Thursday, July 7, 2011

Film Review: "Private"

"Private" is a film by Saverio Costanzo that provides an interesting and different perspective of the conflict in Palestine. Civilians become entagled in the military aspect of the conflict when soldiers occupy their homes. One might think that occupation of a home means the residents are forced to leave, but instead their home is turned into a prison. They are treated as criminals and their freedoms (few to begin with due to the conflict) are confiscated although they have done nothing wrong. No one is excluded; not elderly, not women, not children.


"Inspired by real events, documentary filmmaker Saverio Costanzo's feature
debut is a minimalist psychological drama about a Palestinian family of seven
suddenly confronted with a volatile situation in their home that in many ways
reflects the larger ongoing conflict between Palestine and Israel.

Mohammad, his wife and their five children live in a large, isolated house
located halfway between a Palestinian village and an Israeli settlement. The
house, in the crossfire of the two sides, is a strategic outlook point that the
Israeli army decides to seize, confining the family to a few downstairs rooms in
daytime and a single room at night. Mohammad refuses to leave his home and,
reinforced by his principles against violence, decides to find a way to
keep his family together in the house until the Israeli soldiers move on."

You can find more information about this film and see a good trailer for it at TypeCast Films (click the link).

Variety entertainment news describes Private as "Powerful...an emotionally gripping drama."

Some standout quotes from the film: "We're going to die anyway; it's better to die with your head held high." "You can't bare your teeth if you don't know how to bite."

This film emphasizes the meaning of being a "prisoner in one's own home." If you are familiar with the film "Paradise Now", the ending of Private is similar; a cliff-hanger that will leave a viewer debating over what the believed ending is.

I encourage anyone and everyone to see this film, and decide on an ending.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Nice Perspective on "Ground Zero" Mosque

Nearly every news media outlet is buzzing about opposition to mosques being built (not just in New York). The following link is to an op-ed article, "Taking Bin Laden's Side", written by Nicholas Kristof for the New York Times . It does not just discuss the controversy surrounding a proposed new mosque in Manhattan, but touches on a broader, international issue. The only thing missing is the citation of his sources for statments of historical occurrences, but if you research the topics yourself, I am sure you can come to the same conclusions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22kristof.html?_r=1

Sunday, September 13, 2009

More on Israel Violating Its Obligations As a State

Are cemeteries considered holy places? Death and burials are treated different in each religion and individual cemeteries tend to contain resting places of people of a common faith. Therefore, cemeteries are to be considered holy places.

Excerpts of the United Nations General Assembly Partition Resolution for Palestine:


  • Existing rights in respect of Holy Places and religious buildings or sites shall not be denied or impaired subject to the requirements of national security, public order, and decorum

  • No act shall be permitted which may in any way impair their sacred character

Israel has desecrated Muslim cemeteries in Palestine, usually to build on top of them. Could it be a matter of national security? Regarding at least one instance: Is building a hotel ever a matter of national security? Regarding every instance: Building on a commercial site on top of a cemetery impairs the sacred character and the right of family and friends to visit the religious site and their deceased loved ones.

How did the Jews get into Palestine anyway?

Most Jews in Palestine today are families of immigrants. The Zionist ideology was created in the 1800s. As more and more Jews entered Palestine, they took up the jobs and natural resources which previously belonged to Palestinians. Once Jews became owners of land, they refused to hire Palestinian laborers and only more Jews could work the land and live in the kibbutzes (Jewish settlements). This is a principle of Zionism.

The Palestinian economy began to suffer so much that Jewish immigration into Palestine was restricted by the British Mandate in the 1900s. These restrictions were not effective though, because the Jews wanted more people to enter Palestine at a quicker pace. There was never a plan to end Jewish immigration, only keep it at a rate that the economy could support, which would be beneficial for all. The Jews disobeyed. There was rampant illegal immigration of Jews into Palestine.

This was recognized internationally. Some countries, like France, chose to turn a blind eye but there were countries which attempted to minimize illegal Jewish immigration either by government monitoring in their own country or by declining to be involved with countries which did not attempt to minimize the illegal Jewish immigration. The following are some of the countries which stood for what was right:


  • Venezuela

  • South Africa

  • New Zealand

  • Honduras

  • Greece

  • Belgium

  • Australia

  • + more

To the representatives of each of the countries which attempted to minimize the illegal immigration, you are applauded. Now, how do you act with Israel today as it violates scores of international laws?


To the representatives of each of the countries that chose to do nothing before, do you feel any guilt or see the blood of the Palestinian people on your hands? What can you do today to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel until it abides by law?


The Zionists want to turn Palestine into their homeland and ask every Jew to move there. A country of that size could never support every Jew in the world. The truth had been stated when it was said in the mid 1900s that the solution for Palestine is not a solution for the Jewish problem.


Zionism and Israel are two separate groups: Most Israelis (the most recent polls show upward of 70%) are secular. So when you hear that the Palestine-Israel conflict is religious, know that it is not. It is about politics and power for Israel.

Obligations of a Jewish State in Palestine

Following is a discussion of selected points from the U.N. Partition Plan to create a Jewish and a Palestinian state in 1948.

Obligations of the Jewish state in Palestine include:


  • "settling all international disputes in which the State may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered"

  • "accepting the obligation of the state to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the U.N."

  • "guaranteeing to all persons equal, non-discriminatory rights in civil, political, economic, and religious matters, enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly, and association."

(The Jewish state is what has become Israel today.)


To the first point, international disputes with the Jewish state include at the least those with the Arab countries involved in the 1967 war as well as Lebanon in the 1980s and again more recently. Also included is the continuous conflict with the Palestinian state, also created as a sovereign state in this U.N. plan. These disputes were not settled by peaceful means. They were all settled by military action, and this is how the Jewish state continues to try to settle disputes (i.e. with the Palestinian state). There is no indication of a change in methodology in the near future, either; especially with the election of a hard-line Prime Minister Netanyahu.


So the Jewish state elects to use military force to settle its disputes; however, a state has the right to defend itself if attacked by the opponent first. So the next condition in this point is that the settlement of dispute is to not endanger international peace and security. Well, the violation of peace occurs as soon as military action is taken but the prospect of peace in the future has also been damaged during the Jewish state's disputes. Keeping troops on the borders of neighboring countries when no conflict is occurring and there are no troops of the opposing nation is not a move suggestive of desired peace. Rather, it instigates further conflict. Instigating conflict is detrimental to the security of a state, the Jewish state and others. Even with non-military action like legislative movements, the security of the Palestinians continues to diminish. Corralling people into the tiniest space possible without basic human necessities, let alone basic human rights and freedoms, is not a way to create security. This again is an instigation of conflict, not only between the Jewish and Palestinian states but the Jewish state is creating conditions which instigate civil conflict within the Palestinian state.


To the second point, territorial integrity definitely has been lost by force to the Jewish state. This is most notably the seizure of Palestinian land, which continues today in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and elsewhere. The Jewish state also undermines the political independence of the Palestinian state as it denies entry and exit of diplomats as part of international gatherings.


The violation of the third point is exemplified clearly in the Jewish state's treatment of Palestinians both within the Jewish state's current borders and within the Palestinian state which is occupied by Israel. Discrimination is institutionalized in the court system by giving unreasonably long prison sentences to young Palestinians years after the alleged crime is committed while Jewish settlers within the Palestinian state who agress against the Palestinians are not surpisingly pardoned by the occupying Jewish powers. It is also evident in the granting of permits to Jews for building homes in Jerusalem but not for Palestinians in the same city. The lack of political freedom has already been discussed. There is also no economic freedom for Palestinians as business owners can not operate while the Jewish state holds or denies its shipments of money or goods into and out of Palestine. There is discrimination in religious matters by the Jewish state as well. Israel controls the city of Jerusalem by military force and Palestinian citizens are not allowed to enter to worship at the holy places. Any Jew would be allowed in, though. The basic human rights and freedoms which were mentioned earlier are listed more clearly in this point of the U.N. plan. I will choose just one of these for which I have a definite example: language. Palestinian residents in the current borders of the expanding Jewish state are not allowed to speak Arabic. They can be harrassed, cited, beaten, or worse if a soldier hears them speaking Arabic rather than Hebrew, the Jewish language.


There are more points from the U.N. two-state plan of 1948 that are to be discussed but I will let all of the above sink in for now. The U.N. has created these obligations but what are the consequences of the obligations not being met? This is to where the discussion will lead.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Congress Wants to Support Israel While Our Own Country Is Falling Apart

Written August 17th

The Jerusalem Post printed an article online titled “Congress Votes $37.5m for Arrow-3 Program.” Hilary Leila Krieger wrote:

Israel is on track to receive $37.5 million in US funding in 2010 for the Arrow-3 missile program, despite earlier concerns that America would cancel its funding, and the US Congress is looking to roll back a funding reduction to the David’s Sling shorter-range missile defense system following votes on Capitol Hill this week.

The defense spending bill passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday and the Senate version approved by the Armed Service Committee Friday also call for keeping the F-22 fighter jet production line alive and exploring the possibility of sales to foreign countries.

Israel has long sought the advanced stealth bomber, whose overseas sales are currently banned, and was chagrined when Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that the US would be ending the program this spring. But despite a veto threat from the White House should the planes be in the budget, the Senate and House both added in funding for several more aircraft, a major source of jobs as well as a potential strategic asset.

It is one thing for the United States to give funding to another military force but it is another thing to give $37.5 million of funding. This does not include the unspecified amount given for many other huge contributions to the Israeli military. Annually, the Israeli military receives $2.77 billion from the U.S. This amount increased recently thanks to President Obama. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to increase the allocation for the shorter-range David’s Sling program from $45.8 million to $72.9 million; that is an extra $27.1 million for short-range missile defense. That will all be delivered this year. Of what significance is short-range missile defense for the Israeli military? Within short range is Palestine, which is already devastated after more than 60 years of occupation and the recently heightened aggression and genocide against it. The missile attacks launched by Palestinians are homemade rockets which rarely land in populated areas or cause any injuries or casualties. During the Gaza massacre of December and January, only four Israelis were injured by these rockets while 1,400 Palestinians lost their lives at the hands of the Israeli military. The magnitude of the short-range missile defense buildup is not necessary. At a time of such economic hardship in the U.S. and with the national deficit expected to reach its largest amount ever, this much money could be put to a much better use. The American government’s first responsibility is to take care of Americans, not to support an internationally-recognized criminal entity. The fiduciary responsibility of the United States is owed to its citizens, and legislators are currently being irresponsible with our tax money and abandoning us when we need it most.

It would be interesting to know what motivation could have been given to U.S. legislators to pass a defense spending bill with these allocations in it. For such a cost to be distributed amongst the American people there must have been a larger benefit for the people; we should hope that our representatives would be as logical, at least. So what benefit does the United States gain by these particular actions? Is it something that the general population of citizens will benefit from or just a few groups of people in government positions or anyone at all?

If the stealth bomber is banned from being sold overseas, there must be a reason. Defense Secretary Gates “announced he didn’t support it.” The opinion of an official in a position of influence so high in the United States’ chain of command is worthy of consideration. Concurrently, why is it considerable for Israel to be exempted from a global rule? The United States has a history of favoring and being a yes man for Israel and it is time that the U.S. begins treating the citizens of the world by the founding principles of America, including that all men are created equal and have the right to pursue basic human liberties. By funding the Israeli military, America is encouraging more racism against Palestinians and fears of attacks upon other countries like Lebanon and Iran and hindering these people (and more) from enjoying life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.

Krieger also says the Israeli military is “busy selling military hardware all over the planet.” For there to be customers of the Israeli military, there must be a worthwhile product. So the Israeli military has technology sophisticated enough to sell but still needs the United States to support it? It is also making money from the technology that is either funded or directly provided by the U.S. America could help itself by selling its own technology rather than giving it away.

As much money as the United States has been giving, is now giving, and will continue to give to Israelis and their military, it will never be enough for the Israelis. The amount allocated continuously increases, even while the economy in the U.S. was worsening at an increasing rate. For the Arrow-3 program, Israelis were hoping to get approximately $150 million rather than the $37.5 million. It has been noted in other sources that the U.S. pays more per Israeli capita than it does per American capita. Does that seem fair or responsible? Does America have any limit to how much money it will give away?

The supportive votes in the United States’ legislature are accompanied by the statement from the House Foreign Affairs Committee noting “its support for ‘complete accelerated co-production of Arrow missiles’ as well as calling for a report on the subject.’” Why is the U.S. supporting not only missile production but accelerated production? Again, the Israelis are clearly in military control of Palestine and have no significant threat of attack against them. Thus, a rapid missile buildup suggests further planned aggression. Why accelerate aid to international criminals when there is such difficulty accelerating the U.S. economy? It is interesting that the American legislators vote to support a foreign military program and then ask “for a report on the subject.” Voters are supposed to be educated on a subject before voting on it. When the U.S. realizes after the fact that its money is being used for crimes against humanity and that it is abandoning its own people, there will be no way to reverse the damage done.

The actions of the United States are intended to “maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge and other assurances regarding the security of Israel, according to [Foreign Affairs] committee staff.” What are the assurances other than military might? They must include economic superiority, social, and cultural superiority. Israel has succeeded in all of these areas as they strangle the life out of the Palestinian people. Why is the U.S. so dedicated to maintaining a foreign country’s “qualitative military edge”? Other allies of America do not get the same treatment and as stated earlier, the Israeli military is not in dire need of such preferential treatment as it is plenty capable of securing itself.

Representative Pete Sessions, a Republican from Texas, states what many others would agree with: “It is the sense of Congress that Israel has the inalienable right to defend itself in the face of an imminent nuclear or military threat from Iran…” Many political advisors, experts, and foreign culture experts have explained the imminent nuclear threat from Iran to be harmless. An imminent threat is not the same as an imminent action. What evidence is there of an imminent action or even certain nuclear weaponry capability of Iran?
A final statement is that the U.S. is breaking its own ethics code and laws by providing weapons, military aid, and other forms of support to a country which uses all of the above in violation of international law, especially including human rights. What is the point of having laws which are broken by those who are entrusted to uphold them?