Translate

Thursday 23 January 2014

The Meaning of Ariel Sharon








The passing of Ariel Sharon, who had been in a coma since 2006, triggered news headlines throughout the world. The 85-year old leader has been described as ‘controversial’, ‘uncompromising’, ‘man-of-peace’ and a ‘butcher’, depending on the media outlet you consume. Moving beyond both narratives of ‘man-of-peace’ and ‘the butcher’, what Ariel Sharon represents is the greatest obstacle to regional peace. Sharon represents the militaristic strand within Israel and there are many leaders in Israel who have taken from his brutish mantle. Sharon’s view can be summed up as this, ‘The Arabs’ understand only one language-force-hit them and hit them hard. It’s not a surprise that when Noam Chomsky was asked for his reaction to his death on Democracy Now he responded “There is a convention which says never speak ill of the dead. It’s rather imposing one, because (in this case) there would be nothing to say.”

Ariel Sharon was born during The British Mandate of Palestine in 1928, and his original name was Ariel Scheinermann, but he (like most of Israel’s early leaders) Hebrewised his name later on. From a young age he was involved in Jewish militias and took up arms as a teenager. After the creation of the State of Israel, Sharon joined the newly formed Israeli Defence Force (IDF) and would later go on to lead Israel’s first paramilitary force Unit 101. However, Unit 101 and Ariel Sharon was responsible for a number of war crimes including the 1953 Qibya massacre, in-which 70 Palestinian civilians were murdered. Sharon was never punished for his role in this massacre and as his career progressed so did the massacres. The closest Sharon came to being held to account was the 1982 Lebanon invasion.      

Lebanon was in the middle of a brutal civil war and Sharon wanted Israel to directly intervene into Lebanon and smash the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), and to help his Christian allies create a Christian state in Lebanon. He had a secret alliance with Bashir Al-Gemayel, who was the leader of Maronite Christian faction the Phalange (The Death Squad), the alliance meant that Phalange forces would support Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and the Israelis would support the Phalange in taking power. Sharon was Israel’s defence minister and he actively manipulated, withheld information and distorted facts to both the general public and his own cabinet. The war was ultimately a failure and after the 1982, Sabra and Shatilla massacre carried out by the Phalange with the support of Israel, a Knesset inquiry found Sharon personally responsible for the massacre and he was forced to resign. 

Sharon’s made a political come-back in 2000 following the collapse of the peace process and the Second Intifada (Palestinian uprising) began. Sharon never believed in the peace process and he wanted to eliminate Arafat and the Palestinian authority. He lay siege to the West Bank and made Palestinian lives unlivable.






 He was the first Israeli Prime Minster to oversee the creation of the Separation Wall, which divides the West Bank up, and has been ruled to be illegal under international law. The Wall is longer than the Berlin Wall. Some Western leaders’ credit Sharon for the ‘disengagement from Gaza’ in-which he evacuated Jewish settlements from Gaza.



However, removing settlements from Gaza and allowing Palestinian bodies to control the inside of Gaza was not his idea. Since the beginning of the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993, Israel has tried to handover direct rule of the day to day running of Gaza. There was little economic, political and strategic incentive to keep doing this. Sharon removed settlements and Israel’s direct control inside Gaza, but maintained control of all of Gaza’s borders and set Gaza up for the siege it’s currently under. Sharon may be gone, but many of those who successes him seek to emulate him. Sharon was the living embodiment of Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s ‘Iron Wall’, but the trouble with this militant brand of politics is that it has endangered Israel’s existence as a state. Israel has brutalized both the Palestinians and neighbouring Arab states for over sixty-years, and in many cases the wars between them were unnecessary and initiated by Israel. Israel has consistently stalled on real peace settlements-as can be seen with the Palestine papers.


Instead of creating a long-standing Jewish state, Sharonism and Jabontinskism, will re-enact the biblical story of Samson and lead the country down the path of self-destruction. And it is this, that will be Sharon’s real legacy.  


          

Tuesday 14 January 2014

3 Ways Bashar Al-Assad Uses Female Sex Appeal in Propaganda


There is an old dictum that says sex is a weapon of war. The Syrian Civil War is ongoing proof of this dictum. Very little is written about sexual and gender politics in Syria. We occasionally hear about the prevalence of rape, but not often. These stories usually (but not exclusively), involve regime soldiers or security forces abusing women suspected of being with the opposition.
As the Syrian regime attempts to disguise these crimes, the media has become a central battlefield for the regime. Syrian TV and social media are attempting to spread the message that the regime is an adamant protector of women's rights. Much media attention has been paid to the president's wife Asma al-Assad as a "beautiful, modern, westernized, liberated and uncovered" woman.   
The Syrian media consistently showcases "attractive, liberated, and uncovered" women arguing on behalf of the regime. Sex in Syria is a psychological weapon. To truly understand this, one must juxtapose the image of these "liberated women" next to the "bearded" rebels. A narrative emerges based on these contrasting images. These are three media through which the Syrian regime channels this message. 
1. Syrian Girl

There are many pro-regime commentators on social media, but Mimi Al-Laham, or Syrian Girl, has caused an online sensation. She has appeared regularly on Russian Today, Press TV, and on channels in Australia. She has appeared most frequently on Alex Jones's online show and runs her own channel on YouTube. The videos she posts on YouTube receive upwards of 163,000 views. On Google, her name followed by the word "hot" returns just under 50,000 results. Mimi, who is believed to be the granddaughter of a government minister, uses her channel to promote conspiracy theories, pro-regime, and anti-opposition rhetoric.

 

2. Syrian Television News



BBC Arabic News's documentary "Inside Syria: Reporting for Al-Assad" involved the network sending a reporter to Al-Ikhbariyya station. The network is famous for embedding reporters in the Syrian army on the battlefront. Particularly, they send "young, attractive, and uncovered" female reporters to the front lines. In fact, while up to 60% of Syrian women wear a hijab, almost none of the female personalities on Syrian state-owned T.V. station seem to. This is no accident as the regime is demonstrating its commitment to liberalism and women's rights. A woman wearing the hijab represents the opposition to Assad and Ba'athism, according to the state's ideology. An unveiled women represents the "ideals" of Ba'athism, as it symbolizes "progress, independence and modernity."



3. Female Soldiers

There are only a handful of female soldiers in the regime's army, but this has not stopped the propaganda machine from churning out these images. Whether its Russia Today broadcasting female soldiers shouting pro-Assad slogans, or Syrian Music channels broadcasting femalesingers dressed in military overalls singing about the army, the image of the pro-regimist woman is of a fighter who will "resist" oppositionist "oppression." When juxtaposed with the image of "Al-Qaeda," opposition creates a powerful narrative. These narratives are false. The regime has committed brutal crimes against women and children. The idea behind these images is to reverse reality, and that is why they is so dangerous.   



Meet the Syrian Women who aren't Afraid to Face Assad



The image of Syria in the Western media is an overwhelmingly masculine one. We see bearded men of the oppositional rebel forces carrying guns and fighting. The entire crisis has been simplified to an armed rebellion led by extremist oppositional figure and regime forces. The civil uprising no longer exists. Women are often depicted as the passive victims of this conflict.
These assumptions are wrong. Aisha (not her real name) is from central Syria and is a committed activist, who believes that freedom, dignity and rights cannot be killed or destroyed, regardless of what the Assad's regime does. As well as, being a prominent activist and citizen journalist, her voice is important because it represents the forgotten voice of the Syrian revolution. She reminds us that while there is an armed uprising, there is still civilian opposition.     
Q: What role do female activists continue to play?
Aisha: "Women play a diverse and critical role in the struggle. We are active mainly in civil oppositional activities, which include blogging, reporting, protesting, assisting and helping the local communities in which we live. In many local oppositional committees, women are important organisers of events and in some cases help to form some of the leadership roles."
Q: What are the female activists' relationships like with the rebels?
Aisha: "Women like all Syrians have mixed relations with the rebels. Not many, but some women have joined the rebels; there are female snipers in the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Others assist the rebels in other ways, when the armed rebellion began, it was women who would go and collect information on the movements and positions of Assad's forces. Even now, when rebels liberate a village or town it's women who take them into their homes and treat their injures and feed them. This happened recently in the Christian town of Maaloula- when the rebels entered the town they told the locals, that they weren't the target, the regime was. And the local nuns invited the rebels into the church and feed and clothed them. Of course the regime later lied about what happened there."
Q: But aren't some of the rebels' violent extremists who will oppress women? Aren't you worried about the effects of violence?
Aisha: "Okay, fine. Some factions of the rebels like Islamic State in the Levant and Iraq (ISLI), but women activists have taken action against these groups. You know, in northern Syria there were towns were hard line Islamist affiliated groups took control off. And when they began imposing restrictions on women, the local women fought back and staged mass protests. The group had to back away from some of the measures because of it.
But you have to remember two things. Firstly, most oppositional groups including rebel groups are local. They are full of local guys, who fight for local issues, and women play an important role in those local committees. They cannot disregard what women want. Secondly, not all the opposition to the regime is militaristic. There is still an active civil opposition to the Assad regime. In many towns there are weekly protests against the regime still. Plus, it is not as if the regime can claim to be the protector of women's rights. They openly rape and imprison women ... in parts of Central Syria the regime soldiers look for Sunni women to kidnap and rape. Just before Homs fell to the regime a few months ago, Assad's forces kidnapped 100 women from neighbouring town and forced them to march ahead of the army as they entered oppositional areas. To get the opposition to surrender. They use this tactic. In some towns they get the women to strip naked and then march."
Q: What were your opinions on an American military strike?
Aisha: "Syrians are divided over this questions. Many Syrians supported the idea and held up signs in anti-regime protests saying 'We are against the Syrian military intervention into Syria.' Others were against. For me it depends on their intentions. But now they have cut a deal with the regime, it is clear they do not care about the Syrian people".