone can stop drinking Coke products, eating at McDonald's or buying US-designer clothes and cosmetics. Although Middle East exports make up only about 3% of the US total, an effective boycott can put pressure on US companies. In turn, these businesses can effect a change in US policy.

British statesman and philosopher Arthur James Balfour's (1848-1930) first book, A Defence of Philosophic Doubt (1879), maintained that a dispassionate skepticism of science toward religion should produce a similar skepticism toward science itself. He argued men, including philosophers, believe a great deal and that the task is to find assumptions on which "we may believe it most reasonably."

Elected to represent East Manchester (1885-1906), Balfour became secretary of Scotland in 1886 and Irish chief secretary in 1887. Because he vigorously administered the repressive Irish Crimes Act, he earned the epithet "bloody Balfour." Balfour became Prime Minister (1902), first lord of the admiralty (1915), minister of foreign affairs (1916), and in November 1917, issued the Balfour Declaration.

Balfour Declaration

After WWI, the former Ottoman Middle East became French and British mandates. Arab nationalists demanded self-government, but the discovery of oil made western powers anxious to control the region. The British government offered Theodore Herzl, creator of the Zionist idea of a Jewish state, land in East Africa. This proposal was not accepted at the time of his death (1904) when Dr. Chaim Weizmann assumed leadership of the Zionist movement. Russian born, Weizmann became a British subject with close ties to Balfour, who felt a Zionist state would be humanitarian and serve British imperial interests in the region.

The Balfour Declaration stated: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." During the war, the British supported an independent Palestine, which had a population in 1919 that totaled 700,000, of which 568,000 were Arabs, 58,000 Jews, and 74,000 others, mainly Christians.

To assuage the Arab majority's apprehension, the British tried to more precisely define the Balfour Declaration without repudiating the notion of a Jewish state in Palestine. The Britain declared it "would never impose upon them (the Arabs) a policy which that people had reason to think was contrary to their religious, their political, and their economic interests." Such statements, given a fairly small Jewish population, made peace and progress possible from 1922-1929. As Zionist claimed lands and increased immigration, the era of peace ended.

Throughout the 1930's, Zionists argued they had a historic right to the Holy Land. Legalized by the League of Nations, the Balfour Declaration promised Jews Palestine. Zionists claimed Jewish colonization constituted a democratic and progressive influence in the Middle East. Jews argued few Arabs objected, since most profited from the wealth brought into Palestine.

Arabs argued Palestine had been their country for more than a thousand years and declared the Balfour Declaration non-binding; they were not consulted during its formulation. They insisted much of Zionist economic development was unhealthy; it depended on subsidization of huge amounts of outside capital. Finally, they asked how could any people be expected to stand idly by and watch as an alien immigrant group is transformed from a minority to a majority? (Sources: Encyclopedia Americana; World History: Patterns of Civilization; Nationalism and Imperialism in the Hither East, H. Kohn (1932) and Civilizations: Past and Present)

Disgruntled wants to know: Beginning with the Balfour Declaration, UN Resolutions 242, 338, 1402, 1403 and more, Israel, aided by its imperialist allies, Britain and the US, refused to recognize the rights of Palestinians. If you were kicked off your homeland and denied basic rights, would violence be your solution?

Disgruntled says: With the destruction of Jenin a reality, a sacrilegious siege at the Church of Nativity, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ignoring repeated demands to pull out of Palestinian towns and cities, George Bush lost all credibility when he declared that Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut, "a man of peace."

Disgruntled feels: Whitewashed! According to a New York Times article (04/20/02, Slave Site for a Symbol of Freedom), the National Park Service plans to showcase the Liberty Bell in a new multi-million dollar Philadelphia pavilion on the spot that once held slave quarters. While the plan glorifies America's love of freedom, some historians see its failure to tell the whole story of slavery a whitewash of American history.

Searching for a blueprint for a peaceful future, young Americans supporting Palestinians and protesting war and racism rallied in Washington D C (4-20-02) and put the issues raised by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Poor People's Campaign" back on America's front burner. Mimicking their predecessors, these courageous young people faithfully stood against American hypocrisy. Hoping to build on the mobilization strategy developed by Mahatma Gandhi and sharpened to a point by Dr. King, young Americans hammered at the door of democracy slammed shut by the founding fathers.

Neophyte dreamers today, they were Dr. King's visions for the future. After failing to expand what was basically a southern movement into northern urban centers, Dr. King hoped the Memphis Sanitation Strike of 1968 would take the civil rights movement to a new level. Prior to joining the fight being waged by striking garbage workers, black militants were portrayed as thugs and troublemakers without any community support. Opposed by civil rights and sanitation strike leaders, who refused to consider any strategy that did not support the status quo, black militants were discounted as loud mouths. However, an alliance between students, striking workers and black power organizers produced such a huge turnout for Dr. King's march, leaders could not handle the crowd. The lack of commitment to nonviolence by many marchers necessitated a meeting of minds between Dr. King and the Invaders, representatives of the youthful coalition.

Dr. King proposed joining forces to expand the "Poor People's Campaign" into a national movement. Unfortunately, another stolen life, Dr. King was assassinated within minutes after that meeting. Although he left a clear direction, his death placed the means and methods to realize his dream in the hands of those who "slew the dreamer." Clearly, a new psychology to plan positive actions for change and a new philosophy to explain them were needed.

Observing Americans of all colors, genders, ages and ethnic backgrounds at the Washington D.C. rally struggling to build a new coalition, I was reminded of Italian architect, Renzo Piano's comments during a recent interview. "If you are a bad musician or writer, people will not buy your songs or books, but if you are a bad architect, you impose your ugliness upon the world. To be a good architect, you have to be a revolutionary because you want to change the world."

Piano's admonition addresses the dilemma young people concerned about the future and wish to change it face. In this regard, Piano's statement reminds everyone with crystal clarity that when the US Supreme Court imposed George W. Bush on America, they imposed him on the rest of the world. A major turning point for democratic ideals, like Dr. King's assassination for civil rights and black power, the Supreme Court's action changed everything for futuristic social architects at the Washington rally. Now, they must draft their own blueprint based on the reality-- America had a Supreme Court led coup d' etat. What will be done about that? Do you accept it because they did it or oppose it because it is wrong -- an anathema to the concept of democracy? John 2002

Email alaarkam@webtv.net The greatest fear of rich white nations like Britain and the USA is that Africans throughout the Diaspora will unite on the issue of reparations. They fear President Mugabe because he is determined to restore to the Zimbabwean people the rich farmland Europeans stole from them. They fear the reparations movement because it demands complete restoration of all that oppressive white governments robbed us of, including our mother tongue, our original culture, our land and our ability to self-govern.

Email leekuk@yahoo.com The fact that the original Hebrews were Black, or that North and South America once belonged to an indigenous group called Indians, or that the Chinese, Japanese or Europeans were originally Black gives little solace when the fact is not accepted. It's like evicted tenants wailing that the house (or land) "used to be" theirs. Such statements of fact mean nothing in the face of power, which determines truth or falsity of an argument; power dominates and enforces its belief. Until Black people have power-- economic, political, religious and military power-- our words are like those of a fool, "...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Our people abandon us, our leaders betray us, seduced and drawn to our powerful oppressors. Intellectual power, moral and military power must be our objective and they will only be achieved covertly, clandestinely, quietly and by a small, focused group of individuals. As the Zionists say, "By deception we will conquer...."

Email: Copier102@aol.com To all the "Islam-bashing Christians during that Osama bin Laden Affair": Where is your outrage at the Israeli siege of the Church of Nativity in Bethlehem? Now that Jews, who do not believe in Jesus Christ, are attacking his birthplace, you are quiet as mice! It's amazing watching USA Christian Coalition Pat Robertson on TV justifying and supporting Jews that don't believe in Jesus Christ. Let's see, how do you pronounce H - Y - P - O - C - R - I - T - E - S?

Intuit's Vibe

In school, I was taught the names

Columbus, Cortez, and Pizzaro

And a dozen other filthy murders.

A bloodline all the way to General Miles,

Daniel Boone and General Eisenhower.

No one mentioned the names

Of even a few of the victims.

But don't you remember Chaske, whose spine

was crushed so quickly by Mr. Pizzaro's boot?

What words did he cry into the dust?

What was the familiar name

Of that young girl who danced so gracefully

That everyone in the village sang with her-

Before Cortez' sword hacked off her arms

As she protested the burning of her sweetheart?

That young man's name was Many Deeds,

And he had been a leader of a band of fighters

Called the Redstick Hummingbirds, who slowed

The march of Cortez' army with only a few

Spears and stones which now lay still

In the mountains and remember.

Greenrock Woman was the name

Of that old lady who walked right up

And spat in Columbus' face.

We must remember that, and remember

Laughing Otter the Taino who tried to stop

Columbus and who was taken away as a slave.

We never saw him again.

In school I learned of heroic discoveries

Made by liars and crooks.

The courage of millions of sweet and true people

Was not commemorated.

Let us then declare a holiday

For ourselves and make a parade that begins

With Columbus' victims and continues

Even to our grandchildren who will be named

In their honor.

Because isn't it true that even the summer

Grass here in this land whispers those names,

And every creek has accepted the responsibility

Of singing those names? And nothing can stop

The wind from howling those names around

The corners of the school.

Why else would the birds sing

So much sweeter here than in other lands?

A DISH reader sent me a thank-you note and forwarded a copy of remarks made in the U.S. Senate by James M. Inhofe (R-OK), who lists seven reasons why Israel is entitled to the land they occupy. In response, I wrote: As you say, the issues surrounding the Middle East are complex. Yet, I am not so sure the essay by Inhofe is a definitive recounting of history.

If we use Inhofe's line of reasoning in support of the Israelis right to own land in the region, then we should give the USA back to Native Americans. After all, they occupied it before Columbus "discovered" America. Inhofe would never advance such an argument in their favor were they to try and reclaim the land of their ancestors. And, as far as having suffered mightily goes, the US drove Native Americans to the brink of extinction. The Jewish holocaust of WWII certainly does not compare, numerically, to what America did to its indigenous people. So, it is strange that for the Israelis we can recognize an ancient claim to ownership and suffering, but more recent incidents of prior ownership and pain give way to statutes of limitations.

I cannot agree with Inhofe's take on the history of Jews either. Given the Middle East is hot and dry, the environment was hardly suited to white people. Some archeologists believe Abraham was a black man with kinky hair, just like Jesus. They say the original Jews were black Africans rather than white Europeans. The "cradle of civilization" dates back more than 3000 years, so Inhofe's argument for the Israelis must be taken with a grain of salt. The fact that Palestinians can trace their ancestry back more than 3000 years gives them at least as much right to the land as the Israelis.

THINC  || 2002 Issues || The DISH