Majid Majidi's Movies

An internationally acclaimed writer and director, Majid Majidi was born in Tehran in 1959. He studied at the Institute of Dramatic Art in Tehran. Baduk (1992) was his debut as a director and screenwriter. Below are trailers of some of my favorites.

The Children of Heaven - Bacheha-Ye aseman (1997)



The Color of Paradise - Rang-e khoda (1999)



The Willow Tree - Beed-e majnoon (2005)



The Song of Sparrows - Avaze gonjeshk-ha (2008)

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.

Storytelling: A fun way to learn effectively

Teaching Storytelling in Classroom



What I find most attractive in storytelling as a technique of teaching is that more than just learning pre-determined knowledge they allow creative and imaginative construction of knowledge itself in the process. Moreover, compared to the traditional techniques in which the teacher is more or less at the center, in the storytelling technique the child is at the center of learning process. Storytelling fosters reasoning and communication skills. It encourages the development of reading habit, social interaction skills, and even problem solving skills (using both rational and emotional reasoning methods). All these are in addition to moral values and knowledge that can be conveyed in the play-out at a very deeper level.

Would also recommend checking out "A Child's Work: The Importance of Fantasy Play" by Vivian Gussin Paley.

Why Storytelling - Part I



Why Storytelling - Part II



Also see, Rakugo - The Japanese Art of StoryTelling

Rakugo - The Japanese Art of Storytelling

From Wiki: "Rakugo (literally "fallen words") is a Japanese verbal entertainment. The lone storyteller (Rakugoka) sits on the stage, called the Kōza. Using only a paper fan ("sensu") and a small cloth ("tenugui") as props, and without standing up from the seiza sitting position, the rakugo artist depicts a long and complicated comical story. The story always involves the dialogue of two or more characters, the difference between the characters depicted only through change in pitch, tone, and a slight turn of the head."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rakugo

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

Living Cell - Amazing Cell Animation

"In this clip Nuclei, proteins and lipids move with bug-like authority, slithering, gliding and twisting through 3D space. Each of the things in the animation are going on in every one of your cells in your body all the time. There are some surprising things. For instance, in the animation there's a motor protein that's sort of walking along a line, carrying this round sphere of lipids. It really does look like its out for a stroll, like a character in a science fiction film or animation. But based on all the data, it's pretty accurate rendering." (Text taken from the description of the above clip)

Following is a quote attributed to Imam Ali. Perhaps this clip may be considered as a material interpretation of this quote; the spiritual possibilities from within are said to be even greater and limitless.

"Your remedy is within you — but you do not sense it.
Your sickness is within you — but you do not perceive it.
You presume that you are a small entity –
whereas within you is concealed the vast world.
You are indeed that magnificent book –
by whose alphabet the hidden becomes evident.
Therefore you have no needs beyond yourself
Your essence and secrets are in you — if only you can reflect"

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

American Radical - the Trials of Norman Finkelstein - English

American Radical - the Trials of Norman Finkelstein - English

Particularly interesting in this documentary was the lesser known emotional and personal side of Norman Finkelstein. The documentary covers his earlier work dissecting Joan Peters' zionist fabrication, "From Time Immemorial". It also looks at concerted propaganda and coercive tactics used by the Zionist organizations against him. More recently they led to his tenure rejection at DePaul University. Finkelstein continues to be a supporter of the two-state solution - I believe for its rhetorical and diplomatic value in the eyes of the international community. But realistically speaking this solution is no more viable. (See http://gazaawareness.blogspot.com/ for more on this line of argument.)

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)

Hurray for Baba Ali!

See Baba Ali's latest project.



From his earlier, V-Blog, "Muslim While Flying":



Taking on one of the pressing social problems, "$25,000 Muslim Wedding!!"

The Others - Native Americans, Arabs, Blacks, etc.

A related excerpt from Eqbal Ahmad's column, "Culture of Imperialism":

"Boundaries were drawn to deny our common humanity. An ideology of difference possessed the empires' intellectuals and administrators. They had a mania for classifying people and viewed each as a distinct, necessarily divisible entity. Easy intermingling of peoples was regarded as somehow unnatural. Edward Said points to how the English were astonished to find Muslims, Christians and Jews socializing as though they were not different species. So in the novel Tanered, one of Disraeli’s characters quips that 'Arabs are simply Jews on horseback, and all are orientals at heart.' The policy of divide and rule flowed easily from this sectarian outlook.

While the menace of miscegenation haunted imperial cultures and barriers of policy and social sanctions were erected to prevent it, complex mechanisms emerged to break the barriers to conquest and domination. There was the notion of mystery, as in the mysterious East, an invitation to exploration. Mysteries, after all, demand solution by enlightened, knowledgeable men. Or the idea of darkness, as in the dark continent to which one should bring light. Or the notion of empty lands which of course needed filling up. Or the veritable literature on identifiable, collective mind the Arab mind, Hindu mind, etc. that is still prevalent. All led to a set of common conclusions: they are not like us. They are different. Hence they can be treated differently, according to standards other than those that apply in civilized places. The outlook was so embedded in civilization that it traversed centuries. One finds strange bedfellows, separated in time and space. 'We must save Chile from the irresponsibility of its people', Henry Kissinger was reported to have said while proceeding to destabilize the elected government of Salvadore Allende. A century earlier Karl Marx had written: "They cannot represent themselves. They have to be represented." Third World dictators give precisely this argument to justify their tyranny. This culture is pervasive, it cuts across continents and penetrates our outlook by a variety of mediums. As I outline this talk in the flight from Islamabad to New York, Pakistan International Airlines shows Star Trek: First Contact. I snip at what looks like a high-tech, outer-space replay of an earlier voyage into an 'undiscovered' world. Commander Jean-Luc Picard plays a modern-day Cortes, leading the crew of the newly commissioned Enterprise E to war against the Borg "an insidious race", informs the PIA flier.

Those "half organic aliens" appear like Indians in the early Westerns mysteriously, ubiquitously and sometimes seductively. Violence flows freely as 'contact' is made. Fallen aliens are shot even as they beg for mercy. Captain Jean-Luc Picard and his crew commit quite a holocaust with an insouciance we are expected to appreciate only because they have vanquished an alien race mysterious, dangerous, seductive and, ultimately, vulnerable. The Borgs have no individual identity, only a collective one. Their defeat is deemed final only when their roots are destroyed, when their head which assures life's motion to the entire race is cut off. An idea redeems this "mission"; once contact has been made the world will change. Promises Captain Picard: "Poverty, disease, and war will end."

Star Trek is but a crude, popular expression of the culture of imperialism. This culture is not Western any more. Rather, it enjoys hegemony, it has become global. Note an irony: Pakistan International Airlines, which will not serve wine to passengers, happily serves up Captain Picard on its flights."

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Library/9803/eqbal_ahmad/imperial.html

A critical point to note here is that Colonialism was not separate from the European project of the (so-called) Enlightenment. Colonialism was not contradictory to the liberal ideals of political rights and self-determination. The very ideals of European Enlightenment, anchored in the notions of uni-linear progress of history and civilizations, the emphasis on particular modes of thought and reason, the importance on individual rights and private property as the means of self-actualization, and the difference between the "modern" and "backward", implied that Europeans see themselves as "different," "superior," and "civilized" in comparison to other unfamiliar cultures and peoples. Both John Locke and John Stuart Mill, the champions of Liberalism, supported and rationalized the practice of colonialism through these ideals. To them it was a "progressive force" that would civilize the indigenous people (sounds very familiar, huh?!). That is the "White Man's Burden". These ideals were also incorporated into particular versions of Christianity that were brought to the Americas by the European settlers.