A World of Dark Clouds and Silver Linings: New Age Islam's Selection, 22 September 2016
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
22 September 2016
• A World of Dark Clouds and Silver Linings
By Marwan Bishara
• Wanted: Men to Boycott Male-Only Panels on Turkish TV
By Pinar Tremblay
• Why Proposed Blasphemy Law Horrifies Many in Gaza
By Adnan Abu Amer
• Syria: Finding Opportunity in a Post-Ceasefire Crisis
By James Denselow
• Women's Flotilla to Gaza Is More than Mere Symbolism
By Susan Abulhawa
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
A World Of Dark Clouds And Silver Linings
By Marwan Bishara
21 Sep 2016
It's like David Beckham meets Luis Suarez. Out of all the speakers and their litanies at the United Nations, US President Barack Obama and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stood out with their contrasted worldviews, styles and perspectives.
Obama - like Beckham - sounded more like a brand than a political player. He's preoccupied with his legacy and far more interested in looking good than in scoring points. He's above the fray, tired of all the tackling and kicking and just wants everyone to get along.
So, in his last speech to the UN, the US president spoke in historic rather than political terms, lecturing the world body about the blessings of free trade, technology and globalisation, while warning against "aggressive nationalism" and "crude populism".
If there was no place for the Middle East tragedies in Obama's panorama, the in-your-face Turkish president made the Syria, Iraqi and Palestinian tragedies central to his speech.
Erdogan's was an outright diplomatic offensive; he scored points against the hypocrisy of the West and the negligence of the rest at the UN Security Council.
Since the failed military coup against his government, he's clearly in no mood to play with those ignoring the plight of those in the Middle East and seems ready to bite off the heads of those messing with Turkey.
Different Perspectives
Obama and Erdogan presented different perspectives, but weren't necessarily playing for opposite teams. It is the sobering glass-half-empty argument completing the glass-half-full picture.
And yet, seen from the Middle East, and indeed from the rest of the world, Obama's claim that the world is in far better shape today than during the 20th century's world wars, while not incorrect, smacks of sloppiness and indifference.
He knows better than most that even in the US, his promise to bridge the gap between blacks and whites, red states and blue states, and pull the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan have led to more - not less - racial and ideological tensions.
And he has expanded the landscape of military conflict, albeit with less US troops on the ground in the Middle East.
He spoke of accountability, but not a single banker or politician was held accountable for the financial crisis and the illegal war in Iraq during his tenure.
In comparison to 20, 15, 10 and even five years ago, the world continues to heat up, and it's not just global warming. Despite much progress over the past half-a-century, the international political pressure cooker is gathering steam and there's no cooling down.
Conflict and Bloodshed
I've witnessed this first hand over the past few years, travelling through different continents, countries and communities. I spoke to countless people but found little optimism and much scepticism about the future.
Despite much progress over the past half-a-century, the international political pressure cooker is gathering steam and there's no cooling down.
The enthusiasm that followed WWII, the liberation from colonialism, the end of the Cold War, the expansion of democracy and the various popular upheavals in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East have diminished if not vanished altogether.
It's a big mess out there; loss of compass, absence of leadership and little or nothing to believe in. To quote the eminent Irish poet, WB Yates: The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
All of which begs the question: What's next for a world in trouble? Because it feels like the rise of "aggressive nationalism" in the beginning of the 21st century is looking more and more like that of the early 20th century - the same century that gave us some of history's worst atrocities from world wars to colonial wars.
After Half a Century of Change
The establishment of the United Nations and the creation and independence of new states that make up the majority of today's UN was supposed to usher in a more humane and equitable phase in human development.
But the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States brought us nuclear proliferation, proxy wars and the clash of ideologies that exerted a huge cost on human development.
The end of that hot Cold War should have been another cause of celebration as numerous states were freed from the tyranny of dictatorships and war.
But the wars in the Middle East, the Balkans, Somalia, Angola, and Rwanda cast much pessimism as "never again" was repeated again and again, not in Germany but throughout the world, especially in Syria, Iraq and the greater Middle East, where millions of civilians died in the process.
And yet, people looked forward to the expansion of democracies and human rights in their societies. Eastern Europe was freed from Soviet totalitarianism and client regimes; Latin America freed itself from US domination and client autocrats; and Africa began to find its way to representative government. Even the Arab world followed suit in 2011.
But as ideologies like communism, which inspired people, failed to meet the challenges and peoples' needs in the 20th century, the triumphant Western liberalism opened the 21st century with horrific wars and a global financial crisis. Throughout Europe and the United States, inequality has skyrocketed, middle classes are suffering and racism is mounting.
After A Decade of Failures
The past few years have witnessed the retreat of democracy, return of autocracy and the rise of popular nationalism. To paraphrase the words of the UN general secretary, citizens distrust their leaders in a world of "us vs them".
You might say there's nothing new here; it's always been like that. But there was always a vision of sorts; a way forward, a promise of better things to come; but not this day.
Countries big and small seem to embrace, coercively or willingly, demagogic populism and nationalistic autocrats. From the rise of Russia's Vladimir Putin through the ascendance of China's Xi Jinping, the election of India's Narendra Modi, and even the Philippines' Rodrigo Duarte.
Unfortunately, the Russian and Chinese alternatives to US leadership (imperial or otherwise) are lacking at best, and at times scary.
In Latin America, leftist leaders have failed to meet peoples' expectations. The Bolivarian revolution is on its knees in much of Central America as Brazil, Argentina and other Latin American nations suffer from corruption and misrepresentation.
Western Europe and the US aren't spared by the waves of nationalist populism as the radical right continues to make major strides.
And these trends are not ideological with coherent worldviews; rather voiced through empty slogans and even 140-characters-or-less tweets about Islam and defeating evil (Islamists, immigrants, and minorities) that are bent on ruining the glorious (Christian) Western civilisation.
The Alternatives
It must be said, love him or hate him, we will miss Obama once his successor takes over in a few months, just as Erdogan would've been missed if he was removed by a military coup. It's both their blessing and curse that their immediate alternatives don't look so promising.
If there's a judgement or comparison to be made, it's certainly not between Obama and Erdogan. It's rather between Erdogan and his neighbours, and between Turkey and other developing/developed nations.
It's with Egypt's Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, Iran's Ali Khamenei; and between Turkey and Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Kazakhstan, Malaysia, etc.
And the comparison is between Obama and Putin, and the US and China - over who provides a better vision for the future. Unfortunately, the Russian and Chinese alternatives to US leadership (imperial or otherwise) are lacking at best, and at times scary.
There is no point in searching for - or looking up to - the "one-der" leader or visionary. Not today, not ever. Certainly not in the real world. Progress comes through collective, civilisational and generational struggle that is earned tooth and nail.
Fortunately, as the US president argued, the new generation is better than his generation. But not when it's subject to war, violence, racism and alienation. They are more likely to end up in prison or as potential recruits for criminal and violent groups than community organisers and enlightened leaders. And yet, even in times of war,= and conflict, we see countless youth sacrificing their lives and freedom for the lives and freedom of others. One such silver lining appeared in Syria's dark days in recent years, called White Helmets.
If only political leaders would rise to the level of their peoples' sacrifice; if only they would stop sacrificing people for their own personal glory, the world would be a far better place.
If only the UN secretary-general could act like a referee and start slapping down each and every one of these rogue political players with the yellow and red cards they deserve.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/09/marwan-bishara-world-dark-clouds-silver-linings-160921104655985.html
----
Wanted: Men to Boycott Male-Only Panels On Turkish TV
By Pinar Tremblay
September 21, 2016
Since the July 15 attempted coup, the Turkish political sphere has been experiencing a gradual but perceptible masculinization. Increased security threats, expanded military operations into Syria and southeastern Turkey, emergency law, and continuing arrests and purges are facts of daily life now. This testosterone trend can also be seen on daily TV programs.
For most Turks, TV is their only source of information. Almost every night there are political talk shows featuring five to seven pundits focusing on a current issue. These shows are aired during prime time in the evening and they last two to three hours. For years, feminists have battled to have headscarved participants on these shows, yet as of late we see almost no women except for the moderator, whose personal views and analyses are rarely voiced.
At the end of August, Nilden Postalci, a communications scholar and political activist, along with a few others started a campaign on Twitter protesting all-male panels. Postalci told Al-Monitor, “Once the campaign started, it took off with two hashtags: #sirferkekpanel (all-male panel) and #menkafa (male/men head). Then Asli Tunc, a media professor from Istanbul Bilgi University, carried the issue to her column at the P24 website and we started to have a serious debate on social media.”
In her Sept. 4 column, Tunc reminded her readers how much these political discussion shows resemble Turkish coffee shops, where men sit sipping coffee and tea all day discussing politics. Tunc asks a rather difficult question, “Where are the women?” She highlights how important it is for individuals to take a stand against sexism all around the world and asks readers to sign a pledge to not be a part of all-male panels.
Tunc told Al Monitor, “Especially after the coup attempt in Turkey, the screens were filled with only male commentators discussing politics, security issues, military, etc. We started to hear only male voices, as if there are no educated, qualified women who can speak out on TV. Women were totally excluded from the serious media platforms and featured in light issues like fashion, cooking, reality shows, etc."
She reasoned that if some notable men would have the courage to actively join the campaign, producers would be likely to include female participants in the group. In the meantime, tweets poured in asking women not to watch programs where there were only male participants, as a form of protest.
Tulay Subatli, a journalist and the founder of the website Iste Kadinlar (Here are Women) — which focuses exclusively on the needs of businesswomen in Turkey — told Al-Monitor, “The message of increasing male dominance on the screen is, ‘Men are superior. They are the experts in all [security] matters; hence they should be the ones providing analysis.’ This is a mentality that ostracizes women from the public domain and, in some sections; it may be a rather unconscious choice. However, the solution is easy. The producers should make it a rule that unless half the panel is female, they will not air the show.
Indeed, there is no shortage of women qualified to discuss politics or security issues, but when we look at the media we see what appears to be a conscious choice to segregate by gender. For example, pro-government channel 24 TV airs a weekly political debate program called "Kadinlar Meclisi" ("Women’s Parliament") where all panellists are females, along with the guests.
And it seems efforts to segregate by gender find support not only from Islamists, but from secular sections of society as well. For example, although they are Justice and Development Party (AKP) supporters, the regular participants (all journalists) and moderator of “Kadinlar Meclisi” don't present themselves as Islamist, and they don’t wear headscarves.
The campaign to boycott all-male TV shows found support from female social media users. Men were mostly silent about the issue, and several men continue attending these shows.
Al-Monitor columnist Kadri Gursel posted a tweet: “Those who demand female discussants on idiot boxes [TVs] — do they wish to watch women who are as illiterate, boorish and arrogant as their male counterparts currently on TV?” Indeed, Gursel voiced the thoughts of many men and women who are critical of exclusively pro-AKP contemporary mainstream media. As this is their first concern, they advise others to simply not watch television. Although this may be solid advice, it is difficult to follow for those who would like to observe the public closely. A majority of Turks watch these programs regularly.
How can we provide sound analyses of the country if we aren't aware of the information the public receives? Kumru Baser, a seasoned Turkish journalist living in London, is critical of the idea that people should just stop watching TV.
“Several analysts ignore that the problems of the media are multilayered," she told Al-Monitor. "With regards to the approach of the left [and secular sections of the public], we still remember there was a debate about the “future of the left in Turkey” where there were no female participants, and the lack of women on television did not, of course, start with AKP. Hence, the men of the left are quite comfortable with not having any female voices heard in public as well. Many of these men appeared on these channels, which were [actually] pro-AKP all along, when they were invited. Now that [these men] are banned [unofficially, by the government], their worry becomes the quality of female participants? For example, if there are no longer any female judges, can we say, 'Oh well, just ignore the justice system all together'? We cannot ignore the ‘idiot boxes,’ because millions watch them every night.”
As pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) politician Filiz Kerestecioglu explained, we have also seen an increase in male-dominant, macho politics, as not one female was nominated in the municipalities that the government took over after the coup and mostly from Kurdish mayors. HDP had introduced a 50% quota for women on all local positions, which was groundbreaking for the Turkish political scene, yet now all these accomplishments are being erased. Journalist Michelle Demishevich told Al-Monitor, “The message is clear: A woman's place is behind her man. Nowadays, women are asked to comment only upon women’s and LGBTI [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex] rights issues.”
Although media and social science faculties have a fair representation of women, when it comes to political and security issues, women are deliberately and frequently excluded in Turkey. Yes, male dominance on the screen is a global issue; however, several powerful men all around the world have openly declared they are boycotting all-male panels. Interestingly, this has not yet been the case in Turkey. Not even male or female hosts of prominent political shows are supporting the campaign. If women are not allowed to have a voice on security matters, how can we expect more women to become involved in politics?
Source: al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/09/turkey-protest-male-only-debates-on-television.html
-----
Why Proposed Blasphemy Law Horrifies Many In Gaza
By Adnan Abu Amer
September 21, 2016
Hamas declared in its founding charter created in August 1988 that it bases its ideas, concepts and perceptions on Islam and refers to it for guidance on all of its activities.
Hamas views itself as an Islamic movement with a moderate ideology. It does not accuse anyone of disbelief, does not condone any killing based on religion and according to its scholars, religious freedom is a right guaranteed by the Quranic verse 256 of Surat al- Baqarah, “There is no compulsion in religion.”
But since Sept. 9, Khaled al-Khalidi, a professor of Palestinian history at the Islamic University in Gaza with ties to Hamas, has been posting statements on social media calling for the enactment of an anti-blasphemy law, provoking a storm of reactions online.
It all started when Khalidi, whose studies have taken him from Palestine to Saudi Arabia and Iraq, called on the Legislative Council to enact an anti-blasphemy law to protect Muslims’ ideology from disbelief and misguidance and for professors of Islamic law to participate in its drafting to define "blasphemers" and the corresponding punishment according to Sharia.
Khalidi, the head of the Palestinian Encyclopedia of Historiography Documentation, told Al-Monitor that his move is a response to the spread of destructive ideas among Muslims in Palestine, such as not believing in the Prophet Muhammad’s hadith, which open the door to intellectual deviation and ideological mistakes. He bemoaned the failure of Gaza’s authorities to fend off these ideas, especially the Ministry of Religious Affairs and associations concerned with the welfare of future generations.
He added, “As a result, I will soon form an association of scholars to defend Islam from the erroneous interpretations of some religious scholars. I was accused by some of those who departed from religion of adopting the ideas of the Islamic State, but this will not scare me. I will keep fighting them.
The term "blasphemy" appeared in Islamic history for the first time in the Abbasid period to refer to individuals who deny Islamic dogma, mock Islamic teachings or do not believe in Islam. From an Islamic point of view, this term is closely related to infidelity, atheism and apostasy.
The anti-blasphemy law would be the first of its kind in Palestine. On Sept. 9, Khalidi asked the Palestinian Legislative Council to set forth deterrent measures against individuals he believes are blasphemers. He also called on Palestinians to cut ties with these people, refrain from marrying them, employing them or even talking to them.
Saleh al-Raqab, the former minister of religious affairs and endowments in the Hamas government and a professor of religion at the Islamic University, told Al-Monitor, “The term 'blasphemy' is attributed to those who question Islam, deny anything in it or repeat the arguments of infidels, and therefore blasphemy is tantamount to disbelief. But we do not need to enact a law in the Legislative Council to confront this phenomenon. The Palestinian Penal Code should be amended to impose a penalty on insulting a divine being and to prosecute those who promote deviant ideas. The Ministry of Religious Endowments and the Palestine Scholars Association as well as satellite channels and radio stations are called to launch religious awareness campaigns to warn of the danger of blasphemy.”
The call for an anti-blasphemy law stirred a wild wave of reactions. Palestinian intellectuals across the Gaza Strip and the West Bank argued over Khalidi’s suggestion. On Sept. 10, journalist Bothaina Ashtowi expressed objections to Khalidi’s idea and called for solving more pressing problems in Gaza before demanding an anti-blasphemy law. On Sept. 14, one citizen, Abu Bakr al-Banna, expressed support for the idea, attacked "blasphemers" for "distorting the image of the companions of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad" and called them infidels, warning them they were headed for the "ash heap of history.”
Opponents of such a law recall what happened in some stages of Islamic history, when some enlightened figures such as al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, Al-Ma'arri, Abu Bakr al-Razi and Ibn Rushd were accused of blasphemy and killed.
Yousef Farhat, the general director of the public administration for preaching and guidance in the Ministry of Religious Affairs, fiercely attacked Khalidi. He told Al-Monitor, “Calling for enacting an anti-blasphemy law is an intellectual scandal that brings us back to the medieval inquisition era in the 15th and 16th centuries, when people were persecuted and beheaded for their intellectual views. Today’s calls to confront blasphemy are an extension of IS’ ideology.”
He added, “Throughout history, Islam has witnessed numerous situations in which the right to disagree was admirably exercised but also witnessed unfair situations where differences of opinion were described as blasphemy. Some are trying to reproduce these unfair situations today by calling for an anti-blasphemy law.”
Satirical cartoonists produced a video mocking the call for an anti-blasphemy law while other social media users expressed fear that calling for such a law would return Hamas to the dark ages. Other social media users attacked the idea of an anti-blasphemy law, describing Khalidi’s call as worthy of IS.
Islamic writer Ahmad Abu Ratima, who strongly and openly opposes the anti-blasphemy law, told Al-Monitor, “The accusation of blasphemy is a black spot in Islamic history. It was used by dictators against every free voice, and many Muslim scholars were killed on charges of blasphemy. Today, some people want to assume the role of God and sit in judgment of human beings. This brings us back to the dark ages. The accusation of blasphemy may have dangerous repercussions such as physical violence against the accused individual. … This is very similar to the extremist ideas of IS.”
Sheikh Mustafa Shawar, head of the Palestinian Scholars League and a Hamas figure in the West Bank, told Al-Monitor, “Palestinians do not need an anti-blasphemy law, which may do more harm than good. We should not confront deviant ideas contrary to Islam through laws and sanctions, but rather through dialogue and persuasion. Such laws will tarnish our image before the international community in light of the international fight against IS and others terrorist groups.”
The debate continues. Hamas now faces a choice, and has a chance to establish its national Palestinian identity, Islamic ideology and moderate ideas as far removed from extremism.
Source: al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/09/palestine-anti-blasphemy-law-controversy-hamas-moderation.html
-----
Syria: Finding Opportunity in a Post-Ceasefire Crisis
By James Denselow
21 Sep 2016
When it comes to Syria it is easy to despair and hard to find solutions. The failure of the second US-Russian attempt at a ceasefire came a lot quicker than the first and was perhaps best symbolised by the images of the remains of 18 aid trucks burning just north of Aleppo.
As all the main powers in the conflict blamed each other, the United Nations announced that it would be suspending its supply of aid to the country. As ever, civilians continue to carry the burden of the failure of political actors in what Samer Abboud calls in his new book "Syria" the "civilianisation of violence" in the conflict.
While the loss of face to Washington and Moscow may result in a fudge to save a semblance of respect over the failure of the ceasefire, the reality is that more radical ideas over what needs to happen in Syria should be put into play.
Safe Zones
The long debate about "safe zones" in Syria has been made somewhat defunct by Turkey's Operation: Euphrates Shield.
While this was ostentatiously concerned with going after the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group, Anakara’s fears over the advance of Syria's Kurds saw them take large amounts of territory in the north of the country. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said this week that they have already secured 900 sq km and "may extend this area to 5,000 sq km as part of a safe zone".
Whatever the rights, wrongs and interesting legal questions that surround Turkey's manoeuvres, could it be adopted by other actors to finally create an area in which fleeing Syrian civilians would be safe from harm?
Whatever the rights, wrongs and interesting legal questions that surround Turkey's manoeuvres could it be adopted by other actors to finally create an area in which fleeing Syrian civilians would be safe from harm?
The need to prioritise civilian protection in Syria could form the basis of a serious discussion about the UN’s role in the country. Before the failure of the ceasefire and its suspension of aid, the UN had been under increasing pressure to explain the imbalance of where its agencies were delivering aid.
In June, the Syria Campaign accused the UN of delivering 99 percent of its aid to government-controlled territories, and called on it to "restore its impartiality".
A wider audit of the UN's approach to the politics of aid in a conflict dominated by the civilianisation of violence is long overdue. This should recognise that aid is being used as a weapon and a source of income.
As a recent European Council on Foreign Relations report explained, the "supply of humanitarian aid to besieged areas is a particularly important source of revenue for militias and their business cronies, who use their presence on the ground to oversee or block the distribution of goods".
Also as a largely symbolic, but nevertheless important, part of this audit, the UN should make good on promises to deliver aid from the air to besieged communities.
Justice Whatever Price
Following the attacks on the aid convoy in Aleppo, Stephen O'Brien, the UN's emergency relief coordinator, said: "Let me be clear: if this callous attack is found to be a deliberate targeting of humanitarians, it would amount to a war crime."
Notions and norms of international law seem to have vanished when it comes to the Syria conflict, with ramifications that go beyond the war itself. Amal Clooney sprinkled some high-profile stardust on the role of law in Syria this week when she said that "if there is a prosecution of President Assad, I'd be delighted to work on it".
Following the destructions of schools, hospitals, and bakeries by weapons of all sorts, there needs to be some sense from the international community that accountability still exists and we have not slipped back into the law of the jungle.
The case of this week's UN convoy is as good a starting point as any. The International Committee of the Red Cross described it as an "attack on humanity" and if a greater good could come of it, it would be a testament to the aid workers who died in the attack.
So what needs to be done? The protection of Syrian civilians, giving them access to desperately needed humanitarian aid and ensuring accountability for crimes committed in war.
Where there is a will, there is a way and the failure of the latest ceasefire is nothing but a test of the international community's will.
Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/09/syria-finding-opportunity-post-ceasefire-crisis-160921054000182.html
----
Women's Flotilla to Gaza Is More than Mere Symbolism
By Susan Abulhawa
21 Sep 2016
Amal and Zaytouna, a flotilla of two boats with all-women crews and passengers, set sail from Barcelona en route to besieged Gaza in another maritime attempt to break Israel's illegal blockade on the tiny strip of Palestinian coastal territory.
This is a place where 1.7 million Palestinians have been locked for nearly a decade in what many describe as the "world's largest open air prison", a human laboratory that Israel uses periodically to test its weapons.
As with previous civilian voyages to Gaza, these boats are carrying prominent international figures who hope to use their stature to focus international attention on continuing Israeli crimes against Palestinians.
There are 11 women in each boat, including Malin Bjork, the European Parliament member, Mairead Maguire, the Nobel peace laureate from Northern Ireland, Fouzia Hassan, a doctor from Malaysia, and retired US army colonel Ann Wright.
Turkey-Israel deal: Flotilla victims' families wanted Gaza blockade lifted
Carrying a Message of Hope
There have been more than two dozen such voyages since 2008, with only five actually making it to Gaza. The rest have been intercepted by the Israeli military, which often confiscates the boats and other equipment, and arrests passengers.
And while the boats do often carry aid, including medical, building and educational supplies, organisers regard these costly and risky endeavours as largely symbolic. Spokeswoman Zohar Chamberlain Regev told Al Jazeera, "Mainly we are carrying a message of hope and solidarity [for the people of Gaza]."
It is perhaps difficult to see the real and material impact of international activists setting sail to try to visit Gaza, only to be intercepted, arrested and deported. But the significance of these endeavours becomes apparent when viewed in the wider context of popular movements taking root around the world.
The theft of Palestine and destruction of its native society is the world's last vestige of settler-colonialism. It is the link between that ignominious era and contemporary neoliberal destruction of life, lucrative war-making, and wholesale destruction of our planet for the profit of few.
One of the most visible current examples is happening in North Dakota. As the Women's Boat makes its way to Palestine, an epic battle is being waged by the Standing Rock Sioux nation to halt construction of an oil pipeline that threatens the integrity of their land and water.
They have been joined in their struggle by more than 60 Native American tribes. First Nation peoples from around the world have expressed solidarity, and statements of unqualified support have been issued by the National Lawyers Guild, prominent Palestinians, the Palestinian Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, Black Lives Matter, and the Nation of Islam, among others. And rallies of support have been held in cities throughout the US and elsewhere.
Violence Breeds Global Solidarity
As in the case of Standing Rock, such immediate coalescing of leftist movements in common cause has been a powerful reinforcement to the Palestinian struggle against Israel's settler colonialism. Further, the traditional response of power - namely, the use of violence - has proved ineffective.
For example, when Israel boarded and attacked the Gaza Flotilla in 2010, killing 10 unarmed passengers, the Free Gaza movement was flooded with requests from around the world to join their cause.
Overnight, the coalition grew from six to 20 organisations, including groups from Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and more.
Likewise, when the Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners used attack dogs on unarmed protectors of the land, the resolve of the Sioux peoples was further galvanised and activists around the country took to the streets in solidarity.
Predictably, power - whether corporate, state, or both - has thus turned its attention to preventing the dissemination of information.
One of the most powerful tools available to activists recently has been the relative ease in accessing news that bypasses traditional gatekeepers of information, such as mainstream newspaper editors and corporate television producers. Social media, independent news outlets, and citizen journalists have effective forums of communication with the world.
So it came as no surprise when North Dakota issued an arrest warrant for Amy Goodman, whose Democracy Now news report showing corporate security unleashing attack dogs on unarmed protesters went viral.
Israel, on the other hand, has taken the unprecedented step of concluding deals with social media giants, such as Facebook, to censor Palestinian voices, in particular video evidence of persistent Israeli war crimes.
Towards A New Concept of Citizenship
The theft of Palestine and destruction of its native society is the world's last vestige of settler-colonialism. It is the link between that ignominious era and contemporary neoliberal destruction of life, lucrative war-making and wholesale destruction of our planet for the profit of few.
Two boats with 11 women each and a few hundred people encamped on their land to stop a pipeline might appear only symbolic in the face of the overwhelming power of corporate and military states, but they are more.
They give cause to the global discontent of an increasingly informed public. They represent a popular awakening, where citizens are moved to protect each other from predatory power. They are the righteous agitators we all need in these desperate times of state violence and unprecedented global wars, pollution, food and water insecurity.
Their actions blur the boundaries of nation-states, race and class, shifting loyalties towards universal rights. They build global networks of activists. They help to change the prevailing narrative by injecting words like "occupation", "siege" and "dignity" into popular discourse.
The women on the Amal and Zaytouna are mostly from powerful nations, or at least stable ones. They are using their privilege and access to resources in the best possible way: to lend solidarity with the struggle of a besieged people and to help forge a new concept of citizenship.
Source: .aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/09/women-flotilla-gaza-mere-symbolism-160920091929127.html
URL: https://newageislam.com/middle-east-press/a-world-dark-clouds-silver/d/108631