Defining the Moderate Arab Voice

Boycott against Lowes misses real goal

2011-12-12T09:29:00.001-08:00

Boycott against Lowes misses real goal
By Ray Hanania – There’s nothing like emotion to bring Arabs and Muslims together, even when they don’t agree.

When TLC announced that it was broadcasting a new show called “All-American Muslim,” the Muslim community expressed anger and criticism.

All of the people in the new reality show about Muslims in Detroitland, where one of the largest Arab populations resides, were Arabs; there were no non-Arab Muslims.

That provoked a barrage of criticism beginning with one Pakistani who noted the majority of Muslims in the World are non-Arab.

Arab Muslims also were angry with the show, with many complaining that the idea of an Arab seeking to open a dance studio or a liquor establishment was offensive.

Of course, I don’t see too many Muslims complaining about the dirth of liquor stores operated by Muslims not just in Detroit but across America, and even in the Middle East.

Now, TLC’s “All-American Muslim” is involved in a new controversy that may trump the anger from Muslims and Arabs against the portrayals in the show.

A fanatic Christian group in Florida called “The Florida Family Association” announced it was protesting the show because the show, they said, sought to impose Islam on Americans and to justify Sharia law.

The group targeted all of the advertisers on TLC, more than 50 and almost all of them announced they were removing their ads from broadcasting during the TLC program. They said the majority agreed to reconsider advertising and that 20 had withdrawn their Ads.

Some of those advertisers include the biggest names in American commerce, many of them patronized by Muslims and Arabs: Amway, Anheuser Busch Inbev, Bank of America (Cash Rewards), Campbell’s Soup, Dell computers, The Gap, General Motors (Chevy Runs Deep), Good Year, Home Depot, Honda North America, HTC Phones, Ikea, JC Penney, JP Morgan Chase (Chase Sapphire), Lowe’s, McDonald’s, Nationwide Insurance, Nintendo (Mariokartz.com), Old Navy, Petsmart, Pier One, Radio Shack, Sears , Signet (Kay Jewelers), Sonic Drive-ins, Subaru, T-Mobil, Toyota (Camry), Volkswagen, Wal-Mart and Whirlpool (Maytag).

During the past two Friday morning broadcasts of Detroit’s Radio Baladi (WNZK AM 690), one of the largest American Arab and Muslim radio shows in the country, callers complained about the show that it portrayed Arabs and Muslims inaccurately.

Suddenly, the response from the Muslim and Arab community has changed.

Now, faced with the protests from the rightwing religious fanatics, Arabs and non-Arab Muslims are beginning to rally around the show.

And I think that’s something they should have done from the start.

Nationally, Arabs and Muslims across the country have begun targeting Lowes, ignoring all of the other advertisers who agreed to either remove their advertisements or to prevent their Ads from appearing during the show.

The fact is “All-American Muslim” is the perfect way to help show the true side of American Arabs and Muslims. That Arabs and Muslims are no different than any other people. We have very religious people and we have very secular people and much more in-between. We’re no different than they (Americans) are.

Except in one respect. It doesn’t seem that Arabs and Muslims appreciate the nuances and subtleties of effective communications. We have never understood the American media or the power of communications. We’re stayed away from it and only in the past decade has there been a slow but steady trickle of American Arabs and Muslims who have tried to engage the media.

And the “media” doesn’t just include the biased anti-Arab and anti-Muslim newspapers, radio shows and TV shows. It includes the public relations spin of communications strategists by influence peddlers in this country. It includes movies and TV shows and especially sitcoms. And, the bias includes reality TV.

It’s amazing to me that many Arabs and Muslims will tolerate the sale of alcohol and foul-mouthed comedy when it is in mainstream American public venues such as by nearby liquor stores or on Cable TV. But when someone slaps a label on it and says it represents Muslims or Arabs, the internal battle begins. We become our own worst enemies.

The truth is that instead of blasting Lowes for removing its advertising, we should be sitting with Lowes and demanding that they fund more programs like “All-American Muslim.” If they don’t like it because it is “too controversial,” then fund programs that are more mainstream.

When does Lowes advertise in Arab newspapers or on Arab radio shows. All-American Muslim is about the ONLY Arab and Muslim program we have on TV, outside of some scattered comedy flashes on Cable TV.

We should be proactive and we shouldn’t react with our emotions, as we too often do.

We should be holding the media responsible. I mean, why do we get angry with Lowes and say nothing when a major American newspaper that we subscribe to trashes Arabs and Muslim causes like Palestine or the injustice of the War in Iraq, or the war crimes against the people of other Muslim countries?

Before American Arabs and Muslims can prevent biased actions like those of Lowes, we need to insure that we have our own act together.

We can’t expect others to respect us as Arabs and Muslims if in fact we don’t respect ourselves.

(Ray Hanania is the co-host of Radio Baladi which broadcasts on WNZK AM 690 every Friday morning in Detroit at 8 am, and the host of Radio Chicagoland which broadcasts on WSBC AM 1240 every Sunday morning from 8 am until 11 am. Visitwww.RadioBaladi.com for more information.)

Ikhras loves the Syrian Dictatorship: Just read their "Twits"

2011-12-09T04:42:00.001-08:00

Ikhras haters Thabit al-Arabi and Qassem Lufti, who have a life-long difficulty with the English language, moderation and accuracy, have laid out (or lied out) a long list of reasons why they think Syrian Dictator Bashar al-Assad shouldn't be attacked and that the pro-Democracy protesters should be blamed and criticized.

But they know that their support for the Syrian government, which has murdered more than 4,000 innocent civilians including hundreds of children, is not an easy one to argue. It makes them look like hypocrites as they assault and slander an array of people including. Their targets include star comedians Dean Obeidallah and Maysoon Zayid (who host the annual New York Arab Comedy Festival), and writers Hussein Ibish, Ray Hanania and Mona eltahawy. These are but a few of the scores of people that Ikhras brutalizes in their online verbal assaults as if they were the Syrian military police attacking civilians seeking freedom in Homs. (I can just see the Ikhras goofs cheering as new statistics surface about innocent Syrian civilians being killed by the Syrian Government that they consistently defend.)

All you have to do is read their Twitter posts, posts that Qassem and Thabet recently referred to as "Twits" in an email. Maybe that's because they are the "twits."

Hussein Ibish has penned a scathing expose of who these sad refugees from truth really are.

(Click here to read that priceless unveiling of the rotten core of Ikhras.)

Here's a direct link to Ibish's article: Click here.

But here are some of their most recent Tweets (Yes Thabet and Qassem, they're called Tweets, not Twits!) that demonstrate and prove their loyalty to the Syrian Dictatorship and why they pick and chose their words carefully to pretend as if they care about, say, the Palestinian refugees (they don't) or the people of Egypt (they don't) or ADC (which upsets them the most because ADC fights for the rights of victims of discrimination including those bullied by cowards like Qassem and Thabet and the Ikhras gaggle of online bullies).

Read how they carefully tiptoe and pretend they do not support the brutality of the Syrian regime, and then use that argument as a means of attacking others. The way they exploit the suffering of the Palestinians as a means of saying, hey, what's happening in Syria isn't that important because Bush is a liar and a murderer, too.

Their theme here is right out of the Little Red Book published by Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian Baath Party dictators.

ikhras Ikhras اخرس

The show is sponsored by Royal Jordanian Airlines. Unlikely RJ would sponsor these clowns w/o involvement of Gov agencyascf.jo/index.html

2 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

ikhras Ikhras اخرس

Can anyone provide info on this show in Amman, Jordan?ascf.jo/index.html Interested in role of US Embassy in this event.@Deanofcomedy.

2 hours ago

ikhras Ikhras اخرس

Interesting to contrast Western officials descriptions of Eric Honeker/Gustav Husak/Nicolae Ceaușescu w/descriptions of Qadhafi/Saddam/Assad

4 hours ago

ikhras Ikhras اخرس

Why do some ignore mass murder of 1.5 Million people by Bush & Blair in Iraq & feign humanity over crimes by Arab rulers US Gov opposes?

4 hours ago

ikhras Ikhras اخرس

Arabs must oppose Arab tyranny w/o adopting racist double standards which dehumanize an entire culture and not just a regime or ruler.

4 hours ago

ikhras Ikhras اخرس

Arabs who oppose Arab dictators shouldnt accept the West's dehumanization of Arab rulers because it includes dehumanization of Arab culture

4 hours ago

ikhras Ikhras اخرس

Those who call #Syria n President a "liar" (and lets all assume he is): Would you dare call US officials liars? Dont accept double standards

4 hours ago

ikhras Ikhras اخرس

For those who oppose the #Syria n regime: Its in your interest to not lie. Youre better off trying to preserve your credibility.

4 hours ago

ikhras Ikhras اخرس

It appears some people paid more attention to State Dept's characterization of the Bashar Al-Assad interview than to the interview. #Syria

4 hours ago

ikhras Ikhras اخرس

Arabs deserve better than to have to choose between dictatorship and imperialism.

18 hours ago

ikhras Ikhras اخرس

If you must collaborate with a foreign force, at least collaborate with Sweden or Vietnam or someone without Arab blood on their hands. #snc

18 hours ago

ikhras Ikhras اخرس

just coined a new term. Housism (n): collaboration with the oppressors as a "strategy" to end their subjugation of the oppressed.

Abbas: The Long Overdue Palestinian State

2011-05-17T11:11:00.001-07:00

The Long Overdue Palestinian State

By MAHMOUD ABBAS

Ramallah, West Bank

SIXTY-THREE years ago, a 13-year-old Palestinian boy was forced to leave his home in the Galilean city of Safed and flee with his family to Syria. He took up shelter in a canvas tent provided to all the arriving refugees. Though he and his family wished for decades to return to their home and homeland, they were denied that most basic of human rights. That child’s story, like that of so many other Palestinians, is mine.

This month, however, as we commemorate another year of our expulsion — which we call the nakba, or catastrophe — the Palestinian people have cause for hope: this September, at the United Nations General Assembly, we will request international recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 border and that our state be admitted as a full member of the United Nations.

Many are questioning what value there is to such recognition while the Israeli occupation continues. Others have accused us of imperiling the peace process. We believe, however, that there is tremendous value for all Palestinians — those living in the homeland, in exile and under occupation.

It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued. Indeed, it was the descendants of these expelled Palestinians who were shot and wounded by Israeli forces on Sunday as they tried to symbolically exercise their right to return to their families’ homes.

Minutes after the State of Israel was established on May 14, 1948, the United States granted it recognition. Our Palestinian state, however, remains a promise unfulfilled.

Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.

Our quest for recognition as a state should not be seen as a stunt; too many of our men and women have been lost for us to engage in such political theater. We go to the United Nations now to secure the right to live free in the remaining 22 percent of our historic homeland because we have been negotiating with the State of Israel for 20 years without coming any closer to realizing a state of our own. We cannot wait indefinitely while Israel continues to send more settlers to the occupied West Bank and denies Palestinians access to most of our land and holy places, particularly in Jerusalem. Neither political pressure nor promises of rewards by the United States have stopped Israel’s settlement program.

Negotiations remain our first option, but due to their failure we are now compelled to turn to the international community to assist us in preserving the opportunity for a peaceful and just end to the conflict. Palestinian national unity is a key step in this regard. Contrary to what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asserts, and can be expected to repeat this week during his visit to Washington, the choice is not between Palestinian unity or peace with Israel; it is between a two-state solution or settlement-colonies.

Despite Israel’s attempt to deny us our long-awaited membership in the community of nations, we have met all prerequisites to statehood listed in the Montevideo Convention, the 1933 treaty that sets out the rights and duties of states. The permanent population of our land is the Palestinian people, whose right to self- determination has been repeatedly recognized by the United Nations, and by the International Court of Justice in 2004. Our territory is recognized as the lands framed by the 1967 border, though it is occupied by Israel.

We have the capacity to enter into relations with other states and have embassies and missions in more than 100 countries. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Union have indicated that our institutions are developed to the level where we are now prepared for statehood. Only the occupation of our land hinders us from reaching our full national potential; it does not impede United Nations recognition.

The State of Palestine intends to be a peace-loving nation, committed to human rights, democracy, the rule of law and the principles of the United Nations Charter. Once admitted to the United Nations, our state stands ready to negotiate all core issues of the conflict with Israel. A key focus of negotiations will be reaching a just solution for Palestinian refugees based on Resolution 194, which the General Assembly passed in 1948.

Palestine would be negotiating from the position of one United Nations member whose territory is militarily occupied by another, however, and not as a vanquished people ready to accept whatever terms are put in front of us.

We call on all friendly, peace-loving nations to join us in realizing our national aspirations by recognizing the State of Palestine on the 1967 border and by supporting its admission to the United Nations. Only if the international community keeps the promise it made to us six decades ago, and ensures that a just resolution for Palestinian refugees is put into effect, can there be a future of hope and dignity for our people.

Mahmoud Abbas is the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the president of the Palestinian National Authority.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/opinion/17abbas.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

Latest list of anti-Semites, Arab haters, Jew-Haters, bigots and racists

2011-04-15T16:57:00.000-07:00

Latest list of anti-Semites, Arab haters, Jew-Haters, bigots and racists

The list of anti-Semites, Arab haters, Jew-Haters, bigots and racists continues to grow with words upon words of ignorant racism, hatred, bigotry and vicious anti-Semitism and anti-Arabism, Islamophobia and anti-Muslim rhetoric. Some are Arabs who target and hate Christian Arabs almost as much as they hate Jews.

These are individuals who claim to support Israel, Palestine, peace and non-violence but enable hatred of Israel and hatred of Palestine through their writings. Most of it is ignored by mainstream Americans and Middle East moderates, but their words fuel the fight against reason, sanity and moderation.

They believe, as extremists and fanatics that continuing the conflict will help them achieve their personal selfish goals. Some are nobodies like Moshe Phillips, who can't scribble an original thought without lifting the ideas from others, and some are like David Horowitz the hate publisher of FrontPageMag, the ugly incendiary vicious anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racist site.

Here's the updated list of vicious haters and racists and bigots. Sadly it continues to grow:

David Horowitz, editor of the hate blog FrontPageMag

Moshe Phillips, bigot and lackey for David Horowitz

Qasim Lufti, co-owner of the hate web site Ikhras

Thabit al-Arabi, co-owner of the hate web site Ikhras

Little Green Footballs, hate web site extraordinary

KabobFest and its various anti-Christian anti-Arab founders

Columnist Ann Coulter, racist anti-Muslim racist

Fav Stocks at www.FavStocks.com hate and racist web site

Uprooted Palestinians at UprootedPalestinians.blogspot.com

Columnist Michelle Malkin

Talk show hate host Sean Hannity

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh

end

Ray Hanania interviewed on alHurra Arabic Satellite TV

2011-04-03T12:06:00.001-07:00

Ray Hanania interviewed on alHurra Arabic Satellite TV on the failure of American Arabs to tell their story fully and effectively.

Stop comparing Obama to Bush

2011-03-29T05:04:00.001-07:00

Stop comparing Obama to Bush

By Ray Hanania

President Barack Obama is no George W. Bush. But that’s what many of the rightwing conservative fanatics in this country would want you to believe.

They want you to believe that in attacking Libya and its tyrant “President,” Moammar Qadhafi, Obama is just like Bush who ordered an attack against Iraq and its tyrant president Saddam Hussein.

But there is a big difference. While the assault on Libya is justified, the Bush attack was not justified.

Obama attacked Libya because Qadhafi, an insane megalomaniac, had ordered his forces to attack and kill his civilians in an effort to respond to an armed rebellion.

The issue of whether or not the United States or any nation has the right to side with armed rebels against a foreign government is another issue. Hamas is an armed rebellion against Israel and no one is condemning Israel for killing Palestinian civilians in its response to Hamas. We do have our double standards when it comes to Israel in both the Obama and Bush administrations, but that’s as far as the comparisons goe.

Bush attacked Iraq because Saddam Hussein had insulted is father and mouthed off that he hoped to assassinate the president’s father, who was also a former president who led a justified military assault on Iraq in the 1990s to free Kuwait from Iraq’s occupation.

Bush the father freed a country from a tyrant who murdered innocent Kuwaitis, although there is some issue about whether he did it to benefit the oil business interests of his pals in Texas since the Kuwait rulers were and are tyrants themselves.

But that’s another issue, too.

Is the war on Libya the same as the second war on Iraq?

The answer is a solid and resounding and unequivocal no.

The first attack on Iraq was on March 19, 2003. At that time, Bush had targeted Saddam Hussein and his maniacal sons, Uday and Qusay. Bush tried to assassinate them using our military and fighter jets.

It didn’t work.

Iraq was also already under one of the most oppressive United Nations sanctions ever, lasting almost 10 years. And while the sanctions did not force Saddam Hussein out of office, they were never intended to do that. They were intended to pressure him to end his oppression of his citizens, many of them he killed in the 1980s during the war against Iran that Iraq fought in part on behalf of the United States.

Yes, Iraq was being funded and armed by the United States specifically to undermine the new tyrants in Iran who replaced the old tyrant in Iran, the dictator and mass murderer the Shah of Iran.

We conveniently forget that Saddam Hussein was of American creation. Whe he allegedly gassed his own people in the 1980s, we knew about it and we did nothing about it. We only used those claims later in 2003 to justify the war on Iraq in order for Americans to take over the Iraqi oil fields and to insure they were feeding oil to the United States and the West.

The vast majority of the oil from Libya did not go to the United States. In fact, Libya was under an international sanction imposed by the United States and European nations. Those sanctions were lifted when Libya agreed to accept blame for the bombing of the Pan Am passenger plane that crashed over Lockerbie Scotland.

No, George W. Bush was being pushed by two former war criminals, Dick Cheney, the “former” CEO of Halliburton that received and supervised almost all of the hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq war contracts, and Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense.

Cheney and Rumsfeld were two remnants of the administration of the former President Bush who led the assault to free Kuwait from Iraq’s occupation. Their sole purpose wasn’t to protect the citizens of Iraq but rather to extract revenge and to kill Saddam Hussein.

They used the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001 as a justification to attack Iraq even though Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda.

Now, there is similarities between Cheney and Rumsfeld trying to justify the murder of Saddam Hussein, whom they openly hated, and the cries from some journalists in America like Wolf Blitzer and Roger Simon who have asked why the United States just doesn’t strike and kill Libya’s Qadhafi. Well, in America, we are supposed to be a land of freedom and justice, not revenge and murder. Purportedly, America doesn’t engage in war crimes like many of our allies, specifically Israel.

But that’s another issue for another time.

Is Libya like Iraq. No. The assault on Libya is limited to protecting the civilians who are being attacked by Qadhafi. If that assault and the no fly zone result in Qadhafi being overthrown or forced out, so be it and good riddance. But America is not planning to assassinate Qadhafi and take the nation’s oil field as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did in Iraq.

The best evidence is to watch Halliburton. Is it preparing to begin the occupation of Libya? Not under Obama.

Obama is correct that we have a moral obligation to prevent a massacre of innocent civilians. Not just in Libya but in any country where a massacre is taking place.

We do not have a moral obligation to create facts to justify the control of another nation’s oil fields, as we did in Iraq.

They are two different battles and two different wars.

It’s possible that the non fly zone in Libya might turn in to an all out war and the United States will have to engage Libyan military forces with air and ground assaults. That would be tragic. Especially since we haven’t finished the other two wars that Bush began, in Afghanistan and in Iraq where our soldiers have been muddled and swamped and overwhelmed.

(Ray Hanania is an award winning columnist and media consultant. He can be reached at www.Hanania.com)

jStreet's Jeremy Ben Ami opening remarks to 2nd annual convention

2011-02-26T20:11:00.000-08:00

JStreet's 2nd annual conference was inspirational, reinforcing my belief that peace is possible. Here are his remarks from this morning's (Saturday) welcome:

Remarks by J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami
February 26, 2011
Opening Session, J Street National Conference 2011

Thank you, David, for those inspiring words. What a great way to kick off an incredible three days.

On behalf of the Board, staff and leadership of J Street and the 30 organizations participating in this conference, I join Rachel in welcoming you warmly to J Street’s second National Conference.

Before we begin, I want to acknowledge the tremendous work and the endless hours that Rachel and the entire J Street staff have put into this amazing event. This has been a true team effort and I’d like to ask the J Street staff to stand for a brief thank you from all of us.

How amazing is it to be in this huge and crowded room filled with passionate activists for Israel and for peace?

I love that I see in this room both veterans of decades of hard work in such stalwart organizations of our movement as the New Israel Fund and Americans for Peace Now sitting next to newer faces getting engaged in this work for the very first time.

What a statement it makes about the emergence of a liberal political voice on Israel in the American Jewish community that over 2000 people are joining us over the next three days.

What a statement that our movement today numbers over 170,000 supporters.

What a statement that we now have a vibrant grassroots presence in nearly 40 communities through J Street Local and thousands of students engaged in J Street U on over 50 campuses and universities.

What a statement that over 600 rabbis have joined our rabbinic cabinet, and that JStreetPAC is today the largest pro-Israel political action committee in the United States.

Believe me, the statement we’re making is being heard. Our voices are being heard. And I salute all of you who’ve been a part of this amazing accomplishment.

When we set the date for this conference over a year ago, who knew what an historic moment it would be to come together.

Who knew we would be living through history, exhilarated at the sight of people claiming freedom and dignity from oppression and tyranny yet wary of the danger and uncertainty of the moment.

Our thoughts are with those people all across the Middle East who are putting their lives on the line in search of a better future for themselves and their families.

And our thoughts of course are with the people of Israel, as we worry over what the future holds for them as well.

We came to J Street because we felt such urgency over the need for a two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We know in our hearts that it’s not just the status quo in the Arab world that is bound to change, it is the status quo between Israel and the Palestinian people that has to change as well.

And the events of recent weeks only convince us more deeply that the time is now for a serious and sustained effort to secure an agreement that provides for a democratic homeland for the Jewish people living side by side in peace and security with a democratic homeland for the Palestinian people.

What is happening in the region, the politics in Israel, the politics here, the growing international pressure on Israel – all this is enough to make us dizzy.

Doctors tell us the best thing to do to get your bearings when you’re dizzy is to pick a fixed spot on the horizon on which to focus.

That’s not bad political advice for the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement either. We too need to keep our eyes fixed on the fundamental principles that guide and shape our work.

So as we head into three busy days and some critical months ahead, allow me to reiterate the core principles that guide the course we follow.

First, we reaffirm our commitment to and support for the people and the state of Israel.

We believe that the Jewish people – like all other people in the world – have the right to a national home of their own, and we celebrate its re-birth after thousands of years.

We marvel at Israel’s accomplishments and its position at the forefront of global innovation, technology, medicine, and so many other fields.

We value and share the democratic principles on which Israel was founded and that have guided the country for six decades – even as we acknowledge the threats to that democracy that seem to grow almost daily.

We understand that Israel has real enemies, and we defend its right to live in security and peace, within recognized boundaries and with international acceptance.

In times of true need, against those who mean it harm or aim for its destruction, make no mistake where those in this movement stand.

We are passionately and unapologetically pro-Israel.

That is our first principle: We stand proudly with and for the people and the state of Israel.

Second, we believe that the future of Israel depends on achieving a two-state resolution to the conflict with the Palestinian people.

We believe that the Palestinians too must have a national home of their own, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. This is in Israel’s interests. It is in America’s interests. It is right and it is just.

The time has come for Israel to choose among three things: being a Jewish homeland, remaining democratic and maintaining control over all the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

Israel can have only two of the three. It can only be both Jewish and democratic by giving up the land on which a Palestinian state can be built in exchange for peace.

As we see it, the cause of the Palestinian people – the creation of an independent state of their own – is essential to our cause as well.

For too long, pro-Israel advocacy has defined this conflict in zero-sum terms, as “us versus them,” a conflict in which there can be only one winner.

Our second principle is that being pro-Israel doesn’t require an “anti.” Israel’s long-term security actually depends on fulfilling the aspirations of the Palestinian people through a two-state solution.

Third, Israel’s supporters have not only the right but the obligation to speak out when we think the policies or actions of the Israeli government are hurting Israel or harming the long-term interests of the Jewish people.

We do not revel in criticizing Israel. We do it with a heavy heart.

However, we believe it is possible – even easy – to distinguish between criticizing the policies of the government of Israel and questioning the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own.

Those seek to silence criticism of Israeli policy in the name of fighting de-legitimization of Israel are making an enormous mistake.

Of course, we will be there to fight anti-Semitism and to oppose those who deny Israel’s right to exist.

But do not ask us to stand by quietly as the present Israeli government charts a course that erodes its Jewish character, undermines its democratic principles and leads to international isolation.

It is not criticism of Israeli policy that threatens the health of the state of Israel, but the policies being implemented by this particular government and the silence or indulgence that too many in the American Jewish establishment choose when vigorous protest of those policies is called for.

As a fourth core principle, we believe that vibrant but respectful debate over Israel benefits the American Jewish community.

The debate over Israel in our community stirs deep emotions and passionate argument. But this is nothing we cannot handle.

Strong and vibrant debate have characterized the Jewish people for millennia.

That’s why, at this conference, we have invited those with whom we disagree from the left and the right to engage with us in a free, open and spirited discussion.

Those who believe there is only one acceptable view on Israel – theirs – should not be allowed to impose constraints on what constitutes acceptable speech in the Jewish community.

To the extent that the doors of the Jewish community are barred – be they synagogues, Hillels or Birthright trips – to those who question conventional wisdom on Israel, the Jewish establishment is putting the future of the community at risk.

The attacks on those who hold non-conforming views partially explain why the younger generation is distancing itself not simply from Israel but from traditional institutions in the community.

And it is one reason nearly 500 students are here finding a home at J Street’s second national conference.

There is a comparably dangerous effort to shut down debate and dissent taking place today in Israel. That’s why we are especially appreciative of the 5 Members of Knesset who have joined us here tonight, demonstrating true political courage by standing up for our shared principles and our common interest in a two-state solution.

Please join me in thanking Members of Knesset Daniel Ben Simon, Yoel Hasson, Shlomo Molla, Nachman Shai and Orit Zuaretz for standing up for their values and for their leadership and courage in joining us at this historic event.

Our community values open discussion and hearing perspectives that challenge conventional wisdom in a civil and respectful manner. It is part of our Jewish identity.

That’s why it makes no sense that for three years, the leadership of such institutions as AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League have almost uniformly refused to take the stage with me or with representatives of J Street.

Their policy is not in the best interests of Israel, and it’s not in the best interest of the American Jewish community.

I urge the leaders of these and other organizations to change this counterproductive approach to our emerging movement. The only way to contest ideas that you do not like is with better ideas, not by refusing to debate.

The fifth principle underlying our movement is to ground our work in the values on which we were raised.

In just a few minutes, we will be honoring Peter Beinart for provoking a communal conversation over whether young Jews in particular have been forced to check their liberal values at the door of Zionism.

Peter has challenged American Jews to decide whether it is possible both to engage in a warm relationship with Israel and to remain true to the values we hold most dear as Jews and as Americans.

This movement exists because so many of us believe that not only is this possible, it is essential.

The values on which we were raised are central to who we are as a people: the principle that you don’t treat someone the way you wouldn’t want to be treated yourself, basic notions of justice and freedom, the pursuit of peace, and tikkun olam – seeking to make the world a better place.

These values are central to our identity. They make us proud of our heritage and faith. And we will, as a movement, give voice to them when it comes to Israel.

That’s why we’re so pleased to open this year’s conference by honoring some of those who have shown the courage to give voice to their values.

Peter Beinart has done it in his challenge to the American Jewish establishment over the way it relates to Israel.

Sara Benninga and the Sheikh Jarrah activists are doing it by challenging Israelis to face up to the morality of their treatment of Palestinians in East Jerusalem.

And Dr. Izzeldein Abuelaish has done it in turning unimaginable pain and loss into a quest for peace.

The truth is that this room is filled with heroes who give voice to their values day in and day out.

Each of you is a profile in courage and we don’t honor only three people tonight – we honor all of you for the courage you show in fighting for a two-state solution and for a more open debate in national politics and the Jewish community.

Even as world events spin at a dizzying pace, it is our values and our principles that ensure that our feet stay firmly planted in the center of the Jewish community.

And from that center we will lead.

As students on campus, as rabbis from the pulpit, as voters and citizens in our communities – we will lead.

We will lead toward a two-state solution because we care deeply about Israel and about the Palestinian people.

We will lead toward greater freedom in American politics to talk about Israel and the Middle East because we care about the interests of the United States.

We will lead toward a more open conversation and vigorous debate about Israel because we care about the long-term health of the Jewish community.

This is our mission. This is our calling. And it is the reason for the tremendous growth of our movement.

I welcome you again to an exciting three days and I thank you for joining us in our work at such a critical time.

End

Yalla Peace: Let’s look on the bright side

2011-02-14T09:22:00.000-08:00

Yalla Peace: Let’s look on the bright side
By RAY HANANIA
02/08/2011 JERUSALEM POST

It may not seem that way now, but democracy in Egypt

– if it is allowed to take place –
will be a good thing.

Democracy is much like making mensiff. No one wants to watch the lamb get slaughtered or the ladies roll up their sleeves to mix the ingredients.

People just want to enjoy it.

It can be messy. Sometimes, very messy. But in the long run, it’s what’s best for everyone. It may not seem that way now, but democracy in Egypt – if it is allowed to take place – will be a good thing.

The problem is that in the short run, democracy is vulnerable to other people’s wants. These people don’t care about the interests of those clamoring for civil rights, and may be influenced by forces that fear change.

No one fears change in Egypt more than Israel, the US and several Arab countries like Jordan and Syria.

After all, democracy doesn’t have a great track record in the Arab world.

When offered to the Palestinians, it quickly stumbled. The moderate secular Palestinians, who are the majority, were divided over who would represent them. That split the pro-Fatah vote, allowing the religious extremists of Hamas to take control.

That’s not democracy. It’s a mini-dictatorship.

Hamas saw an opportunity to use democracy to undermine the peace process, which had created the basis on which the elections were held in the first place.

Needless to say, had things been allowed to develop and mature, I believe there would have been another election, with better results. But that never happened because instead of actually believing in the power of democracy, the US and Israel intervened, messing things up even more.

TODAY, THERE are two governments in the Palestinian territories – the religious fanatics who oppose peace with Israel, and the secular moderates who support it. In a stagnant political environment, time is not on the side of the moderates.

Every day of stalemate sees Hamas gaining strength.

Had there been no interference in Palestinian affairs, things would have worked themselves out. Voters would have eventually ousted Hamas. Its ridiculous religious extremist demands have already started to turn people off.

To do the right thing, sometimes people need to see the wrong thing happen. But the meddling blinded the Palestinian public to the extremist fanaticism of Hamas, and Israel’s arrests of its leaders only fed the group’s popularity.

Today, Hamas continues to feed off of the failure of the peace process.

Democracy is the antidote to tyranny. It doesn’t always seem that way, but it is always better than relying on dictators. Didn’t America learn anything from its experiment with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War? The same choices are rearing their ugly heads in Egypt.

Israel doesn’t want Hosni Mubarak out because it believes his successor would likely revoke the peace accord, or change the terms significantly, though that may well happen. But even if it did, in a democracy, Egypt would return to peaceful public discussion and debate.

Egypt’s turmoil might prompt Israel to do the right thing and move forward with the peace process.

What democracy needs are strong voices who believe in it – Palestinian, Israeli, Arab and Jew.

We need to come together because democracy is the only thing that will make the Middle East safe.

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Yalla Peace: Democracy in Egypt likely bad news for Israel

2011-02-01T18:09:00.000-08:00

Yalla Peace: Democracy in Egypt likely bad news for Israel
By RAY HANANIA
02/01/2011 JERUSALEM POST

Democracy will give Egyptian people a voice, and their voice may demand that peace accord be broken.

Egypt’s democracy protests across the board spell bad news for Israel, which is more democratic than most countries in the Middle East, but not democratic enough.

Tens of thousands of protestors have filled the streets in Egypt’s major cities demanding the resignation of its president-for- life Hosni Mubarak and the backlash has impacted the monarchy in Jordan and the dictatorship in Syria.

Mubarak is not the worst Arab tyrant in the Middle East, but he is viewed as a puppet of the United States which currently finds itself in a curious position. Does the US back democracy in Egypt as it has in other countries or does it try to help Egypt make a transition from a dictatorship to a more open dictatorship?

Why are Americans even balking at calling for an end to the dictatorial rule in Egypt? Because Egypt is the cornerstone of American and Israeli foreign policy in the Middle East.

Without Egypt supporting the status quo, Israel especially has much to lose.

The average Egyptian does not support the peace accord that signed by Mubarak’s predecessor, Anwar Sadat on Sept.17, 1978. Sadat tried to argue that peace between Egypt and Israel would usher in peace with the Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese. Save for Jordan, that peace is still elusive.

After Sadat’s assassination, Mubarak, one of his generals became president. Not known for his diplomatic talents, he became the caretaker of the unpopular peace with Israel.

Though he is a dictator, Egyptians have enjoyed more freedoms than most citizens in other Arab countries.

Israel’s main benefit from its peace accord with Egypt was not only the hope of establishing normal relations, but also clearing away the threat of wars, lead by Egypt until then.

Once it signed an agreement with Israel, the threat of a regional war vanished, replaced by proxy wars like those fought against the vanguards of radical Islam, Hamas and Hizbullah, agents of Iran, also a nation of tyrants and dictators.

On the surface, Egypt’s turn to democracy sounds good, although it has put America and Israel in awkward positions: sure they want democracy, but not if that democracy undermines the peace accords with Israel.

Peace with Israel under its present terms can only be enforced by a dictator like Mubarak. Democracy will give the people a voice and their voice clearly demands that the peace accord be broken.

If Egypt falls, that chorus of anti-Israel sentiment will grow across the Arab world, possibly even sparking new regional wars. Already, protestors in Jordan have taken to the streets and Syrian dictator Bashir al- Assad is moving fast to prevent similar protests in his country.

Israel may then find itself regionally back in time to the 1960s, isolated by the Arab world and constantly fearing more wars.

THE ARAB world may be under the foot of dictators, friend and foe to the West and Israel, but the Arab people are smart enough to see through the years of false promises and bad deals on Israel’s part.

If democracy prevails in Egypt and the people take control, Israel will face a pivotal moment: to either continue its current course of rejecting peace or taking negotiations with the Palestinians more seriously as a first step towards becoming a real member of the Middle East community.

Democracy is good, but it carries with it a real price that will disrupt the conveniences of the status quo.

The biggest losers will be the dictators, Western foreign policy and, likely, Israel.

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Palestine papers: A Palestinian tragedy

2011-01-26T10:44:00.000-08:00

Palestine papers: A Palestinian tragedy
By RAY HANANIA
01/26/2011 JERUSALEM POST

The ‘Al-Jazeera’ documents do little to help save the prospects

for a future Palestinian state, and, in fact, empower the extremists.

No matter what position Palestinian secular leaders take on compromise with Israel, they will always be denounced as traitors by the extremists. That’s a fact one must remember in trying to decipher the accuracy and details of the socalled Palestine Papers – more than 1,600 notes and records of contacts between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators desperately trying to carve out a final peace deal.

Although the veracity of the documents has not been proven, the reports smack of truth.

Palestinian leaders are divided into two camps – secular Arabs willing to compromise to end more than 62 years of conflict and statelessness, and religious fanatics who would rather die than compromise on two states, especially if one is Jewish.

Naturally, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is going to be attacked by the fanatics and their Hamas terrorist supporters. That’s what fanatics do.

The worst part is that, judging by the leaks released so far, it’s clear that the Palestinian negotiators did their best to make concessions meant to encourage the Olmert-led government at the time to sign a peace accord. But no dice.

As for the current government lead by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, it was clear from the moment he refused to extend the moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank and around Jerusalem that he was not interested in a two-state solution, despite his statements to the contrary.

This battle shows where the real priorities of both Israel and the Arab extremists are.

Israel’s government is not ready to compromise. And it’s just as clear that Hamas and its fanatic supporters do not want peace and believe that in continued conflict, they have a chance of one day destroying Israel and restoring pre-1920s Palestine.

THE REAL tragedy is that the documents, obtained and released by Al-Jazeera, have only helped further divide the already divided Palestinian people.

Although fanatics opposed to concessions fuel the anger of the Palestinian people, that anger is only digging them into a deeper hole of despair.

Palestinians have no future with the fanatics, but in the face of Israel’s refusal to compromise, even futility can be made to feel good.

The irony here is that the real story is not that the Abbas government was willing to “surrender” too much in the failed peace talks. The real story is that the Palestinians too offered the Israelis the best deal they can ever expect and it was still refused.

Tragically, moderate and secular Palestinians are being pushed aside by the strident rhetoric of the fanatics. The Al- Jazeera documents do little to help save the prospects of a Palestinian state, and, in fact, empower the extremists.

In this Palestinian tragedy is a future of pain and suffering for Israel too.

History has shown that secular Palestinians have been the ones willing to make peace; it has been the religious fanatics who have thrown out reason in favor of a future where they believe they have a chance at destroying Israel.

The real tragedy is that the Israeli government’s intransigence risks hastening the day when Hamas and Hizbullah will become a potent unified force, guaranteeing a future of dangerous uncertainty.

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Yalla Peace: What's the alternative?

2011-01-18T14:36:00.000-08:00

Yalla Peace: What's the alternative?
By RAY HANANIA
01/19/2011 JERUSALEM POST

The extremists are the only other option in several Arab countries

and they offer an even more frightening future – devoid of any freedoms.

Many are closely watching the events in Tunisia, where protesters have brought down the repressive, half-century old dictatorship that saw one tyrant replaced by another.

The people of Tunisia, like most people in the Arab world, have never tasted real freedom. In 1987, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali staged a bloodless coup that unseated one tyrant and placed the future of the country in his hands. That ended when a young college graduate set himself on fire last month to protest oppressive government policies, setting off riots and protests in the streets.

Ben Ali has fled, but his oppressive policies and government are being absorbed by his political pals, and the call for democracy and freedom in Tunisia is going unheeded.

Many would like to see the fires of freedom spread across the Arab world and into Israel, where the Jewish state enjoys a dual system – full democracy for some and less for others.

It’s even worse in the Arab world. Although Israel is far from a perfect democracy, the Arab world is anything but. There are no freedoms in Egypt, Jordan, Syria or Lebanon, where sectarian violence is again rearing its ugly head, this time with a Hizbullah vengeance. Lebanon is the Arab country that has been closest to real democracy, but religious fanatics continue to threaten that goal.

Egypt is a dictatorship. The so-called president, Hosni Mubarak, reportedly ready to retire or at least preparing for his own death, is pushing his son as his successor. Nepotism is a key characteristic of Arab dictatorships, and Egypt is no exception.

The real threat to the Mubarak dictatorship is in fact the reason why he remains in control of that impoverished, oppressed country. The religious fanatics are the only alternative to Mubarak’s secular tyranny, and they offer an even more frightening future – devoid of any freedoms.

The fanatics are a gathering storm in the Middle East, and the only answer so far has been dictatorship to prevent them from taking control in several Arab countries.

Lebanon is a good example of how religious extremism from Hizbullah is threatening to destroy the secular democracy that the country has barely enjoyed. Already, Hizbullah is slowly taking control.

Elsewhere, Iraq has a puppet government controlled by the American military – it had elections but it took more than eight months of American wheeling and dealing to bring them to a semblance of closure.

Jordan is in a precarious position. Ruled by an absolute monarch, it faces the same religious fanaticism that threatens Egypt. When confronted with a choice between religious extremists and the existing tyranny that controls Egypt, Jordan and even Syria, tyranny looks far better.

That’s the future for the Arab world. Israel could help stand up to the religious fanatic threats, but its failure to bring peace only feeds the religious fervor, as Hamas gains in strength each day that peace is not achieved.

Tunisia may symbolize a people’s revolt against tyranny and oppression, but it’s not a pattern that will soon repeat itself in other countries.

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Yalla Peace: Is this not terrorism?

2011-01-18T14:35:00.000-08:00

Yalla Peace: Is this not terrorism?
By RAY HANANIA
01/11/2011 23:32

When a white man shoots 17 people and kills six, he’s ‘crazy,’

but if the killer were Arab or Muslim, we would be having a very different conversation.

When news reports broke that an unidentified man had fired a gun at a meeting organized by a local congresswoman in Tucson, Arizona, I immediately wondered if it was an act of terrorism or just meaningless violence.

Among the 17 people wounded and six killed was Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who had been the target of much hate rhetoric that has come to dominate the political debate in America, not just about the Middle East but about domestic politics.

The gunman turned out to be a 22-year-old white male named Jared L. Loughner. And immediately, media pundits started to say that he was just a “crazed loner.”

It made me think about what might have been said if the killer had been Arab or Muslim.

You know the debate would be different and people would be screaming that the Arab killer was clearly a part of some international jihad network, even if he (or she) had committed the crime on his own.

Yes. When a white man shoots 17 people and kills six, including a nine-year-old girl, he’s a “crazy person.”

But when an Arab or Muslim kills people, like military officer Nidal Hassan for example, he’s part of some vast Islamic conspiracy.

I was about to complain.

But then I actually thought about it; when you are white, you are crazy, when you are Arab, you’re part of some conspiracy, which I guess is better than being a crazy person.

Arabs are never “crazy” in events like this. Even though Loughner refers to himself as a terrorist on one of YouTube videos, no one else is. They just call him a killer.

You see, the fact that some innocent persons were killed doesn’t seem to be as important as the attempts to define why the murders took place.

ONE BRAVE American, Clarence W. Dupnik, has declared that the Loughner shooting is the result of an increase in the strident hate rhetoric that is overcoming America over the past few years, especially since September 11, 2001 and the election seven years later of President Barack Obama.

Dupnik is not just some pundit.

He is the sheriff in Tucson, Arizona, where the killings took place.

Immediately, the right-wing nut jobs started to come out from under their rocks denouncing Dupnik, especially after many media started wondering if some politicians may have been helping to raise the level of hate. They pointed to the website of Sarah Palin and members of the extremist Tea Party movement, who have put “telescopic crosshairs” on graphics to target members of Congress who have been “too liberal.”

A crosshair is a symbol of a rifle’s scope and is associated with guns, so the symbolism is not lost on many observers.

I know that the majority of Americans are good people. In fact, the majority of Palestinians and Israelis are good people, too.

But sometimes the good people don’t speak out enough to challenge the voices of stridency and hatred. We avoid confrontation yet we’re outraged when the stridency results in killings as it did in Arizona.

Moderates need to do more.

We need to speak out against strident voices whether they are here in the US or in Israel and Palestine.

If we want a good future, we need to start showing some compassion, not hostility for those with whom we might disagree.

There is a way to disagree without being disagreeable.

And while we need a lot more of that in the US, Palestinians and Israelis could some too.

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Yalla Peace: The Katsav verdict and Arab gloating

2011-01-18T14:34:00.000-08:00

Yalla Peace: The Katsav verdict and Arab gloating
By RAY HANANIA
01/04/2011 JERUSALEM POST

In the Arab world the oppression and rape of women

is not always considered an offense but a male right.

Many in the Arab and Muslim world are gloating at the news of the conviction of former president Moshe Katsav on charges of rape and sexual harassment. To them, it is proof of Israel’s corruption and helps them maintain their campaign for Palestinian justice and point fingers at the country without being in the crosshairs of world opinion themselves. Clean and clear blame. Proof that Israel is bad.

The Katsav headlines, they claim, show how corrupt Israel is and how uncorrupt the Arab world is. That’s far from true, of course.

The Arab world has always used Israel as a distraction for the public from its regimes’ own corruption. When Saddam Hussein launched unprovoked wars or persecuted minorities and became the target of Western anger and military assault, he wrapped himself tight in the Palestinian cause. Many Arab tyrants have used Palestinian suffering similarly.

The truth is that the Katsav conviction actually shines a bright spotlight on the corruption in the Arab world, corruption that, unlike in Israel, goes unpunished in most Arab countries.

How great would it be if a court in an Arab country, or even in a Muslim country where laws are held in such alleged high esteem, were to announce the conviction of an Arab tyrant or dictator the way Israel’s prosecutors have taken on Katsav?

KATSAV WAS convicted for sex crimes, while sadly in the Arab world the oppression and rape of women is not always considered a crime, but a male right. And when women protest, they are punished and sometimes killed. There are laws to protect male abuse of women, laws dubbed “honor crimes.”

The truth is the Katsav prosecution is yet another example of how Israel, despite its occupation and unfair treatment of the Palestinians, is a much more legally just nation than any other in the region.

For all the claims by those in the Arab world that the Palestinians deserve justice, there is very little real justice in their own countries.

That’s not to say that there are no crimes in Israel or that the country is right in its obstinate refusal to recognize Palestine as a state without extracting ridiculously unfair and unjust concessions. But there are lessons from Israel that many in the Arab world could learn. And this is one of them.

THE REAL tragedy of the Arab-Israeli conflict is that issues of justice become political. Real crimes in our own backyard as Arabs are hidden or brushed aside as if they do not exist.

We have lost the sense of true justice, the principle that a crime is a crime regardless of how it might impact a political environment or a political conflict.

I wonder how many presidents or kings in Arab countries would face such accusations. My guess is the prosecutors or witnesses in such cases would be silenced. The media would not be permitted to publish such heresy. Newspapers reporting it would be shut down. Anyone in the Arab public caught repeating the charges would be jailed or worse. Instead of shining a light on the criminals in power, those crying for justice would be punished.

And that’s a tragedy for civil rights in the Arab and Muslim world. Because until they can prosecute a corruption case of such similar magnitude, they cannot claim to be better than Israel.

That kind of justice is the justice that all Arabs and Muslims should strive to achieve – prosecuting anybody who violates the rule of law, regardless of who they are.

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Yalla Peace: Shut out the fanatics

2010-12-29T05:34:00.000-08:00

Yalla Peace: Shut out the fanatics
By RAY HANANIA
12/28/2010 JERUSALEM POST

The Arabs’ failure to lead has allowed a small

cabal of Palestinian extremists to hijack the Palestinian cause.

As soon as the first-ever conference of Arab expatriates hosted in Cairo earlier this month by the League of Arab Nations closed, the fanatics dropped from their damp dark caves and started to scream that it was a sham.

The conference, backed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, is calling on Palestinians and Arabs who are expatriates living in the West but more importantly in the United States, to organize.

The conference concluded with many goals including creating an “organizational framework for Arab expatriates” while fostering “a dialogue of civilizations, cultures and religions.”

Pro-Israeli media and pundits immediately criticized the conference, complaining that too much of it was focused on the Palestinian issue and that much of it was based on confronting Israeli extremism rather than pursuing dialogue.

The conference clearly endorsed the Arab Peace Initiative outlined in 2002, one that Israel continues to run from because it requires tough compromises.

But more importantly, the Palestinians and the Arab League want to rip control of the Palestinian cause from the hands of fanatics and extremists in the United States whose sole mission has been to block peace and to reinforce the power of Hamas, the terrorist religious organization.

Immediately, Arab and Palestinian fanatics started launching public attacks against the conference and it is a growing theme they are selling to the Palestinian diaspora which sympathizes with the fanatic anger but support the moderate strategies. It sounds contradictory but for most moderate Palestinians, Israel has given them nothing to cheer about at all and everything to jeer about.

Almost all of Israel’s actions since the Oslo Accords have been geared towards maintaining the status quo while granting some power to the Palestinians, except the disengagement from Gaza in 2005. Israel wants to keep all of Jerusalem, all of the settlements, wants Palestinians to recognize it as a Jewish state.

IT IS about time that the Arab League nations finally did something. Their failure to lead has created a void which has allowed a small cabal of Palestinian extremists in the United States and Europe to hijack the Palestinian cause.

And they are no better than Israelis, speaking from both sides of their mouths, too. A good example is the movement to boycott products sold by Israelis that are manufactured or grown in the occupied West Bank. The movement is spearheaded by a group called Jewish Voice for Peace.

They say they target products made in the West Bank but many of their leaders are working hand-in-hand with Palestinian-American extremists who are also targeting products made in Israel.

These Palestinian extremists are anti-Semitic and driven by hatred. They say one thing but always mean something else.

Israelis don’t help much, as I have already pointed out. Instead of drawing a proper line on things like anti-Semitism, Israel’s supporters like the Anti-Defamation League and the Zionist Organization of America headquartered in New York, call everything critical of Israel anti-Semitic.

What Israelis don’t realize is that their broad stroke, knee-jerk attacks of anti-Semitism, against even the harshest critics of Israel, like the venerable Helen Thomas, only weaken the moderate Palestinian voices.

In a way, Israeli actions often strengthen the Palestinian extremists and maybe that is intentional. Many Israelis don’t want to give up anything. They don’t want peace. And the Palestinian extremists help them get away with this unacceptable status quo.

As long as the Palestinian extremists have the upper hand, this Israeli strategy will work.

But the Expatriate Conference in Cairo can change that, especially if they follow through with concrete actions to strengthen the voices of Palestinian and Arab moderates in the West and particularly in the United States.

More importantly, they need to reach out to Palestinian moderates, slam down the extremist voices and speak consistently about peace based on the 2002 plan. Israelis, believe it or not, are no different than Arabs.

And if they believe peace is genuine, they just might support it.

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com.

Yalla Peace: WikiLeaks reminds us of reality

2010-12-07T15:14:00.000-08:00

Yalla Peace: WikiLeaks reminds us of reality
By RAY HANANIA
12/07/2010 JERUSALEM POST

Everything we have always suspected

about the Arab world is true.

The revelations by WikiLeaks regarding the behindthe- scenes views and contacts between Israelis and Arabs are really much of a shocker. In fact, almost everything I have read only underscores what I always believed. The Arab world is ruled by dictators who don’t really care about their people or Palestine.

These dictators are concerned about all the things that kings and tyrants spend their time on: power, money and fun.

Israeli leaders have been holding secret meetings with the Arab governments since the 1947-49 war, from meetings with King Abdullah of Jordan, who was assassinated in 1951, to the wealthy dictator of Qatar, Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani.

None of this can give us comfort, though. In fact, WikiLeaks really confirms our worst fears. Everything we have always suspected about the Arab world is true.

Publicly, Arab leaders’ incendiary rhetoric against Israel preaches resistance and “steadfastness” to the Palestinians.

But privately, they set aside the venom and share tea and crumpets with the Israelis. They speak from both sides of their sheesha pipes, on the one hand blasting Israel for the public, on the other privately showing that they don’t believe a word they are telling said public Fascinating.

A real shocker might have been to read that an Arab leader told the Israelis in private what he says so often in public. But that would take courage – not a characteristic of Arab leaders.

Bombast and phoniness have been the way Arab dictators, monarchs, kings, queens (not in a generic sense) and tyrants conduct themselves in public, turning into spineless creatures of selfish pleasure in private.

WikiLeaks further “disclosed” that the Arabs fear Iran as much or perhaps more than Israel. Wow. Isn’t that why Saddam Hussein, when he was an American-funded dictator, led the failed war against Iran for 10 years? There didn’t need to be a document reporting that very few Arab leaders spend time schmoozing with Iran’s little dictator.

To the Arabs, a nuclear-armed Iran is more frightening than a nuclear-armed Israel.

In some ways, Arab governments are much like American administrations. Both will tolerate dictatorship as long as the dictators are their friends. In these cases, Arabs have high tolerance for themselves and each other.

WIKILEAKS ALSO shows the Arabs are not beyond their paranoia. Many are convinced that WikiLeaks is a Zionist plot to strengthen the Israeli drive to destroy Iran’s ayatollah-run nuclear-wielding government. You can read it in many of the columns now being published in the Arab media, especially those not under government control.

Of course, the theory is far more comforting to accept than the truth that Iran is a dictatorship that brutalizes its people.

Clearly, the WikiLeaks documents show that Arab world leaders are all talk and little action.

I was also really hoping for something more exciting from WikiLeaks, like the confirmation of many of the rumors I have heard over the years.

For example, Jordan’s King Abdullah II, who you would think would love to curl his fingers around a juicy clump of lamb and rice mensiff, instead spoons chunks of matza and soup with the finesse of a British teetotaler.

Or, maybe that Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman isn’t really racist, but thinks that acting like he has a special bone to pick with Arabs makes him a tougherlooking government official.

Most disappointing is that in a massive leak of documents like this, there is usually some reference to a sexual or naughty nature.

You mean to tell me that none of the Arab dictators who met with Kadima leader Tzipi Livni offered to make her a part of their harems that they pretend no longer exist? I like her. I’d make her my fourth wife.

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com.

Yalla Peace: Hanukka and Holidays at the Hanania household

2010-12-01T04:14:00.001-08:00

Yalla Peace: Hanukka and Holidays at the Hanania household

By RAY HANANIA

12/01/2010 JERUSALEM POST

In recent years, as Hanukka and Christmas overlapped,

the holiday season became a minefield of decoration-related decisions.

Over the past few years, Hanukka, Christmas and the Id al-Adha all seemed to coincide. That made Arabs, Jews and Israelis happy. They saw it as a sign of better things to come. People were singing “Kumbaya.”

They were mixing words and phrases from each religion to create new “words of peace,” like “holiday treats for peace.” And they were offering trades to kickstart the stalled peace process: felafel for matza.

Arabs and Jews even tried writing Middle East peace songs together, until each side discovered that wasn’t easy either. Promises made in some of the choruses had been changed. Important words had been replaced. Some of the lyrics required side notes to explain what the original intent of the song was.

Pretty soon, everyone was singing a different tune. Like Middle East peace, we all know what the melody is but we just can’t get the words right.

MAKING PEOPLE believe in miracles may have been good for everyone else, but it wasn’t good in the Israeli-occupied Hanania household, where marriage has achieved what negotiations and even proximity talks have failed to do in the Middle East. It may have coincided for everyone else. But for my family, the holidays collided.

That Hanukka and Christmas both overlapped was a big problem. My wife, Alison, and I found ourselves in a cast iron battle over whose settlements – I mean decorations – would get the best locations in and around our house.

We fought over the front room coffee table. Do we put a menora or a crèche (Nativity scene)? Who gets to hang something on the front door? A Star of David or a picture of Jesus wrapped in a Palestinian flag? Both?

I discovered that Hanukka lights are more Jewish than Christian lights. The lights on her string decorations had shapes of dreidels, menorot, Stars of David and images of Binyamin Netanyahu.

Mine were little bulbs called “Italian lights.” What have the Italians ever done for peace anyway? She got to do something new every day with our son Aaron. Lighting one extra candle every night for eight days. I got to turn on a switch.

The lawn was a battleground too. I wanted to put up a big Santa Claus. You know, that chubby guy with the long, white beard that needs to be dyed, wearing an effeminate looking red suit with white fur. What does he really have to do with Christmas, I wonder? Although Jesus had a beard too, but it wasn’t bushy white.

She had a huge display of Jerusalem with a big sign quoting Ariel Sharon “indivisible capital for all eternity” that she said she wanted to keep there all year long. She got it free – after a small donation of $1,500 – from the Jewish United Fund.

Believe me, by the time we got through arguing over what went where, who got what and who started the Gaza war, we were beat, so tired we could barely enjoy the meal, the one moment when Arabs have an advantage over Israelis.

After all, Arabs may know how to build settlements and walls, barriers and murals, but Israelis can’t cook. They end up making our food and while we Arabs complain that they stole our culinary style, our humous and our Syrian – yes, Syrian – bread, the fact is deep down we prefer to have them serve us something.

THANK GOODNESS all that “signs from heaven” stuff has stopped. This year, Hanukka comes first and Christmas comes after.

She puts her stuff up and then I get to take it down and put up my stuff.

I then get to celebrate secular New Year and, afterward Orthodox New Year. My stuff goes up last and never gets taken down.

No “Kumbaya.” No pretending there are going to be any miracles of peace. No arguing over whose food is best or who owns what land.

One Christmas, Alison even stopped painting a green line through the house to designate what part was hers and what part was mine. She always said she would be fair in our marriage and we each get “half.” She gets 78 percent and I get 22.

But then I realized that her not painting the green line in our house was just an Israeli trick to make me forget where the 1949 armistice marriage agreement really was.

And I demanded that she paint it, but she still refuses till this day.

So this year, no fights over bells ringing or who gets to “deck” the Halls – the Halls, our neighbors, always hated it when we decked them when they came by, although the Halls are Jewish so I didn’t mind. No sighs pretending like there is going to be peace.

Just a lot of mistletoe, zaide’s sandwiches of corned beef, pastrami and chopped liver, and real happiness knowing we each get our turn. And I go last.

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Helen Thomas is a hero slandered because of her fierce independence

2010-11-18T11:53:00.000-08:00

Helen Thomas is a hero. For more than 57 years, she has stood up to all forms of discrimination. First as a woman journalist in a man's world. Second as a fiercely objective journalist who questioned every President From Eisenhower to Obama with the same principles of justice, objectivity and balance. And Third, she is a hero because she has stood up to the onslaught of ugly name-calling from extremists in the American Jewish Community who are not happy kicking Palestinians out of Palestine, they want to kick them out of America, too.

Tonight, Thomas will receive among many honors the Dr. M.T. Mehdi Courage in Journalism Award. The award was established in 1999 to honor the work of journalists who have stood up to hatred, fear mongering, defamation and slander because of their work. It is presented to journalists who have shown courage in speaking and writing the truth in the face of overwhelming public anger.

It is so easy for many mainstream American journalists to remain silent, rather than to expose the hypocrisies in American society, especially after the terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001. It is easy because the hatred and racism against Arabs and Muslims in America has reached an unprecedented height. Arabs and Muslims are easy prey for racists and bigots because the American public is so uneducated about truth and accuracy and they are fed a constant stream of lies from the mainstream American media.

And those Arabs and Muslims who dare to challenge the lies in the coverage of the rights of the Palestinian people are even easier to target because on top of the bigots and racists who attack Arabs and Muslims, American Jews often also join in the assaults against morality and ethics.

You can read the blog called Elder of Ziyon, an often racistly anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate site to see this hypocrisy at work. (Click here to read their most recent hateful post.)

On the one hand, the writer argues that Helen Thomas did not say that Jews should get out of the occupied territory, making the precision of the words their strongest case. And then they hypocritically violate principle, morality and even truth, arguing that Helen Thomas said that Jews should get out of Israel. The fact is Helen Thomas NEVER used the word "Jews." She was asked by a racist rabbi what Israelis should do and she said "Get the hell out of Palestine."

The most outrageous example of bigotry and racist hate comes from Morton Klein, the head of the Zionist Organization of America. His history of racism and bigotry is shameful. Klein could care less about the truth. He is more concerned with protecting a foreign country rather than defending Americans from bigotry and racism. Klein prefers to defend Israel and he hates Helen Thomas for the very reason she deserves to be honored tonight by the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC, www.ADC.org)and the National Arab American Journalists Association (www.NAAJA-US.com).

More than any other journalist, Helen Thomas was not afraid to challenge the hypocrisies and lies about Palestinians and Arabs and Muslims. She often asked the tough questions of Presidents exposing the hypocrisies of American Foreign policy that sacrificed truth and ethics for political bias towards one foreign country called Israel. And her colleagues, who rarely reported on her courageous challenges, shouted her down with their ugly silence and unprofessional and unjournalistic conduct.

NAAJA salutes Helen Thomas and American Arabs who refuse to be shouted down by bigots, demagogues and hatemongers like Morton Klein and others all because they have DARED to challenge the political polices of a foreign government, Israel.

-- Ray Hanania
www.RadioChicagoland.com

Yalla Peace: Seven deadly sins that prevent peace

2010-11-16T16:26:00.000-08:00

Yalla Peace: Seven deadly sins that prevent peace
By RAY HANANIA
11/16/2010 JERUSALEM POST

What is it that motivates us to unite in prayer for rain but not to unite in prayer for real peace?

A major obstacle preventing Palestinian and Israeli peace is that our leaders do not genuinely speak of peace and have a mind-set that is based in anger.

They are so wrapped up in their negativity that they are incapable of coming together for peace and compromise, although they cover up their negativity by telling themselves that they do support peace, when they really do not.

I have always believed Israelis and Palestinians need a psychiatrist more than they need a nonpartisan negotiator like the US to bring them together. The truth of our conflict comes out in our actions more than in our words. We should all be laying back on couches as the psychiatrist brings out our deepest fears.

I follow Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon on Twitter. Most of the time his posts remind me of how hopeless Palestinian and Israeli leaders really are. He speaks about peace, but too often his words reflect the opposite.

Recently, on his Twitter page, he wrote: “Praying for rain unites Jews, Muslims and Christians.” He didn’t mean it as some major revelation about the historical relations between Palestinians and Israelis. It wasn’t a policy statement, nor a determination for peace. It was a subliminal gesture on his part that revealed what our problem really is.

DEEP DOWN we – Palestinians and Israelis – want everyone to come together. It makes us feel good. But we don’t want to pay the price for peace, which is compromise, and that leaves us with conflict. Rain is not conflict. But rain is one of those troublesome necessities of life. We need rain but we also fear rain, which can easily become thunderstorms, hurricanes and floods.

Rain can symbolize both a natural growth and a fierce natural destruction.

How come I never read Ayalon write on his Twitter page, “Respect and generosity unite Jews, Muslims and Christians.” Or “real peace where Israelis and Palestinians compromise and recognize each other unites Jews, Muslims and Christians.”

Ayalon’s Twitter post is so revealing because it represents exactly what is wrong with the relations between Israelis and Palestinians.

We look at the natural order of the world and spend all our time trying to change things that cannot be changed. We spend all our efforts rejecting the very answers and solutions that can bring change.

We can’t do anything about the weather, but we can do much to stop the violence. We can stop the killings. We can stop the hatred. We can stop the building of settlements. We can stop the firing of rockets. We can stop the assaults on civilians. We can stop the attacks on soldiers.

We can’t start or stop the rain.

So why do we pine for that which we can’t have, when what we can have sits right there under our noses? What is it that motivates us to unite in prayer for rain but not to unite in prayer for real peace? There are seven answers to that question, the psychiatrist might explain. Pining for rain is so much easier than pining for peace, at least according to the seven deadly sins that plague humanity – wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy and gluttony.

Wrath: The eternal flame that brings Palestinians and Israelis so closely together. We often try to inflict more pain than what has been brought on ourselves.

Greed: The refusal by Israelis to surrender settlements and Palestinians to surrender a demand for the right of return.

Sloth: Peace requires real work and we have tired from failing over the years.

Pride: Wanting to look good to our people rather than doing the right thing and making them angry.

Lust: Israeli rejectionists see the West Bank as the wife of another man, and Palestinian rejectionists covet failed peace as their desired goal.

Envy: We hate what the other has.

Gluttony: We feed ourselves rhetoric that makes us fat with a false sense of having achieved something. We consume ourselves with a false belief that we are better than the other, and close our eyes to our own roles in the tragedy we all help to create.

I am sure that when Danny Ayalon wrote his Twitter post, he wasn’t thinking of all this. But I wish he did. The only thing we should allow to unite Jews, Muslims and Christians is praying for peace.

Yalla Peace: Can Jews live in a Palestinian state?

2010-11-09T13:37:00.000-08:00

Yalla Peace: Can Jews live in a Palestinian state?
By RAY HANANIA
11/09/2010 JERUSALEM POST

Palestinians will come to accept the Jews living in ‘their’ country.

That we even have to ask the question “can Jews live in a Palestinian state” tells you how bad relations between Israelis and Palestinians have become. It explains what the real problem is – bad attitude, exaggerated fear.

Of course Jews can live in a Palestinian state. I would argue that they would be better treated than the Arab citizens of Israel who did not flee or were not forced out by the Hagana and Irgun in 1948.

But it comes up now in the context of a possible, though reluctant, effort to achieve a peace accord.

Why not allow some of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank to remain but as a part of a Palestinian state, with the settlers living under Palestinian rule? Could it be worse than Palestinians living under Israeli rule?

The only issue is one of land, of course. Israelis who object to compromise and therefore reject peace argue that the conflict is not about land but about Palestinian and Arab refusal to recognize Israel. The Arabs have recognized Israel. The real question is, have Israelis recognized Palestine?

Do Palestinians have a right to govern themselves in historic Palestine? And please don’t throw in that racist argument (yes, it is racist) that Jordan is Palestine. No one called Jordan Palestine, except European Jews. And have Jews recognized Palestine enough that some might want to live there as “Jewish citizens of Palestine”? Some Jewish settlements can be annexed into Israel in the context of a final peace, with an exchange of lands: Israel trades one dunam of Israeli land for every dunam of settlements in the West Bank retained, including settlements around Jerusalem like Gilo.

Jewish settlements not traded to Israel could and should remain in Palestine. And they deserve the protection and equality that everyone should strive to achieve, not just in Palestine but in Israel.

A POST-CONFLICT Israel will eventually change. It won’t be run by extremists using fear mongering to pump up the fight. Palestinians will join Israelis to impose justice and the rule of law, and they will work together to fight crime and terrorism. And the terrorism won’t just be coming from the small handful of remaining Palestinian extremists. I hope and believe a Palestinian state will also overcome the same obstacles that will confront a final peace.

The issue of who owned the land will have to be addressed. Settlements built on land expropriated from Palestinians will have to be resolved in the form of compensation and other trade-offs.

I know many Palestinians will object to all of this. Of course they would. They are like Israelis, whipped up into a frenzy by political leaders who fear monger, too. But peace will be like a soothing balm on a wound. As the pain goes away, almost all the anger and anger-driven hate will go with it.

Israelis will come to accept the non-Jews, the Palestinian Arabs, who now live in their country. And eventually, Palestinians will come to accept the Jews living in their country.

What about the issue of Jews immigrating to Palestine? Palestine presumably would be open to settlement by anyone, including Jews, as long as they live under Palestinian laws. Would they be treated the same as Israel treats its Arab citizens? Maybe that is why some Israelis fear living in Palestine.

Palestine, though, should not become Israel. It should not become a state based on one religion – Palestinians should repeal the law declaring Islam the official religion of Palestine. That law isolates non-Muslims and insults Christian Palestinians and Christians throughout the Arab world. (How could Palestinians complain about Israel being a Jewish state when Palestine would become a Muslim state?) Palestine can offer a right of return to every Palestinian in the diaspora, especially to those refugees living in camps.

Every Palestinian not living in Palestine or Israel is essentially a refugee in my mind. The success of assimilation does not deny refugee status.

It would be no different than what Israel does – allowing anyone Jewish to come to the State of Israel while requiring non-Jews to apply for immigration. Palestine could do the same.

One day, we will have peace. I just wonder how Palestinians and Israelis will spend their time when they don’t have to wake up in the morning and deal with all this conflict, fear, debate and anger?

The writer is an award winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Robert O'Connor and his 3 AM blog can shove it up his wazoo : )

2010-11-08T14:22:00.000-08:00

This blog author Robert O'Connor is way off base both in his ideas and his facts. (But he later contacted me and adjusted his comments and I have adjusted mine below.)

More than 7,000 people crammed the Petrillo Band Shell at Millennium Park for the Rally to Restore Sanity, organized by Angie McMahon. It was amazing how many people attended the event which featured an array and variety of entertainers, and a satellite feed from the the Washington D.C. parent rally organized by Jon Stewart which drew more than 215,000 people, far larger than the event organized by professional hater Glenn Beck.

O'Connor attacked me, mainly because he says I am Muslim. I'm not. I'm actually Christian Palestinian from Bethlehem and Jerusalem -- Jesus is my cousin O'Connor. But I don't mind being mistaken for a Muslim because it adds one more moderate voice to the growing voices of moderate Muslims standing up tot he fanatics who are trying to takeover the Middle East and attack America.

I was originally booked as a pro bono performer, which I was proud to accept and to perform. But the emcee, my comedy friend and long time media colleague Aaron Freeman had an emergency. So he asked me to finish off the show, which I enthusiastically did.

I introduced the lineup as they were booked by Angie McMahon and also did my our segment of comedy, which was tough to do since I had to emcee and then basically introduce myself. Which was okay, though.

My first few jokes in my set went over big.

"Anyone here expecting a UPS package from Yemen?"

Yes, I know the terrorist M-fers sent bombs using UPS to targets int he US, including American Jews -- my wife is an American Jew by the way. But to let the terrorists believe they have frightened us is wrong. And by making fun of their threats, we are demeaning the. Believe me. If it is one that the terrorist fanatics hate the most -- haters like Ikhras and KabobFest -- it is to be made fun of. They haaaaaate it! And they squirm like the worms they are.

And one of my lead jokes was to ask the audience if they wanted to say Rally to Restore Sanity in Arabic. And then I undulated loudly asking them to repeat it (luuuuuuu luuuuuu luuuuuu luuuuuu luuuuuuu!). And they undulated themselves and it was loudest undulation ever in Chicago and in Millennium Park. They laughed long and hard when it was done.

Of course, O'Connor did not. He was one of the 10 people who complained. Some were upset saying they came to Millennium Park not to show solidarity but to watch the jumbo-tron TV satellite feed from Washington D.C. If they wanted to watch TV -- selfishly, I might add -- they could have stayed home. Unless, of course, these goofs didn't have a TV set or watch cable.

The Rally to Restore Sanity sent a message out loud and clear that we will not tolerate fanaticism on either side and that we can find the middle ground. Tea Party activists are goofs from the far right, subversives trying to disrupt society and sanity.

-- Ray Hanania
www.RadioChicagoland.com

(Updated Aug. 26, 2011 after Robert O'Connor insisted he was mis-characterized, is not a Tea Party member nor a supporter of Glenn Beck. He also edited his own criticism of me being Muslim.)

Yalla Peace: Haneen Zoabi, Unfazed and unafraid

2010-11-02T17:59:00.000-07:00

Yalla Peace: Haneen Zoabi, Unfazed and unafraid
By RAY HANANIA
11/02/2010 JERUSALEM POST

The case of Haneen Zoabi

exposes flaws in Israeli democracy.

Israel claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East, but sometimes it doesn’t really act like it. A case in point is the growing animosity in Israel toward Haneen Zoabi, an Arab member of Knesset from Balad who insists on testing Israel’s democracy.

Zoabi was among those on the Mavi Marmara – part of the flotilla which attempted to break the Gaza blockade in May. She is resolute in speaking about what she calls discriminatory policies against Arab citizens. I caught up with Zoabi during one of her stops in a tour of the US where she made the case that Israel talks the talk when it comes to democracy but fails to walk the walk.

“I am not afraid of what the Israelis are trying to do to me,” Zoabi told me at a Chicago convention of Palestinian Americans.

“The attacks by right-wing members of Knesset and politicians do not bother me. I am not afraid to stand up to them. I am strong.”

Zoabi is defiant, and her views can’t easily be brushed aside.

The first woman elected on an Arab slate to the Knesset in March 2009, and the third Arab woman elected to the Knesset altogether, Zoabi comes from a long line of Arab Israelis from Nazareth who have engaged in politics.

She is related to Seif el-Din e- Zoubi, a former mayor of Nazareth who served in the Knesset between 1949 and 1959, and from 1965 until 1979, and to Abed el-Aziz el-Zoubi, a deputy health minister and the first Arab member of an Israeli government.

But none of her relatives faced the anger and hostility that has been directed against her over the past year. Her support for the flotilla ignited a wave of harsh criticism. Jewish Knesset members have called for her to be prosecuted and stripped of the immunity that Knesset members enjoy.

Zoabi brushed aside the rising criticism as “a reflection of the new realities in Israel” that have pushed the Jewish state from the center to the extreme Right.

“Actually, this bothers the [Jewish] Israelis more than it bothers me. The criticism and anti-Arab hatred has become more severe, growing in intensity since the second intifada. It escalated even more after the Lebanon war,” Zoabi said.

She said the backlash against Arabs citizens challenging Israeli policies started with Azmi Bishara, a Knesset member who was very critical. Following the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Bishara was accused of high treason and charges were brought against him following allegations that he aided the enemy during wartime, was in contact with a foreign agent and involved in money-laundering activities. After being stripped of his immunity, Bishara fled Israel and resigned from the Knesset in 2007 via the Israeli Embassy in Cairo.

“The deterioration between Jewish Israelis and Arab Israelis began with Bishara,” Zoabi said. “But it has reached a tipping point.”

CRITICISM IS a hallmark of true democracies.

The more Israel tries to silence Arab critics, the more it exposes the limits of its democracy.

“Israelis have always been racist against Arab citizens. It is growing,” Zoabi argued. “But I don’t see that as a threat to me as a Palestinian. It is a threat to the normalcy of life of the Israelis themselves. At one time, the racism was rational, a part of the Jewish character of the state. Today, that racism is more and more irrational.”

The only satisfaction that Israelis might get from all this is that Arabs in America are politically dysfunctional.

Although they can draw large crowds to conferences marked by angry speeches, like the one held in a suburb of Chicago this past weekend, the events get little or no coverage in the mainstream media. Americans are not hearing Palestinian complaints. Yet.

Palestinians in America do most of their talking to themselves. But one day that will change and Americans will look more closely at Israel’s policies toward its Arab citizens. Zoabi symbolizes a crack that continues to grow in the wall of Israel’s claim to the “only democracy in the Middle East.”

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com.

Yalla Peace: Racism is in the eye of the beholder

2010-10-26T15:26:00.000-07:00

Yalla Peace: Racism is in the eye of the beholder
By RAY HANANIA
10/26/2010 JERUSALEM POST
(Creators Syndicate)

Juan Williams and the fear of flying

with those dressed in Muslim garb.

Juan Williams, the well-known NPR radio and TV commentator, recently told Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly that he gets nervous boarding planes when he sees people in “Muslim garb.” Williams said the fear stems from the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 when 19 Muslim Arabs hijacked four planes and crashed three of them into the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

But there is much wrong with what Williams said, beyond his prejudiced fears.

I’ve been to many clothing stores, including many at the world’s largest mall, the Mall of the Emirates in Dubai. When I ask for the Muslim garb section, they look at me strangely. They don’t have a Muslim garb section.

I was more disappointed in Williams because he is African-American, although his first name is Hispanic.

When I was growing up in America in the 1960s, most white people used to say that they feared going into black neighborhoods because, well, you know, blacks spend all their time murdering people to pay for their drug habits.

It was this kind of racist stereotype that roused fear in the minds of most Americans and resulted in racial clashes and conflict for years, forcing the government to adopt civil rights legislation. That legislation which protects black Americans today helped Williams make millions as a media superstar.

Williams knew he was walking into bad territory when he said it, and tried to soften the blow, adding that of course everyone in America has rights, including those Arabs and Muslims in their Muslim garb.

But it doesn’t cut it.

Williams was fired by NPR, although it appears that his racist comment wasn’t the main reason. NPR, a liberal media institution, is upset because Williams appeared on a competing network.

Many Americans are upset that Williams was fired for making these comments. They were not upset when allegations of racism, prejudice and inappropriateness were directed against people like Helen Thomas, Octavia Nasr and Rick Sanchez. All three were fired because they made comments critical of Israel, or that Israelis and American Jews were not happy with.

There is a campaign in the US now to boycott NPR for firing Williams, because, well, most Americans don’t care when you are racist against Arabs or Muslims.

I GUESS racism in America is a lot like beauty; it’s all in the eye of the beholder. It’s racist to criticize Israel or express sadness at the death of a Muslim leader, but not racist to criticize Arabs and Muslims who terrorize America in Muslim garb.

The only problem in all this is that I saw the pictures of the 19 hijackers – crazed fanatics who claimed their actions were done in the name of Islam. Who appointed them as spokespeople for Islam? I don’t know, but that doesn’t seem to matter.

Yet I don’t think they were dressed in Muslim garb at all. In fact, if I remember correctly, most were wearing blue jeans. One had a cardigan college sweater. Another few had two-piece pinstripe suits, the kind you find on the nefarious characters in the banking industry who rip Americans off by charging excessive interest rates on credit cards, or their robber baron cousins in the insurance industry, who do the same.

I’ll remember to shiver the next time I am boarding a plane and see someone next to me wearing a college cheerleader’s outfit.

Oh, those people in their Western garb. They can be so frightening sometimes.

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Juan Williams and the slew of fired journalists

2010-10-22T02:51:00.000-07:00

Juan Williams and the slew of fired journalists

By Ray Hanania

Should Juan Williams have been fired for expressing an opinion tinged with racism?

I don’t think so. Not that I support racist views. But I do believe strongly in freedom of speech and the tolerance of even the most ugly of comments.

Juan Williams, a conservative commentator who had the distinction of working for the liberal NPR Radio and the conservative FOX Network, said that he would feel uncomfortable if he were to board an airplane and see other passengers were dressed like Muslims or Arabs.

The comment reminds me of the racism that was common during most of the last century in America, when Whites would express fears of Blacks on buses, in their neighborhoods and in their stores.

It is racism. But how do you respond to racism?

Williams is not a journalist so the issue of violating journalist ethics does not apply. He is a commentator, someone who is paid specifically for expressing his opinion.

Although his opinion reflected an ugliness that is common against Muslims and Arabs that was once commonplace bigotry against African Americans, I don’t believe he should have been fired. Just as I don’t believe Helen Thomas, Octavia Nasr and Rick Sanchez should have been fired, either.

Thomas was more of a journalist than a commentator, but her comments were made off-the-cuff after she was ambushed by a virulently anti-Arab Rabbi who then twisted her words from criticism of Israel into anti-Semitism. She was fired by her newspaper chain, the Hearts Publications.

Octavia Nasr was a popular anchor and reporter at CNN. Her Middle Eastern background added a knowledge that was not available from others at CNN or elsewhere, since there are so very few American Arabs working in the mainstream American news media.

She expressed empathy on the death of Sheikh Sayyed Mohammad Fadlallah, a man who was considered the founder of Hezbollah, even though he had distanced himself from Hezbollah which has changed dramatically from a grassroots resistance movement to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon to a powerful militant organization and political group that is believed to be behind much of the Islamic extremism in the Middle East.

Rick Sanchez seemed to have been making a joke made by others, saying that the idea that Jews are an oppressed minority is ridiculous, responding to comments made by television commentator and entertainer Jon Stewart, who is Jewish.

There is a difference between journalism and commentary. I’m a columnist, not a journalist any more, though I was a journalist winning many awards for more than two decades.

But there is also a difference between responsible commentary and opinion, and irresponsible racism and bigotry.

Should a columnist be fired for expressing an unpopular view that many might consider racist? If he should be, then where do we draw a line so that it applies equally to everyone.

Because Juan Williams isn’t the only commentator or journalist to express anti-Muslim and anti-Arab views in the mainstream American news media. If we fired all those that crossed this line, we might not have many commentators left.

Of course, that circumstance might make this a better world. But then, that is just my opinion.

(Ray Hanania can be reached at www.RadioChicagoland.com. Please contact Creators Syndicate to publish any columns)

Yalla Peace: Israel - Lonely, oh so (increasingly) lonely

2010-10-19T03:40:00.000-07:00

Yalla Peace: Israel - Lonely, oh so (increasingly) lonely
By RAY HANANIA
10/18/2010 JERUSALEM POST

Israel’s standing in int'l community continues to falter

as country becomes more isolated. But things could easily change

with help of its only real reliable ally, the US.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s refusal to freeze settlement expansion during the direct peace talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has reinforced a reversal of Israel’s relations with many countries in the Middle East.

As long as it insists on placing its desire to hold onto lands that would become part of a future Palestinian state above reaching a permanent peace accord, that reversal will grow.

This week, Moroccan King Muhammad VI reportedly declined to meet with President Shimon Peres, writing in his letter to him that such a meeting was “impossible at the moment.”

The Arab League is backing Abbas’s refusal to sit down with Netanyahu as long as he continues to authorize settlement construction on lands that would presumably be exchanged for a secure Israeli future.

Relations between the Arab world and Israel are getting chillier by the moment and Turkey, once a close ally, continues to distance itself. Britain and Spain recently announced that they will not send representatives to the OECD conference in Jerusalem later this week, though the UK denied that this was a boycott. Norway last month divested from Elbit because of its reported ties to the security barrier in the West Bank. Singers and artists are canceling their scheduled performances and trips, the most recent incident involving British director Mike Leigh.

When Arab states boycotted Israel after the Six Day War, it had far many more friends in the world. Today, Israel’s standing in the international community continues to falter and the country is becoming increasingly isolated.

But things could easily change with its only real reliable ally, the US.

PRESIDENT BARACK Obama is a weak president these days, not because of his insistence on pushing for compromise in the Middle East, but because of continued economic challenges in the US.

Obama’s Democratic Party is expected to lose control of Congress in the November 2 general elections, but traditionally a president’s party almost always loses control of the Congress in midterm elections. It has happened to his predecessors, including George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Losing that control doesn’t mean that Obama will not be reelected in November 2012. The man is different from his predecessors in many ways, including his insistence on tackling the Middle East conflict as soon as he came into office. His predecessors usually took on this task toward the end of their terms, never giving themselves enough time.

If Obama is elected a second time, he would be in a far different position politically and not subject to the pressures of Israel’s political climate. He will have another four years to reposition the Palestinian question in a new way that could change how Americans view the conflict.

Americans today generally support Israel but more and more are seeing the imbalance for what it really is and are showing sympathies to the Palestinians. The only thing stopping Americans from making a full conversion are the Arab fanatics and extremist activists.

These extremist activists’ policies make it easy for Americans to support Israel. Their street protests and their virulent anti-Semitism have strengthened Israel’s standing, and their failure to achieve any swing in American votes only pushes them to bully their community and to target moderate voices.

They won’t change the political dynamics in the US, but Israel’s obstinate refusal to give up lands designated for a future Palestinian state alongside it is becoming increasingly clear to many Americans. It’s not significant now, but it will be if Obama is sworn in for a second term.

Things are changing and some Israelis either don’t see it or have buried their heads so deep in the sand, they can’t see it. They have allowed their own extremist voices to take over their country and reject a way for peace that the country’s founders had always claimed was their goal.

Israel is becoming a nation from which many of its international allies are finding it easier to walk away.

Ending settlement expansion is a simple choice, one that would lead to permanent peace. Israel must decide, once and for all, between building on more land and taking its place among the countries of the Middle East, countries that would include a sovereign and free Palestine.

It cannot have both.

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Yalla Peace: Illinois and the peace process

2010-10-05T15:37:00.000-07:00

Yalla Peace: Illinois and the peace process
By RAY HANANIA
10/05/2010 JERUSALEM POST

Illinois could become the leading state in helping resolve the Middle East conflict.

Rahm Emanuel is the most famous of US political candidates with direct ties to Israel. The former chief of staff to President Barack Obama left the job and declared his candidacy for mayor of Chicago. His father, Benjamin, was a member of the pre-state Irgun.

But he’s not the only one.

Scott Lee Cohen is Jewish, but few know his father was born in Palestine during the British Mandate and immigrated to the US to escape the growing conflict. His son was born two years before the 1967 war. Cohen broke onto the American political scene last March with a huge splash when he surprised everyone and won the Democratic Party nomination for Illinois lieutenant governor.

But Cohen was already accomplished in business in Chicagoland. He is a self-made millionaire.

The mainstream media ignored Cohen during the election, focusing instead on the leading establishment candidates after the governor, Rod Blagojevich, had been removed from office and accused of corruption.

Blagojevich beat all 23 major corruption charges, but the former governor’s ties to high-profile American Arab businessmen made him a marked man to the media.

Cohen ran on a reform platform that promised to focus on job creation. When he won the election, the media turned ugly and began doing the job they failed to do when he ran, digging up dirt including details of his divorce and the antics of a former girlfriend whom the media charged had been arrested previously for prostitution.

Cohen stood up to the oftenunfair media and political onslaught, which in turn, ignored him when he talked about doing something for citizens of the state, and then pilloried him when his election put him in line to become the state’s number-two government official.

Under pressure and threats, Cohen withdrew from the lieutenant governor’s race, but returned and declared himself a an independent candidate.

“I am very proud of my family’s heritage and my father’s life in Palestine, and I am proud to be a Jew,” Cohen told me after appearing on my morning radio show in Chicago. Cohen said he opposes violence, supports negotiations and the creation of two states as a solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict.

If he is elected governor, Cohen could become a prominent force to help strengthen the moderate voices, and will be a contrast to Emanuel, who has been secretive about his own ties to Israel.

Service in Israel’s military is considered one of the highest honors and is respected among Israelis. It’s often used to help deflect some of the nasty vitriol that dominates the Middle East discussion. My journalism colleague, Bradley Burston, notes at the bottom of his columns in Haaretz that he served in the IDF to deflect attacks from those who question his patriotism.

But just as military service is important in Israel, it is also very important in the US. Like Burston, I often cite my active duty in the US Air Force during the Vietnam War to respond to those who question my patriotism.

It’s the main factor in the Illinois US Senate race with Democrat Alexi Giannoulis leading his Republican rival Mark Kirk, who has repeatedly exaggerated his own role as a “fighter pilot” in Iraq.

And it is important in the case of Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel served as a “volunteer” in Israel’s military, repairing trucks, but he has refused to discuss the facts surrounding that role, or explain why he didn’t serve in the US military.

THE MEDIA that beat up Cohen is touting Emanuel as the leading candidate to become Chicago mayor. He is one of the smartest minds in American politics, and was the architect of the Democratic takeover of the US House.

Emanuel’s role as chief adviser to Obama shows he cares about supporting genuine peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

But it has caused him some problems with Chicago Jews, who feel Obama has been too supportive of Palestinians.

I think Emanuel would make a great mayor. His service in the Israeli military is not an issue to me. His role in the Obama administration, which is fair to Israelis and Palestinians, is more important.

I also think Cohen will make a great Illinois governor.

If they both win, Illinois could become the leading state in helping resolve the Middle East conflict. It’s a state with just as many Arabs and Muslims as Jews, who all care about achieving peace.

The writer is an award winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Yalla peace: No deals with the devil

2010-09-28T19:19:00.001-07:00

Yalla peace: No deals with the devil

By RAY HANANIA

09/28/2010 JERUSALEM POST

Like the proverbial pact with the Germans during the British Mandate and Saddam Hussein inthe 1990s, cheering Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not help the Palestinian cause.

‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend” is described both as a Chinese and an Arabic proverb that is used to explain how someone can make a pact with the devil if it helps their cause. Sometimes called “the devil’s pact,” it’s not a good policy, even if it does have historical weight in the Middle East.

One of the first such pacts was made by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Jerusalem mufti during the Palestine Mandate who reached out to the Germans during World War II. The Germans were railing against international Zionism, although no one yet knew the extent of the Nazi horrors.

It was a pact of convenience, not hatred, often used to wrongly demonize all Palestinians.

Like the US, Palestinians also made a pact with Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s tyrant who was finally toppled and replaced by a new tyrant, Halliburton.

Saddam began as a client of the US in his decades-long war with Iran.

Of course, the US had a stronger pact with Iran’s pre-ayatollah tyrant, the shah of Iran, whose government murdered hundreds of thousands of dissidents.

Palestinians turned to Saddam when the Iraqi dictator, seeking to exploit their suffering for his own political benefit, gave the families of suicide bombers money; Israel’s policy of collective punishment violated international laws and punished innocent people for the crimes of others.

Although the gesture was good, the source and motive were corrupt.

NOW, MANY Palestinians are turning to the strident fanaticism of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the “president” of Iran. Like Saddam, Ahmadinejad uses the suffering of the Palestinian people to tug at the heartstrings of the pro-Palestinian movement. It is a pact with the devil that Palestinians should avoid. But in a world where support from major powers is weak, Ahmadinejad’s abrasive assaults against Israel have attracted many admirers.

But Ahmadinejad is a demagogue.

After making his outrageous claims at the UN that the US was somehow involved in the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, a group of activists – mostly extremists but including some Palestinians – met with Ahmadinejad. They praised the Iranian tyrant and he praised them. I am sure they left the meeting agreeing that his voice can help pull the veil from Israel’s brutal occupation – a veil that is wrapped tightly around the eyes of most Americans.

But like the proverbial pact with the Germans and Saddam, cheering Ahmadinejad does not help the Palestinian cause. In fact, it harms it.

The Palestinians do not need to cuddle up to tyrants to find friends; they have a just cause as they challenge Israel’s policies. The issue of settlements is not one of family growth, as Israel contends, but rather one of land theft – theft that is a counterweight to the fight against terrorism.

When Israel doesn’t follow through on its often-empty peace promises, some activists see the devil’s pact as an attractive option.

Palestinians should purge the Arabic proverbs that have helped bring down Palestinian aspirations for statehood. They should slam the door on Ahmadinejad’s hypocrisies, and challenge his own oppressive tyranny. Having principles means that when you criticize one enemy, you never embrace the devil. Principle means that when you stand up for justice in the cause of Palestine, you stand up for justice in the cause of those persecuted by Iran, such as the hikers who have been jailed for more than a year, or the hundreds of political activists who speak out against its vicious policies.

Having principles means that when a Palestinian kills an Israeli, you speak out as forcefully as you would when an Israeli kills a Palestinian.

Sure, Israelis could use these words of advice too. After all, they have stolen Palestine’s felafels and the Arabic proverbs too, making their own pacts with the devil.

But you don’t do your justice any justice if you defend your wrongs by saying the other side does it too, or by accepting the canard that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Ahmadinejad is not our friend.

The writer is an award winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Yalla Peace: Palestinians have already recognized Israel

2010-09-14T18:22:00.001-07:00

Yalla Peace: Palestinians have already recognized Israel

By Ray Hanania
09/14/2010 Jerusalem Post

The acceptance of this country is not only inherent in the Palestinians’ repeated declarations but also in the fact that their leaders are sitting down and negotiating two states.

In the reality of the Palestine-Israel conflict, the field where peace is played is the United States. That “stadium,” if you look at this like a sport, is the home field for the Israelis.

They have many advantages, including the support of the mainstream American media and an American public that still views the Leon Uris book Exodus as the bible of Middle East history.

I don’t want to burn that bible, but I think it is important to weigh both sides and what they are really saying, to look past the rhetoric and analyze what is really being sought.

Both sides want peace. Even the fanatics want peace. They just want it at the end of a war with their opponents vanquished.

Real peace means balance, and balance has never been a major component of the ongoing negotiations that began in 1993 in – to use a sports analogy again – the White House Stadium.

LET’S LOOK at some key issues.

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is making his case that Israel needs to end settlement expansion and address the core issues. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is responding with the assertion that settlement expansion is not the key issue here.

Rather it’s Palestinian violence (Israel’s security) and the acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state – a new precondition that has risen from the stalemate of years of failed negotiations.

According to Netanyahu, equilibrium does not exist between Palestinian demands on settlements and Israeli demands on security and defined recognition.

But that equilibrium does exist and Netanyahu can’t simply brush it aside.

To the Palestinians, the issue has never been rejecting Israel’s right to exist but rather Israel’s imposed right to grab any land it wants.

To Israel, the issue is security and being recognized as a “Jewish state.”

The fact is Palestinians have recognized Israel’s right to exist. That is not only inherent in their repeated declarations but also in the fact that Palestinians are sitting down and negotiating two states.

Despite that, though, Netanyahu has asserted that the Palestinians have not compromised and they do not recognize Israel’s right to exist, with the new caveat of being a “Jewish state,” and he has insisted that Israel, and he personally, have recognized the rights of Palestinians.

What rights are those Mr. Netanyahu? If Israelis can’t recognize that Palestinians have land rights, then what rights are they offering in exchange for a cessation of violence to reinforce security for Israel? What is Israel going to give the Palestinians in exchange for bringing this conflict to a final resolution? Ironically, the extremist movements of both the Israelis and Palestinians are being fed by Israel’s rightwing rhetoric. Many Israelis do not recognize the West Bank as the West Bank at all and in fact refer to the area as “Judea and Samaria.” It is an offensive term that is the equivalent to “Zionist state” used by many Palestinians who refer to the 1948 lands that were occupied by Israel.

Additionally, the right-wing Israeli sentiment is clear. They argue that the Palestinians, and Arabs, lost repeated wars and therefore also lost their right to claim ownership of the lands taken in those wars.

That is exactly the fuel that feeds the growing extremist movement. Because what Israelis are really saying to Palestinians is: “You only will get what we want to give you, and if you don’t like it tough luck.”

If Israelis really want peace, they need to drop the car dealership hustle and start speaking openly, candidly and compassionately about peace. Israel has the upper hand in this relationship. For now.

IF PEACE talks collapse, the Palestinian secular movement will eventually disappear and Israel will not only face the Hamas religious movement but the unbendable and uncompromising Islamic world, which increasingly is building its power and strength and would shift the balance in favor of a one-state solution.

The writer is an award winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Arabs, Muslims and Americans have too much in common

2010-09-09T03:40:00.001-07:00

Arabs, Muslims and Americans have too much in common

By Ray Hanania

What message should the Arab and Muslim World get from the recent declaration by an obscure and angry Florida priest who announced plans to burn a Quran (Koran), the Islamic Holy Book?

That message is clear. The threat to burn the Islamic equivalent of the Bible is offensive to most Americans.

But that’s not what Arabs and Muslims will hear. The fact that leaders from across America and even across the political spectrum have uniformly denounced the Rev. Terry Jones, pastor of the 50-member Dove World Outreach Center, will not off-set the mounting anger in the Arab and Muslim World.

They won’t understand that just because some fanatic in America says something stupid and racist, doesn’t mean that Americans endorse it.

They also won’t understand that fine point because Americans are not really much different from them. When Osama Bin Laden’s disciples crashed their hijacked planes in to the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers on Sept. 11, 2001, Americans were quick to blame all Muslims.

The anger was deep. America as a nation spoke from both sides of their mouth saying they support religious freedom and oppose censorship, but they also view Arabs and Muslims as a monolithic group. That’s why recently most Americans are on record saying they oppose plans by Muslims to renovate a building blocks from Ground Zero that includes space where Muslims can worship and pray, even though they feel Muslims have a right to do so.

Can you blame the Arab and Muslim World for being angry, or maybe confused about Americans? Can you blame Americans for being confused about Muslims?

Americans might argue that Arabs and Muslims live in worlds oppressed by dictatorships, places where free speech is practically non-existent. They might point out that the offenses that Arabs and Muslims complain about here in the United States take place every day in the Arab and Muslim World. The oppression of a minority religion is more pronounced in the Arab and Muslim World than it is in the United States. Muslims can go door to door and give away free Qurans and try to convert Christians to Islam, but Christians who try that in the Islamic World could and do get killed.

But Arabs and Muslims might counter to Americans, though, that the free speech America brags about is really not so free at all. Free speech is severely restricted in America for minority groups like Arabs and Muslims. Bigotry is on the rise in America, too. There is a glass wall that prevents Arabs and Muslims, for example, from entering many of the nation’s greatest professions such as the mainstream news media.

Let me just correct my readers here who will counter my claim by pointing to Fareed Zakaria and tell me (for the millionth time) “Fareed Zakaria is an Arab who has risen to the highest ranks of American journalism.”

Fareed Zakaria is NOT and Arab. He is an Indian Muslim and that is where a major part of the problem rests. Muslims and Arabs are different. There are 4.5 million Arabs in America and only 45 percent of them are actually Muslim. And there are 7 million Muslims in America and only 22 percent of them are Arab.

We don’t really know the precise count because the U.S. Census refuses to include "Arab" as a category on forms. Census forms do list 29 other ethnic and racial groups that include three listings for African Americans, five for Hispanics, and many for Native Americans and Asians, too.

In fact, in the this 9^th year debate about the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, there will be much focus on “Muslims” and very little focus on “Arabs.”

Many Americans tell me often how much they hate me, not because I am Arab but because they think I am Muslim. The fact that I am Orthodox Christian raised Lutheran doesn’t seem to matter. That President Barack Obama is not Muslim doesn’t seem to bother the 22 percent of Americans who think he is a Muslim and the 46 percent of Americans who say they don’t know what he is. (I always say Americans are the most educated people in the world but the least educated about the world.)

I remember one woman after Sept. 11 coming up to me and saying "I can't believe you abandoned your Christian faith to become an Arab."

Arabs and Muslims are not much different either. The fact that I am a Palestinian born in America who speaks English and only a little Arabic is a cause of great alarm for Arabs and Muslims who use that to discriminate against me and others like me. They find the fact that my first language is not Arabic offensive and write some of the most ignorant and racist comments, worse than those written against Arabs and Muslims by the extremist rightwing in this country.

Americans who defend Jones claim that Muslims burn Bibles, too. I don’t recall any such incidents. But, is claiming that someone else does bad things a good defense for a bad thing you are doing?

What the Arab and Muslim World should recognize is that America is no different than they are. Both suffer censorship issues of different sorts. Both experience racism and bigotry. Both are confused about simple topics. And both sides have extremists who spew venomous hatred and use violence to achieve political goals.

Somewhere in the Arab and Muslim World is an Arab Muslim version of Terry Jones who is doing the exact same thing without much fanfare.

I don’t expect either side to recognize these facts. But it is something we can hope for.

(Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian American columnist and Chicago Radio Talk Show host. He can be reached at www.RadioChicagoland.com.)

Sept. 11th ambulance chasers

2010-09-09T03:39:00.000-07:00

Sept. 11^th ambulance chasers

By Ray Hanania

Each year that passes, activists on both sides of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist assault try to outdo each other and themselves from the past years in over analyzing the crime.

This year, another “Christian” leader in Florida has declared his plans to burn a copy of the Quran (Koran), the Muslim equivalent of the Bible to commemorate the 9^th anniversary.

The Rev. Terry Jones, a name that meant nothing before but now symbolizes the nation’s growing intolerance and hatred, says he is doing it because Islam is an “Evil Religion.” I guess in Jones’ favor is the fact that in order to really know evil, you have to be even more evil.

The tragedy chasers, a term sometimes used in journalism to refer to people who grab their 15 minutes of fame by glomming on to high profile tragedies, have found a new life in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001. Whether the threat of terrorism and the conflicts that are exploited to justify them are resolved or not does not matter to these opportunists.

Like sleazy ambulance chaser lawyers, they have one motive, personal profit. First in notoriety and fame – because there are so many it seems in America clamoring to be fed anti-Islamic hatred – and because their new found fame based on fanning the flames of hatred can elevate them to heights of power.

On the other side are the people like Fareed Zakaria. People always protest when I complain that there is a bias in the American mainstream news media, especially after Sept. 11, because so few Arabs are allowed to engage the discourse to help Americans understand the challenges of the post Sept. 11 conflict. Without missing a beat, they all say, Well, there is Fareed Zakaria. He’s an Arab.

No. Fareed Zakaria is not an Arab at all. He is an Indian American activist little known before Sept. 11, 2001 but now the journalism face of everything Arab, Islamic and Middle Eastern.

This week he wrote -- wait and drum roll -- Americans “overreacted” to Sept. 11, a ridiculous claim in the face of the fact that nearly 3,000 people died in one event at an icon of American Democracy.

Zakaria, who knows little about the Arab World, does understand journalism and the narrow American mindset. And, he needs to justify his new position with a provocative claim having moved just weeks ago from his perch at Newsweek to Time Magazine.

Honestly, I am tired of the Sept. 11 ambulance chasers. They are people who claim to know so much but really know so little. Sept. 11 is a major catastrophe in American history, a tragedy of immense proportions. No burning of a book or overwritten essay in a national magazine is going to explain the meaning behind it.

We don’t really know if Jones is going to be burning a real Quran or a copy of it, or even more likely a copy of a book he might take off of his library shelf, like Mein Kampf. It won’t matter, though. What he says means more than the reality. His symbolism of hatred is enough to energize both friend and foes.

And, what is being asserted goes far beyond the accuracy of that tragic day when two planes crashed into the sides of two of America’s most important buildings at the World Trade Center.

The terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001, not the date itself, has come to redefine the conflict and challenges Americans face. What was once a solvable secular conflict in the Middle East has instead been grown to become the symbol of the insoluble clash of religious titans. Christianity and Islam.

That must come as a relief to the Jews, though. For generations, Christian fanatics, evangelists and Bible thumpers pointed accusatory fingers at the Jewish people for the murder of Jesus Christ, fueling an anti-Semitism that remains today but is veiled beneath a newer and more sinister form of bigotry against people who “look” Muslim or Arab.

I’m not trying to pick on Zakaria who has pushed himself to the front of the line. He is a good writer, and is no Terry Jones. And, he is certainly unlike Jones’ mentors who include media screamers Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter. These screamers are carrying the torch of hatred. But his analysis is ridiculous and is leading the world away from one simple truth. No one overreacted. Americans reacted properly but allowed themselves to be led to the bonfire of the insanities for solutions.

Osama Bin Laden was no Muslim scholar. He was a spoiled rich brat with a long and stupid looking beard who with no worries in the world got involved in one of the world’s great conflicts in Afghanistan using Daddy’s Money.

Afghanistan was fun and it gave the spoiled brat something to do, other than go into the family’s profitable but boring construction business, a business that is booming, by the way, even more today than before. No pun intended.

He represented no one but himself. His al-Qaeda gang of privileged and moneyed thugs had only one talent, the ability to take the frustrations of the simpleminded and convince them to sacrifice their lives for some future that had too many adjectives.

Bin Laden is a new kind street gang leader on steroids with money and an Internet that gives him a worldwide stage for communications.

They built an army of perception that has become reality not because of their leadership, but because of the reactions of people like Jones on one side and Zakaria on the other. People who little about the causes of the conflicts that made it so easy for common street gang leaders like Bin Laden to take center stage with acts of violence noteworthy for the size of the number of fatalities.

When you recognize the real threat we face as Americans, it is easy to understand that the threat is not Islam at all, but a handful of miscreants – the word villain is even too kind.

Burning a copy of the Quran or over-interpreting its words won’t help anyone understand how to protect this country from a future act of terrorism.

But it sure will get a lot of publicity.

Personally, maybe Jones should burn some commentaries by Zakaria. And while he’s at it, he should throw in a few commentaries from Hannity, Beck, Coulter and a few more.

That would be worth celebrating.

(Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian American columnist and Chicago Radio Talk Show host. He can be reached at www.RadioChicagoland.com.)

Yalla Peace: Ignore the fanatics

2010-09-06T18:36:00.000-07:00

Yalla Peace: Ignore the fanatics

By RAY HANANIA

09/06/2010 JERUSALEM POST

If we want real peace,

we must move steadily ahead.

I don’t understand why so many people are pessimistic about the chances for ending the conflict. Let’s face it, we’ve only been trying to achieve real peace since 1993. That really isn’t a long time. The conflict has been raging for more than 100 years.

Yet everyone tells me they have high hopes but low expectations.

Well, anyone who is successful will tell you that you must first have high hopes and high expectations, and then fight to make those hopes a reality.

There are many reasons for doubting that peace will come, including that abhorrent terrorist attack last week that killed four people near Kiryat Arba – a settlement whose inhabitants have with a history of vicious assaults against Palestinians. People have been killing each other there since the settlement was created in the heart of Hebron.

The people who live there are not Jews hoping to build relations with the Palestinians; many of them are part of a group determined to impose its will through Israel’s military protection.

It never was intended to be peaceful, so why are we surprised when it explodes in violence? But of course, nothing justifies the heinous murder of the four victims. We need to learn to separate our political differences and show our human compassion and tolerance for all.

THE FANATICS on both sides have already vowed to do everything they can to block peace. Armed gunmen from Hamas and other extremist Palestinian groups have vowed a campaign of violence to prevent peace – isn’t that how it’s always been? And Israelis from the far Right have also declared they will do everything to bring down the government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

But we can’t be intimidated by hatred and threats. We need to stand fast for peace. We need to become vocal about peace. We need to show Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that we support peace, and that it’s the only answer.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said that Israel would agree to share east Jerusalem, taking control of the Jewish sectors and giving Palestinians control of the Arab sectors. That offer was alleged to have been made to Yasser Arafat but never formally offered at Camp David, where the failed “proximity talks” all began.

This time, Netanyahu and Abbas are meeting face-to-face, an important change from Camp David. This time, Jerusalem is on the table.

If Netanyahu has the courage to ignore the public opinion polls driven downward by years of conflict and hate, he can make real peace with Abbas.

The PA president has no choice but to stand up to the fanatics in Hamas,the PFLP and other hate groups who have taken the just cause of the Palestinian people and turned it into a formula for their own political aristocracy.

The issues of settlements and refugees can be resolved. Palestinians are ready to accept a rock-solid plan to compensate the refugees and help them rebuild their lives. To offset the right to return to their original homes and lands lost in 1948, they need strong words of support from both Netanyahu and Abbas.

Netanyahu needs to show understanding for what the Palestinians lost in 1948. It is the height of humanity to extend a hand to people who have suffered.

Israelis need to turn within and confront their own demons, and tell their own fanatics – who would just as easily resort to violence to block peace – to stand down.

Can they do that? Saving all our children depends on it.

The writer is an award winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Avoid the misunderstandings to get to Palestinian-Israeli peace

2010-09-04T06:37:00.000-07:00

Avoid the misunderstandings to get to Palestinian-Israeli peace

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the White House with President Obama, they were careful not to make fun of Obama, whose popularity is lower than his bow to the king of Saudi Arabia.

Netanyahu didn't ask Obama if he celebrates Ramadan, and Abbas didn't call Obama a "Zionist hack." Those were good things that came out of the first face-to-face talks in two years. But they need to make sure to avoid creating misunderstandings as were created at Camp David, when Ehud Barak thought he offered a real peace deal to Yasser Arafat, and Arafat thought that peace was based on meeting face-to-face.

Misunderstandings, in fact, have been the major cause of most of the conflicts in the Middle East. Just look at the history

The history of Arab-Israeli relations is filled with misunderstandings, even before the misunderstanding that took place last July when Israeli and Lebanese forces exchanged fire over the trimming of a Cypress tree.

In 1948, it was all just a misunderstanding when Jewish immigrants from Europe arrived in Israel and declared their own state. They thought they were in New York where the Jewish population was vibrant and the Arabs of New York, who were all called "Syrians," welcomed the Jews with open arms.

In 1956, Israel launched an assault on the Suez Canal and captured the Sinai when someone yelled in a Tel Aviv coffee shop "The Egyptians are claiming that since the Hebrews left Egypt, they have no right of return."

In 1967, Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser yelled about "driving the Jews in to the sea." But the Egyptian dialect is filled with heavy with guttural-based sounds easily misunderstood. What Nasser really said was he wanted to drive the Jews "to" the sea.

In 1973, Egypt's President Anwar Sadat attacked Israel because he thought it was the "Day of Kipper," which is his favorite fish; and you can't get a great Kipper dish anywhere else in the Middle East except in Israel, although there is Nasrallah's café off Shadeed Street in South Beirut. But Egyptians are less desired there than the Israelis.

When Yasser Arafat, Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak were at Camp David, Arafat felt uncomfortable being at a hotel named after the Hebrew King David. Arafat was concerned because he recalled that Jewish resistance fighters had blown up the King David Hotel 53 years earlier. Maybe Clinton could have hosted the peace talks on more neutral ground, like in Beirut where both Arafat and Barak would both fear for their lives together.

Arafat did feel slightly snubbed when Barak refused to meet with him face-to-face at Camp David. No one explained to Arafat that Barak spent most of his days at Camp David at the local boutiques checking out the new dresses. Israelis know that prime ministers don't last long and can be quickly out of a job and he might have to return to hunting down Israel's most wanted.

When Ariel Sharon walked upon the Haram al ash-Sharif in 2000, he made a declaration that so many Arabs simply misunderstood. Sharon said Jerusalem will always be the "capitol" of Israel, he was using the word "capital" which referenced the city's monetary value.

The 2nd Intifada began with a misunderstanding, too, when a Palestinian heard that the Israelis had decided that instead of returning the West Bank they were going to keep all of it. Wanting to make sure they had everything, a Palestinian picked up a stone and tossed it towards the Israelis in a gesture of cooperation, yelling "Don't forget this piece of the West Bank."

Even the Gaza War in 2008 began with a misunderstanding. Hamas was abiding, for the most part, to the truce or "Lull" with Israel that summer. So in honor of having dramatically cut back the number of Qassam Rockets fired at Israeli civilians, Hamas decided to celebrate with their own fireworks display, shooting off Chinese-made bottle rockets. Of course, Hamas never mailed the celebratory invites to the Israelis, who saw the Chinese bottle rockets as being more of a deadlier threat than the Qassams.

Oy Vey. That's all one can say in the Middle East. Although that is a misunderstanding, too. The guy who said the phrase wasn't declaring anguish but merely trying to get his donkey, named Oy, turn to the right, or go "that way."

Misunderstandings. They happen all the time. Like when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised the Palestinians that he would "freeze" all the settlements. He meant he was going to buy air conditioners for all the settlers, a promise he said would be completed by Sept. 26.

And when Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas refused to negotiate with the Israelis until those settlements are frozen, he was merely waiting for the temperature in the settlements to chill, because the settlers because they are such an emotional people. Step one foot on "their" land and they go berserk, twisting their beards into braided knots.

Of course, the worst moment was when an Israeli negotiator told an Arab negotiator at the very first peace talks back in 1993, "If you compromise, we can both live in peace."

The Arab responded angrily, rejecting compromise and declaring, "No Jew is going to tell me what to do!"

(Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian American columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. He can be reached at www.RadioChicagoland.com.)

Obama administration shows respect to American Arab journalists

2010-09-01T15:53:00.000-07:00

Obama administration shows respect to American Arab journalists

By Ray Hanania

Although there is much to debate about the ability of President Barack Obama to bring peace to the Middle East, there is no doubt that he is doing more than any of his predecessors to recognize the importance of American Arab journalists.

In the nearly two years since his election, Obama has slowly and steadily opened the White House to access to Arab World and American Arab journalists, a group that has been missing in action in most past White House Middle East peace events.

Although American Arabs were invited to witness the historic signing of the now failed Oslo Peace Accords in 1993 by former President Bill Clinton, not invited were American Arab journalists.

Now, American Arab journalists are joining Arab World journalists in obtaining access to firsthand news from the White House, not only in coverage of Iraq but also in coverage of day-to-day news.

The White House has accepted an Arab journalist to be the pool reporter during the restoration of peace talks after a two-year lull between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Although the selection of Yasmeen Alamiri from the Saudi Press Agency to lead the press pool coverage of the Abbas-Netanyahu meeting, the news reports are, for the first time, those pool reports are being made available directly to the American Arab Press. (Read the pool reports at the American Arab News Wire at http://aams.blogspot.com).

Officials at the U.S. State Department have also reached out to the American Arab media to provide thought leaders from the U.S. Government to discuss American policy spin.

Mainstream American media might scoff at the idea of journalists celebrating being put on the government’s PR spin list, but the fact that the government feels it is important now, for the first time, to spin the American Arab media is a significant shift in U.S. Government strategy.

There are more than 103 American Arab newspapers and magazines in the United States today according to an inventory kept by the National Arab American Journalists Association (www.NAAJA-US.com). There are nearly 300 American Arabs in professional journalism, with half working in the mainstream American media and the other half working in the ethnic American Arab media.

American Arabs in the mainstream media, though, are usually assigned to non-Middle Eastern beats and topics, a fact that contradicts the experience of other ethnic journalists like Hispanics and African Americans who are often tapped to cover their own ethnic communities.

American Arab journalists in the ethnic media specifically write about Middle Eastern topics, although as much as 75 percent of the writing is op-ed or opinion commentary content rather than objective news or enterprises feature writing.

These publications reach deeper into one of the most ignored ethnic constituencies in America, Arabs and Muslims, than any other mainstream publication. American Arabs and Muslims do subscribe to, read and watch mainstream American media. But when reporting comes to Middle East topics or Islamic topics, the level of skepticism is higher than the average American.

American Arab publications also have a strong connection to the Arab world media. More often today than a decade before, Arab World reporters and producers are seeking out American Arab journalists in both the ethnic and mainstream media to assist them in identifying sources and stories.

The internet has played a significant role in leveling the playing field between American Arab media and the mainstream American media. More and more, American Arab journalists are also being engaged as commentators on mainstream media panels, interview and news programs. They are being tapped and quoted as resources to round out mainstream media stories.

At some point, American Arab journalists will find their place alongside mainstream American journalists, and their impact in forcing a balanced coverage of Middle East and Islamic topics will continue to grow.

(Ray Hanania is the 2010 winner of the Sigma Delta Chi award from column writing and was named Best Ethnic American Columnist by the New America Media in 2007. He hosts a weekday morning Chicago radio show and can be reached at www.RadioChicagoland.com.)

Middle East peace requires real courage from both sides

2010-09-01T05:57:00.000-07:00

Middle East peace requires real courage from both sides

By Ray Hanania

On the eve of a long-hoped-for meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, members of the Hamas terrorist organization killed four members of the Israeli terrorist settler movement.

The murders of the four settlers took place at Kiryat Arba in the West Bank where settlers have celebrated the memory of Dr. Baruch Goldstein, the American Jewish mass murderer who killed 29 Palestinians while they were praying at the Hebron Mosque. Amazingly, he wore an Israeli military uniform and the mosque was under the control of the Israeli army.

Talk about an inside job.

This act of terror is more than just a reminder that violence takes place on both sides – yes, Israel settlers kill Palestinians, too. It should remind us of the objective of extremist Palestinians and extremists Israelis, which is to block the peace process.

The extremists have been encouraged by Netnayhau who has been hesitant to give up his drive to take all of the land of the Palestinians in the West Bank and convert them in to illegal Israeli settlements. He has refused to really freeze settlement expansion and despite a minor hold on some insignificant “outposts,” the settlements continue to expand with new construction and more settlers.

Abbas has been trying his best to embrace peace, demanding only that Israel stop expelling Palestinian homeowners from East Jerusalem, which is located in the Israeli occupied West Bank and is a Palestinian majority. Israel has been building homes for settlers in East Jerusalem while demolishing the homes of Palestinian families there for the past decade.

The problem facing both Netanyahu and Abbas is a political problem. And the question is, do they have the courage to do the right thing? Do they have the courage to stand up to the fanatics in their own community and confront the growing anger from the moderates who are pulled apart by violence, failure, and the actions of the other side?

We know what the peace agreement is. Two states. Israel closes some settlements and gives the Palestinian lands in Israel in exchange for the illegal settlements that it keeps.

East Jerusalem is divided not by a wall but by sovereignty with people able to travel throughout the Holy City. The Jewish section though falls under Israeli control and the Palestinian sections, three quarters of the city, come under Palestinian control.

The Palestinian refugees are addressed with real options, not false promises of returning to lands they will never see. Relocation to the Palestinian State. A fund to support their development. An apology and acknowledgement from Israel for that country’s role in intentionally taking their homes, lands and destroying their villages in 1948, an event that took place more than 62 years ago.

Most importantly, an internationally recognized border is drawn between Palestine and Israel that for the first time in history gives Palestine the power of international law if Israel breaks its agreement. Sovereignty gives Palestinians a power they have never had. They have always been the outcast in every international debate about their situation. Their non-sovereignty status has allowed Israel to do all the talking and direct all the action. Israel’s violence has been defined as “defense” while Palestinian violence has always been defined as “terrorism.”

A peace accord would change the power balance to fairness.

Palestine could continue to prosecute crimes as could Israel. Palestine could continue to push for more humanitarian treatment of Palestinians seeking to be compensated for lost lands and homes taken by Israel and so could Jews seeking to be compensated for lost lands and homes in the Arab World.

But if Netanyahu has the courage to stand up to the fanatics in Israel who are beating the drums of hatred and rejection, he could go down as one of the most influential Jewish leaders in modern human history.

If Abbas can push ahead and let go of Palestinian injured ego and pride, he could become the most important Palestinian leader, eclipsing the Hamas terrorist organization which claims power only on the basis of their ability to murder Israeli settlers and civilians and to threaten violence.

In peace, Hamas would slowly disappear. Their power would vanish. It is only in conflict that Hamas has power. And, it is only in rejection that the Israeli settler fanatics -- who murder innocent Palestinians all the time without even a mention in the mainstream American news media – find power. The settlers would disappear as a violent extremist force, too. And that is good for Israeli politics.

Take away power from the fanatics and the extremists on both sides by doing the right thing. And the right thing is for Abbas and Palestine and Netanyahu and Israel to return from their meetings in Washington D.C. with President Barack Obama by holding up an agreement for the world to see.

Make the peace now. Address the details we’ve been haggling over later. We know there will be fights over the line “dividing” Jerusalem. We know there will be fights over which lands Israel must surrender in exchange for the keeping the illegal settlements like Ariel and Gilo.

But we also know that failure means a future of far more violence than what we have witnessed over the past six months. From the attack on the civilians on the Gaza flotilla to the attack on the settlers at Kiryat Arba.

It’s a simple choice. Peace. Or, violence.

(Ray Hanania is distributed by Creators Syndicate. He writes a column every Wednesday for the Jerusalem Post and regularly for PalestineNote.com. He can be reached at www.RadioChicagoland.com.)

Ray Hanania released the following statement regarding Ikhras, the racist hate site:

2010-08-28T05:48:00.001-07:00

Ray Hanania released the following statement regarding Ikhras, the racist hate site:

Ikhras has been attacking me by publishing false quotes, taking sentences out of context and accusing me of being "anti-Muslim" even though I have spent my life defending Muslims because most Americans believe I am Muslim. They have made up false claims, few are creative or imaginative but driven by racist hatred and, I believe, because I am a Christian Palestinian who supports compromise and peace based on non-violence and the exchange of land. They would never write the same trash about a Muslim activist, which is an example of their vicious anti-Christian attitude that many Christian leaders and activists have shared with me.

They have launched this hate campaign because they can't handle the issues I address, so instead of addressing the issues, they attack me. It is typical of racist hate sites that can't deal with issues so they have to attack the individual.

Most people who have emailed me say that Ikhras is a ridiculous, typically extremist site that waste a lot of energy attacking other Palestinians, like KabobFest, because they have nothing positive to contribute to the fate of the Palestinian People or the cause of the Arab World. They are ignorant and uneducated, and most of all, like KabobFest, poor writers.

They distort facts because they can and because their small following of extremists celebrate racism and hatred. They use the suffering of the Palestinian People as a political football in order to achieve their agendas, and they don't care about helping the Palestinian Refugees at all.

I want the refugees to have better lives, Ikhras wants them to wallow in the hardship of the camps endlessly because it suits the political agenda of Ikhras.

I want to thank all of the people who have emailed me. Ikhras has served one purpose and that is to showcase the ignorance that exists in the Arab community, an ignorance that has been used before to stifle public debate, that is intolerant of thought engagement, and that has helped to both oppress the future of the Palestinian people while also enabling extremism and fanaticism that provides cover for Israel's oppression of our people.

I understand, though, because Ikhras represents the tragedy of a segment of the Palestinian people. Depressed, defeated, uneducated and incompetent, Ikhras focuses its energies on the only thing it can do, bash other Palestinians, the typical ailment of the victimization mentality of some small segments of the Palestinian people.

You can't understand or recognize hope until you see the ugly face of racism, hatred and defeatism which is what Ikhras represents. They are anti-Christian, anti-Jewish and even anti-Muslim. Pathetic.

-- The Maklooba Man

Vacation consequences of the Arab-Israeli conflict

2010-08-17T15:44:00.001-07:00

Vacation consequences of the Arab-Israeli conflict

By RAY HANANIA

08/17/2010 JERUSALEM POST

As a Palestinian, I have lawn mower fights

and the dividing line is more vague than the Green Line.

As a Palestinian, I have this need to control and protect land. It includes battles with my neighbors over where my grass ends and their grass begins. We have lawn mower fights and the dividing line is more vague than the Green Line. I’ve been like this all my life and it has consequences.

But it’s not just maintaining a well-manicured, Malibu- lighted, dark greentrimmed carpet-of-a-lawn that my “Palestinian-ism” has impacted. It goes far beyond, including even when I go on vacation.

Yes, I don’t go on vacation to relax. I go there to sharpen my Palestinian skills.

Every morning at dawn, while on vacation in places like Punta Cana or at a resort along the Cayman Island’s famous Seven Mile beach, I find myself compelled into a “possession jihad.”

I don’t get up and walk to the beach at six in the morning simply to enjoy the sunrise or the pristine coral sand.

My first concern is staking out beach-front lounge chairs or a palm cabana with an idyllic view of the ocean.

Sounds like a strange way to start off relaxation, but it’s an ugly world out there. You have to stake your claim early, or be occupied and oppressed for the entire trip. Eventually, a mass of like-cultured people stampede to the vacation resort shores to lay claim to their own lounge chairs.

As a Palestinian, I just have to be there first.

THERE IS a methodology to the whole process that I have fine-tuned during 30 vacations over the last decade. It’s called “ownership documentation.”

I position the lounge chairs perfectly, spacing them out for comfort.

I push other lounge chairs away that look to be “too close.” I neatly wrap three beach towels on the three lounge chairs. Then I go back for a second round of claims, and on each, I lay down something of “apparent value” but that is really valueless.

On one chair, I place a copy of Chelsea Handler’s many books – I wish they had more pictures and less writing of her sexual exploits. That will scare anyone away.

On another, I pile plastic sand toys, shovels and buckets, shamelessly exploiting my nine year old in my obsessive behavior.

Who can steal a lounge chair location from a child? But for those who consider theft, I provide an offering to the icon of unethical vacation- goer criminality – a copy of Sarah Palin‘s hardcover book. If there are beach thieves, chances are they are tightly wound Republicans who would grab the book thinking it a prize and run. I even faked her autograph on the inside cover: “To Ray, with passionate love. If I were not exploiting racial fears to become president someday, I might become your fourth wife, my olive-skinned Rudy Giuliani. All my GOP Love, Sarah Palin.”

Of course, it’s not enough to just prepare the beach lounge chairs like the crescent of a Mayan sacrificial pyramid.

I sit there and smoke a cigar with my look of conquest, a macho scrunch of thick brows and confidence.

Like the young Michael Corleone shouldering-up to protect his father – who was the target of assassins at a New York Hospital – in the movie “The Godfather.”

And I watch as the others do the same as me, grabbing their perfect spots, except many minutes later.

By 8:30, we’re all sitting in our conquests, staring each other down – until a beautiful topless woman jogs by and steals our attention.

By that time, the cigar is but a smoldering stogy. The imagined tension with the other men at the beach who also claimed their spots finally dissipates. And right about then, my wife and son meander along as if there were no worries in the world.

But before the sun goes down, I am already scheming to repeat the whole process again the next morning.

Until, that is, I leave this resort and return to Chicago.

The writer is an award winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Jerusalem Post: American Jews often come to the defense of Muslims

2010-08-10T19:57:00.000-07:00

American Jews often come to the defense of Muslims
By RAY HANANIA
08/11/2010 JERUSALEM POST

Recent example involves the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ where

the leading Jewish defenders were passionate in their defense.

When was the last time leading Arabs or Muslims came to the defense of Jews? I say that because a phenomenal thing happened in America last week. American Jews were divided, but still led the national debate on whether or not a mosque should be allowed within blocks of “Ground Zero,” the spot where the Twin Towers collapsed under a terrorist assault on September 11, 2001.

Although the Anti-Defamation League flip-flopped on the issue, supporting it on principle and then later opposing it on emotional grounds, it did so with attempted gracefulness.

The ADL noted the intense emotions aroused and said that Muslims seeking to build the mosque should recognize the feelings of those who lost family, relatives and friends in the al-Qaida terrorist attack.

Yet the ADL was just one of the American Jewish voices addressing the controversy; the leading Jewish defenders were not only passionate in their defense but stubborn about the principle involved.

Among those voices was one of the country’s leading Jewish politicians, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose eyes welled up with emotion while he declared that Muslims have every right to build a mosque, just as Christians and Jews could build a church or synagogue nearby.

Bloomberg was consistent in May when he declared: “I think it’s fair to say if somebody was going to try to build a church or synagogue on that piece of property, nobody would be yelling and screaming.

The fact of the matter is that Muslims have a right to do it, too.”

Bloomberg remained principled on August 3, when he insisted: “Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors mourned with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values – and play into our enemies’ hands – if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave in to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists – and we should not stand for that.”

ONE OF America’s leading Jewish American writers, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg, expressed shock at the ADL flip-flop, and unhesitantly defended the right of Muslims to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

Steinberg concluded a column addressing the issue, saying: “I expect more from the ADL.

Given the history of Jews being tarred as an evil foreign presence, I thought we’d be not quite so fast to condemn others based on the same non-reasoning. There are lots of Islamic terrorists, sure, but there are also lots of Jewish bankers. Both are still offensive stereotypes, still slurs, and I can’t see how what one group of 19 Muslims did in 2001 should prevent another, completely separate group of Muslims from building a religious center in 2010. How is claiming that any different from saying I can’t join your country club because the Jews killed Christ? The ADL thinks the Islamic center spoils the healing process? Well boo hoo – the Jewish kids spoil the Christmas pageant too, but they aren’t forced to stay home. That’s how America works. We adapt. I thought the Anti-Defamation League understood that, but I guess I was wrong.”

Steinberg also asked the question many may have asked quietly. If two blocks is too close to Ground Zero, how far away would be acceptable? Six blocks? One mile? Ten miles? These were but a few of the principled and courageous voices raised in defense of the Muslim American community as the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy raged. These voices stood in stark contrast to the hysteria of mainstream Americans who packed the media with assertions that Islam is “evil” and that all Muslims support terrorism.

I hope to one day hear Arab and Muslim voices speak in defense of the Jewish people as powerfully as the Jewish community has spoken in defense of Muslims.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is a tragedy that keeps both sides on “politically correct” guard. But it doesn’t mean that Arabs and Muslims can’t be principled, moral or ethical in defending what is right when it comes to anti-Semitism.

Arabs and Muslims should not allow themselves to be consumed by what we think is wrong. Sometimes we need to step outside of the conflict and remind others and ourselves that we also believe in what is right.

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Everything points to the Middle East conflict

2010-08-04T03:44:00.000-07:00

Everything points to the Middle East conflict
By RAY HANANIA
08/04/2010 JERUSALEM POST

How a simple conversation turned into a

complicated discussion on the Israeli and Palestinian narratives.

It all started when I turned on the television set and started watching an old rerun of “Everybody Loves Raymond,” a sitcom about an American-Italian family’s everyday humorous challenges.

(I’ve always wanted to produce my own TV show called “Everybody Loves Abdullah,” about an American-Arab family and their everyday humorous challenges, too.)

The topic of that particular episode was about Raymond who was asked by his wife to explain the whole issue of sex to their young daughter.

That’s when my wife turned to me and said, “Maybe you should have that talk with Aaron.”

“Are you asking me that because my name is Raymond?” I began facetiously.

“I’m being serious,” she said.

“You want me to have the ‘talk’ with Aaron?”

“Yes. I want you to talk to him about sex. He’s old enough to know.”

“Sex? Me? Why me?”

Alison gave me that look. You know, the way a border guard looks at an Arab entering Ben-Gurion airport.

“Fine,” I huffed. “I’ll do it.” I know better than to challenge my wife, or any woman, on any issue.

Not that Aaron – who I call Abdullah when my wife isn’t around – had asked about sex.

SO I sat Abdullah down and I asked him if he’s ever heard of sex. I winced as I anticipated the possible response, “Sure, dad, what do you want to know?” He just looked at me like was I annoying him and said: “Sex is that thing I’m not supposed to talk about.”

“Well, that’s right.”

“So why are we talking about it? Are you trying to get me in trouble?” he asked.

I just started yapping. Going into detail: “There are boys and there are girls, Abdullah. Boys and girls are different. In order to make babies, they have to come together and have, you know, sex. They get together. Then badda bing, badda boom. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Yaani [like, in Arabic] this and yaani that. Kol ma sheh ze lokeah [whatever it takes, in Hebrew]. Whatever. Everyone’s happy. And they have a baby. It’s simple. Any questions?”

“Why are boys and girls different,” he asked?

“That’s just the way it is.”

“You mean the birds and the bees?”

“Yes.”

“What do birds and bees have to do with sex?”

I knew this wasn’t going too well. “Well, ah, I don’t know. Maybe birds are boys and bees are girls. It doesn’t matter. It could be anything.”

THAT STARTED a whole series of difficult questions. “Do insects have sex?”

“Not all of them.”

“Do girls have stingers?”

“No, but they can cause you a lot of pain if you are married to them and you don’t listen to them; which is what’s going to happen to me if this conversation about sex doesn’t produce results.”

“Why?”

“Why? Because G-d made people that way.” Whenever I can’t explain something, I always blame it on G-d. “G-d made us all different.”

“Why? Is that why you are Arab and mommy and I are Jews? Why did G-d make us different? Why are they killing each other?”

“Arabs and Jews are basically the same. We’re both human beings. People. We just believe in different things.” I told him mommy and I have an armistice agreement, which was harder to explain than sex. “Mommy is the boss in our family, but I make all the decisions.”

“So, Arabs and Jews are fighting because they believe in different things?” he asked. “How about sharing? Mommy tells me to do that all the time. If you and mommy get along, why can’t Arabs and Jews get along?”

How did a simple conversation about sex turn into a complicated discussion about the Middle East conflict? That made me realize the problem we have in the Middle East. This is exactly what happens to Arabs and Jews. No matter what the topic, it always turns to the Middle East conflict. We can’t escape it.

Talk about sports turns in to a debate about why the Arabs opposed two states in 1947 when the UN proposed it and used violence to get it all back. Talk about technology turns in to how Israelis are slowly controlling and censoring social networking sites like Facebook and BlogTV. Farming? A debate on who owns what land.

Before I know it, I’m giving Abdullah the Palestinian narrative and then my version of the Israeli narrative, which are different, of course.

“There was this country, Palestine. The Jews lived there. Then the Arabs lived there. Then Jews came back. Then they started to fight over who owns the land. Both sides did bad things to each other and everyone just got madder. Sometimes, one side is tougher and stronger than the other, but the other won’t give up.

Then badda bing, badda boom. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Yaani this and yaani that. Kol ma sheh ze lokeah. Whatever. It’s simple. Any questions?”

Right about that time, mommy decided to poke her head into the room and ask, “How’s it going?”

“Great,” I said.

“Yeah mommy,” my son said. “Daddy says you’re the boss but he makes all the decisions.”

Ouch!

The writer is an award winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Jerusalem Post: Good news is hard to come by

2010-07-27T14:31:00.001-07:00

Good news is hard to come by

By RAY HANANIA

07/27/2010 JERUSALEM POST

Postive stories from the region are few and far between but they do exist and they do inspire some hope.

Palestinians and Israelis spend a lot of time blaming each other. Sometimes, we can’t even remember what started the argument because the bad things that consume our attention happen so fast. So, it might be nice, once in a while, to look at things that are good. And each side does have some good in them.

Although Israelis refuse to recognize the Goldstone Report, Israel’s government has quietly begun prosecuting a few soldiers who violated the rights of Palestinian civilians. That’s good news, though maybe not the way many Palestinians would want.

One soldier is expected to be prosecuted for killing two civilian women during the 22-day long Operation Cast Lead. News reports say the IDF “disciplined” another officer who ordered an air strike near a Beit Lahiya mosque that resulted in 15 dead and 40 others wounded.

Okay, it’s far from what the Goldstone Report determined were war crimes, but it does represent some form of justice.

Under pressure from US President Barack Obama, Israel will now permit many food and personal items to enter the blockaded Gaza Strip, banning only anything related to weaponry and building materials that could be used for the tunnels or manufacture of rocket launchers.

That it banned any kind of food, soap and even many medicines was not a good thing. But that it lifted the ridiculous bans is a positive move forward.

On the Palestinian side, no one built a monument for Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the man accused and convicted of planning the PAN 103 bombing over Lockerbie Scotland. Megrahi was released last year on “compassionate grounds” that he was suffering from prostate cancer and was not expected to live long.

That he has lived longer may be a testament to great strides in medicine, but not much consolation to satisfy the anguish of the relatives of the 270 bombing victims.

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has given interviews not only to Palestinian columnists like Fadi el-Salameen, the publisher of the moderatevoiced PalestineNote.com Web site, but he has also spoken at length about peace to Israeli journalists and American Jewish writers including Alon Ben-Meir, whose column “The Fayyad difference” (July 16) was published in The Jerusalem Post.

In the article, Ben-Meir said of Fayyad: “First, he stressed that militant resistance and violence have run their course. Committing acts of violence against the Israelis simply plays into their hands, offering justification for continued occupation and enabling Israel to link national security with occupation.”

Salameen reported at the moderate- voiced Maan News Agency based in Bethlehem that Fayyad ordered the creation of a committee with broad representation to investigate all government agency appointments to ensure extremists who embrace violence are not among those nominated to the positions.

I ADMIT it is not easy to find positive news stories in the region. It is so much easier to find stories of Israelis and Palestinians killing each other, calling each other terrible names and vowing to reject a fair and just peace based on two-states.

But we have to keep trying. Positive stories do not generate the same passion as fear-mongering and name-calling or the political blame game. Those stories need our help.

That’s why I am asking if you hear of a positive story, share it with me. I want to know. I can’t promise to write a whole column about it, but it would be nice to include a collection of positive stories in one column just to prove that good news is still out there and that hope is not completely dead.

There is a silver lining in every dark cloud, something good that we can salvage from the overabundance of bad. I’ve even found that silver lining in the darkness that surrounds me.

A group of extremist Palestinians in the United States have set up a hate Web site targeting me.

Why? Well, I am a Christian Palestinian.

My wife and son are Jewish.

I support compromise and oppose violence.

They really, really hate that I write for both PalestineNote.com and The Jerusalem Post – which is another reason why I love writing for both.

As you can imagine, I get ugly emails from Arabs and Jews every day complaining about something I’ve written. I can’t even repeat the things they call me. Fortunately, though, the hate site has also energized a lot of good people to contact me and express support.

Good words go a long way to encourage even the most challenged hope for peace.

But thanks to the haters, their attention has helped me sell a lot of copies of my humor book I’m Glad I Look Like a Terrorist: Growing up Arab in America. In the end, “hate” can make “good” look that much better.

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Yalla Peace: The Israel question

2010-07-22T14:06:00.000-07:00

Yalla Peace: The Israel question
By RAY HANANIA
07/20/2010 JERUSALEM POST

Extremists in America force many

to examine its policies more closely.

A seismic shift in American politics has occurred over the past decade that has created a gap so wide and so bitter that America is a nation of growing polarization where issues once embraced by both sides are now being challenged.

In the shift, the far right has embraced Israel as a means of separating itself from Democrats, causing many Americans to question what, until then, has been unquestioned loyalty.

Although Israelis have always enjoyed support from both mainstream political parties, the extremists in America who are using support of Israel as a litmus test are forcing many to examine its policies more closely.

Israel has become a flagship platform issue for far-right groups like the Tea Party, which has come under attack from groups like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) which has accused it of being plagued by bigots and racists.

For the first time, many Americans are saying they support Israel, but question the occupation of the West Bank, its exclusive claim to Jerusalem and the conduct of its military.

CAN AMERICANS support Israel’s security and still criticize its policies? It’s a question now being raised in the heated race for the US Senate in Pennsylvania, where the public’s rock-solid support for Israel is coming apart at the seams.

Joe Sestak is the Democratic candidate who defeated longtime Israel champion Arlen Specter in last May’s primary. Specter had switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party in a state that is overwhelmingly Democratic.

Sestak is no left-wing extremist and represents the American mainstream. He supports Israel, but he is critical of some of its policies, including its use of “collective punishment” – a policy that challenges international laws and human rights.

While Pat Toomey, his Republican opponent, has made Sestak’s questioning of Israel a priority attack issue, Sestak has stood firm, insisting he supports Israel but making it clear not all of Israel’s policies are acceptable. He has responded to Toomey by tying the Republican to the hated bankers on Wall Street and the nation’s economic decline.

Toomey’s allies, like the Emergency Committee for Israel, have accused Sestak of donating to a Hamas “front group,” pointing an accusatory finger at his speech to a dinner hosted by the Council on American Islamic Relations.

The accusation is outrageous. Sestak was accompanied to the dinner by Pennsylvania Governor and Democrat Ed Rendell, who is Jewish, showing there is no place for Islamaphobia in American politics.

Yet Islamaphobia is the cornerstone of right-wing ideology. The more groups like the Tea Party wrap themselves in Israel’s flag, the more Americans start to question Israeli actions, including the killing of a dual American-Turkish citizen aboard the Gaza flotilla in late May.

For many voters, Israel is becoming a point of division. The election will be decided on other, more important issues, such as the deteriorating economy and the need for jobs.

The Sestak-Toomey fight over Israel will force voters to take sides. Sestak may have issues with Israel, but is popular on many other mainstream American issues that are more important.

IN THE past, most American voters have not distinguished between Israel’s interests and the interests of the US. They have supported Israel even when its policies have crossed the line.

That has come from the imbalance in how Arabs and Israelis manage public relations. The Arabs fumble through public relations on emotion and chance.

Israel manages public relations through a sophisticated strategy that is well funded.

American perspectives are built on decades-long exposure to sophisticated pro-Israel marketing strategies in the news media and entertainment. The book Exodus set the tone in the American mindset in the 1960s and has been reinforced by years of solid PR.

But that glass ceiling is breaking across many fronts as issues that hit close to home trump even the best PR efforts.

Earlier this year, Gen. David Petraeus said that American policies regarding Israel have put the lives of American soldiers in jeopardy.

In prepared testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, he stated, “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments and peoples in Centcom’s area of operations and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.”

The more American extremists embrace Israel, the more they undermine its standing, regardless of who wins the Pennsylvania election.

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com