The Nomad and the Olive Branch

by Jeremy Hammond; June 7, 2010 A proper understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires exposing numerous myths about its origins and the reasons it persists. Myth #1 – Jews and Arabs have always been in conflict in the region. Although Arabs were a majority in Palestine prior to the creation of the state of Israel, there had always been a Jewish population, as well. For the most part, Jewish Palestinians got along with their Arab neighbors. This began to change with the onset of the Zionist movement, because the Zionists rejected the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and wanted Palestine for their own, to create a “Jewish State” in a region where Arabs were the majority and owned most of the land. For instance, after a series of riots in Jaffa in 1921 resulting in the deaths of 47 Jews and 48 Arabs, the occupying British held a commission of inquiry, which reported their finding that “there is no inherent anti-Semitism in the country, racial or ...

Benjamin Franklin once said that there is no such thing as a good war or a bad peace. The concept of "just war" seems to be too idealistic: given the variety of historical accounts that cover any particular war in known history, there will always be an opposing narrative calling out injustices on part of the "other". The fallible nature of man and the subjectivity of human perception have guaranteed the perpetuation of such a pattern of injustice against those who are wronged... wrongfully. After all, war is political. It's a means to an end for those seeking resources, land, wealth, influence, and power. Yet oftentimes we are led to believe that armies around the 1st Century B.C. onwards have started to adopt more restrictive measures in dealing with enemy positions. Is it possible that the people of these times became aware of the monstrosity of warfare, and the barbarity of killing needlessly and endlessly? It may seem that way, especially considering the e...

It is not new to see on the television screen a man or a woman in a tight suit speak "on behalf" of the "people", stating promises and chanting slogans to rile the masses before them to support their transitions to power. The world, however, changes for them once they get comfortable in the leather chairs of their presidential offices. They are swamped with the demands of lobbyists and the common people, and are held ambivalent over what pacifies the rage of the common man and what betters the common man's socioeconomic status in light of an improving nation (both of them mutually exclusive concepts). Consider, however, that voters for a particular politician who aligns himself/herself with a particular political affiliation tend to support the campaigned ideology. Yet, politicians are still stuck in the aforementioned quagmire, even in the light of scenarios which can not be solved at the time being by promoting a certain economic or social system or belief. Fo...

I apologize for not posting as of late, and I know this topic is way out of date now. Life has a tendency of getting in the way of less important endeavors like blogging, not to say that what I'm about to address is of little significance compared to living your daily routine day by day. Considering what is going on these days, I'm sure you'd be surprised as to why I am posting this now as opposed to day it started. Well, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls... I'm back, and what I'm about to say and show you is not pretty, nor for the faint of heart, if you know what I mean. Last January, the Gaza Strip, an area no larger than Washington, D.C. and populated by 1.5 million Palestinians of whom at least 80% live below the poverty line and can not sustain or transport themselves [ 1 ], has been under attack by the Israeli army. The casualties number in at least 1,000 Gazans killed, mostly civilians and roughly half of the total being children [ 2 ]. Since the conflict...

DISCLAIMER: This topic is not against the nature or necessity of a military force. This topic addresses a disturbing social and political phenomenon that absolves armies from the same accountability that applies to every armed group. But then again, this world isn't a just and fair place. Moreover, take note that I do not support nor condone any military, militant group, or insurgent organization, nor any actions which - BS semantics aside - are clearly unjustifiable. Lastly, before you read on, I acknowledge my biases for "underdogs". This bias, however, does not detract from the gist of the topic itself. After surfing over several political forums, mainly "politicalcrossfire.com" (where, as many of you might already know, I post occasionally), I've come across a rather disturbing trend. There is a prevalent notion that the military of a nation is somehow above the law and for some reason does not have the ability to commit acts of terrorism or war crimes....