Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

The Criminal Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Iran

9 Aug

[Prefatory Note: This post originated in a series of responses to questions asked by a journalist writing a feature story for the Turkish publication, TRT World. My responses here are derived from that source but took on a different life of their own.]

[Prefatory Note: This post originated in a series of responses to questions asked by a journalist writing a feature story for the Turkish publication, TRT World. My responses here are derived from that source but took on a different life of their own.]

The Criminal Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Iran

What does Hamas chief Haniyeh’s assassination in Iran mean for the wider conflict?

It appears that none of the countries directly involved in the conflict with Israel–Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Yemen–seek a wider war in the Middle East. Only Israel, and its leader, Bibi Netanyahu seem to approach such a prospect favorably. This cycle of provocative acts followed by retaliations almost all initiated by Israel have their own escalating momentum that is difficult to control, and at some point, might merges with a deadly commitment to securing a wider victorious outcome.

There is much speculation that Netanyahu has his private motivations centering on his personal survival and the related likelihood that his coalition government would soon collapse after the Gaza war recedes from view. He was also associated with obsessively pushing a vendetta against Iran, especially recently as a useful distraction from the Gaza campaign that failed to achieve its main explicit objective of destroying Hamas and promoting the Greater Israel Project of territorial expansion.

Additionally, the recent cycles of tit-for-tat provocative acts almost exclusively initiated by Israel have an escalating momentum that is difficult to control, and at some point, merges with a commitment to securing a victorious outcome through sustained warfare.

Ismail Haniyeh’s July 31 assassination while attending the inauguration of the new president of Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian, was a step in the direction of regional war. It was further aggravated because of the location, the occasion, Haniyeh’s reputation as a ‘moderate’ in the Hamas leadership circle. And even further by taking account of his current role as the chief negotiator in the search for a ceasefire, prisoner exchange, and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei immediately threatened a response that will be perceived as a ‘harsh punishment’ by political actors. The religious leader added that Iran is ‘duty-bound’ to inflict a response that ‘avenges’ the assassination. Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian offered his strong condemnation of the killing of Haniyeh: “We will make the occupying terrorist regime [of Israel] regret its action.”

This assassination may also be seen as Israel’s reaction to Iran and Hamas in the aftermath of the Unity Deal between Hamas and Fatah facilitated by the mediation efforts of China. The agreement signed in Beijing on July 23 by 14 Palestinian factions including Hamas and Fatah agreed on the composition of an ‘interim national reconciliation government,’ and seems to be the most serious effort to achieve Palestinian unity since Hamas emerged after the 1967 War. Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Authority (PA), made a meaningful gesture of his own that is being interpreted as an affirmation of the newfound unity of Palestinian resistance by joining in the condemnation of Israel for carrying out the assassination of Haniyeh. This seems significant as the PA has long been the bitter adversary of Hamas.

The Biden presidency seems intent on managing these tensions in such a way that avoids a general war in the region while not alienating Israel and its supporters in the West. It also purports to play its customary intermediary role in relation to Israel/Palestine conflict by putting forth a three-stage ceasefire, hostage/prisoner exchange, and Israeli Gaza withdrawal. It is odd that the Palestinians would accept such a diplomatic process, given the depth of US complicity in lending crucial support to the genocidal assault during the last ten months directed at the entire population of Gaza.

Even Iran despite its seeming commitment to revenging Haniyeh’s death while on a state visit to a high profile public event in Iran seems searching for a response that is viewed as retaliatory but as signaling its intent to avoid a war with Israel.

There are many actors involved with a wide range of disclosed and disguised motivations, making predictions hazardous. If a wider war  does occur, it will almost certainly be undertaken at Israel’s initiative, quite possibly reflecting Netanyahu’s personal animus. If Iran succeeds in inflicting heavy symbolic or substantive damage in executing its retaliatory attack, Israel might treat magnify the event as a suitable pretext for launching a wider war that I believe it would come to regret. Among other consequences, it may induce Iran to cross the nuclear weapons threshold, assuming this has not happened already. Given the security prerogatives of sovereign states, it would not seem unreasonable for Iran to seek a nuclear deterrent, given the threats and provocations over the years. Such a move would deeply challenge Israel and US-led anti-proliferation geopolitics, being a blow struck against the imperfect regional nonproliferation regime in the Middle East. So long as an aggressive Israel possesses and develops its own nuclear weaponry, without any pretense of accountability, the security situation highlights the double standards embedded in the Biden/Blinken ‘rules governed world.’



2. How will Iran respond to this? 

My earlier answer tentatively predicts a proportionate retaliation that may be treated by Israel as sufficiently ‘disproportionate’ to induce a further escalatory cycle. Although Iran has shown that it does not seek a wider war, it also seems poised to take risks to avoid being seen as weak by both adversaries and allies—the latter being demeaned by being called ‘proxies’ in the Washington and European official statements and media.

Although the world and particularly Iran, assumed that Israel was responsible for Haniyeh’s assassination, Israel failed to claim responsibility for several days.  Before doing so, Israel had been widely accused by Iran, and assumed responsible for this sovereignty-violating assassination. Israel’s official silence rather than offering an evidence-based denial strengthened the dominant impression that Israel was the culprit.

Also passed almost without prominent noticed was the almost simultaneous assassination of  Fuad Shukr, a senior Hezbollah military commander and close associate of accused by Israel of planning a deadly attack on a Druze town of Majjid-Shams in the Israel occupied Golan Heights, killing 12 children playing on a soccer field. Hezbollah denies responsibility for the attack, and it seems that whoever was responsible for the attack misfired as the missile hit a site unassociated with Israel.

3.   The Gaza/Hamas Angle

In a notable statement, the Prime Minister of Qatar, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, indirectly accused Israel of assassinating Haniyeh in a post published on social media. Al Thani observed, “How can mediation succeed when one party assassinates the negotiator on the other side?” referring to Haniyeh as one of the main mediators in the cease-fire talks between Israel and Hamas. And further, “Peace needs serious partners and a global stance against the disregard for human life.” Israel has failed to respond to such an allegation, although it seems to have backed a rumor that Iran might itself have carried out or at least facilitated this assassination.

The US has been the pioneer in relying on assassination as a major instrument of covert warfare during the Cold Year, generally under the auspices of the CIA. During the Carter presidency Senate hearings were held (‘Church Hearings’), leading to the issuance of Executive Order 11. 905 in 1977 prohibiting political assassinations. This Executive Order was later somewhat relaxed during the Reagan Presidency in the 1980s. There seems to be agreement that the ceasefire proposals that looked quite promising in the days before Haniyeh’s assassination now are indefinite hold given the

The Criminal Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Iran

What does Hamas chief Haniyeh’s assassination in Iran mean for the wider conflict?

It appears that none of the countries directly involved in the conflict with Israel–Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Yemen–seek a wider war in the Middle East. Only Israel, and its leader, Bibi Netanyahu seem to approach such a prospect favorably. This cycle of provocative acts followed by retaliations almost all initiated by Israel have their own escalating momentum that is difficult to control, and at some point, might merges with a deadly commitment to securing a wider victorious outcome.

There is much speculation that Netanyahu has his private motivations centering on his personal survival and the related likelihood that his coalition government would soon collapse after the Gaza war recedes from view. He was also associated with obsessively pushing a vendetta against Iran, especially recently as a useful distraction from the Gaza campaign that failed to achieve its main explicit objective of destroying Hamas and promoting the Greater Israel Project of territorial expansion.

Additionally, the recent cycles of tit-for-tat provocative acts almost exclusively initiated by Israel have an escalating momentum that is difficult to control, and at some point, merges with a commitment to securing a victorious outcome through sustained warfare.

Ismail Haniyeh’s July 31 assassination while attending the inauguration of the new president of Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian, was a step in the direction of regional war. It was further aggravated because of the location, the occasion, Haniyeh’s reputation as a ‘moderate’ in the Hamas leadership circle. And even further by taking account of his current role as the chief negotiator in the search for a ceasefire, prisoner exchange, and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei immediately threatened a response that will be perceived as a ‘harsh punishment’ by political actors. The religious leader added that Iran is ‘duty-bound’ to inflict a response that ‘avenges’ the assassination. Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian offered his strong condemnation of the killing of Haniyeh: “We will make the occupying terrorist regime [of Israel] regret its action.”

This assassination may also be seen as Israel’s reaction to Iran and Hamas in the aftermath of the Unity Deal between Hamas and Fatah facilitated by the mediation efforts of China. The agreement signed in Beijing on July 23 by 14 Palestinian factions including Hamas and Fatah agreed on the composition of an ‘interim national reconciliation government,’ and seems to be the most serious effort to achieve Palestinian unity since Hamas emerged after the 1967 War. Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Authority (PA), made a meaningful gesture of his own that is being interpreted as an affirmation of the newfound unity of Palestinian resistance by joining in the condemnation of Israel for carrying out the assassination of Haniyeh. This seems significant as the PA has long been the bitter adversary of Hamas.

The Biden presidency seems intent on managing these tensions in such a way that avoids a general war in the region while not alienating Israel and its supporters in the West. It also purports to play its customary intermediary role in relation to Israel/Palestine conflict by putting forth a three-stage ceasefire, hostage/prisoner exchange, and Israeli Gaza withdrawal. It is odd that the Palestinians would accept such a diplomatic process, given the depth of US complicity in lending crucial support to the genocidal assault during the last ten months directed at the entire population of Gaza.

Even Iran despite its seeming commitment to revenging Haniyeh’s death while on a state visit to a high profile public event in Iran seems searching for a response that is viewed as retaliatory but as signaling its intent to avoid a war with Israel.

There are many actors involved with a wide range of disclosed and disguised motivations, making predictions hazardous. If a wider war  does occur, it will almost certainly be undertaken at Israel’s initiative, quite possibly reflecting Netanyahu’s personal animus. If Iran succeeds in inflicting heavy symbolic or substantive damage in executing its retaliatory attack, Israel might treat magnify the event as a suitable pretext for launching a wider war that I believe it would come to regret. Among other consequences, it may induce Iran to cross the nuclear weapons threshold, assuming this has not happened already. Given the security prerogatives of sovereign states, it would not seem unreasonable for Iran to seek a nuclear deterrent, given the threats and provocations over the years. Such a move would deeply challenge Israel and US-led anti-proliferation geopolitics, being a blow struck against the imperfect regional nonproliferation regime in the Middle East. So long as an aggressive Israel possesses and develops its own nuclear weaponry, without any pretense of accountability, the security situation highlights the double standards embedded in the Biden/Blinken ‘rules governed world.’



2. How will Iran respond to this? 

My earlier answer tentatively predicts a proportionate retaliation that may be treated by Israel as sufficiently ‘disproportionate’ to induce a further escalatory cycle. Although Iran has shown that it does not seek a wider war, it also seems poised to take risks to avoid being seen as weak by both adversaries and allies—the latter being demeaned by being called ‘proxies’ in the Washington and European official statements and media.

Although the world and particularly Iran, assumed that Israel was responsible for Haniyeh’s assassination, Israel failed to claim responsibility for several days.  Before doing so, Israel had been widely accused by Iran, and assumed responsible for this sovereignty-violating assassination. Israel’s official silence rather than offering an evidence-based denial strengthened the dominant impression that Israel was the culprit.

Also passed almost without prominent noticed was the almost simultaneous assassination of  Fuad Shukr, a senior Hezbollah military commander and close associate of accused by Israel of planning a deadly attack on a Druze town of Majjid-Shams in the Israel occupied Golan Heights, killing 12 children playing on a soccer field. Hezbollah denies responsibility for the attack, and it seems that whoever was responsible for the attack misfired as the missile hit a site unassociated with Israel.

3.   The Gaza/Hamas Angle

In a notable statement, the Prime Minister of Qatar, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, indirectly accused Israel of assassinating Haniyeh in a post published on social media. Al Thani observed, “How can mediation succeed when one party assassinates the negotiator on the other side?” referring to Haniyeh as one of the main mediators in the cease-fire talks between Israel and Hamas. And further, “Peace needs serious partners and a global stance against the disregard for human life.” Israel has failed to respond to such an allegation, although it seems to have backed a rumor that Iran might itself have carried out or at least facilitated this assassination.

The US has been the pioneer in relying on assassination as a major instrument of covert warfare during the Cold Year, generally under the auspices of the CIA. During the Carter presidency Senate hearings were held (‘Church Hearings’), leading to the issuance of Executive Order 11. 905 in 1977 prohibiting political assassinations. This Executive Order was later somewhat relaxed during the Reagan Presidency in the 1980s. There seems to be agreement that the ceasefire proposals that looked quite promising in the days before Haniyeh’s assassination now are indefinite hold given the leadership to the supposedly hardline Yahya Sinwar.

Israel has a long record of assassinations in Iran, including of high profile nuclear scientists (e.g. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh) and a much revered military commanded and diplomat. Qasem Solemani, in January 2020, the last days of the Trump presidency.

Political assassinations carried out on the territory of a foreign country in the form of an official undertaking of a government is a violation of international law, an act of aggression, and a violation of fundamental human rights standards.

Interrogating the Venuzeulan Victory of Nicolas Madura

6 Aug

Murat Sofuoglu

Venezuela election sparks geopolitical feud between US, China and Russia

Whether incumbent President Nicolas Maduro holds on to power could very well depend on his allies, and the result could have global ramifications.

Murat Sofuoglu

MURAT SOFUOGLU

Opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, left, and opposition presidential candidate Edmundo Gonzalez address supporters during a protest in Caracas, July 30, 2024. Photo/Cristian Hernandez
APOpposition leader Maria Corina Machado, left, and opposition presidential candidate Edmundo Gonzalez address supporters during a protest in Caracas, July 30, 2024. Photo/Cristian Hernandez

One week after Venezuela held its presidential election on July 28, the United States and its rivals China and Russia are taking sides in the debate over who actually won power in the South American state, which has had an anti-Western socialist leadership under President Nicolas Maduro. 

The US contests the official results declared by the National Electoral Council (CNE), the country’s election oversight authority, which said that Maduro won 51 percent against opposition candidate Edmundo González Urrutia’s 44 percent. 

Meanwhile China and Russia are standing by the incumbent president.

According to the US-backed opposition, Gonzalez won the presidency with a large margin. He has called for protests against Maduro, and anti-government demonstrations have been raging across Venezuela since the CNE’s declaration of election results. Maduro described the unrest as a far-right conspiracy against his government. 

Venezuela’s election has also divided Latin America, where pro-Western governments from Argentina to Peru, Panama and several other states rejected the official result. Countries like Cuba, which have socialist leaderships, have backed Maduro’s reelection. 

“At present, Maduro’s victory has received congratulatory messages from left governments in the region including Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia and critical reactions from the US and European countries,” said Richard Falk, a leading international relations expert. 

Meanwhile, Mexico, Brazil and Colombia, the three critical Latin American countries with leftist or left-leaning governments, have distanced themselves from the US position. These nations have important interactions with both Russia and China, and oppose external interference to address the Venezuelan impasse. 

But the three states also called on Caracas to release details of election results, urging an internal “institutional solution”. Caracas says that a hacking attack prevents the electoral oversight body from releasing detailed outcomes as its website continues to be down. 

History of tensions

Venezuela has seen at least two failed coup attempts against anti-Western governments since the Bolivarian Revolution in 1999, which was launched by Venezuelan socialist leader Hugo Chavez, who passed away in 2013 which brought his protege Maduro to power.

APA mural of the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez with a message that reads in Spanish: “Chavez, the heart of our towns”, in Caracas, Venezuela, July 24, 2024. Photo/Fernando Vergara

The Bolivarian revolution refers to Simon Bolivar, a 19th-century Venezuelan leader who was instrumental in achieving the independence of some South American states from Spanish rule. Like Bolivar in the past, Chavez and later Maduro along with their allies have aimed to form an anti-Western socialist bloc across the region. 

“The natural stance of the opposition and of countries (Western powers) is to oppose Madurismo-Chavismo,” said Juan Martin Gonzalez Cabañas, a researcher at Moscow State Linguistic University (MSLU) and a Eurasia specialist at the Argentine-based Center of Studies “Soberanía”. 

Madurismo-Chavismo refers to the ongoing leftist governance in Venezuela since the Bolivarian revolution. So far, at least two failed coup attempts were launched against the Venezuelan socialist leadership. 

In 2002, US-linked forces ousted Chavez for a brief time from power, but in a dramatic reversal, much of the military loyal to Chavez restored him to power after a tense 47 hours. In 2020, there was another failed coup attempt against Maduro’s government. This one was orchestrated by Jordan Goudreau, a US Green Beret, who was recently arrested by the US in New York for arms smuggling.

“More or less impartial commentators believe that the political outcome will depend on whether the Venezuelan armed forces continue to back Maduro and whether the opposition is militant and organised enough to threaten the survival of the Maduro government,” Falk told TRT World. 

Cabanas assesses that Western powers’ antagonist relationship with Maduro and their approach to his reelection bid are clearly related to their political interests. “A [Venezuelan] government opposed to Chavismo would be more functional to their objectives,” he told TRT World.

Russia and China weigh in

On the other hand, the Kremlin is on the side of Maduro, “firmly” backing him and the outcomes of elections that recognised him and his government as winner of elections, according to Cabanas. 

AP ARCHIVEVenezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro, right, meets with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, at Miraflores Presidential Palace in Caracas, Venezuela, April 18, 2023.

China, which has already congratulated Maduro on a third term following the release of election results, also reiterated its support for the socialist leader. 

“China will, as always, firmly support Venezuela’s efforts to safeguard national sovereignty, national dignity and social stability, and firmly support Venezuela’s just cause of opposing external interference,” President Xi Jinping said last week.

Both Chavez and Maduro have been long aligned with the anti-Western camp, ranging from Russia to China and regional leftist states like Cuba to counter US influence in Venezuela. 

But Caracas faces a serious economic recession under US-led sanctions, which has led more than 7.7 million Venezuelans to migrate to other countries, particularly the US, since 2014.

It’s difficult to present a fair assessment of the elections because “they are being undertaken in a country that operates in a state of economic siege and hostile relations with the United States,” said Alexander Moldovan, a researcher on social movements and security in Latin America at York University.

“Democracy and national security are difficult to balance,” Moldovan told TRT World, referring to the Venezuelan political dilemma. He sees that the country’s post-election process will be difficult as both pro-government and opposition forces have been entrenched into their firm positions. 

Prior to the election, Maduro has shown his flexibility and held talks with Washington to address the two countries’ differences, aiming to reach an agreement to ease sanctions. 

“Although Maduro’s victory is a win for the counter-hegemonic powers that counterweights the West, this fact should be measured in its proper context: Venezuela is facing an economic recovery after very hard years, and Chavismo is no longer an ideological ‘export brand’ as it used to be, at least in its region (South America/Latin America),” Cabanas added. 

Madurism and regional socialist trends

Falk said he believes that Madurism’s future might depend on how “governments with progressive credentials, such as Colombia, Brazil and Mexico, will influence” its perceptions outside Venezuela if the socialist leader’s reelection is “sustained in a future period that is bound to be turbulent.” 

APBolivia’s President Luis Arce, from left, Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva assemble for a group photo during the South American Summit at Itamaraty palace in Brasilia, Brazil, May 30, 2023. Photo/Andre Penner

The three countries are part of BRICS, a non-Western alliance, and have not sided with the Western stance, as Brazil’s leftist President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva said he found “nothing abnormal” in the election process. 

“If Maduro manages to hold on, and especially if he gains support from Brazil and other moderate governments, it will be interpreted as a setback for ideologically motivated US coercive diplomacy, including an effort to exert political influence by imposing sanctions unilaterally,” Falk said. 

But if the opposite political scenario becomes a reality, then Maduro’s exit and opposition success could be perceived “as allied with the right and the beneficiary of US intervention,” according to Falk. This perception would essentially empower leftist tendencies in Latin America, “not so much for the sake of socialism or electoral integrity, but to assure sovereign rights and resistance to foreign intervention, especially on behalf of capitalist vested interests.” 

The professor also drew attention to the media’s use of political language when it comes to internal settings and processes of anti-Western states like Venezuela. 

While pro-Maduro forces describe María Corina Machado Parisca, a leading opposition leader, and Gonzales, as the leaders of “right-wing” or “far-right” groups, “the liberal media never uses this language, painting the struggle as between “autocratic” and “democratic” tendencies,” he said.

On the other hand, “Maduro describes his movement as one on behalf of the people, especially the poor and marginalised, rarely speaking of ‘socialism’ as the inspiration or goal,” he added.

SOURCE: TRT WORLD


Murat Sofuoglu

Murat Sofuoglu

Scientists form a Global Anti-War, Anti-Genocide Network: from Hiroshima to Gaza

7 Mar

[Prefatory Note: The post below is the slightly edited text of a keynote address to an organizational meeting for establish a worldwide network of Scientists Against War and the Destructive Use of Science as stimulated by the Israeli genocide against the civilian population of Gaza. This encouraging event of global scope occurred on December 9, 2023, some six weeks before the International Court of Justice issued its historic Interim Order on January 26, 2024 with a near unanimous vote supportive of the ‘plausibility’ of South Africa’s initiative undertaken in accord with Article IX of  the Genocide Convention to allow Parties to bring legal disputes as to the applicability of allegations of genocide to be resolved under the authority of ICJ. A video version of my talk is available: https://youtu.be/-kIb-NhVHiQ ].

I find the initiative that the organizing committee has taken in producing this Convention Against War and Destructive Use of Science: Scientists Against Israeli Apartheid, Occupation and Genocide to be a glimmer of light in a dark sky. A dark sky that is dominated by the most transparent instance of genocide in human history.

Where because of the capacity of worldwide media to show the daily unfolding of this terrible criminal action in Gaza and its related effects in the West Bank as well, the peoples of the world are exposed as never before to the concrete exposure of genocide in real time. Past genocides, even the Holocaust, have always been something relatively abstract from our consciousness, with its horrifying realities exposed long after the mass killing has stopped. This immediacy and unmistakable reality of the Gaza genocide, including the exposure of its sadistic details, intensifies the challenge to the collective conscience of humanity..  

What is happening in Gaza, it is not only a visible reality for the peoples of the world and the governments, the leaders and those in international institutions, it is also something that is reinforced by the explicit endorsement of such an approach to conflict as has been embarked upon by the leadership of Israel. Never has such a candid admission that one is striking against the people as a whole: cutting off their food and fuel and electricity, bombing their hospitals and places of shelter, targeting places where children and women gather. What is also shocking is that display of horror enjoyed the support and active complicity of several of the leading liberal democracies in the world. It suggests an imperial post-colonial posture toward the Global South in Western Europe and North America, which seems to be largely configured inter-civilizationally.

This Gaza onslaught is a dramatic horror story that makes this kind of transnational professionally grounded initiative against militarism so encouraging, a glimmer of light during dark times when many storm clouds hover close to planet earth. To oppose militarism all of its manifestations will hopefully become a dominant preoccupation of scientists and others, indeed for everyone with a global conscience to motivate them to feel that they must act responsibly in light of such developments that cloud the present and pose dire threats for the future..

Let me refer briefly to my experience with militarism and war-making. Having taught, as was said, at Princeton University for 40 years, I was surrounded by some of the world’s leading scientists including Robert Oppenheimer, John Wheeler, Murph Goldberger, and Freeman Dyson and others of global stature. What intrigued me then was the degree to which these outstanding scientists were enticed by the opportunity to take part in the security dimensions of government policy, which included feeding the militarist appetites of the private sector, exerting an unhealthy influence on public opinion, domestic politics, and a bloated bilateral peacetime military budget over the years by grossly exaggerating security threats and by the economically motivated projection of American power worldwide. This kind of toxic connection between scientists and government policy which is probably more extreme in both its character and effects in the United States than elsewhere.  being labeled by the US president ; the degree to which the US has the largest military budget and also is by far the largest arms supplier in the world, making it the largest source of military hardware and software among the national merchants of death. The US President, Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans about the dangers of ‘the military-industrial complex’ in his 1961 Farewell Address, a warning that to this day goes unheeded. Eisenhower’s words are worth recalling:

“we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.In actuality, the danger has increased in the last 62 years.

The other reinforcing experience I had was to visit the two leading nuclear strategic centers of global security policy, in the United States, and I take notice of two kinds of personalities that one encountered there. These were venues dominated by scientists.

One was a feeling that by contributing to the military development of weaponry and doctrine and so on scientists were somehow doing something in the “real world” and that this was a source of what struck me then as a kind of careerist excitement for them. And the other kind of scientific personality were people who didn’t know a great deal about politics but were indoctrinated into an unquestioning acceptance of the prevailing ideology of the time and were Cold War activists in a very superficial yet dogmatic way, This led them to believe that their work that consisted of helping with the development of weapons and the worst kind of weapons was something that was positive, that it contributed to a better world, both guarding the peace against the ideological enemy in Moscow and making the world safe for market-oriented constitutionalism.

In other words, ideology underpinned this enthusiasm for robust connections between the scientific community militarism that was broadly present in the society and very very salient, at least in the United States, throughout the entirety of the Cold War—and actually after the Cold War—because it saw the opportunity (with the collapse of the Soviet Union) to become the unipolar dominant presence in the world and didn’t have the imagination to choose anything other than the solidification of its military dominance as the path to establish and maintain its hegemonic role in international political life after the Cold. And this quest continues to guide American foreign policy despite rising resistance throughout the non-West. have focused on the United States partly because I know it best but also because I think it represents, in its own way, a powerful metaphor for the distortions that arise from this misbegotten marriage of militarism and knowledge as filtered through the brilliance of some of  the world’s finest scientists.

This kind of initiative, that you all are part of, is an overdue reaction. Perhaps the extremity of what’s happening in Gaza made many of us, regardless of professional orientation, to act in anti-militarist ways that we were not motivated to act before. It overcame a human tendency toward complacency and the feeling of helplessness about taking on these larger issues.

But I think that one of the revelations of this outbreak of genocide in Gaza is the helplessness of the formal structures of war prevention and the protection of peoples against abusive behavior. The UN, which was supposedly created as a war prevention institution after World War II, was, in a sense, designed by its founders to fail because it gave the five most powerful countries in the world the authority to block any kind of effective response that might oppose or neutralize militarism and aggressive and criminal undertakings in the course of war, epitomized by vesting a veto power in the winners of World War II.

This awakening from decades of indulging militarism which I think is happening in many domains, not just among scientists. I’m part of a parallel initiative of so-called global intellectuals that is similarly awakening to the fact that if the peoples of the world do not take responsibility, nothing effective will be done to curtail the menace of militarism and destructive warfare.

And so, this initiative among scientists is systemically important, giving rise that it strengthens over time, and does not dissipate when the current crisis subsides. .

There’s one other general factor that hasn’t often been taken into account, that despite this surge of militarism in the post-Cold War and present world: militarism hasn’t produced political results associated with costly investments in achieving military superiority nationally, regionally, and globally. In the post-1945 period, the large investments in military capabilities have proved in most combat zones to be dysfunctional. In a series of symbolic activities that sought to bring to bear military superiority as a way of controlling the political outcomes in Global South combat zones have ended in political defeat for the side controlling battlefield results. And the assumption of those that make foreign policy for almost all leading governments is that history is constituted by those that prevail in military conflicts. That, in other words, that war and militarism continue to have the same historical agency that in earlier times allowed  European colonialism to control most of the non-West.

But recent international experience defies that understanding and the US especially should have learned this by its decade-long experience in the Vietnam War. In that war  the US had complete military dominance yet lost the war. It is important to understand tat the lessons of that political defeat cannot be learned by these militarist governing elites. This is because there’s too strong a vested interest in persisting with the belief that military agency is what controls political outcomes and shapes history, a view that although contrary to experience continues to prevail in the coopted most influential media platforms throughout most of the world, reflecting as well the decline of independent media in even the most respected political democracies.

If Vietnam wasn’t enough of a pedagogic experience, then the 20-year commitment to state building in Iraq and in Afghanistan should have been a breakthrough that would encourage a more critical political consciousness in relation to military approaches to global security in the 21st century. But again, the energies of the militarist leverage within societies remained too strong to learn the lesson that in a post-colonial period of important powers, exhibited by persistent national mobilization in response to foreign intervention, that military superiority does not any longer produce favorable cost/benefit calculation. Any objective assessment of all the—not only the examples I’ve given—but Libya, Yemen, Syria, all of these venues of military intervention produced devastation, to be sure. But they didn’t satisfy the objectives of those who invested lives and trillions of dollars in achieving control the political outcomes, losing out both normatively and geopolitically as well.

Basically that’s a constructive reality, and it’s not just applicable to the United States. All the colonial wars with European states were won by the weaker side militarily. And that’s a terribly important lesson. Why it can’t be learned is because it would undercut the profitability of the arms industry and the power of the military within governmental bureaucracies. So what was done after the Vietnam War was not a matter of controlling involvement or the preparation for less militarist, more prudent forms of security, but instead the development of new weapons and the employment of scientists in that process, that is, the cure for the failures of militarism is to invest more intelligently and even more expansively in militarism, a seeming unbreakable cycle that is not susceptible to repudiation by repeated experiences of failure and moral/legal outrage. It will take anti-militarist pressures generated from within civil society, and hopefully achieving global scope and influence.

In effort to control the media during future intervention, the popular slogan in the US was that the Vietnam War was lost not on the battlefield in Vietnam but in the American living room. The idea was that the media would be more subjected to the discipline of a militarized political consciousness was accorded by a high policy priority by think tank and foreign policy elites..

Let me bring these remarks to an end by going back to the Gaza reality for a moment and saying that the Israeli practice there of genocide is in a sense a recognition of the futility of war as between two military capabilities. This is a war against people. And it’s a war that can be won only by the elimination or the dispossession of people. In that sense, it is a correct, perverse, and surrealistic recognition of the futility of conventional war as a way of shaping politics. It’s a horrifying reaction to that futility by resorting to an explicit avowal of genocide as the basis of Israeli security and territorial ambition in a sense, particularly applicable in contexts of settler colonial projects that to succeed must eliminate or totally marginalize the indigenous population, making even longtime residents, strangers in their own homelands.

So let me end by saying I applaud the draft Declaration, which I think is a very powerful document, and I hope that this initiative will lead to a worldwide process of anti-militarism and anti-war sentiment that will enlist powerful support from scientists and widespread respect from independent media, peace minded governments, and citizens of concern and conscience.

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak at this important occasion.

Foreword, Suzanne Hammad, Toward a Theory of Emplaced Resistance: Everything Starts and Ends with the Land (Rowman & Littlefield, 2023)

26 Feb

           

[Prefatory Note: I am re-posting this text because of its relevance to ongoing events and with this new Prefatory Note, partly because illness has kept me from a normal blogging rhythm. The post below is the text of my foreword to Suzanne Hammad’s important book, which explores from an ethnographic perspective, the deep and often hidden roots of resistance to alien occupation, and gives an account based on her lived experience about the specificities of Palestinian resistance in the West Bank town of Bil’in, a place known for public protests against the intrusive presence of Israel’s unlawful separation wall. This tale of resistance is also anguishly relevant to ongoing relevant to the criminal onslaught being carried out by Israel in Gaza, illustrating the extremities of violence relied upon by the Occupying Power to a totally vulnerable entrapped Palestinian population of 2.3 million persons as its regime of apartheid culminates in textbook genocide, a human catastrophe like no other in its transparency accentuated by support received from liberal democracies in the West.]  

RAF Foreword to

Hammad, Toward a Theory of Emplaced Resistances: Everything

            Starts and Ends with the Land (Rowman & Littlefield, 2023)

[Prefatory Note: I am re-posting this text because of its relevance to ongoing events and with this new Prefatory Note, partly because illness has kept me from a normal blogging rhythm. The post below is the text of my foreword to Suzanne Hammad’s important book, which explores from an ethnographic perspective, the deep and often hidden roots of resistance to alien occupation, and gives an account based on her lived experience about the specificities of Palestinian resistance in the West Bank town of Bil’in, a place known for public protests against the intrusive presence of Israel’s unlawful separation wall. This tale of resistance is also anguishly relevant to ongoing relevant to the criminal onslaught being carried out by Israel in Gaza, illustrating the extremities of violence relied upon by the Occupying Power to a totally vulnerable entrapped Palestinian population of 2.3 million persons as its regime of apartheid culminates in textbook genocide, a human catastrophe like no other in its transparency accentuated by support received from liberal democracies in the West.]  

RAF Foreword to Suzanne Hammad, Toward a Theory of Emplaced Resistances: Everything

            Starts and Ends with the Land (Rowman & Littlefield, 2023)

This fascinating book gives us not only creative ways of grasping the underlying continuities of the Palestinian ordeal but also a truly original conception of why the long arc of resistance and resilience, stretching across time and taking certain distinctive forms, has been sustained for more than a century in the face of assorted trials and tribulations. None of these tests of Palestinian resistance was greater than the double assault on the fundamentals of Palestinian normalcy in the West Bank than that posed by the ever-expanding settlement movement and the connected construction of an encroaching Separation Wall on mostly occupied Palestinian land commencing in 2001.

Suzanne Hammad views the evolving Palestinian reality through an ethnographic lens that complements what the media reports, leaders and intellectuals have to say, and militants achieve by direct confrontation with the daily[MK1]  experience of Palestinians living under the heavy boot of Israel’s apartheid regime which pursues with accelerating vigor its own agenda of ethnic cleansing and dispossession of people from their land. To carry out such an exploration led Hammad to conduct her field research for three years in a single West Bank community, the village of Bil’in. The implications of her findings have a broad resonance for Palestinian studies as they illuminate the realities of many similar villages subject to occupation, and indeed inform the situation and consciousness of all Palestinians regardless of whether living under occupation, in Arab refugee camps, or in pre-1967 Israel. In this sense, Bil’in with its population of less than 2000 offers us a rich metaphor by which to decipher the entire Palestinian predicament, and better appreciate the various modes of response that underpin resistance not only to the existential abuses being experienced under occupation but to the foreshadowing of an inevitable liberation that Israel’s state violence is capable of punishing harshly, yet unable so far to destroy. It might even be unable to comprehend such resistance. It is bringing to light these under-appreciated facets of Palestinian sumud or steadfastness that makes this book illuminating reading for all who wish to gain a deeper comprehension of this tragic struggle that remains horizonless as to beginning and end.

Although Bil’in is but one of many West Bank villages, its selection by the author as her main case study is hardly accidental or arbitrary. This village distinguished itself from many other superficially similar villages in at least two important[MK2]  ways. First, residents experienced the severe intrusion of the Wall upon its living space, vividly exemplified by the barbed wire, electrified fence passing through Bil’in in ways that cut its residents off from 60% of their agricultural growing and grazing land, as well as the surrounding ‘empty’ areas used for recreation, reflection, and spiritual growth, including gatherings of the whole community during holidays, and even more during the harvesting times, especially of olives. Bil’in’s inhabitants were cut off by a permit system that was required to pass the single gate in the wall that granted them permission to go beyond the mostly residential part of the village, and in some cases, gain access to their own farmland. Secondly, residents reacted through collective anti-Wall protests every Friday for at least 15 years starting in 2005. The continuity and persistence of these protest dramatized Palestinian opposition to the Wall and the resolve of villagers to resist non-violently, yet with courage and resolve. This activism in Bil’in contrasted reliance on peaceful methods with the violent brutality of Israel’s apartheid regime, which imposes Jewish supremacy even in occupied Palestine and in defiance of international humanitarian law. In relation to the Wall, Israeli defiance became overt as Israel rejected the near unanimous (14-1) findings of the World Court’s Advisory Opinion of 2004. Such an authoritative legal endorsement of Bil’in fundamental grievance added legitimacy to the Friday protests by confirming that it was unlawful for Israel to construct a supposed security Wall on Occupied Palestinian Territory, and hence the Wall should be dismantled, and the Palestinians given reparations for the harm sustained. Implicit in the Advisory Opinion was the related idea that Israel’s situating the Wall on Palestinian territory was more a land grab than a genuine security measure.

We ignore the special contribution of Hammad’s inquiry if we are content with this most visible level of interaction, which is to depict both the depth of Palestinian suffering and its transcendence in the lived daily life of the residents of Bil’in. On the one side a deprivation so severe that it prompts inhabitants to pronounce their condition by such sayings as ‘we’re alive only because we are not dead yet” or “if we had the chance we would choose death over living under occupation.” And yet, this is not at all the bleak understanding that Hammad seeks to impart, which is rather a seemingly contradictory sense in Bil’in that our life is not worth living and yet if we will go on living our values, resisting Israel’s encroachments, and transcending their harmful intentions, by nurturing the pride and pleasure associated with sustaining our way of life in the face of hardships, humiliations, and humbling adjustments we will be living the best possible life given the circumstances. To get at this interface between despair and transcendence, Hammad enables us to listen closely to the voices of Bil’in’s people, which dominate the text. This witnessing by Bil’inians decries the pain of profound loss yet seamlessly affirms their pride and meaning of life by maintaining organic connections as best they can with the land and their ancestral homes by doing as much of what they did before the Wall by walking alone or with a friend in the arid wilderness beyond the fertile land or convening the village children and elders to take part in the annual olive harvests that are more than agricultural and livelihood happenings, but are truly sacred rituals that combine work, play, festivals of remembrance, and defiant reaffirmations of a sense of belonging that guns, settlements, and provocations are incapable of damaging, let alone destroying.

Along the way we become privy to many telling details that add credibility to this seeming impossible atmosphere of existential contradiction. For instance, the residents of Bil’in do not waste a moment of regret lamenting their decision to stay in their homes as near as possible to their land on the wrong side of the Wall, come what may in terms of settler violence, encroachment, and Israeli tactics of repression. On the contrary, those Palestinians who departed from their homes and land increased their experience of injustice and suffering associated with Israeli 1948 tactics of dispossession and subsequent reenactments of the nakba; in retrospect, those so coerced, should for their own sake have stayed, resisted, and even accepting death as preferable to displacement, however cruelly induced to attain the Zionist settler colonial goals.

In another telling example, Hammad show us how those Bil’in residents rendered unable to grow their own subsistence food on their diminished farmland, losing the dignity associated with living off the produce yielded from one’s own land as generations before them had done. A further creative initiative undertaken not only for practical reasons, but in the spirit of nonviolent resistance is a food sovereignty movement in Bil’in which seeks to act collectively as a community to maintain local subsistence living standards without outside dependence.

These ways of balancing the ordeal of the occupation against a resolve to live as authentically as possible in traditional ways is what most truly captures the complex truths of life in Bil’in. In other words, the weekly protests that gave Bil’in worldwide prominence are the visible display of stubborn resistance. These marches to the wall opposed by Israel’s active military presence are the front story, but it is the back story of the daily lived life of residents that is the core of a resistance-unto-death that is quietly enacted on an hourly basis by the people of Bil’in. This extended exposure to the voiced experiences of Bil’in’s residents also abandons the conventional reliance of scholarly inquiry on the binary optics of oppressor/victim or victim/resister. This enriches the appreciation that Palestinian life under occupation is not properly interpreted as an either/or reality, but is more truly constituted by a richer interwoven texture of creative adaptation, stubborn revolt, depressing captivity, and liberating defiance.

Suzanne Hammad’s relationship to this account of her experience in Bil’in is at once deeply personal while at the same time managing to uphold the best traditions of academic rigor. She does not obscure her own background whose father left Nablus in the 1967 War for the sake of economic opportunity to start a family outside, taking refuge in an Arab country. She makes no effort to offer a balancing rationale for the Zionist Project or set forth the Israeli security narrative, yet this book came across to me as not only revelatory but entirely trustworthy. Hammad attains her goals by allowing the people of Bil’in to speak about their lives in ways that enlighten readers no matter how familiar they are with the large literature on the Palestine struggle. This study is also a rebuke to those who insist that objectivity requires a total detachment from partisan perspectives by achieving an understanding of Palestinian resistance that has eluded conventional scholarship for more than seven decades.

There are some lingering questions that make me urge Hammad to consider undertaking a sequel.

            –Is this attachment to home and place especially strong in Bil’in because the fence/Wall bisects the lived life of the village, or has this sense of loss transcended the physicality of Bil’in to become part of a broader Palestinian imaginary by way of empathy and projection?

            –If after a few years, will a renewed immersion in Bil’in after a year or so confirm the persistence of Hammad’s findings, given the heightened Israeli provocations of the extremist leadership that took over the Israel government at the start of 2023, and put the West Bank at the top of its expansionist policy agenda?

            –How do the daily lives of city dwellers in Jenin or Nablus exhibit resistance in ways that either resemble or differ from Bil’in and from one other?

            –And even more wider afield, is everyday Palestinian resistance, with its pride of place and home attached to sumud unique to the Palestinian reality, or is it paralleled in other national situations of sustained repression of an ethnically distinct people in similar or differing ways? For example, Kashmir, Western Sahara, Catalonia, Tibet, Rohingya (Rakhine State, Myanmar)?

Hammad’s inspiring study has many additional ramifications that invite further study, but as a way of conceiving the Palestinian ordeal this book presents the most convincing, compassionate, and imaginative understanding of just how deep and abiding are the roots of Palestinian resistance. It is a great achievement as well as a loving tribute to the forms of resistance enacted by the village people of Bil’in against the apartheid regime of mighty Israel.

Richard Falk

Rome, July 24, 2023


Hammad, Toward a Theory of Emplaced Resistances: Everything

            Starts and Ends with the Land (Rowman & Littlefield, 2023)

This fascinating book gives us not only creative ways of grasping the underlying continuities of the Palestinian ordeal but also a truly original conception of why the long arc of resistance and resilience, stretching across time and taking certain distinctive forms, has been sustained for more than a century in the face of assorted trials and tribulations. None of these tests of Palestinian resistance was greater than the double assault on the fundamentals of Palestinian normalcy in the West Bank than that posed by the ever-expanding settlement movement and the connected construction of an encroaching Separation Wall on mostly occupied Palestinian land commencing in 2001.

Suzanne Hammad views the evolving Palestinian reality through an ethnographic lens that complements what the media reports, leaders and intellectuals have to say, and militants achieve by direct confrontation with the daily[MK1]  experience of Palestinians living under the heavy boot of Israel’s apartheid regime which pursues with accelerating vigor its own agenda of ethnic cleansing and dispossession of people from their land. To carry out such an exploration led Hammad to conduct her field research for three years in a single West Bank community, the village of Bil’in. The implications of her findings have a broad resonance for Palestinian studies as they illuminate the realities of many similar villages subject to occupation, and indeed inform the situation and consciousness of all Palestinians regardless of whether living under occupation, in Arab refugee camps, or in pre-1967 Israel. In this sense, Bil’in with its population of less than 2000 offers us a rich metaphor by which to decipher the entire Palestinian predicament, and better appreciate the various modes of response that underpin resistance not only to the existential abuses being experienced under occupation but to the foreshadowing of an inevitable liberation that Israel’s state violence is capable of punishing harshly, yet unable so far to destroy. It might even be unable to comprehend such resistance. It is bringing to light these under-appreciated facets of Palestinian sumud or steadfastness that makes this book illuminating reading for all who wish to gain a deeper comprehension of this tragic struggle that remains horizonless as to beginning and end.

Although Bil’in is but one of many West Bank villages, its selection by the author as her main case study is hardly accidental or arbitrary. This village distinguished itself from many other superficially similar villages in at least two important[MK2]  ways. First, residents experienced the severe intrusion of the Wall upon its living space, vividly exemplified by the barbed wire, electrified fence passing through Bil’in in ways that cut its residents off from 60% of their agricultural growing and grazing land, as well as the surrounding ‘empty’ areas used for recreation, reflection, and spiritual growth, including gatherings of the whole community during holidays, and even more during the harvesting times, especially of olives. Bil’in’s inhabitants were cut off by a permit system that was required to pass the single gate in the wall that granted them permission to go beyond the mostly residential part of the village, and in some cases, gain access to their own farmland. Secondly, residents reacted through collective anti-Wall protests every Friday for at least 15 years starting in 2005. The continuity and persistence of these protest dramatized Palestinian opposition to the Wall and the resolve of villagers to resist non-violently, yet with courage and resolve. This activism in Bil’in contrasted reliance on peaceful methods with the violent brutality of Israel’s apartheid regime, which imposes Jewish supremacy even in occupied Palestine and in defiance of international humanitarian law. In relation to the Wall, Israeli defiance became overt as Israel rejected the near unanimous (14-1) findings of the World Court’s Advisory Opinion of 2004. Such an authoritative legal endorsement of Bil’in fundamental grievance added legitimacy to the Friday protests by confirming that it was unlawful for Israel to construct a supposed security Wall on Occupied Palestinian Territory, and hence the Wall should be dismantled, and the Palestinians given reparations for the harm sustained. Implicit in the Advisory Opinion was the related idea that Israel’s situating the Wall on Palestinian territory was more a land grab than a genuine security measure.

We ignore the special contribution of Hammad’s inquiry if we are content with this most visible level of interaction, which is to depict both the depth of Palestinian suffering and its transcendence in the lived daily life of the residents of Bil’in. On the one side a deprivation so severe that it prompts inhabitants to pronounce their condition by such sayings as ‘we’re alive only because we are not dead yet” or “if we had the chance we would choose death over living under occupation.” And yet, this is not at all the bleak understanding that Hammad seeks to impart, which is rather a seemingly contradictory sense in Bil’in that our life is not worth living and yet if we will go on living our values, resisting Israel’s encroachments, and transcending their harmful intentions, by nurturing the pride and pleasure associated with sustaining our way of life in the face of hardships, humiliations, and humbling adjustments we will be living the best possible life given the circumstances. To get at this interface between despair and transcendence, Hammad enables us to listen closely to the voices of Bil’in’s people, which dominate the text. This witnessing by Bil’inians decries the pain of profound loss yet seamlessly affirms their pride and meaning of life by maintaining organic connections as best they can with the land and their ancestral homes by doing as much of what they did before the Wall by walking alone or with a friend in the arid wilderness beyond the fertile land or convening the village children and elders to take part in the annual olive harvests that are more than agricultural and livelihood happenings, but are truly sacred rituals that combine work, play, festivals of remembrance, and defiant reaffirmations of a sense of belonging that guns, settlements, and provocations are incapable of damaging, let alone destroying.

Along the way we become privy to many telling details that add credibility to this seeming impossible atmosphere of existential contradiction. For instance, the residents of Bil’in do not waste a moment of regret lamenting their decision to stay in their homes as near as possible to their land on the wrong side of the Wall, come what may in terms of settler violence, encroachment, and Israeli tactics of repression. On the contrary, those Palestinians who departed from their homes and land increased their experience of injustice and suffering associated with Israeli 1948 tactics of dispossession and subsequent reenactments of the nakba; in retrospect, those so coerced, should for their own sake have stayed, resisted, and even accepting death as preferable to displacement, however cruelly induced to attain the Zionist settler colonial goals.

In another telling example, Hammad show us how those Bil’in residents rendered unable to grow their own subsistence food on their diminished farmland, losing the dignity associated with living off the produce yielded from one’s own land as generations before them had done. A further creative initiative undertaken not only for practical reasons, but in the spirit of nonviolent resistance is a food sovereignty movement in Bil’in which seeks to act collectively as a community to maintain local subsistence living standards without outside dependence.

These ways of balancing the ordeal of the occupation against a resolve to live as authentically as possible in traditional ways is what most truly captures the complex truths of life in Bil’in. In other words, the weekly protests that gave Bil’in worldwide prominence are the visible display of stubborn resistance. These marches to the wall opposed by Israel’s active military presence are the front story, but it is the back story of the daily lived life of residents that is the core of a resistance-unto-death that is quietly enacted on an hourly basis by the people of Bil’in. This extended exposure to the voiced experiences of Bil’in’s residents also abandons the conventional reliance of scholarly inquiry on the binary optics of oppressor/victim or victim/resister. This enriches the appreciation that Palestinian life under occupation is not properly interpreted as an either/or reality, but is more truly constituted by a richer interwoven texture of creative adaptation, stubborn revolt, depressing captivity, and liberating defiance.

Suzanne Hammad’s relationship to this account of her experience in Bil’in is at once deeply personal while at the same time managing to uphold the best traditions of academic rigor. She does not obscure her own background whose father left Nablus in the 1967 War for the sake of economic opportunity to start a family outside, taking refuge in an Arab country. She makes no effort to offer a balancing rationale for the Zionist Project or set forth the Israeli security narrative, yet this book came across to me as not only revelatory but entirely trustworthy. Hammad attains her goals by allowing the people of Bil’in to speak about their lives in ways that enlighten readers no matter how familiar they are with the large literature on the Palestine struggle. This study is also a rebuke to those who insist that objectivity requires a total detachment from partisan perspectives by achieving an understanding of Palestinian resistance that has eluded conventional scholarship for more than seven decades.

There are some lingering questions that make me urge Hammad to consider undertaking a sequel.

            –Is this attachment to home and place especially strong in Bil’in because the fence/Wall bisects the lived life of the village, or has this sense of loss transcended the physicality of Bil’in to become part of a broader Palestinian imaginary by way of empathy and projection?

            –If after a few years, will a renewed immersion in Bil’in after a year or so confirm the persistence of Hammad’s findings, given the heightened Israeli provocations of the extremist leadership that took over the Israel government at the start of 2023, and put the West Bank at the top of its expansionist policy agenda?

            –How do the daily lives of city dwellers in Jenin or Nablus exhibit resistance in ways that either resemble or differ from Bil’in and from one other?

            –And even more wider afield, is everyday Palestinian resistance, with its pride of place and home attached to sumud unique to the Palestinian reality, or is it paralleled in other national situations of sustained repression of an ethnically distinct people in similar or differing ways? For example, Kashmir, Western Sahara, Catalonia, Tibet, Rohingya (Rakhine State, Myanmar)?

Hammad’s inspiring study has many additional ramifications that invite further study, but as a way of conceiving the Palestinian ordeal this book presents the most convincing, compassionate, and imaginative understanding of just how deep and abiding are the roots of Palestinian resistance. It is a great achievement as well as a loving tribute to the forms of resistance enacted by the village people of Bil’in against the apartheid regime of mighty Israel.

Richard Falk

Rome, July 24, 2023


 [

EMERGENCY LONDON CONFERENCE OF GLOBAL INTELLECTUALS OF CONSCIENCE ON JANUARY 27, 2024 TO STOP GENOCIDE IN GAZA

27 Jan

[Prefatory Note: Program of London Conference of Conscience and Concern to Stop Genocide held on January 27, and live streamed and recorded for later distribution; it comes the day after the historic ruling by the ICJ on South Africa’s request for Provisional Measures to stop genocide.]

EMERGENCY LONDON CONFERENCE OF GLOBAL INTELLECTUALS OF CON-SCIENCE ON JANUARY 27, 2024

Opening Session

09.30-10.30

Ahmet Davutoğlu, Former Foreign Minister and Prime Minister, Türkiye; Author of Strategic Depth

Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967 (2008-2014), Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University, Chair of Global Law, at Queen Mary University of London, UK, Department of Law

Coffee Break: 10.30-11.00

Session One: Realities and Prospects.       11.00 -12.30

Depicting the Ordeal: Including Clear and Present Dangers of Present Stalemate—from forced dis-placement across borders—ethnic cleansing, prolonging genocide

Moderator: Hilal Elver, Professor of International Law, UN Special Rapporteur on Right to Food (2014-2020), Türkiye

1.Izzeldin Abuelaish, Doctor, Author, Palestine/Canada;

2. Avi Shlaim, Historian; Author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, Oxford,UK / Israel

3. Mustafa Barghouti,  Physician, Human Rights Activist, Political Leader, West Bank, Palestine, 

Coffee Break: 12.30-13.00

Session Two: Towards Action          13.00-14.30

Realistic commitments to action beyond words, what civil society can do to uphold international law and findings within UN, and on its own to mount pressures to push Israel to end its Gaza onsla-ught by immediate ceasefire, emergency relief and reconstruction campaign, and political admi-nistration of Gaza and restraint of settler violence

Moderator: Mustafa Ceric, Grand Mufti Emeritus of Bosnia, President of the World Bosniak Congress Bosnia and Herzegovina

  1. Ramzy Baroud, Author, Academic, Editor of The Palestine Chronicle, Palestine/ USA
  2. Phyllis Bennis, Journalist, Author and Social Activist, Institute of Policy Studies, Australia;

3. Walden Bello, Philippines, Professor, Activist, and Politician

4.  Usman Bugaje, Professor, Former Chair, House Committee on Foreign Affairs’ Nigeria’s House of Representatives, Nigeria

5. John Whitbeck, International Lawyer and Author, Paris

( Maybe Zoom:  Tu Weiming, Member of UN Group of Eminent Persons for the Dialogue Among Civilizations, Professor Emeritus, Harvard University, USA; Founding Director of the Institute for Advanced Humanistic Studies, Peking University, China)

Lunch: 14.30-15.30

Session Three: Empowering of the UN; Peoples Tribunal of Conscience     15.30-17.00

An exploration of more ambitious action projects that seek to create a greater awareness of full sco-pe of Gaza Criminality, and UN reforms that could do more to prevent any future recurrence of ge-nocide or other severe international crimes.

Moderator: Avery F. Gordon, Professor Emerita University of California Santa Barbara, USA;

1. Richard Falk

2. Penny Green, Professor of Law and Globalization, Director, International State Crime Initiative Queen Mary University of London.

3. Maung Zarni, Human Rights Activist, Non-resident Fellow, (Genocide) Documentation Center – Cambodia

4.  Jan Oberg, Chairman of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, Lund, Sweden.

5. Asli Bali (Video message) Professor of Law, Yale University, School of Law.

Coffee Break: 17.00-17.30

Closing Session / Press Conference : 17.30

Moderator: Victoria Brittain, Former Associate Foreign Editor of the Guardian, Part of Founding Committee of Palestine Festival of Literature, for first 11 years organiser of the Palestine Book Awards, UK

  1. Ahmet Davutoğlu
  • Richard Falk

Gaza & Empire: Webinar

4 Jan

In this time of humanitarian emergency and criminality, the enraged voices of the people must be heard above the tsunami of state propaganda controlled by Israel and its geopolitical supporters in the Global West. It is no longer necessary or useful to debate whether this spectacle of horror satisfies the legal definition of ‘genocide.’ Lawyers and bureaucrats can indefinitiely prolong debate while children daily die and homes of previously abused persons continue to be destroyed. We are all responsible to act now to stem the high tide of Palestinian blood flowing across a still passive human terrain.

You Tube: 2023 AUC Lecture on Gaza/Edward Said

26 Nov

In response to inquiries I am providing the link to my lecture honoring the legacy of Edward Said on Nov. 4, a time of genocide in Gaza.

Edward Said Memorial Lecture AUC Cairo

4 Nov

EWS (Richard Falk) ZOOM

EDWARD SAID MEMORIAL LECTURE

THE ENDURING LEGACIES OF EDWARD SAID

Richard Falk

Public Intellectual and Professor of International Law

Saturday, November 4, 2023 6:00 pm

Via Zoom

This lecture will explore Edward Said’s continuing influence by way of legacy in several domains of thought and action, including the 21st-century challenges of ‘being a public intellectual’; the persisting relevance of Orientalism; the current phase of the Palestinian struggle for basic rights.

Click here or scan the QR code for the Zoom link

eclinfo@aucegypt.edu I tel 20.2.2615.1628/1630

SHAPE and the Struggle for a Humane Future

29 Oct

STRUGGLES FOR A JUST MULTIPOLAR WORLD

[Prefatory Note: Correction of registration glitch for SHAPE. event today. Please do register and

urge others. This is an urgent time to stand together in the struggle for a politically, ethically, ecologically, and spiritually humane future!

Sincere apologies if you have been trying to register for today’s SHAPE event. Due to a technical error Trybooking closed bookings a day earlier. The problem has now been remedied, but we know of dozens of people who have been trying to register unsuccessfully. We are deeply apologetic.

To facilitate participation, we are now sending the Zoom link details to people on our mailing list.

https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82888740529?pwd=qbsRcprLa1DQQPVnYC7fXLQiNmYagA._3BiXE-JLLBNlJzI

Webinar ID: 828 8874 0529 

Passcode: 962988 

In the circumstances, we are encouraging everyone to pass on the Zoom link details to friends who may have been trying unsuccessfully, or others who may be interested to attend the event.

Thank you for your understanding.

Quran Burning interview/article by Rabia Iclal Turan, Anadalou Agency, Turkey

8 Aug

 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/quran-burnings-assertion-of-broader-bias-against-immigrants-in-europe-ex-un-rapporteur/2962817

EUROPE

2 DAYS AGO

Quran burnings point to broader anti-immigrant bias: former UN Rapporteur

A surge in Quran burnings by far-right extremists triggers concern over anti-immigrant sentiment and freedom of expression, with a former UN special rapporteur calling it ‘an assertion of a broader anti-immigrant, anti-non-European right-wing bias’.

There is a ‘strong case’ for prohibition of such acts that ‘serve no possible constructive purpose,’ says Richard Falk / Photo: Reuters Archive.
REUTERS ARCHIVEThere is a ‘strong case’ for prohibition of such acts that ‘serve no possible constructive purpose,’ says Richard Falk / Photo: Reuters Archive.

A recent wave of the desecrating of the Quran, Islam’s holiest book in Sweden and Denmark is “an assertion of a broader anti-immigrant, anti-non-European right-wing bias that has grown to be quite politically strong,” according to a former UN special rapporteur.

“There’s no legitimate purpose by allowing groups to burn the holy scriptures of another religious faith,” Richard Falk, a professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, said in a video interview.

“It seems to me to serve…no possible constructive purpose. And I think there is a strong case for (such acts to be) prohibited.”

In recent months, far-right extremist groups have desecrated and burnt several copies of the Quran in Denmark and neighboring Sweden, drawing fierce condemnation from Muslims around the world and calls for measures to stop such acts.

The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on July 25 that terms all acts of violence against holy books a violation of international law.

‘Is it hate speech?’

About the line between freedom of expression and actions that may be considered offensive to religious beliefs, Falk said they could fall under the umbrella of “free speech” but could be linked to a “formation of violent behaviour” in some cases.

On the question of limits to freedom of speech in cases where, for instance, it threatens security, he said: “Yes, it could be (limited) in certain contexts if it could be argued to be a threat to security”.

He said various European countries “have a less permissive view (than the US) of freedom of speech and are more concerned with prohibition of hate crime”.

“Therefore, this kind of act could be prohibited under the broad prohibition against hate speech, which exists, I know, in the UK and Germany, for instance,” he said, adding that the same may not be the case under Scandinavian laws.

Quran burnings could be “alleged to be hate speech,” said Falk, but it also depends on the precedent within a particular country or region.

Falk said that countries could pass laws to prevent attacks on holy books, emphasising that they “would have considerable international support at this point.”

“Because there is a recent UN resolution … that does say it’s contrary to international law, to burn or otherwise destroy,” he said. 

Threat of violence

Muslims around the world are concerned that these increasing attacks on the Quran could lead to more violence against the community itself.

With book burnings having been one of the main Nazi campaigns in the lead-up to the Holocaust, Falk warned that “democratic societies have to be vigilant against the repetition of this kind of genocidal behaviour because it obviously can be repeated.”

“It has, to a certain extent, been repeated recently in Myanmar, where the Muslim minority … was subjected to what many observers have defined as genocidal,” he said, referring to the plight of the Rohingya community.