How to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint - English

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7zwrzEyzkA

These steps only 'reduce' carbon footprint; they don't relieve us of our responsibility - that is, if we are complacent in other aspects or if we are apathetic to the exploitation of environment and people by big corporations and by people in our very neighborhoods. The steps in this video can only be a starting point.

On a different note, on the use of tap water, obviously the suggestion in the clip applies only to some countries - mostly in the west. But over in those countries too, it is recommended to use effective filters: Pharmaceuticals - like antibiotics, mood stabilizers, and sex hormones - have been found in drinking water supplies in America. See here http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/pharmawater_site/day1_01.html

The last point about factory farming of cattle and greenhouse effect in the clip relates to the issue of excessive meat consumption. The more the demand for meat, the more grain would be fed to cattle, instead of humans. It takes about 7 gm of grain to produce 1 gm of meat protein. About 40% of world grain is fed to animals, whereas you have more than 1 billion people in the world who, as per UN estimates, sleep undernourished or hungry each day.

On top of that, there is environmental degradation (with excessive emission of 'methane') that the clip refers to.

According to one analysis food 'production' process is more environmentally costly than food 'transportation', and if average Americans replace only 1/7 of their meat consumption with vegetables, it can minimize environmental cost equivalent to that which can be obtained through maximum localization (eating local). See more about that study at: http://www.ethicurean.com/2008/06/23/food-miles-vs-food-choices/

Some people want to make it an argument about "food miles vs. food choices". I think we can incorporate all of these good ideas into our lifestyle - as we encourage eating local and organic (wherever it's realistically possible), we should also encourage cutting down on meat consumption.

Would you buy a diamond if ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsfwEj6yqSA

More regulations on the diamond trade - specifically, to purchase only certified diamonds - would only reinforce the monopoly of De Beers and its likes.

Human beings are exploited on both ends of the diamond trade. From the poor miners in Africa to those people who are made to believe that their love could only proven by diamond. They probably do not know how much blood is on that diamond. And some, despite knowing, have simply become indifferent and cold (and therefore, in-human).

We need to re-think if we need diamonds at all to feel happy about ourselves or express our love toward others?

A related question to consider is that Are diamonds really that rare? Is diamond scarcity real or man-made?

Even if somehow we manage to address the problem of "scarcity" by dismembering the diamond cartels and etc., would that solve the problem? If today we address diamond scarcity somehow, tomorrow the hearts-with-illness will desire for some other “precious” metal or material. Instead of De Beers, you will have some other unscrupulous, profit-hungry business doing similar exploitation.

People should definitely engage in political activism, pressuring politicians and companies through protests and boycotts. But just that doing that won’t be enough. What is needed is a deep cultural shift in how people think and desire and somehow re-orient the focus away from the rat race for bigger, better, faster, and more, that you see in almost all segments of society around the world - those in the middle and upper classes that can afford such luxuries and those among the working and poor classes who can't afford but their hearts long for these luxuries, and if tomorrow they become rich, they would probably join the rat race with similar enthusiasm.

Change has to start from within ourselves, from transforming our hearts, from changing our standards of beauty and value. More than just sympathy we need to get angry at our complacency and at the exploitation of people and environment and turn our passivity into concrete action.

Thoughts on the Israeli Apartheid Week 2010

Israeli Apartheid Week 2010 Trailer





6th International Israeli Apartheid Week Trailer


Many of the readers are already familiar with the Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW), an annual series of events held in different cities and campuses around the world. Last year, according to their website, these events were organized in more than 40 cities across the globe. This year's events, held in early March, have been widely covered by the international news media. I believe that this effort has a lot of potential, and I support it for that reason. The following points are meant to reflect on some aspects that can help make it even better.

While drawing attention to the striking parallels between the Apartheid South Africa and the Zionist State of Israel, the IAW promotes Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) as part of its tactics or strategy. But the specific demands or objectives of this effort, as I argue in this piece, are at best vague and limiting. The framework in which these demands have been formulated limit the scope of this effort. I am not sure if the organizers in various cities and different speakers invited to these events all have a unified understanding of those objectives and their implications. (What does "End the Israeli Apartheid" really mean? What does "End the Occupation" mean?) The following comments are based on their central (or 'official') announcements and documents.

Comparing Means and Ends

If the distinction between "tactics" (means) and "objectives" (end) is clear to the readers, the question that may be asked here is that what do we want to achieve by highlighting the Israeli atrocities? Similarly, what do we want to achieve with BDS? Suppose, we make a strong point about the apartheid nature of the Israeli state, and everyone is convinced in North America and the rest of the world... now what? What have we asked for as a solution during the movement? "Peace Process", "Two States", "One State", something else? And, what have we conceded in this process?

Looking at some current documents and online advertisements of this event, it appears that they all are couched in the vocabulary and framework of a two-state solution. The target is only on the Wall in the West Bank (and Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 borders), or the demand is equal rights for Palestinian citizens within "Israel", or the return of refugees under UN Resolution 194 (which, by the way, only protects the right of return of the original refugees, not their descendants). For some reason, among many pro-Palestine groups in North America, the two-state solution is seen as the most natural and realistic solution, whereas in reality, it is neither realistic nor sustainable. (See "How Realistic is the Two-State Solution?")

One finds an apparent contradiction in the IAW message, between the stated objectives and specific demands, where on one hand the IAW in its document "Basis of Unity" (all officially participating organizations are asked to sign on it) denounces the "racist ideology of Zionism" and "Israeli colonialism" and demands in the first point "Ending...occupation and colonization of all Arab lands". But on the other hand, in the very next point it recognizes the outcome of that colonialism – the entity of Israel – with the demand of "recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality". Isn't that contradictory? Perhaps not to those who subscribe to a two-state solution? (Consider also the truncation of their first demand with the simple slogan "End the Occupation" in the official 2010 trailer. What does this slogan mean in view of the second demand? A two-state solution?) I find the "Basis of Unity" quite limiting, if not contradictory, and I wonder if it really represents the wishes of all those that participate in these efforts and, more important, those that belong to Palestine.

My concern is that these narrow objectives are not only limiting but also self-defeatist, because, among other things, they legitimize the apartheid entity's ideology and existence in the process. Even if we win the demands or end-goals stipulated by the Israeli Apartheid Week, what would we have really gained? A reinforcement of the same apartheid state?

Thinking Strategically

A question that may come to mind: "What about strategy then; we can't get everything from the very first day; even our own people are not ready to go this far?" Sure, we can be strategic and the strategy may very well involve gradual steps, but it shouldn't be counter-productive to the overall cause. It shouldn't be contradictory to our principles. I think that the Oslo Accord has a lot of lessons to offer in this regard.

Let's also consider the implications of UN Resolution 194. I believe that this resolution won't take us too far if we confine ourselves within the framework of a two-state-solution. Because today probably only a few hundred thousands of those originally expelled are still alive. Yes, it may be a diplomatic achievement if Israel even allows those people to return. (However, at what cost to the Palestine cause? That has to be taken into consideration too.) But that achievement won't in itself resolve the problem of millions of people of Palestinian origin who are still living like second class citizens in several Arab countries.

What if as part of the negotiation over UN Resolution 194, Israel demands that the rest of Palestinians can no longer have any moral right or claim over Palestine anymore? Would that be a just solution? Would that be a true end of the Israeli Apartheid? Or, its reinforcement and legitimization? But this is exactly the kind of concession that would be expected if we make our demands within the available two-state-solution framework(s). Again, the Oslo Accord provides ample illustrations as to how something like this can really happen. What did the Palestinians really gain from giving so many concessions to Israel (which some may have sincerely thought of as 'small steps' or 'starting point' of their strategy) and in that process surrendering their moral claim and rights? Even if it is just for the sake of media and public campaign, we need to ask, what would we really gain by pressurizing Israel for those limited demands?

Wars won on the battlefield can be lost on the negotiation table. My concern is that we shouldn't let this happen to our struggles. This is not to question the sincerity of those involved in the IAW. But we should not be shortsighted about what we demand and how we define our objectives. The truth of the matter is that since the mid-1970s, the two-state solution has been quite instrumental for the entity of Israel to advance its ideological claims and at the same time violate international laws in the name of "fighting existential threats" and "security". It is actually in Israel's interest to keep the idea of this kind of solution alive in the international discourse because it gives Israel legitimacy, even when Israel itself is not sincere to this solution. One can see this instrumental emphasis on the two-state solution in a recent analysis published by the influential Israeli think tank, the Reut Institute. The analysis simultaneously calls for "sabotage" and "attack" on global justice movements that may be working toward de-legitimizing the Zionist Apartheid state.

Hence, it is not even strategically prudent to define the IAW objectives within the limiting framework of a two-state solution. In practical terms, the movement may want to keep its message very generalized (to appeal to a wide range of pro-Palestine/Justice groups with varying ideological orientations). It can just focus on educating people about political Zionism, and in the process, de-legitimizing this ideological project, without limiting the scope of this effort by recognizing the state of Israel in its demands. By keeping the objectives on that generalized level, it would not need to directly confront the choice between different solutions.

To conclude, I have suggested that the focus of an effort like IAW should be on political Zionism and the apartheid state and system that this ideological project has resulted in over the last 60 years. It should be clear that the purpose here was not to question the tactics necessarily. We can more or less use the same tactics (highlighting Israeli atrocities, BDS, etc.), but they should be framed differently with different demands and objectives. De-legitimizing political Zionism is a worthwhile objective in itself.

Additionally, in more specific terms, if the organizers and those whose cause they are representing can all agree, such efforts may want to target the unconditional American support for Israel – financial, military, and political. They may demand war-crime trials of the Israeli authorities. They may still call for ending occupation and colonization of all Palestinian lands. Finally, they may demand a true dismantlement of the Zionist Apartheid state and call for a just, democratic, multi-national/religious state for all the people of the land. If they cannot go this far, for ideological or strategic reasons, at least such efforts can make sure that their demands are considerate to other major perspectives on this issue and are not counter-productive to the overall cause of justice for Palestine.

For more on this line, see Joseph Massad, "How surrendering Palestinian rights became the language of 'peace'" (EI, Jan 27, 2010), Gideon Levy, "America, stop sucking up to Israel" (Haartez, Nov 2, 2009), Ben Ehrenreich, "Zionism is the problem" (LA Times, March 15, 2009), Joseph Levine, "History Matters: Why we must acknowledge the claims of the Palestinians" (Boston Review, Sep/Oct 2008), Jonathan Cook, "One State or Two: Neither" (JKCook.Net, March 12, 2008), Edward Said, "The One-State Solution" (NYTimes, January 10, 1999), Gaza Awareness, and Electronic Intifada.

Creative Strategies of Resistance: Bilin weekly demonstration reenacts the Avatar film

"The village of Bilin reenacted James Cameron's new film Avatar during todays weekly demonstration. Five Palestinian, Israeli and international activists were painted blue, with pointy ears and tales, resembling the Avatar characters. Like Palestinians, the Avatars fight imperialism, although the colonizers have different origins. The Avatars presence in Bilin today symbolizes the united resistance to imperialism of all kinds."

If you consider the audience that is intended here and the message and framework that this video can convey, I think it is a positive effort overall and does not necessarily trivialize the Palestinian resistance.

On creative strategies, see a previous post: "Culture Jamming for the Right Cause"

On the history of Palestinian plight and possible solutions, see Gaza Awareness.

Remember Imam Hussain - Muharram Presentation - English

"Hussain is alive in the hearts of millions of mourners
Hussain is alive in the cries for truth and justice
Hussain is alive in the struggles of the oppressed people
every day, everywhere...

Each year Muharram comes with an invitation:

Remember Hussain
Remember his great sacrifice
Remember what he stood for
Spread his message
Inspire hearts and minds
And strive for a better world."

Composed by SalamVision

Muslim Youth Helpline - English

Hope other communities will take inspiration from this project. We need more of such culturally sensitive, religiously informed, and professionally trained services in our communities addressing issues of youth, women, and families.

Norman Finkelstein on Gandhi and Non-Violence

The above is from Professor Norman Finkelstein's presentation at the University of Alberta on January 22, 2009.

(Some useful insight from Inside Sectarianism (Oct 30, 2009)) "...chanting 'peace, peace, non-violence, non-violence' ... sometimes ... [is] used to de-legitimize militant resistance (as 'irrational' and 'unjustifiably violent'). It takes attention away from the whole history of Israeli atrocities by focusing too much on - and even blaming at times - the victims for responding with violence in defense. (Same goes for the case of Lebanon.) The 'peace, peace' slogans at times neglect the fact that the international community has failed to deliver any positive results in the last sixty years."

"I think the resistance in Palestine as well as Lebanon would also prefer non-violence over violence. The difference really is on the question of 'efficacy' of violent vs. non-violent tactics. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was largely non-violent. Even scholars of non-violent movements acknowledge that fact.

The distinction between principle and tactic is important here. We would be arguing on a very different level if some peace activist believes in non-violence as a principle - that militant resistance is always wrong. (Even Gandhi made exceptions to that principle!)

But if it is a matter of tactic with non-violence as the preferred method, then the implication is that if legit resistance-s choose militant tactics in Palestine or Lebanon, their actions should not be looked down upon by peace activists. Also since it is a matter of tactic (not principle), tomorrow the resistance-s may very well decide to become non-violent, if they feel that time has changed and the international community is more responsive to non-violent tactics and can actually do something to address their grievances."

Yah Bacha - By Ibn Insha - Urdu sub English

This presentation visualized in the context of Pakistan is based on a poem by Ibn Insha. I read somewhere that he wrote this poem after seeing an image of a starving child in Ethiopia in the 70s.



Violence comes in various forms - physical, symbolic, structural. This should imply that conscientious activists around the world cannot afford to focus on only one facet of injustice.

Poverty and hunger are forms of structural violence, largely resulting today from current international trade laws written by corporate greed.



Materialism is the underlying logic of the prevailing global injustice. Unfortunately, it seems that we - the non-corporate actors - are also implicated in this exploitation, with variable degrees however, knowingly or otherwise, because of self-absorbed excessive consumption, apathy, and lack of resistance against how our governments and corporations are exploiting people and resources around the world.



The above video addresses not only 'how' bad it is, but also 'why' is it that bad and what are some of the structural causes.

In the ultimate analysis, the root cause lies in materialism - a deep psychological force - that has become pervasive in our values, cultures, and institutions.

See a related post here: Miniature Earth.

10 minutes by Ahmed Imamovic - Short Film - English subtitles

Culture Jamming for the Right Cause

You may be familiar with a campaign technique called 'Culture Jamming'. Basically, you use the same vocabulary and methods of presentation that you see in the regular, mainstream media and turn them into something ironic, unexpected, and thought provoking (although people realize that only afterward). Culture jamming is an act of subversion. It can also be a form of protest.

Think about the impact the following headlines would make if they were published in NYTimes or on CNN:

"Israel admits it made a huge mistake, calls for immediate ceasefire, promises to compensate the Gazans in full."

"Israel admits it was wrong all along, promises to return Palestinians their land by the end of the year."

Examples of Culture Jamming

1. Some people recently tried something similar with NYTimes (you probably have seen this already). According to reports, the culture-jammers printed 1.2 million papers and distributed them for free in New York's busy locations. The headline of the paper read "Iraq War Ends".

Here is the paper: http://www.nytimes-se.com (apparently, the link is not functional anymore, but note that this spoof website has almost the same address as the original NYTimes)



On a topic that was not covered in the NYTimes spoof - the Palestine-Israel Conflict - see the coverage in a recent Financial Times spoof:

"Anti-Semitism on decline since Israel wiped off map": http://ft2020.com/israel/ (unfortunately, link not functional anymore)



"G20 protesters distribute spoof FT" - Guardian, March 27, 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/27/g20-spoof-financial-times-ft

2. Check out the 'Yes Men' Dow Chemical spoof



The guy in the video did the homework really well. Had all the relevant facts (more than just mocking Dow, he is also conveying useful information), and did a very convincing performance - very professional.

More interested in their works? Check out their documentary, The Yes Men Fix The World (trailer)