Monthly Archives: September 2021

The British are, by nature, a pragmatic race who take the truth in their stride.

They gave up most of their colonies when dreams of an empire became unaffordable after the victory in the Second World War.

They hitched their carts to an American horse during the Cold War, as it was obvious that Europe wouldnt last a week against the Soviet Union on its own.

They gave up Hong Kong to the Chinese in 1997 without much fuss once they understood that Beijing wouldnt countenance the perpetuation of strategic colonial outposts.

And they manfully did their duty in Helmand province, Afghanistan, during the two decades-long global war on terror by accepting that this was the price for having a special relationship, one that allowed them a continued say in world affairs.

Ironically, the true wages of that defeat are only now starting to be paid by Britain at home.

The why and how are predicated upon British foreign policy being hamstrung by domestic socio-political compulsions and constraints of a left-liberal making.

Simply put, vote-bank politics has become so integrated into the British electoral system that the threat of Islamism and minority appeasement are now two sides of the only coinage in circulation.

A principal, public manifestation of that rarely discussed issue is the perennial question of why the West has consistently refused to highlight Pakistans role in the creation of the Taliban or take action against it for systematically derailing a trillion-dollar effort to solve the problem.

Could time, money, and lives have been saved if only they had admitted that the solution to the Afghanistan problem lay in Pakistan and acted accordingly?

Author Minhaz Merchant says that they knew, but still didnt act because of a long and sordid history of collusion between NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and Pakistan, going back to the origins of the Cold War.

No doubt, countless dollars were siphoned off by everyone involved, for generations, for which no one can point a finger at Islamabad today without sending prominent participants in the West to the clink.

In addition, fairly brazen political correctness is also being peddled furiously now, as the manifold dangers of the Wests disastrously hasty exit from Afghanistan becomes increasingly apparent. Look at just three absurdities that surfaced in Britain over the past few weeks:

- The British Chief of the Defence Staff, General Nick Carter, whitewashed the Taliban as a group of country boys with a code of honor. Worse, he denied calling them the enemy. Ah, well! Good to know, but who, then, did so many valiant British soldiers die fighting in the Hindu Kush?

- A BBC anchor shut down an American academician trying to argue that the root of the Afghan problem was Pakistan, on the flimsy ground that there was no one from the Pakistani side to rebut the professor.

- It was reported that Britain would give 30 million pounds in aid for housing Afghan refugees to countries bordering Afghanistan. Though not stated explicitly, this payoff will go largely to Pakistan.

Why would Britain behave thus?

These three incongruities, among others, plus veiled social media schadenfreude at Amrullah Saleh and Ahmed Masoods resistance not faring well in the Panjshir valley, raises a broader question: Why would you wish for the defeat of a group you supported, by those whom you called the enemy till just last month?

The answers lie in British domestic politics. We may call it the Blair-Corbyn effect, after former Labour prime minister Tony Blair and failed Labour prime ministerial candidate, Jeremy Corbyn, who adroitly mainstreamed good old-fashioned secular Congressi vote-bank politicking into British elections.

They and their left-liberal jamaat (every democracy hosts such a section these days) learnt, to their delight, that dozens of parliamentary constituencies could be won on the back of a decisive Muslim vote. It was a profitable discovery in a country where most victory margins amount to only a few thousand votes.

In the 2017 general elections, the Labour Party gained 30 seats to score 262 in a House of 650. It wasnt enough to cross the majority mark, but they stood just two percentage points behind the Conservatives.

Of those 262, a full two-thirds of their top 30 wins were in seats with a significant Muslim population. In a hundred-odd others, their margins matched minority demographics.

In 2019, Brexit (short for "British exit") overrode political correctness, and Labour were handed one of their worst electoral defeats in a century. They lost 59 seats and 8 per cent of the popular vote.

Yet, even in that debacle, as Swarajya showed using electoral and census data, it was the loyal Muslim vote that spared them the blushes.

The point, therefore, is that save for the bloc Muslim vote, Labour would have been wiped out in both 2017 and 2019, and it would have been a series of incredible Conservative sweeps.

The net result of this crushing, existential dependency on a vote bank meant that parties like Labour, which grew fat on identity politics, were now severely constrained from executing requisite foreign policy, in case it cost them the popular mandate.

No wonder that the more the West bombed the Taliban, the louder these people raised the bogey of Islamophobia at home.

Where does that leave Britain today, apart from calling the Taliban country boys or preventing an academician from voicing uncomfortable truths in public? In a pretty pickle.

Decades of pandering to pronouns and cultural separatism have created a fatal flaw in the British electoral system, where foreign policies lie at the mercy of domestic politics and an accursed enabling environment of counterproductive correctness.

Sadly, it is not just the Labour Party that is a victim of this macabre development. The ruling Conservative Party is just as delicately poised on a knifes edge, albeit for different reasons.

Indians, brought up on a strict diet of secularism, would recognise the situation in Britain today. Boris Johnson is where Atal Bihari Vajpayee was in the 1990s. Any erosion in popularity hands the opposition a sterling opportunity to cobble together a majority using the minority vote.

The problem is that such an alternative, if it were to ever secure the mandate, would be woefully stymied in formulating necessary policy, driven as they were by legitimate fears of somehow having to hold on to that crucial swing vote.

This is the surreal mess British politics is in at present, and this is what is driving absurd, conciliatory statements from various corners, which blithely force security concerns and geopolitics to be thrown to the four winds.

Pakistan wont mind, though. It is the new doctrine of deterrence they couldnt have constructed even if they tried. The importance of the swing Muslim vote in British constituencies ensures that important nations would stop short of pinpointing Pakistan as the true source of the jihadi problem plaguing Afghanistan, the subcontinent, and the world.

Today, non-appeasement of that vote bloc risks triggering either violence or vote-bank apathy. Who needs nuclear weapons when you can defeat a left-liberal party simply by not turning up to vote, or by implicitly threatening the government of the day with terrorist strikes at home?

The proof of this interpretation is self-evident in the election results, and in the fact that the perpetrators of both successful and aborted Islamist terrorist attacks in Britain over the past 15 years were born, bred, and radicalised there.

Perhaps, Britain might have avoided this terrible predicament, if only they had studied two things: past Indian secular politics and the way in which minority appeasement, and its attendant ills, are being systematically sidelined in India by the vote.

We, too, went through a torrid stage when a Congress government wanted to demilitarise the Siachen Glacier, give up efforts to reclaim Gilgit-Baltistan, accept terrorism as a way of life, or invoke pious, moral equivalences to shed tears for Muslim terrorists killed by our security forces (like at Batla House).

But we woke up and decided that national security concerns could not be held hostage to electoral exigencies.

Naturally, this is a work in progress since, as recently as this week, a former Indian editor said India could not afford to alienate its Muslim population when the Taliban were on the ascendant in Kabul. What he meant was that if India didnt bow to the wishes of its minority, the minority would alienate itself further and become a grave internal security threat.

This statement encapsulates, perfectly, what the British have had to suffer courtesy their intellectuals and politicians.

The truth, of course, is that this sense of alienation predates the Taliban by two centuries. In fact, it is the Taliban that is a product of such alienation, and not the other way around (so eerily similar to those who bombed the London Underground or stabbed innocents near London bridge).

This, allied with vote banking, is what has prevented the Muslim community from joining the mainstream so far be it in Britain or India. (Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, doesnt count. He first made his name by defending a 9/11 terrorist, and then his fame, as a darling of the left-liberal brigade, by infamously exceeding his remit to oppose Donald Trump.)

This is the problem Indian politics is trying to solve, one that countries like Britain will have to tackle soon if they are to cleanse their electoral systems of identity politics alienation, pampered and promoted by an indulgent liberal mindset, only perpetuates division, aggravates strife, and sustains a two-nation theory.

So, we see that the problem is not so much in Afghanistan or Pakistan, as it is in parts of Britain, like Sheffield, Bradford, or Manchester, where elections are won or lost by the identity vote and terrorism is kept away by appeasement.

The grim inference, in political terms, is that countries like Britain are now a full decade or two behind India. The grimmer implication, in geopolitical terms, is that India must not expect much assistance from the West as it gears up to tackle the stiffest national security challenges it has faced in centuries.

The actual failure of the global war on terror lies not on the desolate battlefields of the Hindu Kush, but in the well-heeled, well-paved constituencies of countries like Britain, where identity politics, vote banking, and minority appeasement have ensured that the very threats these nations went to war against have now been legitimised on their soil.

These are the true wages of defeat.

Read more:

Britain, Islamism, And The Wages Of Defeat - Swarajya

Humourist Drew Hayden Taylor recently took in The Rez Sisters at Stratford.

Stratford Festival i

Drew Hayden Taylor is an Anishnawbe playwright and humorist.

Recently I saw the Stratford production of Tomson Highways The Rez Sisters. It was about the dozenth production of this play Ive seen but the first one in about ten years. Full disclosure, Ive always been a Highway fan. All in all, the production and script holds up remarkably well once I got used to hearing the word Indian being repeated. In these politically correct times, even Indigenous theatre is being affected.

Most BIPOC people have benefitted from the tidal wave of wokeness that has hit our society. For the most part, it has been a positive experience. A few decry the movement. As a humourist, its sometimes made it a little more difficult to satirize or ridicule society, but also, as a First Nations writer, I am given a bit more liberty to play around with the changing rules. So many times Ive heard the phrase you can say that but I cant. Sometimes clawing your way out of colonization can have its benefits.

Story continues below advertisement

But back to my point. A decade or so ago I saw a production of the musical The Fantasticks at Torontos Soulpepper Theatre. Its a weird play with a Caucasian character running through it perpetually dressed in a full scale, clich'd Indian (yes, I know I said it. Call Human Resources if you dare) headdress. Im not sure what the point that was trying to be made was but sometimes in theatre you just have to go along for the ride. Ive been known to have Native people dressed as settlers running across the stage wearing Birkenstocks, waving a briefcase full of low fat Greek yogurt, just for the hell of it.

At some point in The Fantasticks, one of the other main characters comments about the aforementioned feathered gentleman by saying something to the effect of: Hes not really a Native American/Canadian. I forget the exact reference but within the original text, the term used was Indian. I remember raising an eyebrow at the acknowledgment at the impropriety of the character but still thinking that doesnt do much to rescue the show. In fact, the attempt to add political correctness to such a character only made the travesty more obvious.

Just prior to last years COVID-19 clampdown, there was to be the premiere of a play written and directed by Guy Sprung at Infinitheatre in Montreal called Fight On! It was about Charles Dickenss third son, Francis, who spent eleven years as a Mountie out west during the North West Rebellion. Its one of those snippets of Canadian history that many do not know. I did not. Unfortunately, several of the Indigenous cast members in the production were uncomfortable with the rampant usage of the term Indian in the epic play. I find this understandable, but I also find it difficult to imagine Sir John A. Macdonald, a plethora of Mounties and racist settlers saying We have to do something about those damn First Nations people! Im sorry to say, but it sort of goes with the era.

One of my favourite stories exploring this issue took place in Toronto. An Indigenous woman who had witnessed the production of a certain play complained about how two characters being played by Indigenous women were being repeatedly intimidated on stage by the non-Native male leads, and at one point, a character felt threatened by a pulled knife. Eventually in the show, both women died as a result of direct and indirect actions of men. Even though this was all in the script, this patron found it somewhat triggering and complained.

It was a production of Hamlet, and the Indigenous women were playing Gertrude and Ophelia. Im not sure what you do in a situation like that? Rewrite the script to allow them to survive and prosper? Make sure no Indigenous women are cast in those roles? No that would be a whole different category of complaints. Do an all Indigenous production of the play? Actually, I like that one but there would still be the issue of the women being under threat by men. Except this time they would be Indigenous men. Coincidentally, both actresses were absolutely delighted to be doing Shakespeare not as First Nations actors, but just as actors. I dont think we have a word in our language for conundrum.

And then theres the play fareWel by Indigenous writer Ian Ross. Winner of the 1997 Governor Generals Award for Theatre, I doubt it will ever be produced again. Its a searing comedy, exploring the complexities of life on the reserve, but that actually has nothing to do with it. There is a character in it, actually one of the more interesting ones, whose dark skin has earned him the nickname well, lets just say its commonly referred to as the N word. No, not Native, but a term frequently used by racists referring to members of the African American community.

The irony here is that nicknames are exceedingly frequent in First Nations communities. Commonly grotesque and inappropriate ones too. Growing up, I knew a guy named Anus. I remember cringing uncomfortably when I saw the production and heard the characters name repeatedly uttered, thinking this could be problematic. Oddly enough, back in the 1990s, it wasnt. As I said, it won a major award. But I dont know if theres a theatre company out there today willing to take on that extra baggage.

Story continues below advertisement

Im thinking of writing a survival manual, on working in the complex and crazy world of Indigenous theatre. Im thinking of calling it All the Worlds a Stage Depending Who Colonized It.

Sign up for The Globes arts and lifestyle newsletters for more news, columns and advice in your inbox.

Read the original here:

Even Indigenous theatre has fallen victim to wokeness - The Globe and Mail

The following interview by the Metras Editorial Board with Palestinian activist Mohammed El-Kurd was originally published in Metras on July 16th, 2021.

Israelis have long oriented their rhetoric towards the West through an intentional program of political propaganda referred to as hasbara. In contrast to this, Palestinians have had few comparable successes, and none that were ever as formalized.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Palestinians benefited from international leftist rhetoric in mobilizing public opinion. In addition, they were able to recruit volunteers of left-wing international movements.Edward Saids rhetoric subsequently stood out, based on the principle of embarrassing the West, highlighting the contradiction between the broad human rights rhetoric versus how the the rights of Palestinians are diminished.

In the recent years, diverse movements and organizations, including boycott movements and other legal organizations, emerged to re-introduce the Palestinian cause to Western audiences. Their efforts concentrated on exposing the occupations violations of human rights, and its violations of international law. Despite their cautiousness, these movements are still always forced to stand up to Zionist pressure under the charges of antisemitism. These charges in turn have been responsible for the cautiousness of some of these movements, and the broader intimidation of public opinion.

However, it seems that the events in recent months in Palestine have strengthened the development of bolder rhetoric that dares to call the spade a spade, as activists are increasingly striving to state the the obvious rather than being cautious. One of those who stand today behind this bold rhetoric is Mohammed Nabil El-Kurd, a resident from the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Jerusalem who has been subjected to threats of being displaced from his home by the settlers movement for years.

As opposed to many Palestinian speakers, in his interviews with Western media Mohammed calls the Israeli presence in the lands occupied in 1948 occupation. He clearly states that Israel is a terrorist regime that Palestinians cannot coexist with, and that it practices policies of settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and forced displacement in addition to practicing the policy of apartheid, which has come into vogue with pro-Palestine advocates.

The rhetoric engages the political intuition that every Palestinian knows, and shifts confrontations with the media from defensive to offensive and puts the debate on Palestinian terms. It consequently avoids all rhetorical labyrinths that transform just causes into a cluster of incoherent legal and micro-detailed issues.

Mohammed El-Kurd was not the first to introduce such rhetoric. This truth telling reflects the Palestinian writer Ghassan Kanafani, and many other Palestinian national liberation writers. While several Palestinian advocacy institutions believed that diplomatic rhetoric, that focuses on red lines and agreed upon legal definitions, is more successful in addressing Western audiences and affecting their policies, others believe that the new rhetoric, given its clarity and boldness, is more efficient in speaking to the international public.

In this conversation, Mohammed El-Kurd discusses these shifting rhetorical strategies, its effectiveness, and how it has been developed.

The Palestinian cause has (re)gained widespread international solidarity beginning with the events in Sheikh Jarrah and then the Sword of Jerusalem battle of last May. Unprecedented great marches took place for the first time in capital cities in Europe, in which protestors condemned Israels violations in occupied Palestine. While voices opposing Israel have long existed throughout the history of the Palestinian cause, why and how, in your opinion, did these voices become more effective and prevalent?

I think there are too many reasons responsible for raising the ceiling of the new Palestinian rhetoric. The wave of advocacy in the recent months is only a continuation of an cumulative process that advocates and varied institutions have done for several decades.

This time, with insightful and politicized use of social media platforms, Palestinians were able to overcome all obstacles and attempts of silencing they had to face by Western media companies, forcing them to discuss and shed light on the viral news in social media. There were a lot of celebrities who used their influence on social media to stand by the Palestinian cause and condemn settler-colonialism. To give an example, regardless of the rhetoric, several voices in the American congress had the courage for the first time to criticize Israeli policies, in addition to the collapse we have witnessed of Israels status in American and European public opinion polls.

The protests over George Floyds murder in the Summer of 2020 prepared international audiences for the new Palestinian rhetoric and paved the way for making demands such as liberating Palestine from the river to the sea.

At the same time, I can not forget the protests over George Floyds murder in the Summer of 2020 before it was hijacked by the American government and the elite of black capitalists as they have prepared international audiences for the new Palestinian rhetoric. Instead of asking to fix the legal and security systems in the U.S, these protests asked for the abolition of these systems entirely; the abolishing of both police and prisons. While this radical rhetoric was not new, it was able for the first time to make headlines in the press. This, in turn, has paved the way for making demands such as liberating Palestine from the river to the sea.

When talking about the occupation state in English today, not to include everyone, we do not limit our speech to the inhuman treatment and the violations of Palestinians rights. But we also challenge and debunk the legitimacy of the state and its institutions, in addition to addressing the geography of the occupation state as a settler-colonial system. The Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Jerusalem is a case to consider. Not only have we said there were false pretenses of settlers and discriminating rules against Palestinians, but we also said that Israels juridical system is essentially colonialist. And that this system will never do justice for Palestinians because it was built by the settlers to serve their interests. We also recognize that the Israeli magistrates do not have any legitimate authority to decide on our fate as Palestinians who live in occupied Jerusalem.

I would say that the Palestinian today is able to overcome all bureaucratic obstacles imposed on him by the leading Western media, such as distorting apparent power relationships that make it harder to decide on the Palestinian cause for the international public. As a consequence, it became easier in Palestine, since it is not necessary anymore for the audience to be a specialist in politics or history in order to understand the essence of settler colonialism and its manifestations.

What is also worth mentioning is that the Palestinian rhetoric was aimed historically at addressing a specific audience of decision makers in Western and Israeli governments. However, it differs today as the rhetoric today is a mere interpretation of the voices and prospects of Palestines street. The rhetoric does not seek anymore to gain the sympathy and respect of Western audiences.

Listen to an interview with Mohammed El-Kurd on the Mondoweiss Podcast

What do you think about those who believe that addressing the West through its media is inefficient and that there is no need to convince its public with anything? Would it be possible to differentiate between Western media channels? Put differently, what is the difference between European and American media? Are there any distinctions when looking at them separately?

It is widely thought that the West consists of white people only. However, the West is much complex and includes varied racial groups that stand against fascism, slavery, and colonialism in their diverse contexts, which sometimes identify with the Palestinian struggle for liberation. We have to be aware that when talking to the West we are speaking to groups of oppressed people who also struggle against injustice. We speak to people, not to governments, to fight against their fascist states that are complicit with the Israeli occupation.

We have to be aware that when talking to the West we are speaking to groups of oppressed people who also struggle against injustice. We speak to people, not to governments, to fight against their fascist states that are complicit with the Israeli occupation.

It is noteworthy that addressing does not necessarily mean begging. It is sometimes a struggle against diplomats and decision makers and others who are steeped in our blood. It is also crucial to explicitly confront and hold them accountable for being responsible for our displacement and the continuation and sustainability of the occupation. The struggle does not necessitate refinement and diplomacy. On the contrary, it is important to name and shame. We can not be complicit with liars and defer to them anymore, as this strategy has proven its ineffectiveness throughout time.

We can only assume that most known news channels, either American or European, support the Zionist narrative and even oppose the truth under the name of neutrality. An interview with a Palestinian in CNN will not free Palestine or change the channels agenda. However, what we aim for is a Palestinian intrusion of ordinary citizens screens.

Regardless of the questions asked, we need to be aware of what to say and enforce our agendas instead of being subjected to maneuvers that force us to explain ourselves and our resistance. Despite the fact that the majority of these interviews seek to put the Palestinian in a defensive position, it is important to emphasize here, first and foremost to ourselves, that facts are not disputable, and that we cannot allow to let these conversations address us as debatable.

In regard to differences between European and American channels, I would rather say that it is more about the audience we address and the role it can lead. It means that when we speak to the American audience, we discuss its governments role in sustaining colonialism and supporting the colonial entity. And in turn, we encourage those who wish to, to move against their government. The American government provides the occupation with an annual amount of four billion dollars under the name ofmilitary assistance, which should be invested instead for the benefit of the American people themselves who, for example, suffer from an expensive and inaccessible health system.

On the other hand, there are other roles and demands that might be required from the German citizen. In short, these people will not be able to support the Palestinian cause, unless they stand up for themselves. The money that goes to finance Israels persecution is better used to finance the least fortunate and oppressed groups in their countries.

Looking at your interviews across news outlets it is clear that you do not use the typical diplomatic discourse, and that you do not use what we know as political correctness. To give an example, while international law recognizes the existence of the Israeli state in Palestinian lands occupied in 1948, and deems it legitimate, you call it occupation. Is this an intentional strategy? Or do you simply call things as they are?

Lately we are witnessing a peoples reclamation of politics in Palestine. The people, who fight in the streets are now the game-changers and the decision makers after we have broken from what is called formal representation from the Palestinian elite and the formal leaders.

Today the Palestinian youth is able to dictate its Palestinianity along all of historic Palestine, despite the colonial geographic and political fragmentations forced upon us by Palestinian elites. At the same time, we reclaimed our expressions the real and explicit designations and names of things. There are some today who reclaimed the calling of every settler in all of the Palestinian lands, either 48 or 67, by calling all of them settlers.

Simply put, yes I call things as they are.

Regarding international law, Israel uses it as a silencing tool without a real commitment to any of its rules. On the contrary, it would even violate these rules without any regard. We should be aware that international law as a tool is very restrictive and does not serve our aspirations as colonized people. Our counting on it should consequently be limited, because despite it proving, theoretically, of some of the Palestinian rights, it was rare when the decisions of international institutions are ever enforced.

Palestinians have long been seen in the media as the victims of Israeli violations. How do you see the difference between this rhetoric and the one you have been employing during recent events in Palestine?

Yes, we are victims. However, the assumption that victims lack agency and political will is incorrect. On the contrary, victims might resist and they are even responsible for leading revolutionary changes. I believe that the heritage of black resistance in the U.S has paved the way for western audiences to understand the character of the Palestinian as an implicit victim, but actual fighter.

We have long seen Black teens executed in the streets by the American police. Discriminatory questions like what were they doing?, were they suspicious?, or were they armed? used to be raised to legitimize the teens killing. Regardless, the police are not allowed to kill them under any conditions, even with the teens being armed or hostile.

In my view, the Black community in the U.S today completely rejects these kind of questions that serve to divert attention from the original crime and the original criminal.In the wake of this rising rhetoric in Palestine, Palestinians today do not aim to present the image of the perfect victim, who is known for its patience and tolerance. On the contrary, they aim at introducing the image of an outraged and resisting victim to the worlds attention.

Following the last question, you have flipped the defensive position that is imposed on you by interviewers several times into a proactive position. While Palestinians are typically the accused, that needs to prove his/her good intentions and condemn any action affiliated to the Palestinian militarized resistance, you restate the questions to focus on Israeli policies. Was the strong Palestinian rhetoric more powerful and effective than the Palestinian victim?

When receiving such a question, you should uncover its implicit intentions instead of starting to answer by condemning or un-condemning. Our mission in the coming period should not only be legitimizing the Palestinian right to resist, but also legitimizing his or her right to feel anger when their land and rights are violated.

Our mission in the coming period should not only be legitimizing the Palestinian right to resist, but also legitimizing his or her right to feel anger when their land and rights are violated.

It is untrue and irrational to expect from a Palestinian especially those who were directly subjected to colonial crimes to come and say that they do not detest Israel on international platforms in order to gain the Western audiences sympathy. There is not a need for such rhetoric!

It is dehumanizing to expect such declarations from Palestinians. Palestinian humanity does not only mean having childhood memories or future aspirations, but also having reactions of anger and resistance. When saying the Palestinian is a human, we do not only mean that he or she goes to school like anyone, but also that they slap their attacker like normal people.

Any critic of Israels policies is charged with being antisemitic. How do you deal with common responses from interviewers on Western news channels, including responses related to antisemitism?

It is important to understand why we are always questioned about antisemitism. It is not to determine our thoughts regarding it, but to force us into a defensive corner that would essentially criminalize any opinion we adopt. No matter what we say, even if sharing a non-radical position, we are always charged with being antisemitic.

In debate, this is called a red herring (literally: a fish with a strong scent is put in front of hunting dogs to distract them from hunting rabbits), namely diverting the attention from the main issue and focusing on marginal ones. This, in turn, will not contribute to the discussion, but cover up the facts and distract from the main topic.

While it is possible to engage in a debate to prove you are not antisemitic, this would lead us to walk into a trap that the Zionist lobby has been working on for years. It aims at charging any critic of Israel, or any doubter of the occupations legitimacy, to be antisemitic. We have unfortunately seen a lot of people get ambushed in these trials. Instead of investing the time in delivering their message, they had to behave as perpetrators defending themselves in court.

Paradoxically, these questions are never directed to the oppressor. Say, you will never see a Zionist accused by hating Muslims, and this is an indication that the balance of world power is always aligned with the oppressor and condemns the oppressed, even in televised dialogues.

Israelis have developed a program that specializes in political propaganda called Hasbara, which aims at formulating defensive strategies of Israel and its policies. What would be the crucial points that the advocates of the Palestinian cause must be aware of when speaking to the Western media? In other words, how should repeated questions asked by the West be responded to? Like for instance, how would questions on the Palestinian resistance in Gaza and its responsibility for killing Israeli civilians be answered? Accusing Hamas of the degrading situation in Gaza, claiming that the governments of PA and Hamas oppress people in the West Bank and Gaza district, and such other examples.

Similar to any other propaganda, all of these claims share one fact; that they are all shallow and repetitive. As I have mentioned earlier, these claims do not aim at learning the opinion of the Palestinian being interviewed, but forcing him or her into a defensive corner. In my opinion, disclosing the intentions behind these kinds of questions in a five-minute interview is much more effective and beneficial to the viewer than fighting ideological battles that will definitely need more time.

Zionists frequently speak about two sides of the story, their grief, the lives of Palestinian innocent civilians, and ask the Western viewer what would you do if you were in our place?. They also claim that Hamas uses its civilians as human shields, while the truth is that Israel is responsible for civilians deaths irregardless of any other information.

Yes, we admit that the PA oppresses its people. However, it is definite that the Zionist entity is the only one responsible for this reality, as PA suppression would not exist without the presence of Zionist settler colonialism. I would rather say that we need to formulate new strategies that aim at countering the Israeli hasbara. We should aspire for strategies that can be easily understood and repeated by any average citizen that does not relate to current power relations. In addition to that, there is a need for raising consciousness regarding Israeli allegations and recognize them as examples of hasbara that are not necessarily legitimate. On the contrary, they should be recognized as products of governmental strategic plans and huge funding that target the consciousness of Western audiences while without caring to answer its questions.

For instance, I was recently engaged in a virtual dialogue where I was asked about my input on the claim that Gaza and the West Bank were both under the Jordanian rule and that they were empty and uninhabited. While some of my colleagues fell into the trap and started responding and justifying by quoting historians, I had to stop them. I said that despite our full readiness to answer such questions and refute claims on empty lands, and how Palestinians were created in the 1960s, and the human shields myth, questioning us about these claims is simply surprising and unacceptable. It merely condemns the questioner rather than the one who can not respond to it.

It should be called as it is: a deceitful question that does not require an answer. We should make clear that these questions are only meant as a distraction from our core issue which is our displacement from our homes and land. When naming these questions for what they are, and even mock them, the viewer would be able to recognize that these questions are not worth answering from the beginning.

Translated by Nur Jabarin.

Metras Editorial BoardMetras is a Palestine-based digital media outlet founded in 2018 that covers politics, technology, culture, society, and under-reported topics in Palestinian media. To learn more visit: metras.co.

So where are the Palestinian voices in mainstream media?

Mondoweiss covers the full picture of the struggle for justice in Palestine. Read by tens of thousands of people each month, our truth-telling journalism is an essential counterweight to the propaganda that passes for news in mainstream and legacy media.

Our news and analysis is available to everyone which is why we need your support. Please contribute so that we can continue to raise the voices of those who advocate for the rights of Palestinians to live in dignity and peace.

Palestinians today are struggling for their lives as mainstream media turns away. Please support journalism that amplifies the urgent voices calling for freedom and justice in Palestine.

Read more:

'Simply put, I call things as they are': Mohammed El-Kurd on shifting the Western discourse on Palestine Mondoweiss - Mondoweiss