A number of aid organisations have told Al Jazeera they have turned down funding from the US government as the money has strings attached to military operations.

But the military seems to be the main source of this funding.

A few days ago, though, I saw this article in Al-Jazeera dated October 16, 2009, discussing a $7.5 billion aid package to Pakistan. Admittedly, the allotment of funds and the distribution have yet to be decided, but it is strictly a domestic aid package (to differentiate from a militarily sourced package as discussed above):

The US aid package to Pakistan is designed to fund projects in Pakistan that include schools and roads, agricultural development, energy generation, water resource management and the judicial system.

The part that stands out the most, or perhaps on par with judicial system I think, especially given the conflicts between the Musharraf regime and the Supreme Court of Pakistan, is education.
Why?
Well, I’m not sure if it’s due to an Adam Curtis bender I’ve been on lately, but I think this kind of news is meaningless without taking a really short trip back in time. Pervez Hoodbhoy – as far as English speaking/writing commentators on Pakistani domestic policy is concerned – presents a very well thought out and level headed perspective on the influence of the Pakistani education system, and seems pretty qualified to guide such a trip into its recent history:

During the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, madrassas provided the US-Saudi-Pakistani alliance the cannon fodder they needed to fight a holy war. The Americans and Saudis, helped by a more-than-willing General Zia, funded new madrassas across the length and breadth of Pakistan.

The “Saudi-ification” of Pakistan, as Hoodbhoy calls it, is directly correlated with the need, by the US, for mujahideen fighters to bolster the proxy against the Soviets. And the madrassas, in their current form, owe their success and influence entirely to the subsidies the US and Saudia Arabia provided, and continues to provide – a massive campaign that actively sheared Pakistan in a completely unexpected direction.
What I wonder now, however, is what shape will the new domestic influence in Pakistan have under the auspices of a new American administration? It seems that the domestic policy taken by American administrations has at its root the issue of defense and military need. And the situation, since the proxy wars of the ’80s, hasn’t really changed that much – war as an incubator of domestic policy remains the status quo. In 20-30 years’ time, unless something really different begins to inform American foreign policy as it pertains to domestic support, there doesn’t seem to be much to suggest that this same story won’t repeat itself.

What this does illuminate, however, is what Barack Obama epitomizes in the eyes of the secular world outside the USA: that he is NotGeorgeBush. In that respect, Barack Obama and Hamas have a lot more in common than one would expect or even care to anticipate.

As Saree Makdisi recently pointed out:

The corruption of the PA and the narrow circle of Fateh party officials running it, clinging to it, and benefiting from it, is one of the main reasons why Fateh was swept from office in the 2006 Palestinian elections in favor of Hamas: most people then were voting against Fateh and its corruption and general hopelessness, rather than for Hamas (which had, and has, little to offer other than simply not being Fateh: a credit which goes only so far).

As far as the world is concerned, Obama is NotGeorgeBush.
As far as Palestinians are concerned, Hamas is NotFateh.

Those are both characteristics that may deserve recognition in the short term, I suppose, but will certainly fade in relevance and importance in the long term.

Running through the myriad english headlines on not just mainstream sites, but community blogs and online communities dominated by predominantly north american users, the rhetoric rarely stretches beyond the “both sides are culpable” fare. (A post like Marissa’s being a rare exception). Any other conflict in the world and the balance shifts; the rhetoric allows blame to be lop-sided. Not this though. Never this.
As a palestinian, I’m not so sure I want to know why.

Despite all the suggestions that Israel is responding to terrorism, to a dismantling of the security its citizens are entitled to, or about Hamas “recognizing” the state of Israel; the truth is the Israeli leadership is and has been cognizant about its tasks going forward regarding Gaza ever since it “unilaterally disengaged” from the occupied territory in August 2005. Ever since Hamas solidified its domination over the pliant Fatah supporters in the Gaza strip in May 2007, an Israeli ground invasion has been an inevitability – preparations for which have culminated in today’s incursion. An incursion which, like the US operations in Fallujah and Samara in 2004 and 2006, respectively, will by design NOT be covered by journalists. To paint this as a forced action on the part of an otherwise peace-loving Israel to protect humanity in the face of barbarism would be a desecration of the 400+ people killed in Gaza in the past week.

As Jonathan Cook lucidly points out, Israeli policy since the early 90’s Oslo process has never been about regime change or about brokering a lasting peace with Palestinians. And, as this ground invasion begins, the dismantling of Hamas, a task long understood by senior Israeli officials to be impossible, is clearly not the goal. The intent is to align Hamas, as it once did with Arafat and the PLO, with the goals of the occupation at large, to pummel its underground infrastructure – the tunnels which serve as arteries supplying the Hamas leadership with the blood it needs to maintain its popularity in Gaza streets – to capitulate its resolve, to once and for all, force Hamas to abandon the goals which have made the Islamic front the democratically elected choice of leadership among a majority of Palestinians.

As deluded as the corporate media may be in pointing at the even handedness shared by Hamas and the Israeli Occupation Forces in this conflict, they are right to point out that Hamas controls their own destiny. Abandon the struggle now and the plan Israel enacted on November 5, 2008 will succeed.

Israel, of course, has taken notice. Their recently announced ‘image re-branding’ campaign, blitzing Canada in the month of September, is far from coincidental. Academia too, as far as Canadian Universities are concerned, has had a history of rigid support structures for pro-Israel support groups. The ‘Netanyahu Riot’ in Concordia being the most covered instance of that; coverage of which was owed fully to Izzy Asper’s sponsorship of the event.

I address these issues by being reminded of the sentiment I share with Susan Nathan, that the problem facing major developed international hubs is immigration’s exigency; how to manage the cultural collusion resulting from the massive in-flux of ethnically diverse citizens. Zionism, and the Israeli model in general, does not offer itself as a viable solution to that problem, and as a consequence of that is destined to fail.

Nevertheless, my attention swings to the uplifting these days, and my spirits piggy-back on the 1st annual Toronto Palestine Film Festival. A description of it is implicit in its title, but here’s an official description I’ve snagged from the media release:

The Toronto Palestine Film Festival (TPFF) evolved from a series of successful
screenings held over the past year in Toronto. This year also marks the 60th
anniversary of the Nakba, which refers to the 1948 expulsion of the indigenous
population of Palestine. The anniversary has been marked through a series of events
over the year, and Palestine House felt the best way to share Palestinians’ stories from
the time of the Nakba until present day was through film.
This film festival will introduce Torontonians to Palestinian cultural, historical and
personal narratives told through the rich variety of Palestinian films.

Having capitalized on their limited time offer of 10 tickets for 50$, skipping Hallowe’en night is clearly an afterthought. Here are the screenings I’m looking forward to the most (I hijacked the descriptions from the TPFF site):

Annemarie Jacir
2008
105:00
Fiction
Palestine/France
Canadian Premiere

Synopsis:
Soraya, born in Brooklyn in a working class community of Palestinian refugees, discovers that her grandfather’s savings were frozen in a bank account in Jaffa when he was exiled in 1948. Stubborn, passionate and determined to reclaim what is hers, she fulfills her life-long dream of “returning” to Palestine. Slowly she is taken apart by the reality around her and is forced to confront her own anger. She meets Emad, a young Palestinian whose ambition, contrary to hers, is to leave forever. Tired of the constraints that dictate their lives, they know in order to be free, they must take things into their own hands, even if it’s illegal. In Palestine’s first feature by a female director, we follow two refugees in search of their own freedom through the traces of a lost Palestine.
Official Selection, Un Certain Regard, Cannes Film Festival 2008

Perla Issa, Aseel Mansour, Adam Shapiro
2008
89:00
Documentary
USA/Lebanon
Canadian Premiere
Co-presented by International Diaspora Film Festival

Synopsis:
Episode II: The Daily Nakbas documents the repeated expulsions of Palestinians from refugee camps and countries around the world since 1967. It explores the impact of displacement on a community under constant threat of becoming refugees a second, third or fourth time. (Chronicles of a Refugee is a 6-part documentary series examining the global Palestinian refugee experience over the last 60 years.)

Hanna Musleh
2008
42:00
Documentary
Palestine
Canadian Premiere
Co-Presented by the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association

Synopsis:
This documentary reveals the true story behind Israel’s “Canada Park” – a story of dispossession, destruction and continuing displacement. Forty-one years ago, the three Palestinian villages of Imwas, Yalo and Beit Nouba in the Latroun enclave of the West Bank were razed to the ground after Israel occupied the territory in 1967. Today, the residents of those villages remain displaced and barred from returning, while Israeli citizens enjoy picnics in the Jewish National Fund’s “Canada Park”, much of it funded by Canadians, oblivious to the crimes perpetrated in their names.
Discussion with guest speaker from Al-Haq, a Palestinian Human Rights Organization, will follow the screening.

Synopsis:
The Mountain is a poignant story of the bond between generations, and explores Palestinian community life apart from the shadow of Israeli occupation. When an attractive young woman from Galilee catches the eye of a young farmer from Gaza on market day, love may be an inevitable consequence. But in this film, the course of true love is complicated by tradition. For many centuries elopement in the Middle East has been the only alternative for women who object to pre-arranged marriage.

Winner of 13 international awards including: Grand Prix, Du Monde, Arab Film Festival, Paris, France; Best Short Film GrandPrix, Henri Longlois Film Festival, Tours, France; President Prize, UINESCO International Film Festival, Hiroshima, Japan; Cine Eagle Film Award, Washington DC, USA

---

USA vs Al-Arian
Line Halvorsen
2007
99:00
Feature
Documentary
Norway
Co-presented by Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival

Synopsis
USA vs Al-Arian is a portrait of an Arab-American family facing terrorism charges leveled by the U.S. Government. The film shows the personal story of a family living in a society where fear of terrorism has resulted in increasing stigmatization and discrimination against Muslims. For years, Nahla Al-Arain and her children have been fighting to prove the innocence of their husband and father Sami, a Palestinian refugee, university professor and civil rights activist, who has lived in the USA for more than thirty years.
Best Documentary, Norwegian Documentary Film Festival, Oslo 2007; Best Film, New Orleans Human Rights Film Festival, USA 2007; Grand Prix, International Festival of Muslim Cinema, Kazan, Russia 2007

---

Slingshot Hip Hop

Jackie Reem Salloum
2008
80:00
Feature
Documentary
Palestine
Canadian Premiere – Director in Attendance

Synopsis
Slingshot Hip Hop braids together the stories of young Palestinians living in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank as they discover Hip Hop and employ it as a tool to surmount divisions imposed by occupation and poverty. From internal checkpoints and “Separation Walls”, to gender norms and generational differences, this is the story of young people crossing the borders that separate them.

Nominee, Grand Jury Prize, Sundance Film Festival 2008.

]]>

here’s an article that appeared in the guardian in 2001, an interview conducted 30 years after recounting her infamous 1969 hijacking of TWA Flight 840.
lina makboul, a swedish-palestinian journalist, interviewed here, released a documentary this year called leila khaled – hijacker. i haven’t seen it yet, but when i find it, i’ll make it available here.

“Ladies and gentlemen, your attentions please, kindly fasten your seat belts. This is your new Captain speaking. The Che Guevara commando unit of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine…”

24 year old Leila Khaled had just completed her first hijacking and at the same time she became the first woman ever to hijack an airplane.

there were 103 interventions in the affairs of other countries between 1798 and 1895 by american armed forces – a large number of which occurred in the south-eastern hemisphere to counter indigenous uprisings.
and we should get it right, the portuguese and spanish were to the populations in the southern hemisphere what the british and french were to the indigenous peoples of the north. a white oppressor.
and for nearly a century, south america suffered. there was no doubt, the monroe doctrine ruled.

the tides seem to be shifting again.
evo was a coca farmer. hugo is part black and part indian. chiapas shifted mexico city: vicente fox is gone. the sandinistas control nicaragua, this time with international support. similar stories in chile. argentina. brazil.
as a member of a 3rd generation diaspora, the majority of which live in those south and central american countries, i’m glad. 600,000 of us exist and influence south america as former refugees, not as colonizers. chile, el salvador, honduras and belize are our homes away from home.

the people have begun capitalizing on an american attention shift from mesoamerica to mesopotamia. solidarity is winning. the usa is pumping its resources elsewhere. in light of all the victories in south america, we’ve now got a different population suffering under an updated monroe doctrine: PNAC.
what a shitty trade off … but the death of PNAC is on the horizon, there is no doubt in my mind.

“I’m not saying one thing or the other happened – just that I stare at the news and don’t believe anything they’re saying. I’ve got no idea. And it feels really weird.”

that he should mention edward bernays and the creel commission kind of made me glad, because it is entirely timely and necessary, but also filled me with a little dismay; times are grim when rushkoff is making reference to the likes of bernays. i tried not to link to a wikipedia entry there but i’m particularly lazy right now and i honestly looked for the lip magazine feature article, which i read in hard copy and wanted to link to, but couldn’t find online.

combining that pretty lucid rushkoff commentary with this report on worsening conditions for reporters around the world (courtesy of kenny) and the o’reilly vs letterman rematch made me do a double-take.
like i was saying to doug earlier:

me: but don’t you find it a little strange?
me: even when the argument is SOO logical that the alternative is absurd
me: there is still this notion of a necessary ‘debate’?
doug: lol yea it is kinda strange
doug: but the guest has to fill that 5 minute spot
doug:
me: sometimes i find myself totally baffled
me: but like, you know shit’s obvious when it’s being sounded off on network tv
me: and yet … nothing
me: hehe
doug: yea, i read an article in newsweek about just that
doug: how we’re kind of all just standing around on the outside of the unstoppable brawl
doug: and dinner’s getting cold
doug: but we can’t leave because they have the keys

the only way someone like david letterman would make vocal his opinion on someone like bill o’reilly, on a nationally televised network talk show, is if his point of view were overwhelmingly obvious … and it is, what he’s saying isn’t new and barely even begins to touch the surface of ‘what’s wrong’. and yet, this ‘democracy’ carries on, with its faux debates, and the totally absurd notion that being fair to ‘both sides of the argument’ should involve equally weighted consideration of reports like this (thank you kenny again). and thank you, national post, for dedicating an entire article on a report with this to say about its source:

“Rita Katz, director of the SITE Institute, said not much was known about the author of the document, Hossam Abdul Raouf, except that he is described as a member of al-Qaeda’s information and strategy committee and editor of the electronic periodical Vanguards of Kharasan.”

*sigh*

… though i never expected this blog was gonna turn into a personal ‘rant-space’ i’m left wondering now what else it could have been.

…not very much to build on.
getting a list of the candidates in my ward was easy, but apart from peter ferreira, the incumbent in the race, none of the other candidates has any web presence. the same goes for all the other wards as well. virtually ZERO web presence.
alright, so maybe municipal politics doesn’t need to exist online, it is after all of mainly local consequence, a grassroots thing spreading through the community by word of mouth and the local media (more on that later). ya fucking right! the very idea that the local affairs of a city as big as mississauga can live OFF the web is completely detached, especially when an organization such as the fcm can have the influence it does on federal decisions and without which a guy like jack layton wouldn’t be where he is now.

anyway, off to the trustworthy local media:
well, our only local ‘media’ source, the mississauga news – an envelope of flyers in print form and a similarly barren eyesore in electronic form (despite having won the newspaper website of the year award from suburban newspapers of america, an american trade association that has very little to do with news and very much to do with ad-driven revenue) – has actually reported on a few candidates in the lead up to the election.
the newsworthy items are:
1. carolyn parrish – tales of potential bribery in ward 6
2. adnan hashmi – also mentioned in the above article. this ward 10 candidate actually was charged with bribery
3. eve adams – strong-arming residents to put her signs on their lawns.

too bad all of this coverage has everything to do with why we SHOULDN’T vote.

so where do i get information on the councillors in my ward?
how can a democracy function like this? especially on a level where decisions affect citizens locally … things like schools, strip malls, public transportation, the environment, local police, in the case of mississauga, more strip malls.
somehow, our collective decision to focus on gay marriage, or terrorism, or haiti is leaving local policies and politicians unchecked … how long can we keep ourselves divorced from what happens in our neighbourhoods?

i haven’t been alive long enough to really know this, but i’m pretty sure that for some time now a deceitful mediated narrative has gradually been replacing genuinely reasoned skepticism, dilligence and deference.
internationally, we’re fucking great at espousing the virtues of freedom and democracy – collectively sermonizing and enforcing what we aren’t, while increasingly deviating from what we should be. what we aren’t is a properly functioning democracy and what we are becoming is a rhetoric machine, a menace to future generations who will hopefully look back on this period with condemnation instead of continuing a legacy of active ignorance.