pan arabism

Historically, Egyptians have considered themselves as distinct from ‘Arabs’ and even at present rarely do they make that identification in casual contexts; il-‘arab [the Arabs] as used by Egyptians refers mainly to the inhabitants of the Gulf states… Egypt has been both a leader of pan-Arabism and a site of intense resentment towards that ideology. Egyptians had to be made, often forcefully, into “Arabs” [during the Nasser era] because they did not historically identify themselves as such. Egypt was self-consciously a nation not only before pan-Arabism but also before becoming a colony of the British Empire. Its territorial continuity since ancient times, its unique history as exemplified in its pharaonic past and later on its Coptic language and culture, had already made Egypt into a nation for centuries. Egyptians saw themselves, their history, culture and language as specifically Egyptian and not “Arab.”
—  Niloofar Haeri, “Sacred language, Ordinary People: Dilemmas of Culture and Politics in Egypt”, 2003, pp. 47, 136.

anonymous asked:

I thought Egyptians who are Arab are not indigenous because the ancient Egyptians were black ?? Or dark skin at least

1. Black is a modern racial construct, Ancient Egyptians weren’t calling themselves black back then

2. Yes there were Ancient Egyptians that existed that would be classified as black in today’s society and there were those who wouldn’t

3. Arab is a political, cultural, and linguistic term, not an ethnic one. Egypt began identifying as Arab during the 1950s as a resistance to British’s colonalism when Gamal Abdel Nasser came into leadership and the pan-Arabism movement began to take hold 

4. Dark skinned Arabs exist

Like what Researcher  S. O. Y. Keita at Howard University and  any others who’ve studies Egypt say:

“The results of analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and the Y chromosome in the living Egyptian population show the existence of very old African lineages that are consistent with the fossil remains and of younger lineages of more recent evolution, along with evidence of the assimilation of later migrants from the Near East and Europe; mtDNA is passed only through the female line, from mother to offspring, and the relevant part of the Y chromosome, the nonrecombining section, passes only from father to son. The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time, although researchers vary in the details of their explanations of those influences…There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa…. The basic overall genetic profile of the modern population is consistent with the diversity of ancient populations that would have been indigenous to northeastern Africa and subject to the range of evolutionary influences over time, although researchers vary in the details of their explanations of those influences"

And one from Lloyd

“Despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact  but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well”

The Arabic Language

They say the Arabs and the Arabic language influenced African languages such as Swahili,Hausa and Mandinka. Really?

Did the Arabic language influence the Akan language? They use slavery and colonisation to mask Africa’s story. They tell us they influenced us, when it is the other way round.

Sikaan (Akan) Knife/cutlass. Sikken (Arabic) Knife.

Dade (Akan) Steel or iron. Hadeed (Arabic) Steel.

Owura/Owula (Akan) man or young man. Awlad/Walad (Arabic) boy/boys.

Forno (Fante/Akan) Oven. Furn (Arabic) Oven.

Kan (Akan) Recite or count. Kam (Arabic) How much? How many?

Did the Arabic also influence the Akan language? These languages were all crafted from African languages and they tell us, it is they had influenced us.

The Middle East (a misnomer) was once populated by Africans and it is from those languages they created the Arabic and the Rome related Eurasian languages.

So what are we as Africans ready to fight for?  

pinchoetorbust  asked:

Do you agree or disagree with Zionism and why?

@pinchoetorbust, I apologize for the delay in response time, I wanted to write a detailed, thought out post, and I haven’t had the time.

Ah, this is complicated, gear up for a long post. TW in advance for sensitive discussion, Israel/Palestine topic, genocides, and other such things relating.

In the traditional, historical sense of the term? I’m an ardent Zionist.

In the way that it was been redefined, and how it is understood by much the world? Absolutely not.

To dissect what I mean by that, let me preface this with a statement that this is a complicated and nuanced subject, which is weighs very hard on my heart and my identities, as a Jew, an activist, a socialist, ect.

Allow me define how Zionism is viewed by most today:

Zionism, to most of you I’d suspect, is either a saving grace from which the Jews have been able to retake the homeland, or Zionism is the evil plague, the oppression of the Palestinians, and potentially a colonial state.

Both of these narratives have some truth, both make assumptions, both are somewhat wrong, and both can lead to serious damage.

I take the more historical idea of Zionism, perhaps adding a slight religious bent for my own personal beliefs, but largely not. That is to say, I support Zionism as THE Jewish liberation movement, in seeking Jewish autonomy/statehood within the Jewish homeland. Ideally, this Jewish area would be structured as a socialist society, which may or may not mean no state, depending on what flavor of socialism/communism (some are stateless). I see Hertzl’s vision as a radical Jewish one, an answer to the Jewish Question which arose in Europe during the enlightenment. This debate was over the identity of the Jew, now allowed into society at large. This is also the same debate which tore Ashkenazic Judaism into sectarian movements of reform and orthodoxy, and later conservative, reconstructionist, and humanist (among others). Regardless of where Jews had lived, before the the enlightenment they were completely barred from society, not even allowed to be peasants. They had to live in separate, isolated communities, which were ransacked periodically. With the new age dawning, they were no longer confined. However, in order to cope with Christian-dominant society, they might have to abandon some traditions, aka assimilation/acculturation. Some said no, we are not “French Jews“, the French have never concidered us one of them before, why should we give up our culture? We are Jews, who happen to live in France, screw the french society. For other Jews, they saw this as emancipation, no longer were the kept in isolation. However, despite claims of toleration, it soon became clear that German, Dutch, and French societies still had ethnic objects to Jews, citing bloodlibels against even totally secularized Jews who were part of the state military! So, what would become the early Zionists arose and said look, the non-Jews won’t let us integrate, but we have our own history, language, faith, and culture. If the French, who are bound together by common language, history, faith, and culture can form a nationality, there’s no reason we shouldn’t either. Thus began Zionism, the Jewish liberation movement and nation-building project. Soon, Zionists began talking to other Zionists far away, eventually meeting and having councils to debate ideas and formalize positions.

Theodore Hertzl is usually considered the father of Zionism, as he cowrote on the subject and essentially drafted the first congress’s agenda. Both he and Moses Hess, the other main author, were heavily influenced by Karl Marx, with Hess become a proclaimed communist.  This is the backbone of what is now called Labor Zionism, the form that I personally think is most similar to my ideals. This first congress was in Basle, and both Orthodox and Reform communities objected, as the Reform largely sought acculturation while Orthodox wanted total isolation, both within local nation-states. It established the Basle program, which was divided into 4 main objectives for future Zionist aspirations, all working toward the idea that Zionism must seek to publicly and legally secure the Jewish home within Palestine. 1. The promotion of the settlement of Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and tradesmen in Palestine (some translate it has the farmers, the laborers, the artisans, and the craftsmen) (Palestine referring to the geographical area, in what we would today call Israel, Palestine, and Jordan, maybe even Lebanon, it’s not quite as clear because the Ottomans ruled the whole land at the time and the modern borders for the mandates came decades later). 2.  The federation of all Jews into local or general groups, according to the laws of the various countries. (The entire Jewish world needs to be in contact, we have the technology!). 3. The strengthening of the Jewish feeling and consciousness (as any liberation movement would advocate). 4.  Preparatory steps for the attainment of those governmental grants which are necessary to the achievement of the Zionist purpose (Jewish autonomy and liberation).

Now, during WW1, the British made a few promises, none of which were really kept.There was, most famously, the Balfour declaration, where the British tell the Zionistss that they will recognize Palestine as the Jewish homeland, and do everything in there power to secure the Jewish national home and autonomy (note: did not specify a STATE). However, in the Hussein-McMahon correspondence, the British ALSO tell the Arabs that they will support a pan-Arab state or confederation of Arab states within certain borders, IF AND ONLY IF the Arabs help fight the Ottomans (which they do). The British ALSO made the Sykes-Picot agreement with France, saying that the two nations would divide the land gained from the Ottomans into spheres of influence. Eventually, all three of these happened to one extend, and didn’t really to another. They lied, essentially, to everyone. They did start off supporting a Pan-Arab state, but quickly stopped once the Arabs made it clear that they wanted control over the Suez, and once British imperial/colonial ideas started to kick around for what would become the mandates. They did somewhat support the formation of Saudi Arabia, and massively screwed with Iran, both major factors in current Middle East politics. They split the land with France, but gave France the more difficult land, and all the territory was in the form of Mandates anyway. As for the Zionists, after the British controlled the Mandate of Palestine, they started to limit Jewish immigration, divided the populace (largely lumped sephardi/mizrachim in with the Arabs as “Arab Jews”, which might of been somewhat true, they were still primarily Jews and that move caused a lot of later ethnic cleansing of mizrachi/sephardim), and otherwise ignored the Jews.

I’d like to point out some articles of the mandate itself. Remember, the function of all the mandates was to prepare nations and/or land deemed unprepared for independent statehood. In the premise, it says “whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917……. in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and [affirming recognition of Palestine as Jew’s historical homeland]”. Article 2 states “[the mandate is responsible for things] as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home…and also for safeguarding in the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion”. Article 3 promotes local autonomy. Article 4: “An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine… The Zionist Organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognized as such agency…”. Article 6: “The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of the other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and wastelands not required for public purposes.” Article 7: “The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up permanent residence in Palestine”. Article 9: “The Mandatory shall be responsible [for making a court system in Palestine that] shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives,a complete guarantee of their rights. Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed…. ” (it particularly names Waqfs, a Muslim religious function of endowment towards a cause).

However, in what is called the White Papers, specifically the MacDonald White Paper, some tensions were discussed, with some backtracking, and limits on immigration. In response, The Jewish Agency for Palestine released a statement in 1939. It essential boils down to concerns that the new policies are/will put(ting) the Arab majority in charge of the Jewish minority, which would prove harmful and unstable in that current set up because the Arabs were already attacking Jews over immigration as it was. They argued that the police effectively turned the Jewish areas into Ghettos, no different that the ones the Jews had been placed into in Europe and the Middle East for hundreds of years. They also saw this a move of complacency with Arab terrorism, undermining cooperation efforts, and going against the terms of the Articles of the Mandate. These new rules would not be followed peacefully, and could only be done by force, and thus were oppressive in nature, especially as they only applied to Jews, which further violated the Articles. Finally, these changes are made during the darkest of hours of living Jewish memory, when the Nazis [were] at their full height, such timing is abominable.

It was that strife that made the Jewish community loose its faith that the British were going to fulfill the promises it made, and THAT sparked a rapid increase in Jewish terrorist and counter-terrorist organizations. The British were now tense with both Jews and Arabs, and the Jews and Arabs were tense with each other.

Eventually tensions rose to the point where Britain wanted to bail, and handed the mandate to the UN. Its worth noting that during this time there were waves of Jews fleeing pogroms in Russia and France, as well as the Hebrew language being revived. At the end of this part, German Jews were trying to immigrate and flee the Nazis, but the British refused to allow most entrance, due to fears of raising Arab tension and feeding an already ongoing cycle of back and forth violence.

The UN then decided to divide the mandate into two states, one for Ethnic Jews, one for Ethnic ‘Arabs‘. I say ethnic here because religious Zionism was still the lesser factor at this point, with most religious Jews utterly opposing any Jewish state OR autonomy without a messiah or temple.  A partition plan was drawn, and resolution 181 was put to a vote. Interesting, both the United States and the USSR voted yes, because both thought that BOTH nations could be brought into their spheres of influence. Due to Zionism’s marx-influenced roots and the Kibbutzim, the USSR was slightly more drawn to Jewish Palestine, and due to western involvement the USA thought that maybe Muslim Palestine could be a friend, however both expected both halves of the mandate to fall into their pockets. Decades later, the US would wind up with close ties to Israel, but primary because Iran hated Israel and had become USSR’s ally after the US+British botched a coup in Iran/Persia. (Interesting, nowadays, some of the Israeli rightwing seek realignment and want to become Russia+Turkey’s buddy, sometimes even praising Assad. While the vast majority of them wouldn’t stomach any warmth towards Iran, they also hate Saudi Arabia, who is also a US strategic regional ally.) However, the entire Muslim world (that was independent at the time) (I’m actually unsure about indonesia’s status at the time…), as well as India (which, today, actually has a rather warm relationship with Israel). Resolution 181 passed on November 29th, 1947, with more that 2/3 of the votes in favor of partition. Now, I must interject slightly and note the demographics here. The “Muslim Palestine“ half was comprised almost fully of Muslims, with a small Christian minority, and very few Jews. “Jewish Palestine“, however, had a larger amount of Christians, a Jewish majority, and large Muslim minority of about 40%. Those demographics are relatively the same today. There was a slight calm before the storm for a while. Then, on May 14th, 1948, the Israelis declared independence, sovereignty over the land of “Jewish Palestine“. Immediately, the Arab League wrote a letter to the UN, saying that they would declare war if this was allowed to continue. It was, and they did, and they also simultaneous deported almost the entire Jewish population of the Middle East and North Africa, except where they outright murdered us. The Israeli War of Independence, aka The Nakba, aka the First Israeli-Palestinian/Arab War, ect happened in two phases. The first phase was an internal conflict, where many Arabs formally accepted Israeli citizenship, some fled, and many decided to wait and see. The second phase, however, was much bloodier. As the incoming armies began invading, they told the Arabs to evacuate, that they would win and their belongings would be safely returned. Some where forced off so their land could be used as a base. The Israeli military also made bases and forcibly removed, or sometimes killed people.

I’d like to mention some outside sources, writings and such. In my class, we read some of My Promised Land by Ari Shavit (since then, sexual assault allegations were made public and we changed our course, not because it effected the topic at hand, but because we could find other sources), particularly the part about the orange growing Sabra who lived near Rehovot, most of his workers are Muslim Arabs. It provides some perspective on how the Sabras and Arabs had familiarity, and how the Sabras were torn in half by the conflict between Arabs and Jews, since Sabras (Jews whose family lines hadn’t left the land or had returned very long ago) were distinctly Jewish but had been alongside the Arab Muslims for many generations, some back to when the Muslims first arrived in the land. Another bit from the same source discussed Lydda, what Ari calls “the dark secret of Zionism“. As a class, we felt that any Zionist who was to be taken serious must acknowledge the horror Lydda. Some would say denial is stronger, we argue no. We must recognize that mistakes of the past, accept that they happened, accept the reality, or else our ideas are meaningless, much like how American denialism of Native American genocide creates a rift in American Idealism. For those unaware, Lydda was very a much an Arab cultural center, right in the middle of the land.In 1948, the city was destroyed. Ari talked to the military governor and soldiers from the 3rd regiment in order to reveal the secrets. He also went there, and he recalls “Unlike other cities where Israel overcame Palestine, here Palestine is still felt…Like the commander, I am faced with something too immense to deal with.“ He also bluntly states the struggled that I and others like me face, the black-and-white, “Either reject Zionism because of Lydda, or accept Zionism along with Lydda,“ a chilling decision. For me, I accept Zionism at its core, but Lydda and other events like it must never, never EVER be forgotten, and Israel has no excuse for those actions, Israel should not be allowed to get off scott free from those horrors. We also read the English translation of Khirbet Khizeh by S. Yizhar, which was once (in Hebrew) mandatory reading in all Israeli schools. It is a semi-novelized telling of Yizhar’s own experiences as an Israeli soldier in the 1948 war, his issues with his fellows soldiers attitudes, and the stark, morbid realizations of what is happening. His brigade members are disgusted by the disabled Arabs, left behind by those who had fled. They all start bickering in egocentrical ways, about what to do, what they wished to do, what would happen to these people if they were sent over the line to the other Arabs, ect. He recalls that a woman walks by, with other woman, and she is holding a child. “There was something special about her. She seemed stern, self-controlled austere in her sorrow. Tears, which hardly seemed to be her own, rolled down her cheeks. And the child too was sobbing a kind of stiff-lipped “what have you done to us”. It suddenly seemed as if she were the only one who knew exactly what was happening…Something struck me like lightning. All at once everything seemed to mean something different, more precisely: exile. This was exile. This was what exile was like. This is what exile looked like. I couldn’t stay where I was. The place couldn’t bear me…. I had never been in diaspora (he was born in the land), -I said to myself- I had never known what it was like… but people had spoken to me, told me, taught me, repeated recited to me, from every direction…:exile….I went down and mingled with them like someone looking for something“. My class was a rowdy one full of rowdy students, but when we read this piece, all of us were silent, some teary eyed, some letting small sobs out (self included). This was once mandatory reading in Israel, so that regardless of how the individual wanted to hope the future should be like, none, not left or right, would ever forget the past. Yet, now barely any Israelis know this book, left or right, because it has faded from collective memory. That, and other changes like it, is (I believe) why Israeli society has become so polarized and shifted rightwing, they’ve forgot the past, delegitimatized the evidence and first hand accounts.

I could continue, but I think you get the point.

I continue to identify myself in these regards and a Leftwing Zionist, or perhaps as a Labor Zionist. I continue to uphold my ideals of Jewish Liberation, my connection to my people’s homeland, the right of the State of Israel to exist. HOWEVER, that is no excuse for the horrors that have been perpetrated, and certainly not the denialism thereof. There is much valid claims against Israel. There is also differences between being a Zionist and being pro-Israel, or being anti-Zionist and anti-Israel. (I feel mostly antizionism by non-Jews, almost certainly by non-Palestinian goyim, is inherently antisemitic, as it is denialism of Jewish Liberation.) (Note: not all Jews are Zionists, and there is valid critic of Israel without 1. being against Zionism itself or 2. without wanting to destroy Israel or 3. being antisemitic, though it usually bleeds into that quickly.) I’ve got beef with modern Israel’s internal issues between Jews and Arabs, I’ve got beef with the history of abuse against Sephardim and Mizrachim, I’ve got beef with the Israeli-Right, Certainly the Religious-Right. I’m anti-settlement (though my sister lives in one and I’ll be staying there soon for two nights, which will give me firsthand observation)  and I’m a Two State Solution kind of person. Also, Hamas is a terrorist organization, Abbas and Bibi both suck and profit from the conflict, and the way that Israel has slowly grown more capitalist with time literally sickens me and makes me sad.

I hope that at least gives some insight? My feelings are very complex in this subject, and they shift around a bit with time. I try to remain critical and nuanced, and I’m always looking to expand my knowledge in this regard, and on the Middle East as a whole. My MES class this year was quite a resource, I’m sad that its over.

I’m right now last mod in here. We need two more mods to run this blog or it will be just closed down. 

If you are willing to help or participate - send us an ask. Maximum 5 mods will be added. 

No zionists, pro-Turkey, supporters of pan-Arabism, supporters of USA/Russia intervention are welcomed. 

You have to support LGBT+ and religious and ethnic minorities. 

Members of Middle Eastern diasporas are welcomed. 

Mixed Middle Easterns are welcomed. 

anonymous asked:

whats so bad about greater finland?

(this ask refers to this post.)

For reference, here’s a map:

the largest area in light blue is the current Finland’s area. The smaller bits in light blue were a part of Finland before WWII. The other areas are parts that would belong to “Greater Finland”. 

So the idea behind Greater Finland is to unite all Fennic peoples into one country. The idea existed already before world wars, before Finland (or Estonia) became independent. I don’t think there’s nothing wrong with it per se, as the national borders were still quite unclear during that time. 

Small recap: Finland fought two wars against Soviet Union in WWII: Winter War and Continuation War. Especially Winter War made Finland look like a small, innocent country who Big Bad Soviet Union was bullying. The setting was similar in Continuation War, technically Soviet Union attacked Finland first, but basically Finland was involved in Germany’s Operation Barbarossa. And Continuation War is when Greater Finland -idea comes in as problematic: Finland didn’t just try to take back the areas it lost in Winter War but was also pursuing areas over the original borders. Which kind of ruins Finland’s reputation as an innocent cinnamon roll who is just defending its borders. One could argue e.g. that Fennic peoples were oppressed in Soviet Union and would have been better under a pan-Fennic nation. But you can also argue that pan-Fennicism is a pan-nationalistic ideology similar to pan-Arabism and pan-Slavism. But yeah anyway this is the case. If you’re interested, see the Greater Finland article on Wikipedia, it’s pretty thorough.

weareheretodestroyyou Nationalists who believe in uniting all of North Africa and West Asia under one Arab nation, including minorities in the Middle East (Kurds, Persians, Assyrians, Turks, etc), which (as history has always proven) eventually leads to the (usually forced) assimilation of these minorities into an Arab identity, essentially eliminating all of our cultures. 

anonymous asked:

Also can we talk about the deliberate erasure of the entire Mizrachi community's exile by leftists and others?

This is an enormous problem to be sure and if Linda weren’t on hiatus I’d let her take this question. 

Mizrachi Jews, the Jews of MENA who never left the region, along with the Sephari Jews of MENA and other, smaller Jewish communities, were exiled from their home countries in the Diaspora between the 1940s and 1970s. The vast majority of them moved to Israel because they were guaranteed admittance.

Mizrachi Jews and other exiled Jews of MENA are often erased because they complicate the narrative of Israel being a White Supremacist Colonial State. Like the major waves of Jewish immigration from Europe in the 1930s, there weren’t many options when it came to finding a safe place to live. So a majority settled in Israel. (It’s worth pointing out that most Jews in France are North African Mizrachim and Sephardim who fled countries that were formerly French colonies like Algeria). 

So what happens is we start to get weird acts of logical invention designed to make sure that Israel gets painted in the most evil possible light and the “White Supremacy” narrative doesn’t develop any leaks around non-White Jews whose lives were saved by the existence of Israel.

So we see Israel getting blamed for the expulsion. This is pretty much bullshit. If MENA countries wanted to keep their Jews, they wouldn’t have exiled them. You could say “Zionists encouraged it!” but many Jews who fled MENA were not Zionist and wanted to stay where they were. But property theft, mass executions of Jews who were labelled “Zionist” regardless of their personal beliefs, pogroms and the belief in “pan-Arabism,” a unification of MENA peoples under one religion and ethnicity, made Jewish life impossible and flight necessary. 

So now there is a significant population of non-White Jews in Israel, many of whom are Zionists, some of whom claim that Zionism saved their lives. Today, a majority of the world’s Mizrachi Jews live in Israel, and because they live in Israel, the adherents of BDS have decided that they are to be denied voices in academia and culture.

In other words, BDS silences Mizrachi Jews. Mizrachi Jews who manage to get their voices heard are accused of being White Supremacists. Because they suffered exile by non-White populations, people on the left who don’t feel confident in criticizing those in power in MENA lest they be feeding orientalist stereotypes choose to stay silent lest they face ostracism for being insufficiently anti-racist (even if that means being racist against Mizrachim who despite rhetoric against oppression olympics, really don’t seem to rate in the hierarchies of the left).

So what happens is that Mizrachim end up tokenized as a tool to attack other Jews while having their own voices ignored. Racism against Mizrachim in Israel becomes not a type of oppression to be fought, but just another piece of evidence that Israel is evil and Mizrachim don’t deserve solidarity unless they are in favor of destroying the country that, however flawed, played a role in saving their lives. 

This isn’t to say that all Mizrachim are Zionists. There are plenty who are not. Like all Jews, there is a diversity of opinion. But if one looks at how Israelis vote, one will discover that Mizrachim are more likely to support Right Wing candidates because, in part, the Israeli Left is dominated by affluent White European Jews who have less to lose and will more easily integrate into other countries if Israel were eliminated. 

The Israeli left, like much of the global left, can come down with really bad tunnel vision when reality comes into conflict with its ideals and tunes out voices that risk complicating the purity of that vision. 

The global left doesn’t see Mizrachim as real Jews. They see them as a distraction from the hated White European Imperialist Jew who are only as useful as their willingness to perpetuate that narrative, their own value as human beings be damned. Again, look at the way Academic and Cultural BDS disproportionately silences Mizrahi Jews. If it’s not by design, the left’s apathy to this reality is damning enough in its own right.


So I was cleaning my pictures folder and I found these relics of a discussion I was having a friend about how the Gadsden Flag was the best Libertarian Flag (Short of, of course, the black and yellow) because its meaning was universal and could be applied to any resistance movement anywhere on planet Earth. All you have to do is change the text and it will send a clear message of “Fuck Off”.

These were the variations I made to that effect. The first two were simple translations, but the Arab translation begat two Pan-Arab variants.

“Non c'è più una via di uscita della nostra situazione attuale se non quella di forgiare una strada verso il nostro obiettivo, con la violenza e con la forza, in un mare di sangue e in un orizzonte di fuoco ardente.”

(Gamal Abd el Nasser)

External image
What do we know?

(Warning: plot spoilers!)

General info:

  • 50 years after the release of the original show Thunderbirds (1965) will return in the form of Thunderbirds Are Go! (2015) on the 4th of april 2015.
  • The show will have 26 episodes in the first season, halfing the runtime from the original’s 50 minutes to 22 minutes. Episodes 1-13 will be shown first and then go into repeats.
  • It was picked up for a second season before the first episode even officially aired and will be shown over 2016-2017.
  • The show is being made by ITV Studios and Pukeko Pictures, with special effects by Weta Workshop (famous for the special effects for Lord of the Rings, Avatar, King Kong).
  • Episode 1 will debut on the 4th of april on ITV1 and CITV simultaneously at 5 PM (BST). The rest of the episodes will be simulcast on both CITV and ITV1 at 8 AM (BST) every saturday.
  • The show has been picked up by TVNZ (New Zealand, set to air on the 12th of april on TV2), Nine Network (Australia, set to air on the 12th of april on GO!), Noga (Israel, on its Kids Channel) and MBC (pan-arabic on MBC3). There has been no news on a US release.
  • The show will be a mix of CGI and actual live-action model sets. The characters and various crafts (including the Thunderbirds themselves) will be in CGI, while the actual sets and some of the crafts and special effects will be live-action sets. This includes sets with water, smoke, fire and explosions.
  • The music will use a slight variation of the original theme by Barry Gray with leitmotifs throughout its score. The music will be composed by Ben Foster (Torchwood, Doctor Who).
  • The opening will feature the original countdown by Peter Dyneley (original voice of Jeff Tracy).
  • The show has had the blessing of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson.
  • David Scott is the overarching director of the show.


  • Scott, Virgil, Alan, Gordon and John Tracy all return to fly or crew their respective Thunderbird as in the original. Gordon is no longer a ginger and is now blonde, while the reverse is true for John. Virgil now has darker hair while Scott’s is slightly lighter.
  • Lady Penelope and Aloysius Parker return, Lady P this time with a pet dog.
  • Brains will return with him having a slightly darker skin as he’s been made a little more asian. Brains will also have a robot called Max (Mechanical Assistant, E(x)perimental). Possibly a nod to Braman.
  • The Hood will return with slightly less of an accent.
  • Tin Tin Kyrano has had a name change to Tanusha Kyrano, but the characters will call her Kayo. This has to do with Hergé’s character Tin Tin, the Belgian reporter, which recently had a big hollywood blockbuster. Kayo will be a more fiesty version of Tin Tin, but will most probably still be related to the Hood. Kayo will also have her own craft called Thunderbird Shadow or TBS. Kayo will also have her own portrait next to the Tracy boys.
  • Grandma Tracy will return.
  • There has been no mention of whether or not Kyrano will return.
  • Jeff’s friend Tim Casey from the original series episode “Edge of Impact” will return in a recurring role as Colonel Casey. The colonel is the liason between the Global Defence Force (a type of World Government essentially) and International Rescue. However, since Colonel Casey is being voiced by Adjoa Andoh, this character will probably be a woman.
  • Lady Penelope will have a great aunt called Sylvia, who will be voiced by none other than co-creator and original voice of Lady Penelepe Sylvia Anderson.
  • Jeff Tracy is apparently missing in action following a rescue operation. Rumor has it that he has been kidnapped. He will not be featured in season 1 and 2, but other seasons could be a possibility.
  • The uniforms keep their blue color, but the shoulder bands have changed colors to match the colors of their Thunderbird with grey, green, red, yellow and orange for Scott, Virgil, Alan, Gordon and John respectively. The uniforms seem to have been updated to provide different uses. Scott’s uniform has a gasmask. Virgil’s climbing gear. Alan’s has an attachment for a space helmet, Gordon a respirator for under water, and John’s looks to be set to monitor his life signs with a band around his foot to keep it in place in zero-G.

The Craft:

  • The show will feature all the main original Thunderbirds all with slight redesigns with the exception of Thunderbird 5 which seems to have had a major makeover. The changes are because of rights of the originals and keeping the merchandising for both shows separate.
  • There will be a Thunderbird Shadow (or TBS). This will be Kayo’s craft and will be focussed on security and covert-ops.
  • Thunderbird 1s rear section will swivel 45 degrees before landing. The window on the ventral section has been enlarged to almost be a cockpit window on the bottom. The wings appear shorter and start more towards the rear section. Thunderbird 1 still launches from the pool, but instead of it travelling down, it apparently travels upwards first before launching.
  • Thunderbird 2 is a little flatter and less round and has VTOL thursters. When leaving the island hangar the wings have to be flapped up because the door is smaller than in the original. It still carries pods and the trees till sway out of the way.
  • Thunderbird 3 has a more blocky rear section and has lost its white choker around its neck. Instead it has a cockpit and windows there. The three stuts can now swivel forward 180 degrees to act as arms. The nose section can open up to reveal drilling gear.
  • Thunderbird 4 originally had a different design more akin to the design it had in the 2004 movie. This was scrapped and a design that looked more like the original was favoured in place of it. Thunderbird 4′s hatch is now at the bottom of the vessel instead of at the top and it features a few more windows on its ventral side.
  • Thunderbird 5 has a spinning section in which gravity is maintained and is partially solar powered now. The design looks far more like a regular modern satellite than ever before. It does keep various little design features the original had.
  • The island seems to be a lot more compacter than the original. The hangars for Thunderbird 1 and 3 seem to intersect. Tracy Island villa seems to be a cross between the original and the designs from the 2004 movie. It still has the portraits, a piano, the lamps that swivel to the Thunderbird 1 hangar and the Thunderbird 2 painting seems to be identical to the original.
  • FAB1 will look like the original, only the engine compartment will be changed to dark grey instead of pink. It will most probably not be referred to as Rolls Royce however, due to copyright issues. FAB1 will be able to fly like it did in the 2004 movie.
  • The Mole and the Firefly have been confirmed.
  • Model scales vary widely from 1/300 to ¼ scale. Tracy Island was made at 1/100th scale with polystyrene and had to order 3,000 miniature trees.
  • The Fireflash will return.


  • There will be mostly new stories, but some stories will be homages to episodes from the original show. One homage that has been confirmed is a remake of the original pilot episode “Trapped in the Sky”.
  • A big part in the teaser and trailer is International Rescue being asked for help, but not responding. This is going to play part in the first few episodes.
  • Due to the new rules of television (that were not in place 50 years ago) characters will not smoke and won’t have characters shooting eachother. This was of course something that happened in the original show, but not regularly.
  • The phrase F.A.B. will be used. 
  • International Rescue was very keen on secrecy in the original show with regards to photography and videotaping. According to main writer Rob Hoegee this was very implausible for the year 2015 so they’ve decided not to use that. Tracy Island will be hidden from maps and the organization will still be secret. There won’t be a lot of focus about reporters and paparazzi though.


  • The first episode will be called “Ring of Fire” and feature the underwater Sealab and the hot air balloon featured in the trailer. “Ring of Fire” was written by Rob Hoegee, and directed by David Scott.
  • The episode shown at MIPJunior in Cannes, France, was episode 9, “Crosscut”, which was the first episode that was shown to a big audience. The episode didn’t feature Lady Penelope, Parker, Kayo or Colonel Casey. The story centers around an abandoned uranium mine in South Africa owned by a company called the Van Arkel company. Scott will have to battle a mech-suit that looks like a robot. Most probably the shots of Scott climbing and him with his mask on and the shots from the mine-like setting are from this episode.
  • The episode that introduces Great Aunt Sylvia is called “Designated Driver” and is written by comedian David Baddiel.
  • Episode 19 was written by Peter Briggs. It will star Peter’s favourite, Thunderbird 4. It’s a semi-sequel to a previous episode that used Thunderbird 4 in an unconventional manner.
  • Will there be two-parters? Yes, in fact the first episode will be a two-parter and shown fully on the debut on TV.
  • One of the episodes will be a remake of “Trapped in the Sky”.
  • Production order episodes will vary from televised order. The first two episodes, “Ring of Fire” were originally episodes 6 and 7 in production order. It follows that all other episode numbering that is stated above this are production order episode numbers. 

Voice Cast:

  • Virgil Tracy, Gordon Tracy: David Menkin
  • John Tracy: Thomas Brodie-Sangster
  • Scotty Tracy, Alan Tracy: Rasmus Hardiker
  • Kayo: Angel Coulby
  • Brains: Kayvan Novak
  • Lady Penelope: Rosamund Pike
  • Parker: David Graham
  • Grandma Tracy: Sandra Dickinson
  • The Hood: Andres Williams
  • Colonel Casey: Adjoa Andoh
  • Great Aunt Sylvia: Sylvia Anderson
  • Jeff Tracy: Unknown

Any other questions? Sent an ask or fanmail and I’d be happy to try and answer it.

EDIT: Colonel Casy is being voiced by a woman, so this character will probably be gender bent. Also the first episode is ALSO being simulcast on ITV and CITV.

EDIT2: Some extra info in episodes added. 

EDIT3: Added the fact that Jeff will be back in series 2. 

EDIT4: Corrected airdate for Australia and New Zealand. Also, there has been no confirmation on whether or not this is gonna air on US television. No news on this. 

EDIT5: According to the Reddit post Rob Hoegee, the headwriter, made Jeff will also not make an appearance in season 2. Added some extra bits from this Reddit post.