Razi Hashmi

A Christian Stealth Jihad in the United States?

2010-04-01T16:22:00.005-05:00

Posted on 31 March 2010 by Zingel | Loonwatch.com

A favorite theme of the right-wing nutjob community in the US is to fantasize about the threat of an Islaimc Shariah takeover of the United States.

They accuse every effective Muslim leader and every successful Muslim organization in one way or another of scheming to institute Islamic law (Shariah) as the official law of our government.

The pictures they paint in their books, radio shows, and blogs range from Muslims conspiring for a hostile takeover (through violent Jihad) to Muslims conspiring for a peaceful takeover of the United States (through perfectly legal means). The latter is what the sages of the nutjob community - yes I am aware that’s an oxymoron - are terming stealth Jihad.

Stealth Jihad of course is the take over from within, the slow and gradual but forced transformation of American government from our current constitution to Shariah (Islamic law), a process to be achieved through the system, in the light of day, in a perfectly legal and peaceful manner.

There are many problems with this old wife’s tale of which the following are a few:

- Muslims constitute less than 3 million people according to the Pew Research Center, that’s less than 1% of the United States. So whatever effort they are going to invest in, it had better subdue more than 99% of the American people, that’s 297 million free, discerning, intelligent people.
- If Muslims indeed are working on a peaceful takeover of the country, what does that assume about the 3 million, that they have superhuman ability to influence and brainwash everyone else? And what does it assume about the 297 million others, that they are hapless, helpless, gullible morons that can easily be brainwashed?
- There is in fact not a single Muslim organization of note that has as its mission “the Islamization of our legal system” or anything even close to suggesting replacing the US constitution with the Shariah. Not ISNA, not CAIR, not MPAC, not MAS, not MSA. The claim originates from lifelong detractors of American Muslim organizations and leaders and their efforts to enfranchise their minority communities, never from the mission statements of Muslims themselves. (I challenge any of those detractors to point LoonWatch to any of the mission statements of the above organizations that would prove us wrong.)

So far so good.

Well so what about working to replace our secular constitution that separates between Church and State with some religious canonical rules and regulations that does not? Are there any organizations out there that in fact claim such a thing as their mission?

The answer is yes.

One such organization is a radical group by the name of Reclaim Oklahoma For Christ (reclaimoklahoma.org). Here is the mission statement from their website:

To educate our pastors, legislators, educators, students and all citizens as to the truth about America’s Christian Heritage and the role of fundamental, Biblical Christianity in the establishment and function of our legal, legislative and educational systems; and to work towards the successful reestablishment of these values in our society today.

Hmm, America’s Christian Heritage? So America only has one heritage? There are no Jewish Americans, Muslim Americans, Buddhist Americans, Atheist Americans, etc? We are all one big homogeneous group with a single religious heritage determined for us by this group. If you are anything but Christian, tough luck for you, drop your heritage and get in line to assume THE American heritage as this group sees it.

More importantly, notice the explicit language involved in the phrase: the role of fundamental, Biblical Christianity in the establishment and function of our legal, legislative systems.

So basically, the goal of this group is not just see the US government, schools, universities and society at large dominated with their religion and it’s holy book, the Bible, but with a “fundamental” interpretation thereof.

So, here’s a pop quiz, what does one call working to subject America - its “legal, legislative, and educational systems”, as well as “all citizens” to the “fundamental” teachings of someone’s religious holy book, its values, rules, etc? Oh yes, “working to dominate America with Sharia via a stealth Jihad!”

That’s right folks, there is an ongoing stealth Christian Jihad out there for Christian Shariah to dominate US government and society.

Mind you, unlike with the Muslims, it’s not a mother population of 3 million mostly struggling immigrants we are talking about here, but a mother population of 70 million linguistically native, religiously fervent, politically savvy mainstream looking citizens. Talk about stealth.

And guess what? The “reclaiming America for Jesus” bible-thumping bunch ARE in fact in full “infiltration” (to use a favorite Spencer term) of our government, our educational system, and society at large. It’s a population that does not just have 2 members in congress like with the Muslims, but dozens in congress and the senate, not to mention the sprawling mega-churches, the business tycoons, media conglomerates, universities, and well-funded lobby groups. Their tangible effect can be seen from changing tax-payer funded school curricula and student history books in Texas to affecting our federal laws on abortion, to influencing our foreign policy (including the push for misguided wars in the Middle East some of which have occurred like Iraq and others for which they are still pushing).

Hutaare (Christian Warriors) Militia

And guess what, it turns out it’s not all stealth. There are pockets of this population that is willing to go the violent terrorist route to reclaim America for Jesus!

Where is the excitable hairball known as Robert Spencer? Why the silence, Bob? This is totally up your ally if indeed your beef is with “stealth jihad” and “religious shariah” taking over the US, and not necessarily Muslims per se as you often claim? Do you see why people think you are a blabbering hypocrite?

And where are the screeching wails of your foul-mouthed sidekick, Pamela Geller? Cat got your tongue Pam?

Where is Brigitte Gabriel, and Nonie Darwish and Wafa Sultan and the other sweaty cheerleaders of the big cry against the imminent “Islamic takeover”? No good book deals here for you ladies? No speaking tours opening up where you get cash bags and back pats from your ringmasters?

Where are the monitoring websites, and the blog craze, and the concerned members of congress, and the warnings of the expert talking heads, and the tell-all books? No money in this business? Thank God for the Muslims!

Protesters go to wrong location

2010-01-18T10:50:00.001-06:00

MOORE — A protest of a meeting of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations fizzled when protesters showed up at the wrong location Friday night.

Congressional candidate Kevin Calvey, a former state representative, called on supporters to protest the meeting, saying the group is a front for terrorist groups.

Council on American-Islamic Relations leaders switched the meeting location after learning about the protests to avoid confrontation and to maintain the focus of the meeting, said Razi Hashmi, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter.

"It’s just a desperate candidate seeking to earn a few cheap political points at the expense of the American-Muslim community,” he said.

Hashmi said protesters showed up the original meeting site, Melody Hall in Moore, instead of the real location, the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City mosque.

Law enforcement officers dispersed the crowd at Melody Hall, and the group re-formed at a nearby Braum’s, Hashmi said.

Moore Police Public Information Officer Jeremy Lewis said a group of about eight or nine people was asked to leave property next to Melody Hall at the property owner’s request.
No protesters showed up to the mosque.

CARRIE COPPERNOLL, Staff Writer

Read more: http://newsok.com/islamic-council-discusses-needs/article/3432562?custom_click=lead_story_title#ixzz0cyho1Xxd

Oklahoma Muslims React to Obama Speech

2009-06-04T19:49:00.001-05:00

NEWS 9 | Amy Lester | June 4, 2009

Featured Video
Obama Speech Raises Muslim Support
Lawmakers Discuss Obama's Speech in Egypt
Oklahoma Muslims React to Obama Speech

Enlarge this picture
Some Muslims say the best first step is to get to know one another in the community, to gain a mutual respect, that will do away with all of the misconceptions.

Enlarge this picture
"I think it was very important for me to witness a speech from President Barack Obama to Muslims around the world, and here in the United States," Muslim American Razi Hashmi said.
By Amy Lester, NEWS 9

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Many Muslims in Oklahoma got up early Thursday morning to watch President Barack Obama's speech. They're calling it historic and a step in the right direction.

Many say the President's words are meaningful for the world, and Oklahomans.

The President spoke of tolerance and common threads between Islamic countries and America. He also stressed the need to end stereotyping and fear in the U.S.

Many Muslims woke up around 5 a.m. just to hear the speech.

Oklahomans listened as the President stressed his own responsibility to fight negative stereotypes, saying Islam is a part of America.

"We have to learn there are people who can have other beliefs than us and we can value those people," Muslim American Huma Yasin said.

"The message should be very clear to some of the politicians here that religious tolerance is on the rise and it comes from one of the top leaders in the world," Arif Abdullah said.

Obama also pointed out violent extremists are the minority, a threat he'll continue to confront.

Many Muslims are hopeful the President's message of tolerance spreads around the world, and throughout Oklahoma. That could better improve relationships with countries in the Middle East and change the minds of people who have the wrong idea about Islam.

"Particularly in Oklahoma we have to educate ourselves about what and why other people believe and live their life in the manner in which they do," Yasin said.

CAIR Calls President’s Cairo Speech ‘Comprehensive, Balanced and Forthright’

2009-06-04T14:49:00.000-05:00

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) | June 4, 2009

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 6/4/09) - A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group called President Obama’s historic address to the Muslim world today in Cairo “comprehensive, balanced and forthright” and said it may help reverse the deterioration in relations between the United States and Muslim-majority nations.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) hosted a live viewing this morning of the president’s speech for leaders and members of the Muslim community in the Washington, D.C., area. (CAIR chapters around the nation are holding similar viewings.)

For a transcript of the president’s speech, go here.

SEE ALSO: Obama Speech in Cairo Pleases American Muslims
Obama Speech Hits Home in Orange County (Orange County Register)
Sacramento Muslims React to Obama's Speech

In a statement following that viewing, CAIR said:

“President Obama’s comprehensive, balanced and forthright address covered almost all the bases in terms of issues of concern to Americans, American Muslims and those in Muslim-majority nations. It may serve as a turning point in what have been deteriorating relations between America and the Muslim world.

“We believe the president’s call for a ‘new beginning’ in relations between the United States and Muslims worldwide will be well-received by all people of good will. We agree with the president that the ‘cycle of suspicion and discord must end.’

“By quoting the Quran on issues such as diversity, justice and the sanctity of human life, the president acknowledged Islam’s contributions to universal values.

“CAIR appreciates the president’s acknowledgment of the contributions American Muslims have made and continue to make to our nation and to the protection of civil rights. We applaud the president’s commitment to work with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill their religious obligation of charitable giving.

SEE: Muslim Americans Serving in the U.S. Government

“American Muslims also appreciate the president’s statement that ‘Islam is part of America’ and his defense of the right to wear religious attire such as the Islamic headscarf, or hijab. President Obama seemingly referenced a case made public by CAIR when he said ‘the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab.’ (In 2004, CAIR welcomed a U.S. Department of Justice decision to support the right of an Oklahoma student who was suspended because of her headscarf. A CAIR alert about the girl's suspension drew international media attention.)

“We back the president’s call for the rejection of religious extremism and his support for the spread of representative government, the right to religious freedom and the right of women worldwide to equal rights and opportunities.”

“We particularly appreciate the president’s challenge to those who promote ‘crude stereotypes’ of Islam in the West and of those who harbor similar stereotypes of America.

“President Obama set a new tone for American policy in the Middle East when he emphasized that America will not turn its back on ‘the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity and a state of their own.’ His statement that ‘the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements’ sends a clear message to those who would block peace with justice in the region.

“We ask that people of all faiths in this nation and around the world use the opportunity presented by this important address to turn the page of history and to join together based on ‘mutual interest and mutual respect’ to create a more peaceful and prosperous future. CAIR and the American Muslim community look forward to working with President Obama to carry out the ambitious agenda he laid out in today’s address.”

CAIR is calling on American Muslims and other people of conscience to contact the White House to express support for the new direction outlined in the president’s address.

Last week, CAIR released an open letter in English and Arabic to President Obama and to the Muslim world offering specific policy recommendations for the president’s address in Cairo.

CAIR, America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization, has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

- END -

CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787, 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair.com; CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin, 202-488-8787, 202-341-4171, E-Mail: arubin@cair.com; CAIR National Legislative Director Corey Saylor, 202-384-8857, E-Mail: csaylor@cair.com

Text of Obama's speech in Cairo

2009-06-04T08:13:00.000-05:00

By The Associated Press
8 mins ago | June 4, 2009
Text of President Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University, as provided by CQ Transcriptions.
Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has had stood as a beacon of Islamic learning. And for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress.
I'm grateful for your hospitality and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the good will of the American people and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu-alaikum.
(APPLAUSE)
We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world, tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation but also conflict and religious wars.
More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims and a Cold War in which Muslim majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001, and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and western countries but also to human rights.
All this has bred more fear and more mistrust. So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles, principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point.
But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect one another, and to seek common ground.
As the Holy Quran tells us, Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.
(APPLAUSE)
That is what I will try to do today, to speak the truth as best I can. Humbled by the task before us and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Now, part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian. But my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk.
As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith. As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam at places like Al-Azhar that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's renaissance and enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities...
(APPLAUSE)
It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra, our magnetic compass and tools of navigation, our mastery of pens and printing, our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires, timeless poetry and cherished music, elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
(APPLAUSE)
I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second president, John Adams, wrote,
The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims. And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States.
They have fought in our wars. They have served in our government. They have stood for civil rights. They have started businesses. They have taught at our universities. They've excelled in our sports arenas. They've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building and lit the Olympic torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same holy Quran that one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, kept in his personal library.
(APPLAUSE)
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
(APPLAUSE)
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as...
(APPLAUSE)
Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire.
We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal. And we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words, within our borders and around the world.
We are shaped by every culture. Drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept, E pluribus unum: Out of many, one.
Now much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected president.
(APPLAUSE)
But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores. And that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt...
(APPLAUSE)
... let there be no doubt, Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations: to live in peace and security, to get an education and to work with dignity, to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead. And if we understand that the challenges we face are shared and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations.
When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience.
(APPLAUSE)
That is what it means to share this world in the 21st Century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings. This is a difficult responsibility to embrace, for human history has often been a record of nations and tribes, and, yes, religions subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests.
Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership, our progress must be shared.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite. We must face these tensions squarely. And so, in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all its forms. In Ankara, I made clear that America is not and never will be at war with Islam.
(APPLAUSE)
We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject, the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued Al Qaida and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice. We went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day.
The victims were innocent men, women, and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach.
These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with. Make no mistake, we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.
We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths but, more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam.
The Holy Quran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as it if has killed all mankind.
(APPLAUSE)
And the Holy Quran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.
(APPLAUSE)
The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism; it is an important part of promoting peace.
Now, we also know that military power alone is not going solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced.
That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.
Now, let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.
(APPLAUSE)
Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be. Today America has a dual responsibility to help Iraq forge a better future and to leave Iraq to Iraqis.
I have made it clear to the Iraqi people...
(APPLAUSE)
I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no basis and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012.
(APPLAUSE)
We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable. But in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals.
We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States. And I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
(APPLAUSE)
So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities, which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
Now, the second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world. America's strong bonds with Israel are well-known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries. And anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented holocaust. Tomorrow I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich.
Six million Jews were killed, more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless. It is ignorant, and it is hateful.
It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
Now, I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nations should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.
(APPLAUSE)
And any nation, including Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty. And it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
(APPLAUSE)
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years. And much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear. No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other. That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.
Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.
But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people, the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas. They are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear. Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments, provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power. Once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.
(APPLAUSE)
So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power. You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion. You must respect the rights of minorities and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise. You must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.
Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
(AUDIENCE MEMBER SHOUTS)
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom. Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia where devote Christians worshipped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country.
That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul.
This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive. But it's being challenged in many different ways. Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith.
The richness of religious diversity must be upheld, whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt.
(APPLAUSE)
And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which people protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.
That's why I'm committed to work with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat. Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.
We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretense of liberalism. In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews.
That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations.
Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service so bridges between peoples lead to action, whether it is combating malaria in Africa or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.
(APPLAUSE)
I know...
(APPLAUSE)
I know, and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal. But I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.
(APPLAUSE)
And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well- educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead.
Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life and in countries around the world. I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons.
(APPLAUSE)
Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity, men and women, to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal. And I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice.
That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim- majority country to support expanded literacy for girls and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
(APPLAUSE)
Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity. I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home.
Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations, including America, this change can bring fear; fear that, because of modernity, we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly, our identities, those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai.
In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education. And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work.
Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century. And in too...
(APPLAUSE)
And in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America, in the past, has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we new seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand change programs and increase scholarships like the one that brought my father to America.
(APPLAUSE)
At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students are internships in America, invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world and create a new, online network so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new core of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim majority countries. And I will host a summit on entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations, and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim majority country and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops.
Today, I'm announcing a new global effort with the organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments, community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address, but we have a responsibility to join together to behalf of the world that we seek, a world where extremists no longer threaten our people and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes, a world where governments serve their citizens and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek.But we can only achieve it together. I know there are many, Muslim and non-Muslim, who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort, that we are fated to disagree and civilizations are doomed to clash.
Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith in every country. You more than anyone have the ability to reimagine the world, the remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart or whether we commit ourselves to an effort, a sustained effort to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is one rule that lies at the heart of every religion, that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
(APPLAUSE)
This truth transcends nations and peoples, a belief that isn't new, that isn't black or white or brown, that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people. And it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written. The Holy Quran tells us, Mankind, we have created you male and a female. And we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.
The Talmud tells us, The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.
The Holy Bible tells us, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
(APPLAUSE)
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
END

Opportunity, key to Obama’s mission in Cairo

2009-06-04T05:48:00.000-05:00

by Ahmed M. Rehab
Executive Director| Council on American-Islamic Relations - Illinois Chapter (CAIR-Chicago)
AC360 Blog | CNN | June 4, 2009

President Obama has so far exhibited unprecedented ambition on the part of a sitting US president to recalibrate the precepts of America’s relationship with Muslims around the world. My hope is that this means venturing beyond oil, conflict resolution and counter terrorism initiatives and into beginning to understand the genuine challenges and aspirations of most citizens in Muslim-majority countries; everyday concerns that often have little to do with Bin Laden and everything to do with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Anti-Americanism in the region is typically borne out of the perception that the United States has little regard for the well-being of the region’s people, and is really only concerned with its national interests, including oil and Israel. As such, its foreign policy, especially toward the Arab world, is seen as limited to containment (usually through supporting local dictatorial regimes in exchange for loyalty), and when that does not work, then military action. Aid to the region, while appreciated by some, is seen by many as a token affair meant to sedate potential unrest.

The success of Obama’s mission in Cairo will largely depend on whether or not he is able to challenge these perceptions and speak to the core aspirations of his audience. Most want the United States to respect their sovereignty, dignity, and right to self-determination. They want the US to refrain from abetting local dictatorships and exploiting the people’s natural resources in the region. They want the West to stop turning a blind eye to the illegal occupation of, and expansion into, the Palestinian territories. They would like the definition of terrorism to be fairly and consistently applied, whether the culprits are a group of extremist outlaws or an irreverent state actor, thereby sending a signal to all that there will not be a double standard for the sanctity of innocent human life.

(For its part, the Muslim world has a lot to do as well, but that’s a topic for a different essay.)

There is no doubt that “Muslim extremism” represents a genuine concern to the United States that cannot and will likely not be ignored by Obama. Still, it has been a long-standing strategic mistake to convince ourselves that violent extremism represents a pervasive or dominant strain among the world’s Muslim populations. Groups like Al Qaeda while dangerous, remain marginal. Contrary to common belief in the West, they are viewed with disdain by mainstream Muslim society; after all, more Muslims have died at the hands of terrorists than people of any other faith. (In areas where they tend to be popular, it is invariably as a result of few choices and opportunities.)

Most Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia lead ordinary lives that put family, personal career development, freedom, dignity, and opportunity first. If Obama succeeds in conveying his acknowledgment and appreciation for this fact, if he can convince audiences of the readiness and willingness of the United States to become an asset – rather than a hindrance – towards those pursuits, then his address can succeed in turning over a new page in US-Muslim relations. Of course, following through with actionable policy will be crucial, if he is to secure long term success.

President Obama Speaks to the Muslim World from Cairo, Egypt

2009-06-04T05:23:00.000-05:00

White House | June 4, 2009 | Cairo, Egypt

"A New Beginning"
The President gives a speech in Cairo, Egypt, outlining his personal commitment to engagement with the Muslim world, based upon mutual interests and mutual respect, and discusses how the United States and Muslim communities around the world can bridge some of the differences that have divided them. June 4, 2009.

Muslim Americans Serving in the U.S. Government

2009-06-03T23:38:00.000-05:00

White House | June 3, 2009

The United States government reflects the rich diversity of the American population. Meet three Muslim Americans who freely retain and express their own faith identities while serving their nation.

Largest US Muslim Group Sends Open Letter to Obama

2009-06-03T18:33:00.000-05:00

By Mohamed Elshinnawi
VOA News | Washington, D.C. | 02 June 2009

As U.S. President Barack Obama prepares to address Muslims around the world from Cairo, Egypt, on June 4th, one of the largest groups of American Muslims in the United States has offered some free advice on how to achieve the goal of better U.S. relations with the Muslim world.

One of the largest organizations of Muslim-Americans in the United States is offering President Obama advice on how to relate to Muslims around the world
The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations - known by its acronym, CAIR - has published an open letter to President Obama written by CAIR's national executive director, Nihad Awad. The Awad letter notes that the president's statements since his inauguration have raised the Muslim world's hopes for real change in U.S. foreign and domestic policies. But Awad stresses that those positive statements must now be backed up with concrete policy initiatives.

"Today, it is the time for America to tell Israel that it cannot continue to build settlements," Awad tells VOA. "The settlements not only have to stop but have to be dismantled. The [Israeli] blockade on Gaza has to be lifted and also restoration of the Palestinians rights and a commitment to the establishment of the Palestinian state has to come within clear deadlines.

"Also toward Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the change should be based on the reduction of the U.S. intervention and the respect and support for local solutions and indigenous democratic decisions by the local governments."

Obama should speak up for human rights, tolerance, letter says

Presenting an American-Muslim point of view, Awad's open letter offers President Obama a clear road map to help move the United States toward better relations with Muslims around the world.

CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad says the Obama administration should take a stance against anti-Muslim discrimination that has emerged since the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001
The letter emphasizes that America must champion political and religious freedom, human rights, the growth and stabilization of democratic institutions and respect for the rule of law for everyone. It must hold every nation, including U.S. allies, to a uniform standard of justice and equality.

And here at home, Awad says, Mr. Obama should provide an example for elected representatives, religious leaders, commentators and citizens of all faiths in speaking out forcefully against the rising level of anti-Muslim rhetoric and discrimination in American society.

"We should have [a] clear stance by the U.S. government to fight against Islamophobia and anti-Muslim discrimination that has been rampant after 9/11," Awad says. "In particular, there have been some decisions to target American-Muslim institutions and individuals, and there has been politicization of terror trials. All of these things have to be re-evaluated and reversed."

Also, says Awad, U.S. visa policies should be changed to allow Muslim intellectuals and business leaders to travel to America without fear of humiliation or harassment at points of entry.

Muslims also have a role to play

In his open letter, Nihad Awad acknowledges that Muslim nations must make changes of their own to foster better relations with the United States.

"I think it is very important for the Muslim world to move toward reform - serious internal reforms - toward the respect of human rights, democracy and the rule of law," Awad says. "And second, to reduce the rhetoric and commit themselves to public service and political and civic engagement. And finally, interfaith dialogue is very important. It has to be based on mutual respect and not rhetorical statements, as we have seen coming from different sides - from the non-Muslim side and from the Muslim side."

Awad's letter notes that President Obama cannot act alone in changing policies and fixing the damage done to U.S.-Muslim relations over the past several years and that the U.S. Congress will need to work with the president toward that goal.

Congressman Keith Ellison says Congress is willing to work with the president to improve U.S.-Muslim relations
And prospects are good that it will, says Representative Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat and the first Muslim ever elected to the national legislature.

"The president is very influential with the Congress," Ellison notes, "so as he continues to make overtures of peace, he is signaling to the Congress that they need to support his efforts. And I think he is going to get it, because he is a very popular president, and nobody wants to be caught in opposition to the president at this time, because we all have to face our voters."

American Muslims, like Muslims around the world, will be closely watching President Obama's address in Cairo Thursday to see what he is offering as the next step in America's continued outreach to the Muslim world.

Obama Says U.S. Could Be Seen as a Muslim Country, Too

2009-06-03T18:29:00.001-05:00

By JEFF ZELENY
New York Times | June 2, 2009

HAHN, Germany — As President Obama prepared to leave Washington to fly to the Middle East, he conducted several television and radio interviews at the White House to frame the goals for a five-day trip, including the highly-anticipated speech Thursday at Cairo University in Egypt.

In an interview with Laura Haim on Canal Plus, a French television station, Mr. Obama noted that the United States also could be considered as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.” He sought to downplay the expectations of the speech, but he said he hoped the address would raise awareness about Muslims.

“Now, I think it’s very important to understand that one speech is not going to solve all the problems in the Middle East,” Mr. Obama said. “And so I think expectations should be somewhat modest.”

He previewed several themes and objectives for the speech, which aides said the president intended to tinker with — and rewrite — aboard Air Force One during his 12-hour flight to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

“What I want to do is to create a better dialogue so that the Muslim world understands more effectively how the United States, but also how the West thinks about many of these difficult issues like terrorism, like democracy, to discuss the framework for what’s happened in Iraq and Afghanistan and our outreach to Iran, and also how we view the prospects for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” Mr. Obama said.

The president said the United States and other parts of the Western world “have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.”

“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,” Mr. Obama said. “And so there’s got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.”

The speech on Thursday has many intended audiences, but among them are the young people in Cairo and beyond.

“I think the most important thing I want to tell young people is that, regardless of your faith, those who build as opposed to those who destroy I think leave a lasting legacy, not only for themselves but also for their nations,” Mr. Obama said. “And the impulse towards destruction as opposed to how can we study science and mathematics and restore the incredible scientific and knowledge — the output that came about during centuries of Islamic culture.”

The president is flying Air Force One directly from Washington to Riyadh. The White House press corps — traveling on a chartered United 767 — is refueling in Hahn, Germany.

Obama’s Muslim Speech

2009-06-03T10:06:00.002-05:00

June 3, 2009
The New York Times | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

By MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT
On Thursday, President Obama will deliver a speech on American foreign policy to a predominantly Muslim audience in Egypt. Aside from fulfilling a campaign pledge, why has the president decided to give such a speech? When he approaches the microphone, what are the key issues he should address?

I have attended a number of conferences designed to promote understanding between the United States and people who live in Muslim-majority states. According to Muslim speakers at such events, one fact stands out: When the cold war ended, America needed an enemy to replace Communism and chose Islam.

How else, they ask, to explain the two Gulf wars, Afghanistan, Guantánamo and the plight of the Palestinians? To support their thesis, they cite the bellicose post-9/11 rhetoric of U.S. officials, the Western media’s preoccupation with Muslim extremists and the plethora of pundits who have identified Islam, especially “political Islam,” as the leading threat to civilization in the 21st century.

To most Americans, the idea that our country is attacking Islam or that we view the Islamic faith as an enemy is absurd. The first Gulf War was a response to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of a neighboring Arab country. On 9/11, America was the victim, not the aggressor. In Iraq, President Bush’s rationale for regime change, though misguided, was hardly anti-Islamic. U.S. leaders can’t be held accountable for what some writers say in order to scare people and sell books. What is more, in the 1990s, America twice led NATO into conflicts on behalf of Muslim populations — first in Bosnia, then Kosovo.

Nevertheless, the perception that America is hostile to Islam remains widespread, much to the satisfaction of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the government of Iran. To his credit, President Bush attempted on several occasions to communicate his respect and peaceful intentions to Muslim audiences. Sadly, those efforts fell on deaf ears.

On Thursday, President Obama can be assured of a wide audience, and he will speak with a far cleaner slate than his predecessor. Mr. Obama has a family connection to Islam; he also has a well deserved reputation for weaving moral and political themes together in a coherent and thoughtful way. His challenge — not unusual for this president — will be to fulfill the expectations he has raised.

Mr. Obama’s dilemma is that no speech, however eloquent, can disentangle U.S.-Muslim relations from the treacherous terrain of current events in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and the Middle East.

Since the president is unlikely to announce major policy changes, he must persuade Muslims abroad to view our existing policies in a new light. That is no small job. It requires separating the rationale for contemporary actions from the long history of clashes between Islam and the West, and it requires overcoming the resentment caused when Muslim noncombatants are killed as a byproduct of conflict.

The more direct the president is in acknowledging these problems, the more likely it is that Muslims will think objectively about his words.

Muslims desire respect and respect demands frankness. We cannot pretend that American soldiers and aircraft are not attacking Muslims. We can, however, remind the world that the people we oppose are murdering Muslims and other innocents every day. In Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, our allies are Muslims. We have partners in Lebanon and among Palestinians, as well.

We understand the desire of every country to be free from foreign domination. We will be neither intimidated nor dissuaded from our purpose, but our goal isn’t to wage war; it is to help establish security for local populations and our fondest hope is to return home as soon as possible.

Although the president will be speaking to a Muslim audience about American policy, it is equally important that he address the audience in the United States. Muslims abroad need to embrace a more accurate picture of America; but Americans need to learn more about Muslims. It cannot be said too often that Islam is a religion of peace, that terrorism is as indefensible in Islam as it is in the other two Abrahamic faiths, and that the vast majority of Muslims — including the millions who are citizens of the United States — want to live in dignity and without violence.

Finally, President Obama can remind his Egyptian hosts that repression in the name of moderation is still repression. Despite the mistakes of recent years, support for democracy should remain a central theme of U.S. foreign policy. Armed groups, such as Hamas, have no place in an election. But democracy is why women have led governments in four of the five most populous Muslim-majority states and why women were recently elected to the parliament of Kuwait.

January’s provincial balloting in Iraq has helped to unify the country, while legislative debate has provided a peaceful outlet for anger. Upcoming votes in Iran and Afghanistan will no doubt influence the course of those nations. Democracy’s advantage is that it contains the means for its own correction through public accountability and discussion. It also offers a non-violent alternative for the forces of change, whether those forces are progressive or conservative.

It would be unreasonable to expect too much of any speech, especially on a topic as prone to subjective interpretation as U.S. foreign policy and Islam. Given President Obama’s record, however, we can be confident that a brave and possibly historic effort is in store.

Madeleine K. Albright was the U.S. secretary of state from 1997 to 2001.

Obama Gives NPR Preview Of Message To Muslims

2009-06-03T10:04:00.000-05:00

NPR | 06-01-2009
By Frank James

President Barack Obama gave NPR hosts Michele Norris and Steve Inskeep a preview of the message he intends to carry to the Middle East later this week where he will give a much-awaited speech in Cairo, Egypt aimed at the Muslim world. (Read more NPR coverage of the interview.)

Michele, an All Things Considered host, asked the president what would be his message to Muslims who say the U.S. policy constantly tilts too far towards Israel.

NORRIS: Many people in the region are concerned when they look at the U.S. relationship with Israel, they feel that Israel has favored status in all cases. What do you say to people in the Muslim world who feel that the U.S. has repeatedly over time blindly supported Israel?

THE PRESIDENT: What I'd say there's no doubt that the U.S. has a special relationship with Israel. There are a lot of Israelis who used to be American. There is huge cross-cultural ties between the two countries. I think that as a vibrant democracy that shares many of our values obviously we're deeply sympathetic to Israel.

And I would also say that given past statements surrounding Israel, the notion that they should be driven into the sea, that they should be annihilated, that they should be obliterated, the armed aggression that's been directed towards them in the past, you can understand why not only Israelis would feel concerned but the U.S. would feel it was important to back this stalwart ally.

Now having said all that what is also true is that part of being a good friend is being honest. And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory in the region is profoundly negative not only for Israeli interests but for U.S. interests. And that's part of a new dialogue I'd like to see encouraged in the region the Muslim countries should be able to understand.

Earlier in the conversation, Steve, a Morning Edition host, asked Obama what Muslims should make of how the U.S. has for years called for an end to Israel's building of new West Bank settlements only to be ignored, with the U.S. in turn then continuing its undiminished support of Israel.

STEVE: If the U.S.States says for years that Israel should stop the settlements and for years Israel simply does not, and the U.S. continues to support Israel in roughly the same way, what does that do with American credibility in the Muslim world which you're trying to address?

THE PRESIDENT: Well I think waht is certainly true is that the U.S. has to follow through on what it says. Now as I've said before, I haven't said anything yet because it's early in the process.

But it is important for us to be clear about what we believe will lead to peace and that there's not equivocation and there's not a sense we expect only compromise on one side. It's going to have to be two-sided. I don't think anybody would deny that in theory. When it comes to the concrete, then the politics of it get difficult, both within the Israeli and the Palestinian communities. But if this was easy it would have already been done.

Obama needs a 'big idea' for Muslims

2009-06-03T10:02:00.001-05:00

Los Angeles Times | Opinion
Up to now, the president's words about Islam might have struck the right tone, but they ring empty.
By Robert Satloff

June 2, 2009

When President Obama speaks to the world's Muslims from Cairo this week, he'll touch, again, on the themes of respect and engagement. But he's delivered that message at least three times already, and this time his audience will expect more. They'll want to know whether Obama has a "big idea" about U.S policy toward Arabs and Muslims.

For all his faults, President George W. Bush did have a big idea -- that a witch's brew of radical Islamist extremism and repressive autocracy was destroying Muslim societies, and that the antidote was democracy. Bush not only believed it, he translated this idea into real policies, such as promoting a democratic, Shiite-led government in Iraq and endorsing flawed elections in Egypt, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. Some of his initiatives worked well and some were disastrous, but they all flowed from Bush's grand view of the situation.

So far, Obama has defined his approach to Arab and Muslim societies as, essentially, anti-Bushism. It has included four key elements:

First, in place of the polarizing posture of "either you're with us or you're against us," Obama has offered the more salutary concept of "mutual respect and mutual interests." This phraseology leaves room for nuance, debate and a pragmatic recognition that politics is a two-way street.

Second, instead of seeing the world through the lens of the 9/11 attacks, Obama specifically told the Turkish parliament that "America's relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to Al Qaeda."

Third, instead of characterizing problematic countries as "evil" and working for their political, diplomatic and economic isolation, Obama has offered a willingness to talk, without preconditions, with radical governments (though not yet non-state actors) that had previously been off-limits.

Fourth, instead of making U.S. support for Palestinian statehood contingent on democracy and reform, as Bush did in his landmark June 2002 Rose Garden address, Obama has returned to the more conventional notion of promoting diplomatic solutions -- i.e., the "peace process" -- without saying much about the internal dynamics of Palestinian politics.

Whereas Bush elevated democracy promotion to a touchstone of his Middle East policy -- certainly in rhetoric, sometimes even in fact -- Obama has said almost nothing on the issue. Indeed, the stirring words of his inaugural address -- "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist" -- are less than meets the eye. Read closely: They show that Obama neither suggested there were any practical implications in terms of relations with the U.S. for leaders who refuse to unclench their fist, nor did he offer any support for the millions of ordinary citizens fighting for political change in their countries. In fact, his next sentence was to promise poor nations that America will help "farms flourish and clean waters flow" -- important commitments but nothing revolutionary or even political.

Taken together, this is a coherent policy of anti-Bushism, but it doesn't offer a new "big idea" in place of the one Bush articulated. That's too bad, because expectations are high and, what's more, when Obama arrives in Cairo, he will be surprised to find he has two strikes against him.

First, there's the fact that he continually refers to "the Muslim world," which horrifies many Muslims who know this as the language of Al Qaeda and other radical Islamists, an unintentional echo of the concept that Muslims are really best viewed as members of a single, transnational community of believers rather than loyal citizens of their various nation-states.

And second, there's the fact that he chose an Arab capital to deliver a message to the world's Muslims, thereby feeding the suspicion among the 900-million-plus non-Arab Muslims that America only views them through an Arab lens, one that represents less than a quarter of the world's Muslim population. (Too heavy an emphasis on Israeli-Palestinian peace would reinforce this; Obama should steer clear of too much "peace process" talk.)

Obama's trip offers an opportunity to correct these misperceptions, but he should do more. Now is the time to give real substance to his signature concept of "engagement." So far, it is just a tactic, devoid of much content. Obama can fix that by outlining a Muslim-targeted version of "change you can believe in." It would sound a lot like another bumper-sticker slogan: "Think globally, act locally."

One does not have to view the world through an Al Qaeda prism to recognize that many Muslim-majority (and even minority) countries are, as Bush argued, under threat from extremists who want to destroy the nation-state, sometimes in unholy alliance with autocrats who use the radical threat to keep a tight grip on power. The best way to defeat the former and weaken the latter, however, is not the straitjacket of "elections first." Rather, Obama should eschew the goal of a cosmic shift in U.S. relations with the "Muslim world" in favor of a country-by-country strategy that marries two objectives that appear contradictory but in fact go hand in hand: strengthening the ability of individual states to compete with the radicals while chipping away at the power of despots to choke off any politics but their own.

Customizing our strategy is essential. We will need different approaches to war zones (Iraq and Afghanistan), fragile countries (Yemen, Nigeria and Pakistan), pivotal regional powers (Turkey, Egypt, Indonesia) and an entire continent -- Europe -- whose problems with Muslim integration pose a long-term strategic challenge all its own.

Defining and implementing country-specific strategies to stem the spread of extremism and strengthen legitimate, accountable government is a difficult but worthy task. If Obama's Cairo speech gives the tactic of engagement this sort of real strategic meaning, then it may be a turning point in America's evolving relations with Arabs and Muslims. After four months, he will have found his "big idea."

Robert Satloff is executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Islam Not to Blame for Bronx Terror Plot

2009-05-26T15:00:00.003-05:00

By Ahmed Rehab | May 25, 2009
Huffington Post

Say what you will about the recently exposed Bronx Terror Plot, but please, do not insult our intelligence (and your own) by weaving fantasy scenarios of how Islam is somehow to blame for criminalizing the terror suspects who were already career criminals long before their conversions -- and who displayed only a rudimentary understanding of Islam thereafter.

At first glance, media headlines gave the impression of a contiguous homegrown "Islamic" terrorist threat, a local outgrowth of the ominous global "Jihadi" network, secretly thriving in our midst but foiled by the FBI at the last minute. It had Islam written all over it, once again implicating American Muslims and spiking fears and suspicion that ours is a problem community, part of a foreign civilization ever at odds with the West, that wants to destroy the United States from within.

Many reports put the blame on Prison Islamic conversions despite the fact that most inmates who properly convert to Islam -- including African-Americans -- change for the better and emerge to lead crime-free lives. The usual excitable figures like NY Rep Peter King jumped on the case, warning that it "demonstrates the real threat from homegrown terrorists." Career Islamophobes like the people at the shadowy organization, the Clarion Fund (producers of the controversial hate films, Obsession, and The Third Jihad) were quick to pounce as well, declaring that the Bronx case was part of a "sophisticated" homegrown Jihad (their word, not mine).

But as more facts have begun to emerge, it turns out that the suspects, one of whom is a crack addict and the other with a history of mental illness, once again, are troubled oddballs operating well outside the mainstream of the American Muslim community and its institutions, with no ties and no support from Mosques, Imams, community leaders, members at large, or even real terrorist threats like Al-Qaeda. Once again, however, it turns out that the radicalization "tipping factor", if you will, was none other than a paid government agent-provocateur.

The Facts:

1. The suspects are petty career criminals with lengthy criminal records (one of them was arrested 27 times); most of their crimes were committed before they converted to Islam in jail. They had a history of violence, drugs, and other criminal activity and are said to be troubled men by family, friends, and neighbors.

2. The suspects appear to be gullible and naive -- hardly the breed of ruthless masterminds that the global terrorist networks like Al Qaeda tend to recruit and deploy. The New York Post called them "a bunch of terror dummies" while the AP describes them as "down-and-out ex-convicts living on the margins in a faded industrial city." Relatives describe them as "struggling" men. The uncle of one of the men, Onta Williams, describes his nephew as "weak and easy to manipulate." The sister of another one of the men, James Cromitie, called him "the stupidest man on the planet." The lawyer of a third man, Laguerre Payen, described his client as "intellectually challenged" stating that he had "a very low borderline IQ." Indeed, Payen, who was on medication for schizophrenia, was deemed too insane to be deported after a previous assault conviction.

3. The suspects appear to have a weak -- even perverse -- understanding of Islam. Salahuddin Muhammad, the Imam of the mosque that one of the men visited, publicly challenged him on his incorrect understanding of Islam stating that the man had "a fundamental lack of knowledge of Islam." The Imam stressed that the man struck him as strange but not violent and that none of the men were regular attendees. Neighbors said that the men routinely barbecued and boozed it up even though devout Muslims shun alcohol and pork. The FBI admits that the men acted alone with no support or knowledge from the mosque or the local Muslim community.

4. American Muslim groups, led by CAIR, strongly condemned the plot against area Synagogues and an Air Force base. Many Muslim activists -- including myself on the Alan Colmes radio show -- came out clearly delineating Islam's condemnation of terrorism and reaffirming Islam's respect for the sanctity of human life.

Radicalized by a Government Agent?

But members of the local Mosque, Masjid al-Ikhlas, said the FBI informant, identified by sources as Shahed Hussain, 52, had long been trying to recruit worshippers there for jihad.

"Everyone knew to stay away from him. We even tried to tell James [Cromitie, one of the suspects] to stay away from him, but he didn't listen," said Abdul Wali, 29, mosque attendee, reports the New York Post.

"It's easy to influence someone with the dollar," said Imam Muhammed, a longtime member of the mosque. "Especially these guys coming out of prison."
Media reports reveal that the informant is a man who has had his own troubles with the law and had been coaxed into working as an informant in order to avoid deportation. He would drive up in his expensive car to the Mosque and offer community members free dinners, cash, or jobs to try to lure them into his fictional Pakistani terrorist connections.

Mosque members seemed to suspect that he was a possible agent-provocateur and were creeped out by his aberrant ways and views. But why was he not reported? Imam Muhammad said he wondered whether he should have done anything differently once he had suspicions about the informant who went by "Maqsood."

"How do you go to the government about the government?" he asked.

The Big Question

A lot has been said about the Bronx terror case since it broke in the media. But an important question that has yet to be publicly debated by all those genuinely concerned about the national security of this nation is this: how should street criminals and psychologically challenged oddballs who are identified by the government as being susceptible to terror fantasies -- but have no connection to global terrorist networks -- be handled by our government?

Should they be tipped over the edge by government agent-provocateurs so as to be caught red-handed, or should they be subjected to a correctional procedure? If it is the latter, whose responsibility would it be to correct those identified as potential threats? Should it be the community's responsibility, government's, society's? It would admittedly not be the role of law enforcement to do so, but is there merit for the creation of a new initiative -- perhaps involving local communities -- to intercept and counter radicalization before it becomes actionable?

The Times Online (UK) reports in an article headlined, "FBI 'lured dimwits' into terror plot," that:

The other question that US security experts were debating was how much had been achieved by assigning more than 100 agents to a year-long investigation of three petty criminals and a mentally ill Haitian immigrant, none of whom had any connection with any known terrorist group. "They were all unsophisticated dimwits," said [defense attorney, Terrance] Kindlon.

In the final analysis, I cannot absolve the Bronx four from personal responsibility, despite the legitimate concerns out there regarding possible entrapment. At the end of the day, at least one of them harbored virulently anti-Semitic and anti-American views, and their actions show demonstrable willingness to engage in bias-motivated violent acts.

But this debate is not so much about the Bronx four, their fates are for the courts to decide. It is, in the end, about understanding the nature of the real terrorist threat against us and raising responsible objections against self-deluding initiatives that seem to seek terror-case quotas by entrapping "intellectually challenged" outcasts and then deceptively marketing their isolated cases as evidence of an imminent and contiguous global threat with homegrown components.

Do Not Be Fooled by Al Zawahiri

2009-05-21T10:30:00.002-05:00

Huffington Post
May 8, 2009

By Ahmed Rehab

Apparently, Al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Al Zawahiri recently sent out an audio message warning Muslims not to be fooled by Obama.

I think I speak for most Muslims around the world and certainly most Muslims in the United States when I say, "Mr. Al Zawahiri, we really don't care what you think."

What level of delusion does it take for someone who has brought nothing but fear and destruction to the world to still think that the world wants to hear from him? The only word I want to hear from Al Zawahiri is "guilty" pronounced in a court of law before he is hauled away to serve multiple life sentences.

I have a message for the few Muslims who actually might care what Al Zawahiri has to say: "Don't be fooled by Al Zawahiri." What has he done for you lately? What have the Al Zawahiris of the world who claim to fight in defense of Islam actually done for Muslims or Islam? What have they done to educate the illiterate, feed the hungry, heal the diseased, or boost the quality of life anywhere in the Muslim world?

The fact is these individuals have devolved into a perverse cult-like existence that engulfs everything around them with anger, hate and self-victimization. They are a disgrace to our faith and a menace to our world.

I have a message for those who are not Muslim who may also be listening to Al Zawahiri: "Don't be fooled by Al Zawahiri." He does not speak for Muslims. He speaks for himself and his band of cohorts.

I cannot help but wonder: what goes through Al Zawahiri's mind when he releases statements on "Muslim public opinion?"

Does he believe that we will think he has access to some polling mechanism or scientific survey we are not aware of? Apparently he has been so secluded from the real world and so entrenched in his own delusional world view that he fails to notice the rest of us actually ask these questions.

Mr. Al Zawahiri, Muslims out there are not the brainwashed minions you surround yourself with and pontificate to without being questioned. If they were, you would be in a palace presiding over an empire, not in a cave presiding over an international organization of outlaws.

And they are in no need of your advice. Most will judge President Obama, not by his words, color, or ancestry, but as they did his predecessor, by his actions.

Nonetheless, it is a farce of our times when a man whose ascension to power through the brute force of bombs can stand to delegitimize a man whose own ascension to power has been through the voice of the people, a tedious and transparent process we call democracy. Obama has the mandate of the people he speaks for; Al Zawahiri in turn has nothing but the usurped powers of a self-serving warlord.

I have one final message; this one goes out to the media:

We don't want to hear what Al Zawahiri or Bin Laden have to say, please do not afford them publicity and legitimacy they do not deserve -- and could not get otherwise.

Copyright © 2009 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc

American Islamic scholars plan Muslim US college in tradition of Brandeis, Notre Dame

2009-05-19T12:23:00.003-05:00

RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer | Los Angeles Times
10:37 AM PDT, May 17, 2009

In this photo taken Monday, May 11, 2009, Imam Zaid Shakir is photographed at the offices of Zaytuna Institute in Berkeley, Calif. Shakir, a Muslim scholar and teacher, plans to soon open Zaytuna Institute, an American Muslim think-tank/educational institution that would be the first four-year accredited American Muslim college. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

PLAINSBORO, N.J. (AP) — A group of American Muslims, led by two prominent scholars, is moving closer to fulfilling a vision of founding the first four-year accredited Islamic college in the United States, what some are calling a "Muslim Georgetown."

Advisers to the project have scheduled a June vote to decide whether the proposed Zaytuna College can open in the fall of next year, a major step toward developing the faith in America.

Imam Zaid Shakir and Sheik Hamza Yusuf of California have spent years planning the school, which will offer a liberal arts education and training in Islamic scholarship. Shakir, a California native, sees the school in the tradition of other religious groups that formed universities to educate leaders and carve a space in the mainstream of American life.

"As a faith community our needs aren't any different than the needs of any other faith community," Shakir told the Council for the Advancement of Muslim Professionals, as he sought donations at a recent conference near Princeton, N.J. "As Muslims, we need to develop institutions to allow us to perpetuate our values."

Others have tried to start Muslim colleges around New York and Chicago, but those schools remained obscure or quickly folded.

Shakir and Yusuf are believed to have a better chance than most to succeed.

Shakir, an African-American Air Force veteran, and Yusuf, a native of Washington state, are converts who spent years studying with Islamic scholars in North Africa and the Mideast. They speak flawless Arabic and have become widely respected teachers. Yusuf draws thousands of people to his talks and tens of thousands of viewers to his online lectures.

In 1996, Yusuf founded Zaytuna Institute, now based in Berkeley, Calif., which is dedicated to classical Muslim scholarship. Zaytuna means "olive tree" in Arabic.

The institute expanded to provide distance learning, workshops in multiple cities and conferences with prominent scholars. Shakir, a Zaytuna teacher for six years, ran a pilot seminary program from 2004-2008, partly to test the viability of a school. An intensive Arabic language summer course, in its second year, has doubled its enrollment.

"It is far and away the single most influential institution that's shaping American Muslim thought," said Omid Safi, an Islamic studies professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. "On the one hand they speak so much about being American. On the other hand, they have also plugged these American Muslim students into the global Muslim curriculum, that has all the rigor of traditional Islamic scholarship."

In earlier years, Shakir and Yusuf had made some anti-American statements, but that rhetoric is not part of their teaching. Zaytuna Institute has clips on its Web site of a lecture by the two scholars called "Curing Extremism." Following a White House meeting with President George W. Bush soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Yusuf made the now widely repeated comment that "Islam was hijacked" by the terrorists and he has condemned the attackers as "mass murderers."

A working motto for the school: "Where Islam Meets America."

Zaytuna College will start with two majors: Arabic language, and Islamic legal and theological studies.

It will not be a seminary, although some graduates could become prayer leaders, or imams. Most U.S. mosques are led by imams from overseas, considered an obstacle to Islam's development in America.

Other students could go on to start American Muslim nonprofits, or become Islamic scholars through advanced study at other schools, said Hatem Bazian, a Zaytuna adviser who teaches at the University of California-Berkeley and Saint Mary's College of California.

But administrators aim to teach analytical skills, along with ethics and theology, that can prepare students for many professional careers.

Zaytuna will start in rented space in Berkeley and will seek accreditation from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. All faiths will be welcome, academic freedom will be protected, and there will be no separation of men and women, Bazian said.

"It is a daunting task, there is no question about it," Bazian said. "But I'm completely confident and comforted that almost every major private university began with one classroom and possibly one building and sometimes it was a rented facility to begin with."

The college needs $2 million to $4 million to launch, a fundraising goal Bazian says organizers will comfortably meet by next year. Zaytuna will soon start raising the tens of millions of dollars needed for an endowment and a capital fund to build a campus in the Bay Area years from now, Bazian said.

Mahmoud Ayoub, a retired professor of Islamic studies Temple University, is among those who don't support the idea of a U.S. Muslim college, not only because of the enormous expense and risk involved, but also because he believes Muslims are better off attending established American schools. He said U.S. Muslims badly need a seminary since there are none in the country.

"I don't know that I would send my child to go to a college where they can only learn tradition. Young people have to live," said Ayoub who has worked with the U.S. State Department, representing America in the Muslim world. "I like mixing people. I don't like ghettos."

But Zaytuna considers the state of Muslim scholarship in the West so "anemic" that a crisis is looming. The Muslim community in North America and Europe, now in the millions, is growing, and has few properly trained leaders to guide them.

"Who will talk for the religion?" Shakir asked. "We have to train a generation."

___

On the Net:

Zaytuna Institute: http://www.zaytuna.org/

Pope In Israel Calls For Palestinian State (VIDEO)

2009-05-11T13:47:00.001-05:00

Pope In Israel Calls For Palestinian State (VIDEO)

Posted using ShareThis

Pope Says He Deeply Respects Islam

2009-05-08T11:39:00.002-05:00

By Voice of America (VOA) News
08 May 2009

King Abdullah II of Jordan and Queen Rania receive Pope Benedict on his arrival in Amman, 08 May 2009

Pope Benedict XVI expressed his "deep respect" for Islam at the start of a week-long pilgrimage to the Middle East.

The Roman Catholic Church leader arrived in Amman, Friday, and addressed an audience that included King Abdullah. During his three-day stay in Jordan, the pontiff will meet Muslim religious leaders, and visit a mosque and Biblical sites.

Members of Jordan's conservative Muslim Brotherhood are boycotting the visit, still angry over the pope's 2006 quotation of a centuries-old criticism of Islam.

Benedict will celebrate Mass at a sports stadium in Amman Sunday. Catholics make up less than two percent of Jordan's mainly-Muslim population.

His trip is billed as a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and includes stops in Israel and the Palestinian territories. He is expected to visit sites of significance to Christians and work to improve relations with Muslims and Jews.

In Jerusalem, the pontiff is slated to visit Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial and places holy to Christianity, Islam and Judaism. He will also go to Bethlehem in the West Bank and Nazareth in northern Israel.

Israel says it will deploy some 80,000 security personnel during Pope Benedict's visit.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.

US pro-Israeli group attempts to stop shift in White House Middle East policy

2009-05-08T11:31:00.001-05:00

Aipac urges Congress members to sign letter to Barack Obama calling for Israel to set pace of negotiations with Palestinians
Chris McGreal in Washington
UK Guardian | Wednesday 6 May 2009

US congressional leaders and the most powerful pro-Israel lobby group in the US are attempting to forestall a significant shift in the White House's Middle East policy.

The move comes amid growing signs that the US president, Barack Obama, intends to press for urgent efforts to be made towards the creation of a Palestinian state.

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, is visiting Washington later this month amid growing expectations that Obama is preparing to take a tougher line over Israel's reluctance to actively seek a two-state solution to its conflict with the Palestinians.

It will be the first time that Netanyahu and Obama have met since both were elected.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) this week sent hundreds of lobbyists to urge members of Congress to sign a letter to Obama.

The letter, written by two House of Representatives leaders, calls for Israel to be allowed to set the pace of negotiations.

The lobbying came despite critics saying Netanyahu has consistently failed to commit himself to the creation of a Palestinian state.

The letter calls for the maintenance of the status quo, with an emphasis on Palestinian institution-building before there can be an end to Israeli occupation.

It says the US "must be both a trusted mediator and devoted friend of Israel".

Aipac's move to put pressure on members of Congress came at the end of its annual conference in Washington this week.

Some of the loudest applause at the gathering came in response to calls for military attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities – something Netanyahu has attempted to portray as a more urgent issue than the Palestinian question.

But Aipac delegates were told by the US vice-president, Joe Biden, that the administration favours "mutual respect" in dealing with Iran.

Biden said the Israeli-Palestinian conflict strengthened Iran's strategic position and Israel must take concrete steps – including fulfilling often-broken commitments to stop the expansion of Jewish settlements – towards the creation of a Palestinian state.

Last week, General James Jones, Obama's national security adviser, told a European foreign minister that the new administration would be "forceful" with Israel, according to a classified Israeli memo reported by the Ha'aretz newspaper.

Jones was quoted as saying that Obama believes Washington, the EU and moderate Arab states must define "a satisfactory endgame solution".

"The new administration will convince Israel to compromise on the Palestinian question," he was quoted as saying. "We will not push Israel under the wheels of a bus, but we will be more forceful toward Israel than we have been under Bush."

During his election campaign, Obama alarmed Israel's hardline supporters by saying he regarded the lack of a resolution to the conflict as a "constant sore" that "infect[s] all of our foreign policy".

Netanyahu dare not openly defy Washington, and yesterday told the Aipac conference by satellite that he was ready for negotiations with the Palestinians.

But Aipac has moved to counter any new White House initiative by trying to mobilise Congress against it through the letter, written by two people seen as extremely close to the lobby group – Steny Hoyer, the Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives, and Eric Cantor, the Republican whip.

The two men addressed an Aipac banquet attended by more than half the members of Congress on Monday, each standing in turn at a "roll call" of support for Israel.

On the face of it, the letter is a call for a peace, but its specifics urge Obama to maintain years of US policy that has tacitly accepted Israeli stalling of peace negotiations.

The letter says that "the best way to achieve future success between Israelis and Palestinians will be by adhering to basic principles that have undergirded our policy".

These include "acceptance that the parties themselves must negotiate the details of any agreement" as well as demanding that the Palestinians first "build the institutions necessary for a viable state" before gaining independence.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the leader of J-street, a pro-Israel lobby group that favours the swift establishment of a Palestinian state, said that, while Aipac claims it supports a two-state solution, the letter is an attempt to prevent the White House from putting pressure on Israel to make that happen.

"They don't come right out and say we don't want Israel to make concessions, we don't want Israel to leave the West Bank," he said.

"They'll say, 'Of course we believe there should be peace'. But then they'll do what this letter does. "They'll say, 'When the Israeli government decides it is ready to have a two-state solution, then there'll be a two-state solution'."

Aipac wields considerable influence in the US Congress. Its critics say that what amounts to bullying pressure tactics has narrowed the room for debate about Israel, and claim the group has played a leading role in unseating some members of Congress who were critical of the Jewish state's policies.

CAIR’s Humanitarian Mission to Iran

2009-05-08T11:26:00.001-05:00

By Mahmoud El-Yousseph

May 5, 2009

The current relations between the U.S. and Iran are not a pretty picture; in fact it is like a roller-coaster ride. This is a bad news for Muslims in America and abroad.

Iran is bitter over its billions of dollars in frozen assets still in U.S. banks for the last three decades, following the takeover of our embassy in Tehran. Secondly, the U.S. government maintains a hostile attitude and insistence to quash Iran’s ambitions to build a peaceful nuclear program. There are nine other nations on this planet earth who have a nuclear program, but no one gives a hoot!

Iran also has faults of its own. Its human rights records are not flattering, especially when it comes to U.S. citizens living in Iran. That by itself does not help reduce tensions between the two nations, either.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is not sitting on the sideline as spectator, but rather wants to do some thing to narrow the gap. CAIR, which is a leading Muslim-American civil liberties group has assembled a delegation to fly to Iran on short notice to resolve some of the outstanding issues. The group as of this writing is awaiting visas and entry permits.

Among the items the group will discuss with Iranian officials are: the status of Roxana Saberi, Esha Momeni, and Robert Levinson.

Roxana Saberi: a journalist who was sentenced recently to eight years in jail on espionage charges. The Fargo, North Dakota native was born to an Iranian father and Japanese mother. She was elected as Miss North Dakota in 1997. Iran claimed first that she was working without press credentials, then she purchased a bottle of wine. She just celebrated her 33rd birthday in jail.

Esha Momeni: a graduate student at California State University. Like Miss Saberi, she is also a U.S.-born citizen. Her parents are Iranians and she is a dual national. Miss Momeni was arrested in Iran in October 2008 after she allegedly passed another car illegally. She was released later, but her research materials were confiscated and she was banned from leaving Iran to continue her study.

Robert Levinson is a former FBI agent who was mysteriously disappeared two years ago on the Iranian island of Kish. The CAIR delegation is carrying a letter from Mr. Levinson’s family to be delivered to Iranian officials, with the hope that the letter might crack the case. The Swiss government, who acts on behalf of U.S. interests in Iran, did not have much luck solving this case.

Contrary to its critics, CAIR does care about America and wants America to be a better and a safer place not only for Muslims, but for all of us.

CAIR’s mission is an attempt to use cultural and religious similarities with Iran in order to open a door that otherwise would have been closed. So credit is where credit is due Here are examples of CAIR’s actions during the last nine years:

* Took out a full page ad in The New York Times to condemn the 9/11 attacks, in which it urged all American Muslims to contribute money, donate blood and help with the medical relief operation. [ The N.Y. Times 16 September, 2001]

* Came to the defense of a Jewish reporter who worked for a Kansas City newspaper, who was fired from her job one day after she married a Palestinian. [April 9, 2003 U.S. News Wire]

* When four members of the Christian Peacemaker Team were taken hostage in Iraq in 2005, CAIR demanded their immediate and unconditional release, stating that harming them would not advance the cause of innocent Iraqi prisoners held by U.S. forces.

* After American journalist Jill Carrol was taken hostage in Iraq in 2006, CAIR risked the life of its own members by sending a delegation to Iraq to plea for her release. Eventually she won her freedom.

CAIR, who has a solid patriotic record, should be commended for its humanitarian mission. This was also done in compliance of the Islamic teaching which calls on Muslims to “forgive those who oppressed you, give to whomever deprived you, and reach out to the one who ignored you.”

Make no mistake, when CAIR was preparing for this “mission of mercy”, the group was speaking for seven million American Muslims who want nothing more than normal and better relations between their country and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Mahmoud El-Yousseph

Retired USAF Veteran

See: http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/cairs-humanitarian-mission-to-iran/

Biden tells AIPAC: Israel must support two-state solution

2009-05-07T13:37:00.001-05:00

HAARETZ | May 5, 2009
By Natasha Mozgovaya and Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondents, and The Associated Press

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden pressed Israel on Tuesday to support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in an address to the leading pro-Israel lobby during its annual conference in Washington.

"Israel has to work for a two state-solution. You're not going to like my saying this, but not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement ... and access to economic opportunity," Biden told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Biden also said the Palestinian Authority "must combat terror and incitement against Israel."

The vice president reiterated U.S. commitment to Israel's security, saying: "With all the change you will hear about, there is one enduring, essential principle that will not change; and that is our commitment to the peace and security of the state of Israel."

"That is not negotiable. That is not a matter of change. That is something to be reinforced and made clear. It seems almost unnecessary to state it, but I want the word to go forth in here that no one should mistake it.‬"

Biden's comments came ahead of a meeting between President Shimon Peres and President Barack Obama later on Tuesday and less than two weeks before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits the White House.

As Netanyahu's visit to Washington on May 17 approaches, the United States has been sending strong messages on the establishment of a Palestinian state and Israeli settlement activity.

In a speech to the AIPAC on Monday, Netanyahu said he was ready to begin Israeli-Palestinian peace talks immediately but he made no reference to a Palestinian state.

General James Jones, national security adviser to Obama, told a European foreign minister a week ago that unlike the Bush administration, Obama will be "forceful" with Israel.

Meanwhile, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told AIPAC delegates on Monday night that two states for two peoples is the only solution the United States is committed to.

"Relations between Israel and the U.S. are unbreakable," Emanuel said before a gathering of 350 AIPAC donors, adding that "this is the moment of truth for Israel and the Palestinians."

He also declared that "Iran is the number-one threat to the Middle East," and noted that it is hard to make progress wherever Tehran is involved in the Middle East.

Emanuel called for Israeli-Palestinian cooperation if Iran is to be countered effectively.

He said the United States was trying to enter a dialogue with countries such as Syria and Iran, even though it was still unclear whether these countries would alter their behavior. He reiterated that the United States wants to talk with Iran in the hope that Tehran will relinquish its efforts to gain nuclear weapons.

Jones is the main force in the Obama administration stressing the Palestinian question and believes that the United States must become more intensively involved in the matter vis-a-vis both Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Several days ago, a classified telegram was received in Jerusalem discussing a meeting between Jones and a European foreign minister. Jones told his European interlocutor that President George W. Bush had avoided actions on the Palestinian question that Israel opposed, but the Obama administration intended to change this practice and become more active. It would not make concessions on matters that Israel had committed to.

"The new administration will convince Israel to compromise on the Palestinian question," Jones said. "We will not push Israel under the wheels of a bus, but we will be more forceful toward Israel than we have been under Bush."

Jones is quoted in the telegram as saying that the United States, European Union and moderate Arab states must redefine "a satisfactory endgame solution."

The U.S. national security adviser did not mention Israel as party to these consultations.

In the face of the strongly worded American signals, Netanyahu reiterated on Monday to the Knesset that "recognition of the State of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people is the necessary basis for genuine peace between us and our Palestinian neighbors."

In the upcoming days Uzi Arad, Netanyahu's national security adviser, will travel to London for a meeting with his American counterpart to discuss the meeting between the prime minister and Obama on May 18.

President Shimon Peres also addressed the AIPAC conference on Monday, and complimented the new U.S. president. He described Obama's election as having "engulfed the world with a huge wave of hope."

"President Barack Obama was elected at a time of difficult crises around the world," Peres said. "I am convinced that he has the abilities to transform these crises into opportunities."

Peres also said that "Israel is extending its arms with open hands for peace with all peoples, with all Arab states, with all the Arab peoples. To those who still stand with clenched fists I have only one word: enough. No more war. No more destruction. No more hate. Now is the time for change. The definition of success according to Israel is not by wars that were imposed on us and which we won, but by the peace we gained with some of our neighbors."

Peres' speech drew criticism from the main opposition party, Kadima, which accused the president of becoming a public relations agent for Netanyahu.

"Instead of being president of Israel he became president of the government," a source in Kadima said.

Former finance minister Roni Bar-On described Peres as a defense attorney for Netanyahu who was sent to the United States "to ease the hearing that will be held on May 18" before Obama.

Meanwhile, some observers in the United States have expressed concerns that the differences between Israel and the new U.S. administration are leading to a clash.

Robert Satloff, the director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said he is concerned by the disagreements between Israel and the United States regarding Iran.

"If there is no complete agreement on all the details in dealing with this issue, there is a chance for the most serious dispute between the U.S. and Israel in the entire 61 years of relations between the two," Satloff said.

DVD spreads positive Islamic image

2009-05-07T10:35:00.001-05:00

The News Observer | May. 2, 2009
Newspaper ad insert sidesteps controversy
BY YONAT SHIMRON, Staff writer

Wake County residents in three ZIP codes will find a DVD about Islam bundled in their issues of The News & Observer today, as Muslim residents initiate a public relations effort to counteract a controversial DVD distributed in the paper in September.
Today's DVD,"The Fog is Lifting: Islam in Brief," was produced by an Egyptian nonprofit group intent on explaining Islam to non-Muslims. It offers an orthodox defense of Islamic precepts and theology without engaging in issues such as politics or terrorism.

"If the media keeps presenting a certain stereotype, people need to see the other side," said Mona Dakrouri, an Egyptian-American living in Cary, who was trained to speak to interfaith groups by the Bridges Foundation, which produced the DVD.

In September, The News & Observer, along with 70 other newspapers nationwide, accepted as paid advertising a DVD called "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West."

That DVD, which featured scenes of Muslim children being encouraged to become suicide bombers, interspersed with those of Nazi rallies, stirred anger among Muslims locally and across the nation.

Reaction was swift and overwhelmingly negative. Locally, members of Muslim groups met with The News & Observer's publisher and executive editor.

Today's distribution includes 20,000 copies of the DVD in an orange cardboard sleeve that reads, "A gift from your neighbor." The Raleigh chapter of the Muslim American Society took on the responsibility of distributing the DVD.

Dakrouri said the group paid The News & Observer $2,400 to bundle the DVD into the Saturday paper. It will go to ZIP codes 27606, 27607 and parts of 27511. Most of the DVD's contents are also available on at www.youtube.com, by typing in "The Fog is Lifting."

Not everyone in the Muslim community agrees with the strategy.

"It doesn't address the real concerns people have about Islam," said Khalilah Sabra, an organizer with the Muslim American Society. "Americans want to know how Islam affects them. They know about the prophet Muhammad."

"The Fog is Lifting" is the brainchild of Fadel Soliman, the director of the Bridges Foundation and an Egyptian living in Cairo. A successful computer engineer and marketing expert, Soliman became convinced of the need for interfaith outreach after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 created a backlash against Islam.

His DVD is intended to appeal to Westerners, and it makes the case that philosophers such as Aristotle, René Descartes, and Immanuel Kant had notions of God that fit harmoniously with Islam. The DVD makes the claim that the theory of evolution is false and that the Prophet Muhammad was admired by people such as Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi and German writer Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

"It's a full-throated defense of the tradition in which Islam is presented as the perfect egalitarian, scientific, pluralistic, modern religion that doesn't have the flaws of all the other religions," said Omid Safi, a professor of religion at UNC-Chapel Hill. "It remains to be seen if it will be seen as preaching to the choir, or if will succeed in persuading people outside the Muslim community."

At least one Raleigh Muslim said outreach to non-Muslims should not depend on a DVD but on a concerted effort to engage people in conversation -- a conversation aimed not at conversion but at understanding.

"As a community, we fall way short of having an effective outreach to society," Iyad Hindi said. "A DVD is one effort. We need much more to have an impact."

Taking a stand for the Iran journalist

2009-05-06T12:21:00.001-05:00

The Daily Illini
The Daily Illini Editorial Board
May 5th, 2009

In an effort to support American journalist Roxana Saberi, some faculty and students at Northwestern started a hunger strike Friday. Iran denies it, but Saberi herself has been on a hunger strike since April 21, protesting her eight-year prison sentence. She was arrested in late January, initially a...In an effort to support American journalist Roxana Saberi, some faculty and students at Northwestern started a hunger strike Friday. Iran denies it, but Saberi herself has been on a hunger strike since April 21, protesting her eight-year prison sentence. She was arrested in late January, initially accused of working without press credentials. But in early April, an Iranian judge charged her with espionage. She was then sentenced after a one-day trial behind closed doors. Her lawyer appealed the ruling. The case has caused tension between Washington and Iran, straining an already contentious relationship.

As difficult, foreign and far away as the case may be, it hasn't stopped people from trying to free her and get her story told. The Rev. Jesse Jackson is trying to get a visa to travel to Iran to negotiate Saberi's release. The Council on American-Islamic Relations is working on delegations, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already asked Iran for Saberi's release. The case has also touched students back at Northwestern.

Saberi has dual citizenship in the U.S. and Iran and graduated from Northwestern in 1999 with a master's degree in journalism. Six years ago, she moved to Iran and worked as a freelance journalist for numerous news organizations, including National Public Radio and the British Broadcasting Corp. A journalism professor at Northwestern said Saberi always wrote very in-depth pieces and that as a journalist in Iran, she was able to give a voice to those who didn't have one — and those who couldn't have one. Perhaps that's why Saberi faced such serious charges and was given an eight-year prison sentence. She has an appeal in Iran, but it is still going to be a rough case for the journalist. The Iranian government does not acknowledge dual citizenship. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi said Monday that because Saberi is of Iranian nationality, she will be treated according to Iranian laws.

Either way, it's inspiring to see students take a stand for one of their own. If any University alumni were in Saberi's position, Illini would surely do the same — at least, we would hope to do the same. But to see active participation from the Northwestern students should be a reminder to everyone that it does make a difference to stand up for what you believe in. Saberi may or may not be discharged from her eight-year prison sentence soon. If she is, it won't be because the students and faculty at Northwestern went on a hunger strike. But their actions shed light on the situation, to the circumstances and to their alumna's case.

The students could have chosen other actions to support Saberi. They could have gone on a strike with picket signs. They could have written letters to their local representatives and to Clinton. They could have lobbied and made phone calls. But in reality, none of the letters they would have sent to Clinton would have made it to Clinton's desk; none of their phone calls would have made it past some secretary's desk. Not to say that lobbying, writing letters and making calls doesn't have an effect — it does. Any action, as small as it may be, means something and does have an effect. And the students and faculty at Northwestern decided to go on a hunger strike, and that was the best plan of action for this case.

It's important for students to know that if they believe in something, they should stand up for it. They should make their voices heard. Right now, Roxana Saberi's voice is being silenced while she is waiting for her appeal; waiting in Tehran's Evin prison on a hunger strike. While her voice is silenced, the students and faculty at Northwestern are speaking for her. And as the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.

Foreign occupation is the driving force of suicide terrorism, says Robert A. Pape

2009-05-06T12:04:00.003-05:00

University of Chicago Professor Robert A. Pape

Today's Zaman
03 May 2009, Sunday
KERİM BALCI İSTANBUL

University of Chicago Professor Robert A. Pape refutes the common myth that suicide bombers are young, uneducated and easily led misfits who are inspired by religious fervor and driven by poverty and alienation. Rather, he says they tend to be educated, socially integrated and highly capable people who would live a good life if foreign occupation of their territories had not turned them into suicide bombers.

Pape lists community prestige, revenge and religious feelings as three motivations behind suicide terrorism, but he says these are effective only in the presence of a foreign occupation.

"Ninety-five percent of all suicide attacks in the world are driven by foreign military occupation," says Pape.

He thinks that the sudden increase in suicide attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2005 can only be explained by the fact that in that year NATO powers began their occupation of Kandahar and eastern Afghanistan. He recalls that as soon as Israel pulled out of Lebanon in 2000, Hezbullah stopped all its suicide attacks. Pape is critical of Western leaders who keep calling on Muslim clerics to defeat the extremists and "be good Muslims." According to Pape, the solution to suicide terrorism is for foreign occupying forces to pull out their ground troops, while all Muslim leaders need to do is cooperate with Western leaders who will do that.

Sunday's Zaman spoke with Professor Pape, who has compiled the largest database of suicide bombings in the world, with about 2,000 cases analyzed in detail. He published his groundbreaking book "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism" in 2005, and his database has continued to grow since then. We asked Pape, who traveled to Turkey to participate in a NATO conference on fighting suicide terrorism, about his earlier work on air-bombing strategies and concepts he has developed, such as "coercion by punishment" and "off-shore balancing."

Is anyone who carries a bomb and blows it up a suicide terrorist?

Well, first of all, I use the term "suicide terrorist" not for political reasons. If someone wants to call them "self-martyrs," I have no problem with that whatsoever. I am using this term simply because it is readily more understandable to Western readers and listeners. In defining what a suicide terrorist is, I have two criteria: One is that they have to kill themselves, and second, it has to be on a mission to kill others. We don't count someone who kills himself or herself to avoid capture.

In your book you refute the commonly accepted "suicide terrorist stereotype." Why is that?

Our study shows that suicide terrorists are overwhelmingly deeply integrated into their local communities. They are not isolated. Out of over 2,000 we have in our database, only a handful could be called depressed. It is not that they are marginalized, isolated people thrown into depression; these are people who are politically active, reasonably well educated. They are people who would go on [to have] a productive life had they not become deeply angered at the presence of foreign combat forces threatening the territory that they value.

So you claim that foreign occupation is one major reason why reasonable, rational people are turning into suicide bombers?

Ninety-five percent of all suicide attacks in the world are driven by foreign military occupation. Just take the example of Afghanistan. There was no suicide terrorism before the American forces were deployed in Afghanistan. The numbers were reasonably low up until 2005. Then something happened in that year that caused suicide terrorism to increase. There is a very similar pattern in Pakistan. These are Afghan nationals hitting NATO military targets. Why?

For the first couple of years of our occupation of Afghanistan, we were not occupying the country. We only stayed in Kabul. Then in October 2003, the UN gave NATO a mandate to occupy the rest of the country. NATO developed a plan to occupy the country in stages. By late 2005, when we started to occupy southern and eastern Afghanistan, we created this surge in suicide bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Seventy-five percent of all the Afghan and Pakistani suicide bombings happen in this border zone.

The key thing here is to see that US combat operations are driving suicide terrorism around the world. What is happening is not that you are getting a global jihad. What is happening is that you are getting local opposition to a military presence. Because of these findings, I am concerned about sending new troops to Afghanistan.

I used to think that suicide bombers have personal revenge issues. I know only the Palestinian cases, of course.

We have found that there are three incentives: One is prestige; they want to be heroes. To that end, they are making martyrdom videos. Second is revenge, I mean, revenge for atrocities directed against family members or friends. And the third is religion. But what is really important is an additional mixed motive: anger at the presence of foreign military on the territories or threatening those territories. If you take that additional motive away, those other three don't seem to produce suicide terrorism.

Let me give you an example. Lebanon is a very interesting case by means of having no suicide bombings recently. Most people study suicide terrorism when it does happen but not when it doesn't. I do both. In Lebanon, there was no suicide terrorism before 1982, when Israel invaded southern Lebanon. In 2000, Israel leaves and suicide terrorism goes to zero. I mean the Hezbullah terrorism does not follow Israel to Tel Aviv. That not only means that this isn't about religious fanatics looking for an excuse to get a quick trip to heaven, but it also means that only revenge is not enough to become suicide bombers. There were a lot of people who had been abused by those 18 years of occupation, but they didn't run after the Israelis for revenge.

Why do people think that suicide bombers are drug-taking religious fanatics with all kinds of psychological illnesses?

There are several reasons. Before 9/11, there wasn't much serious study of terrorism. It was studied by governments, and these studies were not subjected to peer review. On 9/11, I was not a terrorism expert. I was studying air forces. So the day after 9/11, I went and bought a Quran because I wanted to know what is wrong with Islam. But then, as I studied the data, I came to realize that the phenomenon was not rooted in religion at all.

The second explanation is related to the natural human tendency that treats our villains as monsters. It is a great way to come to grips with evil. When there are awful acts being committed, it makes us more uncomfortable when we realize that they were done by ordinary people. Look at the Holocaust, for example. This is one of the most villainous events in human history, but it was perpetrated by ordinary Germans. They were not really strange, indoctrinated, brainwashed people. They were not Frankenstein-like monsters. They were just ordinary people caught up in a certain ugly time. This makes it even more unbearable.

The first Palestinian suicide bombing came after 20 years of occupation. The first Iraqi suicide bombing came on the third day of the American occupation. How do you explain this?

It is becoming more popular because it has the reputation of being politically successful. I don't think that the issue is that it is becoming tactically easier or that we have more religious fanatics today than 20 years ago. In October 1983, there was a truck bombing in the marine barracks in Beirut that killed 231 marines. As a result of that attack, just two months later Ronald Reagan decided to pull all the American soldiers out of Lebanon. That same day the French did the same. That event congealed the conventional wisdom that suicide terrorism produces powerful effects. When the Tamil Tigers organized their first suicide attack in 1987, they actually carbon copied what happened in 1983.

In the Palestinian case, if you look at the trajectory of the settlements year by year, you will see that an increase in settlement activity corresponds amazingly to the violence. I think the reason that the suicide attacks have slowed down recently is precisely because the geographic reach of the settlements has been reduced. Settlements are growing still, but they are growing vertically, not horizontally.

Are you saying that the only solution is to end the occupation?

I am. Pull out the ground troops, but not immediately and not all at once. The US has to adopt strategies that pursue American interests but that do not rely on ground forces. I think that our strategy should be what I call offshore balancing. The US and the West have to withdraw their ground forces over a period of three to four years from Iraq and the rest of the peninsula and rely on navy forces and air forces offshore. We don't need to micro-manage the domestic politics of countries; we don't need to be picking the prime minister of Iraq every single time.

What can the Muslim intellectuals do to help?

Political action… I think it was a mistake for the West to encourage Muslim clerics to beat the radicals among them and be better Muslims. We need the Muslim leaders to push forward political solutions to problems. That means supporting political leaders in other countries who look for diplomatic solutions. This summer there is a crucial election in Afghanistan. This election has to be free and open. It should not be an instance where we are giving people an opportunity to vote for [Hamid] Karzai, who needs to win. I think that is something the Muslims all around the world should cry out for. They should ask for true, real democratic elections in Afghanistan. They should want that it should be monitored by international organizations. If it turns out that the elections are biased in favor of simply keeping Karzai in power, the situation there could become even worse.

Some experts claim that we will see nuclear or chemical suicide terrorism in the future.

If the terrorist organizations acquire nuclear weapons, you will certainly find suicide bombers around it. They won't be able to set up nuclear plants and produce more than one or two nuclear weapons. They won't just risk being noticed by the security forces.

By means of chemical weapons, we have to worry about a prolonged occupation in Iraq or Afghanistan. The occupation is not only creating more suicide attacks, but it is also encouraging scientists to become part of the terrorist groups. A 20-year-old college kid can be a good suicide bomber, but he won't produce sarin gas. But a 35-year-old biochemist can do that.

In "Bombing to Win" you developed the concepts of "coercion by punishment" and "coercion by denial." Can you evaluate the failure of the Israeli forces in Lebanon with these concepts?

They apparently didn't read the book. With the coming of airplanes, people started to think that they can simply bomb civilian populations and have a coercive effect on the people and on the governments without having to beat the military forces. That logic sounds very reasonable. But this has been tried now -- throughout the entire 20th century -- about 40 times, and we have almost no cases of success.

In 2006, the Israeli strategy was to weaken Hezbullah. They believed that they could weaken Hezbullah both by killing Hezbullah fighters and by weakening the political support Hezbullah is taking from the community. That is why they hit some of the bridges and road networks around southern Beirut. They were trying to separate southern Beirut from the electric power grid. But this also had a big effect on the people. This strategy not only failed, but it actually produced a backlash, where [Hassan] Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbullah, was able to organize a rally a month after the operation in Martyrs' Square in Beirut, and something like a half million Shiites showed up. It went from having the support of a few thousand people to almost every Shiite in the country. When the Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, Hezbullah was being criticized in Egypt, Turkey and Jordan. What happened six weeks later? Hezbullah became the hero. This was as much of a failure, a disaster that could be possible for everyone but especially for Israel.

What Shariah Law Is All About

2009-04-24T15:42:00.001-05:00

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf Chairman, Cordoba Initiative
Huffington Post
Posted April 24, 2009

We hear a lot about "firebrand" Muslim clerics calling for the installation of Shariah law. It conjures images of women being stoned and forced into hiding behind burkas and denied educations. We think of beheadings and amputations as a form of justice. And we cringe.

But it is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is about God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." The Declaration says "men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.

Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah.

In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government - legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.

The two pieces of unfinished business in Muslim countries are to revise the penal code so that it is responsive to modern realities and to ensure that the balance between the three branches of government is not out of kilter.

Rather than fear Shariah law, we should understand what it actually is. Then we can encourage Muslim countries to make the changes that achieve the essence of fairness and justice that are at the root of Islam.

Bringing it all back home

2009-04-17T19:29:00.000-05:00

Obama's efforts to repair relations with Muslims abroad are admirable. But what about those living in the US?
Wajahat Ali, Guardian, 4/9/09

While visiting Turkey this week, President Barack Hussain Obama, the multicultural Superman for the globalised world, proclaimed: "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans," despite a recent ABC/Washington Post poll showing 48% of Americans hold an unfavourable opinion of Islam, the highest unfavourablity rating since 2001.

With his inaugural world tour, President Obama's rhetoric hopes to repair and rebuild diplomatic bridges with Muslim countries recklessly abandoned by George Bush's aggressive, Yosemite Sam foreign policy – one which resulted in heightened animosity, mutual mistrust, and civilian causalities written off as collateral damage. However, perhaps the frayed relationship with Muslim citizens at home in the US should also be considered.

After avoiding Muslim American organizations, mosques and high profile leaders like the plague during his campaign, Obama now embraces them under his United Colours of Benetton tent by stating: "Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because I am one of them."

Ironically, the traditional "Sick Man of Europe" – the disparaging nickname attributed to Turkey since the 19th century – blossoms like a passionately coveted maiden wooed by the new "Sick Man of the World," the US. Because it has Nato's second largest army, a moderate disposition towards Israel, a respect for secular democracy, and a valuable border with Iraq, Turkey emerges as a "critical ally" for the United States and an ideal training ground for Obama's foreign diplomacy.

The president's attempt to persuade "the Muslim world" that "the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam" is encouraging and honourable but perhaps naively idealistic. One cannot blame Muslims for feeling a little skeptical when confronted with the eight-year reality of the Bush administration's unilateral invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, belligerent rhetoric towards Muslim countries, and the continued scapegoating and profiling of many Muslim Americans as Manchurian candidates and potential undercover jihadists.

In light of these hysterical and terrifying times, Obama earns respect for his rhetoric reflecting confidence, humility and conciliation as he encouraged a "partnership with the Muslim world." Although Muslims and Europeans alike rapturously applauded his words, the reality remains that 53% of Americans "don't personally know a Muslim" and 55% concede "they lack a good basic understanding of Islam." Due to Muslims, Islam and the Middle East appearing ubiquitously in the mainstream media over the past eight years, it is of no surprise that "29% express the belief that mainstream Islam' encourages violence against non-Muslims." When the oft-repeated, stereotypical depictions of a richly diverse and multicultural population of 1.5 billion is limited to sensational acts of extremism, violence and fanaticism exhibited by a fractional minority can there be any other result?

If partnership with Muslims is truly our intention, then the hand must first be extended to Muslims at home. Sadly, this was not the case when the FBI recently admitted to planting an informant at a California mosque, whose mission was to pose as a Muslim and actively "recruit terrorists." This revelation follows in the footsteps of the FBI's myopic decision last fall to cut off relations with the largest American Muslim civil rights organization, Council on American Islamic Relations (Cair) - undoubtedly a move influenced by certain powerful lobby groups. Deceptive, disrespectful and disingenuous methods like these continue to erode the FBI's dwindling currency with a patriotic Muslim American population eager to assist the government in its anti-terrorism efforts. However, they must first be treated as partners and not suspects.

Undoubtedly, this paranoid view of Muslim Americans as potential ticking time bombs corrupts the national mindset. Recently, the airline AirTran kicked a Muslim American family off the plane due to "suspicious behavior" and refused to rebook them despite requests from FBI agents, who had escorted the family off the plane, performed a detailed background check, and cleared them of any wrongdoing. Moreover, not too long ago nearly 13% of registered voters were convinced Obama was secretly a Muslim.

However, despite the fear-mongering shamefully hawked by an ignorant minority – such as Republican Senator Jon Kyl, who recently hosted the unabashedly xenophobic Geert Wilders and his Islamophobic movie in the Capitol – Obama should be commended for reaching out to civic-minded Americans, who also happen to be Muslims. Obama tapped Rashad Hussain, a talented and dynamic American Muslim, as his deputy associate counsel. Obama's faith advisory council now includes Dalia Mogahed, the head of the Gallup Centre for Muslim Studies, and Eboo Patel, the founder and executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core.

Both Mogahed and Patel were invited to speak by Senator John Kerry in front of the Senate foreign relations committee at an event entitled, "Engaging with Muslim communities around the world," coincidentally hosted on the same day as Senator Kyl's screening of the inflammatory movie. The actions of Kyl and Kerry illuminate two paths: one that continues to fuel hatred, prejudice and fear by perpetuating virulent stereotypes, and another that seeks mutual understanding and partnership through active dialogue and engagement.

One hopes Obama's respectful tone and words of friendship in a domestic and international arena can eventually transform pretty rhetoric into an enlightened policy that gradually dissolves the poisonous suspicions - and delivers a much-needed catharsis for all.

Israeli settlers storm al-Aqsa Mosque

2009-04-13T22:58:00.006-05:00

Al-Aqsa is a mosque in Jerusalem located near the Dome of the Rock and is the third holiest site in the world to Muslims.

Press TV | April 13, 2009

In another act of hostility against the Palestinians, scores of Israeli settlers stormed the al-Aqsa Mosque's courtyard in occupied al-Quds.

Eyewitnesses said the illegal settlers led by radical leaders forced their way into the Haram al-Sharif (Holy Sanctuary) courtyard, but Israeli police did not try to stop them.

Police officers later on attacked Palestinian worshipers and arrested one when they tried to apparently stop the extremist settlers from causing damage inside the courtyard.

According to reports, police also harassed other worshipers who were conducting their midday prayers at the Mosque in al-Quds (Jerusalem).

Palestinian sources said groups of right-wing Israeli extremists made three attempts on Monday to get in: First in the morning, then again at midday followed by another attempt in the afternoon.

Hatem Abdul Qader, who handles the affairs for the Palestinian Authority in al-Quds, warned that ultra-orthodox Jewish groups had planned to storm the al-Aqsa Mosque on Thursday to hold Jewish prayers.

Abdul Qader called on the Palestinians in al-Quds and Israeli Arabs to stand up to the extremist Jews and prevent them from violating the sanctity of one of Islam's holiest shrines.

Since last week, the Palestinian committee for al-Quds has said that local activists and youths will have a full-time presence at the gates of the mosque to prevent intrusions that tend to happen during Jewish holidays such as this weekend's Passover festival.

Losing the 'war on terror'

2009-04-09T00:12:00.002-05:00

By dropping the controversial phrase, the U.S. may be redefining the contest with radical Islam.
By Reza Aslan
Los Angeles Times (April 8, 2009)

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton let slip last week that the Obama administration has finally abandoned the phrase "war on terror." Its absence had been noted by commentators. There was no directive, Clinton said, "it's just not being used."

It may seem a trivial thing, but the change in rhetoric marks a significant turning point in the ideological contest with radical Islam. That is because the war on terror has always been a conflict more rhetorical than real. There is, of course, a very real, very bloody military component in the struggle against extremist forces in the Muslim world, though one can argue whether the U.S. and allied engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond are an integral part of that struggle, a distraction from it or, worse, evidence of its subversion and failure. But to the extent that the war on terror has been posited, from the start, as a war of ideology -- a clash of civilizations -- it is a rhetorical war, one fought more constructively with words and ideas than with guns and bombs.

The truth is that the phrase "war on terror" has always been problematic, not just because "terror," "terrorism" and "terrorist" are wastebasket terms that often convey as much about the person using them as they do about the events or people being described, but because this was never meant to be a war against terrorism per se. If it were, it would have involved the Basque separatists in Spain, the Hindu/Marxist Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the Maoist rebels in eastern India, Israeli ultranationalists, the Kurdish PKK, remnants of the Irish Republican Army and the Sikh separatist movements, and so on.

Rather, the war on terror, as conceived of by the Bush administration, was targeted at a particular brand of terrorism -- that employed exclusively by Islamic entities. Which is why the enemy in this ideological conflict was gradually and systematically expanded to include not just the people who attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, and the organizations that supported them, but an ever-widening conspiracy of disparate groups, such as Hamas in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the clerical regime in Iran, the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the Kashmiri militants, the Taliban and any other organization that declared itself Muslim and employed terrorism as a tactic.

According to the master narrative of the war on terror, these were a monolithic enemy with a common agenda and a shared ideology. Never mind that many of these groups consider one another to be a graver threat than they consider America, that they have vastly different and sometimes irreconcilable political yearnings and religious beliefs, and that, until the war on terror, many had never thought of the United States as an enemy. Give this imaginary monolith a made-up name -- say, "Islamofascism" -- and an easily recognizable enemy is created, one that exists not so much as a force to be defeated but as an idea to be opposed, one whose chief attribute appears to be that "they" are not "us."

By lumping together the disparate forces, movements, armies, ideas and grievances of the greater Muslim world, from Morocco to Malaysia; by placing them in a single category ("enemy"), assigning them a single identity ("terrorist"); and by countering them with a single strategy (war), the Bush administration seemed to be making a blatant statement that the war on terror was, in fact, "a war against Islam."

That is certainly how the conflict has been viewed by a majority in four major Muslim countries -- Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia -- in a worldpublicopinion.org poll in 2007. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they believe that the purpose of the war on terror is to "spread Christianity in the region" of the Middle East.

Indeed, if the war on terror was meant to be an ideological battle against groups such as Al Qaeda for the hearts and minds of Muslims, the consensus around the globe seems to be that the battle has been lost.

A September 2008 BBC World Service survey of 23 countries, including Russia, Australia, Pakistan, Turkey, France, Germany, Britain, the U.S., China and Mexico, found that almost 60% of all respondents said the war on terror has either had no effect or that it has made Al Qaeda stronger. Forty-seven percent said they think that neither side was winning; 56% of Americans have that view.

It is time not just to abandon the phrase "war on terror" but to admit that the ideological struggle against radical Islam could never be won militarily. The battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims will take place not in the streets of Baghdad or in the mountains of Afghanistan but in the suburbs of Paris, the slums of East London and the cosmopolitan cities of Berlin and New York.

In the end, the most effective weapon in countering the appeal of groups such as Al Qaeda may be the words we use.

Reza Aslan is the author of "How To Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror."

FBI Muslim outreach harmed by abusive tactics

2009-04-07T23:51:00.002-05:00

By Dr. Agha Saeed, Special to IFN
InFocus News

A recent statement by a coalition of major national Islamic organizations cited a number of incidents in which the government unfairly targeted American mosques and Muslim groups and said concern over those abuses could result in the suspension of long-standing community outreach initiatives with the FBI.

That statement, issued by the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections, is at its heart really a call for increased engagement and dialogue based on mutual respect and the preservation of constitutionally-protected civil and religious rights, not just on photo opportunities.

The essence of civic engagement, as practiced by Dr. Martin Luther King, is to create public awareness of unjust policies and tactics and to make it impossible for an oppressive status quo to be sustained.

American Muslim concerns are centered on four main factors: infiltration of mosques and systematic intimidation of religious leaders (Imams); use of agents provocateurs; use of the questionable category of unindicted co-conspirators to undermine major Muslim organizations, and denial of the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances for organizations articulating a Muslim point of view on peace with justice in Palestine and elsewhere.

In its statement, AMT noted that "the FBI sent a convicted criminal to pose as an agent provocateur in several [California] mosques." Muslims find these FBI-induced false conversions a profoundly hurtful violation of their religious freedoms. AMT also cited the FBI’s disengagement from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest and most respected Muslim civil rights organization, and the "unjustified" designation of some 300 groups and individuals as "unindicted co-conspirators" in conjunction with the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, Texas.

As demonstrated by the AMT statement, American Muslims are very concerned about the negative impact these and other incidents have on ordinary American Muslims and on productive relations with law enforcement officials.

Because the FBI has been monitoring mosques and Islamic organizations and questioning individuals without credible evidence of illegal activity, Muslims are increasingly afraid to go to their houses of worship, to speak openly or to become involved in Islamic organizations and events.

These intimidating government actions are apparently permitted under new Justice Department guidelines that have been strongly criticized by civil liberties groups. Those guidelines, which took effect in December of last year, lowered the threshold for beginning FBI investigations and allowed race and ethnicity to be factors in opening a probe.

Even legal public advocacy efforts by American Muslims are being targeted. Texas law enforcement "fusion center" recently issued an alert stating that it is "imperative for law enforcement officers to report" the legal activities of Muslim lobbying and civil rights groups in their areas.

In Minnesota, Somali Muslims have expressed concerns about FBI tactics that they say amount to religious profiling. Some 50 to 100 individuals say they’ve been stopped by FBI agents in recent months.

When investigations do result in an arrest, the charges often fall under immigration or document fraud, tax evasion, and lying to federal officers, though the cases are touted as victories against "terrorism." In at least one recent case, such charges were viewed as payback for an individual’s refusal to act as an informant. The person targeted alleges that an FBI agent threatened to make his life a "living hell" if he refused to be an informant.

Following these reports, and after largely unsuccessful attempts to engage the FBI on these issues, American Muslim groups came to the conclusion that a dramatic action like considering the suspension of outreach relations would was unavoidable.

Muslims are not considering severing all ties with law enforcement agencies, but would only suspend participation in public relations efforts such as town hall meetings, diversity training and participation in FBI citizens’ academies that came to be viewed as public relations cover for behind-the-scenes abuses. Reporting of suspected criminal activities or of anti-Muslim hate crimes would continue.

This effort is not a campaign of disengagement, but is instead designed to truly engage top Justice Department officials on these critical issues. It is also designed to help restore respect and equal rights for American Muslims after eight years of being treated as suspects rather than partners.

The AMT statement clearly indicates that American Muslims support President Obama’s efforts to help end the marginalization of their institutions carried out under the Bush administration.

American Muslims are sending a clear message that they refuse to be treated as second class citizens and that law enforcement agencies should work with the Muslim community based the "mutual respect" that President Obama championed in his inaugural address.

In a recent congressional hearing, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) asked FBI Director Robert Mueller about AMT’s statement and about the new investigative guidelines. Sen. Feingold asked Mueller:

"Do you think that the new attorney general guidelines are helping or hurting the FBI’s relationship with the U.S. Muslim community? In light of this task force statement, how do you plan to improve that relationship?" Mueller responded by saying the Muslim community "has been tremendously supportive and worked very closely with [the FBI] in a number of instances around the country."

The entire reason for AMT’s existence is to promote positive civic engagement by the American Muslim community. But that engagement, particularly with law enforcement agencies, must be based on fair treatment and the protection of constitutional rights, including the right to practice our religion without interference, harassment, manipulation or vilification.

Dr. Agha Saeed heads the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections, a coalition of major national Islamic organizations.

Analysis: Obama visit to Turkey no afterthought

2009-04-07T23:45:00.004-05:00

By STEVEN R. HURST

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's stop in Turkey is hardly an afterthought, a "while I'm in the neighborhood" visit.

For starters, he wants to mend relations strained when the United States went to war in Iraq six years ago. Ankara's Islamic-rooted government denied Washington's request to use Turkish territory to invade Iraq from the north. But Turkey also is in line for thanks for trying to bring peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Turkey is the only predominantly Muslim country in NATO, an alliance stalwart and America's best friend in the Islamic world. Obama, completing a European trip, arrives Sunday and undoubtedly will reprise his message from a town hall meeting Friday in France.

"We must be honest with ourselves. In recent years, we've allowed our alliance to drift," he said at that appearance.

Before arriving, Obama played an especially high card intended to further soften his Turkish interlocutors.

At a luncheon Sunday for leaders of the EU's 27 nations in Prague, he said the West should seek greater cooperation and closer ties with Islamic nations. Allowing Turkey to join the European Union would deepen that message, he contended.

France, Austria and other nations oppose Turkey's long-running efforts to join the EU. Others in the organization have urged Turkey to do more to guarantee minority rights, curb the powers of its military and pass new rights for trade unions.

Turkey maintains a small military force in Afghanistan, part of the NATO contingent working with U.S. troops to beat back the resurgent Taliban and deny al-Qaida a safe haven along the largely lawless territory that straddles Afghanistan's border with Pakistan. Turkey's participation carries enormous symbolic importance because it is the only Muslim country with a presence in the fight against Islamic extremism.

In talks with Turkey's president, Abdullah Gul, and prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Obama will try to sell his strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He should find welcoming ears, given the new U.S. focus on melding troop increases with civilian efforts to better the lives of people in both countries.

"Obama may be able to create momentum for help from a broader sector of nominal U.S. allies in the Muslim world," said Jeffrey Martinson, a historian and political scientist at Meredith College in North Carolina.

"The fact that he's visiting the Turks at the end of this major European trip is a nice homage to them," Martinson said, noting that uppermost on Turkey's agenda is gaining membership in the European Union.

The new president has pushed for Muslim diplomacy.

In his inaugural address in January, Obama assured the Muslim world that "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." He has made early telephone calls to friendly Arab leaders and sent special envoy George J. Mitchell to the Middle East on a "listening tour."

Obama's declaration that he will close the prison for suspected terrorists Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was seen as a move to address a chief source of ill will among Muslim nations since Sept. 11.

Obama's father and stepfather were Muslim and he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, a largely Muslim country. Throughout the campaign, Obama, who is Christian, fought false Internet rumors that he is a Muslim.

In an Washington Post-ABC News poll released Sunday night, 81 percent of respondents said it is very important or somewhat important for Obama to try to improve U.S. relations with Muslim nations.

Turkey is one of only two key Muslim countries with cordial relations with Israel. The Turks, along with the Egyptians, are working with France in trying to maintain a cease-fire and broker a permanent truce between Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian faction that rules the Gaza Strip. That is essential to America's pledge to spare no effort in establishing peace between the ancient antagonists and establishing a Palestinian state.

Beyond that, Turkey has shepherded contacts between Israel and Syria, where a successful outcome could entice Muslim nations across the Middle East into accepting Israel's right to exist.

Despite the likely good will, Obama must finesse the tangled issue of Turkey's history with Armenia. Historians estimate that up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks leading up to and during World War I, an event widely viewed by many scholars as the first genocide of the 20th century. Turkey denies that the deaths constituted genocide, claiming the toll has been inflated and the casualties were victims of civil war and unrest.

"The Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence," Obama said in a January 2008 statement on his campaign Web site. "America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that president."

So far, Obama aides refuse to say how he will deal with the legacy of that statement while in Turkey. Nor would they predict his stance on a resolution to be introduced soon in the House that describes the killings as genocide. His visit to Turkey also is uncomfortably close to the annual April 24 Armenian remembrance day.

"The smartest thing on Armenia is to try to ignore what he said in the campaign," Martinson said.

Then there is Iran. Turkey's eastern neighbor is accused by the United States and most of Washington's European allies of trying to develop a nuclear weapon. The Turkish government supports Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful use but wants Tehran to be transparent about its nuclear program and favors dialogue.

That goes along with Obama's efforts to open a diplomatic front with Iran and the message from this past week's Group of 20 summit. At that meeting, leaders said Iran must open up its nuclear program and support its claim that it does not intend to build a bomb.

EDITOR'S NOTE _ Steven R. Hurst, AP international political writer, has covered foreign affairs for 30 years.

FBI director questioned about Muslim relations

2009-04-07T23:40:00.002-05:00

By IFN Staff
InFocus News

ANAHEIM, Calif. – The controversy over reports of an FBI informant infiltrating southern California mosques and the FBI’s overall conduct toward American Muslims were subjects of a Senate hearing last month, generating vague answers from FBI Director Robert Mueller and generating even more concern in a community already feeling fearful and unfairly targeted in a post-9/11 era. In the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing held on Capitol Hill, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) was tough on Mueller.

“Can you determine and report to this committee whether mosques have been entered by FBI agents or informants without disclosing their identities under the authority of the attorney general guidelines and, if so, how many?” Feingold asked.

“I will say that we do not focus on institutions, we focus on individuals. And I will say generally if there is evidence or information as to individual or individuals undertaking illegal activities in religious institutions, with appropriate high-level approval, we would undertake investigative activities, regardless of the religion,” Mueller responded in part.

Mueller, in regurgitating the domestic intelligence and investigative agency’s standard line, in fact contradicted claims of Craig Monteilh, an Orange County man who has publicly revealed how he was trained to “infiltrate” area mosques – from West Covina to Mission Viejo – to spy on unsuspecting worshippers, for almost a year.

Monteilh’s accounts prompted Muslim community leaders and groups to question the true intention behind the FBI’s partnership with U.S. Muslims.

A highlight of the Senate testimony was a reference to the American Muslim Taskforce statement, released March 17. That statement was part of a nationally-coordinated campaign by Muslims to decisively respond to the FBI’s aggressive tactics.

In the statement, the coalition of national Muslim organizations said they are considering severing outreach ties and public relations work with the FBI unless the agency revamps its “McCarthy-era tactics” that unfairly target the Muslim community, its mosques and institutions.

The AMT statement led Sen. Feingold to ask Mueller if he thought the new attorney general guidelines (implemented Dec. 1, 2008) are helping or hurting the FBI’s relationship with the U.S. Muslim community and in light of the AMT statement, how he planned to improve that relationship.

To that, Mueller responded: “Expectation is that our relationships are as good now as before the guidelines…”

Last December, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, under the auspices of the Bush Administration, approved guidelines for the FBI that lower the threshold for conducting investigations, allow for informants to spy on people without probable cause, and further permit the FBI to take into account a person’s religion and ethnic background as factors to open an investigation – essentially making lawful racial and religious profiling.

The extensive AMT statement describes the contributions of the American Muslim community and outlines how the FBI’s sending in agent provocateurs to incite worshippers undermined relations between the agency and Muslims.

“Through civil rights advocacy, civic and political engagement, and the promotion of dialogue with interfaith leaders and law enforcement agencies, Muslim Americans continue to be a positive and stabilizing force in keeping our nation safe and secure from acts of violence and foreign threats … Yet recent incidents targeting American Muslims lead us to consider suspending ongoing outreach efforts with the FBI … Bias and faulty premises dominated post-9/11 law enforcement analysis of the Muslim community and the threat assessment to national security. The waning days of the previous administration witnessed a flourishing of anti-Muslim activity … These McCarthy-era tactics are detrimental to a free society.”

Major Muslim organizations – the American Muslim Alliance, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslim American Society - Freedom, Islamic Circle of North America, Muslim Student Association-National, MSA West, more than 30 other mosques and Muslim groups – have endorsed the AMT statement.

Additionally, more than 50 activists and well-respected academics – including John Esposito, Ali Mazrui, and Hatem Bazian – have signed on to the AMT statement.

The Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Society of North America, which did not sign on to AMT’s statement, have nonetheless called for accountability of the FBI’s actions while maintaining open lines of communication.

“Federal law enforcement cannot establish trust with American Muslim communities through meetings and townhall forums, while at the same time sending paid informants who instigate violent rhetoric in mosques. This mere act stigmatizes American mosques and casts a shadow of doubt and distrust between American Muslims and their neighbors,” a Feb. 25 MPAC statement said.

MPAC Executive Director Salam Al-Marayati later stated about MPAC‘s continued outreach ties to the FBI: “We believe that we have to keep our place at the table in this discourse.”

ISNA, in a news release, stated: “ISNA believes that communications with law enforcement agencies should remain open and it is not in favor of ending contacts with the FBI.”

AMT Chairman Agha Saeed, however, said the AMT’s effort is not a campaign of disengagement.

“It is instead designed to truly engage top Justice Department officials on these critical issues,” Saeed said. “It is also designed to help restore respect and equal rights for American Muslims after eight years of being treated as suspects rather than partners.”

The two distinct and, to an extent, conflicting approaches as to whether to continue outreach with the FBI have led some in the Muslim community to question whether a less than united stance will impact Muslims’ ability to hold the agency responsible and therefore, force it to correct its wrongdoings against a community constantly viewed as suspect.

Faisal Qazi, a neurologist and longtime activist in southern California, wrote an open letter to Muslim leaders.

“If a Muslim leader of any of our national groups supporting full maintenance of engagement is to be detained today, these groups would inevitably no longer stay on the table for continued so-called engagement,” wrote Qazi. “Therefore, the question is where do you draw the line? The line for grassroots movements is drawn when an average individual such as (Ahmad) Niazi is affected or in solidarity for all those families who have been harassed by recent intrusions but for others, the threshold may be much higher.”

On the subject of engagement with the FBI, the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California – an umbrella organization of more than 70 mosques and Islamic centers – polled Muslims in March.

In the poll, 78 percent of respondents said American Muslims should have “no relationship at all [with the FBI] until they stop unfairly targeting” Muslims or “end outreach relationship and limit communication to ‘as needed.’” The remaining 22 percent said Muslims should maintain an ongoing relationship with the FBI, “no matter what.” In February, the ISCSC and many other southern California Muslim groups suspended their outreach work with FBI’s Los Angeles office.

For the past two months, the issue of FBI informants at mosques has captured national and international media spotlight, prompted by the FBI’s Feb. 20 arrest of Niazi, a 34-year-old U.S. citizen, on charges of immigration fraud.
Niazi, in 2007, was one of the first worshippers at the Islamic Center of Irvine to report Monteilh, who had made violent statements against America and intimated to worshippers that he had access to explosives.

Monteilh was promptly reported to the Irvine Police Department and the Los Angeles FBI office at that time. In 2008, Niazi further reported to CAIR-Los Angeles Area that he was asked by an FBI agent to become an informant, otherwise his life would be made “a living hell.” It was later confirmed that Monteilh was a convicted felon who was recruited and paid by the FBI to infiltrate mosques and spy on worshippers.

The Orange County Register wrote a biting editorial on Monteilh’s “fishing expeditions.”

“Everyone understands the need for legitimate undercover activities in response to credible evidence. But we cannot fathom the justification for fishing expeditions and entrapment. Nationwide, some of the supposed terrorist ‘plots’ the FBI has claimed to have foiled have simply been cases of entrapment involving Muslims without the intent or wherewithal or to pull off any attacks. Infiltrating mosques without evidence of crime is an affront to the First Amendment.”

Both Mueller and FBI spokesman John Miller say the agency values its partnership with Muslims.

“Limiting honest dialogue, especially when complex issues are on the table, is generally not an effective advocacy strategy,” Miller said in a written release.

However, Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR-LA and an AMT member, disagrees.

“The problem is that many in the Muslim community no longer feel confident that the FBI is pursuing an honest dialogue with the Muslim community,” Ayloush said. “This was the result of confirmed reports that, while the Muslim community engaged in honest partnership building and dialogue with the FBI for eight years, the FBI was paying convicted felons to ‘infiltrate’ mosques to radicalize Muslim youths and instigate talks about terrorism action. Integrity and honesty are the foundation of any relationship.”

Last year, the FBI privately ended formal relations with the offices of CAIR, the largest Muslim civil rights group in the country. FBI officials never informed CAIR representatives of the reasons behind their decision but recently said, in writing, that they want to limit “any formally constructed partnerships between CAIR and the FBI” based on concerns relating “to a number of distinct narrow issues specific to CAIR and its national leadership.”

The AMT statement points to the “unindicted co-conspirator” designation given to 300 Muslim individuals and groups, including CAIR, in the trial of Holy Land Foundation charity as a possible reason. The move was illegal and seen as politically-oriented and criminalizing the Muslim community.

CAIR has called the FBI allegations a “campaign of smears and misinformation.”

“It is not surprising that we would be targeted in a purely political move by those in the previous administration who sought to prevent us from defending the civil rights of American Muslims,” said CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, in a statement.

CAIR officials also said the organization has regularly advocated engagement, based on mutual respect, with law enforcement and the FBI, sponsoring diversity trainings, joint workshops and town halls with FBI agents, and assisting with investigations.

American Muslims and the FBI now walk a rocky course while seeking a balance between national security and the protection of civil liberties. Muslims will continue to report any suspicious activity or threats to law enforcement, the AMT statement says.

Muslim leaders observe that the fate of American Muslims mirrors that of other minorities who they say were intimidated by government forces and stripped of their humanity yet continued to stand up and eventually gained respect and their true place in society.

Said the OC Register editorial: “The FBI’s activities have led a consortium of Muslim groups to ‘consider suspending ongoing outreach efforts with the FBI.’ We can hardly blame them. Perhaps the Obama administration will rethink this counterproductive and un-American strategy.”

Good News! Oklahoma Anti-Religious Headcovering Bill Dismissed

2009-04-07T23:33:00.003-05:00

(OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, 4/7/09) - The Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OK) today commended state senators for dismissing a controversial bill (HB 1645) that would have prohibited Islamic head scarves, or hijabs, on driver's license photographs and photo IDs.

This bill not only would affect the Muslim community but also a wide range of Oklahoma's faith communities such as Catholic nuns, Orthodox Jews, Sikhs and other religious groups who have headwear.

For Background, see: Oklahoma Muslims Asked to Challenge Anti-Hijab Legislation

The State Senate Sub-Committee on Transportation dropped the bill last week after recognizing it did not have the backing of constituents who believed it violated First Amendment rights. The Senate Judiciary Committee also dropped the bill after realizing that the Department of Public Safety currently has a policy that allows for religious exemptions on driver's licenses photographs. Federal and military IDs also allow for a religious exemption.

SEE: CAIR-OK: Religious Headcovering Bill

"We thank Oklahoma lawmakers for their leadership and courage in standing up for religious pluralism and the First Amendment. We appreciate their recognition of the contributions that all faiths make to the great state of Oklahoma and we look forward to continuing to work together for all Oklahomans," said CAIR-OK Executive Director Razi Hashmi. He added that some 600 letters opposing the draft legislation were sent to lawmakers by Oklahomans of all faiths.

SEE: Ignorance is the Enemy (Tulsa World)

Hashmi said many people believe the bill was introduced in reaction to CAIR-OK's successful resolution of a dispute over a Muslim woman's right to wear hijab in her driver's license photo.

SEE: Muslim Woman Takes Driver's Photo with Head Scarf (Video)

According to a 2004 CAIR review, most states - with the exception of Georgia, Kentucky and New Hampshire - have addressed religious accommodation concerns. Five states - Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, Missouri, and Maine - recognize some religious practices, while the other 42 states have adopted more inclusive approaches to religious accommodation policies.

SEE: Religious Accommodation in Driver's License Photographs

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED: (As always be POLITE and RESPECTFUL)

1. THANK Oklahoma Senate Transportation Committee and Chairman Senator Cliff Branan for dismissing HB 1645. Copy to: info@ok.cair.com

Senator Cliff Branan: Phone: (405) 521-5543, Email: branan@oksenate.gov

2. THANK Oklahoma Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Senator Roger Ballenger and original author Patrick Anderson for dismissing HB 1645. Copy to: info@ok.cair.com

Senator Roger Ballenger: Phone: 405-521-5588, Email: ballenger@oksenate.gov
Senator Patrick Anderson: Phone: (405) 521-5630, Email: anderson@oksenate.gov

3. THANK the Tulsa World - for their informative and objective coverage of the issue.
It is important that those who value First Amendment rights make the effort to support the media’s coverage of this issue. Also comment online about the segment. (Always be polite and respectful.) Hundreds of people have already made their views known.

Tel: 918-581-8550
Fax: 918-581-8353

Email: hr@tulsaworld.com
Copy to: info@ok.cair.com

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

10 terms not to use with Muslims

2009-04-05T22:50:00.001-05:00

There's a big difference between what we say and what they hear.

By Chris Seiple
Christian Science Monitor (March 28, 2009)

ARLINGTON, VA. - In the course of my travels – from the Middle East to Central Asia to Southeast Asia – it has been my great privilege to meet and become friends with many devout Muslims. These friendships are defined by frank respect as we listen to each other; understand and agree on the what, why, and how of our disagreements, political and theological; and, most of all, deepen our points of commonality as a result.

I have learned much from my Muslim friends, foremost this: Political disagreements come and go, but genuine respect for each other, rooted in our respective faith traditions, does not. If there is no respect, there is no relationship, merely a transactional encounter that serves no one in the long term.

As President Obama considers his first speech in a Muslim majority country (he visits Turkey April 6-7), and as the US national security establishment reviews its foreign policy and public diplomacy, I want to share the advice given to me from dear Muslim friends worldwide regarding words and concepts that are not useful in building relationships with them. Obviously, we are not going to throw out all of these terms, nor should we. But we do need to be very careful about how we use them, and in what context.

1. "The Clash of Civilizations." Invariably, this kind of discussion ends up with us as the good guy and them as the bad guy. There is no clash of civilizations, only a clash between those who are for civilization, and those who are against it. Civilization has many characteristics but two are foundational: 1) It has no place for those who encourage, invite, and/or commit the murder of innocent civilians; and 2) It is defined by institutions that protect and promote both the minority and the transparent rule of law.

2. "Secular." The Muslim ear tends to hear "godless" with the pronunciation of this word. And a godless society is simply inconceivable to the vast majority of Muslims worldwide. Pluralism – which encourages those with (and those without) a God-based worldview to have a welcomed and equal place in the public square – is a much better word.

3. "Assimilation." This word suggests that the minority Muslim groups in North America and Europe need to look like the majority, Christian culture. Integration, on the other hand, suggests that all views, majority and minority, deserve equal respect as long as each is willing to be civil with one another amid the public square of a shared society.

4. "Reformation." Muslims know quite well, and have an opinion about, the battle taking place within Islam and what it means to be an orthodox and devout Muslim. They don't need to be insulted by suggesting they follow the Christian example of Martin Luther. Instead, ask how Muslims understand ijtihad, or reinterpretation, within their faith traditions and cultural communities.

5. "Jihadi." The jihad is an internal struggle first, a process of improving one's spiritual self-discipline and getting closer to God. The lesser jihad is external, validating "just war" when necessary. By calling the groups we are fighting "jihadis," we confirm their own – and the worldwide Muslim public's – perception that they are religious. They are not. They are terrorists, hirabists, who consistently violate the most fundamental teachings of the Holy Koran and mainstream Islamic scholars and imams.

6. "Moderate." This ubiquitous term is meant politically but can be received theologically. If someone called me a "moderate Christian," I would be deeply offended. I believe in an Absolute who also commands me to love my neighbor. Similarly, it is not an oxymoron to be a mainstream Muslim who believes in an Absolute. A robust and civil pluralism must make room for the devout of all faiths, and none.

7. "Interfaith." This term conjures up images of watered-down, lowest common denominator statements that avoid the tough issues and are consequently irrelevant. "Multifaith" suggests that we name our deep and irreconcilable theological differences in order to work across them for practical effect – according to the very best of our faith traditions, much of which are values we share.

8. "Freedom." Unfortunately, "freedom," as expressed in American foreign policy, does not always seek to engage how the local community and culture understands it. Absent such an understanding, freedom can imply an unbound licentiousness. The balance between the freedom to something (liberty) and the freedom from something (security) is best understood in a conversation with the local context and, in particular, with the Muslims who live there. "Freedom" is best framed in the context of how they understand such things as peace, justice, honor, mercy, and compassion.

9. "Religious Freedom." Sadly, this term too often conveys the perception that American foreign policy is only worried about the freedom of Protestant evangelicals to proselytize and convert, disrupting the local culture and indigenous Christians. Although not true, I have found it better to define religious freedom as the promotion of respect and reconciliation with the other at the intersection of culture and the rule of law – sensitive to the former and consistent with the latter.

10. "Tolerance." Tolerance is not enough. Allowing for someone's existence, or behavior, doesn't build the necessary relationships of trust – across faiths and cultures – needed to tackle the complex and global challenges that our civilization faces. We need to be honest with and respect one another enough to name our differences and commonalities, according to the inherent dignity we each have as fellow creations of God called to walk together in peace and justice, mercy and compassion.

The above words and phrases will differ and change over the years, according to the cultural and ethnic context, and the (mis)perceptions that Muslims and non-Muslims have of one another. While that is to be expected, what counts most is the idea that we are earnestly trying to listen to and understand each other better; demonstrating respect as a result.

[Editor's note: Due to a technical glitch, the original headline misstated the author's view.]

• Chris Seiple is the president of the Institute for Global Engagement, a "think tank with legs" that promotes sustainable environments for religious freedom worldwide.

Ignorance is the enemy

2009-04-05T13:07:00.002-05:00

By Razi Hashmi
Tulsa World (4/4/2009)

House Bill 1645, authored by Rep. Wade Rousselot, D-Wagoner, seems harmless on its surface. However, it has an amendment that may set back the clock on the civil rights progress in America.

When Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, heard about a Muslim woman re-taking her driver's license photo at the Department of Public Safety after her civil rights were violated, he proposed an amendment that would take all Oklahomans' civil rights away. This attack against Americans' civil rights would affect others besides the Muslim community, and is not without unintended consequences.

The sponsors have tagged this legislation to another bill that is irrelevant to the case at hand, and if passed, it would prohibit religious minorities from wearing religiously-mandated head covering when taking photos for their driver's licenses and other IDs.

Those affected would be Jewish men who wear yarmulkes, Catholic nuns who wear the habit, Indian Sikhs who wear turbans, Muslim women who wear the hijab (Islamic head scarf), and other religious groups who wear head coverings. If Mother Teresa were alive today and this proposed law were passed, she would not be able to get a driver's license in the state of Oklahoma!

America has a long-standing history of religious pluralism and freedom. It goes against the founding principles of our country to prohibit one's free practice of religion, protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Oklahoma State Legislature needs to stop wasting time mixing religion and politics with pet projects such as placing the Ten Commandments on state property, and prohibiting religious head wear on driver's licenses. Being in the buckle of the Bible belt, Oklahomans have a responsibility to uphold the separation of Church and State just like the rest of this country.

Locally, we cannot forget that we do have bigger issues to focus on, namely the economy. In these tough economic times, it is disconcerting to see our state legislators wasting precious taxpayer dollars by attempting to pass a law that violates our First Amendment rights. If the legislators believe that Oklahoma is recession-proof, then we clearly have not felt the effects of the state Capitol, which has and will continue to drive people out of the state and send labor to other states that will accept a diverse workforce with open arms.

If this law passes — regardless of all the contributions American Muslims have made to this state as doctors, lawyers, businessmen and women and many other respected professionals who have benefited this great state — Muslims will not hesitate to leave if their religion freedoms are infringed upon.

Why should Oklahoma propose this unnecessary legislation if DPS already has an exemption for religious head wear for driver's license photos? Why should our state propose rules that are not only more stringent than the federal government's regarding our passports and military IDs, but also clearly illegal?

Last month the woman who was able to re-take her driver's license photo was grateful to see her countrymen believe in and enforce laws to protect her religious freedom. Now, she and Oklahomans who believe in our founding fathers' vision of a pluralistic society are not so sure.

Why again this resurgence of fear and paranoia of Muslims and ignorance surrounding the head scarf? This irrational fear, also known as Islamophobia, is reminiscent of anti-Semitism and racism, and is truly unAmerican. Oklahomans should cherish the rich heritage that Muslims bring to our state. If we learned more about one another we would realize that we have more in common than we have different. Muslims and Christians both revere the Virgin Mother Mary highly. In every picture you see of her, what do you see her wearing? That is something for our legislators to think about when they bring this bill to the Senate shortly.

If we could just re-learn to respect each other's faith, race, ethnicity, and other characteristics that make us stronger, our state could look toward a more forward-looking agenda that would take Oklahoma to new heights.

Razi Hashmi is the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, a grassroots civil rights advocacy group whose mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

An interfaith view: The FBI vs. the Constitution

2009-04-01T00:11:00.001-05:00

By Lawrence Swaim, IFN Columnist
InFocus Magazine

When I read about the arrest of Ahmad Niazi, it was déjà vu all over again. The FBI tries to strong-arm someone into being an "informant;" the intended informant declines; the agency retaliates. It was all strangely familiar. We went through it before in the US, and it was called COINTELPRO, the deliberate misuse of federal investigative agencies to harass people for their beliefs. After awhile it got worse, and we called it Watergate, and it became the biggest constitutional crisis in American history.
Sadly, there are a few folks in the FBI who want to take us down that road again. It began with the changing of protocols after 9/11, permitting undercover agents to troll for information in houses of worship. That’s a bad idea, because if you have no leads involving real crimes, you’ll get no results, because — believe it or not — most people actually obey the laws. Soon there is pressure to produce "results," and the informant invents something. Everybody is then taken hostage to the informant’s story.

Quite often, government informants are clever sociopaths, who revel in manufacturing libelous reports. A tragic example of this was the 1999 use of an informant to bust 46 alleged cocaine users in Tulia, Texas. Curious journalists noticed that almost all the people arrested were African-Americans, the amounts seized were all about the same weight, and there’d been no effort to investigate wholesale dealers. It turned out that the informant, a seasoned criminal, had made it all up.

The people arrested were released and the "informant" was indicted, but 46 lives were devastated in the process.

When law enforcement misuses its authority, anyone can be a victim. Let’s say the Social Justice committee at a church wants to organize a peace vigil, and there’s an informant present at the meetings. The informant discovers a person in the church who once belonged to a leftwing group, and tells the FBI the church is conspiring to advocate a revolution. The FBI — or someone in it — leaks this false allegation to the press. Don’t you think it might have a chilling effect on church attendance?

Exactly these tactics are being used today against mosques and Muslim civil rights organizations. Did a Muslim organization have a volunteer ten years ago who got in trouble? Proof positive that the organization must be sheltering criminals! Also, a form of guilt by association is the ubiquitous use by the Justice Department of the "unindicted co-conspirator" label to describe any organization the prosecutor doesn’t like. It’s no accident that guilt by association is a central dynamic of religious bigotry, from anti-Semitism to Islamophobia. When directed against Muslim organizations, it’s often because of pressure from rightwing elements in the Israel Lobby, the Religious Right, or the powerful neo-conservative foundations in Washington, D.C.

In the trial of Dr. Sami Al-Arian, one of the main prosecutors against him was a man who made no attempt to conceal his prejudice against Muslims. And as InFocus News recently revealed, one of Niazi’s prosecutors has given money to the Lincoln Club of Orange County, a hotbed of religious bigots. How on earth can such people prosecute defendants fairly if they hate the religion to which a defendant belongs? They can’t, and should recuse themselves — or be held accountable if they don’t.

When there’s evidence of real crime, obviously federal agencies should investigate. But the problem here is a group of federal agents who manufactured a crisis to intimidate Muslims. An FBI provocateur tried to stir up trouble, and Niazi reported him. Then the feds turned on Niazi because he wouldn’t be a provocateur himself. But why should Niazi cooperate with them? The agents had already shown they had no respect for the law. That same contempt for the law by the FBI is now causing Muslims to stay home from their mosques in fear, and that’s a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. That’s one offense I’d like to see the courts rule on.

IFN columnist Lawrence Swaim is the executive director of the Interfaith Freedom Foundation. He taught for eight years at Pacific Union College, and his academic specialities are American studies and American literature. His column addresses current affairs from an American Christian and interfaith perspective.

The Lobby Falters

2009-03-24T17:37:00.004-05:00

by John Mearsheimer
London Review of Books
March 24, 2009

Many people in Washington were surprised when the Obama administration tapped Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, the body that oversees the production of National Intelligence Estimates: Freeman had a distinguished 30-year career as a diplomat and Defense Department official, but he has publicly criticised Israeli policy and America’s special relationship with Israel, saying, for example, in a speech in 2005, that ‘as long as the United States continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected.’ Words like these are rarely spoken in public in Washington, and anyone who does use them is almost certain not to get a high-level government position. But Admiral Dennis Blair, the new director of national intelligence, greatly admires Freeman: just the sort of person, he thought, to revitalise the intelligence community, which had been very politicised in the Bush years.

Predictably alarmed, the Israel lobby launched a smear campaign against Freeman, hoping that he would either quit or be fired by Obama. The opening salvo came in a blog posting by Steven Rosen, a former official of Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, now under indictment for passing secrets to Israel. Freeman’s views of the Middle East, he said, ‘are what you would expect in the Saudi Foreign Ministry, with which he maintains an extremely close relationship’. Prominent pro-Israel journalists such as Jonathan Chait and Martin Peretz of the New Republic, and Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, quickly joined the fray and Freeman was hammered in publications that consistently defend Israel, such as the National Review, the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard.

The real heat, however, came from Congress, where Aipac (which describes itself as ‘America’s Pro-Israel Lobby’) wields enormous power. All the Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee came out against Freeman, as did key Senate Democrats such as Joseph Lieberman and Charles Schumer. ‘I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him,’ Schumer said, ‘and I am glad they did the right thing.’ It was the same story in the House, where the charge was led by Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Steve Israel, who pushed Blair to initiate a formal investigation of Freeman’s finances. In the end, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, declared the Freeman appointment ‘beyond the pale’. Freeman might have survived this onslaught had the White House stood by him. But Barack Obama’s pandering to the Israel lobby during the campaign and his silence during the Gaza War show that this is one opponent he is not willing to challenge. True to form, he remained silent and Freeman had little choice but to withdraw.

The lobby has since gone to great lengths to deny its role in Freeman’s resignation. The Aipac spokesman Josh Block said his organisation ‘took no position on this matter and did not lobby the Hill on it’. The Washington Post, whose editorial page is run by Fred Hiatt, a man staunchly committed to the special relationship, ran an editorial which claimed that blaming the lobby for Freeman’s resignation was something dreamed up by ‘Mr Freeman and like-minded conspiracy theorists’.

In fact, there is abundant evidence that Aipac and other hardline supporters of Israel were deeply involved in the campaign. Block admitted that he had spoken to reporters and bloggers about Freeman and provided them with information, always on the understanding that his comments would not be attributed to him or to Aipac. Jonathan Chait, who denied that Israel was at the root of the controversy before Freeman was toppled, wrote afterwards: ‘Of course I recognise that the Israel lobby is powerful and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman, and that it is not always a force for good.’ Daniel Pipes, who runs the Middle East Forum, where Steven Rosen now works, quickly sent out an email newsletter boasting about Rosen’s role in bringing Freeman down.

On 12 March, the day the Washington Post ran its editorial railing against anyone who suggested that the Israel lobby had helped topple Freeman, the paper also published a front-page story describing the central role that the lobby had played in the affair. There was also a comment piece by the veteran journalist David Broder, which opened with the words: ‘The Obama administration has just suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the lobbyists the president vowed to keep in their place.’

Freeman’s critics maintain that his views on Israel were not his only problem. He is said to have especially close – maybe even improper – ties to Saudi Arabia, where he previously served as American ambassador. The charge hasn’t stuck, however, because there is no evidence for it. Israel’s supporters also said that he had made insensitive remarks about what happened to the Chinese protesters at Tiananmen Square, but that charge, which his defenders contest, only came up because Freeman’s pro-Israel critics were looking for any argument they could muster to damage his reputation.

Why does the lobby care so much about one appointment to an important, but not top leadership position? Here’s one reason: Freeman would have been responsible for the production of National Intelligence Estimates. Israel and its American supporters were outraged when the National Intelligence Council concluded in November 2007 that Iran was not building nuclear weapons, and they have worked assiduously to undermine that report ever since. The lobby wants to make sure that the next estimate of Iran’s nuclear capabilities reaches the opposite conclusion, and that would have been much less likely to happen with Freeman in charge. Better to have someone vetted by Aipac running the show.

An even more important reason for the lobby to drive Freeman out of his job is the weakness of the case for America’s present policy towards Israel, which makes it imperative to silence or marginalise anyone who criticises the special relationship. If Freeman hadn’t been punished, others would see that one could talk critically about Israel and still have a successful career in Washington. And once you get an open and free-wheeling discussion about Israel, the special relationship will be in serious trouble.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Freeman affair was that the mainstream media paid it little attention – the New York Times, for example, did not run a single story dealing with Freeman until the day after he stepped down – while a fierce battle over the appointment took place in the blogosphere. Freeman’s opponents used the internet to their advantage; that is where Rosen launched the campaign. But something happened there that would never have happened in the mainstream media: the lobby faced real opposition. Indeed, a vigorous, well-informed and highly regarded array of bloggers defended Freeman at every turn and would probably have carried the day had Congress not tipped the scales against them. In short, the internet enabled a serious debate in the United States about an issue involving Israel. The lobby has never had much trouble keeping the New York Times and the Washington Post in line, but it has few ways to silence critics on the internet.

When pro-Israel forces clashed with a major political figure in the past, that person usually backed off. Jimmy Carter, who was smeared by the lobby after he published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, was the first prominent American to stand his ground and fight back. The lobby has been unable to silence him, and it is not for lack of trying. Freeman is following in Carter’s footsteps, but with sharper elbows. After stepping down, he issued a blistering denunciation of ‘unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country’ whose aim is ‘to prevent any view other than its own from being aired’. ‘There is,’ he continued, ‘a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.’

Freeman’s remarkable statement has shot all around the world and been read by countless individuals. This isn’t good for the lobby, which would have preferred to kill Freeman’s appointment without leaving any fingerprints. But Freeman will continue to speak out about Israel and the lobby, and maybe some of his natural allies inside the Beltway will eventually join him. Slowly but steadily, space is being opened up in the United States to talk honestly about Israel.

John Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n06/mear01_.html

ACTION: OKLAHOMANS ASKED TO CHALLENGE BILL BANNING RELIGIOUS HEAD COVERINGS

2009-03-24T17:28:00.002-05:00

(OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, 3/20/09) - The Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OK) and the American Civil Liberties Union in Oklahoma (ACLU of OK) today called on Oklahomans who are concerned with constitutionally-protected religious freedoms to contact their state senators about proposed legislation that would ban religious headwear in driver’s license and other identification card photos.

Click here to listen to a radio interview with CAIR-OK and ACLU of OK representatives on the bill.

The bill, HB 1645, passed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives on March 2, 2009 by 88-8. An Oklahoma Senate subcommittee, the Transportation Committee, is expected to take up the bill.

SEE: Religious Head Covering Bill: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOjAdnRIctE

The proposed amendment states: “The photograph or image shall clearly identify the licensee or cardholder and shall depict a full front unobstructed view of the entire head and shoulders of the licensee or cardholder. Hats, head scarves, head garments…that cover or partially cover the head or shoulders are strictly prohibited and shall not be worn by the licensee or cardholder when being photographed for a license or identification card.”

CAIR-OK believes the amendment proposed by Rep. Rex Duncan (R-Sand Springs) was introduced in reaction to CAIR-Oklahoma’s successful resolution of a dispute over a Muslim woman’s right to wear Islamic head scarves, or hijab, in her driver’s license photo.

SEE: Okla. House Passes Bill Banning Religious Head Covering
http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?mid1=777&&ArticleID=25758&&name=n&&currPage=1

SEE ALSO: CAIR-OK: Okla. Muslim Takes Driver’s License Photo with Hijab: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ-m6zBTRqw

Senator Roger Ballenger (D-8) was the first sponsor of HB 1645, but took his name off it questioning the bill’s motives. Sen. Ballenger called DPS who said, “they do not have a problem with the current law.”

The Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF) criticized Oklahoma’s House of Representatives for its attack on religious freedom.

See: “Religious Freedoms Under Attack in Oklahoma”
http://www.pr-inside.com/religious-freedom-under-attack-in-oklahoma-r1090608.htm

“It appears that the author of the bill was unaware that this would disproportionately affect Catholic nuns, Orthodox Jews, Sikhs, Muslim women and other religious groups who have headwear. There are also medical patients who would be affected, in particular those undergoing chemotherapy who lose their hair and may wear wigs, scarves or hats,” said CAIR-

OK Executive Director Razi Hashmi. “By embracing the diversity our state has to offer, we need to respect one another and not violate each other’s first amendment rights.”

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED: (As always be POLITE and RESPECTFUL)

1. CONTACT YOUR STATE SENATORS and urge him or her to ensure that religious freedoms continue to be protected by the U.S. Constitution. This will ensure that Americans do not view Oklahomans as divisive and opposed to interfaith dialogue and the many contributions by its diverse citizens.

Contact Your Elected Officials:
http://www.ok.gov/launch.php?url=http://www.capitolconnect.com/oklahoma/default.aspx

Call the Oklahoma State Capitol switchboard at 405-521-3356 and ask for your representatives’ office.

2. CONTACT the Transportation Committee Chairman, to ensure that the Oklahomans’ First Amendment Rights of religious freedoms are protected. (Find Suggested Talking Points Below).
Copy to: info@ok.cair.com and acluok@acluok.org

Senator Cliff Branan (R-40) Phone: 405-521-5543, E-Mail: branan@oksenate.gov

Sample Talking Points:

- All Oklahomans should be concerned when there is a chance for violations of any religious liberty.
- If the purpose for such a bill is to clearly identify an individual, then one should be photographed wearing what one would wear every day regardless if it is headwear or glasses.
- The Department of Public Safety already has a policy for religious exemptions on headgear, and this bill is unnecessary.
- Oklahomans should not tolerate such blatant attacks on minority faiths.
- Ensure all Oklahomans’ First Amendment Rights are protected. Urge your State Senator to vote No on HB 1645. Request a religious and medical exemption to the bill.

3. CONTACT Oklahoma State Senators from the Transportation Committee to inform them about the HB 1645.
Copy to: info@ok.cair.com and acluok@acluok.org

Senator Bryce Marlatt (R-27), marlatt@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5626
Senator Randy Bass (D-32), bass@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5567
Senator Brian Bingman (R-12), bingman@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5528
Senator Randy Brogdon (R-34), brogdon@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5566
Senator Bill Brown (R-36), brownb@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5602
Senator Sean Burrage (D-2), burrage@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5555
Senator Harry Coates (R-28), coates@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5547
Senator Judy Eason-McIntyre (D-11), easonmcintyre@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5598
Senator Earl Garrison (D-9), garrisone@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5533
Senator Connie Johnson (D-48), johnsonc@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5531
Senator Ron Justice (R-23), justice@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5537
Senator Debbe Leftwich (D-44), holland@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5557
Senator David Myers (R-20), ingraham@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5628
Senator Mike Schulz (R-38), schulz@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5612
Senator Joe Sweeden (D-10), sweeden@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5581
Senator Charlie Wyrick (D-1), wyrick@oksenate.gov, (405) 521-5561

4. WRITE letters to the editor, OP-EDs or blogs to educate Oklahomans and other Americans about this infringement on our civil liberties.

5. SHARE this important alert with your colleagues, friends and family. Post to personal blogs.

6. Oklahoma residents only - sign this letter or write your own and send it to your Oklahoma state senator. CAIR-OK and ACLU-OK have prepared a letter to address Oklahoma State Senators. http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/Anti-Hijab-Bill-Petition.pdf

CONTACT: CAIR-OK Executive Director Razi Hashmi, 405-248-5853, E-Mail: rhashmi@cair.com; CAIR-OK Chairperson Lobna Hewedi, E-Mail: lhewedi@cair.com; ACLU-OK Legislative Counsel Tamya Cox, ACLU Deputy Director C.S. Thornton; 405-524-8511; E-Mail: acluok@acluok.org

- PLEASE ANNOUNCE, POST AND DISTRIBUTE -

CAIR ACTION ALERT:
http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?mid1=763&&ArticleID=25794&&name=n&&currPage=1

A New Year, A New Beginning

2009-03-19T10:59:00.001-05:00

A New Year, A New Beginning

President Obama released a special video message for all those celebrating Nowruz. Translated "New Day," Nowruz marks the arrival of spring and the beginning of the New Year for millions in Iran and other communities around the world. This year, the President wanted to send a special message to the people and government of Iran on Nowruz, acknowledging the strain in our relations over the last few decades. "But at this holiday we are reminded of the common humanity that binds us together," he says.

After committing his administration to a future of honest and respectful diplomacy, he continues on to address Iran's leaders directly: "You, too, have a choice. The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right -- but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/Nowruz/

Pope tells Muslims that religion rejects violence

2009-03-19T09:45:00.005-05:00

By VICTOR L. SIMPSON

YAOUNDE, Cameroon (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI told Muslim leaders on Thursday that true religion rejects violence, and he held up peaceful coexistence between Christianity and Islam in Cameroon as "a beacon to other African nations."

In Cameroon's capital, a clapping, swaying crowd of 40,000 faithful from Africa's expanding, vibrant Catholic flock later welcomed him to a football stadium where he celebrated Mass. There, he delivered a message of encouragement for Africa and expressed compassion for the children being forced by paramilitaries to fight in some countries.

To these children he said: "God loves you, he has not forgotten you."

Child soldiers, often kidnapped, have been used by rebels in eastern Congo and by Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army. An estimated 3,500 children are still with armed groups in Congo alone.

The open-air Mass was Benedict's first occasion as pope to be among a great crowd of faithful on the continent that is witnessing the church's biggest growth.

In the morning meeting with 22 representatives of Cameroon's sizable Muslim minority, Benedict said religion is the basis of human civilization and he returned to one of the key themes of his papacy, saying there is no incompatibility between faith and reason.

"Genuine religion ... stands at the base of any authentically human culture," he said. "It rejects all forms of violence and totalitarianism: not only on principles of faith but also of right reason."

The pope said that "religion and reason mutually reinforce one another" and urged Catholics and Muslims to work together "to build a civilization of love."

Unlike in neighboring Nigeria, where religious strife has often broken into violence, Christians and Muslims largely coexist without problems in Cameroon, a situation that drew Benedict's praise.

"May the enthusiastic cooperation of Muslims, Catholics and other Christians in Cameroon, be a beacon to other African nations of the enormous potential of an inter-religious commitment to peace, justice and the common good," he said.

The pope has often spoken of the need for religion to shun violence, but has refrained from pointing any finger at specific faiths since a 2006 speech delivered in Germany in which he linked Islam to violence.

Amid angry reactions from the Islamic world, Benedict expressed regret for any offense caused by his remarks and has since met several times with Muslim leaders from various countries.

Thursday's meeting with Muslim representatives at the Apostolic Nunciature, where Benedict has been lodging on his first African pilgrimage as pope, was closed to the press.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the atmosphere was "cordial and friendly" and that the Muslims issued a "warm greeting to the pope." Lombardi, who was at the meeting, said several of the Muslims leaders told Benedict "you are not alone."

Muslims make up about 22 percent of Cameroon's population; Roman Catholics account for 27 percent of the West African nation's people. Animists account for some 27 percent, while Protestants make up 18 percent.

Benedict, like his predecessor John Paul II, has set aside time in his foreign pilgrimages to meet with, or at least greet, representatives from various Christian communities as well as non-Christians.

After meeting with the Muslims, the pope went on to Yaounde's Amadou Ahidjo stadium to celebrate Mass.

He arrived in a bulletproof, glass-topped "pope mobile" and was driven all around the running track, bringing the huge crowd to its feet. While thousands more remained outside the full stadium, inside the crowd clapped and swayed to traditional music and songs, and many wore flowing robes with writing in French that celebrated the pope's visit.

In his homily, Benedict urged Africans to "hope against all hope" for their future, to reject materialism and to hold on to traditional values.

The pope drew loud cheers when his speech turned to orphans, poor and abused children and to those forced "to join paramilitary forces that are terrorizing some countries."

He assured them God had not forgotten them.

Before the visit, Benedict said he was traveling in Africa as a pilgrimage of peace, in hopes of inspiring faithful to work for social justice and fight the hunger and disease that afflict millions on the continent.

Read More: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iLJ2gzRRfTYc_YuS7r1yuwnmne-gD9712KLO0

POLITICO: Holder vows to restore DOJ civil rights

2009-03-08T23:49:00.002-05:00

By JONATHAN MARTIN | 3/8/09 9:42 PM EDT

Barack Obama went to Selma, Ala., two years ago to claim a place in the lineage of civil rights pioneers.
His African-American attorney general returned to mark “Bloody Sunday” again — this time, with a pledge to restore the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and end “the scourge of racial profiling.”

He was there to commemorate the day in 1965 when Alabama state troopers beat a group of civil rights marchers, but he also spoke to those in the church of racial struggles today, with a pledge that Obama would help protect the gains won by their predecessors.

The attorney general did not reprise his view that America is “a nation of cowards” for not being more willing to discuss race. But Holder confronted in plain terms two issues critical to the black community — issues that many blacks believe the Bush administration ignored.

“Under my leadership, the Civil Rights Division will fight discrimination and inequality just as fiercely as the Criminal Division fights crime,” Holder promised in the sanctuary that often served as a local headquarters for civil rights activists in the ’60s. “Under my leadership, in all that it does, the Civil Rights Division will reflect the spirit of the movement that inspired its creation.”

Speaking about law enforcement — seen by some blacks as more foe than friend — Holder said he would strive for the police to “salute the residents of every neighborhood and for every resident to salute them in return.”

“That will require the Justice Department to work hand in hand with police and communities to get neighborhoods engaged in promoting their own protection,” he said. “That won’t happen unless we relentlessly pursue an end to the scourge of racial profiling of African-Americans, Muslims and other Americans that alienates citizens from their own communities.”

Holder, the first African-American ever to serve as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, hinted at the once-unlikely prospect of a black attorney general standing near where white police officers clubbed young civil rights marchers.

“Few would have predicted, on that dark day 44 years ago, that a black man would become our nation’s 44th president,” Holder said.

But Holder’s comments came on the same day The New York Times quoted Obama saying he would have advised Holder against making the “cowards” comment. In Selma, the attorney general was more cautious and spoke in general terms about pushing the country toward a racial dialogue.

Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), who is hoping to be elected Alabama’s first black governor next year, invited Holder to Selma this year, as he invited Obama in 2007. Davis said the attorney general’s original comments were aimed at highlighting the difficulty many in the nation have when the topic of race comes up.

“I think what the attorney general was pointing to was that race is an enormously difficult and contentious subject in American society,” Davis said in an interview with POLITICO. “We tend to avoid contentious subjects.”

POLITICO

Tackling Islamophobia

2009-03-06T00:14:00.002-06:00

Islamophobia
written by Editor

Islamophobia is a form of prejudice, hatred and intolerance directed towards Islam and Muslims. Like previous forms of group prejudice in America (racism against African Americans, anti-Semitism against Jewish Americans), it thrives on ignorance and fear of the unknown.

How do Islamophobes smear Muslims?

1. Smear tactics often rely on tenuous logic : X knew Y. Y prayed in the same mosque as Z. In 1975, Z had some contact with T. T is an Extremist. Therefore, X is a terrorist sympathizer.
2. Islamophobes target mainstream Muslim organizations, mainstream leaders, and uniquely successful Muslim projects, in order to undermine the entire community.
3. Islamophobes find individual Muslims who have no standing in the Muslim community and promote them as alternate representatives of Muslims in America. These individuals are then funded and promoted in the media as experts.
4. Islamophobes create more hype by circular references to other Islamophobes and supporting each other’s “proof”. These are passed through blogs, web sites, media, etc.

What are the consequences of these attacks?

1. Islamophobia fosters fear of the American Muslim community, resulting in prolonged civil rights abuses, hate crimes and discrimination by non-Muslims.
2.Islamophobia also fosters fear in the American Muslim community. This fear stifles integration, causing confusion in the minds of Muslims about the possibility and desirability of integration in American society. It feeds resentment and plays into the hands of isolationists within the community.
3. Islamaphobia creates a negative image of America in the Muslim world, making it more difficult for Muslims abroad to see the good that America does in the world.

Why do Islamophobes attack Muslims?

Some Islamophobes mistakenly believe that Islam is a violent religion, and this motivates their criticism of Muslims in America. Our most persistent and vicious critics, however, simply do not want an organized Muslim presence in this country. They find the prospect of an integrated, empowered minority to be threatening to their vision of America as a white Christian nation. Some also worry that allowing a Muslim voice in foreign policy debates may erode America’s uncritical support of Israel. This is why Islamaphobes are often directly or indirectly funded by right-wing American Zionist organizations.

How do they get away with it?

To begin with, many Americans are genuinely unfamiliar with Islam and Muslims. Without having read any Islamic texts or met Muslims in real life, they are confronted with media images of terrorism and foreign words like jihad, hijab and Shari‘a. Islamophobes exploit this ignorance in order to smear mainstream Muslim leaders and amplify the “War on Terror”.

Moreover, the Muslim community is one of the youngest and most vulnerable minorities in America. Two thirds of American Muslims are first or second generation immigrants. African-American Muslims, who comprise the remaining third, have a long history of disenfranchisement in this country: in fact, they are doubly discriminated against as members of two minorities.

Many readers will remember the agony caused in the recent presidential election by the fear that Obama could be a hidden Muslim. It took Obama considerable effort to overcome this “accusation”. Mainstream American Muslims do not command the same resources to overcome the accusations of being “extremists” or “terrorist sympathizers”.

What’s our side of the story?

We Muslims in America are trying to live and represent our faith under challenging circumstances. We do not apologize for being Muslim or for being American. We shun militancy and extremism, and desire peace and justice at home and abroad. And we want to make a positive, enduring contribution to American life.

Of course, we haven’t always made that clear to our fellow Americans. Prior to 9/11, first and second generation American Muslim were often inwardly focused, isolated and uninterested in outreach. This was not because we had something to hide. Rather, we were still learning how to introduce our religion and diverse cultures into the mix of American society. Some of us viewed Islam as only a private matter to be lived at home or in the mosque.

Since 9/11, however, mainstream Muslim organizations have been much more proactive in getting our message out (unfortunately, so have been our critics). It should be clear to anyone who’s listening that Muslims in America desire to be integrated in larger society and to make positive contributions to our country. That is why we need Muslim religious, charitable and civic organizations to thrive. Some people may not want us to have a seat at the table. But we also have many friends among other faith communities, civil rights groups and ordinary Americans who want to see us succeed and share the best of our tradition with our fellow citizens.

Although our country has had its share of dark moments, America prides itself on welcoming immigrants and people of different backgrounds. This is precisely what makes our country great.

What can we do? What can you do?

The best way to know about Muslims in America is to engage with us: inviting us to speak to you, asking us honest questions and working hand in hand with us for the greater good. That’s why we started this site.

You can help too.

http://getrealanswers.org/

Post-9/11 Memos Show More Bush-Era Legal Errors

2009-03-05T00:29:00.002-06:00

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 3, 2009

The number of major legal errors committed by Bush administration lawyers during the formulation of its early counterterrorism policies was far greater than previously known, according to internal Bush administration documents released for the first time by the Justice Department yesterday.

Those policies were based on at least 10 legal opinions conferring broad powers on the president that the Justice Department later deemed flawed and ordered withdrawn, including several approving the military's search, detention or trial of civilians in the United States without congressional input, according to the documents.

While the Bush administration had previously acknowledged rescinding two of those memos -- authorizing the infliction of pain and suffering on detainees and claiming unquestioned authority to interrogate suspects outside the United States -- the government's eventual repudiation or rewrite of the eight other early legal memos was secret until now.

In one of the newly disclosed opinions, Justice Department appointee John Yoo argued that constitutional provisions ensuring free speech and barring warrantless searches could be disregarded by the president in wartime, allowing troops to storm a building if they suspected terrorists might be inside. In another, the department asserted that detainees could be transferred to countries known to commit human rights abuses so long as U.S. officials did not intentionally seek their torture.

The opinions were initially drafted -- and later repudiated at least in part -- by the Justice Department's storied Office of Legal Counsel, which issues interpretations of laws and presidential authorities considered binding on the entire executive branch. The multiple policy shifts during Bush's two presidential terms reflect an unprecedented degree of turmoil in that office, experts say.

In releasing some of the discredited memos, including three that the Bush administration had argued must be kept secret as recently as November, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. declared that "Americans deserve a government that operates with transparency and openness." He also said he hoped to make future legal opinions by his department on such matters "available when possible while still protecting national security information and ensuring robust internal" debate.

The new batch of opinions does not include any repudiated for the first time by the Obama administration or reflect a government shift on the underlying legal issues since Bush's departure. They also do not include the most controversial memos that Democratic lawmakers and human rights experts have been asking to see for several years, including those justifying the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques and the National Security Agency's program to surveil certain Americans without warrants.

But the new administration's swift release of seven of the discredited opinions, as well as an official summary of why they were withdrawn, drew praise yesterday from Capitol Hill and human rights activists. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said the collection begins "to provide details of some of the Bush administration's misguided national security policies" that have long been withheld from public scrutiny.

The defects in most of the early opinions were summarized in a document titled "Memorandum for the Files" and signed by Steven G. Bradbury, who served as the acting head of the legal counsel's office for the Bush administration's last three years without being confirmed by the Senate. Bradbury dated the memo five days before Obama's inauguration and said its purpose was to "confirm that certain propositions" asserted previously by the office were no longer supported. He said key national security officials had already been advised of the change of heart but did not say when.

Bradbury explained the defective legal opinions were issued "in the wake of the atrocities of 9/11, when policy makers, fearing that additional catastrophic terrorist attacks were imminent, strived to employ all lawful means to protect the Nation." He said the fact that legal flaws were noticed later was not meant to suggest that the authors did not "satisfy" professional standards.

Yoo's previously secret 37-page memo asserting that the president could authorize a broad use of military force to combat terrorist activities inside the United States was completed six weeks after the terrorist attacks. In it, Yoo said any terrorists in the United States could be treated like an invading army, justifying warrantless searches and the subordination of free speech and press rights if needed to "wage war successfully."

Jameel Jaffer, head of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project, yesterday called this "a quite astounding proposition."

Nearly seven years later, on Oct. 6, 2008, Bradbury declared that the memo contained several "propositions that are either incorrect or highly questionable." He said that in fact, the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless search and seizure was "fully applicable to domestic military operations" and called the claims about ignoring free speech and press rights "overbroad" and "not sufficiently grounded."

Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel for Human Rights Watch, said the documents taken together "read like a how-to document on how to evade the rule of law." Daskal said she was particularly troubled by a March 2002 memo arguing there were few restrictions on transferring prisoners to a third country, regardless of whether the country had a record of abuse. The memo emphasized that transfers were okay if no explicit or implicit agreement was made to torture.

"That is [the Office of Legal Counsel] telling people how to get away with sending someone to a nation to be tortured," Daskal said. "The idea that the legal counsel's office would be essentially telling the president how to violate the law is completely contrary to the purpose and the role of what a legal adviser is supposed to do."

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Closed Zone

2009-03-05T00:27:00.001-06:00

Gisha - Legal Center for Freedom of Movement calls on the State of Israel to fully open Gaza's crossings and to allow the real victims of the closure - 1.5 million human beings - the freedom of movement necessary to realize their dreams and aspirations.

ACTION ALERT: OKLAHOMANS ASKED TO CHALLENGE LEGISLATION THAT BANS RELIGIOUS HEAD COVERING ON DRIVER'S LICENSES AND PHOTO IDs

2009-03-04T23:44:00.004-06:00

Ensure All Oklahomans’ First Amendment Rights are Protected

(Oklahoma City, OK, 3/3/09) - The Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OK) today called on Oklahomans concerned with constitutionally-protected religious freedoms to contact their state representatives about a bill that bans religious headwear in driver’s license and other identification card photos.

The bill, HB 1645, passed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives on Monday. An Oklahoma Senate subcommittee is expected to take up the bill next week.

The proposed amendment states: “The photograph or image shall clearly identify the licensee or cardholder and shall depict a full front unobstructed view of the entire head and shoulders of the licensee or cardholder. Hats, head scarves, head garments…that cover or partially cover the head or shoulders are strictly prohibited and shall not be worn by the licensee or cardholder when being photographed for a license or identification card.”

CAIR-OK believes the amendment proposed by Rep. Rex Duncan (R-Sand Springs) was introduced in reaction to CAIR-Oklahoma’s successful resolution of a dispute over a Muslim woman’s right to wear hijab in her driver’s license photo.

SEE: Muslim Woman Takes Driver's Photo with Head Scarf (Video)

A recent Tulsa World editorial pointed out the irrelevance the legislation that bans religiously mandated headscarves in driver’s license photos. It pointed out this would have unintended consequences on other religious groups as well.

SEE: Forced Habit: Driver’s License Law Isn’t Needed (Tulsa World)

Today the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF) criticized Oklahoma’s House of Representatives for its attack on religious freedom.

SEE: Proposed Law Will Forbid Sikh Turbans in Driver’s License Photos
SEE ALSO: Religious Freedoms Under Attack in Oklahoma

The American Civil Liberties Union Oklahoma (ACLU-OK) office is also monitoring the bill, Tamya Cox ACLU-OK Legislative Counsel said: “the bill would violate the principles our country stands for. A wide range of Oklahoma’s faith communities will be affected if this bill passes including Catholic nuns, Orthodox Jews, Sikhs, Muslim women and other practioners of faith that wear religious headwear.”

“This legislation is a violation of all Oklahomans constitutionally-protected religious freedoms,” said CAIR-OK Executive
Director Razi Hashmi. “It is important for people to realize that an infringement of one group’s religious rights is a violation of the religious rights of all Americans.”

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED:
(As always be POLITE and RESPECTFUL)

1. CONTACT YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES and urge him or her to ensure that our state laws continue to protect the religious freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Contact your elected officials here.

Call the Oklahoma State Capitol switchboard at 405-521-3356 and ask for your representative’s office.

2. CONTACT THE SPONSOR OF THE BILL and ask him to ensure that Oklahomans’ First Amendment rights of religious freedom are protected. (Find Suggested Talking Points Below).

Senator Roger Ballenger
Phone: 405-521-5588, Email: ballenger@oksenate.gov
Copy to: info@ok.cair.com

Sample Talking Points:
- All Oklahomans should be concerned when there is a chance for violations of any religious liberty.
- If the purpose for such a bill is to clearly identify an individual, then one should be photographed wearing what one would wear every day regardless if it is headwear or glasses.
- The Department of Public Safety already has a policy for religious exemptions on headgear, and this bill is unnecessary.
- Oklahomans should not tolerate such blatant attacks on minority faiths.
- Ensure all Oklahomans’ First Amendment Rights are protected. Urge your State Senator to vote No on HB 1645.

3. THANK the Oklahoma State Representatives who voted against HB 1645.
Also to see how your State Representative voted.

Copy to: info@ok.cair.com

Rep. Ryan Kiesel
Phone: 405-557-7372, Email: kiesel@okhouse.gov

Rep. Al McAffrey
Phone: 405-557-7396, Email: al.mcaffrey@okhouse.gov

Rep. Rebecca Hamilton
Phone: 405-557-7397, Email: rebeccahamilton@okhouse.gov

Rep. Jeanie Mc Daniel
Phone: 405-557-7334, Email: jeanniemcdaniel@okhouse.gov

Rep. Mike Shelton
Phone: 405-557-7367, Email: mikeshelton@okhouse.gov

Rep. Chuck Hoskin
Phone: 405-557-7319, Email: chuck.hoskin@okhouse.gov

Rep. Lucky Lamons
Phone: 405-557-7390, Email:luckylamons@okhouse.gov

Rep. Richard Morrissette
Phone: 405-557-7404, Email: richardmorrissette@okhouse.gov

4. CONTACT THE TULSA WORLD and thank them for their op-ed. It is important that those who value First Amendment rights make the effort to support positive coverage of this issue. Also comment online about the segment. (Always be polite and respectful.)

Tulsa World
Tel: 918-581-8550
Fax: 918-581-8353
Email: hr@tulsaworld.com
Copy to: info@ok.cair.com

5. SHARE this important alert with your colleagues, friends and family. Post to personal blogs.

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

CONTACT: CAIR-OK Executive Director Razi Hashmi, 405-248-5853, E-Mail: rhashmi@cair.com; CAIR-OK Chairperson Lobna Hewedi, E-Mail: lhewedi@cair.com; CAIR-OK Operations Coordinator Tariq Ahmad, E-Mail: tahmad@cair.com

- PLEASE ANNOUNCE, POST AND DISTRIBUTE -

ABC News: Man Asks Entire Town for Forgiveness for Racism

2009-02-07T13:24:00.003-06:00

ABC News: Man Asks Entire Town for Forgiveness for Racism

Posted using ShareThis

Man Asks Entire Town for Forgiveness for Racism
48 Years Ago, He Attacked Future Rep. John Lewis; Now the Two Hug

By CLAIRE SHIPMAN, CINDY SMITH and LEE FERRAN
Feb. 6, 2009 —

Nearly half a century ago, in a very different America, Elwin Wilson and John Lewis met under a veil of violence and race-inspired hate.

Wilson, a young, white, Southern man, attacked Lewis, a freedom rider for Martin Luther King, in the "white" waiting room of a South Carolina bus station.

The men had not seen each other again until Tuesday when, with "Good Morning America's" help, Wilson approached Lewis again -- this time offering an apology and a chance to relieve a burden he'd carried for more than four decades.

"I'm so sorry about what happened back then," Wilson said breathlessly.

"It's OK. I forgive you," Lewis responded before a long-awaited hug.

For Lewis, who in the intervening years became a U.S. representative from Georgia, the apology was an unexpected symbol of the change in time and hearts.

"I never thought this would happen," he told "GMA." "It says something about the power of love, of grace, the power of the people being able to say, 'I'm sorry,' and move on. And I deeply appreciate it. It's very meaningful for me."

For both, that particular point in their past is a painful memory.

"[I remember] going directly to the Greyhound bus station," Lewis said. "We tried to enter a so-called 'white' waiting room and the moment we started through the door, a group of young men attacked us."

Wilson was in the group, but said he "did more than help." He said he was the main attacker.

The outburst, Wilson said, was just part of a life of hate he led for years.

"I had a black baby doll in this house, and I had a little rope, and I tied it to a limb and let it hang here," he said.

In a diner, with a look of glee on his face, he threw eggs at black men who tried to enter.

"I tried to block it out of my mind. It kept coming back," he said.

Wilson's son, Christopher, said recalling life with his father brought back his own painful memories.

"He was a really hard person to deal with growing up," Christopher said through tears. "He embarrassed me in restaurants and stuff. I always tell him, 'We are all the same.'"

But now, Christopher said he is "really proud."

The change, one Wilson said was a long time coming, was sparked by Barack Obama's presidential victory.

"I like Barack Obama," he said. "I didn't vote for him, but I'm glad he's there, and I've prayed for him."

Since then, Wilson has been on his own freedom march in search of forgiveness.

He went back to the diner where he threw eggs. He went all around town, apologizing to anyone he may have wronged. Pretty soon, he found out that one of the men he wanted to apologize to was a U.S. representative.

"I think it's a day of history," Wilson said when he met Lewis. "I want to love people regardless of what color."

"For you to come here today, it's amazing to me," Lewis said. "It's unreal. It's unbelievable. Maybe, just maybe, others will come forward because there needs to be this healing."

"Good to see you, my friend. Good to see you," Lewis added.

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

American Viewership of Al-Jazeera Rises Dramatically

2009-01-27T14:37:00.007-06:00

American Viewership of Al-Jazeera Rises Dramatically
by Barbara Surk and Adam Schreck
DOHA, Qatar - American viewership of Al-Jazeera English rose dramatically during the Israel-Hamas war, partly because the channel had what CNN and other international networks didn't have: reporters inside Gaza.

This image taken from a computer screen and released by Livestation on Thursday Jan. 22, 2009, shows Arab TV station Al Jazeera's English-language channel as made available on the Livestation Internet web site. The image shows Ayman Mohyeldin, Al Jazeera's 29-year old correspondent, who reported on Israel's recent military offensive live from Gaza Strip for 22-days, and also shows message blogs from viewers. Viewing figures point to big gains in U.S. online interest, suggesting the war gave the Arab station its first significant chance to break into the American market.(AP Photo/Livestation, HO)But the viewers weren't watching it on television, where the Arab network's English-language station has almost no U.S. presence.

Instead, the station streamed video of Israel's offensive against Hamas on the Internet and took advantage of emerging online media such as the microblogging Web site Twitter to provide real-time updates.

During the 22-day conflict that ended last weekend, the station and its Arabic language sister, as they often do, aired far more graphic pictures than U.S. networks of dead and injured Palestinian children and women.

The images, viewed widely across the Mideast, generated enormous sympathy for Gazans in the Muslim world.

"Gaza ... was a breakthrough opportunity to make an impact with people who are less aware of Al-Jazeera than we'd like," said Tony Burman, managing director of the English-language channel in Qatar.

"There is an alternative perspective our channel provides, and Gaza was a good example," Burman said.

Al-Jazeera had another draw: Its reporters were inside Gaza while international networks such as CNN were barred by Israel from sending reporters in throughout the entire war. Israeli TV focused mostly on Israeli casualty reports and Hamas rocket barrages.

"Having reporters in Gaza - which others did not have - that's what made Al-Jazeera stand out and that's important on the Internet," said Jeff Jarvis, who teaches journalism at the City University of New York and writes about media on his Buzzmachine.com blog.

Overall, the station's Web video stream saw a 600 percent jump in worldwide viewership during the Gaza offensive - and about 60 percent of those hits came from the United States, according to the station's internal numbers.

Outside figures also point to big gains in U.S. online interest, suggesting the war gave the Arab station its first significant chance to break into the American market.

Traffic to Al-Jazeera's main Web page, which includes both the English and Arabic sites, spiked once Israeli airstrikes began on Dec. 27, according to Amazon.com Inc.'s Alexa Web tracking site.

Those figures show the share of Internet users visiting the site shot up about 22 percent over the last three months, with most of the gains coming since the start of the Gaza conflict.

The jump in viewership reflects wider trends in global media, where the Web increasingly is the place where viewers go to watch video and social networking sites and citizen journalism are merging with traditional news coverage.

Al-Jazeera English and Arabic are both bankrolled by energy-rich Qatar, a U.S. Arab ally that also supports the militant Hamas rulers of Gaza and which recently suspended its low-level ties with Israel to protest the Gaza offensive.

Feisty and sometimes graphic coverage of global carnage is an Al-Jazeera specialty, as is bracing commentary that has shaken up the Arab world and rattled the West.

Since Al-Jazeera English went on the air in November 2006, it has struggled to gain a spot on traditional American airwaves. The station says only three small cable operators offer the network in Ohio, Vermont and Washington, D.C.

None of the biggest U.S. cable systems carries Al-Jazeera English, claiming viewer interest is not sufficient.

The former Bush administration had accused Al-Jazeera's Arabic station of anti-American bias. Some members of the administration criticized the network after the Sept. 11 attacks because of its access to and willingness to air tapes of Osama bin Laden.

A frustrated President Bush even talked of bombing the Arabic-language channel's headquarters in 2004, according to a leaked British government memo.

The publicly owned cable system in Burlington, Vt. that carries Al-Jazeera English, has faced pressure and even calls for a ballot initiative to remove the channel by a group that claims the station is anti-American.

But the Internet has made it possible for the network to reach American viewers despite the limitations of its cable television broadcasts.

The English channel has a different staff and separate budget from the Arabic network. Its executives say they have no political agenda in coverage of the Mideast.

Politics aside, there is little question that the Gaza war gave the station a viewership boost - similar to what CNN got on cable in the 1991 Gulf War.

From its start, Al-Jazeera English has offered grainy, low-resolution access to the same broadcasts shown on cable television through its Web site. Higher-quality transmissions were also available for a price.

A few months before the Gaza offensive began, the network began the same broadcasts on a new Web-based platform known as Livestation, which allows users to watch high-quality broadcasts online live and for free.

The service, which is being developed by a London-based technology company partially backed by Microsoft Corp., has also signed up a number of other news networks, including Bloomberg Television and BBC World.

Livestation said Al-Jazeera English footage viewed on its site jumped to 17 million minutes worldwide over a two week period during the Gaza conflict, up from 3 million minutes in a similar time period before the conflict began.

The service did not break down those numbers by specific country. But it said that over one full week of the Gaza conflict, the number of U.S. viewers to Al-Jazeera English on Livestation surged by six times the usual level.

The boost in viewership was also reflected on YouTube where viewers can watch individual television reports. Over the past month during the Gaza crisis, Al-Jazeera was the most viewed English-language traditional news channel on YouTube's "News and Politics" category.

The network, like its global rivals, is pushing aggressively into other online media. It set up a page dedicated to Gaza coverage on the "microblogging" site Twitter and is experimenting with interactive maps. It also actively seeks photos and other eyewitness accounts from viewers.

Ayman Mohyeldin, the network's 29-year-old correspondent who reported on Israel's military offensive live for 22 days, became a well-known figure to many viewers.

Dressed in a bulletproof vest and helmet, the U.S.-educated journalist of Egyptian descent described in great detail life and death during Israeli air raids. He now has at least one fan club on Facebook.

Surk reported from Doha and Schreck from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

On the Net:
Al-Jazeera English site: http://english.aljazeera.net/

President Obama gives interview to Al-Arabiya

2009-01-27T00:38:00.002-06:00

DUBAI (AlArabiya.net)

U.S. President Barack Obama Monday told the Muslim world via an interview with Al-Arabiya TV that "Americans are not your enemy" and said Israel and the Palestinians should resume peace negotiations.

He said that his administration wanted to start by hearing out and speaking to all involved parties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without prejudging their concerns.

President Obama also praised Saudi King Abdulla for putting forward an Arab peace plan for the conflict in the Middle East and said his administration would adopt a more extensive approach in its relationship with the Muslim world.

Obama pointed out that he had lived in the world’s largest Muslim nation, Indonesia for several years while growing up, and said his travels through Muslim countries had convinced him that regardless of faith, people had certain common hopes and dreams.

During the U.S. presidential election campaign last year, Obama vowed to improve U.S. ties with the Muslim world and said he would travel to a major Islamic capital to send that message. The President repeated this pledge during the interview but did not mention any time, or a venue.

The president, who took office a week ago, said he had begun to fulfill the promises he made during his campaign by naming former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell as his Middle East peace envoy and sending him to the region within days of becoming president. Mitchell is expected in the region Monday evening.

The Following is a full transcript of interview with President Obama:

Q: Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity, we really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.
Q: Sir, you just met with your personal envoy to the Middle East, Senator Mitchell. Obviously, his first task is to consolidate the cease-fire. But beyond that you've been saying that you want to pursue actively and aggressively peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the President of the United States is not involved, nothing happens – as the history of peace making shows. Will you be proposing ideas, pitching proposals, parameters, as one of your predecessors did? Or just urging the parties to come up with their own resolutions, as your immediate predecessor did?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away. And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals.

And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the
United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues --and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen. He's going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.

Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it's time to return to the negotiating table.

And it's going to be difficult, it's going to take time. I don't want to prejudge many of these issues, and I want to make sure that expectations are not raised so that we think that this is going to be resolved in a few months. But if we start the steady progress on these issues, I'm absolutely confident that the United States -- working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region -- I'm absolutely certain that we can make significant progress.

Q: You've been saying essentially that we should not look at these issues -- like the Palestinian-Israeli track and separation from the border region -- you've been talking about a kind of holistic approach to the region. Are we expecting a different paradigm in the sense that in the past one of the critiques -- at least from the Arab side, the Muslim side -- is that everything the Americans always tested with the Israelis, if it works. Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you've indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia --

Q: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage --

Q: Absolutely.

THE PRESIDENT: -- to put forward something that is as significant as that.
I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.

I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These things are interrelated. And what I've said, and I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.

Now, Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.

And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs.

Q: I want to ask you about the broader Muslim world, but let me – one final thing about the Palestinian-Israeli theater. There are many
Palestinians and Israelis who are very frustrated now with the current conditions and they are losing hope, they are disillusioned, and they believe that time is running out on the two-state solution because – mainly because of the settlement activities in Palestinian-occupied territories.

Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state -- and you know the contours of it -- within the first Obama administration?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.

And, look, I think anybody who has studied the region recognizes that the situation for the ordinary Palestinian in many cases has not improved. And the bottom line in all these talks and all these conversations is, is a child in the Palestinian Territories going to be better off? Do they have a future for themselves? And is the child in Israel going to feel confident about his or her safety and security? And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress.

But it is not going to be easy, and that's why we've got George Mitchell going there. This is somebody with extraordinary patience as well as extraordinary skill, and that's what's going to be necessary.

Q: Absolutely. Let me take a broader look at the whole region. You are planning to address the Muslim world in your first 100 days from a Muslim capital. And everybody is speculating about the capital. (Laughter) If you have anything further, that would be great.
How concerned are you -- because, let me tell you, honestly, when I see certain things about America -- in some parts, I don't want to exaggerate -- there is a demonization of America.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.

Q: It's become like a new religion, and like a new religion it has new converts -- like a new religion has its own high priests.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: It's only a religious text.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: And in the last -- since 9/11 and because of Iraq, that alienation is wider between the Americans and -- and in generations past, the United States was held high. It was the only Western power with no colonial legacy.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: How concerned are you and -- because people sense that you have a different political discourse. And I think, judging by (inaudible) and
Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden and all these, you know -- a chorus --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I noticed this. They seem nervous.

Q: They seem very nervous, exactly. Now, tell me why they should be more nervous?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that when you look at the rhetoric that they've been using against me before I even took office --

Q: I know, I know.

THE PRESIDENT: -- what that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt. There's no actions that they've taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them.

In my inauguration speech, I spoke about: You will be judged on what you've built, not what you've destroyed. And what they've been doing is destroying things. And over time, I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except more death and destruction.

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.

Q: The largest one.

THE PRESIDENT: The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to
communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. Andthat I think is going to be an important task.

But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration's actions. And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what's on a television station in the Arab world -- but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to them, as well.

Q: Tell me, time is running out, any decision on from where you will be visiting the Muslim world?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not going to break the news right here.

Q: Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT: But maybe next time. But it is something that is going to be important. I want people to recognize, though, that we are going to be making a series of initiatives. Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we're not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we're going to start now. It may take a long time to do, but we're going to do it now.

We're going to follow through on our commitment for me to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital. We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do a more effective job of reaching out, listening, as well as speaking to the Muslim world.

And you're going to see me following through with dealing with a drawdown of troops in Iraq, so that Iraqis can start taking more responsibility. And finally, I think you've already seen a commitment, in terms of closing Guantanamo, and making clear that even as we are decisive in going after terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians, that we're going to do so on our terms, and we're going to do so respecting the rule of law that I think makes America great.

Q: President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, "war on terror," and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people -- Islamic fascism. You've always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of --

THE PRESIDENT: I think that you're making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations -- whether Muslim or any other faith in the past -- that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name.

And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in
distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda -- that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it -- and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.

But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.

Q: Can I end with a question on Iran and Iraq then quickly?

THE PRESIDENT: It's up to the team --

MR. GIBBS: You have 30 seconds. (Laughter)

Q: Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.

Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past -- none of these things have been helpful.

But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.

Q: Shall we leave Iraq next interview, or just --

MR. GIBBS: Yes, let's -- we're past, and I got to get him back to dinner with his wife.

Q: Sir, I really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.

Q: Thanks a lot.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it.

Q: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

CBS 60 Minutes segment " Is Peace Out of Reach?"

2009-01-26T15:56:00.001-06:00

60 Minutes: Growing Number Of Israelis, Palestinians Say Two-State Solution Is No Longer Possible

Watch CBS Videos Online

Time Running Out For A Two-State Solution?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/60minutes/main4749723.shtml
Full Transcript Below

Jan. 25, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) Getting a peace deal in the Middle East is such a priority to President Obama that his first foreign calls on his first day in office were to Arab and Israeli leaders. And on day two, the president made former Senator George Mitchell his special envoy for Middle East peace. Mr. Obama wants to shore up the ceasefire in Gaza, but a lasting peace really depends on the West Bank where Palestinians had hoped to create their state. The problem is, even before Israel invaded Gaza, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians had concluded that peace between them was no longer possible, that history had passed it by. For peace to have a chance, Israel would have to withdraw from the West Bank, which would then become the Palestinian state.

It’s known as the "two-state" solution. But, while negotiations have been going on for 15 years, hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers have moved in to occupy the West Bank. Palestinians say they can't have a state with Israeli settlers all over it, which the settlers say is precisely the idea.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daniella Weiss moved from Israel to the West Bank 33 years ago. She has been the mayor of a large settlement.

"I think that settlements prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel. This is the goal. And this is the reality," Weiss told 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon.

Though settlers and Palestinians don't agree on anything, most do agree now that a peace deal has been overtaken by events.

"While my heart still wants to believe that the two-state solution is possible, my brain keeps telling me the opposite because of what I see in terms of the building of settlements. So, these settlers are destroying the potential peace for both people that would have been created if we had a two-state solution," Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, once a former candidate for Palestinian president, told Simon.

And he told 60 Minutes Israel's invasion of Gaza - all the death and destruction - convinces him that Israel does not want a two-state solution. "My heart is deeply broken, and I am very worried that what Israel has done has furthered us much further from the possibility of [a] two-state solution."

Palestinians had hoped to establish their state on the West Bank, an area the size of Delaware. But Israelis have split it up with scores of settlements, and hundreds of miles of new highways that only settlers can use. Palestinians have to drive - or ride - on the older roads.

When they want to travel from one town to another, they have to submit to humiliating delays at checkpoints and roadblocks. There are more than 600 of them on the West Bank.

Asked why there are so many checkpoints, Dr. Barghouti said, "I think the main goal is to fragment the West Bank. Maybe a little bit of them can be justified because they say it's for security. But I think the vast majority of them are basically to block the movement of people from one place to another."

Here's how they block Barghouti: he was born in Jerusalem, grew up in Jerusalem and worked in a hospital there for 14 years. Four years ago he moved to a town just 10 miles away, but now, because he no longer lives in Jerusalem, he can't get back in - ever.

He says he can't get a permit to go. "I asked for a permit to go to Jerusalem during the last year, the last years about 16 times. And 16 times they were rejected. Like most Palestinians, I don't have a permit to go to the city I was born in, to the city I used to work in, to the city where my sister lives."

What he's up against are scores of Israeli settlements dominating the lowlands like crusader fortresses. Many are little cities, and none of them existed 40 years ago. The Israelis always take the high ground, sometimes the hills, and sometimes the homes. And sometimes Arabs are occupied inside their own homes.

One house for example is the highest house on the highest hill overlooking the town of Nablus. 60 Minutes learned that Israeli soldiers often corral the four families who live there and take over the house to monitor movement down below.

Simon and the 60 Minutes team went to an apartment owned by a Mr. Nassif. That morning, Israeli soldiers had apparently entered the apartment, without notice, and remained there when Simon knocked on the door.

"We cannot speak with you, there are soldiers," Nassif told Simon. "We are in prison here."

Asked what was happening, Nassif says, "They are keeping us here and the soldiers are upstairs, we cannot move. We cannot speak with you."

Nassif said he couldn't leave the house and didn't know how long he'd have to stay in place. Asked if they were paying him any money, he told Simon, "You are kidding?"

Abdul Nassif, a bank manager said he had to get to his bank to open the safe, but one of the soldiers wouldn't let him go. He told 60 Minutes whenever the soldiers come they wake everybody up, and herd them into a kitchen for hours while soldiers sleep in their beds. They can't leave or use the phone, or let 60 Minutes in.

He sent 60 Minutes downstairs to see if his brother would open the door so we could ask the soldiers why they keep taking over this house. But the brother told Simon, "The soldiers close the door from the key. They take the key."

So Simon and the crew left, and that night, so did the soldiers. But when 60 Minutes returned two days later, the soldiers were back for more surveillance. This time they kept the women under house arrest, but let the men go to work and the children go to school. When the children returned, we caught a glimpse of two armed soldiers at the top of the stairs.

Then more children came home, but the soldiers wouldn't open the door again.

A commander told Simon that he and the crew would have to go back behind a wall in order for the children to be let in.

The commander declined to talk to 60 Minutes. "But we are talking to you now," Simon pointed out, standing outside. "Why don't you tell us what you are doing here? Have you lost your voice? Well they've closed the door now, they've closed the window so I guess if the children are going to get home now we have to leave, so that is what we will do."

An army spokesperson told us the army uses the Nassifs' house for important surveillance operations. The Nassifs told 60 Minutes that soldiers usually stay for a day or two, always coming and going in the middle of the night. When they do go, the Nassifs never know when they will be occupied again. It could be tomorrow, next week, or next month. The only certainty, they say, is that the soldiers will be back.

Another crippling reality on the West Bank is high unemployment, now about 20 percent. So some Palestinians can only find jobs building Israeli settlements. They're so ashamed to work on the construction sites that they asked 60 Minutes not to show their faces.

The settlers now number 280,000, and as they keep moving in, their population keeps growing about five percent every year. But the 2.5 million Arabs have their strategy too: they're growing bigger families.

Demographers predict that within ten years Arabs will outnumber Jews in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Without a separate Palestinian state the Israelis would have three options, none of them good. They could try ethnic cleansing, drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank, or they could give the Palestinians the vote. That would be the democratic option but it would mean the end of the Jewish state. Or they could try apartheid - have the minority Israelis rule the majority Palestinians, but apartheid regimes don't have a very long life.

"Unfortunately, and I have to say to you that apartheid is already in place," Dr. Barghouti argued.

Apartheid? Israel is building what it calls a security wall between the West Bank and Israel. The Palestinians are furious because it appropriates eight percent of the West Bank. Not only that. It weaves its way through Palestinian farms, separating farmers from their land. They have to wait at gates for soldiers to let them in. Settlers get a lot more water than Palestinians, which is why settlements are green and Arab areas are not.

Moderate Israelis who deplore the occupation used to believe passionately in a two-state solution. That is no longer the case.

Meron Benvenisti used to be deputy mayor of Jerusalem. He told Simon the prospects of the two-state solution becoming a reality are "nil."

"The geopolitical condition that’s been created in '67 is irreversible. Cannot be changed. You cannot unscramble that egg," he explained.

Asked if this means the settlers have won, Benvenisti told Simon, "Yes."

"And the settlers will remain forever and ever?" Simon asked.

"I don't know forever and ever, but they will remain and will flourish," Benvenisti said.

"The settlers, the attitude that I present here, this is the heart. This is the pulse. This is the past, present, and future of the Jewish state," Daniella Weiss told Simon.

She says the she and the settlers are immovable. "We will stay here forever."

But one very important Israeli says she intends to move them out. She's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, a candidate to become prime minister in elections next month. She's also Israel’s chief negotiator with the Palestinians, and she told 60 Minutes peace is unthinkable with the settlers where they are.

"Can you really imagine evacuating the tens of thousands of settlers who say they will not leave?" Simon asked.

"It's not going to be easy. But this is the only solution," she replied.

"But you know that there are settlers who say, 'We will fight. We will not leave. We will fight,'" Simon asked.

"So this is the responsibility of the government and police to stop them. As simple as that. Israel is a state of law and order," Livni said.

It's also a state of law and disorder. When the army evicted just nine families from a West Bank settlement called Amona three years ago, it was chaos. It was the first time since the creation of the state that Jews were in pitched battles against Jews. To Israelis of all stripes, it was not a pretty picture. And it made the government loath to try again.

Officials fear that more battles to empty settlements could rip Israel apart. They're afraid that religious officers in the army - and there are an increasing number of them - would disobey any order to evict settlers.

The army is evicting Arabs from their homes in East Jerusalem, which Palestinians hoped to make their capital. Outraged, Arabs tried to save their homes, but the Israelis have the guns. Israel demolished more than 100 Arab homes in the past year, ruling they had been illegally built. Arabs say this is just another tactic to drive them out. But officials say they also knock down unauthorized Jewish buildings on the West Bank. They're put up by youngsters, the next generation’s campaign to populate the land.

Daniella Weiss told 60 Minutes they will not be stopped.

Despite the army tearing down a structure, the settlers began rebuilding it on the same day. "We will have the upper hand," Weiss vowed.

"But the army will tear it down again," Simon pointed out.

"And we will rebuild it," Weiss said. "The experience shows that the world belongs to those who are stubborn, and we are very stubborn."

Stubborn, she says, because they were ordered to populate this land by no less an authority than God. "This is the mission of our generation and I want to emphasis the most important point is to this," Weiss said, picking up some soil, "to hold strong to the soil of the Holy Land."

Israel accused of war crimes over 12-hour assault on Gaza village

2009-01-18T17:56:00.002-06:00

Israel accused of war crimes over 12-hour assault on Gaza village
White flags ignored and houses bulldozed with families inside, claim residents
Fida Qishta in Khuza'a and Peter Beaumont in London
The Observer, Sunday 18 January 2009

Israel stands accused of perpetrating a series of war crimes during a sustained 12-hour assault on a village in southern Gaza last week in which 14 people died.

In testimony collected from residents of the village of Khuza'a by the Observer, it is claimed that Israeli soldiers entering the village:

• attempted to bulldoze houses with civilians inside;

• killed civilians trying to escape under the protection of white flags;

• opened fire on an ambulance attempting to reach the wounded;

• used indiscriminate force in a civilian area and fired white phosphorus shells.

If the allegations are upheld, all the incidents would constitute breaches of the Geneva conventions.

The denunciations over what happened in Khuza'a follow repeated claims of possible human rights violations from the Red Cross, the UN and human rights organisations.

The Israeli army announced yesterday that it was investigating "at the highest level" five other attacks against civilians in Gaza, involving two UN facilities and a hospital. It added that in all cases initial investigations suggested soldiers were responding to fire. "These claims of war crimes are not supported by the slightest piece of evidence," said Yigal Palmor, an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman.

Concern over what occurred in the village of Khuza'a in the early hours of Tuesday was first raised by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem. Although an Israeli military spokesman said he had "no information that this alleged incident took place", witness statements collected by the Observer are consistent and match testimony gathered by B'Tselem.

There is also strong visible evidence that Khuza'a came under a sustained attack from tanks and bulldozers that smashed some buildings to pieces.

Pictures taken by photographer Bruno Stevens in the aftermath show heavy damage - and still burning phosphorus. "What I can tell you is that many, many houses were shelled and that they used white phosphorus," said Stevens yesterday, one of the first western journalists to get into Gaza. "It appears to have been indiscriminate." Stevens added that homes near the village that had not been hit by shell fire had been set on fire.

The village of Khuza'a is around 500 metres from the border with Israel. According to B'Tselem, its field researcher in Gaza was contacted last Tuesday by resident Munir Shafik al-Najar, who said that Israeli bulldozers had begun destroying homes at 2.30am.

When Rawhiya al-Najar, aged 50, stepped out of her house waving a white flag, so that the rest of the family could leave the house, she was allegedly shot by Israeli soldiers nearby.

The second alleged incident was on Tuesday afternoon, when Israeli troops ordered 30 residents to leave their homes and walk to a school in the village centre. After travelling 20 metres, troops fired on the group, allegedly killing three.

Further detailed accounts of what occurred were supplied in interviews given to a Palestinian researcher who has been working for the Observer, following the decision by Israel to ban foreign media from the Gaza Strip. Iman al-Najar, 29, said she watched as bulldozers started to destroy neighbours' homes and saw terrified villagers flee from their houses as masonry collapsed.

"By 6am the tanks and bulldozers had reached our house," Iman recalled. "We went on the roofs and tried to show we were civilians with white flags. Everyone was carrying a white flag. We told them we are civilians. We don't have any weapons. The soldiers started to destroy the houses even if the people were in them." Describing the death of Rawhiya, Iman says they were ordered by Israeli soldiers to move to the centre of the town. As they did, Israeli troops opened fire. Rawhiya was at the front of the group, says Iman.

Marwan Abu Raeda, 40, a paramedic working for the Nasser hospital in Khan Younis, said: "At 8am we received a phone call from Khuza'a. They told us about the injured woman. I went immediately. I was 60 or 70 metres away from the injured woman when the Israeli forces started to shoot at me." As he drove into another street, he came under fire again. Twelve hours later, when Rawhiya was finally reached, she was dead.

Iman said she ended up in an area of rubble where a large group of people had sought cover in a deep hole among the debris of demolished houses. It is then, she says, that bulldozers began to push the rubble from each side. "They wanted to bury us alive," she said.

U.N. Building in Gaza Strip Is Hit by Strike From Israel

2009-01-15T10:06:00.004-06:00

U.N. Building in Gaza Strip Is Hit by Strike From Israel

New York Times
January 16, 2009

By TAGHREED EL-KHODARY and ISABEL KERSHNER
GAZA — Israeli forces shelled areas deep inside Gaza City on Thursday, hitting the headquarters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and injuring at least three people among the hundreds sheltering in the compound, according to United Nations officials and witnesses.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed regret for the incident but said that Israeli forces were fired on by Hamas militants from just outside the compound and that the militants raced inside the compound to take cover, according to Mr. Olmert’s spokesman, Mark Regev. The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak had told him the strike on the compound was a “grave mistake.” Mr. Ban, who was in Israel Thursday to press fore a cease-fire, said he expressed "strong protest and outrage" to Israel.

The strike came as Israeli ground forces pushed further into Gaza City and intensified its shelling of both outlying neighborhoods and central districts, sending thousands of panicked residents fleeing from their homes, witnesses said. Among other buildings hit in the center of the city, the witnesses said, was one occupied by several media organizations, and at least two television cameramen were hospitalized.

A spokesman for the Relief and Works Agency, Christopher Gunness, said that the Israelis had been provided with the GPS coordinates of all United Nations facilities in Gaza. He said that that two buildings were ablaze and that there were five fully laden fuel vehicles at the site.

Earlier in Israel’s 20-day-old campaign against Hamas, Israeli mortar shells landed outside a United Nations school compound in Jabaliya, northern Gaza, killing at least 40 Palestinians, according to United Nations and hospital officials.

In that attack, the Israeli military said it was responding to mortars fired by Hamas militants from a yard next to the school compound, and that one of the shells it fired back fell off the mark.

The Israeli military would not give precise details of its latest ground operations in Gaza City on Thursday, but a spokesman said that “fierce fighting” was under way “relatively deep inside Gaza.”

The military push may be aimed at stepping up pressure on Hamas as cease-fire talks in Egypt entered a pivotal stage.

Egypt has said that progress is being made toward an interim cease-fire, with some officials predicting that one could be five to six days away. A senior Israeli defense official, Amos Gilad, arrived in Cairo on Thursday to continue the talks.

Overnight, the military said, Israeli planes struck around 70 targets, including a mosque in the southern town of Rafah that it said was used to stockpile rockets, and several squads of gunmen. Within two hours on Thursday morning, militants in Gaza launched 15 rockets and mortars against Israel, the military said, a marked increase in fire compared to Wednesday when there were 16 launches during the entire day.

Palestinians arrived with injured relatives at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City on Thursday, some barefoot and in nightgowns. They told of intense Israeli shelling in several neighborhoods including the Sabra and Tufah districts. Two television cameramen arrived for treatment after the building housing the media offices was hit. They had been filming from a window, they said.

Residents of the Tel el-Hawa district in south-western Gaza City said Israeli shelling and shooting had gone on all night and that the local Al Quds Hospital was under fire.

On Wednesday, as the Gaza death toll passed an estimated 1,000 people and concerns about the humanitarian situation inside Gaza grew, nine Israeli human rights groups called for an investigation into whether Israeli officials had committed war crimes in Gaza. The groups said that tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza had nowhere to flee, the Gaza health system had collapsed, many people were without electricity and running water, and some were beyond the reach of rescue teams.

“This kind of fighting constitutes a blatant violation of the laws of warfare and raises the suspicion, which we ask be investigated, of the commission of war crimes,” the groups said in a news conference.

The groups said that while they believed that it was legitimate for Israel to bomb military installations, it was a violation of international law to hit civilian sites and government buildings that contained no weapons.

The groups included the Israel section of Amnesty International, B’Tselem, Gisha and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel. Israeli Jews are firmly behind the government’s conduct of the war, with the human rights groups representing a small minority.

The president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Jakob Kellenberger, who spent Tuesday in Gaza City, agreed Wednesday that the situation with civilians was dire but said that the principal hospital was making do with medical supplies, and that doctors, working around the clock, were mostly coping with the flow of the wounded.

“In general, they did not complain about the lack of equipment or material,” he said at a news conference in Jerusalem.

Last week, the Red Cross issued an unusually harsh condemnation of Israel for refusing to allow its personnel into Gaza to rescue people trapped in battle. On Wednesday, Mr. Kellenberger said that although the situation remained critical, rescue missions had not been entirely shut down. The organization rescued 100 people trapped in Jabaliya, north of Gaza City, on Tuesday.

Also on Wednesday, Hamas’s leaders met with Egyptian officials in Cairo and agreed in principle to a monitoring force in Gaza composed of Europeans to prevent weapons smuggling, according to a senior Egyptian official. Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, and his generals favor a temporary cease-fire of several days to a week, partly so that when President-elect Barack Obama is inaugurated next week it would be during a lull rather than in the middle of a battle, and his administration could offer its views on the next step, Israeli officials said.

The short-term cease-fire would, if successful, be followed by a negotiated yearlong truce, something that Egypt says Hamas favors if it includes an opening of commercial traffic into Gaza. But splits in Hamas exist between its leaders based in Syria and those in Gaza. The Gazans are more open to a weeklong break, while the leaders in Syria want something from Israel in return for holding fire.

Mr. Ban arrived in Cairo Wednesday as part of a regional tour to press all parties to carry out a Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire. He met with President Hosni Mubarak and then issued a plea for peace.

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria also called for a cease-fire, saying in an interview with the BBC that the effects of war could be more dangerous than war itself, “sowing seeds of extremism and terror around the region.”

Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, in a taped audio message that was his first public statement since last May, called on Muslims everywhere to fight Israel in a holy war.

Taghreed el-Khodary reported from Gaza and Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem. Reporting was contributed by Ethan Bronner and Sabrina Tavernise from Jerusalem, Souad Mekhennet from Frankfurt, Michael Slackman from Cairo, and Alan Cowell from London.

Palestinians sat outside their house after an Israeli air strike in Gaza City on Wednesday.

The mother of two boys, ages 6 and 11, prepared for their burial Wednesday in the Jabaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza. The brothers and another relative were killed in an Israeli airstrike.

Video: Rep. Ron Paul Opposes Pro-Israel Resolution on House Floor

2009-01-15T09:51:00.002-06:00

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives

Statement on H Res 34, Recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, Reaffirming the United States strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process

January 9, 2008

Click here to watch the video of Congressman Paul's statement.

Madame Speaker, I strongly oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or US interests. I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers.

What will adopting this resolution do to the perception of the United States in the Muslim and Arab world? What kind of blowback might we see from this? What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side?

As an opponent of all violence, I am appalled by the practice of lobbing homemade rockets into Israel from Gaza. I am only grateful that, because of the primitive nature of these weapons, there have been so few casualties among innocent Israelis. But I am also appalled by the longstanding Israeli blockade of Gaza -- a cruel act of war -- and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest Israeli attack that started last month.

There are now an estimated 700 dead Palestinians, most of whom are civilians. Many innocent children are among the dead. While the shooting of rockets into Israel is inexcusable, the violent actions of some people in Gaza does not justify killing Palestinians on this scale. Such collective punishment is immoral. At the very least, the US Congress should not be loudly proclaiming its support for the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza.

Madame Speaker, this resolution will do nothing to reduce the fighting and bloodshed in the Middle East. The resolution in fact will lead the US to become further involved in this conflict, promising “vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”

Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country? I believe it would be better to focus on the security and survival of the United States, the Constitution of which my colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of the 111th Congress. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.

For more information, see: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/tx14_paul/Statement_on_Gaza.shtml

Robert Fisk’s World: Wherever I go, I hear the same tired Middle East comparisons

2009-01-13T00:16:00.001-06:00

Independent (UK)
January 10, 2009

It all depends where you live. That was the geography of Israel's propaganda, designed to demonstrate that we softies – we little baby-coddling liberals living in our secure Western homes – don't realise the horror of 12 (now 20) Israeli deaths in 10 years and thousands of rockets and the unimaginable trauma and stress of living near Gaza. Forget the 600 Palestinian dead; travelling on both sides of the Atlantic these past couple of weeks has been an instructive – not to say weirdly repetitive – experience.

Here's how it goes. I was in Toronto when I opened the right-wing National Post and found Lorne Gunter trying to explain to readers what it felt like to come under Palestinian rocket attack. "Suppose you lived in the Toronto suburb of Don Mills," writes Gunter, "and people from the suburb of Scarborough – about 10 kilometres away – were firing as many as 100 rockets a day into your yard, your kid's school, the strip mall down the street and your dentist's office..."

Getting the message? It just so happens, of course, that the people of Scarborough are underprivileged, often new immigrants – many from Afghanistan – while the people of Don Mills are largely middle class with a fair number of Muslims. Nothing like digging a knife into Canada's multicultural society to show how Israel is all too justified in smashing back at the Palestinians.

Now a trip down Montreal way and a glance at the French-language newspaper La Presse two days later. And sure enough, there's an article signed by 16 pro-Israeli writers, economists and academics who are trying to explain what it feels like to come under Palestinian rocket attack. "Imagine for a moment that the children of Longueuil live day and night in terror, that businesses, shops, hospitals, schools are the targets of terrorists located in Brossard." Longueuil, it should be added, is a community of blacks and Muslim immigrants, Afghans, Iranians. But who are the "terrorists" in Brossard?

Two days later and I am in Dublin. I open The Irish Times to find a letter from the local Israeli ambassador, trying to explain to the people of the Irish Republic what it feels like to come under Palestinian rocket attack. Know what's coming? Of course you do. "What would you do," Zion Evrony asks readers, "if Dublin were subjected to a bombardment of 8,000 rockets and mortars..." And so it goes on and on and on. Needless to say, I'm waiting for the same writers to ask how we'd feel if we lived in Don Mills or Brossard or Dublin and came under sustained attack from supersonic aircraft and Merkava tanks and thousands of troops whose shells and bombs tore 40 women and children to pieces outside a school, shredded whole families in their beds and who, after nearly a week, had killed almost 200 civilians out of 600 fatalities.

In Ireland, my favourite journalistic justification for this bloodbath came from my old mate Kevin Myers. "The death toll from Gaza is, of course, shocking, dreadful, unspeakable," he mourned. "Though it does not compare with the death toll amongst Israelis if Hamas had its way." Get it? The massacre in Gaza is justified because Hamas would have done the same if they could, even though they didn't do it because they couldn't. It took Fintan O'Toole, The Irish Times's resident philosopher-in-chief, to speak the unspeakable. "When does the mandate of victimhood expire?" he asked. "At what point does the Nazi genocide of Europe's Jews cease to excuse the state of Israel from the demands of international law and of common humanity?"

I had an interesting time giving the Tip O'Neill peace lecture in Derry when one of the audience asked, as did a member of the Trinity College Dublin Historical Society a day later, whether the Northern Ireland Good Friday peace agreement – or, indeed, any aspect of the recent Irish conflict – contained lessons for the Middle East. I suggested that local peace agreements didn't travel well and that the idea advanced by John Hume (my host in Derry) – that it was all about compromise – didn't work since the Israeli seizure of Arab land in the West Bank had more in common with the 17th-century Irish Catholic dispossession than sectarianism in Belfast.

What I do suspect, however, is that the split and near civil war between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority has a lot in common with the division between the Irish Free State and anti-treaty forces that led to the 1922-3 Irish civil war; that Hamas's refusal to recognise Israel – and the enemies of Michael Collins who refused to recognise the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the border with Northern Ireland – are tragedies that have a lot in common, Israel now playing the role of Britain, urging the pro-treaty men (Mahmoud Abbas) to destroy the anti-treaty men (Hamas).

I ended the week in one of those BBC World Service discussions in which a guy from The Jerusalem Post, a man from al-Jazeera, a British academic and Fisk danced the usual steps around the catastrophe in Gaza. The moment I mentioned that 600 Palestinian dead for 20 Israeli dead around Gaza in 10 years was grotesque, pro-Israeli listeners condemned me for suggesting (which I did not) that only 20 Israelis had been killed in all of Israel in 10 years. Of course, hundreds of Israelis outside Gaza have died in that time – but so have thousands of Palestinians.

My favourite moment came when I pointed out that journalists should be on the side of those who suffer. If we were reporting the 18th-century slave trade, I said, we wouldn't give equal time to the slave ship captain in our dispatches. If we were reporting the liberation of a Nazi concentration camp, we wouldn't give equal time to the SS spokesman. At which point a journalist from the Jewish Telegraph in Prague responded that "the IDF are not Hitler". Of course not. But who said they were?

An Unnecessary War

2009-01-10T09:37:00.004-06:00

By President Jimmy Carter
Washington Post
Thursday, January 8, 2009; A15

I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.

After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty. Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action.

Knowing that we would soon be seeing Hamas leaders from Gaza and also in Damascus, we promised to assess prospects for a cease-fire. From Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who was negotiating between the Israelis and Hamas, we learned that there was a fundamental difference between the two sides. Hamas wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza.

We knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.

Palestinian leaders from Gaza were noncommittal on all issues, claiming that rockets were the only way to respond to their imprisonment and to dramatize their humanitarian plight. The top Hamas leaders in Damascus, however, agreed to consider a cease-fire in Gaza only, provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Palestinian citizens.

After extended discussions with those from Gaza, these Hamas leaders also agreed to accept any peace agreement that might be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who also heads the PLO, provided it was approved by a majority vote of Palestinians in a referendum or by an elected unity government.

Since we were only observers, and not negotiators, we relayed this information to the Egyptians, and they pursued the cease-fire proposal. After about a month, the Egyptians and Hamas informed us that all military action by both sides and all rocket firing would stop on June 19, for a period of six months, and that humanitarian supplies would be restored to the normal level that had existed before Israel's withdrawal in 2005 (about 700 trucks daily).

We were unable to confirm this in Jerusalem because of Israel's unwillingness to admit to any negotiations with Hamas, but rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza.

On another visit to Syria in mid-December, I made an effort for the impending six-month deadline to be extended. It was clear that the preeminent issue was opening the crossings into Gaza. Representatives from the Carter Center visited Jerusalem, met with Israeli officials and asked if this was possible in exchange for a cessation of rocket fire. The Israeli government informally proposed that 15 percent of normal supplies might be possible if Hamas first stopped all rocket fire for 48 hours. This was unacceptable to Hamas, and hostilities erupted.

After 12 days of "combat," the Israeli Defense Forces reported that more than 1,000 targets were shelled or bombed. During that time, Israel rejected international efforts to obtain a cease-fire, with full support from Washington. Seventeen mosques, the American International School, many private homes and much of the basic infrastructure of the small but heavily populated area have been destroyed. This includes the systems that provide water, electricity and sanitation. Heavy civilian casualties are being reported by courageous medical volunteers from many nations, as the fortunate ones operate on the wounded by light from diesel-powered generators.

The hope is that when further hostilities are no longer productive, Israel, Hamas and the United States will accept another cease-fire, at which time the rockets will again stop and an adequate level of humanitarian supplies will be permitted to the surviving Palestinians, with the publicized agreement monitored by the international community. The next possible step: a permanent and comprehensive peace.

The writer was president from 1977 to 1981. He founded the Carter Center, a nongovernmental organization advancing peace and health worldwide, in 1982. President Carter also wrote a book entitled "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" in 2006 on the hopes for peace in the Middle East.

Haaretz: Israel rejects UN truce resolution, continues Gaza operation

2009-01-09T11:00:00.002-06:00

Israeli Newspaper, Haaretz Reports:
Israel rejects UN truce resolution, continues Gaza operation

Last update - 17:47 09/01/2009
By Barak Ravid and Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz Correspondents and News Agencies

The diplomatic-security cabinet on Friday rejected a United Nations Security Council cease-fire resolution and ordered the Israel Defense Forces to continue its current ground operation against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip.

In a communique released immediately after the cabinet session on Friday, the government stated it would not accept the UN resolution, declaring that "the IDF will continue to act in order to attain the objectives of the operation - to bring about a change in the security situation in the south of the country - this in accordance with the plans that have been approved upon embarking on the operation."

"Efforts to prevent the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip will continue," the cabinet statement added.

As such, the cabinet also said Israel would continue to provide humanitarian relief to the local population in Gaza. The army will maintain its policy of declaring a temporary cease-fire so as to allow the supply of food and medicine to reach Gazans in need, the cabinet said.

The cabinet heard reports detailing the military advancement into Gaza as well as the latest on cease-fire talks with Egyptian officials. Amos Gilad, the head of the Defense Ministry's diplomatic-security division, met with his Egyptian counterparts on Thursday.

The government said it would not accept any cease-fire and that the IDF would not withdraw from Gaza until the establishment of a mechanism that would ensure a halt to weapons-smuggling from Egypt into the Hamas-ruled territory.

The cabinet stated that the IDF operation would continue given that Hamas rocket fire has not ceased during the cease-fire deliberations at the Security Council. "Israel has a complete right of self-defense," the communique read.

Earlier Friday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected the resolution calling for a cease-fire in Gaza as "unworkable" and, noting Palestinians fired rockets at Israel on Friday, said the army would go on defending Israelis.

In Israel's first official response to the resolution, Olmert's office said Israel "has never agreed to let an external body decide its right to protect the security of its citizens."

The military "will continue acting to protect Israeli citizens and will carry out the missions it was given," the statement read.

"The firing of rockets this morning only goes to show that the UN decision is unworkable and will not be adhered to by the murderous Palestinian organizations," he said in a statement.

Hours after the Security Council passed Resolution 1860 calling for an immediate cease-fire in Israel's offensive in Gaza, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said Friday that Israel would continue to act only in its interests and according to its own security needs.

"Israel has acted, is acting and will act only according to its considerations, the security needs of its citizens and its right to self-defense," a statement said. It made no direct reference to how Israel would treat the call for a ceasefire.

Livni, along with Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, convened in session on Friday to discusss the Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cessation of violence and their next moves in the conflict.

The UN resolution, drafted by Western powers, "stresses the urgency of and calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza."

It also called for arrangements in Gaza to prevent arms smuggling to Palestinian militants and reopen border crossings, and for "unimpeded provision" and distribution of aid in Gaza, where more than 750 Palestinians, many of them civilians, have been killed.

The resolution was passed by a majority vote of 14-0. The United States abstained, saying it was interested in looking at alternative drafts, but voiced support for the objectives of the resolution.

Kucinich criticizes Israel; wants U.N. probe

2009-01-07T00:30:00.004-06:00

Kucinich criticizes Israel; wants U.N. probe

By Ian Swanson
Posted: 12/29/08 01:48 PM [ET]

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is calling for a United Nations investigation into Israel’s attacks on Gaza, criticizing Israel for a disproportionate response to Hamas rocket attacks.

The criticism stands in stark contrast to the statements of other Democrats, who have offered near-unanimous support for Israel amid the latest violence in the Middle East.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other Democrats have blamed Hamas for the violence, which has left more than 300 people in Gaza dead. One person in Israel has been killed by a Hamas rocket.
Kucinich likened the Israeli attacks on Gaza to its war with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon in 2006. In both cases, he said, civilian populations were attacked and “countless innocents” were killed or injured.

“All this was, and is, disproportionate, indiscriminate mass violence in violation of international law,” Kucinich said in a statement. “Israel is not exempt from international law and must be held accountable.”

Pelosi and other Democrats have refrained from criticizing Israel’s government, which has responded to the Hamas attacks with a rocket assault on Gaza.

“Peace between Israelis and Palestinians cannot result from daily barrages of rocket and mortar fire from Hamas-controlled Gaza,” Pelosi said in a statement posted on the Speaker’s website on Monday.

“Hamas and its supporters must understand that Gaza cannot and will not be allowed to be a sanctuary for attacks on Israel.

Reid said he “strongly” supported Israel’s right to defend its citizens from the Hamas rocket attacks and to restore its security. He also blamed Hamas for any humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.

“Hamas’s failure to stop these attacks only exacerbates the humanitarian situation for the residents of Gaza and undermines efforts to attain peace and security in the region.”

In March, the House voted 404-1 for a resolution condemning Hamas and other Palestinian groups for rocket attacks on Israel. It also condemned the use of Palestinians as human shields. Hamas has been criticized repeatedly for shooting rockets into Israel from civilian areas in Gaza, which leads to the deaths of civilians when Israel counterattacks.

The only member of Congress to vote against the resolution was Rep. Ron Paul (Texas), a Republican candidate for president in 2008. Four Democrats, Reps. Jim Moran (Va.), Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii), Michael Capuano (Mass.) and Jim McDermott (Wash.), voted present. Kucinich was not present for the vote.

Kucinich said the perpetrators of attacks against Israel should be brought to justice, but that Israel “cannot create a war against an entire people in order to attempt to bring to justice the few who are responsible.”

Pelosi said the U.S. must continue to do everything it can to promote peace in the region and a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. She said humanitarian needs of all innocent civilians must be addressed, but added that when Israel is attacked, “the United States must continue to stand strongly with its friend and democratic ally.”

Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Israel had a “duty” to defend itself in response to the attacks. “The loss of innocent life is a terrible tragedy, and the blame for that tragedy lies with Hamas.”

Similarly, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) laid blame with Hamas.

“Hamas is abusing the people of Gaza by using their homes as a base for terror operations,” he said. “The world should no longer tolerate a terrorist government in the Gaza Strip.”

President-elect Obama has yet to weigh in on the violence, although top adviser David Axelrod on Sunday noted statements Obama made over the summer that respected Israel’s right to defend itself.

Kucinich said in his statement that he had sent a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon requesting an independent inquiry. He said the attacks on civilians represented collective punishment, which he said was a violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

INDEPENDENT JEWISH VOICES CONDEMNS ISRAEL'S GAZA MASSACRE

2009-01-07T00:26:00.001-06:00

Sunday, December 28, 2008

INDEPENDENT JEWISH VOICES CONDEMNS ISRAEL'S GAZA MASSACRE

The Israeli military has unleashed its most vicious air assault against the people of Gaza in decades, killing over 280 Gazans and wounding over 700. Despite claims by the Israeli leadership that they are trying to avoid civilians the attacks have been concentrated on Gaza City and the towns of Khan Younis and Rafah. Israeli television reports that Israeli troops are massing on the border "in preparation for a supplementary ground offensive"

Independent Jewish Voices (Canada) condemns this murderous escalation of violence by the Israeli government. Diana Ralph, IJV Coordinator calls this assault "completely disproportionate to the unsupportable firing of Qassam rockets by Hamas fighters which killed one Israeli. It's important to put this into the context of the deadly siege of Gaza by the Israeli forces, which continued in violation of the terms of the recent six month truce between Israel and Gaza. In the ethics of violent conflicts, it is the responsibility of the force wielding power - the Israeli government in this case - to create the conditions for a just peace."

Dr. Judy Deutsch, IJV representative, added: "This massacre will only intensify the cycle of violence in the region and heighten the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The aim of these attacks is not to bring about peace but to strengthen the position of the Israeli government as it heads into elections next February."

Independent Jewish Voices (Canada) calls for an immediate halt to all violence in the conflict, the cessation of the Israeli government's blockade against Gaza, a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Occupied West Bank and the dismantling of settlements.

We also call on the Canadian government to recall its ambassador to Israel and strongly condemn Israel's assault.

Independent Jewish Voices (Canada) - formerly known as the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians - is a network of 18 Jewish groups as well as individual Jews from across Canada who are opposed to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

Doctor Decries Israeli Attacks

2009-01-07T00:23:00.000-06:00

Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor in Gaza, tells Sky News that the number of civilians injured and killed in Gaza proves that Israel is deliberately attacking the population.

Rabbis Speaking Up Against Israel

2009-01-06T20:49:00.000-06:00

CNN Confirms Israel Broke the Ceasefire Agreement

2009-01-05T23:56:00.001-06:00

Rick Sanchez does the research and finds that Israel violated the terms of the ceasefire first by killing 6 Gazans on November 4. Shouldn't media outlets check the facts before running with a story?

Brave Words by Congressman Ron Paul on Gaza "We're In For Big Trouble"

2009-01-05T23:29:00.001-06:00

Dr. Paul discusses the invasion of Gaza on January 3, 2009 and its implications for America.

Congressman Ron Paul speaks the truth, calls Gaza a big concentration camp, says America is partly to blame for supporting Israel

Brave Daughter of Israeli Mossad Head Omer Goldman Speaks Out Against Gaza Assault Calls IDF Terror

2009-01-03T23:00:00.001-06:00

Omer Goldman daughter of the former Mossad chief speaks live to True Talk radio from Tel-Aviv. Goldman has been sent to jail twice for refusing to serve in the Israeli military because she thinks Israel commits crimes against humanity in the occupied territories

Start 2009, By Ending the Occupation in Palestine and Massacre in Gaza

2009-01-01T21:03:00.005-06:00

Sign the online petition for "Peace and Justice in Palestine":
http://petition.cair.com/

Petition:
We, the undersigned people of conscience who respect international law and the sanctity of human life, urge you to speak out for peace and justice for all parties in the Middle East crisis.

We are concerned that the current violence and ongoing humanitarian crisis is further eroding America’s international image. For this reason, a strong, balanced stance from you that is aimed at fostering an enduring peace is vital.

Unfortunately, all parties in the Middle East conflict have committed violence against civilians. We unequivocally condemn all of these actions.

The European Union (EU), Russia, the UN Secretary-General, the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and other international bodies are all urging Israel to end it attacks.

Middle East Envoy Tony Blair deplored the "tragic of loss of life,” while French President Nicolas Sarkozy condemned Israel’s “disproportionate use of force.”

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the Israeli attacks were "inflicting an unacceptable toll on Palestinian civilians and will only worsen the humanitarian crisis as well as complicate the search for a peaceful solution.”

Unfortunately, our nation’s one-sided response to this tragic episode will only serve to fuel anti-American sentiments in the Muslim world and beyond.

We therefore call on you to demonstrate your commitment to changing our nation’s current one-sided Mideast policy by speaking out now in favor of peace and justice for all parties to this decades-long conflict.

Florida Pro-Israel Extremist Joe Kaufman Incites Death Threats Against Muslim Radio Hosts

2009-01-01T20:58:00.003-06:00

Florida Pro-Israel Extremist Joe Kaufman Incites Death Threats Against Muslim Radio Hosts

On January 5, 2007, South Florida right-wing pro-Israel radical Joe Kaufman has taken his racist hate message to dangerous levels inciting death threats against Muslim-American radio hosts. In an online article posted to the David Horowitz right-wing blog Frontpagemag.com titled "Hamas and Holocaust Talk" Kaufman falsely and maliciously accused radio show hosts Ahmed Bedier and Samar Jarrah as "two supporters of and apologists for radical Islam."

Bedier and Jarrah are hosts of the weekly public affairs radio show "True Talk" on the progressive community station and NPR affiliate WMNF 88.5fm. The True Talk program and WMNF are known in the Tampa Bay area as catalysts for bridge building, inclusion and peace. Immediately after extremist Joe Kaufman posted his hate piece on Frontpagemag, Bedier and Jarrah received death and hate threats via the internet and email. Below is an example of the death threat to Bedier and Jarrah posted by a supporter to Joe Kaufman's article.
Kaufman's supporter and Frontpagemag.com member "Fidelis" wrote:

"Maybe someone has the b@lls to pull an "Alan Berg" on them some afternoon when they leave the studio. They're not too far from the mud flap country up there." Click here to see copy of death threat.

The death threat directed at Ahmed Bedier and Samar Jarrah (them) refers to pulling an "Alan Berg" a Jewish radio show host who was shot and killed outside his home by white nationalists. For details on Alan Berg click here.

Posted by Ahmed Bedier at
1/05/2007

UN President of General Assembly On Gaza airstrikes

2008-12-30T23:41:00.002-06:00

On Gaza airstrikes

UN Headquarters , New York, 27 December 2008

The behavior by Israel in bombarding Gaza is simply the commission of wanton aggression by a very powerful state against a territory that illegally occupies.

Time has come to take firm action if the United Nations does not want to be rightly accused of complicity by omission.

The Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip represent severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war.

Those violations include:

Collective punishment – the entire 1.5 million people who live in the crowded Gaza Strip are being punished for the actions of a few militants.

Targeting civilians – the airstrikes were aimed at civilian areas in one of the most crowded stretches of land in the world, certainly the most densely populated area of the Middle East.

Disproportionate military response – the airstrikes have not only destroyed every police and security office of Gaza’s elected government, but have killed and injured hundreds of civilians; at least one strike reportedly hit groups of students attempting to find transportation home from the university.

I remind all member states of the United Nations that the UN continues to be bound to an independent obligation to protect any civilian population facing massive violations of international humanitarian law – regardless of what country may be responsible for those violations. I call on all Member States, as well as officials and every relevant organ of the United Nations system, to move expeditiously not only to condemn Israel’s serious violations, but to develop new approaches to providing real protection for the Palestinian people.

Robert Fisk: Leaders lie, civilians die, and lessons of history are ignored

2008-12-30T10:36:00.003-06:00

Monday, 29 December 2008
By Robert Fisk

We've got so used to the carnage of the Middle East that we don't care any more – providing we don't offend the Israelis. It's not clear how many of the Gaza dead are civilians, but the response of the Bush administration, not to mention the pusillanimous reaction of Gordon Brown, reaffirm for Arabs what they have known for decades: however they struggle against their antagonists, the West will take Israel's side. As usual, the bloodbath was the fault of the Arabs – who, as we all know, only understand force.

Ever since 1948, we've been hearing this balderdash from the Israelis – just as Arab nationalists and then Arab Islamists have been peddling their own lies: that the Zionist "death wagon" will be overthrown, that all Jerusalem will be "liberated". And always Mr Bush Snr or Mr Clinton or Mr Bush Jnr or Mr Blair or Mr Brown have called upon both sides to exercise "restraint" – as if the Palestinians and the Israelis both have F-18s and Merkava tanks and field artillery. Hamas's home-made rockets have killed just 20 Israelis in eight years, but a day-long blitz by Israeli aircraft that kills almost 300 Palestinians is just par for the course.

The blood-splattering has its own routine. Yes, Hamas provoked Israel's anger, just as Israel provoked Hamas's anger, which was provoked by Israel, which was provoked by Hamas, which ... See what I mean? Hamas fires rockets at Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, Hamas fires more rockets and Israel bombs again and ... Got it? And we demand security for Israel – rightly – but overlook this massive and utterly disproportionate slaughter by Israel. It was Madeleine Albright who once said that Israel was "under siege" – as if Palestinian tanks were in the streets of Tel Aviv.

By last night, the exchange rate stood at 296 Palestinians dead for one dead Israeli. Back in 2006, it was 10 Lebanese dead for one Israeli dead. This weekend was the most inflationary exchange rate in a single day since – the 1973 Middle East War? The 1967 Six Day War? The 1956 Suez War? The 1948 Independence/Nakba War? It's obscene, a gruesome game – which Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister, unconsciously admitted when he spoke this weekend to Fox TV. "Our intention is to totally change the rules of the game," Barak said.

Exactly. Only the "rules" of the game don't change. This is a further slippage on the Arab-Israeli exchanges, a percentage slide more awesome than Wall Street's crashing shares, though of not much interest in the US which – let us remember – made the F-18s and the Hellfire missiles which the Bush administration pleads with Israel to use sparingly.

Quite a lot of the dead this weekend appear to have been Hamas members, but what is it supposed to solve? Is Hamas going to say: "Wow, this blitz is awesome – we'd better recognise the state of Israel, fall in line with the Palestinian Authority, lay down our weapons and pray we are taken prisoner and locked up indefinitely and support a new American 'peace process' in the Middle East!" Is that what the Israelis and the Americans and Gordon Brown think Hamas is going to do?

Yes, let's remember Hamas's cynicism, the cynicism of all armed Islamist groups. Their need for Muslim martyrs is as crucial to them as Israel's need to create them. The lesson Israel thinks it is teaching – come to heel or we will crush you – is not the lesson Hamas is learning. Hamas needs violence to emphasise the oppression of the Palestinians – and relies on Israel to provide it. A few rockets into Israel and Israel obliges.

Not a whimper from Tony Blair, the peace envoy to the Middle East who's never been to Gaza in his current incarnation. Not a bloody word.

We hear the usual Israeli line. General Yaakov Amidror, the former head of the Israeli army's "research and assessment division" announced that "no country in the world would allow its citizens to be made the target of rocket attacks without taking vigorous steps to defend them". Quite so. But when the IRA were firing mortars over the border into Northern Ireland, when their guerrillas were crossing from the Republic to attack police stations and Protestants, did Britain unleash the RAF on the Irish Republic? Did the RAF bomb churches and tankers and police stations and zap 300 civilians to teach the Irish a lesson? No, it did not. Because the world would have seen it as criminal behaviour. We didn't want to lower ourselves to the IRA's level.

Yes, Israel deserves security. But these bloodbaths will not bring it. Not since 1948 have air raids protected Israel. Israel has bombed Lebanon thousands of times since 1975 and not one has eliminated "terrorism". So what was the reaction last night? The Israelis threaten ground attacks. Hamas waits for another battle. Our Western politicians crouch in their funk holes. And somewhere to the east – in a cave? a basement? on a mountainside? – a well-known man in a turban smiles.

CAIR: U.S. Must Act to Save Gaza, Restore Cease-Fire

2008-12-29T15:21:00.001-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYIZXtlDCOY

Sarkozy Calls Israeli strikes on Gaza 'disproportionate'

2008-12-29T12:14:00.002-06:00

Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:51:05 GMT

Paris - French President Nicolas Sarkozy accused Israel of using disproportionate violence in its attacks on the Gaza Strip Saturday. The bombardment must stop immediately, Sarkozy, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, said in Paris.
Sarkozy also condemned the launching of rockets by Palestinian militants on Israel from the Gaza Strip and called for an end to the "unjustifiable provocation" that had led to the current situation.
There was no military solution in the Gaza Strip, he said.
Airstrikes by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) directed at militants from the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas in the Gaza Strip killed 155 people on Saturday, the highest one-day death toll in the salient since the 1967 Middle East War.
More than 300 people were injured in the strikes, security and medical officials said.

Pope 'saddened' by Israel war on Gaza

2008-12-29T11:36:00.003-06:00

Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:15:25 GMT

Pope Bendict XVI expresses deep sorrow for the heavy Palestinian casualties prompted by Israel.

Pope Benedict XVI condemns the ongoing Israeli attacks against Palestinians in Gaza, calling for end to the tragic situation in the region.

Addressing thousands of pilgrims gathered at Saint Peter's Square for the weekly Angelus prayer on Sunday, the Pope called on the international community to spare no efforts to restore peace in Gaza.

"I implore an end to the violence which must be denounced in all its forms and a restoration of the truce on the Gaza Strip," he said.

Israel has been staging massive air strikes against civilian and military targets in Gaza since Saturday. The Islamic University of Gaza, schools, a television station as well as various security positions have been targeted by Tel Aviv.

So far at least 310 people have been killed, many of whom are women and children; nearly 1550 others have been injured.

The pontiff expressed sorrow over the massacre of the Gazans, saying that he was "deeply saddened by the deaths and injuries, by the material damage, the suffering and the tears of the population, victims of this series of tragic attacks and reprisals."

"I call on the international community to do all it can to help the Israelis and Palestinians on this dead-end road ... and not to give in to the perverse logic of confrontation and violence but to favor the path of dialogue and negotiations," Pope Benedict told the crowd.

The conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians began with a 1948 decision by world powers to create Israel in the wake of the Holocaust and under the Zionist slogan of 'A land without a people for a people without a land'.

The creation of Israel has sparked fury as the Palestinians -- the natives of the land -- have since been denied their rights to effective political power and have suffered from a Zionist segregation campaign and ongoing settlement expansions by Israel.

Tel Aviv officials have nevertheless attempted to divert public attention away from its sixty-year history of violence against the Palestinians and have so far stonewalled all world efforts to bring peace to the region.

Israeli officials say their recent offensive against Gaza is directed at taking out targets linked to the democratically-elected Hamas. Tel Aviv has been preparing a ground incursion against Gaza and has warned that it would escalate its attacks on the under-siege sliver.

Tel Aviv and its staunch ally, Washington, hold Hamas responsible for the violence, saying Hamas mortar shells and rockets fired into Israeli settlements were what provoked the Israeli air strikes.

Palestinian fighters, however, say their rocket attacks have been in retaliation for the daily Israeli attacks against Gaza. Unlike the state-of-the-art weapons and ammunition Israel holds, the home-made Qassam rockets rarely cause casualties.

The UN Security Council sought the adoption of a resolution against Israel on Sunday to end the war on Gaza, but the United States intervened and vetoed the measure. Washington has so far vetoed over 40 anti-Israel resolutions at the UN.

The recent violence in the Gaza Strip has reportedly cast doubt on whether the Pope will visit Israel and Jordan in 2009. The Vatican may cancel the visit, Italian daily La Repubblica reported on Sunday.

Israeli jets target Gaza tunnels

2008-12-28T13:41:00.002-06:00

Israel has bombed supply tunnels in the southern Gaza Strip in a second day of intense air raids aimed at forcing Hamas militants to halt rocket fire.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni says the operation has been a success so far and the aim is to "change realities on the ground" in Gaza.

Israel has threatened to launch a ground assault and is now calling up 6,500 army reservists.

Palestinians say at least 280 people have died in the air raids.

A major tunnel bringing fuel into Gaza from Egypt was among three destroyed, Palestinians say. But Israel says its jets bombed more than 40 tunnels.

Israel accuses Palestinian militants of using the tunnels to smuggle weapons into Gaza.

As jets pounded the southern Gaza Strip hundreds of Palestinians stormed over a fence on the Gaza-Egypt border, but Egyptian security forces prevented them entering the country.

Egyptian security forces fired shots and several injuries were reported.

At the UN, the Security Council called for an end to all violence in Gaza, including rocket attacks from Gaza.

Israel says militants have fired 110 rockets into Israel since Saturday.

A doctor at the Shifa hospital in Gaza City described a desperate scene, with essential medical supplies, fuel and water all running out.

Dr Khamis El Essi told the BBC that many people had been admitted with multiple injuries, such as head and back wounds. Some patients had had limbs amputated.

He said some of the injured were carers and relatives who had been sheltering in a nearby mosque when it was hit in an Israeli raid.

The air strikes were launched on Saturday against Hamas targets in the densely-populated coastal territory, less than a week after the expiry of a six-month-long ceasefire deal with the militant group.

Israel hit targets in all Gaza's main towns, including Gaza City in the north and Khan Younis and Rafah in the south.

More than 210 targets were hit in the first 24 hours of what Israel says could be a lengthy military operation.

"We took Hamas by surprise, we targeted Hamas headquarters, so this is the beginning of a successful operation, I hope, but the idea is to change realities on the ground," Foreign Minister Livni told the BBC on Sunday.

"We are trying to give an answer to our own citizens who want to live in peace."

The high numbers of casualties made Saturday the single deadliest day in the Gaza Strip since Israel's occupation of the territory in 1967, analysts said, although no independent confirmation is available of the numbers killed.

Border confusion

Most of those killed were policemen in the Hamas militant movement, which controls Gaza, but officials said women and children also died.

The head of Gaza's police was among those killed.

Up to 700 others were wounded as missiles struck security compounds and militant bases, the officials added.

The Egyptian foreign minister has accused Hamas of not allowing injured Palestinians to leave Gaza to seek treatment, even though much-needed medical supplies are waiting at the nearby El-Arish airport.
In Israel, one person was killed on Saturday in the town of Netivot, some 20km (12 miles) east of Gaza, while there were reports of several Qassam rocket strikes early on Sunday.

Rockets landed in Ashdod, Israel's largest southern city - some 38km (23 miles) from Gaza - the deepest they have ever struck inside Israel, Israeli media said. No injuries were reported.

A Palestinian youth was killed by Israeli fire in the north of the West Bank during protests against the raids, medics said.

In Gaza, Palestinian officials said two people died when a mosque was hit on Saturday night.

A BBC journalist in Gaza City said a Hamas-run security and prison compound was hit by at least three missiles on Sunday morning. Hamas said all of its security compounds in the strip were destroyed on Saturday.

'Time for fighting'

At the UN, the Security Council ended emergency talks with a call for an end to hostilities, speaking of "serious concern" at the escalation of the situation in Gaza.

US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad suggested Hamas held the key to restoring calm.

"We believe the way forward from here is for rocket attacks against Israel to stop, for all violence to end," he said.

He was implicitly backed up from Cairo by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas - whose Fatah faction is a bitter rival of Hamas.

"We could have avoided what happened," Mr Abbas said, saying the Islamist group should have renewed the ceasefire before it lapsed.

The air raids came days after the truce expired and as Israel prepares for a general election in February.

Defence Minister Ehud Barak has explained the operation in stark terms, saying "the time has come to fight".

In response the exiled leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, called for a new intifada, or uprising, against Israel, while the movement's Gaza leader, Ismail Haniya, called the attack an "ugly massacre".

International reaction to the bombing has been dominated by calls for restraint.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Middle East envoy Tony Blair and the French EU presidency all called for a ceasefire.

The Israel-Hamas truce was regularly under strain and was allowed to lapse when it expired this month.

From 1967 Israel's military occupied the Gaza Strip and Jewish settlers built communities within the territory. Israel withdrew in 2005 but has maintained control of Gaza's borders.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7801662.stm

Published: 2008/12/28 18:52:39 GMT

© BBC MMVIII