Farhah Aziz

PLO bid to statehood before the UN

2011-09-21T07:03:00.000-07:00

Today, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) will bid for its statehood before the UN. However, there are numerous legal opinions to counter such action where one of the concerns is pointed out at the challenges and risks facing Palestinians those who live within the the Occupied Territories and also largely those in the diaspora, if indeed 'state of Palestine' is actually established. This include for instance, the issues of Palestinian rights, representation, and the right of return and self-determination, which may all be seriously affected by the outcome of the bid. Here is an article produced by Al Jazeera English which outlines the facts behind the bid.

Background: The facts behind the bid
What status do the Palestinians currently have? And what would change after a "yes" vote in September?

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said he will request recognition of a fully-fledged state at the United Nations when he goes to the world body next week, defying fierce opposition from Israel and the US.

Here are some of the reasons behind the push, as well as possible consequences:

What status do the Palestinians currently have at the UN?

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) currently has observer status at the UN, which allows PLO representatives to attend meetings and deliver speeches, but not to vote on resolutions or other substantive matters.

Observer status is generally reserved for intergovernmental organisations, including the European Union and the Arab League. A few non-governmental organisations, like the Red Cross, also have observer status.

Why do the Palestinians want to "go to the UN" in September?

Abbas says 20 years of US-led peace talks have gotten nowhere and wants a vote in the United Nations to bestow the Palestinians with the cherished mantle of statehood. However, he recognises that negotiations with Israel will still be needed to establish a properly functioning state.

Justifying the move, the Palestinians point to the success of a Western-backed, two-year plan to build institutions ready for statehood, which they say is now finished.

How does the UN admit new member states?

Countries seeking to join the United Nations usually present an application to the UN secretary-general, who passes it to the Security Council to assess and vote on. If the 15-nation council approves the membership request, it is passed to the General Assembly for approval.

A membership request needs a two-thirds majority, or 129 votes, for approval. A country cannot join the United Nations unless both the Security Council and General Assembly approve its application.

Could the Palestinians actually join the UN?

In theory, yes. But Washington has made clear it would veto such a request, meaning it has no chance of success. Even if the Palestinians secured a two-thirds majority of votes in the General Assembly, there is no getting around the need for prior approval of the Security Council.

Is "non-member state" status an option?

In addition to applying to become a full UN member state, the Palestinians could also seek upgraded observer status as a non-member state.

Only one other state - the Vatican - currently holds this status, though Switzerland did until it became a full UN member in 2002. Such status, UN envoys say, could be interpreted as implicit UN recognition of Palestinian statehood because the assembly would be acknowledging that the Palestinians control an actual state.

The advantage of this option is that it would require only a simple majority of the 193-nation General Assembly, not a two-thirds majority. Abbas said on Friday that more than 126 states already recognise the state of Palestine, meaning he could probably win such a vote with ease.

Why do the Palestinians want recognition on the 1967 lines?

The Palestinian Authority (PA) says placing their state firmly in the context of territory seized by Israel in the 1967 war will provide clear terms of reference and will mean Israel could no longer call the land "disputed". Instead, it will make clear it is "occupied".

Besides granting them the all-important title "state", diplomats say it might enable the Palestinians to join the International Criminal Court, from which it could pursue legal cases against Israel over the partial blockade of Gaza or regarding the settlements.

Israel fears this will in turn enable Palestinians to start legal proceedings at the ICC against some 500,000 Israelis who live in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
What are the practical consequences of the vote?

The idea of the United Nations "recognising" Palestine is perhaps a bit misleading, because the UN does not recognise countries - individual states do. More than 120 countries have already recognised the state of Palestine.

Yet UN recognition would certainly be a symbolic victory - as Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has described it - cementing the idea that a Palestinian state exists.

In practice, the impact of the vote - particularly in the short-term - will be limited. A "yes" vote at the UN will neither end the occupation nor give Palestinians full control over their state - borders, airspace, etc.

What are the potential disadvantages to the Palestinians?

Israel could decide to counter sue the Palestinians at the ICC over missiles fired at it out of Gaza, which is run by Hamas.

Some critics have warned of legal consequences for the Palestinians themselves, arguing the move could jeopardize the rights of refugees and the status of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO).

Others have dismissed the argument that Palestine's UN mission represents only those Palestinians living within the state of Palestine. But those in the diaspora, which in theory has a voice through the PA, could be left without representation.

If the UN vote does not change things on the ground in the Palestinian territories, the standing of the Palestinian leadership could be further undermined when the dust settles.

Some Israelis have warned disappointment could fuel anti-Israeli violence and even spark a new Intifada. PA officials have dismissed that prospect.

Are there other possible negative consequences?

Yes, both for the Palestinian Authority itself, and for the Palestinian population as a whole.

Israeli officials have suggested a range of possible measures, including limiting travel privileges for Palestinian leaders seeking to exit the West Bank, halting the transfer of crucial tax revenues to the Palestinians and even annexing West Bank settlement blocs to try to sidestep ICC legal action.

Some US officials have warned that they might cut their annual aid to the Palestinian Authority, which runs to some $450m - more than 10 per cent of the PA's annual budget.

It is far from clear if they will enact these threats. Depriving the PA of funds, for example, would rapidly push it to financial collapse, which would provoke instability.

In the case of bankruptcy, some leading Palestinians argue that the PA should hand over the keys of the big West Bank cities to Israel and tell it to pay for the ongoing occupation.

For more articles regarding this topic, click here.

Clash of Civilizations?

2011-09-20T06:15:00.000-07:00

In 1993, a Harvard professor, Samuel Huntington gave a chilling analysis about the future of the world. He laid out the so-called 'clash of civilization' thesis. A thesis outlined that in the near future, a war will not be fought between nations, but instead, between cultures and civilizations. A thesis found to resonate with Osama bin Laden. It was exactly that kind of prophecy that he was so hungry of. A prophecy that can convince not just those who are oppressed, but also those who see themselves as representatives of the 'attacked' civilization or religion. A battle between good and evil. A cosmic war. A war that will never cease. Al Jazeera has succeeded in producing a remarkably brilliant documentary outlining the chilling events that ensued based on the particular thesis prophesied by Huntington. A prophecy that has since changed the world.

The 'Death' of Osama?

2011-05-07T06:31:00.000-07:00

Last Tuesday around mid-day, I learned about the death of Osama bin Laden. The most wanted man in the world. One might ask how do I feel about it? To be honest, I was absolutely overwhelmed with shock and couldn't help having a hint of skepticism upon hearing the news. I thought this is probably another one of those conspiracy theory came up by the CIA or the FBI, desperate to clear up its tarnished image and for once wanting to be hailed as the true hero. A man that has for the sake of finding him erupted two great wars in both the Middle East and South Asia and resulted in an immense number of civilian deaths. He is also the man whose extreme narratives gave rise to a global terror network which pledged to wage holy wars against the non- Muslims. This is also the man that vowed to defend Muslims who are oppressed and suppressed across the world. Indeed, he did prevail in 'defending' the Muslims. One stark example is the ostracization and stigmatization of Muslims in the West post 9/11. The actions this man taken also witnessed crackdowns on normal, ordinary Muslims in the Muslim world. Somehow, having a beard and attending the mosque seem extreme and radicalized in the eyes of the dictators, Ben Ali, Mubarak and Qaddafi to name a few.

Yes. No doubt that this one man has done absolute destruction to the world. I should actually be content upon hearing his death. However, this news to me still left a vast space of ambiguity and vagueness. Even Obama's words failed to erase my skepticism of the whole operation. Without authentic photographs and videos, it's hard to believe what really went down. The fact that he was laid to rest in the vast ocean also left me puzzled. One question is playing in my head right now. What is the purpose of them burying him in the sea? Can't he just be buried in the ground like everyone else? I know that the questions really sound stupid. Why would you want to pay the last respect to the father of all terrorists by giving him a proper burial and all? It just doesn't make any sense does it? But, again, I do believe that I have the right to be fully convinced that he truly is dead. And the Obama administration has that massive responsibility on its shoulder to eradicate any critical comments and skepticism that they should have seen coming anyway. They should not need to waste any more time deliberating whether to release the evidence or not as this would just create a big room for conspiracy theories to emerge especially by the tough ritics and sceptics of America’s foreign policy. It would also make the global audience to think twice about hailing the Americans as the true hero.

Another point that is fairly significant to note of this 'kill bin Laden mission' is the location of bin Laden's hideout was after all in the city north of Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. Not in those mountainous range in Afghanistan where the Western military analysts have constantly speculated bin Laden to be hiding. Not in Afghanistan where thousands of Western troops have flocked in and perished for the sake of finding this one man. Not in Afghanistan or even Iraq where military invasions have witnessed deaths of tens or probably hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Not in those two countries where the United States and the EU have for a decade allocated trillions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to support the military invasion of these countries.

So, a suspicion is now raised over the hideout location of bin Laden’s all this while. Pakistan. Did the Pakistani army or any of its intelligence agencies know about his location all along? Did the FBI and CIA also know about his whereabouts? These are the questions that yet to be answered.
As with now, I am still critical and sceptical of the whole operation and I don’t believe that Obama had indeed get Osama. Arrays of questions are still yet to be answered and I will be counting the days for that day to come where all of them are answered.

The drawbacks of intervention in Libya

2011-03-22T14:32:00.000-07:00

This article was written and submitted before the passage of UNSC Resolution 1973.

The Libyan uprising is entering its fourth week. The courage and persistence of the Libyan people's efforts to overthrow Gaddafi have been met with ongoing regime brutality ranging from shoot-to-kill policies to the indiscriminate use of artillery against unarmed civilians.

In addition to the current no-fly zone, the UN Security Council unanimously issued a resolution imposing tough measures against the Libyan regime including an arms embargo, asset freeze, travel ban and a referral of the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court for investigation.

The desire to act in solidarity with the Libyan people demands that we assess the available options against the core principle of legitimacy that any intervention must satisfy: Do no harm (that is, do not do more harm on balance by intervening).

The likelihood that coercive intervention would satisfy this principle is severely constrained when evaluated against the historical record, logistical realities, and the incentives and interests of the states in a position to serve as the would-be external interveners.

Put simply, coercive external intervention to alter the balance of power on the ground in Libya in favor of the anti-Gaddafi revolt is likely to backfire badly.

The attendant costs would, of course, be borne not by those who call for intervention from outside of Libya but by the Libyan people with whom we hope to show solidarity. In what follows we argue that embracing the call for solidarity requires a much more careful appraisal of the interventionist option, precisely because the potential risks will be borne by Libyan civilians.

Mixed motivations

Of the arguments against intervention, the most straightforward draws on an assessment of the long history of external intervention in the Middle East and North Africa.

There is no need to rehearse that history here since the failure of such past interventions to advance the humanitarian welfare or political aspirations of local populations is well-established. But because the possibility of intervention is debated in some circles as if the starting point is a clean slate, it is important to begin by recalling this dismal history. For instance, the imposition of a no-fly-zone on Iraq did little in and of itself to shift the balance of power against the Saddam Hussein regime, but it did result in the deaths of hundreds of civilians.

Further, the no-fly zone served as a predicate for the subsequent invasion and occupation of Iraq insofar as the ongoing use of this coercive measure against the regime from 1991 until 2003 was cited in support of the argument that there was "implied authorisation" to forcibly topple the regime.

While humanitarian considerations are often invoked in defense of intervention, humanitarianism is far from the only issue on the table. Other reasons that have been adduced in favor of intervention in Libya include vindicating international norms, re-establishing the leadership of the US in the region, preventing spill-over of the refugee crisis into Europe, and the stabilisation of world oil markets. The Libyan people are struggling to change their regime on their own terms and there is no reason to presume an overlap between these various logics of intervention and their interests.

The historical record clearly establishes that an external regime change intervention based on mixed motives - even when accompanied with claims of humanitarianism - usually privileges the strategic and economic interests of interveners and results in disastrous consequences for the people on the ground. Indeed, the discord currently evidenced among Western powers concerning intervention in Libya is precisely based in their doubts as to whether their strategic interests are adequately served by such a course.

The incongruence between the interests of external interveners and those on the ground in Libya is already apparent. Beyond their eleventh hour timing, serious mobilisations for intervention on the part of Western powers were issued only after most Western nationals had been safely evacuated from Libya.

The fact that outside powers were unwilling to act while their nationals were on Libyan soil demonstrates their understanding that treating the regime with coercion may lead to civilian deaths either directly as a result of an intervention or indirectly through reprisals against civilians identified as opponents.

Furthermore, the evacuation channels made available to Western nationals – airlifts across the Mediterranean – were not and are not being offered to Libyan civilians nor African migrant workers trapped in Libya. If the humanitarian welfare of civilians in Libya were paramount, they, too, would have been offered this secure escape route. Instead, once Western nationals were safely out of harm’s way, coercive measures were adopted without any effort to protect or evacuate the civilians that were left behind in Tripoli and beyond.

No-fly zone, local calls, and solidarity

To be clear, we are not categorically rejecting any and all forms of intervention irrespective of the context. Instead, we reject forms of intervention that, on balance, are likely to produce more harm than benefit. This is a context-specific determination that requires an assessment of the forseeable consequences of particular proposed interventions. With respect to the context in Libya today we are critical of current proposals for intervention in light of the identities and interests of would-be interveners and the limited understanding of intra-Libyan political dynamics on which they rely. There are circumstances under which a no-fly zone might conceivably serve a humanitarian purpose.

In particular, if air strikes were the principal means by which the regime was inflicting civilian casualties, there would be a much stronger case for a no-fly zone. Though the military situation within Libya remains unclear, the empirical evidence that is available suggests that Gaddafi’s artillery poses a more serious threat to both civilians and rebels than air strikes.

In addition, the regime's aerial assaults have primarily employed helicopter gunships, which would be difficult to counter through a no-fly zone because they fly lower and are harder to target than warplanes.

Further, the no-fly zone imposed through the UN Security Council involves attacks on Libyan runways, radars, and anti-aircraft artillery installations with the potential for significant "collateral damage" against civilians and civilian infrastructure. A no-fly zone that risks killing Libyans would also run the risk of strengthening the regime's hand by enabling Gaddafi to style himself as an anti-imperialist defender of Libyan sovereignty.

Rather than persuading elements of the military and air force to defect, such a move might produce a counter-productive rally-round-the-flag effect in parts of Libya still under the control of the regime.

The fact that for logistical and political reasons a no-fly zone poses a serious risk of backfiring is an important consideration. But it is not the only reason to question whether heeding local calls for a no-fly zone necessarily represent an act of solidarity.

Fragmentation risk

Furthermore, a response to calls emanating from one region may risk fragmenting the country. The fact that we know so little about the domestic context among non-regime actors in Libya is precisely the reason that the types of external intervention currently taking place are likely to backfire.

The desire to act in solidarity with local Libyans struggling for their liberation is important. But without a clear sense of the consequences of a particular intervention – or the interests and diverse actors likely to be impacted – there is no way to satisfy the do-no-harm principle. Notwithstanding the provenance of the no-fly zone – whether within Libya or the Arab League – and their attendant "authenticity" or legitimacy, we cannot justify intervention unless we can appraise its likely consequences for the civilian population with whom we are allegedly acting in solidarity.

This difficulty is further compounded by the fact that neither the Western nor Arab powers currently calling for intervention have a record of privileging particular domestic partners based on the interests or aspirations of local populations. There is little reason to expect that Libya will be exceptional in this regard, particularly in light of the mixed motives of any potential intervener.

We do not argue that the international community has no obligation to support Libyan civilians. To the contrary, we strongly believe there is such an obligation, but that current coercive options pose serious risks to the Libyan population with little concomitant benefit in terms of humanitarian protections.

The interests of potential external interveners are not well aligned with those of Libyans on the ground beyond that of regime change.

Further, the identities of involved in the process of intervention reinforce concerns about such proposals. Many members of the Arab League are currently undertaking repression of democratic uprisings against their rule. The legitimacy and representativeness of any call they issue should be called into question by their own internal anti-democratic practices.

As Saudi troops operate in Bahrain to shore up the defenses of an authoritarian ruling family against its own people, the bankruptcy of calls for intervention in Libya by members of the GCC and the Arab League is evident.

Members of the Group of 8 are also compromised by their ambivalence towards democratic demands met with repression by their regional allies and their own long history of brutal interventions and direct support of authoritarian regimes.

ICC referral 'counter-productive'

Libyans have already made great inroads on the ground and without external support towards a goal of regime change in which they will determine the day-after scenarios for their country.

To date, measures adopted by the international community have done little to aid, and may have undermined, Libyan efforts at liberation. For instance, the call for an ICC referral in the measures adopted by the UN Security Council was most likely counter-productive. The first priority should have been a negotiated exit strategy for Gaddafi and his family, not unlike the path already paved for the other recently deposed Arab despots, Ben Ali and Mubarak.

Instead, by immediately referring the regime for investigation by the ICC the international community has signaled to Gaddafi that neither he nor his children will be allowed to go quietly, potentially redoubling his resolve to fight to the last.

Allowing a negotiated exit to exile in an African or South American country would not have precluded a subsequent ICC referral, but might have facilitated an early end to the violence currently ravaging Libya. Further, the same resolution that referred Libyan authorities to the ICC contained a specific exemption from ICC jurisdiction for foreign interveners not party to the Rome Statute, anticipating and providing impunity in some cases for civilian deaths that result from possible UN Security Council-authorised operations in Libya down the line.

The ICC referral has been described as an attempt to incentivise those around Gaddafi to defect. Rather than vindicating international accountability, this logic of incentives suggests impunity for last-minute defectors notwithstanding decades of crimes against the Libyan population.

At its most basic, the ICC referral represents the triumph of a set of international goals (vindicating a constrained conception of international accountability through the Libyan regime) over the immediate interest in an early resolution of the Libyan crisis through the provision of a regime exit strategy. This privileging of international over local interests is typical of external intervention and would only be exacerbated by options involving the use of force.

Useful assistance

We argue for forms of international assistance that reverse this privileging and begin from the known interests of Libyan civilians. At a minimum, resources must be mobilised to offer relief supplies to the Libyan population that is currently outside of the control of the regime (bearing in mind some of the problematic dynamics also associated with such forms of "aid").

Urgent priority should be given to addressing shortages of medical supplies and provision of essential foods and clean water. Beyond these basics, an evacuation corridor for civilians – including non-Libyan African workers trapped in the territory – should be secured and responsibility for shouldering the burden of refugee flows should not be restricted to Tunisia and Egypt.

To the contrary, rather than imposing these costs on Libya's poorest neighbors – in the early stages of transitions of their own – Libya’s relatively wealthy northern neighbors in Europe should be absorbing a much larger share of the costs, human and material, of offering refuge to fleeing civilians.

The fact that the airlifting of Libyan and other African civilians to safety out of Tripoli is an option that is not currently on the table speaks eloquently to the misalignment of priorities. Dropping the xenophobic European rhetoric on the "dangers" of African immigration would also have the benefit of removing one of the Libyan regime's major levers with the EU.

As Gaddafi threatens to terminate the agreements by which he has been warehousing African migrants at Europe's behest, he lays bare the cruel logic of tacit alliances (based on immigration, energy, and security interests) that has long lent support to his rule.

A Europe willing to take concrete steps to facilitate the evacuation to its own shores of civilians who wish to leave Libyan territory regardless of nationality would at least have broken with its record of shameful complicity in regime brutality.

Acting in solidarity with the Libyan people within a do-no-harm principle presents many constraints and frustratingly few options. This is not because of an absence of concern for the interests of the Libyan population but because there are few good options beyond the provision of relief supplies and evacuation channels.

Support Libyan rebels?

There may be other alternatives short of external coercive intervention that might be considered – such as sharing tactical intelligence with Libyan rebels or jamming regime communications – though such options would have to be carefully evaluated in light of potential risks.

By contrast, overt and covert coercive options ranging from no-fly zones to arming Libyan rebels or using regional commandos to train them all implicate external actors in altering the balance on the ground in unpredictable ways.

To engage in such coercive strategies without being able to evaluate the full range of consequences amounts to subordinating the interests of the Libyan people to our own sense of purpose and justice.

We strongly advocate creative strategies of solidarity with the Libyan people while underscoring that calls for coercive external intervention do not qualify. Indeed, it is possible that demands for Western support to the rebels may already have done more harm than good.

In the end, we argue for humility in imagining the role we might play in the course of Libyans' struggle. The international community is neither entitled to take the reins today nor dictate the post-regime scenario tomorrow. Further, those of us who wish to stand in solidarity with Libyans from outside of their country must recognise that we may not be best placed to identify which local actors enjoy broad-based support.

Solidarity cannot be reduced to the diplomatic politics of recognition nor to arguments for external intervention.

In the end, we counsel acting from the outside only when our actions are clearly aligned with the interests of Libyan civilians. Imaginative strategies to offer much-needed relief and refuge to Libya’s vulnerable population represent a challenge the international community has yet to meet. That is a good starting point for transnational solidarity.

Asli Ü. Bâli is a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law. Her research interests also include comparative law of the Middle East.

Ziad Abu-Rish is a doctoral candidate in UCLA's Department of History. He is the co-editor of Jadaliyya Ezine.

Credit to Al Jazeera English

The Arabs have spoken out, finally!

2011-03-08T15:40:00.000-08:00

February 17, 2011 witnessed a commencement of another uprising reverberating across Middle East. This time the clarity of the voices coming out of Libya was unprecedented and unstoppable. Another North African nation that apparently has had enough envisioning and waiting for the idea of democracy deemed universal for every individual to come into fruition in 42 years under brutal and barbaric dictatorship of Col Muammar Gaddafi. However, the popular upheavals descended quickly into carnage and brutality. It is indeed very important to reflect on the humble beginning of this political domino effect that has mobilized millions upon millions of people and turning the world’s eyes towards their plights that have been long ignored by their iron-clad rulers.

It begins with a moment of terrible desperation for a frustrated and furious Tunisian street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, who set himself ablaze driven mad by the brutality of local officials. His heroic act has then become somewhat a catalyst that sparked popular revolutions across the Middle East against the sheer authoritarianism that dominates the political landscape. He has also succeeded to convey the vented grievances and legitimate aspirations of every Arab society forced to be kept silenced for decades. He has emboldened the voices of the poor and unfortunates across the region. His act of self-immolation then revered as a symbol of resistance and inspired others to mobilize popular revolts crying out discontentment against the regimes. Suddenly, Arabs across the region breached through the fear barricades that defying the state brutality has cowed them prior to the self-immolation act in Tunisia. Now, a unifying confident new Arab voice demanding citizenship and human rights can be heard resonating across the region. Outgrown by the oblivion of the states towards their initial demands, the demonstrators began insisting for the removal of the dictators. As a result, some of the most notorious dictators in the region have been toppled down by the mighty power of the people’s dignities. First, Zine el Abidine Ben Ali fled the country, then Hosni Mubarak of Egypt waived the office, and one can assume the list will continue to go on charting extraordinary history of a new Arab democracy. This gives birth to a modern Arab culture and it has indeed changed the entire world.

Leaders of countries like Jordan, Algeria, and Yemen also seemed shaken to core by the revolutionary wave hitting the region. The fear of being overthrown by popular insurrections and in also seems like desperate final attempts at clinging to powers, the leaders of these nations came up with several concessions to recede the tides of anger and animosity of the public towards their governments. Political repression, economic stagnation, high rate of unemployment, in a region where young people consists one third of the population, the Arab world in reality is a demographic time bomb. And now, the society that has long brandished by the West as a peculiarly docile and apathetic rose up against decades of political and economic repression worked against them.

Social networking sites, such as Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and many others play a pivotal role in giving birth to the revolutions unfolding before our eyes. For instance, a Facebook page or group managed to mobilize millions and millions of ordinary people to speak out against their governments. Tweets can be sent to inform and share the latest news of what is actually taking place on the ground to the rest of the world, while, Youtube allows amateur journalists to upload and share the powerful images and videos for the rest of the world to see. Hence, the power of technology is unquestionably unprecedented and global.

This is indeed an Arab spring. Truly, the West has plenty to learn through the events that are unfolding in the Arab world at present. The relentless perseverance and solidarity demonstrated by the Arabs defying the state’s security apparatus and machineries that have for long repressed them was exceptionally awe-inspiring and remarkable. They have crossed the vital threshold which later witnessed the toppling down of the so-called strongmen of the Arab world and the crumbling down of their despotic regimes.

Peace bullish or 'bullshit'

2010-07-09T10:40:00.000-07:00

By Marwan Bishara (Al-Jazeera English)in
Imperium
on July 8th, 2010

The good news: "Netanyahu to give peace process a 'robust push". The bad news, any rational person privy to the ideology and makeup of the Israeli government knows this not serious.

And yet, after their meeting, Barak Obama, the US president, has publically supported his Israeli interlocutor, saying he believed Binyamin Netanyahu would take "risks for peace" and praised the Israeli prime minister for easing the blockade on the Gaza Strip.

Obama also called for "direct talks" between Israelis and Palestinians irrespective of the continued illegal settlements.

All of which begs two questions: How does a defunct and discredited diplomatic process continue to masquerade as a success despite its utter failures? And why the US and its Western allies continue to finance and pamper it when it creates more instability and conflict than peace and progress?

The short answer is bullshit.

In is attempt to define bullshit and theorise about its uses and meanings, Harry Frankfurt, the Princeton philosopher, has differentiated between bullshit and lies in his book On Bullshit, and concluded that bullshit can be more dangerous than lying.

Bullshit is more than a word; it is a chronic widespread system of rhetoric and representation that mystifies the truth. It has increasingly become a way of communication not only in the private sphere but has become part and parcel of Western propaganda.

Falafel to fanfare

At times, according to Frankfurt, sincerity also qualifies as bullshit. This is especially true when those uttering it are in denial over their true motivation. This explains why many of the stubborn advocates of the present peace process bullshit even when they are being sincere.

In fact, I cannot but shake my head in bewilderment whenever I am exposed to the "peace industry". Peace and co-existence initiatives by NGOs have used everything from falafel to fanfare and music but failed utterly to improve the situation. Instead, they have contributed to make the occupation look as normal.

Having said that, I do not discount the great degree of lying in the process. But unlike the lies and deception, bullshit has created an aura around the peace process.

How many doubt that the timing of Obama's invitation to the Israeli prime minister ahead of the fall midterm congressional elections is more about domestic politics than foreign policy.

As one Washington Post columnist commented sardonically, it would have been appropriate for Obama who reprimanded Netanyahu before, to have flown the white flag of surrender during the visit.

Mostly bullshit is about spreading half truths, fake statements that allow what amounts to a de facto war process of occupation and colonisation to masquerade as a peace process causing major suffering and destruction.

Chimera

Since the so called "peace process" started two decades ago, all promises of progress, peace and prosperity, have turned into disappointment, conflict and regress.

After hundreds of meetings, tens of initiatives and seven interim agreements, the situation in the Israeli occupied territories might have "improved" in certain micro areas, but at a macro level it has notably worsened.

During that time, the peace process has bestowed on an ever more aggressive Israeli occupier and increasingly discredited Palestinian Authority the title of "peace partners".

In the process, colonisation deepened, the colonised suffered and nonsense triumphed.

Despite recent assurances to the contrary, illegal Jewish settlements continue to proliferate and destabilise the West Bank and especially East Jerusalem.

A report, on the eve of Netanyahu's visit, by the Israeli organisation B'Tselem on the proliferating Jewish settlements despite assurances to the contrary speaks volumes about Israeli deception regarding the settlement issue.

Now the Netanyahu government is promising "improvements" on its blockade of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, but the end result is clear: it will continue to police, and treat the impoverished and overpopulated refugee camp like the mega prison it has become.

Likewise, despite talk of economic revival under the Palestinian Authority, the standard and quality of living in the semi-autonomous areas of the West Bank is below 1980s levels, when the West Bank was under full Israeli occupation. It continues to deteriorate relative to Israel, which is now a member of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, a club for developed countries.

It is mind boggling that the likes Tony Blair, the International Quartet envoy, gets away with promoting improvement in life conditions and better "security" at the heart of the miserably occupied territories.

Netanyahu's focus on economic rather than political rights for the Palestinians has led to no real improvement in the movement of labour and capital, nor in true amelioration of the access to health, education, let alone to the outside world.

With the exception of a number of English speaking "peace process contractors" (those living off politically motivated Western aid), most Palestinians continue to live in destitution.

Comparing the situation between the refugee camps the moderates' administer in the West Bank and those run by "extremists" in Gaza is like comparing the situation in two prisons.

Bluffing is of course integral to or even indispensable for diplomacy, but it generally has limits or is a side show for something more strategic. So what is the strategy behind the promotion of the defunct peace process?

Private club

Since the end of the Cold War, the Middle East peace process has emerged as the US regional order.

Entire peoples and states have been judged on where they stood on the peace process. Those, especially among the Arabs who supported it have been called moderates and those opposed as extremists.

The "Peace Process" became a private club whose membership carried a number of strategic advantages, while being on the outside risked sanctions, even war.

Paradoxically, over the last two decades, both the US, the sponsor of the peace process, and Israel, its ally and peace partner, have waged destructive and bloody wars in the region.

But both remained untouched as sponsor and partner in the peace process.

If these were any other countries, they would have been sanctioned, blockaded and bombarded, even occupied.

This explains why Israel's most infamous general was referred as a "man of peace" by George Bush, the self-proclaimed US "war president".

Promoting the peace process has become a strategic reality, even necessity, regardless of its realisation or implementation.

There are far better ways to free Israelis from the political and moral burden of their occupation, and bring Palestinians liberty and independence from foreign occupation.

But the peace process is the best way to maintain Pax Americana in the region, secure Jewish support in the US while pampering the special relationship between the US and Israel.

Given the choice between peace in the Middle East and peace between the US and Israel, the Obama administration has made its choice known this week.

World Cup Songs Mania!

2010-06-19T11:19:00.000-07:00

I seriously have no idea why I am got hooked by World Cup BIG TIME this time around. It's pretty ironic because usually I got all pissed when people starting to talk about football like there is no other exciting topics to talk about at this time of year. But, anyhow, I kinda stumbled upon this awesome spirit-boosted song by K'naan entitled Waving Flag which apparently is the World's Cup 2010 official song. I youtubed it and a couple of official videos for it appeared, but to try not to make my blog looks kinda boring with the same songs, I've selected the one featuring Nancy Ajram, the Arabic singing sensation sponsored by Coca Cola (duhh!). I've chosen this one coz I kinda found it awesome and also coz I am kinda like into this Arabic thing so glad to have found this one.

There is actually another official video under the same name but featuring artists such as Will.I.Am and David Guetta that perhaps sound more familiar to lots of people. But I gotta say, I don't really like it as much as I liked the original one due to perhaps little bits of changes in the compositions of melody and tunes of the song.(honestly, I am no expert on music, so you can just excuse my babble just now about the music and stuff!). But, hey ho, I guess it won't hurt to put another one of the same song in this post. Enjoy, peeps!

Erm, oh yeah, there are actually another 2 songs that I guessed might just boosts our spirit all out this football season. They are quite cool and catchy and yeah I did sing 'em sometimes in the shower or while I was doing the dishes (what a weirdo!). Here they are! Let's get all African this football season!

Waka Waka - Shakira (definitely rooting for Spain)

Oh Africa - Akon ft Keri Hilson

p/s: Btw, England sucked the match last night against Algeria. I really thought Algeria played better than the better-sponsored England team! Sorry, England! Can't really be that patriotic when you screwed the game!

Deadly Gaza Flotilla Raid

2010-06-19T06:10:00.000-07:00

On the dawn of May 31st 2010, the so-called Freedom Flotilla comprising of 6 vessels that include the largest passenger ferry in the flotilla, Mavi Marmara, and other vessels carrying 10 000 tonnes worth of badly needed aids for the besieged people of Gaza were making their way to Gaza with a mission of extending the humanitarian assistance was met with a deadly raid carried out by the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) in international waters, exactly 65 km or just 35 nautical miles off the Gaza coast. The assault resulted in vast international outrage and condemnation from all corners of the world. Furthermore, this assault also costed a high price for the diplomatic ties held between Israel and Turkey which witnessed 8 of the dead were of Turkish citizens and one of dual American-Turkish citizenship.Moreover,this assault also saw the Israeli public relations are hugely scarred and deteriorated in the eyes of the world in respect of their accounts of what took place on board which diverge greatly from the humanitarian accounts on board the Mavi Marmara, the largest passenger vessel and also the only vessel where all the casualties took place.

On the Israeli side, the Israeli officials repeatedly stressed on the fact that these humanitarian mission was not as it claimed delivering the humanitarian aid to Gaza but to actually provoke the Israel blockade on Gaza and that apparently the organizer of this humanitarian mission, the IHH is known to have been a strong supporter of global Jihad groups such as Al Qaeda and Hamas. Even the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu was recorded as saying "this wasn't a love boat, this was a hate boat",referring to the Freedom Flotilla vessels. And one statement in particular released by the Israeli officials that speaks the volume of absurdity was on the fact that there is no humanitarian crisis occurring in Gaza which therefore implies the idea of such humanitarian mission is completely unnecessary and irrelevant and that it holds a sole intention only to provoke the Israel blockade implied on the 1.5 million populations of the besieged Gaza.Besides that, the Israeli officials articulated that the primary justification in them intercepting the vessels even though it was in the international waters was on the basis of the best interest of its national security where they have every right to intercept any vessels that holds an apparent intention to breach its naval blockade of the Gaza shores. However, I personally think the idea of compromising the deadly actions taken by the Israeli forces in relation to its national security is repetitive excuse and has excessively been used to cover up their propaganda. Israel has been known to always trying to divert the world's attention on what actually took place and making itself look like the vulnerable victim of the situation and the actual victim being the perpetrator of the incident.

On the other hand, the activists accounts on board Mavi Marmara exhibits a stark contrast with account of incident released by Israeli officials. With raw evidence of recordings and images (though not to mention that a huge number of cameras, mobile phones and laptops of the passengers were confiscated by the IDF)and verbal accounts from the passengers post the raid gives a much clearer picture on what actually took place and also allows the global audience to make their own judgements on the tragic incident. The dubbed Freedom Flotilla is a peaceful humanitarian mission that was carrying 10,000 tonnes of aid which comprises of medical aids, educational equipments as well as construction materials that the 1.5 million Gaza's populations are in a dire need of to carry on with their lives on a daily basis. One of the vessel, the largest passenger ferry in the flotilla carried over 600 Pro Palestinian activists from 30 different nations comprises of prominent public figures,a renown Swedish writer, a great number of MPs from different countries, journalists, former military personnels, and representatives from all range of age,walk of life and faith tradition all in solidarity supporting the Palestinian cause by trying to penetrate the siege in delivering the aids to the beleaguered people of Gaza that have been living under the blockade for 3 years now.

Based on the mid-sea horror recalled by the activists on board and the raw footage published by Culture of Resistance,the Israeli forces opened fire indiscriminately first even before they descended on the vessel and the 'weaponry' such as marbles, slingshots and water pipes were used by the activists to defend themselves against the violence and brute force carried out by the IDF personnels. Images of wounded Israeli soldiers being treated by the ship's medics released by Turkish's newspaper conveys the fact that these activists were kind enough to provide treatment to these soldiers while their fellow humanitarian friends were being killed. I wish I could outline the sequence of events one by one, but that would be unnecessary as the raw footage of the voyage and the documentary published by Al Jazeera can be viewed online hopefully it will explains and let you make your own judgements on what really happened on that very day. Here is the documentary entitled; The Voyage of Life and Death produced by Al Jazeera,

And here is the raw and unedited footage on the Israel's deadly assault on board Mavi Marmara documented by a Brazilian film maker, Iara Lee:

Plus, the proven deadly raid that left 9 dead and dozens injured have caused global outcry that eventually lead to strong condemnations from a great number
of nations across the world which saw a couple numbers of Israeli diplomats being appointed to explain what was taking place. This tragic incident also caused the international community to reflect their views on the Israel imposed Gaza blockade that are stated to be unsustainable and counter-productive. However,in my view, the condemnations expressed by these nations such as France and Great Britain are quite feeble and passive in which they are not being critical enough against Israel in regard of its barbaric action on the flotilla incident and also on the Gaza blockade.

p/s: This post would probably my first post since a coupla months break.This is also the first article that I have written in such manner since I have finished my high school and I am currently not doing English for my A-level subjects.Therefore,pardon me if this article in anyway seems incomprehensible and unreadable. This article is written solely to express and share my opinion on the matter and not welcoming any harsh or rude comments from the readers. I'll keep posting more articles of this type in the future, if God wills.

I'm just an average teenage girl.....I also got feelings just like everyone else!!

2009-11-22T14:51:00.000-08:00

I am totally not sure if I am doing the right thing right now by dumping out all my emotions here....but I gotta be honest....I just couldn't take this any more....and I definitely need someone to bear to listen to me......someone who could just keep and keep listening to me without cutting me out whenever I try to let my words out......seriously,it gets on my nerves BIG TIME when people do that.

I just have no freaking clues why I am behaving like this and having this kind of attitude towards my self where I think I am such a worthless human being. Just as worthless as you can think of. I feel like I am such a stupid,dumb,cant-think-properly kinda person.Because,I dunno why, but, lately, I feel like people are underestimating what I'm capable of doing.People looked down on me.Looked at me with this weird look as if I'm not meant to behaving in the particular manner at all.I feel so worthless.I feel like screaming on their faces and saying that I'm not a freaking dumb, stupid person as you think I am.I am so much more than what you think I am. I wanna think like that.And I ALWAYS wanna think like that. That,somehow,I am so much better than them.That,they just don't have that right to criticize and judge me on the way I act OR the way I look or anything at all.Sometimes,I'm just wondering should I actually reveal to these people what I'm capable of doing the thing that I know I should be keeping this to myself solely.But,all this while,I still managed to handle this whole emotion stuffs.I just kept it to myself.Coz, I know people just wouldn't give a single damn on listening to my problems and issues when they themselves have issues and problems on their own that they have to face.

But,the thing is,I always have been the person who listens.The person who passionately and carefully listens to whatever things that they wanna say.I always have to be the person who they expect to provide some ideas or solutions to their freaking problems.But,when it comes to mine,do they wanna listen to it? Not a slightest chance.Not at all.No one wants to listen to me.Feel like a piece of crap who isn't supposed to be walking on the surface of the earth at all......

For once,I just want people to listen to me.....understands me....if not completely,at least try to understand me.....I'm just an average girl...I have high and low in life.....perhaps this is the lowest point in life that I've ever been.....it just rips my hearts apart BIG TIME.....Love me for who I am....Coz I know that I'm not that bad of a person....I genuinely believe that deep inside of me,I still have the heart to love and care for others.....even though sometimes I can be quite a b**** to others.Only, SOMETIMES,when I just couldn't take it any more and he/she just really pissed me off. Life is hard.I know that.I seriously know that.And I also know that I still got this enormous journey ahead me that I have to embrace.Either I like it or not.And,now,I feel so much better after pouring'em all out here.Which I've to say,is pretty embarrassing,dude.But,at least this is the best medium that I can think of in the sense of expressing my emotions out in a way that won't bother so many people.HOPEFULLY,though.

So,yeah.Here is one of the example in showing how pathetic I can be when I'm getting so emotional.But, whatever is, I have to keep things positive for things that lie ahead of me.Always, keep it REAL, man!!

Endless Distractions......When it's ever gonna end????

2009-11-17T11:19:00.000-08:00

OK.Right now, i totally have no idea what the heck is wrong with me but i should definitely and totally be revising as i apparently am gonna have a Chemistry test tomorrow. But,well,what can i do,i'm virtually stuck to this goddamn computer, which to me,does't look appealing or flattering in any way at all.I just have no idea how it did it.Maybe at the moment,I'm speaking as a person who can't think carefully and properly regarding this matter.But,everyone know how does it do it,right? I mean,at least I think so.OR.It could also because I have this idea where tomorrow test is not gonna be that hard as I have understood'em and did a couple of work on'em and thinkin' maybe there's no need to worry.Life is fun,right?? But again,just how fun can this life be though??? You still need to look at the bigger picture.Your future that lies ahead of you.Unfortunately,we're definitely weren't born as psychics and that surely means we will just never gonna be able to know what's gonna happen to us even in 10 minutes time,right? Have you ever come across that idea?? I know all of this is so random,like why do you have to mess your head up with things like this when you have so many other things to think about......but,reality wise,is is TRUE....this thing is FOR REAL....we might not able to see it,but just like love,it is part of you.
To be real honest,I am definitely feeling a lot better now after I've filled up myself being with this kind of positive self motivation.Who knows that blogging on reminding others could actually help you to remind yourself.Which reminds me that I totally needs to stay away from this damn blog coz it's just a total distraction to me right now,not any time else though.BTW, I know that most of the contents of my blog this time is kinda me babbling to myself or lecturing others for free,but at least it's a positive thing, right? Anything positive (+) is awesome,man! So, be positive! And always keep things REAL,man!

PEACE OUT!
SALAM!

Griffin attacks Islam on BBC show

2009-10-23T03:33:00.000-07:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8321566.stm

British National Party leader Nick Griffin has used his Question Time appearance to criticise Islam and defend a past head of the Ku Klux Klan.
He also told a largely hostile audience that Winston Churchill would be a BNP supporter if he were alive, and insisted: "I am not a Nazi".
Anti-fascist protesters scuffled with police outside BBC TV Centre in west London before the show was filmed.
More than eight million people watched the show, triple its typical audience.
At its peak, 8.2 million people tuned into the BBC1 show.
Welsh Secretary Peter Hain said the BBC had legitimised the BNP's "racist poison" by inviting its leader onto the show but the corporation defended the move, saying it had a duty to be impartial.
One of the panellists, Justice Secretary Jack Straw, said it had been a "catastrophic week for the BNP because for the first time the views of the BNP have been properly scrutinised".
And following the programme, other panellists said Mr Griffin had been exposed.
Baroness Warsi, the Conservative peer and shadow communities minister, said "he does not have any political views other than a hatred for certain groups of people".

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: "I certainly think that his credibility - for anybody who sees the show - is going to be seriously damaged by his performance."
Mr Griffin told BBC News too much of the programme had been a "beat up Nick Griffin programme instead of Question Time".
He added that of the 25 or so allegations made against him in the programme - he was only allowed to answer four or five of them and that was "grossly unfair".
And a BNP spokesman complained that the programme had focused entirely on Mr Griffin's views and ignored newsworthy stories such as the postal strike, Afghanistan and Europe.
"This was not a normal Question Time," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "It was 'let's have a go at Nick Griffin time'."
'Aborigines here'
The BNP leader was booed at the start of the recording and accused of trying to "poison politics" as he was attacked by fellow panellists and the audience.
During the show the panel covered topics including whether it was fair for the BNP to "hijack" images of Winston Churchill, whether immigration policy had fuelled the BNP's popularity and whether Mr Griffin's appearance was an early Christmas present for the party.
He was asked by a member of the audience about why he had described Islam as a "wicked and vicious faith".
Mr Griffin said the religion had its "good points... it wouldn't have let the banks run riot" but it did not fit in with "the fundamental values of British society, free speech, democracy and equal rights for women".
“ He was scrutinised and challenged along with the other panellists heavily by the audience, that was right in our view ” Mark Byford BBC deputy director general
His references to Britain's "indigenous people" prompted other members of the panel to challenge him to say he meant white people.
Mr Griffin said the colour was "irrelevant" and said Mr Straw would not dare go to New Zealand and tell a Maori he was not "indigenous". "We are the aborigines here," he claimed.
Mr Straw said what distinguished the BNP from other parties was that other parties "have a moral compass... Nazism didn't and neither I'm afraid does the BNP."
The BNP leader insisted his views had been widely misrepresented in the media and denied a string of statements attributed to him, including a quote from 2006 in which he said "Adolf went a bit too far".
"I am not a Nazi and never have been," he said, adding: "I am the most loathed man in Britain in the eyes of Britain's Nazis."
He admitted sharing a platform with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke - but described him as "almost totally non-violent".
He said he had been trying to win over "youngsters" Duke was trying to "lead astray".
Challenged on his views on civil partnership, he said: "I said that a lot of people find the sight of two grown men kissing in public really creepy. I understand that homosexuals don't understand that but that's how a lot of us feel, Christians feel that way, Muslims, all sorts of people."
Audience challenge
Asked about a quote attributed to him in which he equated six million deaths in the Holocaust with the flat earth theory he replied that "European law" stopped him explaining.
"I can't tell you why I used to say those things anymore than I can tell you why I have changed my mind," he said.
The justice secretary said when anybody put a specific quotation to Mr Griffin he tried to "wriggle out of it".
HAVE YOUR SAY If Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time has the ultimate effect of shaking the 'great' british public free of their political apathy and encourages them to ask probing questions, then his appearance will be a good thing John Walker, Belfast
Asked whether immigration policy had fuelled the BNP, Mr Straw said he did not think it had and said he thought the BNP had been boosted by discontent with the main parties over issues like expenses.
But Baroness Warsi said politicians had a responsibility to take on the BNP on the issue of immigration: "Many people who vote for the BNP are not racist and therefore what we have to do is go out and say to these people as mainstream political parties we are prepared to listen."
Mr Griffin blamed the "political elite" for imposing "an enormous multicultural experiment on the British people".
But Mr Griffin was challenged by several black and Asian members of the audience.
One man asked Mr Griffin: "Where do you want me to go? I love this country, I'm part of this country."
Protests
While the programme was being recorded the anti-BNP protest continued. The Metropolitan Police say six protesters were arrested and three police officers injured in the protests.
Mr Griffin accused the protesters of "attacking the rights of millions of people to listen to what I've got to say and listen to me being called to account by other politicians".
But Weyman Bennett from Unite Against Fascism accused the BBC of "rolling out the red carpet" to Mr Griffin and said his appearance on the flagship discussion programme "will lead to the growth of a fascist party" and promote violence against ethnic minorities.
About 25 people managed to get through the gates and run towards the BBC building when security guards opened them to let in a car. A few minutes later they were led, dragged or carried back outside.
There were also protests outside BBC buildings in Bristol, Liverpool, Nottingham, Glasgow and Belfast.
Welsh Secretary Mr Hain, who had tried to stop the broadcast, said: "The BBC should be ashamed of single-handedly doing a racist, fascist party the biggest favour in its grubby history."
BBC Deputy Director General Mark Byford said it had been "appropriate" to invite Mr Griffin to appear given the support the BNP received in the last European elections when it gained its first Euro MPs.
He said: "He was scrutinised and challenged along with the other panellists heavily by the audience, that was right in our view.
"It would have been quite wrong for the BBC to have said 'yes, you are allowed to stand in elections, yes you have a level of support that now meets the threshold but the BBC doesn't think that you should be on'."

Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/8321683.stmPublished: 2009/10/23 10:07:40 GMT

Sophisticated + Casual = Rock 'n' Roll

2009-10-22T10:47:00.000-07:00

Oh my God!

I just discovered that looks that definitely rocks and TRENDY obviously for me is matching up a t-shirt with a boyfriend blazer and skinny jeans and because I am not really a huge fan of stilletos and heels, I would totally go casual for the feet which is CONVERSE ALL STAR, my ultimate shoe choice for everything. Well, sounds a little bit complicated and messed up there, huh?

Here is the formula though:

Plain T-shirt (with sensible slogan on it) + boyfriend blazer + skinny jeans + plain hijab +

CONVERSE = You're ready to rock it, girl!!

I mean, this is how I would dress up to school, if I were you!! They're totally a cool combination of the sophisticated/ boyish kinda look with casual (CONVERSE).

I think, I really like seeing myself with a little bit of a masculine touché, y'know with the whole boyfriend blazer and converse kinda thing. But, the hijab brings the ultimate sense of femininity throughout the whole appearance. Which I'd say is definitely, the thing that make me proud the most.

And for bags and accessories, I would absolutely go for a tote/hobo messenger bag, and an aviator/oversized visor sunglasses will do it as I am not really a huge fan of jewellery.

And if it's autumn, you might wanna add a little touché that will give a glow to the whole appearance which is a scarf around your hijab.

Degree of Patience

2009-10-22T10:07:00.000-07:00

I do admit that I am just a regular human being who has her own degree of patience. And I don't have a single idea why on earth I would choose TODAY to just unleash all of my emotions out on those people that have annoyed me bit by bit from the very beginning. NO IDEA AT ALL, I SWEAR. Or, maybe it's the hormone thing.

But, to be fairly honest, I've never ever ever ever done anything like this ever before. And I thought I would've never done it in a million years. Or at least that's what I thought of it. But, today everything just ERUPTED and today for the first time in the history of my life, I am being totally and completely honest (and surely and outwardly straightforward) about how I really feel about something to those people who never seem to understand or get the idea of how bad it would feel if somebody done something like that to you. I mean, how couldn't they get it?? It's either they're plain dumb or people who have no emotions flowing in 'em at all. But, the thing is that they're neither of those group of people.

And one other thing that pisses me off BIG TIME is the fact that they would simple come to me and ask me the answers rather than looking at the questions properly and think about what could possibly be the answers. But, of course, I was there and am always gonna be there if they ever need the answers. Like, I am being their FAIRY GODMOTHER or anything. Yeah, that is SOOOOO right. And why d'you think they might simply ask me the answers. Well, lemme tell ya, it's because the teacher will notice them BIG TIME because they were so busy talking and not to mention GROOMING ( as in putting in makeup and stuff) and the teacher will have the idea that these two girls might be talking about something that she just said to the class, so she'll ask 'em the answer or probably opinion and stuff like that. And these girls would get panic and look at my face as if I have something to do with it. And because, I don't wanna be a loner and wanna still have'em as my friends, I kinda let 'em shout out my answer. But, then i know that they'll not really gonna learn anything by that, and the fact that if FARHAH is here, everything will be alright, even though the answers that I've given them might not be right.

Anyway, the bottom line is I am pissed off BIG TIME with these inhumanely human beings who think it is ok to actually take my work and copy 'em down and said to me that, that is actually a true friendship. What they meant by that, is helping each other out and stuff. Which is to me, is way way wrong to help out your friend. Because, you know why. Don't you?? Eventually, they're not gonna have my help in the exam or anything. So, yeah, kinda broke loose all hell today!! And also, forgot to mention, that my voice tune has gone slightly higher than usual while I was EXPLAINING all those stuffs to 'em. Which I again have never ever ever done before.

Wish me luck for the coming awkward moments that I am gonna be having with 'em.

SEND IT ON!!!!

2009-08-13T04:35:00.001-07:00

Send It On - Jonas Brothers, Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato & Selena Gomez (Disney's Friends for Change)

A word is just a word
Until you mean what you say
A Love isn't a love
Til you give it away
We all got to give
Yeah something to give to make a change

Send it on
On and on
Just one hand can heal another
Be apart
Reach your heart
Just one spark starts a fire
With one little action
The chain reaction will never stop
Make us Strong
Shine a Light and Send it On

Just smile and the world will smile along with you
That small acts of love
Then the one will become two
If we take the chances
To change circumstances
Imagine all that we could do
If we...

Send it on
On and on
Just one hand can heal another
Be apart
Reach your heart
Just one spark starts a fire
With one little action
The chain reaction will never stop
Make us Strong
Shine a Light and Send it On
Send it on

There's Power in all the choices we make
So I'm starting now not a moment to wait
A word just a word
Until you mean what you say
A love isn't just a love
Until you give it away

Send it on
On and on
Just one hand can heal another
Be apart
Reach your heart
Just one spark starts a fire
With one little action
The chain reaction will never stop
Make us Strong
Shine a Light and Send it On
Send it on

Send it on
On and on
Just one hand can heal another
Be apart
Reach your heart
Just one spark starts a fire
With one little action
The chain reaction will help things start
Make us Strong
Shine a Light and Send it On
Shine a Light and Send it On
Shine a Light and Send it On

p/s: I love this song so much coz there's so much message that is delivered in it. Enjoy!

Here's the official music video:

Save the Whale!

2009-08-11T14:31:00.000-07:00

So, i know the title of the post this time round is particularly weird, BUT, this idea just occured to me after I watched the documentary on Animal Planet called 'Whale Wars' about how an organization called 'SEA SHEPHERDS' basically will do anything they can to prevent and of course, stop the illegal hunting and killing of whales (illegal whaling) across the Antartic Whale Sanctuary and any other sea in the world from the Japanese whaling fleet. And at first, upon hearing the title of the documentary, i thought it's gonna be something about whales who fight in the sea or anything, but, well, it's basically is a documentary portraying the ceaseles effort and determination that numerous individuals have on protecting the creature which are no more or less equal than any other God's creatures. (babbling)

However, this particular thing will become severly important issue on most of individual's conscience when they got the chance of watching the particular documentary. It's definitely unraveling and exposing the barbaric and horrendous activity that are constantly being done by the Japanese whaling fleet. I mean, don't they realize already that whales are pretty much known around the globe to be the most endangered species. And, i think, of course they knew it, who don't right? But, it's just unbelievably gross to actually see what they defined by 'illegal whaling'. Anyway, the organization is basically a joined participation of crew members from countries like United States, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, Sweden and the Netherlands. Their actions to conserve the life of whales (as a matter of fact, it's not just whales particularly, it also includes sharks and many other marine species) includes, exposing the discreet illegal whaling activities by the Japanese whaling fleet to the audience at home, throwing stink bombs at the Japanese whaling fleet, fighting the Japanese ships' crews using samurai-like fighting style and and so much more! Those actions taken just make me awe and admire the dedications of the crew in what they were doing. But, did i also happened to mention that, every single one of the crews on board are vegans. So, that means they only vegies for the rest of the expedition. I just wonder aren't the veggies gonna stale and go mouldy after a while?

So, here is a couple of videos on the documentary that were being aired in Animal Planet. Check'em out!

Here's the link to the organization's official site:

http://www.seashepherd.org/

The Folded Memories - Part 1

2009-07-27T11:11:00.000-07:00

I'm currently reading an overwhelmingly incredible autobiography 'The Dreams of My Father' by Barack Obama and the fact that this book doesn't just life my spirit up but also inspires me to recall my own bittersweet memories growing up to be who i am today.

If i could share with the world every piece of memories that i had with me, i definitely would, but everyone knows how could that even possible. I love memories. Knowing the fact that they allow you to remember who you were before you stand of who you are today. I think in a way they are a combination of emotions, actions and individuals that could either haunts you or brings out the tears of joy out of you. So, here goes.

I was born on February 28th 1993 in Guys Hospital situated in London to be exact. My mom said i was born during the winter time and it was either in Syaaban or Ramadan according to the Islamic calendar because she told me that she basically couldn't fast for the whole month after giving birth to me. A real sacrifice there. Anyway, my parents named me Nurul Farhah which is basically taken after the word 'HAPPINESS' in Arabic to symbolize and imply their happiness and contentment upon their first born. And they gave the name 'Nur'/Nurul' at the beginning which defines 'Light' in Arabic. There's actually a little bit of complication in order to name me at first. My dad picked up the name 'Farihah' at first after discussing it with my grandpa. So, this whole name thing is kinda settled. And by the way, there is numerous number of girls in Malaysia being named Farihah, so, my name won't really sound any different from the rest of my peers at school. However, things has gotten changed slightly, when my dad went to see an Iraqi friend of his and he basically asserted that the name 'Farihah' hasn't got any meaning. Believe it or not. So, he came up with 'Farhah' which truly defines happiness in Arabic. Alright, things has look pretty good, right? Well, not exactly because my dad also happened to tell that Iraqi guy that my full name is Nurul Farhah. And he kinda couldn't believe his ears because basically to his sense of hearing, that sounds pretty weird in Arabic. In writing, too. His explanation was that why it should have Nur/Nurul in front of the word Farhah. Farhah alone is good enough. Well, my dad told him that basically in Malaysia, people use to name their baby girl with either Nur or Nurul at the beginning, following by their second choice of name. It's just the way it is. And, he couldn't get his head around it. Why not Farah? Hmmm. Good question. Well, it just happened to be that if i had that name, i would be sharing my name with probably thousand other girls in Malaysia which is gonna make it too common. And, my dad just wanted to make it unique and different (in a good way, of course) from the rest of my peers at school. Great choice, daddy. I'm proud with my name in every single breath that i inhale.

To be perfectly honest, i don't really have that much memories that i could recall as far as growing in the UK is concern, because, well, i think i was 2 years and a half when i went back to Malaysia. And, as far as i know is the fact that i grow up in Malaysia my whole life. Just by going through all of the photos of me while i was in the UK kinda gives me the idea where i was born. If it wasn't for those photos, i would probably say 'yes' if my friends in school asked me if i was ever being born in the islands of Galapagos. Gosh, this story is getting pretty absurd. The other thing that i could only recall if was ever in the UK was the images of Noddy in Wonderland in my head. I could still remember the scene. There was Noddy who was talking inaudibly with the policeman in that scene that seems to be blurred in my head. And, from the look of it, i could tell that i was watching it on TV. It is still fresh in my mind. No kidding. And, i know it was in the UK coz they haven't got that TV program in Malaysia yet when i was small.

Seems like my ideas to be writing this story kinda dried out for the time being. So, i think a little break would do. And, this story hopefully will be continued in the next part. Hopefully. Catch you guys later.

To be continued............

This is it!

2009-06-22T16:11:00.000-07:00

So, here i am, writing the first entry for my new blog. To be honest, i kinda still confused of how i came up with the idea of blogging in the first place. It's not that i don't have so many things to be blogging about, it's just that can i manage not to make my blog looks lame and as well readable and sensible. Because, seriously i am a little paranoid with myself. Just a little. I kinda freak out easily if the sentence that i just wrote doesn't make sense to me, let alone other people who's gonna be visiting my blog. It's not that there is. But, there might be some poeple who somehow accidentally visit my blog and i gotta make it look pretty logical for them to be able to read probably only the first line. :D

And also actually, i decided to start doing this kinda thing (blogging :P) due to my brain which is currently empty from those education-and-academic kinda stuffs as i just finished my GCSE exam on last June 16. So, basically i kinda have so many things to talk about and i think the best way to just, you know, expressing my point of views, experiences and feelings is via blogging because it allows people to know you better.And I like that idea. :D

I am gonna be using either English or Malay or the mix of both languages in my entries. Just so you know. And seriously i dont have a clue on how i am gonna constantly updating my blog as i totally know that i am really not the what-so-called 'consistent' and 'organized' individual. And i dont know even know what's that gotta do with updating a blog. :P Well, no wonder i kinda talked a lot of nonsense here, it's 12.36 at night.But, with the excitement and enthusiasm that i had since this morning to write my first blog, i kinda forced my eye sockets just to hold a little longer.

Alrighty, so, enough jibber jabber, i gotta stop right here. Though i still got something say down there. :P

p/s: can't wait for my next entry. Still wondering what i am gonna talk about. LOL! And apparently my blog doesn't really have the professional-matured kinda look. YET. So, really hoping to see that in my next entry. Just wait for it!