|
|
| NHL Playoffs: See them again — for the very first time |
I've never been much of a hockey fan, and until this year found the sport, at least on TV, dull as dishwater. But I've been watching the playoffs for the past few weeks with increasing interest and enjoyment, primarily because...
|
|
|
| Tags:
time, playoffs, nhl, weeks |
|
|
|
Tehran Showdown: Rafsanjani Speaks (full text)
The fissures that have opened up at the center of the Islamic Republic are again much on display. Influential Iranian politician Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's appearance today as Tehran's Friday Prayer leader was even more profound and stunning than billed. As I've posted here before, when Rafsanjani speaks, people listen . And today, he had much to say. Officially, the former President, Parliamentary Speaker, and close aide to Ayatollah Khomeini, now heads both the Expediency Council, a body that often reconciles log-jams within "the system," and the Assembly of Experts, the body entrusted with appointing and even supervising the Supreme Leader. Yes, he's controversial. Many of the same reformists and leftists who today count the "pragmatic" Rafsanjani as an ally four years ago could not bear to support him against current President Ahmadinejad. Times change. In one of the debates just prior to the election, Ahmadinejad threw mud at Rafsanjani, hoping to taint reformist candidate Mir Hossein Musavi with the corruption smear by extension. Since the controversy over the June 12th Presidential elections, Rafsanjani has been largely silent, and skipped a turn or two as Friday Prayer Leader. But not today. As there are several very "thin" instant translations circulating, I post to the extension below a complete translation of Rafsanjani's second sermon, as provided by BBC/OSC. Last night, I'd heard from friends in Tehran who were worried that Rafsanjani "would pull a Khatami" -- and talk about unity and preserving the revolution, while selling short the ongoing disquiet over the elections.. Quite the contrary, Rafsanjani's speech was remarkably bold and unprecedented (for him). Rafsanjani has set out markers about legitimacy, "the people" and Islamic governance that will be of interest not just for Iran's system, but for Islamists everywhere to consider. "Everything depends on people .... The title of Islamic Republic is not just a formality.... If it looses its Islamic aspect, we will go astray. If it looses its republican aspect, it [The Islamic Republic] will not be realized. Based on the reasons that I have offered, without people and their vote there would be no Islamic system." Rafsanjani goes on to emphasize the plausible presence of "doubt" in the minds of Iranians about the legitimacy of the recent elections. This "bitter" doubt, "the worst disaster" -- "a plague" - was not put there by foreign media, but by shameful behavior from within, by Iran's own supervising Guardian Council and its state controlled TV media.: "We are independent... Do we not have 30-year experience of running the country? Do we not have ulema? Why should our Sources [of Emulation, meaning senior clerics], who always have been supportive, and our seminary schools, which have never had any expectations for their efforts, be upset today." This is a not so subtle challenge to the very legitimacy of Supreme Leader Khamenei -- in referencing the fact that several of Iran's most senior Grand Ayatollah's have been letting their displeasure be known. (a fact woefully missed or ignored in a recent WINEP essay ) Rafsanjani's suggestions for restoring "trust" in the system (something hardliners don't admit is lacking) boil down to: 1. Act strictly within the law. (e.g., especially law enforcement)2. Promote dialogue and foster climate for free thinking and reason to prevail.3. Free all those arrested amid protests.4. Compensate those harmed in the disturbances.5. Ease up on the media. Rafsanjani does reference the need for unity, and he hopes his words will be "a turning point for the future," to resolve the present "crisis." That may be optimistic. Ball now back to Leader Khamenei's court. ( Full text in extension below: ) **************************** Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring July 17, 2009 Friday (sub-headings by BBC)
Iran senior cleric calls for release of post-election unrest detainees In the name of God the most compassionate the most merciful, May greetings be bestowed on the God, the creator of the universe. May greetings be bestowed on the messenger of God and his successor Imam Ali the knight of the believers and his son and progeny Hoseyn and Mohammad the son of Ali and Ja'far the son of Mohammad and Musa-ibn Ja'far and Ali the son of Musa and all the Khalifa in the line of Mahdi [Crowds send blessings]. I enjoin the servants of God to piety and obeying His orders. On hardship endured by seventh Shi'i imam As far as the occasions of the week are concerned, the most important occasion was the death anniversary Imam Kazem, our seventh [Shi'i] imam, who was one of our most oppressed imams who experienced much hardship. His Excellency became an imam when he was 20 years old and during his whole life he faced much hardship from the Abbasid dynasty. Throughout his life he was either isolated and under pressure and surveillance or in exile and in prison. He was finally martyred in prison. The Shi'i became to know his as Kazim and Sabir [the patient one]. Kazem means a person who hides his hardship and suffering and Sabir means a person who is always under hardship but is patient and resists. These are some of the title given exclusively to the seventh imam. A number of Caliphs gave him a hard time and finally Harun al-Rashid sent him to exile in Basra and then to Baghdad, where he was sent to and held in the dark and dim tunnels of Baghdad with chains. They chained his feet. But Imam Kazem was happy about this. He said that for his whole life he had asked God to give him time to worship him and now his prayer has been answered and he can spend all his time praying to God. His Excellency was martyred under these circumstances. [words indistinct] May God grant patience and his blessing to those who are oppressed. We extend our condolences to all people who love righteousness and to you dear people who follow those prominent, immaculate and oppressed figures. Urging China to exercise patience I will briefly speak about another issue, the killings in China. Muslims in China are experiencing some bitter days. I would like to mention a few points to the Chinese government. The Chinese government is expected to exercise patience in the face of aggressions that people are facing. [At this point a number of people began chanting: "Down with China". Rafsanjani continued with his sermons and told worshippers:] Please allow me. Dear gentlemen! I, as the leader of the Friday prayers, pleaded with you not to chant any slogans. Considering the situation here [the venue of the Friday prayers], the adjacent streets and the entire area, I would like to ask you not to chant slogans. Please allow [me to continue] Thank you. We would like to give a friendly word of advice to the Chinese government that we believe is a wise government working towards the progress of China. We would like to tell the Chinese government that what is going on is not in its interests. They [Chinese officials] are aware that there one billion and 600 million Muslims in the world. They live in around 60 independent countries. Muslims in all parts of the world enjoy their own identity and character and all their hearts are linked to those of Muslims in China who are experiencing acts of oppression today. China must be careful and consider its own interests and its relations with the world of Islam and the hearts of Muslims. And, God willing, from now on we would not witness such acts of oppression against Muslims in China or other parts of the world. Problems in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and Pakistan are unfortunately the same as they have been in previous weeks and months, and bloodshed, corruption and clashes continue. Those problems will be solved one day, God willing. On "completely free" election And now to an issue which concerns us and the discussions to which I promised to dedicate the second and third part of my remarks. As far as the [presidential] election which was held [on 12 June] is concerned, praise be to God we made a very good start. A sound competition took shape and good preparations were made. The four candidates who were approved by the Guardian Council competed against each other and demonstrated a good competition. The people became hopeful that the elections were completely free and they truly demonstrated an unprecedented participation. In these circumstances the conditions were set for the creation of a proud moment for the country. We have to present this glory to the people. It is their right. It was the people who demonstrated a good presence. The people broke a record as far as presence at the ballot boxes was concerned. We all have to thank the people who participated freely in the election at a time when no other country has seen such a level of participation. That was very valuable. I wish those conditions could have continued until today, and today we would have been experiencing the most proud moments in the world regardless of the election results. Stresses on people's support However, developments did not take shape as we wished them to, and I will explain them now. The principle issue concerns what we want, as I mentioned earlier, and, secondly, to ask what is required by the revolution. What you are hearing now is from a person who has been with the revolution second by second from the very beginning of the struggle which began by our leader the Imam [Khomeyni]. We are talking about 60 years ago up until today. I know what the Imam wanted and am familiar with the basis of the Imam's thinking. Even during the time of the struggles, the Imam would always say; all I am concerned about is the people when it came to a suggestion, for example to use arms, terror [preceding in English], this party [words indistinct]. He would say, you do as much as you can to solve the people's problems and familiarize them with the struggle. He would tell us who were theology students, that our mission was to go to mosques, prayer houses and villages and explain what we were after. We have everything if people are with us. [Words indistinct] The Islamic Revolution was based on what the Prophet [Muhammad] did, bringing people on board who themselves wished to take part on their own will and beliefs. That was (?the secret) of the Imam's victory. It took less than 20 years for people to become alert. Obviously the price was also paid in terms of people who were martyred, people who were put in prisons, the Imam himself was sent to exile and many other things. However, our gains were much more. People became so alert that those whose ages allow have seen how in the final couple of years people poured into the streets. People's role according to the late Khomeyni All the streets were full of Imam's supporters. And, all the forces which were supporters and believers in the Imam were alongside Imam, all ranged against the very arrogant forces of the Pahlavi regime. [Poor reception] The Shah whose coffers were filled to the brim from oil revenues could do anything it wanted. The people came to the fore and the demands of the people were such that they had to abandon everything and go. [Loss of reception]... the Revolution, we worked round the clock for it and all on the basis of [loss of reception]... all his [presumably Imam Khomeyni] worry was that Islamic rule is not possible without the people. Whatever the people will, will be done! And, I have a story to recount; one which I have heard from the era of Imam. I did not ask where the proof for that is. I then went and asked his eminence about this. It is a very interesting story. It formed the basis of Imam's reasoning. Of course, it is far greater than that. His... [poor reception] the role that Imam accords to the people. I noted this from a book called Kashf ol-Mohajjam which belongs to Seyyed Ibn-Tavus who is one of our very erudite Ulema from seventh century. He is a great personality. Please listen to this story. This is one of the [indistinct words]. On Islamic legitimacy Ali Ibn-Abi-Talib himself says that when the prophet [Mohammad] was [indistinct words] rather worried in the last year of his life. He said this to Abi-Talib; [reads a short verse from Koran] This is after Eid-e Ghadir. He said that you are the Guardian of this Ummah [nation] this is a Guardianship that belongs to you and is something that God has given you. [reads a passage from Koran] if you felt that this people are satisfied [with you] and they accept you and felt that you are a worthy person [ruler] and there was consensus, of course consensus is always relative it can never be absolute, if the majority coalesced around you then have to accept it. You will become the Guardian and see to their day to day affairs and resolve their problems. [reads another passage] If you saw that they opposed you and that they do not come along with you then you have to leave them, Let them do what they want to; they know themselves what they need to do with their lives. [reads another passage] God will find a way for you to realise your goals. This chronicle is one from authoritative sources. It is using these authoritative sources that Seyyed Ibn-Tavus uses; not that we just have this chronicle we have many others. We have books on this. This was just a one off chronicle that I read. This test was what formed the basis of later rule. It was the basis of the rule of the prophet and we in the Islamic Republic set ourselves the mission of practicing exactly this. On Islamic, republican nature of system We have to be with the people; this people acted very wisely. The same thought of the Imam [the late Ayatollah Khomeyni] can be witnessed when he appointed Mr Bazargan as the head of the interim government. The power had not been handed over to us and Bakhtiar [the last prime minister of the shah] was still in power in Tehran at that time. The Imam was in a hurry to handover the power to the people. As you know, in his decree to Bazargan, which I also read it, the Imam said that the Revolution Council should keep on working for a short term, the Majlis should be established as soon as possible, the constitution should be drafted so that the people can live under the new [word indistinct] constitution. When we were preparing the draft of the constitution, before it was handed to the Assembly of Experts, the Imam gave his advices on that and stressed and strengthened the principles which related to the people. The issue of the councils [presumably the municipality councils] had been actually proposed by other individuals but the Imam strengthened them and assigned the tasks to the people. Later on, when we had meetings with the leaders of other countries, they were surprised about that. The Algerian leaders said that it took them 20 years, after their revolution, before they could draw up their constitution. They asked: How could you do so in a hasty manner. We said that since we achieved the victory by people's power [word indistinct] and since the people support their revolution and religion we are not worried. That was a fact. As you are aware, according to the constitution, everything in the country is determined by people's vote. People elect the members of the Assembly of Expert and then they elect leader, that is, leader is [indirectly] elected by people's vote. Presidents, MPs, members of the councils are elected by direct votes of people. Other officials are also appointed [indirectly] through people's vote. Everything depends on people. This is the religious system. The title of Islamic Republic is not used as a formality. It includes both the republican and Islamic nature. [People chant in support] I asked you not to chant slogans so that I can finish sooner. Thank you very much. The title of Islamic Republic is not just a formality. This is a reality passed on to us on the basis of Koran, as well as the religious sayings of the [Shi'i] Imams and prophet. We believe in them. We should have them at the same time. Rest assured if one of those two aspects are damaged we will loose our revolution. If it looses its Islamic aspect, we will go astray. If it looses its republican aspect, it [The Islamic Republic] will not be realized. Based on the reasons that I have offered, without people and their vote there would be no Islamic system. Ali bin Abi-Talib [the Shi'i first Imam] stayed at home for 19 years for the same reason. When the people came forward [word indistinct], Ali bin Abi-Talib accepted to come to power after people's insistence, despite the difficulties he faced. On current election, return of trust to people This was our path. We should reach the destination. We should strengthen it day by day. If the problems after the [presidential] election had not emerged, we would have had taken the best largest step towards realizing the Islamic [aspect of the establishment] at the 30th anniversary of the revolution. I am not going to say that we have not taken the step. I want to explain why this happened. What I understand is that towards the end of the election campaign we were taken over by doubt. In other words, people started to have doubts and the seeds of doubt were sown, for whatever reason. Whether it was unfavourable publicity or the Voice and Vision's inappropriate actions or other things, seeds of doubt were planted in the minds of the people. We consider doubt as the worst disaster. [Talking to some people in the audience] Please allow me, I am saying it much better than you would. Your slogan and approval is enough. Leave it. Doubt came down on our nation like the plague. Of course, there are two separate currents. There is a group of people who have no doubts, they [word indistinct] and mind their own business. But there is also another group, whose numbers are not few and include a great section of our erudite and knowledgeable people, who say: " We doubt". We should take measures to remove this doubt. This period, after the results of the elections , is a bitter era. I do not believe anyone from any faction wanted this to happen. We have all lost in this event. We have all lost and now ask ourselves: why did it happen. We need unity today, more than ever. Our county should be united against all the dangers that threaten us. They have now upped their ransom demands and are coming forward to take away our achievements in the fields of hi-tech and particularly nuclear technology. Of course, God will not give them the opportunity to do so, but they are greedy. My brothers and sisters, first of all, you all know me, I have never wanted to abuse this platform in favour of a particular faction and my remarks have always concerned issues beyond factionalism. I am talking in the same manner today. I am not interested in any factions. In my view, we should all think and find a way that will unite us to take our country forward and save ourselves from these dangerous and bad effects, and the emerging grudges. We should disappoint our enemies so that they would not covet our country. What should we do? I have a few suggestions. Of course I have discussed these suggestions with a few jurists and members of the Expediency Council, with whom I can intellectually connect. We have decided, and I will read them out as solutions and maybe others will accept them and God willing, put them into force with sincerity. Our important issue is that the trust that brought so many people to the polls and is now harmed, will be restored. This should be our holy objective, that this trust is returned. Whether [words indistinct], I will tell you later. One, we should all, the system, government, Majlis, security forces, police and the people, i.e. the protestors, move in line with the law. If we violate the law, then there will be no boundaries left. We should raise our issues in the context of the law and find solutions for them within the framework of the law. We should accept whatever the law says and if there are some people who have problems with some laws, they should wait until those laws are corrected. God willing, all these problems that we have seen, will be resolved one day. But everything should be within the framework of the law. Two, we must act in a way that the trust of the people is restored. Of course this cannot be achieved in one day. This is a relatively long process. We have to create an atmosphere that all sides can come and express their views. And all sides must act rationally and without quarrel. Logic should rule. Of course the main task here falls on the Voice and Vision [of the Islamic Republic, meaning state broadcaster] as it has greater audience. And all other media outlets must do the same. [Sentence indistinct]. They should sit down and talk to each other in a brotherly and sisterly manner and point out their reasons. Eventually the people will find out the truth and we can ask the people too. We have to provide the ground to return this trust to the people. Unfortunately, a good use was not made of the opportunity that the Supreme Leader [Ali Khamene'i] gave the Guardian Council in which an extra five days was given to them to talk to the ulema. I do not of course want to blame anyone for this lost opportunity, but, nonetheless, it did not happen. [Crowd chanting] We have passed that stage. We are going through another stage now. I believe that for the sake of the future and our unity and for preventing the danger facing the system and for safeguarding the values created by the Revolution and for the sake of the martyrs and the efforts of those who struggled on this path whose achievements are now passed on to us and in order for these achievement to be passed on to the third and forth and following generation, at this juncture we can move along this path. If we accept the above two points that we move in line with the law and leave the door to debate, negotiations and reasoning open, perhaps in a short while we will be satisfied. Hoping to resolve current "crisis" Meanwhile, we have to do other things. Under current circumstances, there is no need for us to have people in prisons. Allow them to return to their families. [Chants of indistinct slogans from the masses in support of the cleric's comment]. Let's not allow our enemies to reprimand and laugh at us and hatch plots against us just because a few certain people are in prison. We should be brave and patient enough to tolerate one another. Sympathy should be shown to the victims of the recent incidents which took place. We should offer condolences to those who are mourning and bring their hearts closer to the establishment. And this is possible. Those who are faithful to the Revolution and know that the system needs them, can cooperate with us with their heart and soul. We have to do this, be tolerant and show them sympathy. There is no need to make haste here and put ourselves into trouble. We should not limit our media, which have got legal permission for their activities. They should be able to work within the framework of the laws. As I mentioned before, the law is the criteria. Neither the media should expect to have activities beyond the legal framework, nor should the establishment expect them to ignore their legal rights. All should let to create a calm, open, critical, or even confirming atmosphere. I think that our officials, Law Enforcement Force, military and security forces should help to create that atmosphere. We are all members of a family. All of us have endured hardship in the path of the revolution. All of us have invested in this long holy jihad and given martyrs. All of us [word indistinct]. We have our own idea. Why should others from long distance come and make up a prescription for us [give advice to us]. We are independent. [Word indistinct]. Do we not have 30-year experience of running the country? Do we not have ulema? Why should our Sources [of Emulation, meaning senior clerics], who always have been supportive, and our seminary schools, which have never had any expectations for their efforts, be upset today. We should keep their support and rely on them. If we preserve the unity, God willing, I hope that this Friday prayer sermon will be a turning point for the future and we will be able to successfully resolve this problem, which unfortunately can be described as a crisis. I hope that unity, fraternity, and fair competition [in elections] will again prevail, so that people can elect whoever they like. [People chant in support] May God bless you. May God support all of you. May God protect you and help you [word indistinct] to be present at the scene. Thank you very much. [Reading a surah from the Holy Koran meaning: Surely We have given you Kausar, Therefore to thy Lord turn in Prayer and Sacrifice, Surely your enemy is the one who shall be without posterity] Source: Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran, in Persian 0919 gmt 17 Jul 09
|
|
|
|
 |
D. Makovsky and M. Sfard on the Palestine Question
On Wednesday, I went to two intriguing discussions in Washington about different aspects of the Palestine Question. The first was a seven-person round-table discussion on the US Institute of Peace's recent report Hamas: Ideological Rigidity and Political Flexibility . The seven people included the report's two authors, Paul Scham (formerly of Americans for Peace Now), and Osama Abu-Irshaid, the imam of a mosque in Northern Virginia. It also included a moderator and four other people, all of them male and almost none of them with the degree of expert knowledge of Hamas's politics that I have. But hey, USIP has to keep its Congressional source of funding flowing, so I guess the very cautious people there felt they couldn't have anyone who has actually conducted (and published) as much research on Hamas as I have! ... Anyway, there were a couple of interesting exchanges there. Some of the most interesting involved David Makovsky, a long-time pro-Israeli propagandist who is currently the director of the "Project on the Middle East peace process" at the pro-AIPAC Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Listening to Makovsky marshalling his very misleading (and often simply mendacious) claims and arguments was made bearable only because the other panelists and the moderator, the WSJ's Cam Simpson, all did a good job of having a decent, fact-based, and realistic discussion on the issues. I'll get back to Makovsky in a moment. ... From USIP I biked along to the New America Foundation where Michael Sfard, a Jewish Israeli lawyer and the legal adviser to the excellent Yesh Din anti-occupation organization, was talking about "Settlements and the Occupation." New America is such an agile, tech-savvy organization that they already have the16-minute video record of that session available for your viewing there. Along with Sfard, it features the indefatigable NAF duo of Daniel Levy and Amjad Atallah. Sfard made several important points in his presentation. He noted that the maps of where the settlement boundaries are inside the West Bank always greatly understate the depth of the disruption, fear, and exclusion that the presence of the settlements, their (often Jews-only) feeder roads, and other Israeli objects and facilities have on the lives of the area's 2.3 million indigenous Palestinians. He said,
Every Palestinian farmer knows the true situation better than any Israeli politician. They know that there’s an unseen line around each settlement or other Israeli facility-- even a cell-phone tower!-- that they can’t cross without a real fear of getting shot at; and this line is ways outside the boundaries of the settlement or other facility. Every Israeli structure in the West Bank is the epicenter of magnetic lines, if you like, of growth and of domination. We in Yesh Din are trying to map the real lines of domination. The existing maps don’t show it. The true situation is constantly changing.
He argued, too, that even if the Obama administration succeeds in winning a complete freeze on settlement construction from the Netanyahu government, even that would count for little unless there is also a complete freeze on planning for new construction in the settlements. "All this work takes time," he said (my paraphrase here):
Behind each brick that is laid in a settlement in the West Bank there is a whole tail of around four years' work in all the zoning, planning, and design work that has been done. So if you get a freeze on construction, but that planning work would still continue, then the planners would simply intrensify their labor in anticipation of the day that the "defrost" button gets pushed. It is the whole process that needs to be frozen.
Sfard and Atallah both stressed the importance of the Obama administration not getting caught in the trap of trying to "negotiate" how a freeze could be modified or mitigated to meet some of Netanyahu's concerns. Washington's freeze demand must remain total, they said. Sfard also argued that much of the violence that the settlers deploy against the civilian Palestinian indigenes of the West Bank has a clear political goal-- "and therefore, it qualifies as terrorism." He said,
This is not just a question of a few hooligans among the settlers... In the past year there’s been a big change in the way settler violence is carried out. It’s not a secret that there’s a correlation between the rate of violence and the settlers feeling the political winds blowing against them. So today, the settler violence we're seeing is not just a spontaneous thing; it’s being planned much more than before. Now there is some kind of leadership coordinating this effort to build up the tension whenever there’s a decision to dismantle an outpost or whatever. There’s a clear plan: when the army is sent to dismantle an outpost in the north then groups of settlers in the south will make a swarm and go and burn fields in the south, and that diverts the security forces. They are spreading terror to get political gains, and this is the very definition of terrorism. We saw this already in Hebron. An action like this sometimes prevent the government from achieving its immediate objective—but it also has a deterrent effect on the government. Not all the settlers are involved in these actions,of course, but a portion of them are.
Anyway, those were the main points of what Sfard said. But the whole session is well worth watching on the video. Mikhael Sfard is one in a distinguished line of Israeli lawyers who take seriously their professional charge of trying to uphold the rule of law-- including the requirements of international law-- by all parties, including their own government. ... And now, back to David Makovsky and his sheaf of dishonest claims. Here were a few of the most egregious: 1. He claimed he was just back from a short visit to Ramallah, and
Everyone I talked to there was adamant that the US should not deal with Hamas . I talked to hundreds of people there, and they all said that to me!
What a gross misrepresentation of the facts about the attitudes and preferences of the people of Ramallah! Makovsky claims he talked to "hundreds" of people in Ramallah in his short time there? I would love to know who just two or three of them were. He gave us no names. But honestly, how do you talk to "hundreds" of people in Ramallah during a short visit-- or even, a long visit? I spent more than a week there back in February/March, and I was able to gain meaningful interviews with no more than two dozen Ramallah residents. And I am, yes, considerably better plugged-in there than someone like Makovsky. So what what is with this ridiculous exaggeration of Makovsky's, and why did no other participants in the panel discussion call him on it? At one point one of the other panelists-- I think it was Nathan Brown, it may have been Amjad Atallah, who was there who was there as well as, later, at NAF-- indirectly challenged the general impression that Makovsky was presumably trying to convey, namely that "all of Fateh" wants the US to continue excluding and combating Hamas. Of course that is not the case. As Nathan pointed out, Fateh is deeply split-- on this issue as on a number of other issues. Osama Abu Irshaid also made the excellent point that the split inside Fateh is not -- as it has commonly been portrayed in the west-- one between "the old guard" and (as many westerners like to believe) a more pragmatic and flexible "new guard." No-- inside Fateh, as incidentally also inside the Iranian rveolutionary authorities these days-- the split is deeply inside the old guard itself. Anyway, be that is it is, Makovsky's claim that he's somehow speaking on behalf of a claimed majority of the Palestinian people when he argues that the US should continue to exclude and combat Hamas had all the air of the worst kind of mendacious colonialist misrepresentation of the "true" desires of the indigenes. What a silly and despicable argument. Yes, I know there are some individuals in Ramallah who are virulently anti-Hamas. But they coexist there with many of their compatriots who are either Fathawis and other secular Palestinians who are supportive of a Fateh-Hamas reconciliation, or are themselves actually Hamas supporters. (Hamas, remember, won four of the five seats in the 2006 elections that were elected directly from Ramallah/Al-Bireh.) 2. Makovsky also made this outrageous claim about Hamas's record regarding firing rockets into Israel :
When Israel got out of Gaza they started firing rockets on Israel immediately. There have been 4,000 rockets since then. This happened the day after!
Once again, no-one else on the panel challenged this gross misrepresentation of the facts. On December 16, 2007 the Israeli foreign ministry's own website gave this account of the rocket attacks that had occurred after the Israeli withdrawal/disengagement from Gaza was completed in August/September 2005:
Following the disengagement, Hamas' grip on the security and politics of the Gaza Strip was strengthened at the expense of Fatah and the security services under Abu Mazen's control... However, because of political considerations which will be discussed below, Hamas does not directly participate in rocket launches for extended periods of time , but rather grants the other organizations, especially the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, considerable freedom of action. That enabled the terrorist organizations to increase the scope of their rocket attacks significantly in 2006 and 2007 and to train their sights on new Israeli settlements (primarily the large city of Ashqelon ). When Hamas does decide to join directly in the shooting, the range of settlements affected is liable to be much greater because of the organization's potential and technical capabilities. ... Many examples which illustrate the influence of internal Palestinian relations and Palestinian-Israeli relations on Hamas' rocket fire policies are contained in this study. For example: i. After Arafat died in November 2004, there was a lull in the fighting resulting in a temporary decrease in the amount of rocket fire. ii. In September 2006, Hamas stopped firing rockets after a lethal “work accident” resulted in hostile internal criticism. iii. Since the Palestinian Legislative Council elections on January 25, 2006 and the establishment of the Hamas government in March 2006, for long periods of time Hamas has preferred not to participate directly in rocket fire. iv. The cease fire agreed upon by the Israeli prime minister and the PA chairman on November 26, 2006, brought about a reduction in rocket fire, but did not end it. v. The worsening of the battles between Fatah and Hamas in May 2007 made Hamas initiate a massive rocket attack unprecedented in scope. vi. Since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in June 2007, it has not directly participated in rocket fire because its priority is to strengthen its grip over the Strip.
B'tselem's careful listing of the names of all Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians between 2000 and Israel's launching of the assault on Gaza last December, shows that in the months between August and December 2005 not a single Israeli civilian was killed by Palestinian fire of any kind anywhere at all near Gaza. What planet does David Makovsky live on, and why should anyone take his claims seriously? 3. And finally (for now), Makovsky treated as outrageous and unthinkable the idea that a final peace agreement Israel and the PLO, if the negotiation of this is ever completed, should be submitted to a pan-Palestinian referendum for approval. He seemed to assume that it was a quite "normal" for everyone to expect that the only Palestinians allowed to vote on this momentous development in the history of their people should be that small subset of the Palestinian people whom Israel still allows to live in the (Israeli-occupied) West Bank and Gaza Strip portions of their own homeland! This is a quite unacceptable idea. Israel has controlled the population registries of the West Bank and Gaza since 1967. Throughout those decades it has unilaterally made and enforced the residency rules, including provisions that if a Palestinians leaves for work or study and doesn't return within a certain time s/he loses the right to reside in her own home town forever. Israel has also, throughout those years, undertaken many schemes to (a) make life inside the occupied territories inhospitable or actively unbearable for Palestinians, and (b) to encourage Palestinians to move out. The idea that political exiles and refugees somehow lose their political rights the moment they become exiles or refugees is one that a strongly developing body of international practice actively counters. In all the recent big conflict termination events of the post-Cold War years, political exiles and refugees have been fully enfranchised in the political processes that are a part of, and that flow from, the peacemaking. Mozambican refugees in 1992, South African refugees in 1994, Bosnia refugees later in the 1990s, Cambodian refugees, Iraqi refugees, Afghan refugees, etc etc... All have been fully included in all the referenda, elections etc that accompanied and flowed from peacemaking. Why should Palestinians be any different? (Right, I understand that elections within the context of the "Palestinian Interim Self-Governing Authority" -- to give it its full name-- have been restricted to Israeli-permitted residents of the West Bank and Gaza, only. But that is only an interim body. In a final settlement, the refugees and exiles will have to be involved and rallied and mobilized in support of a settlement, otherwise it won't have a chance of succeeding.) Why would Makovsky simply "assume" that Palestine's millions of long-suffering refugees and exiles should continue to be disfranchised at the point of final termination of their conflict with Israel? Why did no-one at the event challenge him on this? Yes, I understand that there are still a lot of political neanderthals in Washington on these issues of fundamental importance to the wellbeing and survival of the Palestinian people. But it would be kinda nice if some people on the program at an event like the USIP one would be prepared to challenge the outright lies and misleading arguments of an old-style propagandist like David Makovsky.
|
|
|
|
 |
Fitting in: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing
Lori and I have been here almost a year, and we definitely still consider ourselves very new. It takes time to figure out a new community, the customs, the personalities, and the simple details of daily living that we took for granted in our previous community.
When new people join a group, any group, it takes time to fit in. And that is true of new people joining a church. I bring this up to point out a few things as we work on our hospitality as a welcoming and inclusive faith community.
First, new people shouldn't be expected to simply "blend in." For one thing, expecting new people to adopt all of the ways of the established people puts all of the burden on the new people, and is not welcoming.
For another, it doesn't really work that way. If new people find the circle so tight they can't enter, they will simply leave. And that deprives everyone of their gifts and talents.
It might help to know a little about group dynamic theory: Every healthy group goes through at least four stages of group life (different theorists have different words for this, but it is the same theory). Healthy groups are (1) Forming (2) Storming (3) Norming and (4) Performing.
Forming occurs each time someone new joins a group, or someone leaves the group. The group becomes a new group when the membership changes. In a church, whenever new people come into the community, or leave (or die) the church is a new church in big ways or small. Each time a new person arrives, the church is in a state of forming once again.
If you think about, St. Paul's is very accustomed to forming and re-forming. Every Fall new students, faculty and staff arrive at the University of Virginia and many land in our parish. Every Spring many move away. This annual cycle of forming has repeated itself now 100 times at St. Paul's.
Forming creates a certain degree of tension, or storming . In this stage, the group members work out who fits where and how the group will operate. Unhealthy storming manifests as a struggle for control, or defensiveness about "we've always done it this way" or "we tried that, it will never work here." The circle closes, and if the storm is fierce enough it will keep out anyone new. Unhealthy storming will lead eventually to the death of the group, either through attrition as the old members die off and are not replaced, or through a certain atrophy of the group's soul because the group forgets why it exists.
But there can be healthy storming : Healthy storming is creative, and brings new energy, new ways of looking at the group, and sees new people as seeds of growth, bringers of new energy and new perspective. The existing group members begin to adjust to the new members, and the new members begin to adjust as they learn about the richness of the old group.
Storming, done well, leads to the next stage. The group is new, and it creates itself in a new way, leading to norming , or a new normal . The group looks both the same and differently, and acts both the same and differently, sometimes subtly. And that brings the group to the next stage: performing.
The group is thriving, productive and everyone in the group is working together in ways that are new but echo the old. The new seeds have sprouted and everyone benefits from the growth, and the group is performing like an orchestra, each member playing their individual instrument yet in harmony with the whole.
These categories are a bit simplistic. Truthfully, every group of people can be in each of those stages at different times of the day sometimes. Most groups are in one stage more than in another, and may slip back and forth between stages. Churches have many subsets of groups, and those groups are in various stages at any given time. The larger church can be seen as working through those stages over and over, and in a macro sense, it can take years to get from one stage to the next.
Yet, I also find these categories helpful; as we grow in our life together as a faith community, it helps me to recognize these cycles so that I understand what we are going through. If we all recognize the stages, we might be better equipped to surf our way through each stage.
And that brings me to a point made by Lyle Schaller , one of the more perceptive analysts of church dynamics of the last few decades. In his book, Create Your Own Future , he notes that good church leaders (lay and clergy) work together in understanding the group dynamics in the church, and then use their understanding for building of God's Kingdom: These are the leaders who are convinced God has given to them the freedom to plan, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the future of that particular worshiping community. They can study, reflect, plan, articulate their dreams, formulate goals, and implement those plans. With God's help all things are possible.
Cartoon by Dave Walker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prime beef coming your way
|
The Wall Street Journal today has an interesting article on the increasing availability of prime beef. I haven’t actually seen any of it yet, but Mr. Bingley had scoop two weeks ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
