The Voice of Resistance and Unity

Visitors to my site who are familiar with Palestinian politics may find artists here who have embraced a number of different factions or ideologies. My own view on this is that political ideology is only part of the picture and that an artist may be flawed in the political or social choices he/she makes without invalidating his/her artistic achievements.

Human beings are flawed after all and it is easy to make bad choices politically and socially in our lives, whether we are blinded by high principles or instincts of self-preservation.

Three or four decades from now, the great literature, art and music of Palestine will remain to inspire a new generation while the specific political platforms that the artists embraced may be forgotten. Great art is universal.

Whether an artist supported Fatah, PFLP, Hamas or any other political group or platform does not invalidate the fundamental message of Resistance, even if there are disagreements with specific goals. Even if the artist was or is deluded enough to support the 'two-state solution', he/she still may have created a message that transcends all of that and speaks to the world of PALESTINE and the ARAB NATION.

or do I subscribe to the strictest interpretationn of Islam that severely limits the scope of Art and Music. Allah SWT created Music and Art as part of the rich kaleidoscope of Beauty that leads us closer to the Divine. Art and Music can be a form of prayer as well as a resounding shout of Resistance against Injustice.

Do not tell the Mother of a Martyr of Palestine that the blood of her son or daughter was shed falsely or in vain. From the murky depths of the maze of politics in which specific leaders or members of organisations scheme for power, personal benefit or act as traitors comes the message to Resist the Occupation and to fight for the Homeland. Ordinary individuals seldom truly know what goes on behind the scenes. Even artists can be deluded as to the virtue of a leader or political group without themselves being corrupt. If they are corrupt or became corrupt at some point, does that completely invalidate whatever power or beauty is in their Art?

One can become disillusioned because of the flaws or betrayals of leaders and political parties or one can distill renewed purity of intent and purpose from the collective acts of Resistance and the Art that seeks to represent the Voice of the Homeland.

The blood of the Martyrs waters the soil of Resistance and the artists of the Arab Nation carry the torch of faith forward, despite any and every betrayal on the part of individual Leaders or political groups.

Look to the best of the Past and learn from all the betrayals but at the end of the day acknowledge that the Martyrs of Palestine and the Arab Nation are the symbols of an essential principle that transcends factionalism and differences in our ultimate vision of what government should or should not be. There is one Truth that cannot be denied: the foreign Occupation and those who finance and profit from it must be removed from the Arab Nation.

The goal of educating the West with respect to the truth about Palestine and the Arab Nation always has been a primary one for me. For those in the West who have been brainwashed by the Zionist propaganda, I believe that it is Art that can find the chink in that armour of ignorance and ultimately bring down the entire edifice of corruption that is so much at the foundation of mainstream Western media.

Beyond this, within the world of the Resistance, it is vital that we move beyond factionalism and embrace unity of purpose wherever possible if we ever hope to defeat the Occupation and bring justice to the Palestinian people. Art has the power to unify, to speak above the confusion and often treacherous maze of politics. Let us not be Sheep. Let us not bow to pressure from any group or organisation that dictates we cannot find inspiration elsewhere. Brand loyalty is NOT a positive principle where the Voice of Resistance is concerned.

If an individual requires fuel to power his/her vehicle for a journey that will bring liberation or freedom to the cause, is it more important to insist upon a specific brand or to MOVE FORWARD? Inaction leads too easily to defeatism. (I am speaking here solely of spiritual energy and not of the treacherous pitfalls of accepting foreign aid from governments that have their own agendas.) Find inspiration wherever you can and keep hope alive in your soul.

First and foremost, Palestine must be liberated from Occupation. Palestine is not merely the West Bank and Gaza. It is Galilee and the Golan Heights. It is Akka, Haifa and Jerusalem, every dunum, hectare or acre that is claimed by the Zionists. Whatever an individual's political affiliations, Palestine MUST be made whole and the refugees must be given the means to return to rebuild all that has been destroyed. Period.

The Voice of Palestinian Resistance in Song

The song, 'Yama mwayl il Hawa' is a beloved classic from Palestine given expression by a number of different artists. The song, 'Muntasiba al Qamati Amshi' is an anthem to resistance written by the poet Samih al Qasim and set to music by Marcel Khalife. Perhaps more than any other, to me these two songs embody the pain and longing of the exile and the very soul of Palestine, with an ultimate promise of steadfastness and triumph against defeat.

The tradition of folksong in Palestine as elsewhere in the Arab Nation is to allow freedom of expression in songs like this one. The singer can create new verses or use verses that are familiar to all. 'Yawma muwayl il Hawa' is a song that lends itself to folkloric traditions in that respect. 'Muntasiba al Qamati Amshi' on the other hand, basically SAYS IT ALL as it stands, a brilliant collaboration between two Masters of artistic expression.

There are certain symbols that instantly evoke the Homeland. One of them is the Key. The Key to the House that is lost to the Exile, a house that may have been demolished but almost certainly is occupied by a foreign Invader is a constant reminder of the unequivocal Right of Return for all Refugees. The Key is a symbol of Loss but also of Hope.

The image of the Wind is rooted in Palestinian poetry and folklore as it is in art and literature throughout the world. When I listen to this song, I am reminded of an old Palestinnian folktale named 'Jbene'. I wrote a version of the tale in English for a small American periodical named 'Al Qandeel'.

The heroine of the tale, Jbene has been chosen by many Palestinian artists as a symbol of the exile throughout the decades since the Zionist State was superimposed over the map of the Homeland. Jbene is an innocent young girl who is forced into exile. She sings of her longings to the wind and the message is carried to all the creatures of earth, sea and sky. There are many different versions of the tale and the version I chose was one of the most traditional. Many Palestinians find that version dissatisfying as ultimately the young girl, in time-honoured fairytale and folklore fashion is 'rescued' by a Prince of another land and restored by him to her Homeland. Some of my readers wondered why I chose to portray the young woman as essentially helpless, her fate determined by others. I did so because THAT was the original tale, and not for political reasons but I am thinking of writing a new version of Jbene in which she claims her own justice. After all, the Palestinian people MUST look to themselves for justice and not continue to believe that they will be rescued by an outside force. If they passively await deliverance, they simply will continue to be betrayed by Nations and Leaders who have their own agendas.

The 'Wind' or 'Hawa' is a symbol of a power that is not bound to the constraints known to humans. It can rise above the pavements, above the soldiers at the chequepoints and blow freely without need for sustenance or dwelling place. The Wind can be an ally and friend, a cleansing agent that blows away the poisons of the gases used by the IDF and Occupation Forces, or a force giving wings to voices raised in appeals for aid, declarations of resistance or music to inspire or soothe the soul, but at the end, the Wind has no Homeland and does not take sides.

There are Leaders who have spoken of 'the Wind of Change' but the Wind blows whither it will. A stronger image used in this song is that of the Will to Walk, to move forward in the most basic way, whatever the cost. There is a wonderful poem by Samih al-Kasim, set to music by Marcel Khalife: 'Mumtasiba al Qamati Amshi'.

The song is a resounding slap in the face to the Invader, a declaration of resistance:

'Muntasiba al qamati amshi, marfou'a al hamati amshi.
Muntasiba al qamati amshi, marfou'a al hamati amshi.
Fee kaffi qasfatu zaytounin wa a'la na'ishi,
wa ana amshi, wa ana amshi, wa ana, wa ana wa ana amshi.

'Upright I walk, With my head raised, I walk,
In my hand an olive branch and on my shoulder my coffin,
and I walk, and I walk, and I, and I, and I walk.'

Whenever this song is sung, the heart beats faster and every individual must be fired with renewed determination to face all odds and refuse the map of defeat.

All music of resistance is interwoven into a grand tapestry in which the aspirations and pain, the tears, sweat and blood of every poet, fighter, martyr and every mother and wife who fights by their side or supports them with their strength are to be found. Although the style and tone of 'Yawma muwayl il Hawa' is very different from 'Muntasiba al qamati amshi', a lament of sorts rather than a marching anthem, both carry the listener forward into the future while acknowledging the pain nd loss of the past.

What becomes clear even to a listerner unacquainted with either song if he/she listens to every version I collected here is the vibrancy and originality of contemporary Palestinian music.

The first rendition I have included here combines traditional flute with some Western-influenced instrumentals:



Here is the same song, reinterpreted by the still vibrant Master, Marcel Khalife:




A tribute to Palestinian activists and leaders:



A psssionate rendition of the same song carrying a promise of ultimate victory over the Occupation:



A very quiet, haunting version of the same song and yes, there is hesitancy here and a few minor musical errors, but it is a genuine expression nonetheless with beauty to affect the heart:



Another:



Now that I have mentioned Marcel Khalife's marvelous composition in 'Muntaba al qamati amshi', I must end with that.

Because it is an anthem to Palestinian resistance and therefore belongs to every one now, I am including a tribute performance as well as a performance by the Master himself:

From the Al Bustan Seeds of Culture concert, led by Hanna Khoury:



Here is the recorded versionn by Marcel Khalife:




Finally, here is a live version in concert:



Marcel Khalife, so long a fighter in the trenches of the world of artistic expression, raises his hand to invite the participation of the audience and the world. Will you sing with me:
Muntasiba al qamati amshi, marfou'a al hamati amshi
Fee kaffi qasfatu zaytounin wa a'la na'ishi,
wa ana amshi, wa ana amshi, wa ana, wa ana wa ANA AMSHI!

Upright I walk, With my head raised, I walk,
In my hand an olive branch, and on my shoulder my coffin,
and I walk, and I walk, and I, and I, and I WALK!

16 September, Day of Infamy and Remembrance

16 September 2012: This is the 30th Anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacre wherein up to 3500 defenceless refugees were murdered in cold blood. The actual massacre took three days to complete, executed by right-wing Lebanese Phalangists with the assistance of the SLA and Zionist invading forces in the form of the IDF who made certain that the camps remained sealed, allowing no one to escape to safety.

The forces who led the massacre were under the direct leadership of Elie Hobeika, intelligence chief of the Lebanese Forces. While the Israelis fired illuminating flares over the camps, the slaughter began and did not conclude until 18 September.

The Kahan Commission, later set up in 1983 by the Zionists themselves in response to widespread international pressure, concluded that Ariel Sharon, aka Butcher Sharon was PERSONALLY responsible, among others, for the massacre. Elie Hobeika later became a long-serving Member of the Lebanese Parliament as well as serving in many minsterial roles. Despite the findings of the Kahan Commission, Ariel Sharon held many influential ministerial roles in the Zionist government, serving in fact as Prime Minister from 2001 to 2006. Thus were the engineers of one of the bloodiest and most appalling massacres in contemporary history rewarded.

The people who actually were inside the camps at the time of the massacre were NOT fighters for the most part, but old men and women and children.

Some of the details of the massacres are as follows:

During the Lebanese Civil War, the Lebanese were split into warring factions. One of these factions was the right-wing Christian Phalange ('Fingers'), who on 15 September called for revenge for the assassination of Bashir Gemayel. They did not propose to fight against armed opponents but rather to target the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila where no one would be in a position to resist effectively.

By noon of 15 September, the IDF had surrounded the camps, controlling all means of entrance and exit with the Phalangist militia members. The IDF had occupied the seven story Kuwaiti Embassy as well as a number of other multi-story buidings, giving them an 'unobstructed and panoramic view' of the camps.

The IDF then began to shell the camps. Pursuant to an invitation by Ariel Sharon and IDF Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan, the Phalangist militia were given a 'green light' to enter the camps. 1500 members of the Phalangist militia under the leadership of Elie Hobeika arrived at the camps in jeeps supplied by the IDF, with detailed plans supplied as well by the Israeli forces. Three days of slaughter ensued.

A fortnight prior to the massacre, a member of the Phalangist militia, in conversation with an Israeli official remarked that: 'The question we are putting to ourselves is: how to begin, by raping or by killing?'

Israeli General Amos Yaron's statement to the effect that the IDF knew that the Phalangists intended to destroy the camps was on record as well prior to the massacre.

The slaughter began at 6.00 p.m. on 16 September. First, the few young men who remained in the camps were executed. Unimpeded slaughter of old people, women and children then began. Throughout the three-day massacre, detailed reports were sent to the Isreali government and seen by more than 20 senior Israeli officials. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Israelis were fully as responsible as the Phalangist units and some members of Saad Haddad's so-called 'Free Lebanon Forces'.

On Friday, 17 September, the IDF declared that the Phalange should 'continue mopping up', despite some internation concern that a terrible massacre was taking place. He further declared that he had 'no feeling that something irregular had occurred' in the camps. The Phalangists were told to complete their 'mopping up' and to exit the camps at dawn on Saturday morning but they did not do so until they had completed their grisly work.

When foreign journalists finally were allowed into the camps on 18 September, they found ghastly scenes of carnage. It went far beyond mere death and heaps of corpses. Many of the bodies had been severely mutilated, boys having been castrated and scalped, women raped and carvings of crosses incised into the bodies of some of the victims.

An American journalist, Janet Lee Stevens, reported: 'I saw dead women in their houses with their skirts up to their waists and their legs spread apart; dozens of young men shot after being lined up against an alley wall; children with their throats slit, a pregnant woman with her stomach chopped open, her eyes still wide open, her blackened face silently screaming in horror; countless babies and toddlers who had been stabbed or ripped apart and who had been thrown into garbage piles.'

Prior to the massacres, the PLO had been forced to leave Beirut, their departure supervised by international forces from Italy, France and the U.S. Yasir Arafat begged those same forces to return to protect the helpless inhabitants of the camps against the Israeli forces who had invaded Lebanon.

In a report of a news conference before the massacres: Yasir Arafat, leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, demanded today that the United States, France and Italy send their troops back to Beirut to protect its inhabitants against Israel...The dignity of three armies and the honour of their countries is involved... I ask Italy, France and the United States: What of your promise to protect the inhabitants of Beirut?'

There was no response from the nations that had forced the PLO out of Beirut and no protection whatsoever given to the refugee camps even though they were well aware of the escalating violence of the Phalangists and the Zionist invading forces.

The Palestinian Red Crescent gave the total of dead as 'over 3000' and the Israeli journalist Ammoon Kapeliouk of Le Monde Diplomatique in his book about the massacre wrote of approximately 2000 bodies from official and Red Cross sources, estimating 1000 to 1500 additional victims disposed of by the Phalangists themselves for a total of 3000 to 3500 victims of the worst sort of atrocities known to humanity.

Whatever the total, there is no doubt whatsoever that the massacres of Sabra and Shatila represent the cold-blooded calculation of the Israeli government to further its Zionist aims of the eradication of the Palestinian presence in pursuit of 'a wholly Jewish State' created under the false banner of 'a land without a people for a people without a land'.

Zionist maps in the late 19th and early 20th century, long before the events of the Second World War on which they base their justification of continuing genocide and ethnic cleansing, showed the land of 'Eretz Yisrael' as encompassing not only Palestine but parts of Syria, Jordan and Southern Lebanon.

The Phalangists had their own agenda and indeed, there were many groups in Lebanon during the Civil War that welcomed the Israeli invasion and sought either to drive the Palestinian refugees from the country or simply extinguish their lives.

The victims of the Phalange were not only Palestinian either. There were many Shi'a Lebanese who were massacred by the militia and the invading IDF.

Although Palestinians for centuries have included both Christians and Muslims, there was and still is a fallacious belief among some right-wing Christian groups that Palestinians are solely Muslim and moreover Muslims that seek to create an Islamist State throughout the Arab Nation. Although there are Palestinians who embrace this goal, the aim of creating one single, democratic secular State is enshrined in the original principles that governed the PLO. In fact, the PLO never comprised a single group or political party but was an umbrella organisation with many different Palestinian political groups under its aegis. The PLO in that sense always has been far more an example of true democracy than the rigid two-party system of representational government in the U.S.

It would be wrong to declare Christianity to be in any way responsible for the massacres executed by the fanatics of the Phalange as it would be to declare Islam responsible for any excessive zeal shown by Muslim groups or nations. Religion as always is simply a smokescreen to disguise the true motivations for wars and atrocities, which tend to be economic and social in nature.

It is indisputable, however, that any group or organisation that supported and continues to support the Israeli dream of Zionism must be held accountable for the blood of the victims of Sabra and Shatila. They must be held accountable for the original demolition of approximately 500 villages in Palestine and the continuing demolition of Palestinian homes and expulsions of the Palestinian people from the Homeland. The massacre of Qana during the 'Grapes of Wrath' military adventure of the Israelis in 1996 as well as the continuing deaths of Palestinians at the hands of the IDF and Jewish settlers, the continuing bombings and the state of siege in Gaza demonstrate that the atrocities committed in Sabra and Shatila were not an isolated incident.

When the world remembers Sabra and Shatila, it must vow to stop the continuing programme of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people and to acknowledge the unequivocal Right of Return to the Homeland. Only then will we be able to declare that the deaths of the innocents during that terrible three-day massacre was not in vain.

The massacres have been enshrined in the work of many artists, among them Dia Azzazi. His work will be exhibited at the Tate Modern in London. Here is an article about it:


LONDON.- Dia Azzawi’s epic work Sabra Shatila will be displayed at the Tate Modern (level 3) this July. The Tate Modern collection comprises international modern and contemporary art dating from 1900 until today. The permanent collection is displayed on levels 3 and 5, level 4 displays temporary exhibition, and level 2 holds the work of contemporary artists. Sabra Shatila Described by Azzawi as ‘a manifesto of dismay and anger’, Sabra Shatila was created by the artist in response to the 1982 massacre of civilians in Beirut’s Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps during the Lebanese civil war.

The motivation behind the brutal murder of innocents, at the hands of the Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia, was presented as a reprisal for the assassination of president Bachir Gemayel, leader of the Kataeb Party.

The day after the news of the massacre Azzawi was compelled to construct a work based on the killing: ‘I had at that time a roll of paper and, without any preparatory sketches, the idea for the work came to me. I tried to visualize my previous experience of walking through this camp, with its small rooms separated by a narrow road, in the early 1970s.’ Sabra Shatila displays the massacre through a series of fragmented scenes joined together to create a narrative which invokes the merciless cruelty and brutality of war and human suffering. Silent screams and hands outstretched in desperation pervade the composition; the careful use of blood red and the fragmented bodies of humans and animals reinforce the horror of the slaughter. Indeed Azzawi, who has often used textual referents in the construction of works, was deeply moved by the French writer Jean Genet’s 1983 account of the massacre which also aptly describes the scene presented in Sabra Shatila: A photograph doesn’t show the flies nor the thick white smell of death. Neither does it show you how you must jump over bodies as you walk along from one corpse to the next.

If you look closely at the corpse, an odd phenomenon occurs: the absence of life in this body corresponds to the total absence of the body, or rather to its continuous backing away. You feel that even by coming closer you can never touch it. That happens when you look at it carefully. But it should you make a move in its direction, get down next to it, move an arm or a finger, suddenly it is very much there and almost friendly. As one of the more politically inclined artists of his generation, Azzawi has since the 1970s created works which address the issue of human suffering as a result of political instability.

Previous works which explore the Palestinian plight include Witness From Our Time (1972), based on Black September and the series of works about the Tell al-Za’tar massacre of 1976. His more recent works Wounded Soul, Fountain of Pain (2010) and Elegy to My Trapped City (2011) relate to the post-2003 destruction of Iraq. Azzawi’s politically motivated works (his oeuvre demonstrates an interest in a range of subjects including archaeology, Arabic literature and poetry, and nineteenth-century European painting) are often likened to Picasso’s seminal painting Guernica (1937).

Dia Azzawi Dia Azzawi (b. 1939, Baghdad), is internationally recognised as one of the pioneers of modern Arab art. Defined by its powerful visual impact and brilliant colour, Azzawi’s art covers a range of subjects executed in a variety of media—including painting, sculpture, prints, drawings, and book art. He lives and works in London but continues to derive inspiration from his homeland, Iraq. (Article published by Art Daily)

D'Souza's Melodrama, 2016, Obama's America

I was persuaded to see D'Souza's recent film by a friend who although he never has registered to vote in the U.S., invariably praises Republicans and demonises Democrats. He does understand, however, that 'Israel' is NOT a friend to the U.S. and that the Zionist cause is corrupt at its very foundation. I personally believe that until the U.S. jettisons the two-party system and gives true Independents a chance to aspire to the Presidency as well as other government offices, little true democracy exists for the people. Of course, what most people fail to understand is that the U.S. is a Republic rather than a Democracy in any case. Despite the fact that the official U.S. propaganda machine endlessly professes that all American acts of aggression are undertaken in the cause of democracy, the voice of the People and the Will of the People is filtered through a Republican system of so-called elected and appointed Representatives. Invariably, it is a carefully orchestrated farce wherein the most powerful and wealthy multinational corporations and domestic financial groups pull the strings while the political candidates respond as directed. Republicans and Democrats are nothing more than Frick and Frack for the most part performing under a single director.

The film is interesting in the details about Obama's personal history even if the interpretations may be flawed. When Barry Obama transformed himself into Barack Obama to enter the national political arena, it was obvious that he was trying to gain support from American Muslims. It was equally obvious to me, however that, despite his name, he did not come as a blessing from Allah S.W.T. and would not implement any real reforms in terms of American international policies. I perceived Obama even then to be as much of a political opportunist as Hilary Clinton and he has not supported the Palestinian cause any more than she ever did, despite an assertion on her part (rather quickly disawoved by her when she needed the Jewish vote) that the Palestinians deserved a State. Obama is as much Caucasian as he is Black but he used his African-American identity to gain the Presidency and I very much doubt his political ascent would have been successful had he not been of mixed race. In this, I do agree with Dinesh D'Souza.

The man who made the film as well as Obama himself is from a mixed background. D'Souza may be from Goa, technically part of India, but his family name is Portuguese in origin and indeed his family is Roman Catholic and to some extent rooted in the colonialist heritage of India. D'Souza was educated initially by Jesuits, then came to the States for a privileged Ivy League education. In the film, he declares that there would have been no way for him to advance in India as if he were a poor person from one of the slums in Mumbai but that is far from the truth. (He even makes a rather sly reference to 'Slumdog Millionaire' at another point in the film.) His father worked as an executive for Johnson & Johnson, a powerful corporation with products that are recognised throughout the globe. With an American Ivy League education and an influential family at home, Dimesh D'Souza is very much an example of the third-world 'brain drain' in which the brightest and most promising of the sons and daughters of third-world nations abandon their homelands in favour of making even more money in the U.S. It is no wonder then that he became involved with Republican Conservative politics and attached himself to the Reagan administration.

D'Souza is articulate and well-educated and therefore was able to produce some evidence for the basic principle on which his so-called documentary was founded, to wit, that Obama essentially has an anti-colonialist background and some anti-colonialist sympathies. Any intelligent law student can write a thesis based upon a declaration and find supporting evidence for it, even if the declaration is that White is Black and Black is White. The Jesuits, source of D'Souza's early education, have been famed for centuries for their dexterity in the arena of Logic. Exercises in Logic, however, sometimes bear little resemblance to reality.

My background is in History and Law rather than Economics (although all disciplines intersect) but I do understand colonialism and anti-colonialism, having spent some of my childhood in Asia. Even as a child, i detested colonialists and the compound lifestyle and preferred to find my friends among the real people of the country in which I lived. D'Souza, however, appears to be conflicted in his attitudes. Almost at the very start of the film, he pokes fun at his Caucasian comrades at Dartmouth in a little dramatic portrayal of a dinner for the International student association where he has a Caucasian declare that he absolutely loves India without being able to give any reason whatsoever for his passion. As he makes this statement, the student shows a terrible disregard for table manners as well as his lack of intelligence by waving a utensil in the air. I find it difficult to believe that most of the Americans who take the trouble to join an International Club at any University would be so utterly ignorant and gauche. I have some knowledge firsthand of international Student Associations on different continents and never met any one quite like the pathetic specimen D'Souza conjured. I certainly have met countless Americans who are woefully ignorant of international affairs but these, of course, are the Americans apparently that D'Souza seeks to convince in his mock documentary. The little drama at the International Club did show something about the man who made the film: D'Souza, while espousing the Conservative American ideals and coming from a family entrenched in multi-national colonialism, shows himself quite capable of biting the hand that feeds him.

D'Souza may be able to waffle convincingly about economics but where it comes to the Arab Nation and Muslim world, he either is hopelessly ignorant or pandering shamelessly to Zionist interests and lobbies. In fact, he was distressingly similar in his abysmal ignorance of the entire Arab Nation and Middle East as his imaginary utensil-waving International Students Club alumni was about India.

It was at the end of the film that he made the error of attempting to tie Barack Obama to what his cronies call 'the threat of radical Islam'. His 'expert', believe it or not, was the wholly discredited Zionist propagandist Daniel Pipes. I could not believe my eyes! Surely D'Souza was aware of Daniel Pipes' reputation as a laughingstock among real political analysts, even some of those of the Zionist persuasion who find him rather embarrassing.

It was here that D'Souza showed his lack of knowledge about the Arab Nation in general and Palestine in particular. He spoke of the uprisings in Libya, Egypt and Syria as movements by 'radical Islam', totally ignoring the fact that the CIA and other covert American operations were supporting these uprisings as they supported various uprisings against Saddam Hussein prior to the American invasions of Iraq.

The fact is that the strong leaders of Arab Nations who supported Palestine to some extent and did not bow wholeheartedly to American international policies have been ousted or murdered in the past decade. D'Souza spoke as though all the regime changes in the Arab world had supplanted U.S. allies with radical Muslims. The only deposed leader he named, not surprisingly, was Mubarak. Surely even the most ignorant of viewers of his mock-documentary would have recognised fundamental differences between the corrupt Mubarak and Libya's murdered leader had he mentioned Colonel Qaddhafi by name.

It is interesting that D'Souza denounced the Indian caste system but made no mention of the apartheid system that is fundamental to Zionism, a political philosophy that seeks to create a 'wholly Jewish State' in a land that was at least 95% Arab before its proponents undertook programmes of ethnic cleansing. The only just and 'democratic' solution in Palestine would be to end the Zionist Occupation throughout the land and create ONE SECULAR, DEMOCRATIC STATE, but few Americans, despite their avowed protestations of unqualified support for democracy would have the courage to go against Zionist American interests. It is interesting here to note that more Jews who actually live within the Zionist entity support this solution than American Jews who never set foot in the 'Holy Land'. Far easier to ignore sickening acts of a barbarous Occupation against a native population if you stay hundreds of miles distant from it.

D'Souza incidentally made a brief mention of international nuclear policies but failed to disclose that 'Israel' is one of the powers that still refuses to sign any Non-Proliferation Treaties, despite the fact that its formerly secret nuclear capacity now cannot be denied. The nuclear facilities at Dimona have been creating weapons of mass destruction since the 1960s. More recently, sophisticated submarines made by the Germans have been sold to the Zionists and been equipped with nuclear warheads. Americans foolishly may continue to proclaim that 'Israel is our FRIEND' but it is a friendship based on an implicit threat of potential nuclear retaliation should unequivocal financial and political support be withdrawn at any time. The Zionists made the threat explicit at least once in fact in the 1970s when the U.S. government sought to delay the shipment of some F-16s to them.

The mock-documentary D'Souza cobbled together uses only traditional Zionist propaganda and makes no mention of the real and continuing threat of potential Zionist use of nuclear weapons against its ally, the U.S.

It was when D'Souza spoke of Obama's alleged 'Founding Fathers' that he truly veered into the realms of utter fantasy by including Dr. Edward Said in his list of what he deems to be dangerous radicals who shaped Obama's principles (or lack thereof). This inclusion leads to a bizarre declaration that the U.S. soon is to become the 'United States of Islam' and the Middle East a bastion of 'radical Islam'. As his sole source for knowledge of the Arab world appears to be Daniel Pipes, one probably should not be surprised by the conclusions that D'Souza made. Daniel Pipes is an individual whose sole claims to fame are his rabid diatribes against Islam, his self-generated so-called 'think tank' and his 'Campus Watch', designed to root out any academic in an American University who might be at all critical of the Zionist dream and its American proponents. For all his vaunted support of 'democracy', D'Souza evidently is quite happy with a man who believes that freedom of expression has no place in American academia. Of course, this is part and parcel of a political diet that supports a nebulous 'war on terror' without ever contemplating the real causes of dissatisfaction with American foreign policy. Support of a racist, apartheid regime created on the ruins of almost 500 Palestinian villages and its existence as a rogue nuclear power in the very centre of the Arab Nation is easier to sell if one can pass off all objection to American foreign policy and the billions of dollars sent to 'Israel' as hatred of 'our freedom'. Never mind that those billions of dollars could house, feed and give medical attention to thousands of poor Americans and that withdrawing unqualified support from the Zionist entity would make the U.S. a potential friend rather than the enemy of justice abroad.

Dr. Edward Said evidently taught a class that Obama attended. This is quite sufficient, according to Pipes' 'Campus Watch' witch hunt logic to embed notions of justice for Palestine in the soul of Barack Obama forever. If only that were true! Alas... Zionist funding in American elections speaks far louder than fundamental principles of justice!

To use Dr. Edward Said as an example of a dangerous radical who supported the idea of a world embraced by the Sharia is absurd as well. For a start, Dr. Edward Said was a Palestinian Christian, and had no links whatsoever to Islam, radical or otherwise. Furthermore, international Palestinian activism tends to embrace secularists, Christians and Muslims under the common overriding principle of simple justice and the right of return to the Homeland. Although I admired Dr. Said immensely for his personal courage and integrity, I found him a bit of a defeatist where Palestinian rights were concerned. Unfortunately, perhaps, He was NOT a radical political activist. he was first and foremost a brilliant academic who had Palestine in his heart but did not believe in taking every avenue in order to achieve that goal.

Ali Abunimah, Palestinian activist, creator of 'The Electronic Intifada', is a well-regarded expert on Palestine who first made his name on NPR years ago. Mentioned in the same breath by D'Souza as one of Obama's supposed advisors, Ali Abunimah actually has been highly critical of Obama's policies towards Palestine since he took the Presidency. Obama, far from showing himself to be a real supporter of justice for the Palestinian people, ultimately is giving the Zionists free rein and no doubt either will support a Zionist illegal act of aggression towards Iran before the November election or will engineer an act of aggression by the U.S. in a bid for voter support.

Unfortunately, many Arab-Americans as well as other ethnic groups in the States placed their political hopes in the hands of Barack Obama when he ran for President initially. This hope was misplaced. To those who still have not allowed themselves to see the truth, I would declare: Beware of a Sheep in Wolf's clothing. Obama did not carry the seeds of change. He is nothing but a chameleon, neither fish nor fowl. He may appear to become whatever it is that you wish to see, but look to his deeds and not his words.

D'Souza does not pretend to be objective but he does attempt to portray himself as a serious analyst. It is a pity that he did not choose better sources for his segment on the Arab Nation. As a matter of fact, if one were to list D'Souza's 'Founding Fathers', Daniel Pipes would have to be included in that rogues' gallery. Seriously though, I would like to give D'Souza the benefit of the doubt here, and attribute his pandering to Pipes and his hysterical outpourings to practical needs rather than lack of intelligence.

Films, unlike weblogs, usually require financial backing. D'Souza's lame parroting of radical Zionist 'warnings' about so-called 'radical Islam' in the U.S. and Arab Nation, may have been the price he paid for hefty Zionist funding for his mock documentary.

Despite the arrant rubbish spouted at the end, the film did display some real hints as to Obama's true nature, which is that of a political opportunist who constantly attempts to win people from every side to his support and then quite callously ignores their interests when forging ahead on his disastrous domestic and foreign 'policies'. One of his policies is the spurious 'war on terror', supported no doubt for the purposes of keeping the military machine and its multinational investors prosperous. No communist agenda there, alas. It is nothing more than typical capitalist profiteering dressed up to look like an idealistic political stance. In this as in much else, Obama is no different from his presidential predecessors. He is firmly under the control of multinational economic giants, whether in the military or medical fields. If and when the disastrous 'Obama Care' comes into effect, the extent to which Obama supported the economic and political interests of the most powerful pharmaceutical corporations and HMOs no doubt will become clear. Again, there are no high-minded philosophical principles here. It is all a matter of money and Obama's desire to increase his own power and sphere of control in the world.