A Bilingual Blog by Élise Hendrick

The reaction in left circles to the recent pronouncements by Deep Green Resistance, elevating bigotry against trans people to the official policy of that organisation has largely been a positive development. In the past week, we have seen a number of members – including one founding member – resign from the group in disgust. In addition, left venues such as the Bluestocking bookshop in New York City, have denied a platform to DGR, explicitly citing their promotion of anti-trans bigotry as the reason for cancelling a DGR representative’s appearance there.

It is heartening to see that so many leftists refuse to grant quarter to bigotry, especially when that bigotry camouflages itself with a faux-feminist discourse. There have been other times.

Predictably, however, there has also been a backlash by defenders not only of the right to spread bigotry against trans people, but of the right to demand that other people accept that bigotry as a leftist, feminist position. Thus, the Bluestocking Facebook page has been flooded with accusations of „McCarthyism“ (an ironic charge, coming, as it is, from defenders of a policy and ideology that has long been used to engage in witch hunts against „suspected“ trans people). According to defenders of the DGR trans exclusion policy, actions like Bluestocking’s are stifling legitimate debate.

Continue reading →

1. If someone is implicated who isn’t white: Stigmatise people who aren’t white

2. If someone is implicated who is white: Stigmatise people with disabilities

3. If the US military did it: Ignore it completely

Adapted from Phil Ochs, Love me I’m a Liberal

Oh, I cried at Sabra and Shatila,
The tears ran down my spine,
And I cried when Rabin was gunned down,
As though I’d lost a father of mine.
Continue reading →

In recent weeks, the Obama administration has released two documents related to its programme of extrajudicial executions[1]: The first was the secret memo that, like the Bush torture memo, was drafted by political appointees provide legal cover for criminal conduct I which the administration wished to engage. The second came in the form of Attorney-General Eric Holder’s letter to Rand Paul (KY-Plutocrat) in response to the latter’s question about the possible use of drones to execute US citizens within the US. The one is a secret get-out-of-jail-free card for internal use, whereas the other is a policy statement for public consumption.

In order to understand what Obama & Co. are telling us, we must read the two documents in tandem. Continue reading →

Recently, following a discussion about a particularly annoying Facebook meme circling in left-liberal circles of late, C. Derick Varn of The Loyal Opposition to Modernity asked if I would be interested in being interviewed on the subject. I was, and the result was a wide-ranging discussion on the causes and remedies of left malaise in the US, entryism, misogyny, conspiracism, The entire interview, which can be found on the Loyal Opposition blog, is reproduced by permission below. I have added a few links to articles and pages referenced in the discussion, and corrected a few annoying typos that I had overlooked.

I would like to thank Derick for this opportunity. This interview allowed me to articulate quite a few thoughts that had been circling around my mind for a long time, but that I had not previously been able to set down in a cohesive manner. I would also like to thank Emma Rosenthal of Café Intifada, Jinjirrie of Kadaitcha, and Karen MacRae – discussing and working together with them has been a major help in formulating and refining the thoughts you will find below.

Continue reading →

Jon „Yani“ Haigh: Jews Suck, USAID Doesn’t

In the last two parts of this series, published in this past fall, we met Jon „Yani“ Haigh, who injected himself into the Greta Berlin debacle by signing an open letter along with multiple virulent racists and several sockpuppet accounts, that claimed that there was nothing racist going on in the racist troll groups where Greta Berlin found the holocaust denial video that she posted on the Free Gaza Movement (FGM) Twitter account.

Haigh, who lives in Brisbane, Queensland, works with a politically connected Republican lawyer by the name of Kamal Nawash. As discussed in greater detail in the first two parts of the series, Nawash, following a failed run for the Virginia State Assembly, decided to found a group called Free Muslims Coalition Against Terror, an astroturf operation that serves to root out „extremist Muslims“ and generally provides an Arab/Muslim fig leaf for repressive US government policies.

These are, to be sure, strange bedfellows for anyone who, like Haigh, claims to be a Palestinian solidarity activist. As we will see in the following, however, they are not the only ones.

In the course of my research for this series, I was made aware that Haigh, with Kamal Nawash and one Rafi Gassel, had cowritten a roughly US$1 million USAID grant application for a project called „The Path to a Shared Future“. The project, we discover in the Background section, builds on a previous effort known as „Best Plans“.

Best Plans: US Government-Affiliated Normalisation

„Best Plans“ is a „glimmer of hope in a sea of hate„, according to a Jerusalem Post article by fellow „Free Muslims“ board member Ray Hanania, which also describes an effort called the „Israel-Palestine Confederation“, headed up by Nawash associate Josef Avesar.

Held at the University Centre of Samaria, an institution located in the illegal settlement of Ariel, the group brought together a group of mostly right-wing Israeli Jewish students with a „smattering“ of Palestinian citizens of Israel and „some two dozen“ Palestinians from the West Bank for open-ended brainstorming on „peace plans“, ranging from Israeli Jewish participants‘ plans to culturally assimilate Palestinians into the colonial society of Israel or to extend apartheid from the river to the sea, with citizenship „after an unspecified period of time“ for Palestinians who profess loyalty to a state that is explicitly not theirs, to Kamal Nawash’s plan for an „Israeli-Palestinian Confederation“.

It seems to have been a good strategic choice to hold the Best Plans conference in the segregated colony of Ariel, where Palestinians are banned from entering without special dispensation from the authorities, rather than occupied East Jerusalem, where Avesar decided to hold his „Israeli-Palestinian Confederation“ mock elections. Avesar’s conference had to find new accommodations after Palestinian anti-apartheid activists became aware of it.

Protesters gathered outside the hotel to condemn the process of normalization of the occupation promoted by the conference, amidst the collapse of the peace process, continuing settlement construction and the confiscation of Palestinian land.

Conference events taking place in Beit Jalah and Haifa over the next few days have promoted a false illusion of Palestine already being liberated and contributed to the normalization of the Israeli occupation. One demonstrator commented that “how would such a confederation even be possible under the occupation?”

The management of the Ambassador Hotel announced their decision to cancel the conference events in a printed statement posted at the hotel’s entrance. A hotel manager stated that “we have been manipulated by the conference organizers, who did not reveal to us its real purposes. We refuse to take part in their attempts to veil the reality of Palestinian suffering.”

The criticisms raised by the Palestinian activists concerning the Avesar event apply in equal measure to the Nawash „Best Plans“ conference: Both violate the Palestinian call to boycott „normalisation“ events, i.e., events that bring Israeli Jews and Palestinians together to „sort out differences“ without acknowledging the real context of inequality and oppression. Under the anti-normalisation prong of the Palestinian-led Boycott/Divestiture/Sanctions campaign, collaborative activities between Israeli Jews and Palestinians must explicitly state their opposition and resistance to the oppression of the indigenous Palestinian population.

One can imagine how well that plan would have gone over with the right-wing Israeli Jewish participants of the Nawash conference.

Towards a Normalised Future

Haigh acknowledges cowriting USAID application

The programme discussed in the USAID application turns out to be an expansion on the „Best Plans“ normalisation conferences. In the words of the application:

This proposal involves the selection of two teams of Palestinians and Israelis who are representative of the various ideologies, views and schools of thought that are found in Palestinian and Israeli societies. The two teams, made up of approximately six individuals each, will be required to attend organized workshops and seminars throughout Palestine and Israel to engage Israelis and Palestinians who are representative of the general populations about the minimum contacts, rights and access that they would require to accept a political solution. The seminars will not presume a particular solution such as two-state or one-state solution. The actual proposed solution or solutions will be attempted at the end of the process after the Israeli and Palestinian teams become exposed to the wishes of population and share their findings in the structured reporting process.

This is the definition of astroturfing. Some unspecified persons – one assumes it will be Nawash and his „Free Muslims“ mob – will select two teams of Palestinians and Israelis (Jewish Israelis, one assumes) who they deem „representative“ of the spectrum of thought found in Palestinian and Israeli-Jewish society. Those teams will carry out what amount to glorified focus groups throughout Israel and the territories occupied since 1967 to engage Israeli Jews and Palestinians who are „representative“ about their bare minimum requirements for a political solution. After the focus groups, the two teams will develop the „actual proposed solution“ based on their understanding of the wishes of the „representative“ people who came to their focus groups.

In addition to being „representative“ in the opinion of the „Free Muslims“, these team members must also be „articulate speakers and writers with academic credentials who are able to report without adding, subtracting or reframing discussion content.“ In other words, they must come from the more privileged sectors of the society, particularly given the severely limited access to education (especially higher education) for Palestinians.

No information is provided on how the „representative“ focus group participants will be selected, or by whom. Crucially, there is no provision for participation by the communities themselves in defining the conditions and manner of their participation, nor any indication that the communities themselves would have any say in deciding who is „representative“ and who is not. Every bit of the process is top-down, with the US government-linked „Free Muslims“ deciding who participates, whom to listen to, and how to describe the wishes of their hand-picked participants.

„Importantly“, the proposal adds, „the teams will be ‘locked down’ together in a conducive environment (like the Dead Sea Resort) for a period of no less than 5 days before any conferences for a series of workshops on using technology, deal [sic] with objections, managing public discourse and workshop the conference process and the content.“ „Dealing with objections“ is sales-speak for wheedling a customer into saying yes to something they don’t actually want to buy. „Managing public discourse“ once again emphasises that it is the „Free Muslims“ team members who are managing the process, not the local communities. Their „discourse“ must be managed, rather than simply being listened to.

After the initial conferences are complete, the two teams will be required to submit individual or joint proposals for peaceful solutions based on the feedback that was learned from the conferences.

Each team will be asked to try to reach an agreement on a proposed solution for the Palestinian Israel conflict. However, individual group members may submit their own proposal if they do not agree with a proposal by one or more group members.

(…)

The teams will then be required to submit their various proposals to representative audiences in Israel and Palestine. The proposal envisions six additional conferences with three in Israel and three in Palestine to test the proposals on representative audiences. The audiences will be encouraged to give their feedback on the respective proposals. Following the conferences and the feedback from the audiences, the teams will be required to reevaluate their proposals and determine whether the proposals may require amendments or improvements.

In other words, after the handpicked teams work out amongst themselves what proposals they can agree on based on what they were able to glean from the „managed discourse“ of the „representative“ community members who participated in the focus groups, the teams then go before more „representative audiences“ (it is unclear whether these are the same „representative“ audiences as the initial focus groups). These „representative“ audiences will then provide „feedback“, which will be reevaluated in order to determine whether the teams‘ proposals will require amendments.

Just to hammer home the importance of being „representative“, the working language will not be the native languages of the communities in question:

The experience gained in The Best Plans Project indicate that people are capable of using English as the working language with translations to Hebrew and Arabic.

James Linden Rose, listed as one of the team members, explains his „best plan“ for the Palestinian solidarity movement.

So, in addition to whatever criteria the „Free Muslims“ will use to determine whether a focus group participant is „representative“, the „representatives“ must also have at least a working knowledge of English – which is the native language of many Jewish Israelis (including the current PM), but much less accessible to Palestinians with their limited educational opportunities – thus further restricting the field. It is not entirely clear whether „translations“ means that there will be interpreters present (yet another layer of mediation between the communities and „their“ plans), or whether only the written documents produced by the teams will be translated.

One can be excused for thinking at this point that this is remarkably similar to the US occupation régime’s plan for „caucuses“ as a substitute for actual elections in Iraq. However, that plan may actually have involved fewer levels of mediation by „representatives“ selected by outsiders.

But wait, there’s more…

After the proposals are tested before representative audiences, the two teams will then meet for face to face peace negotiations to write a peace agreement. If no united peace agreement is reached by consensus, then the two groups will be required to attempt to reach a proposal by majority vote, where as the preferred method is consensus.

If an agreement is reached the solution will be distributed to the populations via newspaper advertisements, electronic media and other written and multimedia dissemination processes. The website will be updated and adapted to allow people to read the final proposal, comment on it and cast a vote for or against the proposal.

So, after „representative“ team members selected by outsiders conduct focus groups with „representatives“ selected by outsiders and decide amongst themselves what they think the handpicked focus group participants want, and then focus group that proposal with even more „representatives“ selected by outsiders, the two initial groups of „representatives“ selected by outsiders will come together to decide on a „united peace agreement“ amongst themselves. If, and only if, the „representatives“ are able to reach a consensus will the public as a whole be let in on the proposals, and given an unmediated opportunity to comment on them and vote for or against them.

Essentially, then, the idea is to do a community theatre production of the bogus „peace process“ with limited public participation only at the fag end of the process.

The authors of this application – Nawash, Haigh, and Gassel – are not unaware of the Palestinian movement against „normalisation“ with the apartheid system, discussed above. Indeed, they expressly acknowledge its existence, and state that „The two teams must work independently (…) to avoid the anti-normalization concerns in which Palestinians are discouraged from working closely with Israelis.“ Which is to say that, rather than honour the anti-normalisation campaign, they seek to circumvent it by claiming that Israeli Jews and Palestinians working on this normalisation project are not really normalising because they aren’t working on the same project in the same place at the same time.

However, it would be unfair to say that the Towards a Shared Future project doesn’t include any innovative elements. It does, chief amongst them the element of surreptitious electronic surveillance. The USAID application includes funding for the purchase of fifteen pairs of „ZionEyez“ (now Zeyez) sunglasses „built-in HD camera, microphone, recording media and interface live to mobile phones“.

„These glasses“, it is noted in a footnote, „are high quality and very difficult to pick as being other than normal Raybans. They provide an ability to record events without creating a sense of ‘cameras are watching me everywhere’.“

The USAID: An Odd Partner for Social Justice Activists

Perhaps more significant than the content of the application itself is the source of the funding sought: the US Agency for International Development.

Whilst it presents itself publicly as a humanitarian aid agency helping benighted populations out of poverty, in reality, the agency is an instrument of US foreign policy, often working in tandem with another, better known, Agency. Recently, the Venezuelan-led ALBA (Alternativa Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América – Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America) states voted to expel USAID from their territory, following the „parliamentary coup“ that ousted centre-left Paraguayan president Fernando Lugo, replacing him with a politician more willing to make deals with foreign mining corporations.

This is just the most recent in a long series of coups supported in one way or another by USAID activities. In the 1960s and 1970s, USAID provided torture training and equipment to Uruguayan „security“ forces, as was revealed when USAID torture instructor Dan Mitrione was captured by the Tupamaro guerrilla organisation. Similarly, USAID provided support for the military dictatorship in Brazil, the murderous „Baby Doc“ Duvalier dictatorship in Haiti, and, more recently, was implicated in US-instigated 2002 coup against Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez according to the documents unearthed by lawyer and researcher Eva Golinger. USAID’s role in the current murderous coup/occupation regime in Haiti is also a matter of record.

When first confronted with the USAID connection, Yani Haigh defended the agency, stating that it is merely an agency that „distributes money based on criteria“.

This is undeniably true:

Where there is a subservient dictatorship, USAID helps prop it up. Where there is a disobedient government, USAID works with other CIA associates like the „National Endowment for Democracy“ and the „International Republican Institute“ to „enhance civil society“, i.e., to finance and provide propaganda for right-wing groups willing to overthrow the miscreants.

In short, USAID is about as likely an instrument of justice for the Palestinians as, well, the „Free Muslims against Terror“.

The USAID application includes a somewhat detailed bio/CV of Jon „Yani“ Haigh, revealing that the „Free Muslims“ and the USAID application discussed above are by far not the end of the story. Haigh’s other dubious connections will be discussed in the next instalment.

In a comment below, Haigh writes:

Anyone on that list will tell you that I never buckle to Zionists, sexists, homophobes, abuse or liars.

Fortunately, Haigh has a track record on this subject, which allows us to see exactly how strong a stance he takes against sexist abuse, in particular:

Yani Haigh: Sylvia Posadas and I are „fat ugly bitches“

–

Haigh: „They need to have their wombs out.“

–

–

–

Haigh’s literal witch hunt.

Part II of the Series:

A Who’s Who of the „Free Muslims Board

In Part I of this series, we examined the activities of Jon „Yani“ Haigh, a longtime Queensland resident who operates and monitors a network of racist troll groups on Facebook, and Kamal Nawash (for whom Haigh provides a range of web design and programming services) of the „Free Muslim Coalition Against Terror“ , a group that advocates the political repression and surveillance of the US Arab and Muslim communities (related to the Facebook group „Free Muslims“). This, the second part of the series, examines some of the other shady characters who make up the „Free“ Muslims Coalition.

The board of the Free Muslims are exactly what you’d expect of a group with the stated purpose of putting a Muslim face on the plethora of repressive measures, human rights violations, and outright war crimes that make up the „war on terror“.

Particularly fitting is the presence on the Board of Ray Hanania, who began his career as a journo in Chicago, covering local and regional politics for the Sun-Times and other print, radio, and TV outlets. During this period, he also hosted call-in radio chatshows on WLS, and appeared regularly on Dick Kay’s City Desk on WMAQ-TV. In 1990, he served as a panellist at the Chicago mayoral debate, which resulted in yet another electoral victory for the Daley clan. Two years later, he delved headfirst into the world of Chicago machine politics, founding the Urban Strategies Group, a full-service PR agency whose clients include Mayor-For-Life Daley himself, various city agencies, aldermen, Democratic committeemen, and „three successful candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives“.

Hanania boasts particular expertise in „crisis management“ for „those with serious public relation [sic] challenges“. One imagines that such expertise was quite useful during his stint providing „basic media training“ to the propaganda agency of Israel’s „Palestinian Authority“. Nor could it have hurt when he was called upon by the U.S. State Department and U.S. „Information“ Agency to „provide media training sessions, meetings and presentations…to foreign media and government officials.“ Continue reading →

Part I of a Series on Racism and Infiltration

In the aftermath of the racist tweet and multiple, contradictory „explanations“ by Greta Berlin, much attention has been focussed on the letter published as an appendix to Larry Derfner’s second article on the subject, in which a number of purported members of the „secret group“ corroborate Berlin’s claim that nothing untoward or anti-Semitic was going on in the group in question. Benjamin Doherty revealed, in successive articles on Electronic Intifada, that a number of the signatories were in fact sockpuppets controlled by one Ofer Engel. Another central figure, however, has largely avoided the spotlight.

Before we proceed, however, it is important to keep in mind that the following is not about any one individual, though a number of individuals will be given their time to shine. No, this is about the Palestinian solidarity movement as a whole: What we are and seek to do as a movement, and those who would hijack us for their own purposes.

Yani Haigh and The Trollpen

Jon „Yani“ Haigh: Not One for Subtlety

The final signatory on the „nothing to see here“ letter is a Queensland web designer and photographer by the name of Jon „Yani“ Haigh. He is, in Facebook terminology, the „owner“ of the „secret group“ Any Topic NOT Israel (and a regular in a number of related groups), and operates a number of anonymous and aesthetically nondescript websites, including thebestplans.org and peacearchitects.org.

This article, the first in a series dealing with the activities and associates of Jon „Yani“ Haigh, will seek to provide a brief introduction to Haigh himself, and his close associate Kamal Nawash of the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism. In future articles, we will look at other figures on the „Free Muslims“ Board, including the inimitable Ray Hanania, and other organisations and agencies with which Haigh and his associates collaborate.

Jon „Yani“ Haigh: Jews suck

A recurring theme in his posts is that „Jews suck“, and can only redeem themselves by being baptised Christian, and by boycotting Jewish community institutions and events (along the lines of Herskowitz‘ schul picket). Alternatively, repentant Jews may simply send money to peacearchitects.org. Conflict, unsurprisingly, follows Haigh like the CIA follows Julian Assange.

The same can be said of other regulars of the „secret group“ and affiliated groups, such as fellow signatory Kyle O’Laughlin, who divides his time in Any Topic NOT Israel fairly evenly between complaining that African-American pride is welcomed whilst „White Pride“ is – shockingly enough – considered racist and posting links together with his comrade James Linden Rose on how the KKK and other white supremacist groups are in fact Jewish front groups designed to make white people look bad and thwart Ron Paul’s perennial presidential run.

„KKKyle“ O’Laughlin Laments That „White Pride“ is Considered Racist

Whilst the groups Any Topic NOT Israel, Our Land, and Free Muslims all have anodyne descriptions about getting to know each other and coming up with plans for peace, etc., and mission statements banning racism and flaming, the groups themselves bear little resemblance to these noble sentiments. In point of fact, the groups operate as a breeding and training ground for trolls, particularly those (like O’Laughlin, Linden Rose, and Haigh) of the white supremacist variety, mixed together with a few of the more vocal Zionist trolls. There, they engage in their preferred versions of racism, and hurl accusations back and forth about collaboration, snitching, and participation in world conspiracies of one sort or another, with little to no moderation in sight. One does have to wonder what the purpose of creating and administering a network of racist trollpens would be.

Greta Berlin, as luck would have it, is a member in several of these groups, though the exact

James Linden Rose on „Rule By Jew“

circumstances of her joining them will likely remain unclear, given the fog of bullshit that surrounds her and her cohorts‘ descriptions of the groups.

 The Company He Keeps

             Yani Haigh, it must be said, is a rather embarrassing person to have vouch for one’s anti-racist credentials. Indeed, were it not for his signature on the „nothing to see here“ letter and the creepily detailed set of mindmaps with which, by his own account, he monitors over 200 Facebook groups „to track troublemakers“, he would be an annoying boor of little consequence; he would merely be someone to avoid sitting in front of at the Gabba when the footie’s on, but would not merit much attention beyond that.

However, over the course of the past week, facts have emerged to place Haigh’s combination of racist boorishness and meticulous surveillance into a broader context. One of the websites Haigh designed and operates, thebestplans.org, is that of an organisation founded by one Kamal Nawash, Esq., Haigh’s employer and fellow member of the groups in question.

Kamal Nawash is a Palestinian-American lawyer, with an LL.M. from American University’s Washington College of Law.

After a stint as counsel for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), in 2003, apparently with the support of hard-right Republican activist Grover Norquist, Nawash stood for election to a seat in the Virginia state Senate. His Senate run was ultimately unsuccessful due to the general climate of scapegoating and criminalisation of Muslim and Arab life in the US.

Some might be led by such an experience to campaign against racism and bigotry. Not Kamal Nawash. Shortly after his electoral defeat, Nawash founded the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terror (and later, its Facebook counterpart, the group „Free Muslims“), an organisation largely dedicated to providing public relations cover to US government repression of the Arab and Muslim community. One view one finds repeated throughout the autobiographies of the Free Muslims Board members is that it is Muslim ideology – and not, say, decades of murderous US and US-sponsored violence against them and their countries – that is at fault for any problems in the Muslim community and the Middle East.

In 2004, the Free Muslims organised a March Against Terror, which was endorsed by a diverse cross-section of people and organisations dedicated to bigotry against Arabs and Muslims (such as Daniel Pipes), to organisations and people dedicated to more general bigotry (RIGHTALK.com), to fellow alibi Muslims such as Zuhdi Jasser of the „American Islamic Forum for Democracy“, to a wide assortment of right-wing organisations that no one had ever heard of and/or offer no proof that they actually exist (such as the „Government of Free Vietnam“, made up of former officials from the US puppet dictatorship who claim to be the legitimate government on account of having been elected fair and square to the position by four US presidents in a row).

Apparently, Nawash’s March Against Terror (and explicitly in support of Bush) caught a few eyes in Washington, because, in 2005, he was rewarded by the Bush White House with an appointment as US envoy to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Around the same time (2003-2007), Nawash began contributing to FrontPagemag.com, the far-right blog run by Stalinist-turned-fascist David Horowitz, who also operates the neo-McCarthyite campus group CampusWatch and the right-wing private intelligence organisation Discover The Networks. Nawash’s articles include titles such as We Are So Sorry for 9-11, French Riots: A Gift from the Open Borders Lobby, and the KCNA-esque Free Muslims Congratulate President George Bush.

This period in the life of Kamal Nawash has been very helpfully chronicled by none other than Daniel Pipes himself. As of 11 September 2003, Nawash earned a strong blast of scorn from the Pipes for suggesting that the Bush administration’s „anti-terrorism“ (i.e., pro-repression) plan raised concerns about „basic Constitutional rights“:

Of particular interest (given that several 9/11 hijackers used a student cover), is Nawash’s objection to the U.S. government tracking foreign students, protesting (nonsensically) that this step would indicate „a willingness to restrict scientific knowledge and scholarship to certain classes of people and to flout, basically, principles of academic freedom.“ Sounds like this man opposes the war on terrorism; in any case, he sure makes for a strange Republican candidate.

Throughout 2003, Pipes had nothing but contempt for Nawash, who was raising objections to the Clinton-era Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which allows the executive branch unilaterally to ban organisations as „terrorist organisations“, and criminalises anyone associated with them, criticising the designation of Palestinian groups disfavoured by the US regime as „terrorist“, and generally raising fairly mild questions about the human rights implications of the „war on terror“. Of US Senator John Warner (R-VA), who had endorsed Nawash’s candidacy for the Virginia state Senate, Pipes wrote: „Virginians might wish to inform their senior senator that he is, to put it mildly, going out on a limb on this one.“

By 2004, however, another tune began to be blown on the Pipes. In noting Nawash’s formation of the Free Muslims group, Pipes writes:

It sounds good and it has been getting lots of good publicity, but given Nawash’s record on terrorism, as established here (his dismissing the concept, his close ties to a person alleged to fund terrorism), I need to be convinced that this leopard has changed his spots.

By 2005, we find Pipes explicitly endorsing the Free Muslims March Against Terror, particularly chuffed that one Khaleel Mohammed „denounc[ed] CAIR“.

Whilst Pipes begins expressing sceptical endorsement (and Pipes has no other kind of endorsement on offer for Arabs and Muslims), by 2006, some within the exceedingly mild-mannered antidiscrimination group CAIR were expressing concern with Nawash and the way in which his remarks were eagerly snapped up by the likes of Daniel Pipes.

In two short years, Kamal Nawash went, in the mind of racist „smearcaster“ Daniel Pipes, from something akin to the 20th hijacker to one of the Good Muslims. A remarkable transformation, to say the least.

Pipes‘ timeline ends in 2008, but one can imagine that he would see no reason to reconsider his assessment in the light of subsequent events. In 2011, Nawash endorsed the neo-McCarthyite hearings chaired by Rep. Peter King on the „radicalisation of American Muslims“, and condemned the Muslim and Arab-American antidiscrimination organisations for their opposition to King’s efforts to further scapegoat and criminalise the Muslim community. When it was revealed this year that the NYPD had, for years, been carrying out a massive, illegal programme of spying on virtually the entire Muslim community of the Five Boroughs, Nawash, along with representatives of other Muslim astroturf groups organised a joint rally in support of the NYPD spying effort with none other than Rep. King himself.

Looking at this trajectory, one might be excused for speculating that Nawash’s conversion from moderate Republican and defender of Muslim and Arab-American rights to Pipes pet was not entirely free of opportunism.

Opportunism, as we will see as this series progresses, is something of an overarching theme.

*    *     *    *    *   *    *

UPDATE: In the twelve hours since this post went live, someone temporarily shut down my Facebook account, and there was an attempt to hack this blog. It appears someone might have succeeded in changing my blog password, thus preventing me getting in. All appears well now, but it does seem that someone is not exactly chuffed to bits that this article was published. They will be positively unecstatic about the subsequent parts of this series.

Meanwhile, Ali Abunimah has published his „final word“ on the debacle that gave rise to this series:

Should I have been more explicit about what I saw? Perhaps, but I had my reasons to take a more restrained approach. I had hoped that by sounding the alarm, and signaling that Berlin’s explanations were not credible, Berlin herself would begin to take the issue seriously, and that the new Free Gaza board would do the same. Sadly that did not happen.

The most dispiriting spectacle over the past two weeks was seeing Berlin disseminating, and a small group of people embellishing, outlandish stories intended to distract and shift the blame on to those who were asking for accountability.

Almost every day, I’ve received emails alleging, among other things, that I am a “Zionist agent,” that I’ve been “conned” by Israel into attacking Berlin so that Israel can steal Gaza’s natural gas, that I am engaged in a “vendetta” because Berlin endorsed a book I didn’t like, and so on. A few of these messages came from people I had previously believed to be reasonable and sensible, which added to the disappointment.

Read the full article here.

Bekah Wolf of Mondoweiss has also come out with a piece very germane to the topic of this series, documenting what some of us had been saying since this began: This wasn’t just one accidental tweet. Alas, Greta Berlin has form.

Some people have come to Greta’s defense, accepting her assertion that this was a technical mistake, that she did not support the content of the video, and that those who have criticized her response to the “mistake” are on a witch hunt. I’d like to acknowledge that the Free Gaza Movement was not synonymous with Greta Berlin; some of my good friends and people I deeply respect were leaders of that movement and their work and commitment should in no way be minimized by this.

Setting aside Greta’s woefully inadequate explanations for the tweet (of which there were several), the fact remains: Greta is an active administrator of a Facebook group that is full of unabashedly anti-Semitic rhetoric and has been called out before by activists for it but has never done anything to challenge or stop it. Since the controversy broke, the “Our Land” group has attempted to cover some of its tracks. The fact that Greta remains an active administrator of a Facebook group that accommodates this kind of bigotry raises serious issues about her commitment to building an anti-racist movement committed to justice and equality. Moreover, her unprincipled, vicious andIslamophobic attacks on the Palestinians who have called her to task for her behavior should alarm all of us who are committed to Palestine solidarity work.

The full article can be found here.

Almost four years into the carnival of horrors that is the Obama administration, there are still delusional people out there who think Obama just needs to „grow a pair“.

There are a lot of things that can be said about Obama, but to say that he lacks balls is to announce that one lacks contact with reality. We’re talking about the guy who ran on „protect whistleblowers“ only to declare an unprecedented war on whistleblowers the minute he was elected. The guy who ran on „protect civil liberties“ only to make Bush II’s human rights record look good. The guy who brazenly claims to have outlawed torture despite the fact that torture was already outlawed and his own executive order explicitly allows torture. This is the guy who accepted the Nobel Peace prize with a speech on how important it was to him to keep killing lots of people.

This is the guy who is so openly laughing at all of us that he rammed an attack on Social Security through as a „Jobs Bill“, and then followed it up by championing a law that legalised securities fraud by calling it the „JOBS ACT„. This is the guy whose administration helped coordinate the violent nationwide crackdown on Occupy.

From the minute he started choosing the cabinet to the minute his administration announced that it has the right to execute any of us without trial, Obama has been running around the globe screaming „FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU! BOW DOWN, MOTHERFUCKERS! I’M YOUR GOD NOW!“

Grow a pair? The man has balls as big as all outdoors.

Tres preguntas

1. El Gobierno ¿por qué invitó al diálogo a quienes hace poco trataba de aplastar a guanacazos? ¿Se ha conscientizado de la necesidad urgente de cambiar el sistema o más bien de la imposibilidad de apagar el incendio con la repre?

2. ¿Existen las bases para una negociación?

3. Dada la actitud del Gobierno y la naturaleza de la fuerza del movimiento, ¿a quién le sirve más el diálogo en el momento actual?

El diálogo y la “paz social” no son bienes en sí. Son deseables – o no – en función de su utilidad. La debilidad actual del gobierno – que trató sin éxito de resolver la crisis actual con la repre – no se ha alcanzado mediante el diálogo y la paz social, sino mediante movilizaciones masivas que han roto la falsa paz social y obstaculizado la vida habitual de la sociedad. El movimiento estudiantil se ha ganado el apoyo mayoritario de la población chilena, mientras que el gobierno ha alcanzado niveles de popularidad que se pueden comparar con la peste y la cólera. Por eso, el gobierno se ve en la necesidad de (dar la impresión de) recurrir a otras tácticas para apagar el incendio.

Hace unos días, Matías del Río en Inteligencia Cero elogió la “flexibilidad ideológica” del Gobierno frente a la “intransigencia” del movimiento estudiantil. Lo impresionó mucho el que el Gobierno haya empezado a aceptar reformas que hasta hace poco, rechazaba terminantemente, y dijo que era hora de que el movimiento también mostrara tal flexibilidad. Esta huevada no hay que escucharla – o el del Río es tan idiota que no entiende la cuestión, o la entiende bienísimo, pero quiere ver la derrota del movimiento. ¿De dónde proviene esta nueva “flexibilidad ideológica”? Lo obvio es que este Gobierno tan facho no ha cambiado de mentalidad – si ahora viene pidiendo parlamentos, es porque ha reconocido su propia debilidad política.

Las respuestas del Gobierno indican que éste quiere dar la impresión de estar dispuesto a dialogar, pero con el propósito de cambiar lo menos posible. Se niega a empeñarse por eliminar el lucro del sistema educacional en todos sus niveles. Dice estar de acuerdo con una reforma constitucional y “establecer la educación como derecho pero habló sólo de la calidad, no habló de la gratuidad”. Habla del Estado como garante del derecho a la educación, pero sin concretizar el contenido del derecho ni la responsabilidad del Estado en tanto garante. El parasitismo bancario no lo ve como problema, sino como posible solución a través de “mejorar la competencia” entre los bancos. Respecto del financiamiento mixto, aquel yugo financiero para los estudiantes y las familias, dice que no ve ningún problema en que las familias “puedan aportar” a la educación de sus hijos, dado que es “el anhelo de todos ellos”. O sea que no está dispuesto a dialogar realmente; rechaza de la manera más clara los planteamientos fundamentales del movimiento estudiantil.

El diálogo y la negociación no son bienes absolutos en sí. Hay casos en los que tiene sentido dialogar, casos en los que sería inútil, y otros en los que sería hasta nocivo. Una negociación sólo tiene sentido si existe la posibilidad de llegar a un acuerdo que cumpla con las reivindicaciones fundamentales. Si una parte rechaza terminantemente lo que para otra es fundamental, lo más lógico es terminar la negociación y buscar el triunfo en otra parte. En tal caso, lo único que podrá pasar en el marco de la negociación es que los planteamientos del movimiento se vayan diluyendo y acomodando a los deseos de los poderosos, mientras los poderosos van ganando tiempo y mejorando su imagen pública, demostrando su supuesta “flexibilidad” y la supuesta “intransigencia” del movimiento.

Los fundamentos de tal desastre ya se van sentando en el marco del “diálogo” con el gobierno de Piñera. Aunque los dirigentes de la CONFECH dijeron que se trataba sencillamente de un “emplazamiento cara a cara” al Gobierno, consta del acta de la reunión que los dirigentes, lejos de decirle a un gobierno que rechaza el petitorio del movimiento en lo más fundamental posible que no hay nada que negociar, la CONFECH ha sacado del petitorio elementos clave como la reforma tributaria y la recuperación de los recursos naturales, que sí figuraban en las Bases para un acuerdo social, y – según consta en el acta – no rechazó la propuesta del Gobierno de establecer unas “mesas de trabajo” a la brevedad.

Y si el diálogo no es un bien en sí, la “intransigencia” tampoco es algo intrínsecamente malo. Si se reivindica lo justo y se está ganando, ¿por qué habría de deponer una actitud justa y ganadora? ¿Por qué sería conveniente deponer una actitud que goza del apoyo del 80% de la población para entrar en el diálogo con un Gobierno que tiene el apoyo de unos 20%, y que ni siquiera está dispuesto a aceptar los planteamientos más básicos del movimiento? Algunos hablan ya de que la CONFECH habría “vendido” el movimiento estudiantil – eso no lo excluyo como posibilidad, pero a estas alturas sí puede decirse que el proceder de la CONFECH no tiene el más mínimo sentido como acercamiento táctico. Se está jugando el apoyo popular y la credibilidad del movimiento para hacerle un favor a un gobierno que no tiene nada que ofrecer.

El sacrilegio

A algunos, lo siguiente les parecerá un sacrilegio en este aniversario del histórico triunfo electoral de la Unidad Popular, pero aunque parezca sacrilegio, en realidad no lo es. Esencialmente, puede decirse que hay dos maneras de ver el documental La batalla de Chile de Patricio Guzmán y los hechos históricos que se muestran en ello: desde la óptica trágico-nostálgica de lo que se perdió, y desde la óptica de cómo se perdió lo que se perdió, y cómo ganaron los que ganaron. Para quien se interese por la táctica, la segunda óptica es la más importante: La táctica hay que aprenderla de los ganadores. Así que no hay mejor manera de resucitar la obra del movimiento popular y empezar a derrumbar la ciudadela política, económica y social del pinochetismo que aprender de los que lograron derrocar a la UP. No será que los momios hayan podido permanecer encumbrados en Chile y en el mundo por puros huevones.

El que el momiaje (con el apoyo del gobierno estadounidense, por supuesto) lograra poner y mantener en la defensiva al gobierno más popular de la historia de Chile es una hazaña digna de estudiarla, sobre todo en una época donde se trata de un gobierno que no goza ni de la mitad del apoyo popular que tenía la UP y de una institucionalidad que – como lo dijo Ariel Zúñiga – es “ilegítima de origen, pues deriva de un crimen impune cual fue el golpe de estado”.

¿Cómo lo hicieron? ¿Acaso buscaron el diálogo con el Gobierno Popular? ¿Acaso diluyeron sus planteamientos para poder entrar a negociar con la UP? No, porque no hubiese tenido sentido. Se trataba de un conflicto de intereses fundamental, así que no había nada que negociar porque el Gobierno y la oligarquía no hubiesen podido ponerse de acuerdo ni en lo más fundamental: su deseo era el de proteger sus granjerías y privilegios, mientras el del Gobierno Popular era quitárselos.

El acercamiento táctico esencial del momiaje no era el del golpe de estado. Dar el cuartelazo era una decisión coyuntural, tomada sobre todo porque la vía institucional se iba cerrando. Fundamentalmente, el método de los momios fue el de crear y explotar una crisis sistémica. A tal fin, la oligarquía chilena y los EEUU hicieron lo imposible por evitar el diálogo, porque de aceptar el diálogo, se habría ido disminuyendo la urgencia que era necesaria para mantener la crisis. Paralizaron la economía tanto exterior como interiormente, bloquearon cada iniciativa del gobierno para buscar una salida de la crisis que no fuera la derrota definitiva de la UP. Al final, la opción militar se hizo necesaria porque el Gobierno Popular tenía algo que le falta casi por completo al gobierno de Piñera – la legitimación democrática por amplios sectores de la población.

Si descontamos lo del poder económico y el apoyo de la potencia hegemónica, el movimiento estudiantil actualmente se encuentra en una situación más ventajosa que la del momiaje en la época de Allende: no se está luchando en contra de los intereses de las más amplias capas de la población, sino a favor de ellas y con su apoyo. No tiene el movimiento estudiantil ningún déficit democrático – el déficit lo tiene el gobierno mismo. Y todo lo que se dice de la educación chilena al fin de cuentas, también dice relación con todo el legado socioeconómico y político del pinochetismo que todavía rige en el país.

En una crisis sistémica los principios normales de la táctica se ponen al revés. Cuando se está actuando en el marco de una institucionalidad y una sociedad que se encuentran en tiempos más bien normales, el ámbito de un movimiento para proponer, reivindicar y actuar es más restringido. Total, la cosa anda más o menos cabalmente, y aunque esté andando pa’ la cagá, ¿quién quiere arriesgarse haciendo media vuelta? Además, si la institucionalidad todavía está a la altura de la situación, los poderosos no tendrán dificultades para convencer a la gente que existirían soluciones sistémicas, que no habría que inventar las cosas de nuevo. Fuera de las situaciones críticas, rara vez tiene sentido actuar sino gradualmente, también porque los movimientos también van creciendo más lentamente en tiempos normales. Ya tan sólo el que los poderosos acepten dialogar supone un gran logro y la posibilidad de mejorar – aunque sea un poquitito – la situación.

Pero la crisis sistémica tiene su propia lógica. La institucionalidad ya no está a la altura de la situación, no cuenta con la suficiente flexibilidad estructural e ideológica para dar con una solución satisfactoria. Los movimientos que ofrezcan soluciones plausibles y actúen de manera inteligente pueden vivir un crecimiento insólito, en la medida en que el poder se vaya alejando del punto de vista la población. Si se trata de un sistema flexible e inteligente, la institucionalidad agotará toda su capacidad acrobática para dar por lo menos la impresión de tener la voluntad de llegar a una solución real. Si se trata – como en el caso del gobierno actual en Chile – de un gobierno rígido y autoritario, tratarán de contestar a la rabia popular con los balazos y los guanacos, para sembrar la pasividad juntando miedo.

En una crisis sistémica, el miedo a lo nuevo cede el paso al miedo de seguir el mismo rumbo de siempre. La gente tiene menos que perder, y es más dispuesta a pensar en términos más globales y menos tecnocráticos. Los intereses y conflictos fundamentales se ponen de relieve – ya no es tan fácil como antes existir entre la chicha y la limonada. Existe por ende un potencial insólito para cambiar la sociedad, un potencial que nace y se muere con el sentido de urgencia. Así es que no hay cosa más nefasta en una crisis que el gradualismo, que les brinda una salida a los poderosos, que saben muy bien que pasada la crisis inmediata, ni siquiera tendrán que cumplir cabalmente con las medidas de poca monta que se han acordado. Sobre todo cuando la chicha goza del apoyo del 80% de la población y la limoná no une más que el 20%, la chicha no tiene por qué aceptar el diálogo.

Actualmente, el Gobierno ha reconocido su propia debilidad invitando al diálogo a los que sus guanacos no consiguieron acallar. El movimiento estudiantil no debería darse prisa. Esa invitación de Piñera no es más que una maniobra comunicacional para contrarrestar la disminución constante de la ínfima cantidad de apoyo que aún tiene. Quiere que los estudiantes y demás integrantes del movimiento participen de unas “mesas de trabajo”. ¿Para qué? Si ya dijo en la primera reunión que no piensa aceptar las demandas del movimiento ni en lo más fundamental, y para colmo le faltó al respeto a todo el movimiento diciendo que los estudiantes tendrían demasiadas vacaciones y que los profesores deberían trabajar más, y ofreciendo establecer una ”Superintendencia” que la legislación actual en la materia ya exige desde hace años.

¿Acaso los momios se hubiesen sentado en una “mesa de trabajo” con la UP si Allende viniese diciendo que no estaba de acuerdo ni con derogar la Reforma Agraria ni con dejar que la oligarquía cobrase el precio que se le antojase por los productos de primera necesidad, y si a cambio no les hubiese ofrecido nada más que una Superintendencia para fiscalizar la calidad de las industrias del área social? Ojalá hubiese sido así, que si los momios hubiesen sido así de huevones, habrían sido demasiado imbéciles para llevar a cabo un golpe de estado.

No hay ninguna prisa. Cada día sin poder imponerle una solución a la crisis significa para el Gobierno un aumento del dolor que ya se está volviendo grave. Cada día de crisis se van debilitando cada vez más las estructuras que mantienen la integridad de la institucionalidad “pos”pinochetista. Cuando uno goza del apoyo del 80% de la población, no será difícil explicarle al público que no tiene sentido dialogar cuando el Gobierno no está ofreciendo nada. En vez de hablar de un ofrecimiento sin contenido con un mandatario sin mandantes, más vale hablar entre sí y directamente con el público, desarrollando y refinando las ideas y los planteamientos para el nuevo sistema educacional (y los otros temas que surjan). Si hoy invita, mañana vendrá suplicando.