Sabbah Report » flag

Matthew Taylor – Historical Meaning of The Palestinian Flag

Haitham Sabbah — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 06:26:58 +0000

By Matthew Taylor

Political Zionism-the quest to establish and hold a Jewish-majority state within historic Palestine-has largely been predicated on the belief that Palestinians should not have the right to live on their ancestral lands. In 1948, Israel's founders carried this philosophy to its logical conclusion and used military force to drive more than 700,000 Palestinians out of their homes in a carefully planned campaign of ethnic cleansing. In 1967, Israel conquered and occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and then proceeded to build hundreds of colonies in violation of international law while abusing the human rights of the indigenous Palestinian population.

In December 1987, Palestinians organized a grassroots uprising in an effort to liberate themselves from Israel's occupation. Palestinians refused to pay taxes, they boycotted all Israeli goods and they planted backyard gardens. And they displayed the Palestinian national flag, which was illegal under the terms of the occupation.

Then-Israeli defense minister Yitzhak Rabin ordered his soldiers to break the bones of Palestinians who participated in this uprising or who displayed their flag. Israeli soldiers injured, jailed and killed thousands of Palestinians for their crimes of struggling for human rights and self-determination.

On Nov. 13, three Palestinian students displayed their national flag from Eshelman Hall balcony. However, unlike in the occupied Palestinian territories, free speech is at least theoretically legal in the United States and on this campus. But that didn't appear to matter to the members of Tikvah and Zionist Freedom Alliance who apparently assaulted the Palestinians while yelling racist epithets. One wonders what would have happened had this assault taken place in the occupied territories, where so many bones have been broken, lives taken and land stolen.

The assault was a microcosm of Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. It was yet another example of right-wing Zionism attempting to crush any symbol of the Palestinian people's existence.

During the 1987 uprising, Palestinians sought an alternative way to affirm their existence. The Palestinian flag is green, red, and black, so instead of holding up flags, Palestinians held up watermelons. Perhaps to be safe on the UC Berkeley campus, Palestinian students should also hold up watermelons instead of their flag.

Like a Palestinian flag: Water Melon's shell is green, the internal shell is white, the flesh is red and seeds are black.

At a recent ASUC meeting, Senator John Moghtader refused to answer the question, "What do Tikvah members mean when they chant 'From the river to the sea, Israel will be free?'" Moghtader's response was, "It means the liberation of the Jewish people." Moghtader didn't want his fellow senators to know the truth: that this hateful slogan stands for the complete triumph of the Zionist project, resulting in a permanent Israeli Apartheid state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea in which all Palestinians are either subjugated or expelled. An independent Palestinian state would never emerge, and the Palestinian flag would effectively cease to have any meaning. Tikvah's vision is becoming more real every day, as the international community has done nothing to end Israel's Apartheid rule over the Palestinians. U.S. taxpayers fund Israel's military hardware, and this university is deeply invested in corporations that profit from Israel's Apartheid.

I hope someday the U.S. and the university end their shameful role in supporting the right-wing Israeli/Tikvah agenda of permanent Apartheid in Palestine. In the meantime, students on this campus have an opportunity to stand up for justice. Five conscientious Boalt Hall law students initiated a petition to recall Senator Moghtader as a result of his role in the Nov 13 incident as well as other behavior that "silences" others and "undermines the physical safety of students." Support the recall of Senator Moghtader.

What a stand, Mr. President!

Haitham Sabbah — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:52:25 +0000

I was surprised to see these photos floating around news desktops. Well, I was not surprised really because this is the PRESIDENT!!!

How stupid it is to have the U.S. National Flag on a DOORMATE is one thing, and how stupid it is to forget that this President is stupid enough to step on his flag.

Maybe it is a conspiracy and the organizer of the event was Al Qaeda member?! Or Hamas? No, these guys are weak. Ahhhhhhhhha, must be a Hezbollah member?!

The photos are not photoshoped (although I'm 99.9 percent sure that, that is what is going to be claimed); they are taken from Reuters sideshow (sorry, could not figure out how to grab the link to javascript slides) and Yahoo.

As you can see, Dubbya is standing with Mrs. America on the doormat with an image of the U.S. Flag (learn more about the flag) to honor those who died on 9/11. It just shows that the guys around Bush responsible to takecare of the Presidential events are not less "smart" than their boss!

I just can't understand how did Americans elect this man. He is either blind or stupid, or both!!!

Have you hugged your flag today?

Haitham Sabbah — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:04:40 +0000

Growing up in Middle East, you will see pictures of M.E. presidents posted everywhere, on every building, every public or business office, every public square, thereby providing you with your daily patriotic fix.

Do you get the picture? A friend of mine told me that in Syria the picture of President Assad was so prominent that he grew up having never seen a picture of a bird or any form of arts.

The world experienced this phenomenon firsthand when the Americans invaded Iraq and saw Saddam Hussein's pictures posted everywhere. When the Iraqis felt secure enough, these pictures were quickly attacked and torn by the Iraqi people -- no longer to be seen.

In the west it is another story. As you travel around or walk down the streets, you hardly ever see any picture of a president, dead or alive; what you do see, however, is the flag waving everywhere, including in people's front yards, on their cars and in their own private places. Westerns show their patriotism through flag posting. They also seem to show their affection for the flag regardless of their political or religious affiliation.

This sense of flagrant public patriotism is nearly absent in the Arab and Muslim world.

Flags don't mean much to most Arabs if we compare them to the west -- they represent the past and serve as symbols of disgrace and disappointment. What brings most Arabs together now is their religion. The Qur'an is not just a holy book but the symbol of unity and pride. It is their Constitution.

The interrogators at Guantanamo Bay may have desecrated the Islamic holy book to force a confession; they would never have considered desecrating a national flag.

On the other hand, when Arabs are protesting against Americans or Israelis, they burn the flag and not the Constitution.

For Americans, the flag is the larger symbol of unity and of an overzealous belief that they are all Americans at least under the flag -- even in a society of moral relativism, where nothing is sacred, where most of what they use is disposable.

The American flag stands tall everywhere, and unlike the Qur'an, it is illegal to treat it with anything but absolute respect.

So, have you hugged your flag today? [partly source]

Here is where it all started; The Pan-Arab Flag:

Red: The Khawarij (756-1355),
were the first Islamic group to emerge after the assassination of Caliph Uthman III, forming the first republican party in the early days of Islam. Their symbol was the red flag. Arab tribes who participated in the conquest of North Africa and Andalusia carried the red flag, which became the symbol of the Islamic rulers of Andalusia .
In modern times, red symbolizes the Ashrafs [ie. Sharifians] of the Hijaz and the Hashemites, descendants of the Prophet.

Green: The Fatimid Dynasty (909-1171), North Africa
The Fatimid Dynasty was founded in Morocco by Abdullah Al-Mahdi, and went on rule all of North Africa. They took green as their color, to symbolize their allegiance to Ali, the Prophet's cousin, who was once wrapped in a green coverlet in place of the Prophet in order to thwart an assassination attempt.

White: The Umayyad Dynasty (661-750), Damascus
The Umayyads ruled for ninety years, taking white as their symbolic color as a reminder of the Prophet's first battle at Badr, and to distinguish themselves from the Abbasids, by using white, rather than black, as their color of mourning. Mu'awia Ibn Abi Sufian (661-750), founder of the Umayyad state, proclaimed himself Caliph of Jerusalem.

Black: The Prophet Mohammad (570-632)
In the seventh century, with the rise of Islam and subsequent liberation of Mecca, two flags - one white, one black - were carried. On the white flag was written, "There is no god but God (Allah) and Mohammad is the Prophet of God."
In pre-Islamic times, the black flag was a sign of revenge. It was the color of the headdress worn when leading troops into battle. Both black and white flags were placed in the mosque during Friday prayers.
The Abbasid Dynasty (750-1258), ruling from Baghdad, took black as a symbol of mourning for the assassination of relatives of the Prophet and in remembrance of the Battle of Karbala.

Schizophrenia by Kurd in Iraq

Haitham Sabbah — Thu, 12 May 2005 22:59:52 +0000

How will history judge President Talabani?

This was the first thing I thought of after the so called democratic elections in Iraq brought us Talabani and gave him the honor of being named "His Highness, President Of Iraq". It was both a symbolic and a historical event. It was symbolic because the idea of transforming Iraq from a totalitarian, closed, exclusively Sunni Arab-dominated state to a pluralistic, open, and inclusive state could not have a better start than by electing a Kurd as president. Talabani will be however president only for a transitional period of less than eight months and no one can be sure as to what will happen after that period. It was also a historical moment because throughout of her history, and since being artificially created as a modern nation by the UK, Iraq has never been able to accommodate a separate Kurdish entity on what was agreed to be its territory.

Having said all that, and after spotting the above photo at "Baghdad Dweller", I see this is also a symbolic and historical scene. Symbolic of TWO countries, and that Kurds will never ever live in one united Iraq unless maybe they change 'Iraq Republic' to 'Kurdistan Republic' (God forbid). And historical because this scene will not be tolerated by Arabs in general. I see it as a starting signal for a new cycle of violence attacks and counter attacks.

Poor Iraq!!