Had to share this:

Eye to Eye - by Gihad Ali

Look into my eyes
and tell me what you see.
You don't see a damn thing,
`cause you can't possibly relate to me.

You're blinded by our differences.
My life makes no sense to you.
I'm the persecuted Palestinian.
You're the American red, white and blue.

Each day you wake in tranquility.
No fears to cross your eyes.
Each day I wake in gratitude.
Thanking God He let me rise.

You worry about your education
and the bills you have to pay.
I worry about my vulnerable life
and if I'll survive another day.

Your biggest fear is getting ticketed
as you cruise your Cadillac.
My fear is that the tank that just left
will turn around and come back.

American, do you realize,
that the taxes that you pay
feed the forces that traumatize
my every living day?

The bulldozers and the tanks,
the gases and the guns,
the bombs that fall outside my door,
all due to American funds.

Yet do you know the truth
of where your money goes?
Do you let your media deceive your mind?
Is this a truth that no one knows?

You blame me for defending myself
against the ways of Zionists.
I'm terrorized in my own land
and I'm the terrorist?

You think you know all about terrorism
but you don't know it the way I do.
So let me define the term for you.
And teach you what you thought you knew.

I've known terrorism for quite some time,
fifty-four years and more.
It's the fruitless garden uprooted in my yard.
It's the bulldozer in front of my door.

Terrorism breathes the air I breathe.
It's the checkpoint on my way to school.
It's the curfew that jails me in my own home,
and the penalties of breaking that curfew rule.

Terrorism is the robbery of my land.
And the torture of my mother.
The imprisonment of my innocent father.
The bullet in my baby brother.

So American, don't tell me you know about
the things I feel and see.
I'm terrorized in my own land
and the blame is put on me.

But I will not rest, I shall never settle
for the injustice my people endure.
Palestine is our land and there we'll remain
until the day our homeland is secure.

And if that time shall never come,
then you will never see a day of peace.
I will not be thrown from my own home,
nor will my fight for justice cease.

And if I am killed, it will be in Falasteen.
It's written on my every breath.
So in your own patriotic words,
Give me liberty or give me death.

-Gihad Ali [a volunteer with the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) and the Palestine Solidarity Group, Chicago]

Addendum:

Uh, unless you're Jewish or Maronite.
Then just shut up and take it, yo? Or get out.

N'est-ce-pas?

Is that what the 1917 Balfour declaration was about?

No, that was a tune from the 1400 years prior. An oldie but a goodie.

Why is the thread called an eye for an eye?

HAW! Freudian slip, Sam?

Its a metaphor ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye

No, that was a tune from the 1400 years prior. An oldie but a goodie.

From when the Jewish slaves came and settled in Canaan and decided to establish a Zionist state there? Yup sounds like a stuck record.

But, that was more than 1400 years ago. 1400 years ago, Jews were BANNED from Jerusalem for 700 years by the Romans.

In the five centuries following the Bar Kokhba revolt, the city remained under Roman then Byzantine rule. During the 4th century, the Roman Emperor Constantine I constructed Christian sites in Jerusalem such as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Jerusalem reached a peak in size and population at the end of the Second Temple Period: The city covered two square kilometers (0.8 sq mi.) and had a population of 200,000[47][45] From the days of Constantine until the 7th century, Jews were banned from Jerusalem.

Anyway, this thread is in art and culture for a reason, any other instances of resistance through the arts?

Three criticisms:

• That particular meter has grown exceptionally stale over the years.
• The lack of subtlety about the poem weakens it.
• Americans do not respond well to overt moralizing; this is even more true when it comes from the outside.

Another point worth considering is the well-appreciated aphorism that "An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind". Indeed, one might see elements of that in Gihad Ali's poem, especially since there is nothing subtle about it.

Remember (http://lyricwiki.org/Rheostatics:Dope_Fiends_And_Boozehounds): "The best thing in Heaven is supposed to be the sun. It shines between two mountains, and melts the Devil's gun."

His poem is called Eye to Eye. I used Eye for an Eye because of the implications of that statement in both the Torah and Talmudic teachings [see link above]

• That particular meter has grown exceptionally stale over the years.
• The lack of subtlety about the poem weakens it.
• Americans do not respond well to overt moralizing; this is even more true when it comes from the outside.

Do Americans understand subtlety? I haven't seen any indications of this. Speaking in metaphors is more of an Asian thing.

I haven't seen any indications of this. Speaking in metaphors is more of an Asian thing.

That is why there's been a "failure to communicate" with each other for many years.:rolleyes:

SAM..

I came across this while responding to vincent's posts. I was also searching for another poem, called life, which describes a palestinian situation, Have you heard of it ?..

All I remember was one verse: so i took aim with the only thing left to me

Its a metaphor ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye

Here's the problem. You have surrounded his poem with a quasi legal concept from Jewish Scripture which does not fit his message.

An eye for an eye is about the limits of retaliation. I have suffered this, therefore I can demand that you suffer equally.

But an eye for an eye does not fit his message. He is bascially saying that he will not stop resisting the terrorism of the Israeli state until that terrorism stops.

Bringing in the concept of an eye for an eye could and in fact does imply that his message has to do with exacting equal punishment or retaliation for the Israeli state's crimes. For example this could mean adding up the total Palestinian civilian dead, comparing this with Jewish totals and then demanding 'an eye for an eye'. IOW when the Israeli state ceases its terrorism he may very well continue violence or support the violence of his peers.

It is both misleading, since retaliation is not the spirit of his poem, and false, since he is not making such parity demands or promises. I see his poem as an attempt to put the American in his shoes and show that he is reacting to violence and will not stop reacting to that violence until it stops. He makes no demands for parity.

I think it was a poor, not well thought out grab for something apparently similar - since the word 'eye' appears in both - and does his message a disservice.

Do Americans understand subtlety? I haven't seen any indications of this. Speaking in metaphors is more of an Asian thing. He's not speaking, he's writing. I am sure, given how fluent you are in English, you are aware of the long tradition of the use of metaphor in English writing. As far as speaking there are rich metaphorical speaking traditions all over the English speaking world. Not to mention that it is impossible to speak without using metaphors.

Here's the problem. You have surrounded his poem with a quasi legal concept from Jewish Scripture which does not fit his message.

An eye for an eye is about the limits of retaliation.

But an eye for an eye does not fit his message. He is bascially saying that he will not stop resisting the terrorism of the Israeli state until that terrorism stops.

Bringing in the concept of an eye for an eye could and in fact does imply that his message has to do with exacting equal punishment or retaliation for the Israeli state's crimes. For example this could mean adding up the total Palestinian civilian dead, comparing this with Jewish totals and then demanding 'an eye for an eye'. IOW when the Israeli state ceases its terrorism he may very well continue violence or support the violence of his peers.

It is both misleading, since retaliation is not the spirit of his poem, and false, since he is not making such parity demands or promises.

I think it was a poor, not well thought out grab for something apparently similar - since the word 'eye' appears in both - and does his message a disservice.

All concept of what is "legal" or rightful is about retribution or revenge, in my opinion.


He's not speaking, he's writing. I am sure, given how fluent you are in English, you are aware of the long tradition of the use of metaphor in English writing. As far as speaking there are rich metaphorical speaking traditions all over the English speaking world. Not to mention that it is impossible to speak without using metaphors.

I'm not talking about English writing, but American comprehension, he usually speaks ie reads out this poem to American people

All concept of what is "legal" or rightful is about retribution or revenge, in my opinion. which is not what the poem is about. It is not saying that for every killed Palestinian we will kill one Israeli. It is not about this kind of analysis or demand at all.

which is not what the poem is about. It is not saying that for every killed Palestinian we will kill one Israeli. It is not about this kind of analysis or demand at all.

It is about justice, and justice is ALWAYS about retribution:

But I will not rest, I shall never settle
for the injustice my people endure.
Palestine is our land and there we'll remain
until the day our homeland is secure.

And if that time shall never come,
then you will never see a day of peace.
I will not be thrown from my own home,
nor will my fight for justice cease.

And if I am killed, it will be in Falasteen.
It's written on my every breath.
So in your own patriotic words,
Give me liberty or give me death.

How do you see it?

Do Americans understand subtlety? I haven't seen any indications of this. Speaking in metaphors is more of an Asian thing.

Some, yes. But a society as diverse as ours speaks and reads according to several different general dialects.

Flaming Lips, "Waitin' for a Superman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VevetJUNL9g)"

Asked you a question;
I didn't need you to reply.
Is it gettin' heavy?
But they'll realize—
Is it gettin' heavy?
Well, I thought it was already as heavy
As can be.

Is it overwhelming
To use a crane to crush a fly?
It's a good time for Superman
To lift the sun into the sky.

'Cause it's gettin' heavy.
Well, I thought it was already as heavy
As can be.

Tell everybody
Waitin' for Superman,
That they should try to hold on
The best they can.
He hasn't dropped them,
Forgot them,
Or anything.
It's just too heavy for Superman to lift.

Straight outta Oklahoma, that.

And I don't think "metaphor" and "subtle" are appropriate words to describe a poem as straightforward and unflinching as Gihad Ali's "Eye for an Eye".

I think most Palestinians are tired of waiting for their situation to be "understood" by those who fund their oppression.

But, that was more than 1400 years ago. 1400 years ago, Jews were BANNED from Jerusalem for 700 years by the Romans.

They came back. To their home. And were mistreated again. In their home.

I think most Palestinians are tired of waiting for their situation to be "understood" by those who fund their oppression.

I wouldn't dare to disagree. But does that point have any specific relation to your point about subtlety? Aside from the well-observed fact that, in some things, subtlety is wasted on Americans?

(It occurs to me, as well, that the context of your comments did not necessarily attribute subtlety and metaphor to Gihad Ali's poem.)

It is about justice, and justice is ALWAYS about retribution:

But I will not rest, I shall never settle
for the injustice my people endure.
Palestine is our land and there we'll remain
until the day our homeland is secure.

And if that time shall never come,
then you will never see a day of peace.
I will not be thrown from my own home,
nor will my fight for justice cease.

And if I am killed, it will be in Falasteen.
It's written on my every breath.
So in your own patriotic words,
Give me liberty or give me death.

How do you see it?

I see no 'eye for an eye' in there.
And in the poem he makes it clear that when the oppression and terrorism stop and he has his homeland, he stops.

This is not eye for an eye.

Come on SAM. Give it up.

Because he is talking about justice does not mean he is talking about eye for an eye justice.

They came back. To their home. And were mistreated again. In their home.

Its not their home. Unless you're insinuating that Jews cannot be loyal to any place but a land their antecedents migrated to 4000 years ago. Thats actually an accusation against all Jews who are citizens of other countries and consider themselves so. You're supporting the banishment of Jews post nakba as a potential fifth column.

I see no 'eye for an eye' in there.
And in the poem he makes it clear that when the oppression and terrorism stop and he has his homeland, he stops.

This is not eye for an eye.

Come on SAM. Give it up.

Because he is talking about justice does not mean he is talking about eye for an eye justice.

I consider it an eye for eye. You terrorise me, I fight back. Thats an eye for an eye for me.

Its not their home.

It certainly is. It's their spiritual and cultural home. Or why not just face any old way five times a day? Mecca one day, Las Vegas another.

Unless you're insinuating that Jews cannot be loyal to any place but a land their antecedents migrated to 4000 years ago. Thats actually an accusation against all Jews who are citizens of other countries and consider themselves so. You're supporting the banishment of Jews post nakba as a potential fifth column.

If I did, that would make two of us.

It certainly is. It's their spiritual and cultural home. Or why not just face any old way five times a day? Mecca one day, Las Vegas another.

I really don't give a shit about anyones cultural home. Just because I face Mecca does not give me the right to move there against the wishes of the people who actually live there. In fact, if they refuse to give me a visit visa, I cannot even visit.


If I did, that would make two of us.

No I do not believe where your antecedents migrated 4000 years ago is a logical basis for living there

I wouldn't dare to disagree. But does that point have any specific relation to your point about subtlety? Aside from the well-observed fact that, in some things, subtlety is wasted on Americans?

(It occurs to me, as well, that the context of your comments did not necessarily attribute subtlety and metaphor to Gihad Ali's poem.)

Yeah, he is pointing out the stark reality of his circumstances. I don't think he is aiming to be subtle at all.

I consider it an eye for eye. You terrorise me, I fight back. Thats an eye for an eye for me.
Then despite your origins in Asia you have a poor feel for metaphor and especially given the orgins of the metaphor it's a poor choice.

An eye for an eye is about exacting the same cost from the opponent. Not about a refusal to stop resisting. I see nothing in his poem to say he is promising to exact equal damage on Israeli Jews. And to overlay this concept over the poem does it a disservice.

It means even if you stop your terrorism, we are still going to work out balancing damage.

The Quran is based on equivalence of justice. Whats equal depends also on the relative status of the two parties involved.

For example:

Palestine is our land and there we'll remain
until the day our homeland is secure.

You could translate this as meaning "until all zionists are removed or banished".

And also suggests that it is a good deed NOT to demand equal blood.
But whatever SAM. That's irrelevent.
You successfully outlasted me, for whatever it's worth to you.

And also suggests that it is a good deed NOT to demand equal blood.

Of course, which is why there is also the concept of compensation and forgiveness. But that does not erase the right to demand blood.

I really don't give a shit about anyones cultural home. Just because I face Mecca does not give me the right to move there against the wishes of the people who actually live there. In fact, if they refuse to give me a visit visa, I cannot even visit.

Yes, but your people never lived there.

How do you know that? :)

Hmm...Indians in Israel...is this like where India invented the internet, call centres and space flight?

Indians from Mecca too. We have a history going back 5000 years and we're a country of immigrants

Well, the Indians from Mecca must be interlopers, then. Who asked them to come to India! They're not Indians!

Etc.

They did not come here because their antecedents lived here 4000 years ago. They immigrated here. Which means that they had to ask the king and so on. Arab traders have been coming to India forever. The Bohra community of India, for example, are of Yemeni origin.

More:

India’s commercial relations with the Arab world was established between the merchants of the Kulli culture in southern Baluchistan and those of early dynastic Sumer, probably soon after 2800 B.C. The Harppa civilization may have established contact with the West about 2000 B.C. By the later historic times in Mesopotamia Indian cotton was known under the name of Sindhu, and it passed into Greek in the form of Sindon.

From very early times up to about the third century A.D., the Greeks and Romans dominated the commercial activities in the Arabian Sea, and the Arab merchants played an important role in this trade. These Arabs were the main agents of trade between India and Egypt. They supplied to Egypt precious stones, spices and the incense, burnt at the altars of the ancient Egyptian Gods.

During the reign of King Solomon, voyages were made to Ophir once every three years and the merchandise brought from there consisted of gold, silver, jewels, wood, ivory, apes and peacocks. There were Indian merchant settlements on the island of Socotra. King Ptolemy II of Egypt is said to have displayed in his procession, Indian women, oxen and marble.

During the period between the decline of the Greco-Roman trade with India in the third century A.D., and the rise of Islam in the seventh century A.D., a number of important political changes took place. The decline of the Himyarite Kingdom on the one hand and the growing interest of the Sasanians in the navigation of the Arabian Sea on the other, affected Arab trade relation with India, and caused the transfer of the traffic between India and Egypt into the hands of Persia.

Thus in the century before the rise of Islam, the Persians were supreme in the Arabian Sea trade. Their boats frequented the harbours of India. Sea-going ships from India sailed as far as al-Madain up to the Tigris, and al-‘Ubulla has been termed as Farj al_hind, the marches of India. Among the most important ports of India at this time were Sindhu, Orrhota, Calliana, Sibor, ect.

http://islamicindia.blogspot.com/2005/10/early-indo-arab-relations.html

All concept of what is "legal" or rightful is about retribution or revenge, in my opinion. A very common approach, I think, in the Islamic world.

Not something I would like to see take over my neighborhood.
It certainly is. It's their spiritual and cultural home. The statute of limitations on "spiritual and cultural homes" being made into exclusively possessed acreage by forcible eviction is no more than three generations. And it has to have been your personal grandparents. And the people you evict have to be the same ones who evicted them.

A very common approach, I think, in the Islamic world.

Not something I would like to see take over my neighborhood.

You think law is not about revenge or retribution? It is. Justice is a different matter entirely. ALL laws are about retribution.

While all cultures have some system of social regulation and conflict resolution, law is a distinct phenomenon in that it is written and adminstered retribution and conflict resolution. The earliest human legal systems were almost universally forms of lex talionis, or "the law (lex) of retaliation." The lex talionis is a law of equal and direct retribution: in the words of the Hebrew scriptures, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, an arm for an arm, a life for a life."

The earliest written code of laws was the Code of Hammurabi, the most famous of the Old Babylonian, or Amorite, kings of Mesopotamia. Hammurabi's code of laws is almost entirely based on the principle of equal and direct retribution; it betrays the origin of law in retributive violence. Since the lex talionis is often the earliest form that law takes, from it we can conclude that the basic function of law is revenge and retribution. Unlike direct retribution, however, the law is administered by the state or by individuals that cannot be victims of revenge in return. While revenge and retribution threatens to break down society as people take reciprocal revenge one another, revenge as it is embodied in law and administered by the state prevents mutual and reciprocal revenge from tearing the fabric of society apart.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/LEXTAL.HTM

You think law is not about revenge or retribution? It is. Justice is a different matter entirely. ALL laws are about retribution. Not where I grew up.

Again: an excellent explanation of some of the stuff I see on the news, but nothing I want in my neighborhood.

As one of the soldiers said about Somalia, where such views of the law appear to be standard: "Build a wall around the place, and give them better weapons" .

The statute of limitations on "spiritual and cultural homes" being made into exclusively possessed acreage by forcible eviction is no more than three generations. And it has to have been your personal grandparents. And the people you evict have to be the same ones who evicted them.

But here's the thing, iceaura: they were abysmally mistreated all that time. They immigrated legally and peacefully to start, but although they eventually came in slightly higher numbers as refugees, they paid for their land. They didn't force anyone off until the war. If the Arab armies had won that war, would they have meekly handed back Jewish land purchases or kept them for all time under the auspices of "Takers keepers losers weepers"?

Undoubtedly, the latter.

The UN should never have "given" that land to immigrants. They had no right. Or jurisdiction. The Palestinians should go to ICC and sue them. Don't you live in the US? What happened to the natives who lived in your home 400 years ago?

Not where I grew up.
.

So how are laws in your neighborhood different?

They did not come here because their antecedents lived here 4000 years ago. They immigrated here.

So did the Jews to Israel. That seems to be where the trouble started.

So how are laws in your neighborhood different? They are based on common defense and establishment of community. ]

Christianity, the dominant religion, specifically prohibits revenge and retribution and all such compounding evils (including debt, in the original version). That and the general cultural antipathy towards feuds, mistreatment of the neighbors, and the kinds of things legal systems do when they set out to exact retribution on principle, underlie much of the local sense of justice.
They didn't force anyone off until the war. In the first place that isn't true. In the second, the war doesn't excuse the post war behavior of the past forty years.

In the first place, that is true. And their post-war behaviour is a bit more complex than "Israel all bad".

So did the Jews to Israel. That seems to be where the trouble started.

Yeah, look to your own border and tell me how that trouble is usually handled by people living in any place.

They are based on common defense and establishment of community. ]

Christianity, the dominant religion, specifically prohibits revenge and retribution and all such compounding evils (including debt, in the original version). That and the general cultural antipathy towards feuds, mistreatment of the neighbors, and the kinds of things legal systems do when they set out to exact retribution on principle, underlie much of the local sense of justice.

So how is any crime/criminal treated? Is there a principle of "paying your debt to society"?

In the first place, that is true. And their post-war behaviour is a bit more complex than "Israel all bad". You overlook terrorism, forced yielding of land under ginned up title claims, manipulation of the lack of a legal system, etc.

And being more complex than "Israel all Bad" does not excuse the Israel Bad part.
Is there a principle of "paying your debt to society"? Yes, but it is not the end all and be all of legal justice. Other principles compete.

Americans do not respond well to overt moralizing; this is even more true when it comes from the outside.
Tell me about it.

Frankly, I found myself hoping the putz is on site next time the IDF gunships show up to play BOOM BOOM (what is it ?) OUT GO THE LIGHTS !

:mufc:

Yeah, look to your own border and tell me how that trouble is usually handled by people living in any place.

I have no idea to what you refer.

You overlook terrorism, forced yielding of land under ginned up title claims, manipulation of the lack of a legal system, etc.

Not related to the buying up of land.

You overlook terrorism, forced yielding of land under ginned up title claims, manipulation of the lack of a legal system, etc.
”
Not related to the buying up of land. ? Related to the falsity of your assertion: that people were not forced off their land prior to the war.

They weren't. What was your point?

They weren't. What was your point? They were, was my point. Terrorism, legal manipulations, etc. Colonialist stuff.

Much more blatant after the war, of course.

I disagree pretty strongly with you about the Israeli use of the above; yet, funnily enough, your description corresponts with how they were shoved back into their cute little "quarters" in the pre-Palestine era. Terrorism, legal manipulation of their status, forcible deportation, etc.

They came back. To their home. And were mistreated again. In their home.

Mistreated... their home bulldozed.. their children murdered in cold blood and their land taken away from them.. they have to go through check points even if they want to go to their worship places and they suffer in refugee camps. I agree with geoff, they have been so mistreated. While Palestanians gets 4 billion dollars worth of weapons every year from USA, plus another billions in differen compensations from Europe and enjoy the life of luxury. I hear ya Geoff.

I was actually referring to the Israelis in the pre-1948 period. :D