Adonis Diaries

Archive for May 19th, 2011

The “Arabs” in the US are the most educated and the richest?

The latest statistics performed in the US have demonstrated the following facts, relative to the 5.3 million of Arabic descent:

More than 60% of the Arabs , mainly the (Lebanese, Syrians, Egyptians, Palestinians, Iraqis, North Africans) earned the highest university degrees versus 30% of the average US citizens

The average Arab in the US earn $54,000 versus 43,000

57% of the Arabs in the US own single family homes versus 43%

The Arabs in the US hold the highest posts and the most private businesses than the other US minorities, including European, Japanese, and Chinese.

The Lebanese constitute 40% of the total Arab US, followed by the Syrians (12.3%), the Egyptians (12%), the Palestinians (6%)….

The Christians among the Arabs in the US form 63% and the Moslems 24%.

John Stewart Kenneth said: “The Arabs are starting to scare us with their intelligence and competitiveness.  Even our thinking are challenged and changed.  Once opportunities for freedom, justice were available to the US Arabs, they advanced in accelerated speed.  The US Arabs came from poor countries and reacted to their former indignities in their original countries by showing us to the second rank in our society.”

Moses Naeem, founder of “Foreign Policies” in the USA wrote an article saying: “Why Arab descendants are more successful than most ordinary US citizens?  Why are they more intelligent and richer? Why in such a hurry?”

The Zionist lobby is reacting vehemently to these new finding:  The Zionists kept the stigma of stupid Arabs for 6 decades and showing them as terrorists and lazy in Hollywood movies.

Note: Indeed why?  Read my response on“arabs”-in-the-us-are-the-most-educated-and-the-richest/

Fairer view on the Palestinian rights and cause: The Economist butts in

On May 17th, The Economist published the article “Here comes your non-violent resistance“. I will repost it with a few editing, and add a few comments.

“For many years, we’ve heard American commentators bemoan the violence of the Palestinian national movement.  They would say “If only Palestinians had learned the lessons of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, they’d have had their recognized State long ago”.

Or the American commentators would say: “Surely, no Israeli government would have violently suppressed a non-violent Palestinian national liberation movement, seeking only the universally recognised right of self-determination”.

Palestinian commentators and organizers, including Fadi Elsalameen and Moustafa Barghouthi, have spent the last couple of years pointing out that these complaints resolutely ignore the actual and growing Palestinian non-violent resistance movement.

The first intifada, which broke out in 1987, was initially as close to non-violent as could be reasonably expected. For the most part, it consisted of general strikes and protest marches. In addition, there was a fair amount of kids throwing rocks, and a few continuing threat of low-level terrorism, mainly from organisations based abroad. the Israelis conflated the autochthonous protest movement with “terrorism” and responded brutally.  The first intifada quickly lost its non-violent character.

It is not that different from what has happened over the past couple of months in Libya: It shows that it’s very hard to keep a non-violent movement going non-violent, as the government you’re demonstrating against, subjects you to gunfire for a sustained period of time.

In any case, if you’re among those who have made the argument that Israelis would give Palestinians a State if only the Palestinians would learn to employ Gandhi tactics of non-violent protest, it appears your moment of truth has arrived.  What happened on Nakba Day (the day Israel chased out the Palestinians from their villages and homes to seek refuge in the neighboring States) was Israel’s “nightmare scenario”:  Masses of Palestinians marching (from all the bordering States to Israel), unarmed, towards the borders of the Jewish State, demanding the redress of their decades-old national grievance.”

Peter Beinart writes that this represents “Israel’s Palestinian Arab Spring”: the tactics of mass non-violent protests that brought down the governments of Tunisia and Egypt.  The same mass uprising that are threatening to bring down the regimes in Libya, Yemen and Syria, are now being used in the Palestinian cause.

We have an opportunity to see how Americans will react. “We’ve asked the Palestinians to lay down their arms. We’ve told them their lack of a State is their own fault; if only they would embrace non-violence, a reasonable and unprejudiced world would see the merit of their claims”. Over the weekend, tens of thousands of them did just that, and it seems likely to continue.

If crowds of tens of thousands of non-violent Palestinian protestors continue to march, and if Israel continues to shoot at them, what will we do? Will we make good on our rhetoric, and press Israel to give the Palestinians their State? Or will it turn out that our paeans to non-violence were just cynical tactics in an amoral international power contest, staged by militaristic Israeli and American right-wing groups whose elective affinities lead them to shape a common narrative of the alien Arab/Muslim threat? Will we even bother to acknowledge that the Palestinians are protesting non-violently? Or will we soldier on with the same empty decades-old rhetoric, now drained of any truth or meaning, because it protects established relationships of power?

What will it take to make Americans recognise that the real Martin Luther King-style non-violent Palestinian protestors have arrived, and that Israeli soldiers are shooting them with real bullets?”

A few comments:  The first non-violent Intifada pressured Itzhak Rabin to signing an agreement with Arafat, who was residing in Tunisia at the time.  The second Intifada was crushed in blood by Ariel Sharon in 2002.  Actually, Sharon entered the camp of Jenine and the Israeli tanks run over live Palestinian civilians and children.  Sharon finished the job by poisoning Yasser Arafat and imposing a total curfew on Ramallah that lasted 6 months.

On May 15, 2011, Israeli snipers shot to kill in the head and chest Palestinian marchers on the borders.  Over 20 civilian Palestinians were killed, point-blank with real bullets and over 300 were seriously injured on the borders with Lebanon, Syria (the Golan Heights), West Bank, and Gaza.

Palestine was partitioned into a Jewish and a Palestinian/Arab States in 1947.  Is not partitioning a recognition of a State?  Why the Palestinians had to wait till 2011 for the UN to vote in September for a Palestinian State?  Israel occupied more Palestinian lands in 1948, before the UN recognized the State of Israel.  Should people use brute force to occupy lands and demand the UN to recognize new lands captured by force?  What Israel and the UN call the 1967 borders, lands occupied after the 1967 war, are actually forgetting that Israel had occupied lands in surplus of what Palestine had been partitioned initially.

The US, the UN, Israel may wish that the borders of 1967 will satisfy the Palestinians.  Tough luck:  The UN declaration #194 demands the right of Palestinians to return to their lands, all the lands, before 1947.  The Palestinians have the right to return to their original homes, towns, villages, and get remunerated for lost gains and suffering.

Who is Julian Assange? Who is Daniel Domscheit-Berg? As described in “Inside WikiLeaks”

Julian Assange is off the media screen; but the over 250,000 leaks are still being published, disseminated, and sold to various media.

What happened to Julian Assange? Daniel Domscheit-Berg in his “Inside WikiLeaks” describes the problems that WiliLeaks was plagued with as a publishing medium and the authoritarian and single-minded behaviors of Assange is the running of this project.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg wrote:

My idea was to install a permanent work center and hiring steady collaborators.  I even contacted the German military and located a few potential bunkers at affordable prices.  The concept was for WL to become “The most aggressive press organization“.  Julian changed position: He opted to remain an “Insurgent Operation” and not settle in any publicly recognized headquarter.  Julian was under the strong impression that he was followed and secretly investigated.  Consequently, Julian refused to facilitate decisions on withdrawing money from the Wau Foundation.

The Wau Foundation was ready to pay us salaries, and Julian blocked the entire plan.  As money started to come in after releasing the video “Collateral Murder”, shot in Iraq, discords with Assange were exacerbated.  The transactions with the foundation was pretty straightforward: The foundation extended the sum that Daniel requested and Daniel remitted the invoices.  The late Wau Holland was a computer scientist and a philosopher; his foundation aided with grants on projects that enhanced freedom of the press.

Thanks to the video “Collateral Murder” shot in Iraq, donations started to come in.  Collateral Murder showed a US helicopter shooting at civilian Iraqis coming out of a van.  The foundation Wau Holland in Germany had agreed to receive the donations, handle the fiscal and tax deductions procedures, and sending requested expenses.

By summer 2010, the account climbed to $600,000.  By the time Daniel Domscheit-Berg quit WL, he said that he estimated that the foundation had accumulated one million.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg claims in his book “inside WikiLeaks” that the project had spent $75,000 by September 2010 on state of the art equipment, like 7 servers, decrypted mobile phones, pagers by satellites…During the 6-month stoppage of Wikileaks, due to the previous archaic equipment and server, WL continued to receive documents while restoring the network.

What pleased most Assange is someone calling him Mandax, the code name he used when a young computer hacker; he was overjoyed hearing Mandax when he was not known around 2007 and when he got famous.

Assange would travel light, a simple backpack carrying his outmoded portable computer. Julian would arrive at the last minute for a convention, hoard the computer at the press room, and never relinquish it.

Three days later, the once well-pressed clothes were dirty: He didn’t bring cloth change, and gladly accepted gifts for cloth and other objects since he would not carry money.

Assange, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, and the Architect stayed for an entire month in a hotel suit in Island, ironing out a law proposal for the parliament to declare Island a heaven for free press.

Since they had to meet with deputies and politicians, Daniel Domscheit-Berg made it a point never to get out without pressed and clean cloths.  This behavior angered Julian and reprimanded Daniel of trying to taking over WikiLeaks and out-staging Julian.

The air of the room, containing over 6 persons and working around the clock, got filthy; especially that they ordered food and no one would clean up the leftover.  Once, Daniel opened a window to refresh the climate and Julian was harsh in his reaction, a behavior that prompted Daniel to return to Berlin.

The relationship between the two associate got nasty and Daniel quit WikiLeaks.  The Architect, the most important programmer and the one who updated and modernized the servers and platform, joined Daniel. The Architect took with him all the programs that he created, bringing back WikiLeaks to its archaic state.




May 2011

Blog Stats

  • 1,518,865 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 764 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: