Antony Loewenstein

The Zionist, collective punishment of an entire people:

Some 838 students formally offered places and/or enrolled at foreign universities are unable to leave Gaza, according to the Palestinian interior ministry and Gisha, an NGO campaigning for freedom of movement.

Of the 1,983 Gazan students in this position, only 1,145 have been able to leave Gaza since the beginning of 2009 due to a combination of travel restrictions and bureaucratic hurdles.

Many studying in the USA, for example, cannot get a US visa as they have been prevented by the Israeli authorities from travelling to the US consulate in Jerusalem.

According to Gisha, the criteria for departure set by Israel include obtaining a recognized scholarship and studying only in a country with diplomatic representation in Israel. Students who wish to leave through Israel must also be accompanied by a diplomatic representative.

Reporters Without Borders 2009 Freedom Index finds Israel in “free fall” over its rights and responsibilities towards journalists and the media:

Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s military offensive against the Gaza Strip, had an impact on the press. As regards its internal situation, Israel sank 47 places in the index to 93rd position. This nose-dive means it has lost its place at the head of the Middle Eastern countries, falling behind Kuwait (60th), United Arab Emirates (86th) and Lebanon (61st).

Israel has begun to use the same methods internally as it does outside its own territory. Reporters Without Borders registered five arrests of journalists, some of them completely illegal, and three cases of imprisonment. The military censorship applied to all the media is also posing a threat to journalists.

As regards its extraterritorial actions, Israel was ranked 150th. The toll of the war was very heavy. Around 20 journalists in the Gaza Strip were injured by the Israeli military forces and three were killed while covering the offensive.

We learn that Israel is determined to change the boundaries of international law to essentially allow states to bomb civilians if they’re “terrorists”:

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed his government on Tuesday to draw up proposals to amend the international laws of war after a damning UN report on its war in Gaza.

The security cabinet did not, however, discuss calls made by ministers for an internal investigation into the 22-day offensive at the turn of the year that killed some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis, an official told AFP.

“The prime minister instructed the relevant government bodies to examine a worldwide campaign to amend the international laws of war to adapt them to the spread of global terrorism,” his office said in a statement.

I remember a recent conversation in Israel with the head of human rights group Gisha who said she was aware of Israeli officials increasingly pushing discussion at global law conferences to permit Israel more far liberal rules of engagement during war. This kind of lawfare being waged by Israel must be resisted in the strongest terms. It wants the ability to bomb civilians with impunity. The furore over the Gaza Goldstone report has challenged that slightly.

Yitzhak Laor in Haaretz:

The avaricious sortie by Defense Minister Ehud Barak and his courtiers to Paris was sponsored by a state in which a third of all children live under the poverty line; Barak himself is supervising the starving of Gaza and its 1.5 million inhabitants. All this ties in well with Israel’s current political crisis, which revolves around a crisis of representation: Whom does Ehud Barak represent apart from the arms dealers and military elites? How can the commonwealth’s citizens demand accountability in a manner that would force le petit empereur to reply? The answer is they can’t.

Israel’s political society is essentially a club of advocates. Those advocates are portrayed to constituents as their representatives. The public is invited to elect those representatives, who are feeding on propaganda money, to a term in office. The public is only allowed to choose from the limited offering available, and essentially gives the advocates carte blanche until the next elections. “Public opinion” is not consulted until those next elections, when it is offered such tantalizing choices as “He’s not a pal, he’s a leader,” “He will defend Jerusalem,” and “Who will take on the ultra-Orthodox’s extortion?” Anything goes.

Leading American journalist Seymour Hersh has more explosive revelations:

The U.S. military is not just fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, America’s most renowned investigative journalist says.

The army is also “in a war against the White House — and they feel they have [President] Obama boxed in,” Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Seymour Hersh told several hundred people in Duke University’s Page Auditorium on Tuesday night. “They think he’s weak and the wrong color. Yes, there’s racism in the Pentagon. We may not like to think that, but it’s true and we all know it.”

In a speech on Obama’s foreign policy, Hersh, who uncovered the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War and torture at Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraqi war, said many military leaders want Obama to fail.

“A lot of people in the Pentagon would like to see him get into trouble,” he said. By leaking information that the commanding officer in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, says the war would be lost without an additional 40,000 American troops, top brass have put Obama in a no-win situation, Hersh contended.

“If he gives them the extra troops they’re asking for, he loses politically,” Hersh said. “And if he doesn’t give them the troops, he also loses politically.”

The journalist criticized the president for “letting the military do that,” and suggested the only way out was for Obama to stand up to them.

“He’s either going to let the Pentagon run him or he has to run the Pentagon,” Hersh said. If he doesn’t, “this stuff is going to be the ruin of his presidency.”

Hersh called the “Af-Pak” situation — the spreading conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan — Obama’s main challenge.

The war in Afghanistan has destabilized Pakistan, which has 80 to 100 nuclear weapons, said Hersh, who recently returned from a visit to South Asia. “And the nuclear situation [in Pakistan] is more dire than you could know. It sucks.”

The only way for the U.S. to extricate itself from the conflict, Hersh said, is to negotiate with the Taliban.

“It’s the only way out,” he said. “I know that there’s a lot of discussion in the White House about this now. But Obama is going to have to take charge, and there’s no evidence he’s going to do that.”

While critical of the president on Afghanistan, Hersh, who travels to the Middle East three or four times a year, did praise his foreign policy initiatives toward Iran.

“When it comes to Iran, he’s changed the paradigm,” he said. “[President] Bush always said we’ll negotiate with those duty Iranians about their nuclear enrichment plans when they stop enriching nuclear material. Obama understands there is some room there to maneuver. That’s a huge change.”

He also praised Obama for also changing the paradigm with his decision to shelve plans for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. Doing that, he said, would help U.S. relations with Russia.

“It’s about time we realize we have a lot in common with the Russians, like worrying about China and global terrorism,” Hersh said.

The missiles, he added, were just a continuation of the Cold War, and “it’s about time for us to capture some of the benefit we were supposed to get from ending the Cold War.”

The case of Israeli activist Ezra Nawi is now decided; he will go to jail simply for defending Palestinians in the West Bank:

The Jerusalem Magistrate Court on Wednesday sentenced left-wing activist Ezra Nawi to one month in prison, after convicting him of assaulting police officers during the 2007 evacuation of illegal Palestinian caravans in the southern Hebron Hills.

“Ideology is ideology, but this trial is not about ideology,” said Judge Eilata Ziskind. “Wild behavior from the right or the left is inconceivable, even if the goal is to help the weak. Without order, there can be no democracy.”

Justice Ziskind described repeated instances in which Nawi threatened police or prevented them from carrying out their activities.

Nawi will serve an additional six months if he participates in similar activities during the next three years, and he was also ordered to pay a fine of NIS 750,000 along with an additional NIS 500 to each officer he assaulted.

Nawi accused the court of authorizing the occupation of Palestinian land for years and said that the court has long been trying to neutralize and silence him. “The punishment doesn’t scare me,” Nawi said.

My following article is published in the Huffington Post:

In a collection of just released work by Acehnese writer Azhari, Nutmeg Woman, we are brought into a world before the devastating 2004 tsunami that killed over 220,000 Indonesians. Civil war wracked the province. Indonesian occupation was brutal and fought against the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). Like the Papuans and East Timorese, the Acehnese wanted to be an independent nation.

Azhari — who wore a t-shirt with the word “iBoobs’ under the Apple logo when I saw him — often writes in riddles, demanding the reader understand the struggles of a people that no colonial power has ever controlled. Outsiders and eccentrics are treated with suspicion. Strong women counter the absence of men, many of whom have disappeared after generations of fighting. Jakarta still refuses to fully investigate this legacy.

During my recent visit to the area — as a guest of the Ubud Writers and Readers Festival — I found unconventional attributes of an Islamic state and fierce resistance to orthodox interpretations of the Koran. Aceh is not Saudi Arabia, Iran or Gaza, all places I have witnessed creeping Islamization and brave men and women challenging its implementation.

Aceh remains a traumatized province despite a 2005 peace deal that ended the decades-old, violent conflict. Sharia law is now implemented with homosexuality and adultery punishable by stoning. Poverty is rife — the smell of rubbish is everywhere and dirty water runs across some streets — while women mostly wear headscarves and sit separately from men at public events.

There are no cinemas. Entertainment options are limited. Religion often fills the breach, but I met many young people who thrived on satellite television and the Internet. Facebook was a common thread, an obsession and window to the world. Everybody under the age of 30 asked if I had a Facebook account and if I’d accept their friend request.

Nindy Silvie, Raisa Kamila and Mifta Sugesty, three schoolgirls who were my translators, regularly watch The Simpsons, Family Guy, BBC and CNN. Nindy spoke with an American accent, had a South Park tune as her ring-tone, didn’t wear a veil and read Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens. I couldn’t believe my ears. Here I was in Aceh, talking about the “fundamentalist atheism” of Hitchens and his hatred of religion. She thought he went too far, though she was hardly a devout Muslim.

Although Aceh is no longer under occupation, tourism is virtually non-existent. International NGOs invaded after the 2004 tsunami and huge re-development dots the landscape. A new airport, large German-backed hospital and tsunami museum are tangible signs of modernity.

It was surreal seeing Jewish gravestones, in Hebrew, in the Dutch-era cemetery in the shadow of the tsunami museum. Writer Fozan Santa, with black, greasy shoulder-length hair, told me that there was no hatred towards these monuments and generations of Acehnese had protected them. “People here don’t hate Jews”, he said, “they hate the Israeli occupation of Palestine.”

I met many young men under 20 who said they had wanted to fight against Israel during its bombardment of Gaza in December and January. “For our fellow Muslims”, one said. Many had never met a Jew before and were amazed that I expressed deep disquiet towards Israeli behaviour in Palestine.

Fozan showed me the bookshop he ran near the heart of Banda Aceh, the capital. Most books were in the local language, including titles about Marx, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Hitler’s Mein Kampf and the power of the Israel lobby in America.

Politics flowed through the veins of many activists, a leftist perspective on the world. During a public forum, I was asked what I thought about the “real terrorism…the issue of globalization and free trade. How do we overcome that?” I replied, slightly unsure what angle to take, that the post-1945 world order was in desperate need of reform and the Muslim world’s time would surely come. Indonesia, the world’s biggest Muslim country, is talking about assuming a more powerful position on the global stage, not least towards the Israel/Palestine conflict.

The election of US President Barack Obama was welcomed warmly across the province. People like his rhetoric and his apparent change in attitude towards the Muslim world, but their patience is limited. Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Palestine continue with no signs of closure. The relationship to American power is contradictory. Washington’s influence on their lives is minimal but its ability to bring peace doubtful. The idea of a benevolent America was appealing but images on satellite television from the Arab world dispelled those myths very quickly.

Acehnese identity is intimately related to Indonesia’s wish for integration and historical desires for independence. Many craved true freedom but realized it was impossible at the present time. The cataclysmic tsunami wiped out entire families and communities but brought a desperately needed resolution to civil strife.

History can have a cruel sense of humor.

Following J Street’s shameful cancellation of a poet’s performance at its upcoming Washington conference, the man in question (and his colleague) have released a statement:

This week, some right-wing blogs and pseudo-news organizations latched on to various lines of poems Josh wrote and churned the alarmist rumor mill saying that hateful anti-Israeli poets are keynote speakers at the J Street conference. This is not surprising. The radical right-wing, including the growing Jewish right-wing of this country and abroad, hates complex discourse, especially when it brings to light truths they seek to systematically deny. The Weekly Standard, Commentary, and their AIPAC-influenced brethren have been attacking J Street for weeks, scared that the conference will bring together the majority of American Jews who do favor a more rigorous peace process. When they found Josh’s poems and took lines out of context, they had the perfect straw man: the Van Jones to J Street’s Obama. Again, this is not surprising.

What is disappointing, and troubling, is J Street’s response in caving to this sort of McCarthyism. The executive director of J Street called us to say  “I know what I’m doing is wrong…but there are some battles we choose not to fight,” before canceling our program, and disinviting us from the conference. This accommodates their red-baiting and is the wrong response. Rather than give in, which only emboldens the right and legitimizes their attacks, we need to stand up for our principles and engage on that front. Van Jones is another perfect example: after the Fox News venom became too much and he resigned last month, the radical Right hasn’t stopped attacking Obama, or more accurately, the alternative, progressive voice they fear he represents. The Right stands by its politics, and practices solidarity with their allies. Too often the Left doesn’t. And that’s why we often lose – on health care, on global warming, and on Israel/Palestine.

For the second time in two months Kevin, who is Jewish, has been told not to come to a Jewish conference because of what he will say about Palestine and Israel. This past August, the evening before the International Hillel Conference, conference planners said if he were to read poems about Palestine, they’d rather not have him. Today, Josh, who is Jewish, has had his name thrown into a mudslide of blogs and hate emails. All this  because we are practicing the Jewish maxim of the refusal to be silent in the face of oppression, anyone’s oppression.

One of the key teachings of Judaism is the insistence on wrestling with and debating ideas. There are a thousand years of codified arguing, recorded in the Talmud and Midrash, over the meaning of the stories in the five books of Torah. Jews debate everything. There is the old adage, “when you have two Jews in the room, you have three opinions”. Our families cannot come to agreement about what constitutes a deli as opposed to a diner. (A deli must have pickles on the table with poppy seed rolls, etc….)

But when you try to talk about Palestine there is silence. When you talk about the role the United States plays in supporting Israel and its military coffers, there is no room for discourse. If you bring up Palestinians’ right to return to land they were forced out of, or mention that this past January over 1400 Palestinians, mostly civilian, were killed in Gaza, there is no room to speak in Jewish-centric spaces in this country.

The following is an extract adapted from the final section of part III of Offence: The Jewish Case, by Brian Klug (London: Seagull Books, 2009). Distributed by University of Chicago Press:

On 11 January 2009 a rally in support of Israel, organized jointly by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council, was held in London’s Trafalgar Square. A number of us, under the auspices of Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), gathered on the fringe of the square for a counter rally. To get to our site outside Canada House we had to run a gauntlet of jeers. ‘Traitors’, ‘cowards’, ‘scum’ and other epithets were hurled in our direction. When the rally was over, some of us were spat at and called ‘kapos’ (a derisory term for certain Jewish inmates of Nazi concentration camps who were seen as collaborators). The contempt and hatred for us, as Jews, was palpable. But it did not come from fanatical Jihadists or fascists in the British National Party. It came from fellow Jews. A ritual was being enacted in which we were being symbolically ‘othered’.

In a way, I am glad of it. Being othered reminds me that I am a Jew, especially when I consider what provoked this behaviour: the expression of open dissent about the State of Israel. For what does this mean? What does it mean when you are expected to stand solidly with a state? When you must declare that you love it before you may question it? When criticism must always be balanced with praise? When all the fears and hopes of a people are placed in its hands? When to distance yourself from it is to invite contempt, and to approach it is to ascend, as if it were resting on a pedestal? What does this mean? It amounts to this: Israel is not a normal – ordinary – state in the minds and hearts of many Jews. It means the state has been made into a statue. You can call it a cause or ideal. But it is an idol by any other name.

Which is no idle thing. In fact nothing is weightier in the Hebrew scripture than the matter of idolatry. What, in heaven’s name, does it mean to be Jewish if not to knock statues off their pedestals? If, whatever our political opinions, we cannot rise above the State of Israel and put it in its place; if we do not reduce its status to that of a mere thing among things; then we are not Jews, or we are Jews in name only. But things can be criticized, challenged, opposed, rejected, replaced: there is not a line that you may not cross when approaching a thing – not in the iconoclastic Judaism to which I lay claim.

But fellow human beings are another matter. They are fellow members of the largest Jewish family in the world: the human family, sharing the same bubbe and zeyda, grandma Eve and grandpa Adam, through whom (in the Genesis story) they inherit the image of God. From which the Talmud derives the principle of kevod habriyos, literally ‘honour of the created’, in idiomatic English ‘human dignity’. ‘The dignity of every person is sacred’, writes Rabbi Chaim Shmulevitz, who for fifteen years was Rosh (head) of the famous Mirrer Yeshiva in Jerusalem. The concept, he says, has ‘overriding importance’:

Rabbinic enactments and various scriptural prohibitions are set aside when they conflict with human respect and dignity … The concept of [human dignity] does not, however, stop at refraining from insulting or degrading one’s fellow human being. One is also obligated to enhance and magnify the prestige and honor of one’s fellow (Reb Chaim’s Discourses).

So, you cross any line in order to speak out about the degradation of others: this is a rule in the Judaism to which I lay claim. You do not infringe this rule to support a state, whatever your attachment to that state. If there is anything that Jews should always support it is justice, not a state; especially not a state that sports the name ‘Israel’, not if ‘Israel’ stands for the toppling of idols (or their moral equivalent) and the pursuit of justice. ‘Justice, justice shall you pursue’ (Deut. 16:20): this is the directive that Moses gives the people of Israel in the wilderness, the direction that he points out. And, starting with the Hebrew prophets, there is a long straggling line of Judeans and Jews, of ancient Israelites and modern Israelis, of rabbis and writers and activists, who have followed suit. Some call themselves secular, others religious, others just plain Jewish.

Between them, these two principles, the one positive (respect for human dignity), the other negative (rejection of idolatry), lay the substantive basis for a Jewish case for outspokenness. On the one hand, they motivate, on the other hand they limit, free expression of opinion about anything whatsoever. To which we can add a third – essentially procedural – principle: commitment to argument.

‘Argument for the sake of heaven’: this is how the Mishna puts it when argument is conducted not for its own sake or for the sake of winning but with a view to a higher purpose, such as truth, justice or peace. Even God enters the argument when, for example, Abraham engages him in moral reasoning over the fate of Sodom (Gen. 18). And not even God can settle the argument, according to a remarkable tale in the Talmud. Once (goes the story) there was a dispute between two rabbis, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, when a heavenly voice intervened to say that Rabbi Eliezer was right. To which Rabbi Joshua retorted, in effect, that God has no standing. ‘For the Torah has already been given from Mount Sinai and we pay no attention to a heavenly voice’. God ‘smiled in that hour’ and said, ‘My children have defeated me. My children have defeated me’ (Bava Metzia 59b). After quoting this passage, Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik comments: ‘[I]t is as if the Creator of the World Himself abides by man’s decisions and instruction’ (Hlakhic Man). Earth looks to heaven for guidance but heaven, in this story, looks back to earth. ‘You decide. Argue it out’: argument for the sake of the world. (Argument for the sake of the world is argument for the sake of heaven: this, in a way, sums up Judaism for me.)

In the argument over Israel, there are no ‘no go’ areas except as determined by the first two principles, applied via the third. Anything goes, even discussion of the most sensitive issues, even its existence as ‘the Jewish state’. And if this causes offence, tough: no political entity, no state, no object: nothing is above and beyond the reach of argument in the interests of peace, justice and truth. These are the commitments that I recognize as staple in the Judaism to which I lay claim.

My following article in New Matilda is about the Indonesian province of Aceh:

Despite recently implementing sharia law — including the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals — Aceh does not fit the stereotype of an Islamic state, finds Antony Loewenstein

Muslim extremists in Aceh were outraged when a young woman from the province, Qori Sandioriva, won the Miss Indonesia crown this month. The area has implemented sharia law and Teung-ku Faisal Ali, the secretary general of Aceh’s Ulama Association, told the BBC that Sandioriva, 18, must wear a veil to comply with local values. She has refused, expressing pride in her uncovered head. Sandioriva will be required to wear a swimsuit at the next, global level of the competition.

The Jakarta Post interviewed Banda Aceh housewife “Heny” who said that protests against the woman were inappropriate and “only diminish from the fighting spirit of Acehnese women to perform at the national as well as international level”.

Aceh occupies a unique position in the Indonesian archipelago. Until the 2004 tsunami — which killed over 200,000 Indonesians, many of them in Aceh — the province endured an insurgency for independence against Indonesian occupation. The tsunami changed everything. A peace treaty was signed in 2005 between Jakarta and the rebel Free Aceh Movement. Integration was the new message and true independence almost disappeared as a dream.

Throughout my recent speaking tour of Aceh — as guest of the Ubud Writers and Readers Festival — I encountered a range of views about its position within Indonesia. During a meeting with journalists and editors at leading newspaper Harian Aceh, I heard that nobody wanted to return to the bad old days of night-time disappearances, extra-judicial torture and random brutality under occupation.

Despite this, however, most backed the independence claims of West Papua and East Timor and longed for a time when they would also be free. Consider the current situation as a holding pattern, I was informed, until an unpredictable event occurs. (Nobody expected the 2004 tsunami; the consequent political earthquake was entirely unforeseen.)

Launched in 2006, Harian Aceh represents the post-2004 media environment in Aceh. As one journalist said to me, “democracy is not healthy with only one paper”. “Alternative” news was sorely needed in the nascent democracy period. “We believe in balance, want to avoid racism and don’t want to inflame ethnic tensions in the archipelago,” I was told. The newspaper’s offices were bare, with cracks near the ceiling, and only a clock set to the wrong time on the wall. The surroundings were simple but the editors eloquently articulated their vision for a better Aceh.

The province is poor — walking the main markets I saw fruit and fish sellers in almost torn clothing and the smell of decomposing rubbish was ubiquitous — but there are many visible signs of the massive development that has taken place over the last few years.

Every new object or building can be easily dated pre- or post-2004. The modern, sparse airport with the mosque-like dome in the middle, the flash hotels to house the international NGO set (who are, increasingly, departing), the German built hospital and the tsunami memorial museum are all striking for their cleanliness. Many Acehnese worry that as memories of the horrors of the tsunami and its effects begin to fade, aid dollars and workers will depart. Eighteen-year-old student Nindy Silvie said her brother will soon lose his job because the five-year international development program which employs him is about to cease.

The Harian Aceh journalists told me that the Israel/Palestine conflict was a central element of their global coverage. A small number of Acehnese men pledged to travel to Gaza in January to fight against Israel during its conflict with Hamas. I met one of them, a mild-mannered 20-year-old man, who showed no hatred towards Israel and accepted, with some prodding, the historical calamity of the Jewish Holocaust. He seemed genuinely intrigued that Jews existed who opposed Israel’s behaviour. “Are there many of you?”, he asked. “We don’t hate Jews”, another said, “but we oppose Israel’s occupation.”

Muslim identity in Aceh is central to this ideology. Militant views exist and those who profess them also undoubtedly see themselves as leading the purity charge. The proposed upcoming visit of Japanese adult video star Maria “Miyabi” Ozawa to Indonesia to shoot a comedy caused some Muslim students in Java to protest and burn women’s underwear. Many women’s groups, on the other hand, backed the trip.

These tactics are loud and intimidating, but many in Aceh, the most devout Muslim province in the country, laughed at the Miyabi outrage. Writer and teacher Fozan Santa told me that it was absurd for a modern democracy to ban any person who hadn’t committed a crime. I was reminded of Gaza under Hamas and its growing Islamisation program, backed only by a minority and rejected by a tired majority.

The implementation of sharia law in Aceh was ad-hoc, at best. Fundamentalists have called for the toughest penalties for “deviants”, homosexuals, adulterers and criminals but there is fierce resistance.

I spent considerable time with three girls in their final year of high school — Nindy Silvie, Raisa Kamila and Mifta Sugesty — who were the main translators during my public events and media engagements. Two wore headscarves and the other chose not to. Raisa and Mifta said their families were fairly conservative and didn’t oppose the fact that there were no cinemas in Aceh — or many other entertainment options, for that matter. With me, they spoke frankly about a range of issues, from female circumcision — they opposed it, understanding the deleterious sexual effects of the act — to boyfriends, American popular culture and Edward Said. Their openness and knowledge forced me to reassess my views of young Muslim girls in a devout society.

Unlike Gaza, which remains occupied by Israel, Aceh has slowly opened up to the world with all its vices and benefits. I wasn’t expecting backward and parochial people, but it’s often easy to forget the revolutionary effect of the internet and satellite television. The girls said they often watched BBC News and CNN and loved al-Jazeera English. They were far more knowledgeable about the world than most school leavers I’ve met, including myself at their age.

I was the key speaker at a cultural event in the centre of Banda Aceh and these kinds of issues were thrashed out in front of 60 men and women, who voluntarily separated themselves along gender lines. After a passionate performance piece by a violinist who explained why young people should write — “most just watch TV, use perfume and drive” — we heard from an Acehnese blogger. He encouraged the attendees to blog because “there is no intervention from anybody and you own the media”. His main concerns were managing the copyright of his content and other bloggers stealing his work without attribution.

It was encouraging to hear that bloggers across Indonesia meet up regularly and conduct conversations the mainstream media will not touch. Aceh now has its own blogging service that assists people in launching their own websites. Nobody seemed to know the exact number of Acehnese bloggers but even conservative counts reach to the hundreds.

Aceh remains a traumatised society. Less than five years after the cataclysmic tsunami touched everybody in some profound way — I met countless people whose entire families were wiped out and others who told of running for their lives into the nearby mountains — the province remains unsure of its identity. Largely ignored by Indonesia’s burgeoning tourist industry and the world media, a sense of isolation envelops the mindset of many.

History is littered with examples of countries which experience the deepest periods of pain followed by an awakening. Aceh is both blessed and cursed — but most Acehnese I met seemed to believe that overall, the former is the more fitting description.

American, Jewish journalist Jeffrey Goldberg provides a helpful definition of what kind of Jews are acceptable to Zionists:

It is unfair to call a Jew a self-hater simply because he’d rather see Hebron under Arab rule than an Israel that, in keeping Hebron under Jewish rule, betrays other Jewish values.

How nice. In fact, people like Goldberg are keen to tell us how Jews should behave, what they must support in Israel, what wars are acceptable (ie. all of them) and demonising anti-Zionists.

Such boundaries display profound Zionist insecurity.

The Daily Beast on Ariel Sharon’s legacy in the Middle East.

Comment of the piece from a woman who only knows how to start wars:

If Sharon hadn’t suffered a stroke? “I think we would have a Palestinian state,” says former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.