Arabs face injustice in American judicial system
Dec. 11, 2004
By Ray Hanania
This week, a jury convicted four organizations and its leaders of the murder of a 17 year old boy, awarding his parents $52 million in damages automatically tripled to $156 million as a result of a U.S. Law.
Under normal circumstances, one might call that justice.
But this case is not about justice at all.
It is instead about hypocrisy and the growth of racism, hatred and bigotry against Arab Americans.
The victim was David Boim, killed eight years ago in a terrorist attack by Hamas, a foreign based organization engaged in a war with Israel, a foreign country, that has been going on since 1947.
There wasn't one single shred of evidence to prove that the organizations or their leaders were involved in anyway in David Boim's murder.
If this had happened in any other country, no jury in its right mind would have convicted the defendants. But this is about Israel, and the double standards that allow Israeli citizens to also hold American citizenship. This is strictly prohibited by American laws for nearly every other American. You can't be the citizen of another foreign country and be an American, too.
But that's not the heart of the double standards or the bigotry that drove this jury to make this ridiculous award.
I might have cheered on the ruling. Several of the organization are extremist. The Islamic Association for Palestine is an extremist organization that has intimidated and harassed many Americans, including other Palestinians.
They have been found guilty on the principle that they support Hamas and therefore their support makes them liable for what Hamas has done. And, thanks to the pro-Israel congress, a special law targeting Israelis who were victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict can now file suit in civil court if they can establish that the cause of their suffering was "terrorism."
In theory, Palestinian Americans who have been murdered by Israel's extremist governments over the years, could also file suit against Israel and argue that Israel's actions caused their son's or daughter's death.
Several cases exist. American student Rachel Corrie was killed not eight years ago but less than two years ago by Israeli soldiers using a U.S.-made Caterpillar Tractor to destroy the home of a civilian Palestinian family.
The Palestinians whose home was destroyed could file suit against Caterpillar under the law, and Corrie's parents could also sue Israel.
But under American hypocrisy, those lawsuits would be thrown out with disdain and prejudice. The law that rewarded the family of David Boim only protects Israeli victims of terrorism. It does not protect Palestinian victims of Israeli terrorism nor Americans killed by Israeli soldiers.
Hell, you can't even get Congress to investigate Corrie's murder.
The fact is the court ruling against the extremist Islamic Association for Palestine, and three other organizations, is a conviction driven by hypocrisy that can only happen in an America consumed by racism and hatred against Arabs.
Evidence exists to show that the American criminal justice system is now as biased as is the American entertainment industry. You can make a film filled with hatred of Arabs and Muslims in this country, but you can't organize a heritage display that has any tinges of politics critical of Israeli terrorism.
This double standard didn't begin on Sept. 11. It just got worse.
More than 14 people who "looked Middle Eastern" were murdered in the six weeks after Sept. 11, but no one in American thinks that's worth investigating.
Never mind the thousands of Arabs who have detained illegally for no other reasons than their religion and race, or usually that an American neighbor said they looked like a terrorist.
Arab Americans are being arrested and charged in cases across this country holding them to a standard not held to other Americans.
Juries around the country are convicting Arabs simply on the basis of their race and religion, and no one is going to spend any money to investigate that either.
If you are an Arab woman traveling to attend her father's funeral in the West Bank, and someone claims to have heard you say the word "bomb" in a conversation with an airport security official, you will go to jail for three days, lose your job and be humiliated.
If you happen to be a store owner and a convicted gang member points a finger at you and alleges you supplied him with drugs, you will lose your pharmacy license and all your possession.
The murder of David Boim is a tragedy. But so was Corrie's murder and the killing of the 14 "Middle Eastern-looking people that no one seems interested in defending. Boim is one of thousands of innocent people - Palestinians and Israelis - who have been killed by both sides.
But the laws that protect David Boim do not protect victims of Israeli terrorism, and many supporters of Israel are responsible.
The same week of the jury's injustice in the Boim case, Congress approved $591,000 to fund a campaign to convince the Arab world that America is a land of freedom and justice.You wouldn't have to convince them of anything, if it were true.
Most in the Arab world know America is the land of hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to Israel and American foreign policy.
Arab Americans are learning that the double standard extends far beyond foreign policy and threatens their lives directly.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning nationally syndicated columnist and author. He can be reached at http://www.hanania.com/.)
# # #
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Friday, December 10, 2004
Arab American patriotism often ignored, Dec. 10, 2004
Arab American patriotism often ignored
Creators Syndicate, Friday Dec. 10, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Arab bashing is big business in America, and it’s very popular in the media.
On November 19th, when it was reported that an American soldier in Iraq had murdered at point-blank range and in cold blood an Iraqi prisoner, American superstar and radio talk show host Don Imus went on the air and denounced Arabs as "ragheads."
Notorious for his anti-Arab racism, in the past, Imus has called Palestinians "stinking animals," and the widow of the late President Yasser Arafat as "that fat pig of a wife."
Officials at MSNBC who carry Imus’ show said they were "sorry" if anyone was "offended" by his comments. I called Imus to ask how he felt about Jews, Blacks and other minorities, but the cowboy–hat wearing tough-guy didn’t have the courage to take my call.
Unfortunately, Imus is just a cheerleader in the tolerated rise of racism in this country. Unable to capture the people responsible for Sept. 11th, Americans have to blame someone. So we invade Iraq and take our anger out on innocent people.
Since Sept. 11th 14 people who "looked" Middle Eastern were murdered. Thousands of Arab Americans were physically assaulted or verbally abused. Scores of mosques and Arab churches have been burned or vandalized.
It doesn’t matter to Imus or his racist cohorts that most Arab Americans are patriotic.
Thousands, including my father and uncle, served during World War II. Currently, 3,500 Arab Americans serve in the U.S. Military, including in Iraq. One of those Arab Americans is David Roustum.
Roustum was an all-American. He was the captain of his football and hockey teams at Orchard Park High school in West Seneca, a suburb of Buffalo, New York. And he was patriotic in the truest sense of the word, enlisting in the Army National Guard 108th Infantry Division.
Initially, Roustum served as a member of the Military Forces Honor Guard, serving in 250 military funerals, before he was deployed to Iraq in March. The 108th Infantry Regiment, a part of the Arkansas National Guard's 39th Infantry Brigade, deployed to Iraq in support of the Fort Hood-based 1st Cavalry Division.
Roustum was in his final semester at the University of Buffalo when he was called to active duty in March of this year, following in the footsteps of an older brother, Daniel, who also served in Iraq.
Conflicted about the war and acting more as a concerned father than an unpatriotic American, Roustom’s Syrian-born father, Russ suggested he go to Syria to stay with relatives.
After all, not everyone’s sons or daughters volunteered to sacrifice their lives for this country’s foreign policy. Certainly not Mr. Imus or other members of the media or even the majority of the members of the U.S. Congress, for that matter.
David Roustum declined telling his father that he is proud to fight for America.
A few days before Thanksgiving, military officials called Russ and his wife Jennifer to say that Spc. David Roustum had been killed on Saturday, Nov. 20 in Baghdad during an ambush. Three of his colleagues were seriously wounded and their parents said that Roustum’s actions had saved their lives.
Imus wasn’t just slandering an Arab American. He was slandering all Americans. Imus owes the public more than just an apology. That he is still at his job is the real tragedy in this country.
# # #
Creators Syndicate, Friday Dec. 10, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Arab bashing is big business in America, and it’s very popular in the media.
On November 19th, when it was reported that an American soldier in Iraq had murdered at point-blank range and in cold blood an Iraqi prisoner, American superstar and radio talk show host Don Imus went on the air and denounced Arabs as "ragheads."
Notorious for his anti-Arab racism, in the past, Imus has called Palestinians "stinking animals," and the widow of the late President Yasser Arafat as "that fat pig of a wife."
Officials at MSNBC who carry Imus’ show said they were "sorry" if anyone was "offended" by his comments. I called Imus to ask how he felt about Jews, Blacks and other minorities, but the cowboy–hat wearing tough-guy didn’t have the courage to take my call.
Unfortunately, Imus is just a cheerleader in the tolerated rise of racism in this country. Unable to capture the people responsible for Sept. 11th, Americans have to blame someone. So we invade Iraq and take our anger out on innocent people.
Since Sept. 11th 14 people who "looked" Middle Eastern were murdered. Thousands of Arab Americans were physically assaulted or verbally abused. Scores of mosques and Arab churches have been burned or vandalized.
It doesn’t matter to Imus or his racist cohorts that most Arab Americans are patriotic.
Thousands, including my father and uncle, served during World War II. Currently, 3,500 Arab Americans serve in the U.S. Military, including in Iraq. One of those Arab Americans is David Roustum.
Roustum was an all-American. He was the captain of his football and hockey teams at Orchard Park High school in West Seneca, a suburb of Buffalo, New York. And he was patriotic in the truest sense of the word, enlisting in the Army National Guard 108th Infantry Division.
Initially, Roustum served as a member of the Military Forces Honor Guard, serving in 250 military funerals, before he was deployed to Iraq in March. The 108th Infantry Regiment, a part of the Arkansas National Guard's 39th Infantry Brigade, deployed to Iraq in support of the Fort Hood-based 1st Cavalry Division.
Roustum was in his final semester at the University of Buffalo when he was called to active duty in March of this year, following in the footsteps of an older brother, Daniel, who also served in Iraq.
Conflicted about the war and acting more as a concerned father than an unpatriotic American, Roustom’s Syrian-born father, Russ suggested he go to Syria to stay with relatives.
After all, not everyone’s sons or daughters volunteered to sacrifice their lives for this country’s foreign policy. Certainly not Mr. Imus or other members of the media or even the majority of the members of the U.S. Congress, for that matter.
David Roustum declined telling his father that he is proud to fight for America.
A few days before Thanksgiving, military officials called Russ and his wife Jennifer to say that Spc. David Roustum had been killed on Saturday, Nov. 20 in Baghdad during an ambush. Three of his colleagues were seriously wounded and their parents said that Roustum’s actions had saved their lives.
Imus wasn’t just slandering an Arab American. He was slandering all Americans. Imus owes the public more than just an apology. That he is still at his job is the real tragedy in this country.
# # #
Friday, November 26, 2004
Why? 11-26-04
WHY?
Nov. 26, 2004
By Ray Hanania
My local newspaper ran almost four pages of small photos of soldiers, captioned with the names, ranks, ages, hometowns, and dates that each were killed in Iraq.
It's a common thing to publish the faces of fallen soldiers, especially around holidays. Not so common is to publish the list of seriously wounded.
The dead are so much easier to handle. They die and are forgotten to the public. The wounded remain in our faces -- demanding things like hospitalization, disability benefits and costs that go on long after wars end.
More than 1,200 Americans have been killed in Iraq, the Vietnam-like war that no one wants to compare to Vietnam.
But I have one simple question.
Why?
Why did they die? Patriotism? Terrorism? Politics? Profits? Racism? The answer depends on your politics, I guess.
Maybe it was to defend America from another terrorist attack.
Or maybe it was to distract the public from the fact that many of the people who did business with certain politically connected firms were friends and relatives of Osama bin Laden.
I recall that during the Vietnam War, the patriotism was heavy and questions like "Why?" were frowned upon. We were told we were winning the war, but we weren't and didn't find out until it was too late, and our soldiers had to flee as the insurgents of ragtag guerrillas converged on our embassy.
Like the Viet Cong, the Iraqi insurgents who are defending their country do not have the technologically superior weapons systems that our American forces brought with them when we launched the unprovoked attack on March 19, 2003.
And like the Viet Cong, the Iraqi insurgents are proving to be formidable opponents. The drive to defeat the occupiers and achieve independence is a powerful force, even more so than concepts like "democracy."
Oh yes. They have their terrorists, although we didn't use the phrase terrorism during the Vietnam War as easily as we use it today.
But the fact is that not all of the Iraqi insurgents are terrorists, even if the biased American news establishment calls them such in their one-sided, self-censored coverage.
For every atrocity broadcast on American TV where an Iraqi has butchered an American, there are probably just as many atrocities being committed by American forces against innocent Iraqis.
We know that many of the insurgents we capture have been murdered in cold blood by people hailed in this country as "heroes." Imagine that a person who viciously murders a prisoner, a civilian or an unknown potential suspect is held up as a symbol of what we stand for as a nation. To much of the American media, those who report these crimes are worse than the criminals, just as Americans who ask "Why?" are denounced as anti-American and unpatriotic.
Personally, I think how you win a war is more important than simply winning a war.
It was a lesson we learned -- and forgot -- during the Vietnam War.
More importantly, I guess, is that it is easy to throw the faces of the dead at the public. It feeds public emotion and prevents war criticism from gaining in popularity.
As long as it's not your kid, I guess we can fight to the last son or daughter. Not your son or daughter. Someone else's son or daughter.
As long as the faces of the dead in the newspaper are strangers, we can afford to feel patriotic sympathy.
I know that regardless of whether they support or oppose the war, the sons and daughters forced to fight have no choice, unlike the children of privilege who have not been nor ever will be called to active duty service in Iraq. The issue really isn't even the public's attitude. America continued to fight the Vietnam War long after it was clear most Americans no longer supported it, or at least had begun to seriously question it.
But when the names under the photos of the dead in American newspapers include the names of clout like Bush, Hastert, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Frist, Santorum and Ridge, you can bet the war in Iraq would stop on a proverbial dime.
Throw in a few more surnames like Hannity, Limbaugh, Krauthammer, Hume and Coulter, and ending the war would suddenly become patriotism. But that won't happen.
So right around the holidays like Memorial Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day and the Fourth of July, newspapers around the country will continue to fill their pages with the names and faces of the most recent to die. And if you ask "Why?" you'll be denounced, vilified and attacked as anti-American and unpatriotic. As long as it isn't your son or daughter, why should you care?
Why?
To find out more about Ray Hanania, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2004 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC
Originally Published on Friday November 26, 2004
Nov. 26, 2004
By Ray Hanania
My local newspaper ran almost four pages of small photos of soldiers, captioned with the names, ranks, ages, hometowns, and dates that each were killed in Iraq.
It's a common thing to publish the faces of fallen soldiers, especially around holidays. Not so common is to publish the list of seriously wounded.
The dead are so much easier to handle. They die and are forgotten to the public. The wounded remain in our faces -- demanding things like hospitalization, disability benefits and costs that go on long after wars end.
More than 1,200 Americans have been killed in Iraq, the Vietnam-like war that no one wants to compare to Vietnam.
But I have one simple question.
Why?
Why did they die? Patriotism? Terrorism? Politics? Profits? Racism? The answer depends on your politics, I guess.
Maybe it was to defend America from another terrorist attack.
Or maybe it was to distract the public from the fact that many of the people who did business with certain politically connected firms were friends and relatives of Osama bin Laden.
I recall that during the Vietnam War, the patriotism was heavy and questions like "Why?" were frowned upon. We were told we were winning the war, but we weren't and didn't find out until it was too late, and our soldiers had to flee as the insurgents of ragtag guerrillas converged on our embassy.
Like the Viet Cong, the Iraqi insurgents who are defending their country do not have the technologically superior weapons systems that our American forces brought with them when we launched the unprovoked attack on March 19, 2003.
And like the Viet Cong, the Iraqi insurgents are proving to be formidable opponents. The drive to defeat the occupiers and achieve independence is a powerful force, even more so than concepts like "democracy."
Oh yes. They have their terrorists, although we didn't use the phrase terrorism during the Vietnam War as easily as we use it today.
But the fact is that not all of the Iraqi insurgents are terrorists, even if the biased American news establishment calls them such in their one-sided, self-censored coverage.
For every atrocity broadcast on American TV where an Iraqi has butchered an American, there are probably just as many atrocities being committed by American forces against innocent Iraqis.
We know that many of the insurgents we capture have been murdered in cold blood by people hailed in this country as "heroes." Imagine that a person who viciously murders a prisoner, a civilian or an unknown potential suspect is held up as a symbol of what we stand for as a nation. To much of the American media, those who report these crimes are worse than the criminals, just as Americans who ask "Why?" are denounced as anti-American and unpatriotic.
Personally, I think how you win a war is more important than simply winning a war.
It was a lesson we learned -- and forgot -- during the Vietnam War.
More importantly, I guess, is that it is easy to throw the faces of the dead at the public. It feeds public emotion and prevents war criticism from gaining in popularity.
As long as it's not your kid, I guess we can fight to the last son or daughter. Not your son or daughter. Someone else's son or daughter.
As long as the faces of the dead in the newspaper are strangers, we can afford to feel patriotic sympathy.
I know that regardless of whether they support or oppose the war, the sons and daughters forced to fight have no choice, unlike the children of privilege who have not been nor ever will be called to active duty service in Iraq. The issue really isn't even the public's attitude. America continued to fight the Vietnam War long after it was clear most Americans no longer supported it, or at least had begun to seriously question it.
But when the names under the photos of the dead in American newspapers include the names of clout like Bush, Hastert, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Frist, Santorum and Ridge, you can bet the war in Iraq would stop on a proverbial dime.
Throw in a few more surnames like Hannity, Limbaugh, Krauthammer, Hume and Coulter, and ending the war would suddenly become patriotism. But that won't happen.
So right around the holidays like Memorial Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day and the Fourth of July, newspapers around the country will continue to fill their pages with the names and faces of the most recent to die. And if you ask "Why?" you'll be denounced, vilified and attacked as anti-American and unpatriotic. As long as it isn't your son or daughter, why should you care?
Why?
To find out more about Ray Hanania, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2004 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC
Originally Published on Friday November 26, 2004
Thursday, November 25, 2004
American merry-go-round hypocrisy regarding Ukraine, 11-25-04
American merry-go-round over Ukrainian elections
Arab American Media Services 11-25-04
By Ray Hanania
Was anyone else surprised when Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that the United States does not accept the results of the elections in the Ukraine this past week?
Election officials in Kiev announced that the Russian-backed prime minister, Victor Yanukovych, had defeated a former prime minister, Viktor Yushchenko, in Sunday's election in the Ukraine.
Powell said there would be consequences for U.S.-Ukraine relations if the government there did not act "immediately and responsibly" to find a solution that respected the will of its people.
"We cannot accept this result as legitimate because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse," Powell said in a statement released by the State Department.
Powell called for a full review of the election and basically demanded a recount, which is how I define the phrase "the tabulation of election results."
Haven't the Ukrainians heard of the Supreme Court? Just shut Powell and BUsh up by having one of the Ukranian Supreme Court justices declare Yanukovych the winner. It worked for President Bush in January 2001.
Maybe the Ukrainians offended Bush by expressing dismay over how poorly the American elections were conducted back in November 2000? ANd that has provoked Powell to enforce a standard on others that we, Americans, don't impose on ourselves.
Suddenly, the Bush administration is talking about "popular will" as they not only block a recount in Ohio where voter fraud appears rampant, but they also have used their clout in the Congress to undermine the reforms proposed by the 9/11 Commission.
(Notice how Bush waited until after his re-election to trash the 9/11 Commission report?)
I guess the issue is not the rule of law, justice or a single standard of democracy, otherwise where would Powell and Bush get off lecturing another nation about their election process when the one we have right here stinks and is clearly corrupted by special interest power politics.
But most of the world already recognizes that the United States isn't really a land of "opportunity." It's more or less like the land of hypocrisy.
How else do you describe this double standard? I understand the simplistic equation "You are either with us or against us," as Bush has carefully enunciated.
But now I realize that also means that if you are "us," you have one standard of justice and if you are not "us" you have another standard of justice. Be it in elections. Be it in investigations of criminal terrorist acts that may find themselves nipping at your own heals (Bush's cozy friendship and business ties to Osama Bin Laden's relatives, for example).
Or be it the capricious manner in which the United States claims it is not subject to the 4th Geneva Conventions which guide the civilized conduct of warfare, although I am sure we will demand 4th Geneva Convention protections for our soldiers and our friends when it suits our purposes.
Does the rest of the world see this hypocrisy as clearly as I do? Or is it simply that they have known something for a long time that I have only recently come to realize.
America speaks from both sides of its mouth. Justice for "us" is different from justice for "you."
I am all for justice and fair elections, democracy and freedoms. But I am also a big believer in "practice what you preach."
Clearly that's a phrase that most Americans don't want to hear.
end
Arab American Media Services 11-25-04
By Ray Hanania
Was anyone else surprised when Secretary of State Colin Powell announced that the United States does not accept the results of the elections in the Ukraine this past week?
Election officials in Kiev announced that the Russian-backed prime minister, Victor Yanukovych, had defeated a former prime minister, Viktor Yushchenko, in Sunday's election in the Ukraine.
Powell said there would be consequences for U.S.-Ukraine relations if the government there did not act "immediately and responsibly" to find a solution that respected the will of its people.
"We cannot accept this result as legitimate because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse," Powell said in a statement released by the State Department.
Powell called for a full review of the election and basically demanded a recount, which is how I define the phrase "the tabulation of election results."
Haven't the Ukrainians heard of the Supreme Court? Just shut Powell and BUsh up by having one of the Ukranian Supreme Court justices declare Yanukovych the winner. It worked for President Bush in January 2001.
Maybe the Ukrainians offended Bush by expressing dismay over how poorly the American elections were conducted back in November 2000? ANd that has provoked Powell to enforce a standard on others that we, Americans, don't impose on ourselves.
Suddenly, the Bush administration is talking about "popular will" as they not only block a recount in Ohio where voter fraud appears rampant, but they also have used their clout in the Congress to undermine the reforms proposed by the 9/11 Commission.
(Notice how Bush waited until after his re-election to trash the 9/11 Commission report?)
I guess the issue is not the rule of law, justice or a single standard of democracy, otherwise where would Powell and Bush get off lecturing another nation about their election process when the one we have right here stinks and is clearly corrupted by special interest power politics.
But most of the world already recognizes that the United States isn't really a land of "opportunity." It's more or less like the land of hypocrisy.
How else do you describe this double standard? I understand the simplistic equation "You are either with us or against us," as Bush has carefully enunciated.
But now I realize that also means that if you are "us," you have one standard of justice and if you are not "us" you have another standard of justice. Be it in elections. Be it in investigations of criminal terrorist acts that may find themselves nipping at your own heals (Bush's cozy friendship and business ties to Osama Bin Laden's relatives, for example).
Or be it the capricious manner in which the United States claims it is not subject to the 4th Geneva Conventions which guide the civilized conduct of warfare, although I am sure we will demand 4th Geneva Convention protections for our soldiers and our friends when it suits our purposes.
Does the rest of the world see this hypocrisy as clearly as I do? Or is it simply that they have known something for a long time that I have only recently come to realize.
America speaks from both sides of its mouth. Justice for "us" is different from justice for "you."
I am all for justice and fair elections, democracy and freedoms. But I am also a big believer in "practice what you preach."
Clearly that's a phrase that most Americans don't want to hear.
end
Saturday, November 20, 2004
The bonfire of the American morality Nov. 20, 2004
The bonfire of the American morality
11-20-04 Arab American Media Services
Permission granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
America is a nation that is in transformation. Once the pillar of America’s greatness, the righteous values of justice are slowly being consumed by a national rage based on lies, racism and hate.
Many Americans would rather embrace the lie so they don’t have to come to terms with their own ugliness or hate. Ugliness becomes relative. It is acceptable when you can make the person you hate seem even uglier.
Today’s Americans are cultivating principles based on "New Speak." Atrocity becomes justified with the clever use of labels. The killer is acceptable as long as the victim is someone designated as a the unacceptable, or today’s "terrorist."
"Horrors of war are unavoidable," Americans scream as they dance around the flames of hate. As long as victims are "the other people."
Even the meaning of the word "terrorist" is redefined in the "New Speak." It is no longer about humanity, morality or righteous principles of justice. It is a mob-like hate-vision.
We see evidence of this in America everyday as we divide the world not in terms of right and wrong, but "us" versus "them."
An American soldier kills a wounded Iraqi in cold-blood, clearly the tip of an iceberg of atrocities unreported by the media. Rather than disgust, many Americans want to punish the people who made this atrocity public.
In stark contrast, there is no limit to their moral outrage against Islamic terrorists who have committed similar acts of butchery by beheading hostages. There are no limits to the atrocities and injustice that can be wiped clean in the new American equation of "us" versus "them."
We are at the bonfire of American morality. Nothing burns brighter in this hate than justice, righteousness, morality and principles that define human dignity.
Atrocity is judged by the races and politics of the victims and the victimizer. When the victim is one of "us," Americans are outraged. When the victim is one of "them," the atrocity is justified.
The sickness becomes the norm especially when the media surrenders to the mob and embraces rather than challenges the lies.
The American news media is in a voluntary bondage and worse, in widespread denial. The absence of ethics becomes promiscuous. Professional journalism is replaced by entertainment news that is based on viciousness and cruelty. Emotional fantasies replace hard facts.
From there, it is a mere half-step to a future when the mob will demand even more in Roman-like glee.
At some point, they won’t even pretend. The "guilty" will be fed to the lions of our hatred.
Justice will be replaced by public entertainment. The new judges will stand behind the microphones fanning the bonfires of American morality, cheering on the viciousness. Gleefully dancing around the bonfires of a corrupt morality. Spewing hate-talk and fomenting greater racism as New Speak. Listeners will scream mental chants of "Death! Death! Death!"
The evidence is there everyday. The icons of the new media allow people to foment hate. On one recent show, Palestinians are described as "filthy animals" encouraged by the talk show host who declares to the coliseum that it is acceptable to dehumanize those with whom we hate.
But you can never satiate the hunger of the mob bonfire. Just calling someone a "filthy animal" will not be enough. If you can dehumanize a human being, you can then obliterate that human life. And then sit with your family and bounce a child on your knee and even speak of greatness and a great world free of fear and violence. Once you have destroyed all of "them."
The first casualty becomes the obliteration of the line between right and wrong. Morality is redefined based on but on the racial and religious origins of the dehumanized victim.
It’s in the nature of racism and hatred.
America is a nation fast becoming a coliseum of uniformed minds. The New Speak is spreading. We wave our American Flag with an emotion that is weighed both by love and hate until hate becomes equal and even surpasses what is right.
The glow of the bonfire of American morality is a crematoria of hatred where the slaughtered vanish in smoke.
And when the smoke is gone from the skies, we can pretend it never happened.
Unless a new Moses comes down from the mountaintop and destroys the idol of the calf fashioned from the charred remains of a once golden morality.
END
11-20-04 Arab American Media Services
Permission granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
America is a nation that is in transformation. Once the pillar of America’s greatness, the righteous values of justice are slowly being consumed by a national rage based on lies, racism and hate.
Many Americans would rather embrace the lie so they don’t have to come to terms with their own ugliness or hate. Ugliness becomes relative. It is acceptable when you can make the person you hate seem even uglier.
Today’s Americans are cultivating principles based on "New Speak." Atrocity becomes justified with the clever use of labels. The killer is acceptable as long as the victim is someone designated as a the unacceptable, or today’s "terrorist."
"Horrors of war are unavoidable," Americans scream as they dance around the flames of hate. As long as victims are "the other people."
Even the meaning of the word "terrorist" is redefined in the "New Speak." It is no longer about humanity, morality or righteous principles of justice. It is a mob-like hate-vision.
We see evidence of this in America everyday as we divide the world not in terms of right and wrong, but "us" versus "them."
An American soldier kills a wounded Iraqi in cold-blood, clearly the tip of an iceberg of atrocities unreported by the media. Rather than disgust, many Americans want to punish the people who made this atrocity public.
In stark contrast, there is no limit to their moral outrage against Islamic terrorists who have committed similar acts of butchery by beheading hostages. There are no limits to the atrocities and injustice that can be wiped clean in the new American equation of "us" versus "them."
We are at the bonfire of American morality. Nothing burns brighter in this hate than justice, righteousness, morality and principles that define human dignity.
Atrocity is judged by the races and politics of the victims and the victimizer. When the victim is one of "us," Americans are outraged. When the victim is one of "them," the atrocity is justified.
The sickness becomes the norm especially when the media surrenders to the mob and embraces rather than challenges the lies.
The American news media is in a voluntary bondage and worse, in widespread denial. The absence of ethics becomes promiscuous. Professional journalism is replaced by entertainment news that is based on viciousness and cruelty. Emotional fantasies replace hard facts.
From there, it is a mere half-step to a future when the mob will demand even more in Roman-like glee.
At some point, they won’t even pretend. The "guilty" will be fed to the lions of our hatred.
Justice will be replaced by public entertainment. The new judges will stand behind the microphones fanning the bonfires of American morality, cheering on the viciousness. Gleefully dancing around the bonfires of a corrupt morality. Spewing hate-talk and fomenting greater racism as New Speak. Listeners will scream mental chants of "Death! Death! Death!"
The evidence is there everyday. The icons of the new media allow people to foment hate. On one recent show, Palestinians are described as "filthy animals" encouraged by the talk show host who declares to the coliseum that it is acceptable to dehumanize those with whom we hate.
But you can never satiate the hunger of the mob bonfire. Just calling someone a "filthy animal" will not be enough. If you can dehumanize a human being, you can then obliterate that human life. And then sit with your family and bounce a child on your knee and even speak of greatness and a great world free of fear and violence. Once you have destroyed all of "them."
The first casualty becomes the obliteration of the line between right and wrong. Morality is redefined based on but on the racial and religious origins of the dehumanized victim.
It’s in the nature of racism and hatred.
America is a nation fast becoming a coliseum of uniformed minds. The New Speak is spreading. We wave our American Flag with an emotion that is weighed both by love and hate until hate becomes equal and even surpasses what is right.
The glow of the bonfire of American morality is a crematoria of hatred where the slaughtered vanish in smoke.
And when the smoke is gone from the skies, we can pretend it never happened.
Unless a new Moses comes down from the mountaintop and destroys the idol of the calf fashioned from the charred remains of a once golden morality.
END
Friday, November 19, 2004
President Bush at the MidEast Crossroads, Nov. 19, 2004
President Bush at the MidEast Crossroads
Creators Syndicate Friday Nov. 19, 2004
By Ray Hanania
It took President Bush a terrorist attack awakening and four years to recognize the importance of resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict.
Better late than never.
Although the conflict has been supercharged with violence for more than a century, his decision to turn his back on the conflict following his election in 2000, rather than carry-on the failed legacy of his predecessor President Clinton, contributed to worsen the conflict.
Without an American president providing reason and guidance, newly elected Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon did what he vowed to do all his life, undermining the peace process, provoking violence and engaging in a clear strategy to annex all of the occupied lands rather than exchange them for peace.
Although everyone blames Palestinian President Yasser Arafat for the escalation in violence that took place after the collapse of the Clinton-initiated peace process, the real responsibility rests solidly on Sharon’s shoulders.
Rather than pursue new peace initiatives, Sharon rolled-back all of the peace advances, declared his intent to not only keep Jerusalem as an exclusively Jewish rather than open city, but he also reflected his settler ways in declaring that he would expand rather than remove longstanding illegal Israeli settlements.
The reality is that Sharon was merely expanding on an Israeli policy of the so-called moderates and the extremists. The moderates, led by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yitzhak Rabin did not eliminate any illegal settlements during the entire peace process. Instead, they expanded existing settlements and reinforced their illegal claim to land circling the East side of Jerusalem on confiscated Arab-owned land.
Rather than push for the dismantling of settlements to promote peace, Rabin, who was assassinated by a Sharon political loyalist in 1995, and Barak sought to solidify their hold on settlements, always believing that despite promises they could retain the land they grabbed after 1967.
Sharon was probably the most honest of the land thieves. He never pretended to support dismantling settlements and believes in not only annexing more land, but insuring that whatever land is returned to Palestinian control in any peace agreement will be insufficient to serve as a basis for a viable independent Palestinian State.
During his first term, driven by anti-Arab advisers like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (who at one time helped support Iraq’s Saddam Hussein) and Vice President Dick Cheney (who has a blind trust benefit in the multi-billion no-bid contracts awarded to his interests in Halliburton), Bush turned his back on peace and allowed Sharon to advance his veiled aggression.
While claiming to be a man of peace, Sharon is clearly the most vicious warmongering leader Israel has ever elected.
President Bush, who claims to want to resolve the conflict, must come to grips with the real Sharon. He no longer must pander to influential pro-Israel American lobbying interests, especially since most pro-Israel votes went to his challenger, John Kerry, in this past election.
If Bush wishes to be remembered for anything besides launching the New Vietnam war in Iraq, he has a real opportunity to make headway in the Palestine-Israel conflict, which is the heart of most violence in the Middle East.
Resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict in a way that guarantees Israel’s right to exist and that combats violence and terrorism from the small but influential rejectionists who oppose peace, and that also grants justice and fairness to the Palestinians is a monumental task that affords an historic achievement of unprecedented proportions.
All it requires is being fair and just. It requires reinvigorating the vision of the failed Rabin-Arafat peace process which called for respect, justice and fairness for both sides.
It means that a secure Jewish Israel must be partnered with a viable Palestinian State that has enough land and honor through the sharing of the Holy City of Jerusalem, which has been closed to most Christian and Muslim Arabs since its occupation in 1967.
It means looking past the clever pro-Israel propaganda that drives America’s ignorance of the Palestine-Israel conflict and see it for what it really is, a conflict between two people who both have legitimate claims to the same land and enforcing a compromise that can work.
Bush cannot wait for the Israelis to replace Sharon with a leader with a genuine passion for Israel’s security that is based on a just peace that embraces his post-election vow to resolve the conflict fairly.
Let’s see if Bush, who is now an experienced foreign affairs leader, can lead. I hope he does.
# # #
Creators Syndicate Friday Nov. 19, 2004
By Ray Hanania
It took President Bush a terrorist attack awakening and four years to recognize the importance of resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict.
Better late than never.
Although the conflict has been supercharged with violence for more than a century, his decision to turn his back on the conflict following his election in 2000, rather than carry-on the failed legacy of his predecessor President Clinton, contributed to worsen the conflict.
Without an American president providing reason and guidance, newly elected Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon did what he vowed to do all his life, undermining the peace process, provoking violence and engaging in a clear strategy to annex all of the occupied lands rather than exchange them for peace.
Although everyone blames Palestinian President Yasser Arafat for the escalation in violence that took place after the collapse of the Clinton-initiated peace process, the real responsibility rests solidly on Sharon’s shoulders.
Rather than pursue new peace initiatives, Sharon rolled-back all of the peace advances, declared his intent to not only keep Jerusalem as an exclusively Jewish rather than open city, but he also reflected his settler ways in declaring that he would expand rather than remove longstanding illegal Israeli settlements.
The reality is that Sharon was merely expanding on an Israeli policy of the so-called moderates and the extremists. The moderates, led by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yitzhak Rabin did not eliminate any illegal settlements during the entire peace process. Instead, they expanded existing settlements and reinforced their illegal claim to land circling the East side of Jerusalem on confiscated Arab-owned land.
Rather than push for the dismantling of settlements to promote peace, Rabin, who was assassinated by a Sharon political loyalist in 1995, and Barak sought to solidify their hold on settlements, always believing that despite promises they could retain the land they grabbed after 1967.
Sharon was probably the most honest of the land thieves. He never pretended to support dismantling settlements and believes in not only annexing more land, but insuring that whatever land is returned to Palestinian control in any peace agreement will be insufficient to serve as a basis for a viable independent Palestinian State.
During his first term, driven by anti-Arab advisers like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (who at one time helped support Iraq’s Saddam Hussein) and Vice President Dick Cheney (who has a blind trust benefit in the multi-billion no-bid contracts awarded to his interests in Halliburton), Bush turned his back on peace and allowed Sharon to advance his veiled aggression.
While claiming to be a man of peace, Sharon is clearly the most vicious warmongering leader Israel has ever elected.
President Bush, who claims to want to resolve the conflict, must come to grips with the real Sharon. He no longer must pander to influential pro-Israel American lobbying interests, especially since most pro-Israel votes went to his challenger, John Kerry, in this past election.
If Bush wishes to be remembered for anything besides launching the New Vietnam war in Iraq, he has a real opportunity to make headway in the Palestine-Israel conflict, which is the heart of most violence in the Middle East.
Resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict in a way that guarantees Israel’s right to exist and that combats violence and terrorism from the small but influential rejectionists who oppose peace, and that also grants justice and fairness to the Palestinians is a monumental task that affords an historic achievement of unprecedented proportions.
All it requires is being fair and just. It requires reinvigorating the vision of the failed Rabin-Arafat peace process which called for respect, justice and fairness for both sides.
It means that a secure Jewish Israel must be partnered with a viable Palestinian State that has enough land and honor through the sharing of the Holy City of Jerusalem, which has been closed to most Christian and Muslim Arabs since its occupation in 1967.
It means looking past the clever pro-Israel propaganda that drives America’s ignorance of the Palestine-Israel conflict and see it for what it really is, a conflict between two people who both have legitimate claims to the same land and enforcing a compromise that can work.
Bush cannot wait for the Israelis to replace Sharon with a leader with a genuine passion for Israel’s security that is based on a just peace that embraces his post-election vow to resolve the conflict fairly.
Let’s see if Bush, who is now an experienced foreign affairs leader, can lead. I hope he does.
# # #
Monday, November 15, 2004
Rumors of AIDS and poisoning eroding chances for peace, 11-15-04
Rumors of Arafat AIDS and poisoning erode hopes for peace
Arab American Media Syndicate, Monday Nov. 15, 2004
(Permission granted to reprint)
By Ray Hanania
Normally when there is a discussion about Gays and the issue of AIDS, Jewish American leaders are among the first to stand up and decry the disease and defend the rights of Gays.
In fact, I have always admired the Jewish American community for their righteous stand on civil rights, and their sensitivity on the issue sof AIDS.
Of course, when the attention is on an enemy who stood in the way of the proclaimed Zionist dream to build a Jewish homeland in all of Palestine, many Jewish Americans and pro-Israel advocates are quick to set aside their humility and transform into racists with no end to their hate.
How else do you explain the sudden pre-occupation in the causes of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat's death?
When he was alive, many Jewish leaders bit their tongues when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon threatened to murder him.
Murder is so unbecoming of any race, you would think that Jewish American leaders who drawn a line in the sand when it comes to hatred of Palestinians. Surely, it is a violation of the high moral principles that are reflected in Judaism. Although while Jewish Americans are quick to point out Arafat's crimes, they seem blind to the crimes of their own people, likeSharon, Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin.
So you can imagine my shock when I read the comments of many Jewish American leaders and pro-Israel columnists who claimed President Arafat died of AIDS.
Suddenly they are concerned with his health?
More likely, it's a reflection of their own moralbankruptcy. They seem to be enjoying the death of another human being just a little too much. In fact, the enjoyment reflected among Jewish American leaders is so disgusting, it makes me sick to think that some of those expressing this kind of hatred were once considered friends.
Former White House speechwriter David Frum, one of the new anti-Semites leading the American racism against Arabs and Muslims,
Frum wrote, "Speaking of media bias, here's a question you won't hear in our big papers or on network TV: Does Yasser Arafat have AIDS?"
He continued, "We know he has a blood disease that is depressing his immune system. We know that he has suddenly dropped considerable weight -- possibly as much as one-third of all his body weight. We know that he is suffering intermittent mental dysfunction. What does this sound like?"
Keep in mind, Frum is the man responsible for coining the ridiculous phrase, "Axis of Evil," when we know that evil permeates every nation, religion and race.
But he's not alone. The king of Arab hate-mongering is Daniel Pipes, the person President Bush appointed to the "Institute for Peace," writes that rumors that Arafat had AIDS are "plausible."
And his hate-web site has an open forum where his readers are encouraged to celebrate in the viciousness.
President Arafat was 75 years old when he died. Do you have to have a cause? Could it be that Arafat died an early death in part because of the inhumane conditions he was forced to live in at the Muqata, the Palestinian headquarters which was rubbled in an Israeli attack led by Ariel Sharon that was intended to destroy the peace process?
And imagine how Jewish Americans act when the shoe is on the other foot.
I have read in many Arab media that Arafat was -- gasp! - poisoned by the Israelis.
And how are the pro-Israeli crowd handling that?
Frum has reportedly called the poison rumor, "anti-Semitism."
Pipes writes, "Of course, some Palestinians have hatched a conspiracy theory about Israel poisoning Arafat."
Oh. But the AIDS rumor is not a "conspiracy theory." It's "plausible?"
Much like the Israeli hypocrisy on the issue of terrorism - only Palestinians are terrorists, they assert - their silence on the ridiculous rumor that Arafat had AIDS screams the word "shame!"
I think it is all shameful on both sides. Do you think there are some responsible Jewish and Palestinian leaders who might stand up and put an end to this disgraceful pandering to ugliness on both sides?
END
Arab American Media Syndicate, Monday Nov. 15, 2004
(Permission granted to reprint)
By Ray Hanania
Normally when there is a discussion about Gays and the issue of AIDS, Jewish American leaders are among the first to stand up and decry the disease and defend the rights of Gays.
In fact, I have always admired the Jewish American community for their righteous stand on civil rights, and their sensitivity on the issue sof AIDS.
Of course, when the attention is on an enemy who stood in the way of the proclaimed Zionist dream to build a Jewish homeland in all of Palestine, many Jewish Americans and pro-Israel advocates are quick to set aside their humility and transform into racists with no end to their hate.
How else do you explain the sudden pre-occupation in the causes of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat's death?
When he was alive, many Jewish leaders bit their tongues when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon threatened to murder him.
Murder is so unbecoming of any race, you would think that Jewish American leaders who drawn a line in the sand when it comes to hatred of Palestinians. Surely, it is a violation of the high moral principles that are reflected in Judaism. Although while Jewish Americans are quick to point out Arafat's crimes, they seem blind to the crimes of their own people, likeSharon, Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin.
So you can imagine my shock when I read the comments of many Jewish American leaders and pro-Israel columnists who claimed President Arafat died of AIDS.
Suddenly they are concerned with his health?
More likely, it's a reflection of their own moralbankruptcy. They seem to be enjoying the death of another human being just a little too much. In fact, the enjoyment reflected among Jewish American leaders is so disgusting, it makes me sick to think that some of those expressing this kind of hatred were once considered friends.
Former White House speechwriter David Frum, one of the new anti-Semites leading the American racism against Arabs and Muslims,
Frum wrote, "Speaking of media bias, here's a question you won't hear in our big papers or on network TV: Does Yasser Arafat have AIDS?"
He continued, "We know he has a blood disease that is depressing his immune system. We know that he has suddenly dropped considerable weight -- possibly as much as one-third of all his body weight. We know that he is suffering intermittent mental dysfunction. What does this sound like?"
Keep in mind, Frum is the man responsible for coining the ridiculous phrase, "Axis of Evil," when we know that evil permeates every nation, religion and race.
But he's not alone. The king of Arab hate-mongering is Daniel Pipes, the person President Bush appointed to the "Institute for Peace," writes that rumors that Arafat had AIDS are "plausible."
And his hate-web site has an open forum where his readers are encouraged to celebrate in the viciousness.
President Arafat was 75 years old when he died. Do you have to have a cause? Could it be that Arafat died an early death in part because of the inhumane conditions he was forced to live in at the Muqata, the Palestinian headquarters which was rubbled in an Israeli attack led by Ariel Sharon that was intended to destroy the peace process?
And imagine how Jewish Americans act when the shoe is on the other foot.
I have read in many Arab media that Arafat was -- gasp! - poisoned by the Israelis.
And how are the pro-Israeli crowd handling that?
Frum has reportedly called the poison rumor, "anti-Semitism."
Pipes writes, "Of course, some Palestinians have hatched a conspiracy theory about Israel poisoning Arafat."
Oh. But the AIDS rumor is not a "conspiracy theory." It's "plausible?"
Much like the Israeli hypocrisy on the issue of terrorism - only Palestinians are terrorists, they assert - their silence on the ridiculous rumor that Arafat had AIDS screams the word "shame!"
I think it is all shameful on both sides. Do you think there are some responsible Jewish and Palestinian leaders who might stand up and put an end to this disgraceful pandering to ugliness on both sides?
END
Rabin-Arafat doctrine must be embraced, 11-15-04
Rabin-Arafat doctrine must be embraced
Arlington Heights Daily Herald
Posted Monday, November 15, 2004
By Ray Hanania
When Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin shook hands at the White House to launch the unprecedented peace process in 1993, the message they conveyed was one of attitude change.
Palestinians and Israelis had to change how they looked at each other to embrace real peace. Instead of looking back at the horrors of the past, Palestinians and Israelis had to look forward, toward the promise of a future of peace.
It was revolutionary.
For many Palestinians, Rabin, then Israeli prime minister, was a terrorist. A murderer. A vicious killer. Rabin inflicted untold horrors on the Palestinian people. Yet in 1995 when he was murdered by an Israeli settler extremist, Palestinians stood up and expressed their condolences, sorrow and grief.
Now that Rabin's partner has died, within one week of the ninth anniversary of Rabin's own assassination, I am appalled at the horrific lack of compassion being shown toward Arafat by many Israelis and Jewish-American leaders.
They seem to celebrate in his death. That is exactly the kind of attitude that encourages violence and discourages peace.
If Israel's government really wanted to support the peace process, they would have allowed Arafat to be buried in Jerusalem, which is as much a Palestinian city as it is a Jewish city.
Instead, Israel's hard-line government rejected Jerusalem as a site for Arafat's burial. But Palestinians have said that Arafat's Ramallah tomb will be only a temporary plot, holding out hope that one day his final resting place will be in Jerusalem, where it belongs.
Israelis brush off Arafat as a "terrorist" and blame him for the collapse of the peace process, as if Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has not played a hand in destroying and undermining peace.
The fact is both Palestinians and Israelis have engaged in violence, terrorism and horrendous atrocities against each other. Sharon's predecessors Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin were both branded as terrorists during the Palestine Mandate years in the 1940s. They committed unspeakable acts of brutality and murder and terrorism, and they were declared terrorists.
But attitude is what drove Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to reach across that divide of hatred and seek to achieve peace, even with a man like Begin who was one of the worst terrorists in Palestinian and Arab eyes.
Arafat was a great revolutionary and a great freedom fighter. He single-handedly led the Palestinians out of the oblivion imposed by Israelis who declared that the Palestinians never existed and had no rights to nationhood.
Arafat was the first Palestinian leader of substance to officially recognize Israel, and to embrace and promote the two-state solution. Though that peace process has collapsed, peace talks can and should be resumed. Arafat remained steadfast in his insistence that Palestinians everywhere, including in America, support the peace process despite its many difficulties.
It is time for Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East and in the United States to re-embrace the Rabin-Arafat doctrine, change their attitudes and reopen the contacts that have been abandoned for the past four years.
What Palestinians and Israelis need today is that attitude change to make peace possible.
Burying Arafat in Jerusalem, a city that must be shared by both peoples, is a strong first step toward peace.
END
Arlington Heights Daily Herald
Posted Monday, November 15, 2004
By Ray Hanania
When Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin shook hands at the White House to launch the unprecedented peace process in 1993, the message they conveyed was one of attitude change.
Palestinians and Israelis had to change how they looked at each other to embrace real peace. Instead of looking back at the horrors of the past, Palestinians and Israelis had to look forward, toward the promise of a future of peace.
It was revolutionary.
For many Palestinians, Rabin, then Israeli prime minister, was a terrorist. A murderer. A vicious killer. Rabin inflicted untold horrors on the Palestinian people. Yet in 1995 when he was murdered by an Israeli settler extremist, Palestinians stood up and expressed their condolences, sorrow and grief.
Now that Rabin's partner has died, within one week of the ninth anniversary of Rabin's own assassination, I am appalled at the horrific lack of compassion being shown toward Arafat by many Israelis and Jewish-American leaders.
They seem to celebrate in his death. That is exactly the kind of attitude that encourages violence and discourages peace.
If Israel's government really wanted to support the peace process, they would have allowed Arafat to be buried in Jerusalem, which is as much a Palestinian city as it is a Jewish city.
Instead, Israel's hard-line government rejected Jerusalem as a site for Arafat's burial. But Palestinians have said that Arafat's Ramallah tomb will be only a temporary plot, holding out hope that one day his final resting place will be in Jerusalem, where it belongs.
Israelis brush off Arafat as a "terrorist" and blame him for the collapse of the peace process, as if Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has not played a hand in destroying and undermining peace.
The fact is both Palestinians and Israelis have engaged in violence, terrorism and horrendous atrocities against each other. Sharon's predecessors Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin were both branded as terrorists during the Palestine Mandate years in the 1940s. They committed unspeakable acts of brutality and murder and terrorism, and they were declared terrorists.
But attitude is what drove Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to reach across that divide of hatred and seek to achieve peace, even with a man like Begin who was one of the worst terrorists in Palestinian and Arab eyes.
Arafat was a great revolutionary and a great freedom fighter. He single-handedly led the Palestinians out of the oblivion imposed by Israelis who declared that the Palestinians never existed and had no rights to nationhood.
Arafat was the first Palestinian leader of substance to officially recognize Israel, and to embrace and promote the two-state solution. Though that peace process has collapsed, peace talks can and should be resumed. Arafat remained steadfast in his insistence that Palestinians everywhere, including in America, support the peace process despite its many difficulties.
It is time for Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East and in the United States to re-embrace the Rabin-Arafat doctrine, change their attitudes and reopen the contacts that have been abandoned for the past four years.
What Palestinians and Israelis need today is that attitude change to make peace possible.
Burying Arafat in Jerusalem, a city that must be shared by both peoples, is a strong first step toward peace.
END
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Rising anti-Arab rhetoric parallels anti-Semitism; NY assemblyman's attacks violate Hate Crimes Laws, 11-13-04
Rising anti-Arab rhetoric parallels anti-Semitism
Saturday Nov. 13, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Ryan Karben isn’t burning a cross or championing the Ku Klux Klan, but he might as well be. Today’s racists and bigots, like Karben, don’t have to cover their faces with a pointed white hood when they assault the freedoms and rights of Americans with whom they disagree.
Karben is a New York Assemblyman. He has launched a vicious, racist, and anti-Semitic-like assault on a group of Christian and Muslim Palestinians who have organized a cultural display in his district.
The "Made in Palestine Art Exhibit" is being organized by Palestinian and Arab Americans in his district to showcase arts, music and poetry that includes some exhibit pieces critical of a foreign country, Israel.
That is what Karben seems most concerned about. In many places, Americans are allowed to criticize foreign countries, except when that foreign country is Israel.
Karben’s attack is racist and veiled in disgusting but common form of demagoguery based on a vicious hatred of Christians and Muslims who have political differences with Israel.
His attack against the art exhibit is a clear violation of the existing Hate Crimes laws and he should be prosecuted. But this is the "new America" where racists and bigots can express themselves freely if they hide behind popular political views and distort issues using the deplorable tactic of "the big lie."
Karben is much like Daniel Pipes, the David Duke of the anti-Arab community who uses his position as a member of the U.S. Peace Institute to bully Christian and Muslims because they support justice and fairness in Palestine.
Karben also exploits his publicly held government position paid for by taxpayers and as a representative of the people of his district to bully those with whom he disagrees.
Karben claims are ridiculous. He asserts the Palestinian American exhibit is "anti-Semitic," promotes terrorism and glorifies "Nazism." Yet these are exactly the fundamentals of Karben’s own vicious defamation.
In preparing for the show, the organizers published a statement describing what they hoped to achieve:
"The exhibit will run for four weeks and feature approximately 30 artists of Palestinian origin from well-known artists to emerging new talents. Our aim is to illuminate the face of Palestinian culture from the 1960s to the present day, and to establish a bridge between the Williamsburg and Palestinian communities through the universal language of art. In conjunction with the exhibit, we plan to host a series of lectures and cultural activities, including live music, poetry, calligraphy, Palestinian cuisine, a slide show on Palestinian history and much more."
The exhibit begins Saturday, November 20 from 5-10pm at the Westchester County Center at 198 Central Avenue, White Plains, NY. The $16 tickets are available through Ticketmaster at www.ticketmaster.com.
Karben’s America is an America that glorifies the principles advocated by the Klan, skinheads, neo-Nazis and White Supremicists. In Karben’s facist world, there is no room for cultural expression, let alone freedom.
Karben’s strongest argument is that among their supporters are organizations that have criticized Israel. And he has a right to criticize the critics, but not to impose his racist standards on the public, or to defame Americans who are entitled to American constitutional protections.
Karben’s viciousness is not only insulting to Christian and Muslim Palestinians, but is also insulting to American Jews who advocate for a non-violent end to the Middle East conflict.
If Americans really believe in principles of equal protection under the law and are truly dedicated to the eradication of hate, then people like Karben who promote hate and who disguise their embrace of violence with repugnant rhetoric should be prosecuted rather than elected to office.
American Jews who support peace and an end to the Middle East conflict, who oppose violence and who are shocked at anti-Semitism should join in denouncing Karben’s detestable actions.
In the true America, we can disagree without being disagreeable. But there can be no room for anti-Semites, facists and haters like Ryan Karben. They need to be identified and evicted from their places of leadership.
As long as Karben is allowed a platform to spew his hateful rhetoric, the forces of anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice, bigotry and discrimination will find comfort and strength to hate even more.
In that world, the freedoms of Christians, Muslims and Jews, Palestinians, Israelis and other Americans will constantly be threatened.
It’s a world of freedom, liberty, respect and non-violence is the world that Ryan Karben most threatens.
Americans who fail to speak out against Karben’s racist excesses undermine the very noble principles that make this nation so great.
end
Saturday Nov. 13, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Ryan Karben isn’t burning a cross or championing the Ku Klux Klan, but he might as well be. Today’s racists and bigots, like Karben, don’t have to cover their faces with a pointed white hood when they assault the freedoms and rights of Americans with whom they disagree.
Karben is a New York Assemblyman. He has launched a vicious, racist, and anti-Semitic-like assault on a group of Christian and Muslim Palestinians who have organized a cultural display in his district.
The "Made in Palestine Art Exhibit" is being organized by Palestinian and Arab Americans in his district to showcase arts, music and poetry that includes some exhibit pieces critical of a foreign country, Israel.
That is what Karben seems most concerned about. In many places, Americans are allowed to criticize foreign countries, except when that foreign country is Israel.
Karben’s attack is racist and veiled in disgusting but common form of demagoguery based on a vicious hatred of Christians and Muslims who have political differences with Israel.
His attack against the art exhibit is a clear violation of the existing Hate Crimes laws and he should be prosecuted. But this is the "new America" where racists and bigots can express themselves freely if they hide behind popular political views and distort issues using the deplorable tactic of "the big lie."
Karben is much like Daniel Pipes, the David Duke of the anti-Arab community who uses his position as a member of the U.S. Peace Institute to bully Christian and Muslims because they support justice and fairness in Palestine.
Karben also exploits his publicly held government position paid for by taxpayers and as a representative of the people of his district to bully those with whom he disagrees.
Karben claims are ridiculous. He asserts the Palestinian American exhibit is "anti-Semitic," promotes terrorism and glorifies "Nazism." Yet these are exactly the fundamentals of Karben’s own vicious defamation.
In preparing for the show, the organizers published a statement describing what they hoped to achieve:
"The exhibit will run for four weeks and feature approximately 30 artists of Palestinian origin from well-known artists to emerging new talents. Our aim is to illuminate the face of Palestinian culture from the 1960s to the present day, and to establish a bridge between the Williamsburg and Palestinian communities through the universal language of art. In conjunction with the exhibit, we plan to host a series of lectures and cultural activities, including live music, poetry, calligraphy, Palestinian cuisine, a slide show on Palestinian history and much more."
The exhibit begins Saturday, November 20 from 5-10pm at the Westchester County Center at 198 Central Avenue, White Plains, NY. The $16 tickets are available through Ticketmaster at www.ticketmaster.com.
Karben’s America is an America that glorifies the principles advocated by the Klan, skinheads, neo-Nazis and White Supremicists. In Karben’s facist world, there is no room for cultural expression, let alone freedom.
Karben’s strongest argument is that among their supporters are organizations that have criticized Israel. And he has a right to criticize the critics, but not to impose his racist standards on the public, or to defame Americans who are entitled to American constitutional protections.
Karben’s viciousness is not only insulting to Christian and Muslim Palestinians, but is also insulting to American Jews who advocate for a non-violent end to the Middle East conflict.
If Americans really believe in principles of equal protection under the law and are truly dedicated to the eradication of hate, then people like Karben who promote hate and who disguise their embrace of violence with repugnant rhetoric should be prosecuted rather than elected to office.
American Jews who support peace and an end to the Middle East conflict, who oppose violence and who are shocked at anti-Semitism should join in denouncing Karben’s detestable actions.
In the true America, we can disagree without being disagreeable. But there can be no room for anti-Semites, facists and haters like Ryan Karben. They need to be identified and evicted from their places of leadership.
As long as Karben is allowed a platform to spew his hateful rhetoric, the forces of anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice, bigotry and discrimination will find comfort and strength to hate even more.
In that world, the freedoms of Christians, Muslims and Jews, Palestinians, Israelis and other Americans will constantly be threatened.
It’s a world of freedom, liberty, respect and non-violence is the world that Ryan Karben most threatens.
Americans who fail to speak out against Karben’s racist excesses undermine the very noble principles that make this nation so great.
end
Friday, November 12, 2004
AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE News interview 11-12-04
U.S. National - AFP
Palestinians in US recall Arafat as a unifier, symbol of nationhood
Thu Nov 11, 7:40 PM ET
CHICAGO (AFP) - For many Palestinians living in the United States the late Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) was an indefatigable crusader who kept the cause of Palestinian nationhood alive for decades.
AFP Photo
Palestinians in communities across the United States -- from New Jersey to Texas, Florida, Illinois and California -- prepared to mark Arafat's death with services and memorials.
In Washington, the Palestinian Mission set out a condolence book.
Palestinian-American Ray Hanania recalled how he and his family gathered in front of their television set to watch Arafat address the United Nations (news - web sites) general assembly in 1974.
"We were second-class citizens. He forced everybody to respect us," said Hanania, whose parents were Palestinian refugees.
"He took the Palestinians out of oblivion and shoved them in everybody's face," he said.
Rima Nashashibi saw the process first hand.
"Palestinians were invisible in 1968," recalled Nashashibi, who was born in Jerusalem and bounced between Israel and the United States before settling in Orange County, California.
Arafat "put them back on the map. He kept the struggle alive, and generated world-wide support for the Palestinian cause."
The guerrilla leader-turned-statesman was a powerful symbol to generations of Palestinians overseas, even if some were critical of some of the policies and the leadership style he favoured in his later years.
Arafat "was the dominant image, the dominant name for young Palestinians," said Nihad Awad, the executive-director of a prominent US Islamic advocacy organisation, the Washington, D.C.-based Council on Islamic-American Relations.
"He was the Nelson Mandela of the Palestinians," he said.
As a young man Awad was struck by Arafat's dedication to the project of Palestinian self-determination.
"You never saw him out of uniform. He gave his personal life for the cause," Awad said.
For Taleb Salhab, director of an Arab American center in Orlando, Florida-based Arab American Community Center, Arafat's passing is the "end of an era. He's the only leader we have ever known."
The row over Arafat's final resting place left some in the US community with a bad taste, another unwelcome reminder of their statelessness.
Arafat "cannot even have a funeral in his own country," said Ali Abunimah, a Chicago-based activist with the Arab American Action Network, an immigrant advocacy group, referring to Israel's refusal to let Palestinians bury Arafat in Jerusalem.
"It's emblematic of the conflict. They're denying this great Palestinian symbol the right to be buried in his own country," he said.
END
Palestinians in US recall Arafat as a unifier, symbol of nationhood
Thu Nov 11, 7:40 PM ET
CHICAGO (AFP) - For many Palestinians living in the United States the late Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) was an indefatigable crusader who kept the cause of Palestinian nationhood alive for decades.
AFP Photo
Palestinians in communities across the United States -- from New Jersey to Texas, Florida, Illinois and California -- prepared to mark Arafat's death with services and memorials.
In Washington, the Palestinian Mission set out a condolence book.
Palestinian-American Ray Hanania recalled how he and his family gathered in front of their television set to watch Arafat address the United Nations (news - web sites) general assembly in 1974.
"We were second-class citizens. He forced everybody to respect us," said Hanania, whose parents were Palestinian refugees.
"He took the Palestinians out of oblivion and shoved them in everybody's face," he said.
Rima Nashashibi saw the process first hand.
"Palestinians were invisible in 1968," recalled Nashashibi, who was born in Jerusalem and bounced between Israel and the United States before settling in Orange County, California.
Arafat "put them back on the map. He kept the struggle alive, and generated world-wide support for the Palestinian cause."
The guerrilla leader-turned-statesman was a powerful symbol to generations of Palestinians overseas, even if some were critical of some of the policies and the leadership style he favoured in his later years.
Arafat "was the dominant image, the dominant name for young Palestinians," said Nihad Awad, the executive-director of a prominent US Islamic advocacy organisation, the Washington, D.C.-based Council on Islamic-American Relations.
"He was the Nelson Mandela of the Palestinians," he said.
As a young man Awad was struck by Arafat's dedication to the project of Palestinian self-determination.
"You never saw him out of uniform. He gave his personal life for the cause," Awad said.
For Taleb Salhab, director of an Arab American center in Orlando, Florida-based Arab American Community Center, Arafat's passing is the "end of an era. He's the only leader we have ever known."
The row over Arafat's final resting place left some in the US community with a bad taste, another unwelcome reminder of their statelessness.
Arafat "cannot even have a funeral in his own country," said Ali Abunimah, a Chicago-based activist with the Arab American Action Network, an immigrant advocacy group, referring to Israel's refusal to let Palestinians bury Arafat in Jerusalem.
"It's emblematic of the conflict. They're denying this great Palestinian symbol the right to be buried in his own country," he said.
END
NEWSDAY: Arafat's legacy 11-12-04
NEWSDAY, New York
A HERO TO PALESTINIANS
Revolutionary leader's legacy will endure
BY RAY HANANIA
Ray Hanania is former national president of the Palestinian American Congress and a syndicated columnist based in Chicago.
November 12, 2004
As he survived ruthless assaults against his life over the years, Yasser Arafat's legacy will survive the blistering attacks from his harsh critics.
Arafat was a great revolutionary, a freedom fighter and, to the Palestinians, a hero. If Arafat can be faulted for anything, it was that he was never a good negotiator, nor was he a great government leader either.
But what revolutionaries ever are? Arafat faced an even greater, more insurmountable challenge of trying to transform from a revolutionary to the leader of a government constantly undermined by Israel's refusal to go far enough in making land concessions for peace.
Arafat's genius is undeniable. He took the Palestinian people out of an oblivious desert. And, in the face of the greatest hate-inspired propaganda campaign directed against any people on this Earth, he prevailed - exposing a canard instilled by Israeli extremism that "the Palestinians, they don't exist."
Arafat was the first real Palestinian leader who could and did recognize Israel's right to exist, even without demanding a quid pro quo from the Israelis. He accepted the concept of a two-state solution in spite of a rule of law that prevailed on the side of Palestinian claims.Arafat embraced the concept of a two-state solution that he mistakenly believed was on the up-and-up with Israel.
He did so knowing full well that during that process Israel never once acted on its promise to dismantle its settlements, which are illegal, every single one, in the face of even the most conservative interpretations of international law.
The peace process blamed on Arafat for failing was never on the up-and-up. It was always skewed toward Israel's best interests and advantage. It was managed by a negotiator with a religious conviction towards Israel, and a nation that was more advocate for Israel than a fair arbiter for compromise.
The assertion that Israel's offer to the Palestinians at Camp David was "fair" or "just" is so patently outrageous that it's hard to resume peace negotiations from that point with any seriousness.
There is only one fair solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict, and Arafat supported it. It's the Israelis who do not.
It is a compromise that demands the return of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, lands occupied in the 1967 War.
It is a compromise that demands Israel dismantle all of its illegal settlements, including those built around East Jerusalem on lands confiscated illegally from their Palestinian owners.Justice and fairness demand that Israel trade, inch-for-inch, land for any that it keeps. I
nstead, Israel's "greatest offer" proposed one inch for every nine inches of occupied land, and not even in writing.Arafat's compromise is a compromise that insists that Israel accept responsibility for creating the Palestinian refugee problem. Dozens of former Israeli leaders have confessed as much in their final writings. It's ridiculous and insulting to even entertain as serious Israel's rejection of responsibility.
Arafat's legacy defines the only compromise that is acceptable and workable. Either the Israelis accept it or they bequeath to the future endless violence and conflict.
Israel will forever be challenged by a people who refuse to surrender, who cannot be defeated and insist on a compromise based on fairness and justice.
As he did in life as a noble leader who deserves everlasting Palestinian gratitude, Arafat continues to elude his adversaries. Arafat survived a week of claims that he had died that began on the ninth anniversary of the assassination of his only real peace partner, Yitzhak Rabin.Many extremists, including Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, believe that now that men like Arafat and Rabin are gone, they can impose a solution that is neither just nor fair.
But Israelis must accept that there can be no peace without justice or fairness. Israelis can no longer continue to hide behind Arafat as the excuse for why peace is unachievable.
It's not Arafat who has been standing in the way of a genuine peace, but the refusal of most Israelis to be fair, just or even honest about history.
It's time for Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East and in the United States to re-embrace the Rabin-Arafat doctrine and change their attitudes and reopen the contacts that have been abandoned for the past four years. What Palestinians and Israelis need today is that attitude change to make peace possible.
It would have been a tremendous gesture of peace by the Israelis to allow Arafat to be buried in Jerusalem. But they refused that request. Instead, Arafat will be entombed in his old rubbled headquarters, the Muqata in Ramallah. Although Arafat, the man, will be gone, his inspiration to fight for justice and fairness is a legacy that will forever flourish among Palestinians.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.
A HERO TO PALESTINIANS
Revolutionary leader's legacy will endure
BY RAY HANANIA
Ray Hanania is former national president of the Palestinian American Congress and a syndicated columnist based in Chicago.
November 12, 2004
As he survived ruthless assaults against his life over the years, Yasser Arafat's legacy will survive the blistering attacks from his harsh critics.
Arafat was a great revolutionary, a freedom fighter and, to the Palestinians, a hero. If Arafat can be faulted for anything, it was that he was never a good negotiator, nor was he a great government leader either.
But what revolutionaries ever are? Arafat faced an even greater, more insurmountable challenge of trying to transform from a revolutionary to the leader of a government constantly undermined by Israel's refusal to go far enough in making land concessions for peace.
Arafat's genius is undeniable. He took the Palestinian people out of an oblivious desert. And, in the face of the greatest hate-inspired propaganda campaign directed against any people on this Earth, he prevailed - exposing a canard instilled by Israeli extremism that "the Palestinians, they don't exist."
Arafat was the first real Palestinian leader who could and did recognize Israel's right to exist, even without demanding a quid pro quo from the Israelis. He accepted the concept of a two-state solution in spite of a rule of law that prevailed on the side of Palestinian claims.Arafat embraced the concept of a two-state solution that he mistakenly believed was on the up-and-up with Israel.
He did so knowing full well that during that process Israel never once acted on its promise to dismantle its settlements, which are illegal, every single one, in the face of even the most conservative interpretations of international law.
The peace process blamed on Arafat for failing was never on the up-and-up. It was always skewed toward Israel's best interests and advantage. It was managed by a negotiator with a religious conviction towards Israel, and a nation that was more advocate for Israel than a fair arbiter for compromise.
The assertion that Israel's offer to the Palestinians at Camp David was "fair" or "just" is so patently outrageous that it's hard to resume peace negotiations from that point with any seriousness.
There is only one fair solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict, and Arafat supported it. It's the Israelis who do not.
It is a compromise that demands the return of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, lands occupied in the 1967 War.
It is a compromise that demands Israel dismantle all of its illegal settlements, including those built around East Jerusalem on lands confiscated illegally from their Palestinian owners.Justice and fairness demand that Israel trade, inch-for-inch, land for any that it keeps. I
nstead, Israel's "greatest offer" proposed one inch for every nine inches of occupied land, and not even in writing.Arafat's compromise is a compromise that insists that Israel accept responsibility for creating the Palestinian refugee problem. Dozens of former Israeli leaders have confessed as much in their final writings. It's ridiculous and insulting to even entertain as serious Israel's rejection of responsibility.
Arafat's legacy defines the only compromise that is acceptable and workable. Either the Israelis accept it or they bequeath to the future endless violence and conflict.
Israel will forever be challenged by a people who refuse to surrender, who cannot be defeated and insist on a compromise based on fairness and justice.
As he did in life as a noble leader who deserves everlasting Palestinian gratitude, Arafat continues to elude his adversaries. Arafat survived a week of claims that he had died that began on the ninth anniversary of the assassination of his only real peace partner, Yitzhak Rabin.Many extremists, including Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, believe that now that men like Arafat and Rabin are gone, they can impose a solution that is neither just nor fair.
But Israelis must accept that there can be no peace without justice or fairness. Israelis can no longer continue to hide behind Arafat as the excuse for why peace is unachievable.
It's not Arafat who has been standing in the way of a genuine peace, but the refusal of most Israelis to be fair, just or even honest about history.
It's time for Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East and in the United States to re-embrace the Rabin-Arafat doctrine and change their attitudes and reopen the contacts that have been abandoned for the past four years. What Palestinians and Israelis need today is that attitude change to make peace possible.
It would have been a tremendous gesture of peace by the Israelis to allow Arafat to be buried in Jerusalem. But they refused that request. Instead, Arafat will be entombed in his old rubbled headquarters, the Muqata in Ramallah. Although Arafat, the man, will be gone, his inspiration to fight for justice and fairness is a legacy that will forever flourish among Palestinians.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Chicago Tribune Interview/Reaction to Arafat death 11-11-04
LOCAL REACTION
Chicago Tribune
Yasser Arafat 1929 -- 2004
News echoes through areaPalestinians, Jews in Chicago wonder what future holds
By Deborah Horan and Ron Grossman, Tribune staff reporters. Tribune staff reporters Stephen Franklin and Gina Kim contributed to this report
Published November 11, 2004
Although news of Yasser Arafat's death was expected eventually, it still seemed unbelievable to some in the Chicago area when it came Wednesday.
"I think since Nov. 4, I've heard it six times. But apparently, this time it's true," said Ray Hanania, who learned of the death while listening to the radio on his drive home to Orland Park."People had him dead a week and a half ago. To me it symbolized his life. He was able to elude death and his enemies."
To some local Palestinians, Arafat was more than a besieged leader trapped by Israeli tanks inside his West Bank offices. For them, he was a revolutionary who represented a continuing struggle.
"He was, in my mind, George Washington," said Hanania, former national president of the Palestinian American Congress. "He symbolized the Palestinian movement in my eyes forever. Now that he is gone, I am apprehensive about what is going to happen. Is there anyone strong enough to take his place?"
While Arafat's health deteriorated this week, talk up and down Harlem Avenue, where Arabic script competes with English, was all about a world without him.
Palestinians here asked the same questions as those around the world: Would violence break out among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza? What would Israel do? Who among the Palestinians' leaders would step forward?
Many Palestinians interviewed earlier this week doubted that Arafat's departure from the political scene would change the dynamic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Under siege, Arafat had not ruled effectively for years, they said."
The reality is that for years he has been a sick old man imprisoned in the rubble of his headquarters in Ramallah," said Ali Abu Nimah, an activist with the Arab American Action Network, a Chicago-based community group.
But not all Palestinians were sad to see Arafat go."I didn't like him. He is no good for his people," said Jimmy Ayyash, 54, a Bridgeview restaurant owner who has been in the U.S. for 34 years. "They need a new leader to make peace because the Palestinians are suffering too much."During Arafat's illness, many Chicago-area Jews wondered what would come of the badly tattered hopes for peace between Israel and the Palestinians."
In the Jewish tradition, we are never joyous at the loss of human life," said David Abell, a spokesman for the Chicago Area Friends of Yesha, a group that supports Israel's settlers. "But when that human life represents true evil, as in the case of Mr. Arafat, the father of modern day terrorism ... humanity can breathe a sigh of relief that his evil has been removed from this world."
Steven B. Nasatir, president of the Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, spoke of Arafat as a "major impediment to peace," and the hope that "a new leadership emerges that can become the partner that Israel needs to make peace."
But Hatem Abudayyeh, executive director of the Arab American Action Network, sees Arafat's death as just one of thousands."
Arafat was a great man. Yes, Arafat was an icon," he said. "We're saddened by his death, but we don't ignore the fact that this is not an issue of individuals, it's an issue of a people who have been oppressed and occupied for 55 years."
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune
Chicago Tribune
Yasser Arafat 1929 -- 2004
News echoes through areaPalestinians, Jews in Chicago wonder what future holds
By Deborah Horan and Ron Grossman, Tribune staff reporters. Tribune staff reporters Stephen Franklin and Gina Kim contributed to this report
Published November 11, 2004
Although news of Yasser Arafat's death was expected eventually, it still seemed unbelievable to some in the Chicago area when it came Wednesday.
"I think since Nov. 4, I've heard it six times. But apparently, this time it's true," said Ray Hanania, who learned of the death while listening to the radio on his drive home to Orland Park."People had him dead a week and a half ago. To me it symbolized his life. He was able to elude death and his enemies."
To some local Palestinians, Arafat was more than a besieged leader trapped by Israeli tanks inside his West Bank offices. For them, he was a revolutionary who represented a continuing struggle.
"He was, in my mind, George Washington," said Hanania, former national president of the Palestinian American Congress. "He symbolized the Palestinian movement in my eyes forever. Now that he is gone, I am apprehensive about what is going to happen. Is there anyone strong enough to take his place?"
While Arafat's health deteriorated this week, talk up and down Harlem Avenue, where Arabic script competes with English, was all about a world without him.
Palestinians here asked the same questions as those around the world: Would violence break out among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza? What would Israel do? Who among the Palestinians' leaders would step forward?
Many Palestinians interviewed earlier this week doubted that Arafat's departure from the political scene would change the dynamic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Under siege, Arafat had not ruled effectively for years, they said."
The reality is that for years he has been a sick old man imprisoned in the rubble of his headquarters in Ramallah," said Ali Abu Nimah, an activist with the Arab American Action Network, a Chicago-based community group.
But not all Palestinians were sad to see Arafat go."I didn't like him. He is no good for his people," said Jimmy Ayyash, 54, a Bridgeview restaurant owner who has been in the U.S. for 34 years. "They need a new leader to make peace because the Palestinians are suffering too much."During Arafat's illness, many Chicago-area Jews wondered what would come of the badly tattered hopes for peace between Israel and the Palestinians."
In the Jewish tradition, we are never joyous at the loss of human life," said David Abell, a spokesman for the Chicago Area Friends of Yesha, a group that supports Israel's settlers. "But when that human life represents true evil, as in the case of Mr. Arafat, the father of modern day terrorism ... humanity can breathe a sigh of relief that his evil has been removed from this world."
Steven B. Nasatir, president of the Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, spoke of Arafat as a "major impediment to peace," and the hope that "a new leadership emerges that can become the partner that Israel needs to make peace."
But Hatem Abudayyeh, executive director of the Arab American Action Network, sees Arafat's death as just one of thousands."
Arafat was a great man. Yes, Arafat was an icon," he said. "We're saddened by his death, but we don't ignore the fact that this is not an issue of individuals, it's an issue of a people who have been oppressed and occupied for 55 years."
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune
Monday, November 08, 2004
In defense of Yasser Arafat's legacy, 11-08-04
Yasser Arafat’s legacy remains heroic
Arab American Media Services/permission granted to reprint
Monday Nov. 8, 2004
By Ray Hanania
The New York Times’ self-hating "moderate" columnist, Thomas L. Friedman, always does his best to disguise his religious-based pro-Israel bias. But in the saga of the deteriorating health of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, he can’t seem to restrain a bitter hatred that merely demonstrates his anti-Palestinian bias.
Writes Friedman, Arafat "was a bad man, not simply for the way he introduced a whole new level of terrorism to the world politics, but because of the crimes he committed against his own people. There, history will judge him harshly."
No Mr. Friedman, pro-Israeli religious hypocrites like you will continue to savage the Palestinians while soft-balling criticism of Israel, mainly because you, too, oppose a just and fair peace accord based on a truly balanced scale of land for peace.
As he survived ruthless assaults against his life over the years, Arafat’s legacy will survive the blistering prejudice of Israel’s cunning advocates like Friedman who dominate the Western media and English-speaking history with pro-Israel blather.
Friedman doesn’t have the Chutzpah to advocate for a genuine peace, nor hold his people, the Israelis to the same harsh standards that he constantly inflicts upon Palestinians who, like Arafat, had insisted on a peace that was just and fair.
Arafat was a hero. Plain and simple. He was a revolutionary in the same sense of George Washington. If Arafat can be faulted for anything, it was that he was never a good negotiator, nor was he a great government leader either. But what revolutionaries ever are?
Arafat faced an even greater, more insurmountable challenge of trying to transform from a revolutionary to the leader of a government constantly undermined and influenced by Israel.
But his genius is undeniable.
Arafat took the Palestinian people out of an oblivious desert. And in the face of the greatest ever hate-inspired propaganda campaign directed against any people on this Earth, he prevailed exposing a canard instilled by Israeli extremism (which is more common than Friedman or others would admit) that "the Palestinians, they don’t exist."
Arafat was the only Palestinian leader who could and did recognize Israel’s right to exist, even without demanding a quid pro quo from the Israelis. He accepted the concept of a two-state solution in spite of a rule of law that prevailed on the side of Palestinian claims.
Arafat embraced a negotiated compromise that he mistakenly believed was on the up-and-up with Israel. He did so knowing full well that during that process Israel never once acted on its promise to dismantle its settlements, which are illegal, every single one, in the face of even the most conservative interpretations of international law.
The peace process blamed on Arafat for failing was never on the up-and-up. It was always skewered toward Israel’s best interests and advantage. It was managed by a negotiator with a religious conviction towards Israel, and a nation that was more advocate for Israel than a fair arbiter for compromise.
The assertion that Israel’s offer to the Palestinians at Camp David was "fair" or "just" is so patently outrageous that it’s hard to resume peace negotiations from that point with any seriousness.
It may have been the "best offer," but it was flawed. Never written down. Never affirmed. Always waved like a mirage to draw the Palestinians into conceding more in exchange for what they always get from Israel, nothing.
There is only one fair solution to the Palestine Israel conflict and Arafat supported it. It’s the Israelis who do not. It is a compromise that demands the return of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, lands occupied in the 1967 War.
It is a compromise that demands that Israel dismantle ALL of its illegal settlements, including those built around East Jerusalem on lands confiscated illegally from their rightful Palestinian owners. Justice and fairness demands that Israel trade, inch-for-inch, land for any that it keeps. Instead, Israel’s "greatest offer" proposed 1 inch for every 9 inches of occupied land, and not even in writing.
Arafat’s compromise is a compromise that insists that Israel accept responsibility for creating the Palestinian refugee problem. Dozens of former Israeli leaders have confessed as much in their final writings. It’s ridiculous and insulting to even entertain as serious Israel’s rejection of responsibility.
Arafat’s legacy defines the only compromise that is acceptable and workable. Either the Israelis accept it or they bequeath to a future endless violence and conflict.
Israel will forever be challenged by a people who refused to surrender, who cannot be defeated and how insist on a compromise based on fairness and justice.
As he did in life as a noble leader who deserves everlasting Palestinian gratitude, Arafat continues to elude his adversaries, including his most recent, the call of God himself.
Arafat will die when he chooses, and not a minute sooner.
I thought it was the ultimate irony that news of Arafat’s "death" began on the very day that many remembered his only real partner in peace, Yitzhak Rabin. Rabin was murdered by an Israeli fanatic on Nov. 4, 1995, demonstrating that Israelis are just as prone to violence in the face of a reasoned outcome that requires true compromise.
Many extremists, including Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, believe that now that men like Arafat and Rabin are gone, they can impose a solution that is neither just nor fair.
But Israelis must accept that there can be no peace without justice or fairness. Israelis can no longer continue to hide behind Arafat as the excuse for why peace is unachievable.
It’s not Arafat who has been standing in the way of a genuine peace, but the refusal of most Israelis to be fair, just or even honest about history.
Although Arafat, the man, will be gone, his inspiration to fight for justice and fairness is a legacy that will forever flourish among Palestinians.
# # #
Arab American Media Services/permission granted to reprint
Monday Nov. 8, 2004
By Ray Hanania
The New York Times’ self-hating "moderate" columnist, Thomas L. Friedman, always does his best to disguise his religious-based pro-Israel bias. But in the saga of the deteriorating health of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, he can’t seem to restrain a bitter hatred that merely demonstrates his anti-Palestinian bias.
Writes Friedman, Arafat "was a bad man, not simply for the way he introduced a whole new level of terrorism to the world politics, but because of the crimes he committed against his own people. There, history will judge him harshly."
No Mr. Friedman, pro-Israeli religious hypocrites like you will continue to savage the Palestinians while soft-balling criticism of Israel, mainly because you, too, oppose a just and fair peace accord based on a truly balanced scale of land for peace.
As he survived ruthless assaults against his life over the years, Arafat’s legacy will survive the blistering prejudice of Israel’s cunning advocates like Friedman who dominate the Western media and English-speaking history with pro-Israel blather.
Friedman doesn’t have the Chutzpah to advocate for a genuine peace, nor hold his people, the Israelis to the same harsh standards that he constantly inflicts upon Palestinians who, like Arafat, had insisted on a peace that was just and fair.
Arafat was a hero. Plain and simple. He was a revolutionary in the same sense of George Washington. If Arafat can be faulted for anything, it was that he was never a good negotiator, nor was he a great government leader either. But what revolutionaries ever are?
Arafat faced an even greater, more insurmountable challenge of trying to transform from a revolutionary to the leader of a government constantly undermined and influenced by Israel.
But his genius is undeniable.
Arafat took the Palestinian people out of an oblivious desert. And in the face of the greatest ever hate-inspired propaganda campaign directed against any people on this Earth, he prevailed exposing a canard instilled by Israeli extremism (which is more common than Friedman or others would admit) that "the Palestinians, they don’t exist."
Arafat was the only Palestinian leader who could and did recognize Israel’s right to exist, even without demanding a quid pro quo from the Israelis. He accepted the concept of a two-state solution in spite of a rule of law that prevailed on the side of Palestinian claims.
Arafat embraced a negotiated compromise that he mistakenly believed was on the up-and-up with Israel. He did so knowing full well that during that process Israel never once acted on its promise to dismantle its settlements, which are illegal, every single one, in the face of even the most conservative interpretations of international law.
The peace process blamed on Arafat for failing was never on the up-and-up. It was always skewered toward Israel’s best interests and advantage. It was managed by a negotiator with a religious conviction towards Israel, and a nation that was more advocate for Israel than a fair arbiter for compromise.
The assertion that Israel’s offer to the Palestinians at Camp David was "fair" or "just" is so patently outrageous that it’s hard to resume peace negotiations from that point with any seriousness.
It may have been the "best offer," but it was flawed. Never written down. Never affirmed. Always waved like a mirage to draw the Palestinians into conceding more in exchange for what they always get from Israel, nothing.
There is only one fair solution to the Palestine Israel conflict and Arafat supported it. It’s the Israelis who do not. It is a compromise that demands the return of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, lands occupied in the 1967 War.
It is a compromise that demands that Israel dismantle ALL of its illegal settlements, including those built around East Jerusalem on lands confiscated illegally from their rightful Palestinian owners. Justice and fairness demands that Israel trade, inch-for-inch, land for any that it keeps. Instead, Israel’s "greatest offer" proposed 1 inch for every 9 inches of occupied land, and not even in writing.
Arafat’s compromise is a compromise that insists that Israel accept responsibility for creating the Palestinian refugee problem. Dozens of former Israeli leaders have confessed as much in their final writings. It’s ridiculous and insulting to even entertain as serious Israel’s rejection of responsibility.
Arafat’s legacy defines the only compromise that is acceptable and workable. Either the Israelis accept it or they bequeath to a future endless violence and conflict.
Israel will forever be challenged by a people who refused to surrender, who cannot be defeated and how insist on a compromise based on fairness and justice.
As he did in life as a noble leader who deserves everlasting Palestinian gratitude, Arafat continues to elude his adversaries, including his most recent, the call of God himself.
Arafat will die when he chooses, and not a minute sooner.
I thought it was the ultimate irony that news of Arafat’s "death" began on the very day that many remembered his only real partner in peace, Yitzhak Rabin. Rabin was murdered by an Israeli fanatic on Nov. 4, 1995, demonstrating that Israelis are just as prone to violence in the face of a reasoned outcome that requires true compromise.
Many extremists, including Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, believe that now that men like Arafat and Rabin are gone, they can impose a solution that is neither just nor fair.
But Israelis must accept that there can be no peace without justice or fairness. Israelis can no longer continue to hide behind Arafat as the excuse for why peace is unachievable.
It’s not Arafat who has been standing in the way of a genuine peace, but the refusal of most Israelis to be fair, just or even honest about history.
Although Arafat, the man, will be gone, his inspiration to fight for justice and fairness is a legacy that will forever flourish among Palestinians.
# # #
Friday, November 05, 2004
American Muslim strength weakened by incomplete coalition 11-5-04
American Muslim strength weakened by incomplete coalition
Creators Syndicate Friday Nov. 5, 2004
By Ray Hanania
This is the second presidential election where Muslim voters are left to question their impact and the performance of their leaders.
Although John Kerry's loss to President Bush is now confirmed, there is no doubt that the loss of Muslim Americans is decisive.
The blame rests squarely on the failed strategy of the Muslim American leadership. Their performance has not been good.
In the 2000 elections, Muslims claimed that their swing votes in key states gave Bush the edge over Al Gore and "decided the election." In the wake of that assertion and Sept. 11th, the stature of the Muslim voting bloc has risen dubiously.
When it came to resolving conflicts in the Middle East and Muslim World, Bush turned out to be a disaster.
Reacting out of anger and betrayal, Muslims claimed rather incredulously that their 9 million voters would be the key factor in four swing states of Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
So confident were they that they formally declared endorsement for Kerry.
Yet in analyzing the election, many probabilities appear to be certainties:
The so-called Muslim endorsement of Bush in 2000 was driven by all the wrong reasons.
First, the Bush support came mainly from non-Arab Muslims with traditionally close business ties to the Republicans. They knew going in Bush would not resolve the Middle East conflict. It was not their priority.
Second, Arab Muslims voted against Al Gore rather than for Bush. This was driven by Gore's decision to slate Senator Joseph Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, for vice president.
It also explains why Ralph Nader, an Arab American, did better in 2000 than in 2004.
Though Nader's vote dropped, his support remained high among Arab and Muslim voters -- that despite the effort of some community "leaders" to alter the perception.
Polls by John Zogby, brother of Democratic beneficiary and Arab American activist Jim Zogby, claimed 76 percent of Muslim/Arab voters supported Kerry. In contrast, polls by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) more accurately predicted Nader would draw significant votes and cut Kerry's down to 54 percent in the same group.
In those areas where Muslims and Arabs are most concentrated - a speculative factor never scientifically confirmed - Nader drew strongest support.
There is no question Nader drew his support mainly from "Arabs," who are both Christian and Muslim, while Kerry held on to non-Arab Muslims.
Both Bush and Kerry bought into the fallacy of the so-called Muslim/Arab voting bloc. Kerry worked through Zogby to appoint cronies to key campaign positions while Bush reached out mainly to non-Arab Muslim groups.
The result is that is election has done great harm to the Arab and Muslim American community. In reality, the so-called Muslim vote was not an influential voting bloc at all.
Rather it is a community in total disarray with selfish, politically naïve leaders.
A key reason for this is the decision by many to organize mainly on the basis of religion, as "Muslims" rather than as a more powerful secular voting bloc that embraced Arab Christians.
The Muslim World has more than 40 million Christians: 15 million in Indonesia, 9 million in Egypt, 3 million in Pakistan, and 13 million in 6 non-Arab and 21 remaining Arab countries.
In addition to the 9 million American Muslims (7 million non-Arab and 2 million Arab) there
are about 2 million Christian Arab Americans left out of the wave of "Muslim activism."
Rather than exploiting this natural coalition, Muslim Organizations enjoyed their "special status," nurtured mainly out of post-Sept. 11th misconceptions and the failure of Americans to correctly understand the subtleties of two terms, "Arab" and "Muslim."
The fact is Arab American Christians have higher voter registration. They have a more successful track record in American politics, holding 90 percent of the so-called Arab elective offices.
The Muslim coalitions marginalized Arab American Christians. The Christian factor could have served to off-set the anti-Muslim backlash that continues to fester among many Americans.
When Muslims formally endorsed Kerry, did they really help Kerry or undermine his support among American voters who wrongly view Islam in a negative light.
Success could only be achieved through a Muslim and Arab Christian coalition.
Yet this Christian Arab muscle remains an overlooked resource. Until this resource is recognized, Muslim Americans can never truly attain their peak performance in American elections.
# # #
Creators Syndicate Friday Nov. 5, 2004
By Ray Hanania
This is the second presidential election where Muslim voters are left to question their impact and the performance of their leaders.
Although John Kerry's loss to President Bush is now confirmed, there is no doubt that the loss of Muslim Americans is decisive.
The blame rests squarely on the failed strategy of the Muslim American leadership. Their performance has not been good.
In the 2000 elections, Muslims claimed that their swing votes in key states gave Bush the edge over Al Gore and "decided the election." In the wake of that assertion and Sept. 11th, the stature of the Muslim voting bloc has risen dubiously.
When it came to resolving conflicts in the Middle East and Muslim World, Bush turned out to be a disaster.
Reacting out of anger and betrayal, Muslims claimed rather incredulously that their 9 million voters would be the key factor in four swing states of Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
So confident were they that they formally declared endorsement for Kerry.
Yet in analyzing the election, many probabilities appear to be certainties:
The so-called Muslim endorsement of Bush in 2000 was driven by all the wrong reasons.
First, the Bush support came mainly from non-Arab Muslims with traditionally close business ties to the Republicans. They knew going in Bush would not resolve the Middle East conflict. It was not their priority.
Second, Arab Muslims voted against Al Gore rather than for Bush. This was driven by Gore's decision to slate Senator Joseph Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, for vice president.
It also explains why Ralph Nader, an Arab American, did better in 2000 than in 2004.
Though Nader's vote dropped, his support remained high among Arab and Muslim voters -- that despite the effort of some community "leaders" to alter the perception.
Polls by John Zogby, brother of Democratic beneficiary and Arab American activist Jim Zogby, claimed 76 percent of Muslim/Arab voters supported Kerry. In contrast, polls by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) more accurately predicted Nader would draw significant votes and cut Kerry's down to 54 percent in the same group.
In those areas where Muslims and Arabs are most concentrated - a speculative factor never scientifically confirmed - Nader drew strongest support.
There is no question Nader drew his support mainly from "Arabs," who are both Christian and Muslim, while Kerry held on to non-Arab Muslims.
Both Bush and Kerry bought into the fallacy of the so-called Muslim/Arab voting bloc. Kerry worked through Zogby to appoint cronies to key campaign positions while Bush reached out mainly to non-Arab Muslim groups.
The result is that is election has done great harm to the Arab and Muslim American community. In reality, the so-called Muslim vote was not an influential voting bloc at all.
Rather it is a community in total disarray with selfish, politically naïve leaders.
A key reason for this is the decision by many to organize mainly on the basis of religion, as "Muslims" rather than as a more powerful secular voting bloc that embraced Arab Christians.
The Muslim World has more than 40 million Christians: 15 million in Indonesia, 9 million in Egypt, 3 million in Pakistan, and 13 million in 6 non-Arab and 21 remaining Arab countries.
In addition to the 9 million American Muslims (7 million non-Arab and 2 million Arab) there
are about 2 million Christian Arab Americans left out of the wave of "Muslim activism."
Rather than exploiting this natural coalition, Muslim Organizations enjoyed their "special status," nurtured mainly out of post-Sept. 11th misconceptions and the failure of Americans to correctly understand the subtleties of two terms, "Arab" and "Muslim."
The fact is Arab American Christians have higher voter registration. They have a more successful track record in American politics, holding 90 percent of the so-called Arab elective offices.
The Muslim coalitions marginalized Arab American Christians. The Christian factor could have served to off-set the anti-Muslim backlash that continues to fester among many Americans.
When Muslims formally endorsed Kerry, did they really help Kerry or undermine his support among American voters who wrongly view Islam in a negative light.
Success could only be achieved through a Muslim and Arab Christian coalition.
Yet this Christian Arab muscle remains an overlooked resource. Until this resource is recognized, Muslim Americans can never truly attain their peak performance in American elections.
# # #
Friday, October 29, 2004
Bin Laden tape important for what is not said Oct. 29, 2004
Bin Laden tape important for what the killer doesn’t say
Arab American Media Services Oct. 29, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Osama Bin Laden must be feeling a bit ignored these days. The world’s number one criminal released a videotape in which he continues to make empty threats and falsely claims to be the champion of the downtrodden.
Isn’t that typical of all serial killers, mass murderers and tyrants?
Observers are weighing how the videotape might impact the presidential election battle between President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry
But certainly, from reading the transcript of his comments, Bin Laden’s ridiculous ranting has no relation to the election.
All it does demonstrate is how weakened he has become when he no longer has the advantage of surprise, and how empty his threats become in the face of a more vigilant America and world.
Bin Laden’s remarks are simply not worth the time to analyze. He is little more than a liar, a murderer and a criminal. Chances are Bin Laden produced the videotape because he feels left out of the game.
The people who watch this tape are probably doing so because there is an inherent human tendency to be intrigued and drawn to the horrors or violence and images of murderers.
No one cares about the content of his message.
Even the Arab Street which was allowed to view the videotape on the al-Jazeera satellite network while Americans and the West viewed only censored bits and pieces, can see through his lies.
Bin Laden never championed Palestinian rights or anyone’s rights. Rather than be the champion of Islam, he is a blasphemer who has bastardized the true spirit of Islam, desecrating every word.
The Palestinians may have a just cause and the Arab World may be filled with brutal tyrants, but those are not the causes that motivated Bin Laden to attack the United States on Sept. 11th in the most cowardly manner possible hijacking commercial planes and murdering innocent civilians.
Sept. 11th did injure Americans, but not their spirit. It did little to weaken its World power. If anything, America is even strong and more powerful.
But more importantly, Sept. 11th was less the result of mastermind strategy and planning and more the result of pure luck that America was unprepared.
Today, America is prepared.
If the tape has any impact on the presidential election, it will be purely accidental.
It serves as a reminder that this international thug remains at large far longer than is tolerable, a message that Bin Laden was not intending.
The fact that Bin Laden is still at-large rather than shackled and awaiting execution in a prison cell is a crime that can be blamed on Bush.
Instead of attacking Iraq, Bush should have remained focused on the real War on Terrorism, focused on Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Had Bush fought the War on Terrorism properly, Saddam Hussein might well still be in power in Iraq playing his cat and mouse games with the United Nations and the International community.
But Osama Bin Laden would not be free.
And as long as Bin Laden is not in custody, the Bush "War on Terrorism" will remain a complete and utter failure.
That is definitely something American voters should keep in mind when they cast their ballots Tuesday.
# # #
Arab American Media Services Oct. 29, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Osama Bin Laden must be feeling a bit ignored these days. The world’s number one criminal released a videotape in which he continues to make empty threats and falsely claims to be the champion of the downtrodden.
Isn’t that typical of all serial killers, mass murderers and tyrants?
Observers are weighing how the videotape might impact the presidential election battle between President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry
But certainly, from reading the transcript of his comments, Bin Laden’s ridiculous ranting has no relation to the election.
All it does demonstrate is how weakened he has become when he no longer has the advantage of surprise, and how empty his threats become in the face of a more vigilant America and world.
Bin Laden’s remarks are simply not worth the time to analyze. He is little more than a liar, a murderer and a criminal. Chances are Bin Laden produced the videotape because he feels left out of the game.
The people who watch this tape are probably doing so because there is an inherent human tendency to be intrigued and drawn to the horrors or violence and images of murderers.
No one cares about the content of his message.
Even the Arab Street which was allowed to view the videotape on the al-Jazeera satellite network while Americans and the West viewed only censored bits and pieces, can see through his lies.
Bin Laden never championed Palestinian rights or anyone’s rights. Rather than be the champion of Islam, he is a blasphemer who has bastardized the true spirit of Islam, desecrating every word.
The Palestinians may have a just cause and the Arab World may be filled with brutal tyrants, but those are not the causes that motivated Bin Laden to attack the United States on Sept. 11th in the most cowardly manner possible hijacking commercial planes and murdering innocent civilians.
Sept. 11th did injure Americans, but not their spirit. It did little to weaken its World power. If anything, America is even strong and more powerful.
But more importantly, Sept. 11th was less the result of mastermind strategy and planning and more the result of pure luck that America was unprepared.
Today, America is prepared.
If the tape has any impact on the presidential election, it will be purely accidental.
It serves as a reminder that this international thug remains at large far longer than is tolerable, a message that Bin Laden was not intending.
The fact that Bin Laden is still at-large rather than shackled and awaiting execution in a prison cell is a crime that can be blamed on Bush.
Instead of attacking Iraq, Bush should have remained focused on the real War on Terrorism, focused on Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
Had Bush fought the War on Terrorism properly, Saddam Hussein might well still be in power in Iraq playing his cat and mouse games with the United Nations and the International community.
But Osama Bin Laden would not be free.
And as long as Bin Laden is not in custody, the Bush "War on Terrorism" will remain a complete and utter failure.
That is definitely something American voters should keep in mind when they cast their ballots Tuesday.
# # #
Arafat's demise would plunge region into worsened conflict
Arafat’s demise would plunge region into worsened conflict
Creators Syndicate Friday Oct. 29, 2004
Daily Herald Monday, Nov. 1, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Israelis blame Palestinian President Yasser Arafat for the collapse of the peace process.
It’s not surprising Israel has intentionally stalled the peace process in the hopes he will die or be replaced.
This past week, the Israelis almost got their wish when the 75-year-old Palestinian leader became seriously ill.
Unfortunately, Arafat holds the only key to genuine peace with Israel. Rather than give Palestinians and Israelis a new opportunity for peace, his demise would plunge the two into worsened conflict.
It’s hard to believe the conflict can get worse, but in Arafat’s absence, it will.
There is no other Palestinian who supports peace based on two-states who also has the power to make that happen.
Several Palestinians are viewed as successors and include Hanan Ashrawi, one of the most qualified, and Marwan Barghouti, a political dissident imprisoned by Israel.
While both might satisfy Israel's preconditions for peace, and enjoy strong popular support, neither can overcome the growing threat of Islamic extremism to achieve compromise. Only Arafat has that power.
Rather than open a new door to peace, Arafat’s demise will instead pave the way for another Palestinian leadership, one driven by political extremism and the rejection of compromise with Israeli based on religious faith.
It is a force Israel inadvertently helped create. In the late 1970s, Israeli hardliners including Ariel Sharon helped Sheik Ahmed Yassin launch an Islamic alternative to Arafat in the Gaza Strip. They believed then that they needed to jump-start a religious alternative in order to undermine Arafat’s growing influence. They never expected Yassin’s religious alternative would become Israel’s true nightmare, Hamas.
That policy continues in a new form today.
By destroying Arafat’s secular government, Israeli hardliners have strengthened Hamas and the Islamicist alternative. The viciousness of the current conflict coupled with Israel’s continued expropriation of Palestinian lands and expansion of illegal settlements not only in the West Bank but also around East Jerusalem, fuel the current conflict.
Growing anger among the Palestinian population is directed not only against Israel, but also against the concept of peace based on two-states.
Faced with an Israel that refuses to compromise on Jerusalem or accept responsibility for creating the Palestinian refugee problem, more and more Palestinians believe continued conflict will transform Israel into an acceptable inevitability.
In absorbing the occupied territories and with a faster Arab population growth, the majority population in Israel will be non-Jewish. Why compromise as Arafat has argued?
Arafat represents a secular solution to the conflict based on compromise and two-states. Hamas represents a religious alternative based on faith and belief that feeds on conflict. Continued conflict, they believe, will inevitably transform Israel into an Islamic state.
Unlike the secular option, religious faith does not stumble on the lack of reason or logic.
Arafat symbolizes the recognition that there is no real choice but to compromise with Israel. More importantly, Arafat has the power to make a compromise work.
Israel’s shortsighted policies that have imprisoned Arafat in his headquarters in Ramallah and marginalized his role in possible peace talks insure no secular successor will be groomed to take his place.
A future without Arafat is a future of more suicide bombings, more violence and an unreasoned resistance waiting for the one opportunity to deliver a fatal blow.
The only things preventing Israelis from seeing this bleak certainty is arrogance and a refusal to do the right thing.
# # #
(CORRECTION: In some editions of the column, a typo reference "Mustafa" Barghouti rather than "Marwan" Barghouti.)
Creators Syndicate Friday Oct. 29, 2004
Daily Herald Monday, Nov. 1, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Israelis blame Palestinian President Yasser Arafat for the collapse of the peace process.
It’s not surprising Israel has intentionally stalled the peace process in the hopes he will die or be replaced.
This past week, the Israelis almost got their wish when the 75-year-old Palestinian leader became seriously ill.
Unfortunately, Arafat holds the only key to genuine peace with Israel. Rather than give Palestinians and Israelis a new opportunity for peace, his demise would plunge the two into worsened conflict.
It’s hard to believe the conflict can get worse, but in Arafat’s absence, it will.
There is no other Palestinian who supports peace based on two-states who also has the power to make that happen.
Several Palestinians are viewed as successors and include Hanan Ashrawi, one of the most qualified, and Marwan Barghouti, a political dissident imprisoned by Israel.
While both might satisfy Israel's preconditions for peace, and enjoy strong popular support, neither can overcome the growing threat of Islamic extremism to achieve compromise. Only Arafat has that power.
Rather than open a new door to peace, Arafat’s demise will instead pave the way for another Palestinian leadership, one driven by political extremism and the rejection of compromise with Israeli based on religious faith.
It is a force Israel inadvertently helped create. In the late 1970s, Israeli hardliners including Ariel Sharon helped Sheik Ahmed Yassin launch an Islamic alternative to Arafat in the Gaza Strip. They believed then that they needed to jump-start a religious alternative in order to undermine Arafat’s growing influence. They never expected Yassin’s religious alternative would become Israel’s true nightmare, Hamas.
That policy continues in a new form today.
By destroying Arafat’s secular government, Israeli hardliners have strengthened Hamas and the Islamicist alternative. The viciousness of the current conflict coupled with Israel’s continued expropriation of Palestinian lands and expansion of illegal settlements not only in the West Bank but also around East Jerusalem, fuel the current conflict.
Growing anger among the Palestinian population is directed not only against Israel, but also against the concept of peace based on two-states.
Faced with an Israel that refuses to compromise on Jerusalem or accept responsibility for creating the Palestinian refugee problem, more and more Palestinians believe continued conflict will transform Israel into an acceptable inevitability.
In absorbing the occupied territories and with a faster Arab population growth, the majority population in Israel will be non-Jewish. Why compromise as Arafat has argued?
Arafat represents a secular solution to the conflict based on compromise and two-states. Hamas represents a religious alternative based on faith and belief that feeds on conflict. Continued conflict, they believe, will inevitably transform Israel into an Islamic state.
Unlike the secular option, religious faith does not stumble on the lack of reason or logic.
Arafat symbolizes the recognition that there is no real choice but to compromise with Israel. More importantly, Arafat has the power to make a compromise work.
Israel’s shortsighted policies that have imprisoned Arafat in his headquarters in Ramallah and marginalized his role in possible peace talks insure no secular successor will be groomed to take his place.
A future without Arafat is a future of more suicide bombings, more violence and an unreasoned resistance waiting for the one opportunity to deliver a fatal blow.
The only things preventing Israelis from seeing this bleak certainty is arrogance and a refusal to do the right thing.
# # #
(CORRECTION: In some editions of the column, a typo reference "Mustafa" Barghouti rather than "Marwan" Barghouti.)
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Israeli occupation smothers the little Town of Bethlehem Oct. 28, 2004
Israeli occupation smothers the Little Town of Bethlehem
Bonus Column Thursday Oct. 28, 2004
By Ray Hanania
BETHLEHEM, Occupied West Bank – To help the family survive, Anthony opened a small grocery store on Madbussa Street which is today the main street in this town best known as the birthplace of Jesus Christ.
"The fact that Christ is from this town," Anthony shrugs as he gives me a tour of the city, "has long been forgotten by the Christian World. These days, it is best known for suffering. The Israelis come and go as they please. They take our lands. And they do worse to our people."
A Christian only 24, Anthony said he had to close the store. His family survives on its dwindling savings and on charity from relatives abroad, he sighs. He guides me through the "Christian Triangle" of Bethlehem, Beit Sahour and Beit Jala.
The first stop is the old Main Street. Israeli settlers and soldiers barricade Rachel’s Tomb and the street in an ugly mass of concrete, barbed wire and machine gun turrets. It’s about 5 acres of land "cleansed" of Palestinians and their property.
"They want our land and want us out," he sighs. "This road used to go to Jerusalem. We’re not allowed to enter Jerusalem. They say its an ‘open’ city, but not for us."
The Israelis are building a 26 foot tall wall of concrete around Bethlehem, becoming a giant prison. It’s not a "fence."
The shops along Nativity Square are desolate. Homes crushed into rubble by repeated Israelis assaults remain as reminders.
To the north is "Har Homa," an Israeli settlement built in 1991 atop a Palestinian mountain. "That was Palestinian land they took. They built a beautiful city for the Jewish people."
To the Northwest is Gilo, another Israeli settlement built in 1971 on land Israel confiscated from Christians. My guide predicts Israel will confiscate Shepherd’s Field, nestled to the west near Beit Sahour.
"Israelis want to destroy our city. Do you read about that in American media?" he asks indignant about American Christians who he and other Christians say "are not Christian at all."
Archimandrite Attallah Hanna, the Jerusalem spokesman for the Orthodox Church, scolds the media and "Christians" of the West.
"A real Christian stands with the oppressed people," he says. "There is a huge contradiction between Christianity of America and what is taking place in the origins of Christianity."
Everyone here praises the Presbyterian and Anglican Churches for defending Palestinian rights. The two Christian groups adopted tough policies divesting from Israel to protest Israel’s brutal occupation.
Anthony wonders why other American Christians have "turned their backs" and why the media fails "to show the truth" about Israel’s destruction of Christian communities.
As I drive through the three cities, I can’t help to wonder that myself. Israelis argue the plight of Christians is the result of Muslim persecution. But when you speak with the Christians in Palestine, they point an accusing finger at Israel and its bank roller, the United States.
The Apache helicopters that fly overhead and terrorize the people of Bethlehem, like everything used by the Israeli military, is American made. Hundreds of innocent Palestinians have been killed. All those killed by Israel, including the children, have been brushed off as "terrorists" and "suicide bombers" when they are not.
I try to explain many American are blinded to the truth by pro-Israeli propaganda and lies. Americans are the ones who are really occupied.
I’d hate to think Americans don’t want to see the truth.
# # #
Bonus Column Thursday Oct. 28, 2004
By Ray Hanania
BETHLEHEM, Occupied West Bank – To help the family survive, Anthony opened a small grocery store on Madbussa Street which is today the main street in this town best known as the birthplace of Jesus Christ.
"The fact that Christ is from this town," Anthony shrugs as he gives me a tour of the city, "has long been forgotten by the Christian World. These days, it is best known for suffering. The Israelis come and go as they please. They take our lands. And they do worse to our people."
A Christian only 24, Anthony said he had to close the store. His family survives on its dwindling savings and on charity from relatives abroad, he sighs. He guides me through the "Christian Triangle" of Bethlehem, Beit Sahour and Beit Jala.
The first stop is the old Main Street. Israeli settlers and soldiers barricade Rachel’s Tomb and the street in an ugly mass of concrete, barbed wire and machine gun turrets. It’s about 5 acres of land "cleansed" of Palestinians and their property.
"They want our land and want us out," he sighs. "This road used to go to Jerusalem. We’re not allowed to enter Jerusalem. They say its an ‘open’ city, but not for us."
The Israelis are building a 26 foot tall wall of concrete around Bethlehem, becoming a giant prison. It’s not a "fence."
The shops along Nativity Square are desolate. Homes crushed into rubble by repeated Israelis assaults remain as reminders.
To the north is "Har Homa," an Israeli settlement built in 1991 atop a Palestinian mountain. "That was Palestinian land they took. They built a beautiful city for the Jewish people."
To the Northwest is Gilo, another Israeli settlement built in 1971 on land Israel confiscated from Christians. My guide predicts Israel will confiscate Shepherd’s Field, nestled to the west near Beit Sahour.
"Israelis want to destroy our city. Do you read about that in American media?" he asks indignant about American Christians who he and other Christians say "are not Christian at all."
Archimandrite Attallah Hanna, the Jerusalem spokesman for the Orthodox Church, scolds the media and "Christians" of the West.
"A real Christian stands with the oppressed people," he says. "There is a huge contradiction between Christianity of America and what is taking place in the origins of Christianity."
Everyone here praises the Presbyterian and Anglican Churches for defending Palestinian rights. The two Christian groups adopted tough policies divesting from Israel to protest Israel’s brutal occupation.
Anthony wonders why other American Christians have "turned their backs" and why the media fails "to show the truth" about Israel’s destruction of Christian communities.
As I drive through the three cities, I can’t help to wonder that myself. Israelis argue the plight of Christians is the result of Muslim persecution. But when you speak with the Christians in Palestine, they point an accusing finger at Israel and its bank roller, the United States.
The Apache helicopters that fly overhead and terrorize the people of Bethlehem, like everything used by the Israeli military, is American made. Hundreds of innocent Palestinians have been killed. All those killed by Israel, including the children, have been brushed off as "terrorists" and "suicide bombers" when they are not.
I try to explain many American are blinded to the truth by pro-Israeli propaganda and lies. Americans are the ones who are really occupied.
I’d hate to think Americans don’t want to see the truth.
# # #
Friday, October 22, 2004
Israelis and Palestinians locked in conflict, Oct. 22, 2004
Israelis and Palestinians locked in conflict
Creators Syndicate, Oct. 22, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Jaffa Road, Occupied West Bank -- As my British Airways flight entered airspace over Israel, I was surprised by the captain's announcement, "Photography is prohibited while flying over Israel."
I know that Israel has many things prohibited while in Israel, but I didn't realize they have also expanded their controls to the air or that photography from an airplane window was a villainous practice that might somehow contribute to terrorism, as a stewardess tried to explain when I asked.
As I sat in the plane, I wondered what would happen to me if I took a picture of the landscape as a souvenir. I take pictures out of plane windows all the time.
What were they going to do, tackle me to the aisle as I pulled out my threatening Sony Digital Video Camera, or my digital camera to take pictures out the side window of the Israeli and Palestinian landscape far below?
It's all a part of the upside-down, absurdity of Israeli life.
The conflict raged for the past four years making life difficult for both sides. Israel is just not a safe place. I was constantly reminded of that as soldiers held automatic weapons at ready and sometimes pointed at my face as I walked through Israeli and Palestinian cities.
One of the most talked about topics is the "Wall," or, as the Israelis cleverly prefer to call it, "the fence." The fact is that the "barrier," as the timid news media prefers, is both. It is a concrete wall towering 26 feet tall in areas where Palestinians live. And it is an electrified 18 to 26 foot tall fence in the countryside between Palestinian populations.
The wall has turned entire cities into prisons. Most Palestinians cannot travel from one place to another and are stuck in their homes. If you wanted to push someone to violence, Israel has found the perfect way.
Many Palestinians say they want a wall to separate them from the Israelis, but argue it should be built on the Armistice line commonly called the Green Line, or border that separated Israel from the West Bank.
They say they want the wall to stop Israelis from coming into Palestine and taking West Bank land for illegal settlements.
Settlements begin as little shacks and then morph into Jewish cities, like Ariel and dozens of others that dot West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The wall separates Palestinians from their homes and farmlands. But it's not just the wall doing so. Israel has built many "security roads" in the West Bank that serve as barriers and cut through the heart of Palestinian cities and farms.
Israelis insist the conflict is about security. But Palestinians know better. The real conflict is caused by Israelis who continue to confiscate more and more Palestinian land.
The old Jaffa Road which linked Jerusalem to Jaffa/Tel Aviv is now a "security road" that slices through the heart of the West Bank. Christians and Muslims are prohibited from using it. It separates Beit Hanina, where part of my family is originally from, and also Dir Nabala, a neighboring village.
The road is monitored by cameras and patrolled by police and soldiers. Apache helicopters fly over its length. There were four checkpoints where Arabs like me are pulled over and checked and interrogated. Even with a U.S. Passport, I am little more than an "Arab" to the Israelis.
I traveled the road before sunrise and I watched as farmers climbed the fence and scampered like frightened rabbits across the highway's empty six lanes in the pre-dawn night.
They were immediately rounded up by police and soldiers in military jeeps, sirens screaming and blue lights flashing. Fall is the harvest season and without a harvest, Palestinian families will surely die of starvation.
The wrists of the farmers are bound with those plastic ties. They are herded to a waiting area until at least 50 farmers are collected and are forced to walk several miles to the nearest detention center where their IDs are confiscated.
Without IDs, they can be expelled if they are caught again, forced to cross the border into Jordan or Lebanon. Some are taken to the big concrete prisons that line the route.
Mahani Ofer is a dark frightening place. Its sight stirs unimaginable horrors. Palestinians are held there in solitary, often never to be heard from again by their families.
Palestinians are prisoners in their own cities and Israelis are prisons in their own fear. They both live in a hell that neither seems capable of escaping.
# # #
Creators Syndicate, Oct. 22, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Jaffa Road, Occupied West Bank -- As my British Airways flight entered airspace over Israel, I was surprised by the captain's announcement, "Photography is prohibited while flying over Israel."
I know that Israel has many things prohibited while in Israel, but I didn't realize they have also expanded their controls to the air or that photography from an airplane window was a villainous practice that might somehow contribute to terrorism, as a stewardess tried to explain when I asked.
As I sat in the plane, I wondered what would happen to me if I took a picture of the landscape as a souvenir. I take pictures out of plane windows all the time.
What were they going to do, tackle me to the aisle as I pulled out my threatening Sony Digital Video Camera, or my digital camera to take pictures out the side window of the Israeli and Palestinian landscape far below?
It's all a part of the upside-down, absurdity of Israeli life.
The conflict raged for the past four years making life difficult for both sides. Israel is just not a safe place. I was constantly reminded of that as soldiers held automatic weapons at ready and sometimes pointed at my face as I walked through Israeli and Palestinian cities.
One of the most talked about topics is the "Wall," or, as the Israelis cleverly prefer to call it, "the fence." The fact is that the "barrier," as the timid news media prefers, is both. It is a concrete wall towering 26 feet tall in areas where Palestinians live. And it is an electrified 18 to 26 foot tall fence in the countryside between Palestinian populations.
The wall has turned entire cities into prisons. Most Palestinians cannot travel from one place to another and are stuck in their homes. If you wanted to push someone to violence, Israel has found the perfect way.
Many Palestinians say they want a wall to separate them from the Israelis, but argue it should be built on the Armistice line commonly called the Green Line, or border that separated Israel from the West Bank.
They say they want the wall to stop Israelis from coming into Palestine and taking West Bank land for illegal settlements.
Settlements begin as little shacks and then morph into Jewish cities, like Ariel and dozens of others that dot West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The wall separates Palestinians from their homes and farmlands. But it's not just the wall doing so. Israel has built many "security roads" in the West Bank that serve as barriers and cut through the heart of Palestinian cities and farms.
Israelis insist the conflict is about security. But Palestinians know better. The real conflict is caused by Israelis who continue to confiscate more and more Palestinian land.
The old Jaffa Road which linked Jerusalem to Jaffa/Tel Aviv is now a "security road" that slices through the heart of the West Bank. Christians and Muslims are prohibited from using it. It separates Beit Hanina, where part of my family is originally from, and also Dir Nabala, a neighboring village.
The road is monitored by cameras and patrolled by police and soldiers. Apache helicopters fly over its length. There were four checkpoints where Arabs like me are pulled over and checked and interrogated. Even with a U.S. Passport, I am little more than an "Arab" to the Israelis.
I traveled the road before sunrise and I watched as farmers climbed the fence and scampered like frightened rabbits across the highway's empty six lanes in the pre-dawn night.
They were immediately rounded up by police and soldiers in military jeeps, sirens screaming and blue lights flashing. Fall is the harvest season and without a harvest, Palestinian families will surely die of starvation.
The wrists of the farmers are bound with those plastic ties. They are herded to a waiting area until at least 50 farmers are collected and are forced to walk several miles to the nearest detention center where their IDs are confiscated.
Without IDs, they can be expelled if they are caught again, forced to cross the border into Jordan or Lebanon. Some are taken to the big concrete prisons that line the route.
Mahani Ofer is a dark frightening place. Its sight stirs unimaginable horrors. Palestinians are held there in solitary, often never to be heard from again by their families.
Palestinians are prisoners in their own cities and Israelis are prisons in their own fear. They both live in a hell that neither seems capable of escaping.
# # #
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Entertainment can change American minds, Oct. 21, 2004
Power of fiction can change the world
Arab American Media Services Oct. 21, 2004
Permission granted to reprint in full
By Ray Hanania
Arabs don't get the power of American entertainment, yet they spend a lot of time enjoying it.
Arabs have a wealth that ranks them financially among the most powerful on Earth. If they wanted, they could invest pennies of their wealth and produce some of the most compelling movies, television dramas and news programs in English that could dramatically change how Americans view the Middle East.
But while Americans view entertainment as a fundamental necessity to understanding the world's reality and as a force that educates, Arabs see entertainment as something that does little more than entertain.
The fact is, Americans take their entertainment seriously. They often rely on fiction and drama to supplement their formal education, or lack of education, too. Oftentimes, Americans turn to entertainment as an alternative to realities they prefer not to see.
This week, Hollywood re-scripted the Middle East conflict yet again, this time in the season premiere of "The West Wing," a popular award-winning TV drama that takes real events from the headlines that most Americans can't seem to understand, and re-engineers them into fictionalized dramas they can understand and accept.
The show is cast in a mock White House with a president, staff and political conflict that is often more compelling than real life.
Americans like their enemies cast in simple terms. They like the world painted in terms of either Good of Evil. That's one reason why a real-life president like George W. Bush who has no formal experience or training in foreign policy can destroy Middle East peace, create conflicts out of complacency, and still win the support of a majority of Americans using a policy that is defined in childlike terms of "you are either with us or against us."
There is definitely no "gray matter" in the president's thinking, especially when it comes to the Middle East.
The reality is, of course, that the Middle East is a very complicated mess of black and white and mostly gray in-between.
The premiere of the West Wing exploits that crisis, and scripts a situation where Palestinian terrorists murder two U.S. Congressmen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and another high level American administrator while conducting a fictional tour of the Gaza Strip. In real life, it would never happen for many reasons to complicated to explain.
But in TV entertainment, anything can happen and does.
The West Wing plot follows almost word-for-word Israel's official propaganda about the Palestinians, which falsely blames all violence and terrorism on the Palestinians while disguising Israeli government terrorism as peace. In reality, Israel's policies of confiscating Palestinian lands and expelling its inhabitants is the cause of the violence. But carefully managed by the Israeli lobby, most Americans don't understand that reality.
In the TV version of the White House drama, "everyone" clamors for the "U.S." to immediately retaliate and attack Palestinian targets in the Gaza Strip, something the U.S. has never done in real life, at least directly.
The fictional West Wing "President," played by Martin Sheen, fights hard to resist the emotional mob-like clamor for vengeance and he insists on fighting to protect any chance for peace.
In real life, Sheen, the actor, is an outspoken advocate for peace and justice for the Palestinians and security for the State of Israel. I suspect Sheen, the actor, played a significant role in writing the script for this TV drama.
The show is counter-balanced, of course, by the usual pro-Israel propaganda.
It is all fiction based on some small facts but it reinforces what Americans have been brainwashed for years by pro-Israel propaganda to accept for the past 56 years.
When "President" Sheen asks his staff to give him ideas on how to avoid war and bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the peace table, the staff rebels and refuse to make suggestions.
In the end, the Palestinians and Israelis are brought back to the peace table, the Palestinians are made to look like terrorists reluctant to support peace, and the TV program has all of the drama that wins big audience ratings and Academy Awards.
But that is exactly what American entertainment is all about.
Americans are fundamentally racist and arrogant. They scream for vengeance when Americans are killed, but seem uncaring when their policies cause the murder and death of innocent civilians in a host of Third World countries they exploit for resources, slave labor and, of course, cheap oil.
Americans do not want TV programs that challenge the lies they accept and that serve as the basis of their fundamental ignorance of complex wars like the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The meaning of "entertainment" is "fiction." And the meaning of "fiction" is an acceptable "lie."
One day, Arabs might understand that investing in a strategy based on clever fiction can have more impact in achieving their desire for peace and justice than relying on a poorly proffered strategy based on "truth."
Give me one talented Arab Hollywood filmmaker with a large enough budget -- the Arab World is the wealthiest regions in the world -- and have that person make a compelling fiction movie in English that recasts the Palestinians in a fairer light, and I will give you a strategy that can win over the hearts and minds of the American people.
And with the hearts and minds of the American people on our side, Palestinians could achieve a just and fair peace that results in a Palestinian State that would be "more generous" than the so-called generous peace offer made by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak that Arafat rejected as insufficient.
A good movie in English would achieve more for Palestinian justice than all of the pathetically inadequate policies and strategies devised by all of the Arab World's armies, kings and mullahs.
(Ray Hanania is an author, satirist and syndicate columnist. His columns are archived at www.hanania.com.)
# # #
Arab American Media Services Oct. 21, 2004
Permission granted to reprint in full
By Ray Hanania
Arabs don't get the power of American entertainment, yet they spend a lot of time enjoying it.
Arabs have a wealth that ranks them financially among the most powerful on Earth. If they wanted, they could invest pennies of their wealth and produce some of the most compelling movies, television dramas and news programs in English that could dramatically change how Americans view the Middle East.
But while Americans view entertainment as a fundamental necessity to understanding the world's reality and as a force that educates, Arabs see entertainment as something that does little more than entertain.
The fact is, Americans take their entertainment seriously. They often rely on fiction and drama to supplement their formal education, or lack of education, too. Oftentimes, Americans turn to entertainment as an alternative to realities they prefer not to see.
This week, Hollywood re-scripted the Middle East conflict yet again, this time in the season premiere of "The West Wing," a popular award-winning TV drama that takes real events from the headlines that most Americans can't seem to understand, and re-engineers them into fictionalized dramas they can understand and accept.
The show is cast in a mock White House with a president, staff and political conflict that is often more compelling than real life.
Americans like their enemies cast in simple terms. They like the world painted in terms of either Good of Evil. That's one reason why a real-life president like George W. Bush who has no formal experience or training in foreign policy can destroy Middle East peace, create conflicts out of complacency, and still win the support of a majority of Americans using a policy that is defined in childlike terms of "you are either with us or against us."
There is definitely no "gray matter" in the president's thinking, especially when it comes to the Middle East.
The reality is, of course, that the Middle East is a very complicated mess of black and white and mostly gray in-between.
The premiere of the West Wing exploits that crisis, and scripts a situation where Palestinian terrorists murder two U.S. Congressmen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and another high level American administrator while conducting a fictional tour of the Gaza Strip. In real life, it would never happen for many reasons to complicated to explain.
But in TV entertainment, anything can happen and does.
The West Wing plot follows almost word-for-word Israel's official propaganda about the Palestinians, which falsely blames all violence and terrorism on the Palestinians while disguising Israeli government terrorism as peace. In reality, Israel's policies of confiscating Palestinian lands and expelling its inhabitants is the cause of the violence. But carefully managed by the Israeli lobby, most Americans don't understand that reality.
In the TV version of the White House drama, "everyone" clamors for the "U.S." to immediately retaliate and attack Palestinian targets in the Gaza Strip, something the U.S. has never done in real life, at least directly.
The fictional West Wing "President," played by Martin Sheen, fights hard to resist the emotional mob-like clamor for vengeance and he insists on fighting to protect any chance for peace.
In real life, Sheen, the actor, is an outspoken advocate for peace and justice for the Palestinians and security for the State of Israel. I suspect Sheen, the actor, played a significant role in writing the script for this TV drama.
The show is counter-balanced, of course, by the usual pro-Israel propaganda.
It is all fiction based on some small facts but it reinforces what Americans have been brainwashed for years by pro-Israel propaganda to accept for the past 56 years.
When "President" Sheen asks his staff to give him ideas on how to avoid war and bring Israelis and Palestinians back to the peace table, the staff rebels and refuse to make suggestions.
In the end, the Palestinians and Israelis are brought back to the peace table, the Palestinians are made to look like terrorists reluctant to support peace, and the TV program has all of the drama that wins big audience ratings and Academy Awards.
But that is exactly what American entertainment is all about.
Americans are fundamentally racist and arrogant. They scream for vengeance when Americans are killed, but seem uncaring when their policies cause the murder and death of innocent civilians in a host of Third World countries they exploit for resources, slave labor and, of course, cheap oil.
Americans do not want TV programs that challenge the lies they accept and that serve as the basis of their fundamental ignorance of complex wars like the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The meaning of "entertainment" is "fiction." And the meaning of "fiction" is an acceptable "lie."
One day, Arabs might understand that investing in a strategy based on clever fiction can have more impact in achieving their desire for peace and justice than relying on a poorly proffered strategy based on "truth."
Give me one talented Arab Hollywood filmmaker with a large enough budget -- the Arab World is the wealthiest regions in the world -- and have that person make a compelling fiction movie in English that recasts the Palestinians in a fairer light, and I will give you a strategy that can win over the hearts and minds of the American people.
And with the hearts and minds of the American people on our side, Palestinians could achieve a just and fair peace that results in a Palestinian State that would be "more generous" than the so-called generous peace offer made by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak that Arafat rejected as insufficient.
A good movie in English would achieve more for Palestinian justice than all of the pathetically inadequate policies and strategies devised by all of the Arab World's armies, kings and mullahs.
(Ray Hanania is an author, satirist and syndicate columnist. His columns are archived at www.hanania.com.)
# # #
Monday, October 18, 2004
Israel's mistreatment leads to bitterness 10-15-04
Israeli mistreatment leads to bitter conflict
Creators Syndicate Friday Oct. 15, 2004
Daily Herald Monday, Oct. 18, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Qalandiya Check Point, Occupied West Bank -- The metal revolving doors resemble those you might find at any transit station in America. But these turn styles at the Qalandiya checkpoint lead to only one place. Bitter conflict.
To travel between Ramallah and Jerusalem in the occupied West Bank, Palestinians must pass through this military screening. Complete with barbed razor-wire, bunkers, meager tin roof shelter, watchtowers, and sometimes tanks, civilians are forced to stand in packed lines chest to back, shoulder to shoulder for as much as one hour.
Nothing is more dehumanizing or humiliating, worsened by soldiers who are arrogant, insulting and uncaring.
Hundreds of people stand seven across in two "lines," one for women and one for men. In the hot sun, people have the odor of a long day as they push hard against each other desperate to get through.
Feet push forward into the heels of the person in front. Literally on top of each other. You inch forward as if you are not moving.
On both ends of the checkpoint, cars and cabs sit coughing out exhaust fumes, making the experience even worse. Nearby, the 26 foot tall wall of solid concrete stretches as far as the eye can see.
With their automatic weapons ready, the soldiers wave people through slowly, four at a time, with a lazy, uncaring gesture. "Yalla!" they order, Arabic for "Hurry!"
Sometimes, the lines stop as the soldiers make you wait in the choking environment of degradation.
The soldiers appear to speak just enough Arabic to tell Palestinians to come and go. Their eyes are often blue but always cold. If you speak to them the wrong way, they can make your life miserable. They often do.
When you finally pass through the turn style, you pass sandbags and cinder blocks and walk a short distance to the screeners who speak better Arabic, check your IDs, and grill you with many questions.
Amazingly, the security is worse than the security at the airports. You walk through one metal detector and place your belongings atop a cement pillar where they are inspected by hand. So why do they have this security?
Maybe the Israelis might spend a little money on the Palestinians, to make the experience more efficient and more secure. More respectful. Less provocative. But then, maybe the Israelis might also try spending some money to improve the streets in Palestinian neighborhoods that they have turned into de facto prisons through blockades and check points and travel restrictions.
There might just be a little less anger. And with a little less anger, there might be less violence on both sides.
In all fairness, some of the soldiers are courteous. You can see they have a heart and don't like the jobs they have been ordered to do. But there are the young soldiers and the settler soldiers who are religious fanatics who wear a look of disdain that only fuels the fire.
"Why are you here?" they ask. The questions is insulting to a Palestinian who presents a passport and an ID card. I'm not allowed to visit my relatives? I am not allowed to visit my own land? I am not allowed to be in my own country?
I understand Israel's need for "security." But I don't understand a security system based not on security but on intimidation, harassment and indignation.
Palestinians claim Israel's policies are designed to pressure Palestinians to leave the country
rather than to continue to experience the many hardships. It's a subtle but powerful form of expulsion.
I oppose all violence. But when you experience this ugly process every day, you can better understand how resentment can breed violence instead of peace.
END
Creators Syndicate Friday Oct. 15, 2004
Daily Herald Monday, Oct. 18, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Qalandiya Check Point, Occupied West Bank -- The metal revolving doors resemble those you might find at any transit station in America. But these turn styles at the Qalandiya checkpoint lead to only one place. Bitter conflict.
To travel between Ramallah and Jerusalem in the occupied West Bank, Palestinians must pass through this military screening. Complete with barbed razor-wire, bunkers, meager tin roof shelter, watchtowers, and sometimes tanks, civilians are forced to stand in packed lines chest to back, shoulder to shoulder for as much as one hour.
Nothing is more dehumanizing or humiliating, worsened by soldiers who are arrogant, insulting and uncaring.
Hundreds of people stand seven across in two "lines," one for women and one for men. In the hot sun, people have the odor of a long day as they push hard against each other desperate to get through.
Feet push forward into the heels of the person in front. Literally on top of each other. You inch forward as if you are not moving.
On both ends of the checkpoint, cars and cabs sit coughing out exhaust fumes, making the experience even worse. Nearby, the 26 foot tall wall of solid concrete stretches as far as the eye can see.
With their automatic weapons ready, the soldiers wave people through slowly, four at a time, with a lazy, uncaring gesture. "Yalla!" they order, Arabic for "Hurry!"
Sometimes, the lines stop as the soldiers make you wait in the choking environment of degradation.
The soldiers appear to speak just enough Arabic to tell Palestinians to come and go. Their eyes are often blue but always cold. If you speak to them the wrong way, they can make your life miserable. They often do.
When you finally pass through the turn style, you pass sandbags and cinder blocks and walk a short distance to the screeners who speak better Arabic, check your IDs, and grill you with many questions.
Amazingly, the security is worse than the security at the airports. You walk through one metal detector and place your belongings atop a cement pillar where they are inspected by hand. So why do they have this security?
Maybe the Israelis might spend a little money on the Palestinians, to make the experience more efficient and more secure. More respectful. Less provocative. But then, maybe the Israelis might also try spending some money to improve the streets in Palestinian neighborhoods that they have turned into de facto prisons through blockades and check points and travel restrictions.
There might just be a little less anger. And with a little less anger, there might be less violence on both sides.
In all fairness, some of the soldiers are courteous. You can see they have a heart and don't like the jobs they have been ordered to do. But there are the young soldiers and the settler soldiers who are religious fanatics who wear a look of disdain that only fuels the fire.
"Why are you here?" they ask. The questions is insulting to a Palestinian who presents a passport and an ID card. I'm not allowed to visit my relatives? I am not allowed to visit my own land? I am not allowed to be in my own country?
I understand Israel's need for "security." But I don't understand a security system based not on security but on intimidation, harassment and indignation.
Palestinians claim Israel's policies are designed to pressure Palestinians to leave the country
rather than to continue to experience the many hardships. It's a subtle but powerful form of expulsion.
I oppose all violence. But when you experience this ugly process every day, you can better understand how resentment can breed violence instead of peace.
END
Friday, October 08, 2004
Muslim Coalition Building missing one key component Oct. 8, 2004
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2004, AND THEREAFTER
MUSLIM COALITION-BUILDING MISSING ONE KEY COMPONENT
By Ray Hanania
American Muslims achieved a milestone this past week with the launch in Chicago of a daily live talk radio program called "Radio Islam." Broadcast one hour each night over a brokered ethnic station, the 1,000-watt WCEV (1450 AM) Radio, the station's audience reach is very limited.
But it has broken the glass ceiling that has kept Muslims out of the major media, except when stories involve Middle East violence or anti-Muslim conflicts.
On a recent show, the host interviewed several Muslims who spoke about coalition-building, especially as Muslims enter the presidential elections with other Americans.
They discussed many possible coalition partners, but the one that was almost always excluded was the one that would seem the most natural: Christian Arabs.
There are more than 7 million Muslims in America by many unofficial counts. We don't know the exact number because the U.S. Census continues to reflect the biases of the federal government, prohibiting the inclusion of a category for Muslims or Arabs on census forms every decade.
Of those 7 million Muslims, according to the Los Angeles-based Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), 33 percent are South Asian, 33 percent are African American or African, 9 percent are European, South Asian or "other," and only 25 percent are Arab, or about 1.75 million.
Not included in that study are the 1.5 million Arabs who are Christian, and who suffer equally with their Muslim brethren; most Americans can't tell the difference between a Palestinian or a Pakistani, and believe that all Arabs are Muslims.
And while they are a micro minority in the shadow of their larger Muslim cousins, Arab Christians offer the advantage of having open access into America's Christian societies. They are members of many churches, from Maronites and Orthodox sects that are based overseas to Catholics, Protestants and Baptists.
Yet few Muslim organizations make any effort to reach out to these abandoned natural partners. And that is even more ironic because when Muslims discuss political issues, one that is always mentioned is the battle for justice and fairness for Palestine.
It is amazing to me as a Christian Palestinian that Muslims will embrace the cause of Palestine but are reluctant to embrace Palestinians who happen to be Christian. That failure to be inclusive results in a weakening of their own agenda, especially the touted claim of championing Palestinian rights.
A good example of how this flaw undermines the cause occurred the week Radio Islam was launched. The radio station is supported by Sound Vision, a 501(c)(3) charitable institution based on Texas with offices in Bridgeview, a hub of Palestinian American activism that has sometimes found itself under the unwanted scrutiny of the FBI and U.S. Justice Department.
To raise funds for the new radio station, Sound Vision brought in Muslim comedian "Preacher Moss," who bills his comedy routine under the title "Allah made me funny." He is now performing on a 30-city tour that includes Chicago. His show is hilarious.
What isn't funny, though, is that his Chicago performance is at Zanies Comedy Club, the one club in the country that was a part of the decision by Jewish comedian Jackie Mason to publicly bounce a comedian from his stage because that comedian was Palestinian.
I am talking about myself, of course, when I was kicked off a show I was originally billed to showcase before Mason was added to the line-up as the last-minute headliner. Why would any Arab or Muslim comedian perform at Zanies given that history?
Part of the reason is that Arabs and Muslims are desperate for positive attention, believing that success in America can somehow extract them from the daily grind of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism that is rampant among Americans.
Another reason, of course, is that Muslims have a wide agenda that they speak from, but a narrow vision of practice. I'm glad Muslims finally have their own daily radio program.
I'm a little envious, too, considering decades ago, all Muslims, Pakistani, Asian or Arab, were also all considered "Yellow" people or "Syrians," and we worked so hard in the 1960s and 1970s to battle that broad-based hatred of anyone with a "Middle Eastern look."
If they hope to be successful, and if they genuinely seek to champion the many just causes under the banner of Islam, they must recognize that many people who are not Muslim suffer anti-Muslim bigotry, too.
Christian Arabs should be welcomed, not ignored. And their history of suffering should rank alongside the suffering that Radio Islam's proponents argue their radio station hopes to break.
To find out more about Ray Hanania, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2004 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC
MUSLIM COALITION-BUILDING MISSING ONE KEY COMPONENT
By Ray Hanania
American Muslims achieved a milestone this past week with the launch in Chicago of a daily live talk radio program called "Radio Islam." Broadcast one hour each night over a brokered ethnic station, the 1,000-watt WCEV (1450 AM) Radio, the station's audience reach is very limited.
But it has broken the glass ceiling that has kept Muslims out of the major media, except when stories involve Middle East violence or anti-Muslim conflicts.
On a recent show, the host interviewed several Muslims who spoke about coalition-building, especially as Muslims enter the presidential elections with other Americans.
They discussed many possible coalition partners, but the one that was almost always excluded was the one that would seem the most natural: Christian Arabs.
There are more than 7 million Muslims in America by many unofficial counts. We don't know the exact number because the U.S. Census continues to reflect the biases of the federal government, prohibiting the inclusion of a category for Muslims or Arabs on census forms every decade.
Of those 7 million Muslims, according to the Los Angeles-based Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), 33 percent are South Asian, 33 percent are African American or African, 9 percent are European, South Asian or "other," and only 25 percent are Arab, or about 1.75 million.
Not included in that study are the 1.5 million Arabs who are Christian, and who suffer equally with their Muslim brethren; most Americans can't tell the difference between a Palestinian or a Pakistani, and believe that all Arabs are Muslims.
And while they are a micro minority in the shadow of their larger Muslim cousins, Arab Christians offer the advantage of having open access into America's Christian societies. They are members of many churches, from Maronites and Orthodox sects that are based overseas to Catholics, Protestants and Baptists.
Yet few Muslim organizations make any effort to reach out to these abandoned natural partners. And that is even more ironic because when Muslims discuss political issues, one that is always mentioned is the battle for justice and fairness for Palestine.
It is amazing to me as a Christian Palestinian that Muslims will embrace the cause of Palestine but are reluctant to embrace Palestinians who happen to be Christian. That failure to be inclusive results in a weakening of their own agenda, especially the touted claim of championing Palestinian rights.
A good example of how this flaw undermines the cause occurred the week Radio Islam was launched. The radio station is supported by Sound Vision, a 501(c)(3) charitable institution based on Texas with offices in Bridgeview, a hub of Palestinian American activism that has sometimes found itself under the unwanted scrutiny of the FBI and U.S. Justice Department.
To raise funds for the new radio station, Sound Vision brought in Muslim comedian "Preacher Moss," who bills his comedy routine under the title "Allah made me funny." He is now performing on a 30-city tour that includes Chicago. His show is hilarious.
What isn't funny, though, is that his Chicago performance is at Zanies Comedy Club, the one club in the country that was a part of the decision by Jewish comedian Jackie Mason to publicly bounce a comedian from his stage because that comedian was Palestinian.
I am talking about myself, of course, when I was kicked off a show I was originally billed to showcase before Mason was added to the line-up as the last-minute headliner. Why would any Arab or Muslim comedian perform at Zanies given that history?
Part of the reason is that Arabs and Muslims are desperate for positive attention, believing that success in America can somehow extract them from the daily grind of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism that is rampant among Americans.
Another reason, of course, is that Muslims have a wide agenda that they speak from, but a narrow vision of practice. I'm glad Muslims finally have their own daily radio program.
I'm a little envious, too, considering decades ago, all Muslims, Pakistani, Asian or Arab, were also all considered "Yellow" people or "Syrians," and we worked so hard in the 1960s and 1970s to battle that broad-based hatred of anyone with a "Middle Eastern look."
If they hope to be successful, and if they genuinely seek to champion the many just causes under the banner of Islam, they must recognize that many people who are not Muslim suffer anti-Muslim bigotry, too.
Christian Arabs should be welcomed, not ignored. And their history of suffering should rank alongside the suffering that Radio Islam's proponents argue their radio station hopes to break.
To find out more about Ray Hanania, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2004 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC
Friday, October 01, 2004
Christians turning other cheek on Israeli violence 10-01-04
Christians turning other cheek on Israeli violence
By Ray Hanania
Many Americans mistakenly view the Arab-Israeli conflict as one between Jews and Muslims. That perception has been reinforced in the wake of Sept. 11th following the cowardly terrorist attacks in by 19 Islamists on Sept. 11.
Often ignored over the years is the toll that Israel's oppressive policies have taken on the Christians who are a minority not only in the Arab World but in the Holy Land where their religious movement began.
During many trips to Palestine over the years, I hear a constant chorus from Christian leaders appalled at how naïve and callous Christian brethren in America are to Israel's brutality and viciousness.
While the pro-Israel story is widely spread in America through a sophisticated lobby and media presence, the story of Christian Palestinians has been rarely examined. Orphaned, the tragedy of Palestinian Christians is forgotten making it easy for Israel to confiscate their lands in such historic Christian cities as Bethlehem, where my mother is from.
Also threatened by Israel's land policies are Bethlehem's sister cities of Beit Sahour and Beit Jala and the nearby lands of an equally important Christian region, Shepherd's Field.
Much of the land taken around Jerusalem to choke off the Christian and Muslim population belongs to Christian families who pray everyday at the Church of the Nativity where Jesus was born. The city of Bethlehem has been devastated by Israeli policies which allows Jewish settlers to roam freely and expand their settlements on confiscated Christian and Muslims lands, while Palestinians are locked into ghettos.
But all hope is not lost. In recent years, Christians voices are finding moral courage.
Earlier this year, the Presbyterian Church (USA) approved a policy to divest investments from Israel and all companies doing business with Israel.
The Presbyterians are morally outraged at the excessive and vicious policies Israel's military occupation has taken against innocent Palestinian civilians. Every week, scores of innocent Palestinian civilians are being killed and the Presbyterian vote came after officials of the church completed a first-hand tour of the embattled Holy Land.
But the Presbyterians are not the only ones to stand up for their Christian brothers and to demand a peace that is based on fair compromise and justice.
Recently, leader of the Anglican Church (which includes the Episcopal Church in this country) have recommended divestiture, too, after seeing the devastation firsthand during a recent trip. And Christians around the world are now openly taking about doing even more.
Israel continues to have the support of the more extremist Christian Evangelists who believe that Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple will herald the return of Jesus. Yet these Evangelists always end their sermons before explaining to Israelis that their prophetic beliefs also portend that Jews who fail to "accept Jesus" will suffer the same fate as other "non-believers."
It's the dirty little secret of the Evangelist movement that most moderate Christians like the Presbyterians, Anglicans and Episcopalians reject.
The timing couldn't be better as we enter another Christmas season where Palestinian Christians continue to suffer. Many American Christian Arabs already protest by unplugging their Christmas tree lights.
The greatest Christmas gift American Christians can give to their suffering cousins in the Holy Land is to find the courage to demand an evenhanded policy that not only condemns terrorism against Israel, but that also condemns the daily terrorism by Israel's government against Palestinians, too.
# # #
By Ray Hanania
Many Americans mistakenly view the Arab-Israeli conflict as one between Jews and Muslims. That perception has been reinforced in the wake of Sept. 11th following the cowardly terrorist attacks in by 19 Islamists on Sept. 11.
Often ignored over the years is the toll that Israel's oppressive policies have taken on the Christians who are a minority not only in the Arab World but in the Holy Land where their religious movement began.
During many trips to Palestine over the years, I hear a constant chorus from Christian leaders appalled at how naïve and callous Christian brethren in America are to Israel's brutality and viciousness.
While the pro-Israel story is widely spread in America through a sophisticated lobby and media presence, the story of Christian Palestinians has been rarely examined. Orphaned, the tragedy of Palestinian Christians is forgotten making it easy for Israel to confiscate their lands in such historic Christian cities as Bethlehem, where my mother is from.
Also threatened by Israel's land policies are Bethlehem's sister cities of Beit Sahour and Beit Jala and the nearby lands of an equally important Christian region, Shepherd's Field.
Much of the land taken around Jerusalem to choke off the Christian and Muslim population belongs to Christian families who pray everyday at the Church of the Nativity where Jesus was born. The city of Bethlehem has been devastated by Israeli policies which allows Jewish settlers to roam freely and expand their settlements on confiscated Christian and Muslims lands, while Palestinians are locked into ghettos.
But all hope is not lost. In recent years, Christians voices are finding moral courage.
Earlier this year, the Presbyterian Church (USA) approved a policy to divest investments from Israel and all companies doing business with Israel.
The Presbyterians are morally outraged at the excessive and vicious policies Israel's military occupation has taken against innocent Palestinian civilians. Every week, scores of innocent Palestinian civilians are being killed and the Presbyterian vote came after officials of the church completed a first-hand tour of the embattled Holy Land.
But the Presbyterians are not the only ones to stand up for their Christian brothers and to demand a peace that is based on fair compromise and justice.
Recently, leader of the Anglican Church (which includes the Episcopal Church in this country) have recommended divestiture, too, after seeing the devastation firsthand during a recent trip. And Christians around the world are now openly taking about doing even more.
Israel continues to have the support of the more extremist Christian Evangelists who believe that Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple will herald the return of Jesus. Yet these Evangelists always end their sermons before explaining to Israelis that their prophetic beliefs also portend that Jews who fail to "accept Jesus" will suffer the same fate as other "non-believers."
It's the dirty little secret of the Evangelist movement that most moderate Christians like the Presbyterians, Anglicans and Episcopalians reject.
The timing couldn't be better as we enter another Christmas season where Palestinian Christians continue to suffer. Many American Christian Arabs already protest by unplugging their Christmas tree lights.
The greatest Christmas gift American Christians can give to their suffering cousins in the Holy Land is to find the courage to demand an evenhanded policy that not only condemns terrorism against Israel, but that also condemns the daily terrorism by Israel's government against Palestinians, too.
# # #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)