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.
Friday, November 12, 2004
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.
# # #
Thursday, September 23, 2004
CBS scandal and issues about American media and culture 9-23-04
Scandal on CBS accuracy raises issues about American culture
Arab American Media Services Thursday Sept. 23, 2004
Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
The scandal involving CBS and its now debunked report on President Bush's service in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War raises issues that might help people in the Middle East better understand the priorities and flaws of the American people and its media.
CBS was forced to publicly apologize for airing a report on its high profile segment, "60 Minutes". The celebrated media organization apparently relied on forged documents to argue President Bush may not have served honorably while in U.S. Military service. Worse, the producer on the story may have been inclined to overlook the flaws because of personal political biases.
As details of the documents surface, it seems clear they are forgeries.
But what's fascinating and should be of interest to the Arab World in trying to understand the American media, is how oftentimes the delivery of the facts in a new story is more important than the facts themselves.
The fact is, the debate over the media's character has overshadowed the debate over the character of the two men who would be president.
The American media is rarely satisfied with just having a "good story". They always want more.
The story of President Bush and his military service is really a simple one complicated both by this media character flaw, and by the presidential elections. Bush is being challenged by John Kerry, a Vietnam War hero Democratic presidential nominee.
Kerry served active duty on the front lines in Vietnam earning a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. He also received three Purple Hearts given to soldiers who receive "wounds".
Although both men served at the same time during the height of the Vietnam War fighting, Bush didn't serve active duty. Instead, Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard. Unlike today, national guard units during the Vietnam war were rarely activated to participate in combat.
Every American over the age of 18, and certainly the ages of Bush and Kerry, would have been drafted into service during the Vietnam War. One way to avoid active duty and fighting on the front lines where the dangers were certain was to join an Air National Guard. There was one in nearly every state.
But getting into the Air National Guard was difficult, unless you had political clout. The waiting lists were long and most applicants were rejected and sent to Vietnam to fight.
Bush had political clout. He was appointed to the Texas Air National Guard through the connections of his father, George H.W. Bush who was then a U.S. Congressman and later vice president and president.
Kerry served multiple tours of duty in Vietnam -- meaning that he returned to the front lines even though after serving your first tour of duty you could have returned to a safe assignment in the states. And you might think that the fact that Kerry served in the face of danger, and Bush instead chose to serve in a position that was as far away from real danger as possible, would be a campaign issue that distinguishes the two men.
In the face of danger, Kerry showed character and could have been killed. In contrast, Bush avoided danger and sought the safety of a stateside assignment that faced no real dangers and had no chance of ever being assigned to a war zone for combat.
It's a character issue, especially since Bush has advocated that Americans go to war with Iraq and other nations in pursuit of "terrorism."
Yet the CBS scandal demonstrates how the real issues are often cast aside and instead the focus is on the peripheral process of how one gets to the truth.
The documents CBS relied on show that Bush's military superior officer in the Air National Guard felt pressured to allow Bush to briefly transfer and leave his safe, non-combat assignment to go to Alabama where he could continue his "military service" and be able to work on the political campaign of a Republican ally of his father.
Yet, even without the documents, it is a fact that Bush did leave the Texas Air National Guard for assignment in Alabama so he could work on a congressional campaign there.
Not only was President Bush able to avoid serving in a war zone while still being able to claim he earned military service in the safety of a non-combat Air National Guard unit, but Bush also got preferential treatment allowing him to continue to earn Air National Guard credits elsewhere while serving a purely political mission.
Bush was able to do what nearly every other American his age at the time who didn't have a father who was a politically connected congressman could not do. They could not avoid fighting in Vietnam or serve in active duty, taking them away from their normal lives and careers and schooling.
In contrast, Kerry did what nearly every military-aged American was forced to do. He went to a war zone and fought in Vietnam. More than 69,000 Americans like Kerry didn't return and were killed in that war.
Kerry faced death. Bush avoided service.
Supporters of President Bush are gleefully exploiting the CBS scandal to deflect American attention from these basic and fundamental facts. You don't need more documents to prove these events.
But this is the nature of the American media accepted in American politics and American society: How you deliver truth is often more important than the truth itself.
# # #
Arab American Media Services Thursday Sept. 23, 2004
Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
The scandal involving CBS and its now debunked report on President Bush's service in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War raises issues that might help people in the Middle East better understand the priorities and flaws of the American people and its media.
CBS was forced to publicly apologize for airing a report on its high profile segment, "60 Minutes". The celebrated media organization apparently relied on forged documents to argue President Bush may not have served honorably while in U.S. Military service. Worse, the producer on the story may have been inclined to overlook the flaws because of personal political biases.
As details of the documents surface, it seems clear they are forgeries.
But what's fascinating and should be of interest to the Arab World in trying to understand the American media, is how oftentimes the delivery of the facts in a new story is more important than the facts themselves.
The fact is, the debate over the media's character has overshadowed the debate over the character of the two men who would be president.
The American media is rarely satisfied with just having a "good story". They always want more.
The story of President Bush and his military service is really a simple one complicated both by this media character flaw, and by the presidential elections. Bush is being challenged by John Kerry, a Vietnam War hero Democratic presidential nominee.
Kerry served active duty on the front lines in Vietnam earning a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. He also received three Purple Hearts given to soldiers who receive "wounds".
Although both men served at the same time during the height of the Vietnam War fighting, Bush didn't serve active duty. Instead, Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard. Unlike today, national guard units during the Vietnam war were rarely activated to participate in combat.
Every American over the age of 18, and certainly the ages of Bush and Kerry, would have been drafted into service during the Vietnam War. One way to avoid active duty and fighting on the front lines where the dangers were certain was to join an Air National Guard. There was one in nearly every state.
But getting into the Air National Guard was difficult, unless you had political clout. The waiting lists were long and most applicants were rejected and sent to Vietnam to fight.
Bush had political clout. He was appointed to the Texas Air National Guard through the connections of his father, George H.W. Bush who was then a U.S. Congressman and later vice president and president.
Kerry served multiple tours of duty in Vietnam -- meaning that he returned to the front lines even though after serving your first tour of duty you could have returned to a safe assignment in the states. And you might think that the fact that Kerry served in the face of danger, and Bush instead chose to serve in a position that was as far away from real danger as possible, would be a campaign issue that distinguishes the two men.
In the face of danger, Kerry showed character and could have been killed. In contrast, Bush avoided danger and sought the safety of a stateside assignment that faced no real dangers and had no chance of ever being assigned to a war zone for combat.
It's a character issue, especially since Bush has advocated that Americans go to war with Iraq and other nations in pursuit of "terrorism."
Yet the CBS scandal demonstrates how the real issues are often cast aside and instead the focus is on the peripheral process of how one gets to the truth.
The documents CBS relied on show that Bush's military superior officer in the Air National Guard felt pressured to allow Bush to briefly transfer and leave his safe, non-combat assignment to go to Alabama where he could continue his "military service" and be able to work on the political campaign of a Republican ally of his father.
Yet, even without the documents, it is a fact that Bush did leave the Texas Air National Guard for assignment in Alabama so he could work on a congressional campaign there.
Not only was President Bush able to avoid serving in a war zone while still being able to claim he earned military service in the safety of a non-combat Air National Guard unit, but Bush also got preferential treatment allowing him to continue to earn Air National Guard credits elsewhere while serving a purely political mission.
Bush was able to do what nearly every other American his age at the time who didn't have a father who was a politically connected congressman could not do. They could not avoid fighting in Vietnam or serve in active duty, taking them away from their normal lives and careers and schooling.
In contrast, Kerry did what nearly every military-aged American was forced to do. He went to a war zone and fought in Vietnam. More than 69,000 Americans like Kerry didn't return and were killed in that war.
Kerry faced death. Bush avoided service.
Supporters of President Bush are gleefully exploiting the CBS scandal to deflect American attention from these basic and fundamental facts. You don't need more documents to prove these events.
But this is the nature of the American media accepted in American politics and American society: How you deliver truth is often more important than the truth itself.
# # #
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Malkin: One brunette who believes blondes shouldn't be singled out, 9-19-04
Michelle Malkin and the resurrection of fascism
Or, One brunette who believes blondes shouldn't be singled-out
Sept. 19, 2004 Arab American Media Services/Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
There is definitely a growing market for hatred in America.
One of the Donald Trumps cornering this new market is Michelle Malkin, the daughter of Philippine immigrants who probably has several autographed portraits of Ferdinand Marcos hanging in her office.
Malkin is a "white man" wannabe, the new face of neo-fascism in this country.
Malkin is one of those who believes the best way to eliminate intolerance is to simply eliminate the people who you don't want to tolerate. If you didn't have someone to not tolerate, you couldn't be intolerant. Therefore you have eliminated the sickness.
This precise definition of Malkin's philosophy might even work to eliminate racism -- if we could just get rid of Black people, we wouldn't have racists. Of course, the list of people Malkin hates is far broader than simply people from Africa and would take a lot of work to achieve that goal in its purest sense.
Malkin preached her philosophy of righteous disdain during a carefully managed appearance at Berkeley where she was pimping her new book, "In Defense of Internment," a title that might better translate into "Mein Kampf" for her generation that seeks to be free of bothersome dissent.
About 200 people, mostly students, listened to her as she stood in front of an American flag that was placed on the wall behind her, obviously to counter the ridiculous impression that in calling for increased detention of Americans she is in fact against everything that Old Glory represents.
I wasn't among the nearly one thousand who protested against her outside of her carefully managed appearance to keep out the tough questions. I watched her speech on C-SPAN. As I did, I noticed that during her speech, the American flag kept trying to fall off the wall, as if it were rolling in the premature grave Malkin hoped to bury its fundamental rights in.
Her ranting was similar to a monologue by right-wing comedian Dennis Miller, who she admires, except that her endless reiterations of why people should be jailed lack both humor or punchlines.
She said that contrary to popular belief, she is one of the biggest critics of President George W. Bush. Of course, maybe she meant in terms of height against other Filipinos her age.
That's a joke, of course. The kind that Malkin might argue would be more than enough to justify someone coming under the scrutiny of the FBI or who might earn the designation as "terrorist."
Bush isn't profiling enough, Malkin protested. Malkin argued repeatedly that not enough was being done to intern Arabs and Muslims and other potential terrorists; under Malkin's definition, a terrorist is anyone who is Muslim or who supports Muslims, is Arab or has Olive skin, or relatives or descendants in the Middle East.
To quote her, "If all of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11th were short, young Filipino women screaming Hail Marys … Fer sure! Barf me out! Totally!"
Lest you might think she was serious about criticizing Bush, she quickly noted that "I think Kerry would be worse." She said something even nastier about Ted Kennedy but I couldn't understand her words, which were distorted by sarcasm.
One of my favorite comments, which she made repeatedly during her speech was to compare the U.S. Constitution to "land mines." It's filled with them, she argued.
And when the issue of those thousands of people who have been rounded up and jailed and uncharged and denied the right of legal defense, she expressed with a distinguishable sigh and huff how she really felt sorry for employees of the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI because they were overburdened with an endless and thankless job.
I can fully understand that. I don't know how many times I recall Heinrich Himmler make the same argument. Despite his best efforts, he just couldn't keep up with the never-ending discovery of more non-Aryans. Every time the German's conquered and occupied a new country. And religious profiling seemed to be his only answer!
Malkin brushed off a complaint about Timothy McVeigh from an audience member who tried to circumvent the carefully controlled forum. Malkin only answered questions submitted on index cards screened for acceptability, and only after she declared with true patriotism, "I'm not afraid to take on questions from the audience."
McVeigh, she said, was merely a "straw dog" used to distract from the real threat and the real terrorism from the Middle East. Until Sept. 11th, McVeigh had actually murdered more civilian Americans than any other single Islamic terrorist.
Thank God for the skin heads, White racist militias, neo-Nazis and Malkin that Osama bin Laden came along. I can just hear Malkin's whine reverse as her biggest fan base found itself being scrutinized, profiled and then interned fearing another Murrah Federal Building massacre.
Never mind that the FBI and police chased down every possible Arab and Muslim lead in trying to respond to McVeigh's terrorist act and that McVeigh was caught by accident when he was stopped for a broken taillight.
As she pandered to fears, racism and paranoia, Malkin proved that hate mongering has a kinder and gentler side in appearance.
The reason why terrorism has been so successful, she preached, was because of the New York Times, and a coterie of bleeding heart liberal columnists who she spent a lot of time naming and attacking as "intolerant."
If she could only get rid of those people, she could concentrate on doing America's work rounding up more of those Mohameddans, and Islamic-loving "reds."
In Malkin's cleansed world, Joe McCarthy would probably be appointed leader for life of the new American Civil Liberties Union.
Hey. If you just get rid of civil liberties, we wouldn't have to be burdened by an organization seeking to protect them.
Brilliant, Michelle.
# # #
Or, One brunette who believes blondes shouldn't be singled-out
Sept. 19, 2004 Arab American Media Services/Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
There is definitely a growing market for hatred in America.
One of the Donald Trumps cornering this new market is Michelle Malkin, the daughter of Philippine immigrants who probably has several autographed portraits of Ferdinand Marcos hanging in her office.
Malkin is a "white man" wannabe, the new face of neo-fascism in this country.
Malkin is one of those who believes the best way to eliminate intolerance is to simply eliminate the people who you don't want to tolerate. If you didn't have someone to not tolerate, you couldn't be intolerant. Therefore you have eliminated the sickness.
This precise definition of Malkin's philosophy might even work to eliminate racism -- if we could just get rid of Black people, we wouldn't have racists. Of course, the list of people Malkin hates is far broader than simply people from Africa and would take a lot of work to achieve that goal in its purest sense.
Malkin preached her philosophy of righteous disdain during a carefully managed appearance at Berkeley where she was pimping her new book, "In Defense of Internment," a title that might better translate into "Mein Kampf" for her generation that seeks to be free of bothersome dissent.
About 200 people, mostly students, listened to her as she stood in front of an American flag that was placed on the wall behind her, obviously to counter the ridiculous impression that in calling for increased detention of Americans she is in fact against everything that Old Glory represents.
I wasn't among the nearly one thousand who protested against her outside of her carefully managed appearance to keep out the tough questions. I watched her speech on C-SPAN. As I did, I noticed that during her speech, the American flag kept trying to fall off the wall, as if it were rolling in the premature grave Malkin hoped to bury its fundamental rights in.
Her ranting was similar to a monologue by right-wing comedian Dennis Miller, who she admires, except that her endless reiterations of why people should be jailed lack both humor or punchlines.
She said that contrary to popular belief, she is one of the biggest critics of President George W. Bush. Of course, maybe she meant in terms of height against other Filipinos her age.
That's a joke, of course. The kind that Malkin might argue would be more than enough to justify someone coming under the scrutiny of the FBI or who might earn the designation as "terrorist."
Bush isn't profiling enough, Malkin protested. Malkin argued repeatedly that not enough was being done to intern Arabs and Muslims and other potential terrorists; under Malkin's definition, a terrorist is anyone who is Muslim or who supports Muslims, is Arab or has Olive skin, or relatives or descendants in the Middle East.
To quote her, "If all of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11th were short, young Filipino women screaming Hail Marys … Fer sure! Barf me out! Totally!"
Lest you might think she was serious about criticizing Bush, she quickly noted that "I think Kerry would be worse." She said something even nastier about Ted Kennedy but I couldn't understand her words, which were distorted by sarcasm.
One of my favorite comments, which she made repeatedly during her speech was to compare the U.S. Constitution to "land mines." It's filled with them, she argued.
And when the issue of those thousands of people who have been rounded up and jailed and uncharged and denied the right of legal defense, she expressed with a distinguishable sigh and huff how she really felt sorry for employees of the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI because they were overburdened with an endless and thankless job.
I can fully understand that. I don't know how many times I recall Heinrich Himmler make the same argument. Despite his best efforts, he just couldn't keep up with the never-ending discovery of more non-Aryans. Every time the German's conquered and occupied a new country. And religious profiling seemed to be his only answer!
Malkin brushed off a complaint about Timothy McVeigh from an audience member who tried to circumvent the carefully controlled forum. Malkin only answered questions submitted on index cards screened for acceptability, and only after she declared with true patriotism, "I'm not afraid to take on questions from the audience."
McVeigh, she said, was merely a "straw dog" used to distract from the real threat and the real terrorism from the Middle East. Until Sept. 11th, McVeigh had actually murdered more civilian Americans than any other single Islamic terrorist.
Thank God for the skin heads, White racist militias, neo-Nazis and Malkin that Osama bin Laden came along. I can just hear Malkin's whine reverse as her biggest fan base found itself being scrutinized, profiled and then interned fearing another Murrah Federal Building massacre.
Never mind that the FBI and police chased down every possible Arab and Muslim lead in trying to respond to McVeigh's terrorist act and that McVeigh was caught by accident when he was stopped for a broken taillight.
As she pandered to fears, racism and paranoia, Malkin proved that hate mongering has a kinder and gentler side in appearance.
The reason why terrorism has been so successful, she preached, was because of the New York Times, and a coterie of bleeding heart liberal columnists who she spent a lot of time naming and attacking as "intolerant."
If she could only get rid of those people, she could concentrate on doing America's work rounding up more of those Mohameddans, and Islamic-loving "reds."
In Malkin's cleansed world, Joe McCarthy would probably be appointed leader for life of the new American Civil Liberties Union.
Hey. If you just get rid of civil liberties, we wouldn't have to be burdened by an organization seeking to protect them.
Brilliant, Michelle.
# # #
Saturday, September 18, 2004
New Voices needed to stand up to Palestine-Israel violence, 9-18-04
New voices needed to stand up to violence
Arab American Media Services/Permission granted to reprint
Sept. 18, 2004
By Ray Hanania
A friend asked me recently to explain why someone would commit a suicide bombing. I said I didn't know.
Suicide bombings happen every week, mostly by Iraqi insurgents fighting our troops and Palestinians fighting Israelis.
Clearly, though, suicide bombings are the work of extremists who exploit human suffering. Why else does a human being chose death over life?
I don't support suicide bombings, but I think it is worth trying to answer the question. Can we prevent them?
Certainly, the voices of extremism have succeeded in drowning out the voices of reason on both sides? Suicide bombers are willing accomplices in a tragedy where extremists have convinced them that their self-destruction will somehow achieve some good goal.
Is it because in the Palestine-Israel conflict, there is no hope left for life? Or because Palestinians and Israelis seemingly have given up on peace and see violence as their unavoidable destiny?
Could it be that people see friends and relatives dying around them every day and no one else seems to care?
Their suffering is exploited by fanatics who distort religious belief, distorting the peaceful fundamentals of Islam, for example, convincing suicide bombers their act is an expression of faith.
It's not.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that few people seem to care when a Palestinian dies, but the value of an Israeli life is given so much more concern by the media and the public.
In the first 15 days of September, two suicide bombings took place in Israel, killing 16 people and wounding 93. The violence got widespread coverage.
In contrast, during the same period, 48 Palestinians, mostly civilian, were killed by Israel, including many young children. More than 250 Palestinians were seriously wounded. These killings got very little coverage.
Does this disparity in coverage contribute to the problem? I think so. I think it sends out a message that a Palestinian life is not worth the same value as an Israeli life.
I oppose suicide bombings. Most Palestinians I know are against them, too. But how do you ask a man whose young daughter has been slaughtered in an Israeli attack to set aside his grief and speak out against suicide bombings?
Palestinians feel that they are under siege, their land is being taken away and they have little hope for a just and fair peace, something that Israel has yet to offer. Israel's "most generous offer of peace" was far from what many would consider a just and fair peace.
The people of Israel and Palestine have both given up on peace. Neither side seems concerned about the suffering of the other. Israelis remain silent about the murder of innocent Palestinian civilians. Palestinians remain silent in the wake of suicide bombings.
Still, I know that before we can talk about peace, justice and fairness, we both need to stop the violence.
It would be nice if more people on both sides stopped contributing to the conflict by only speaking out against the violence in a partisan manner when it is against their own people. We should show compassion for each other, too.
If we did that, maybe we wouldn't have more suicide bombings or the collateral killings of young children.
I couldn't answer the question why it happens. But I think that pretty much sums up how both sides can make all the violence stop.
# # #
Arab American Media Services/Permission granted to reprint
Sept. 18, 2004
By Ray Hanania
A friend asked me recently to explain why someone would commit a suicide bombing. I said I didn't know.
Suicide bombings happen every week, mostly by Iraqi insurgents fighting our troops and Palestinians fighting Israelis.
Clearly, though, suicide bombings are the work of extremists who exploit human suffering. Why else does a human being chose death over life?
I don't support suicide bombings, but I think it is worth trying to answer the question. Can we prevent them?
Certainly, the voices of extremism have succeeded in drowning out the voices of reason on both sides? Suicide bombers are willing accomplices in a tragedy where extremists have convinced them that their self-destruction will somehow achieve some good goal.
Is it because in the Palestine-Israel conflict, there is no hope left for life? Or because Palestinians and Israelis seemingly have given up on peace and see violence as their unavoidable destiny?
Could it be that people see friends and relatives dying around them every day and no one else seems to care?
Their suffering is exploited by fanatics who distort religious belief, distorting the peaceful fundamentals of Islam, for example, convincing suicide bombers their act is an expression of faith.
It's not.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that few people seem to care when a Palestinian dies, but the value of an Israeli life is given so much more concern by the media and the public.
In the first 15 days of September, two suicide bombings took place in Israel, killing 16 people and wounding 93. The violence got widespread coverage.
In contrast, during the same period, 48 Palestinians, mostly civilian, were killed by Israel, including many young children. More than 250 Palestinians were seriously wounded. These killings got very little coverage.
Does this disparity in coverage contribute to the problem? I think so. I think it sends out a message that a Palestinian life is not worth the same value as an Israeli life.
I oppose suicide bombings. Most Palestinians I know are against them, too. But how do you ask a man whose young daughter has been slaughtered in an Israeli attack to set aside his grief and speak out against suicide bombings?
Palestinians feel that they are under siege, their land is being taken away and they have little hope for a just and fair peace, something that Israel has yet to offer. Israel's "most generous offer of peace" was far from what many would consider a just and fair peace.
The people of Israel and Palestine have both given up on peace. Neither side seems concerned about the suffering of the other. Israelis remain silent about the murder of innocent Palestinian civilians. Palestinians remain silent in the wake of suicide bombings.
Still, I know that before we can talk about peace, justice and fairness, we both need to stop the violence.
It would be nice if more people on both sides stopped contributing to the conflict by only speaking out against the violence in a partisan manner when it is against their own people. We should show compassion for each other, too.
If we did that, maybe we wouldn't have more suicide bombings or the collateral killings of young children.
I couldn't answer the question why it happens. But I think that pretty much sums up how both sides can make all the violence stop.
# # #
Friday, September 17, 2004
American actions reflect old Soviet styles in new Gulag, 9-17-04 AAMS
American actions reflect old Soviet styles in New Gulag
Arab American Media Services/Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
I grew up in an American that once had powerful values. Today, many of those values have lost their luster.
I remember reading the Gulag Archipelago and about its author and most famous guest, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, denounced by the Soviets as a "terrorist."
Today, the Soviet Gulag has been replaced by an American Gulag. It's not as bad, but it's close, holding thousands of political prisoners falsely accused of terrorism and denied the right of self-defense.
In this new Gulag, "Solzhenitsyns" and "Sharanskys" have been replaced by "Salehs" and "Arnauts." These are Arab Americans persecuted for political beliefs who face trumped-up, false charges of terrorism.
Maybe Americans have tired of championing civil rights. When it comes to rights of these new dissidents, Americans seem uncaring.
Does it bother us that American soldiers kill civilians or journalists? When the Soviets did it, we marched, protested and railed against the Soviet beast!
Recently, a reporter for the Arabic language satellite station, al-Arabiya, was killed by American forces in Iraq. His death was barely covered in the US. American officials brushed it off as "collateral damage." Few reported the other side of the story that tells a more damning tale of possible American war crimes.
The reporter, Mazen Tomeizi, was killed after an American skirmish with Iraqi insurgents ended. A Bradley armored vehicle was burned and two other American helicopters were crippled nearby.
As Tomeizi was doing his "stand-up report" in front of the Bradley, American helicopters fired several missiles killing him and 13 other Iraqi civilians including a young Iraqi girl. American soldiers insisted they were merely returning fire.
It reminded me of how Israeli forces fire missiles from helicopters into Palestinian villages killing civilian targets.
But the truth seems otherwise. Other Middle East media, including al-Arabiya, show Tomeizi being blown to bits while doing what American TV reporters call the "scene wrap." His blood splattered on the TV camera lens as he was being filmed.
It's gruesome. But the video taken before the killing shows no evidence that Americans were being fired on at all and the skirmish had long ended.
Most Americans haven't seen any of this, of course. It's prohibited by the new American Gulag. The public frowns on truth that implicates them in crimes, so American reporters seem pressured only to report permissible truth.
Many Arabs believe that American forces show a total disregard for the lives of Arabs and Arab journalists.
Americans don't like Arabs. I don't believe Tomeizi's killing was accidental. It may have to do with the fact that he was reporting in front of a burning Bradley, which symbolized how poorly America's war in Iraqi is going.
The fact that he happens to be Palestinian only adds volume to the disregard for his death.
It's a trait the American Gulag adopted from Soviet practices we once vilified.
The vast majority of the Soviet dissidents were Jews. Most of the American dissidents and political prisoners are Arab. American's hate Arabs in much the same way that many Russians hated Jews, forcing them to flee.
Some say "hate" is too strong a word. I disagree. Hate allows normal people to justify the unjustifiable.
Hating Arab Americans makes it easy to abuse them. Hate means we can ignore atrocities committed in our name by our soldiers.
That's the principle of the new American Gulag. We didn't invent. We just find it convenient.
# # #
Arab American Media Services/Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
I grew up in an American that once had powerful values. Today, many of those values have lost their luster.
I remember reading the Gulag Archipelago and about its author and most famous guest, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, denounced by the Soviets as a "terrorist."
Today, the Soviet Gulag has been replaced by an American Gulag. It's not as bad, but it's close, holding thousands of political prisoners falsely accused of terrorism and denied the right of self-defense.
In this new Gulag, "Solzhenitsyns" and "Sharanskys" have been replaced by "Salehs" and "Arnauts." These are Arab Americans persecuted for political beliefs who face trumped-up, false charges of terrorism.
Maybe Americans have tired of championing civil rights. When it comes to rights of these new dissidents, Americans seem uncaring.
Does it bother us that American soldiers kill civilians or journalists? When the Soviets did it, we marched, protested and railed against the Soviet beast!
Recently, a reporter for the Arabic language satellite station, al-Arabiya, was killed by American forces in Iraq. His death was barely covered in the US. American officials brushed it off as "collateral damage." Few reported the other side of the story that tells a more damning tale of possible American war crimes.
The reporter, Mazen Tomeizi, was killed after an American skirmish with Iraqi insurgents ended. A Bradley armored vehicle was burned and two other American helicopters were crippled nearby.
As Tomeizi was doing his "stand-up report" in front of the Bradley, American helicopters fired several missiles killing him and 13 other Iraqi civilians including a young Iraqi girl. American soldiers insisted they were merely returning fire.
It reminded me of how Israeli forces fire missiles from helicopters into Palestinian villages killing civilian targets.
But the truth seems otherwise. Other Middle East media, including al-Arabiya, show Tomeizi being blown to bits while doing what American TV reporters call the "scene wrap." His blood splattered on the TV camera lens as he was being filmed.
It's gruesome. But the video taken before the killing shows no evidence that Americans were being fired on at all and the skirmish had long ended.
Most Americans haven't seen any of this, of course. It's prohibited by the new American Gulag. The public frowns on truth that implicates them in crimes, so American reporters seem pressured only to report permissible truth.
Many Arabs believe that American forces show a total disregard for the lives of Arabs and Arab journalists.
Americans don't like Arabs. I don't believe Tomeizi's killing was accidental. It may have to do with the fact that he was reporting in front of a burning Bradley, which symbolized how poorly America's war in Iraqi is going.
The fact that he happens to be Palestinian only adds volume to the disregard for his death.
It's a trait the American Gulag adopted from Soviet practices we once vilified.
The vast majority of the Soviet dissidents were Jews. Most of the American dissidents and political prisoners are Arab. American's hate Arabs in much the same way that many Russians hated Jews, forcing them to flee.
Some say "hate" is too strong a word. I disagree. Hate allows normal people to justify the unjustifiable.
Hating Arab Americans makes it easy to abuse them. Hate means we can ignore atrocities committed in our name by our soldiers.
That's the principle of the new American Gulag. We didn't invent. We just find it convenient.
# # #
Israeli extremists block peace 9-17-04
ISRAELI EXTREMISTS BATTLE TO BLOCK PEACE
Creators Syndicate,
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2004, AND THERE AFTER
Ray Hanania
The Likud Party headed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has split, and the Yesha Council representing the Israeli settler movement is taking sides as a political battle rages over whether Israel should withdraw from the Gaza Strip.
While some may see this as moderation battling extremism, it is really just another ugly war among Israeli extremists who stand in the way of peace and prolong the conflict for selfish political reasons. To Palestinians, Sharon is a terrorist, plain and simple.
The killing of civilians has shadowed his career since his first days as a terror unit commander in the 1950s. Sharon has split with his colleague, Benjamin Netanyahu, a former prime minister also dedicated to continued bloodshed and violence. But one thing remains in common for them: They both oppose the creation of a viable Palestinian State.
The Israeli settler movement is a movement based on racism and discrimination. Only Jews are allowed to live in the settlements, which are established on lands confiscated from Muslim and Christian owners who are then expelled.
So when Sharon decided to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, some people argued ridiculously that he was taking steps to compromise and achieve peace. In reality, Sharon has found himself in a vicious battle, and he wants to cut his losses.
It was Sharon who provoked the current battle in September 2000. He then used the violence to exploit Israeli emotions and win election as prime minister. Sharon flooded the Gaza Strip and West Bank with soldiers who brutalized and pushed Palestinians into a conflict that Sharon now feels jeopardizes his leadership.
Making matters worse, some Palestinians have resorted to immoral acts of violence, such as suicide bombings. But most of the violence involves Palestinians defending themselves on their own land against attacks and killings by Israeli soldiers and settlers.
The split over evacuating the Gaza Strip has exposed the Likud and settlers for the terrorists that they really are. Sharon has accused Likud and settler opponents of the withdrawal of inciting civil war.
The one certainty of Israeli extremists is they love to pretend like they are innocent victims, when all along they are the causes of the violence themselves. When Sharon's predecessor Yitzhak Rabin tried to achieve a lasting peace with the Palestinians, it was a Likud settler fanatic who murdered him. In doing so, Yigal Amir also killed the peace process and made it possible for Netanyahu and Sharon to rise up in the flames they helped ignite. Both Sharon and Netanyahu opposed Rabin and the peace process, and both of them helped to undermine it and provoke Palestinian violence.
Throughout history, Israeli fanatics have resorted to terrorism. Likud founder Menachem Begin distinguished himself as the first terrorist to use kidnapping, assassination and murder in Palestine in the 1940s.
Once in power, terrorists never have to use open terror. Instead they act like Sharon, provoking the innocent into acts of violence and using that violence to achieve their political goals. Whether Israel does or does not withdraw from the Gaza Strip is meaningless.
Sharon's true intent is the destruction of a Christian and Muslim Palestinian State. Only until this terror conspiracy in leadership is replaced by a genuine Israeli peace leader can there be any hope for lasting peace.
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
Creators Syndicate,
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2004, AND THERE AFTER
Ray Hanania
The Likud Party headed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has split, and the Yesha Council representing the Israeli settler movement is taking sides as a political battle rages over whether Israel should withdraw from the Gaza Strip.
While some may see this as moderation battling extremism, it is really just another ugly war among Israeli extremists who stand in the way of peace and prolong the conflict for selfish political reasons. To Palestinians, Sharon is a terrorist, plain and simple.
The killing of civilians has shadowed his career since his first days as a terror unit commander in the 1950s. Sharon has split with his colleague, Benjamin Netanyahu, a former prime minister also dedicated to continued bloodshed and violence. But one thing remains in common for them: They both oppose the creation of a viable Palestinian State.
The Israeli settler movement is a movement based on racism and discrimination. Only Jews are allowed to live in the settlements, which are established on lands confiscated from Muslim and Christian owners who are then expelled.
So when Sharon decided to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, some people argued ridiculously that he was taking steps to compromise and achieve peace. In reality, Sharon has found himself in a vicious battle, and he wants to cut his losses.
It was Sharon who provoked the current battle in September 2000. He then used the violence to exploit Israeli emotions and win election as prime minister. Sharon flooded the Gaza Strip and West Bank with soldiers who brutalized and pushed Palestinians into a conflict that Sharon now feels jeopardizes his leadership.
Making matters worse, some Palestinians have resorted to immoral acts of violence, such as suicide bombings. But most of the violence involves Palestinians defending themselves on their own land against attacks and killings by Israeli soldiers and settlers.
The split over evacuating the Gaza Strip has exposed the Likud and settlers for the terrorists that they really are. Sharon has accused Likud and settler opponents of the withdrawal of inciting civil war.
The one certainty of Israeli extremists is they love to pretend like they are innocent victims, when all along they are the causes of the violence themselves. When Sharon's predecessor Yitzhak Rabin tried to achieve a lasting peace with the Palestinians, it was a Likud settler fanatic who murdered him. In doing so, Yigal Amir also killed the peace process and made it possible for Netanyahu and Sharon to rise up in the flames they helped ignite. Both Sharon and Netanyahu opposed Rabin and the peace process, and both of them helped to undermine it and provoke Palestinian violence.
Throughout history, Israeli fanatics have resorted to terrorism. Likud founder Menachem Begin distinguished himself as the first terrorist to use kidnapping, assassination and murder in Palestine in the 1940s.
Once in power, terrorists never have to use open terror. Instead they act like Sharon, provoking the innocent into acts of violence and using that violence to achieve their political goals. Whether Israel does or does not withdraw from the Gaza Strip is meaningless.
Sharon's true intent is the destruction of a Christian and Muslim Palestinian State. Only until this terror conspiracy in leadership is replaced by a genuine Israeli peace leader can there be any hope for lasting peace.
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
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Israeli population data offers cynical hope 9-16-04 AAMS
Israeli population data offers cynical hope
Arab American Media Services/Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
Despite non-stop violence against them by Israel's military, Palestinians found some hope this week when the country's official census study showed Palestinians growing twice as fast as Jews.
Published by Israel's leading English language newspaper, Haaretz, the data shows that Israel's population of 6.8 million consists of 5.5 million Jews and 1.3 million Arabs.
Of course, those number do not include the Palestinians living under military occupation in the Gaza Strip and West Bank where Palestinians are killed at a rate three times faster than Israelis.
It does include citizens of East Jerusalem, which Israel illegally annexed and that the international community still considers occupied territory.
These quirks aside, the study indicated that the Jewish population grew by only 1.4 percent in 2003, compared to 3 percent for the Arab population.
Unlikely that Israel will make the concessions necessary to create a viable Palestinian State, the population trend is the only hope left for Palestinians in a land consumed by violence by both sides. Instead of two states, there will be one multi-national state, forcing Israel to become truly Democratic by default.
If you put those numbers to a calculator, and the growth rate remains the same, you can see where the numbers take you. In about 92 years, Israel will become a predominantly Christian and Muslim nation, unless Israel is planning something like expelling non-Jews.
The current growth rate will result in a population of 20,039,759 Jewish Israelis and 20,314,458 Christian and Muslim Israelis, by my calculations.
As a side note, the survey also showed that the Arab-Moslem population increased by 3.3 percent, while the Christian community increased by only 1.2 percent. That's a whole other calculation that just means that the Christian presence in the Holy Land will be even more negligible than it already is.
With these statistics in mind, you can bet the pressure will mount on Israel to expel its Arab citizens. You know. The Christian and Muslim "Arab citizens" Israelis constantly assert have "equal rights" in the "Jewish States."
It seems hard to imagine a time when the birthplace of Jesus might have no Christians, but it could happen.
Even harder to imagine is that a Jewish State built to collect Jews expelled or persecuted mainly from Europe because of growing Christian anti-Semitism, would now start expelling other religious groups.
This is a very cynical way to look at the future. But in today's environment where fanatics seem to have taken over both sides of the dispute, cynicism sometimes masquerades as hope.
The fact is the Arab-Israeli conflict has always been about population and land. Israel isn't just a state, it is a Jewish State. The conflict today isn't about whether Israel should exist or not, but whether Israel should be allowed to keep the lands it occupied in 1967.
But an even more difficult scenario to envision is that Israelis and Palestinians might look past the scars of violence and vengeance to achieve a just and fair peace.
Though 92 years seems far off, nearly the same time has elapsed since the Western Allies of World War I encouraged Jews to leave mostly Western nations to create their own "homeland" in Palestine, a country already populated by Christians and Muslims.
Who would have thought back then, it would lead us to where we are today?
# # #
Arab American Media Services/Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
Despite non-stop violence against them by Israel's military, Palestinians found some hope this week when the country's official census study showed Palestinians growing twice as fast as Jews.
Published by Israel's leading English language newspaper, Haaretz, the data shows that Israel's population of 6.8 million consists of 5.5 million Jews and 1.3 million Arabs.
Of course, those number do not include the Palestinians living under military occupation in the Gaza Strip and West Bank where Palestinians are killed at a rate three times faster than Israelis.
It does include citizens of East Jerusalem, which Israel illegally annexed and that the international community still considers occupied territory.
These quirks aside, the study indicated that the Jewish population grew by only 1.4 percent in 2003, compared to 3 percent for the Arab population.
Unlikely that Israel will make the concessions necessary to create a viable Palestinian State, the population trend is the only hope left for Palestinians in a land consumed by violence by both sides. Instead of two states, there will be one multi-national state, forcing Israel to become truly Democratic by default.
If you put those numbers to a calculator, and the growth rate remains the same, you can see where the numbers take you. In about 92 years, Israel will become a predominantly Christian and Muslim nation, unless Israel is planning something like expelling non-Jews.
The current growth rate will result in a population of 20,039,759 Jewish Israelis and 20,314,458 Christian and Muslim Israelis, by my calculations.
As a side note, the survey also showed that the Arab-Moslem population increased by 3.3 percent, while the Christian community increased by only 1.2 percent. That's a whole other calculation that just means that the Christian presence in the Holy Land will be even more negligible than it already is.
With these statistics in mind, you can bet the pressure will mount on Israel to expel its Arab citizens. You know. The Christian and Muslim "Arab citizens" Israelis constantly assert have "equal rights" in the "Jewish States."
It seems hard to imagine a time when the birthplace of Jesus might have no Christians, but it could happen.
Even harder to imagine is that a Jewish State built to collect Jews expelled or persecuted mainly from Europe because of growing Christian anti-Semitism, would now start expelling other religious groups.
This is a very cynical way to look at the future. But in today's environment where fanatics seem to have taken over both sides of the dispute, cynicism sometimes masquerades as hope.
The fact is the Arab-Israeli conflict has always been about population and land. Israel isn't just a state, it is a Jewish State. The conflict today isn't about whether Israel should exist or not, but whether Israel should be allowed to keep the lands it occupied in 1967.
But an even more difficult scenario to envision is that Israelis and Palestinians might look past the scars of violence and vengeance to achieve a just and fair peace.
Though 92 years seems far off, nearly the same time has elapsed since the Western Allies of World War I encouraged Jews to leave mostly Western nations to create their own "homeland" in Palestine, a country already populated by Christians and Muslims.
Who would have thought back then, it would lead us to where we are today?
# # #
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Must Arabs apologize for terrorism committed in their name? 9-14-04
MUST ARABS APOLOGIZE FOR TERRORISM COMMITTED IN THEIR NAME?
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004, AND THEREAFTER
By Ray Hanania
There is a healthy debate finally taking place in the Arab world, and it is based on a single question: should Arabs and Muslims apologize for the actions of terrorists who commit atrocities in the name of "Arabs" and "Muslims"?
Until now, most Arabs and Muslims have rejected this idea, arguing that they are not responsible for the terrorist acts, which are often committed by individuals or by groups sponsoring these individuals.
Therefore, why should they apologize for something they did not do? Yet, continued terrorist acts, the increase in the "shock factor" of the atrocities and growing anger in the world are forcing many Arabs and Muslims to reconsider their view.
I don't believe we should apologize for the atrocities themselves. These are the acts of individuals and organizations with whom most Arabs and Muslims and I do not agree.
Some Arabs and Muslims were among the dead on Sept. 11, and more than 14 people who were or looked Middle Eastern were murdered in post-Sept. 11 revenge killings.
But I do believe we should apologize for not having shown the courage to stand up to these terrorists among us sooner. In other words, we are not responsible for the terrorism, but we are responsible as Arabs and as Muslims to stand up and denounce those who commit atrocities in our name. And we have not done that.
Apologizing for not doing enough to stop the terrorists does not undermine what we hold as righteous causes, such as the liberation of Palestine and the movement to achieve a lasting peace based on land-for-peace compromise.
That is a just struggle that must continue, regardless of the terrorist acts committed in the name of Palestine.
As Arabs and Muslims, it is not our responsibility to apologize for the terrorism of a suicide bomber who strikes at Israeli military and civilians.
But we must speak out against acts that have hijacked the Palestinian cause against the will of the Palestinian people.
We do not need terrorism to win. We can win on the power of our justice. We do not need violence to justify what is already justified. Palestinians deserve to be free, and Israel cannot deny that inevitability. In the face of this terrorism, Israel has been able to prolong the illegal occupation of Palestinian land and resist what it considers unfavorable compromises, such as the true sharing of the city of Jerusalem.
By not speaking out against the rising incidence of Palestinian terrorism and suicide bombings, we are allowing these terrorists, who do not represent the majority of Palestinians, to hijack our cause, to marginalize the community and to assert themselves as the symbols of Palestinian liberation when they are not.
Arabs and Muslims were not responsible as a people for Sept. 11. Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and his Taliban hosts in Afghanistan were responsible for this terrorist attack. But continued Palestinian terrorism and the failure of Palestinians to denounce these killers have created a new reality and a new perception that holds us all responsible for the actions of a few. It may not be right, but it is a reality.
We need not apologize for this act of terrorism. But we must apologize for not doing enough to prevent it. We must do more to counter the growing perception that Arabs and Muslims endorse bin Laden's acts by speaking out more forcefully in denouncing bin Laden's atrocities.
Although we do not need to apologize for those in our community who also blame Israel and "Jews" for Sept. 11 -- or the ridiculous claim that Jews were alerted before the attacks to save their lives -- we do need to forcefully speak out against that stupidity in thinking. It's anti-Semitic.
In the growing debate about whether we should apologize for the terrorism, we must accept that we have not done enough to prevent those among ourselves from committing atrocities in our name.
We should struggle to protect our good name and our just causes from being violated by those who would use injustice as a weapon of revenge, and act now to prevent those in our community from committing further acts of terrorism in our name.
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
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004, AND THEREAFTER
By Ray Hanania
There is a healthy debate finally taking place in the Arab world, and it is based on a single question: should Arabs and Muslims apologize for the actions of terrorists who commit atrocities in the name of "Arabs" and "Muslims"?
Until now, most Arabs and Muslims have rejected this idea, arguing that they are not responsible for the terrorist acts, which are often committed by individuals or by groups sponsoring these individuals.
Therefore, why should they apologize for something they did not do? Yet, continued terrorist acts, the increase in the "shock factor" of the atrocities and growing anger in the world are forcing many Arabs and Muslims to reconsider their view.
I don't believe we should apologize for the atrocities themselves. These are the acts of individuals and organizations with whom most Arabs and Muslims and I do not agree.
Some Arabs and Muslims were among the dead on Sept. 11, and more than 14 people who were or looked Middle Eastern were murdered in post-Sept. 11 revenge killings.
But I do believe we should apologize for not having shown the courage to stand up to these terrorists among us sooner. In other words, we are not responsible for the terrorism, but we are responsible as Arabs and as Muslims to stand up and denounce those who commit atrocities in our name. And we have not done that.
Apologizing for not doing enough to stop the terrorists does not undermine what we hold as righteous causes, such as the liberation of Palestine and the movement to achieve a lasting peace based on land-for-peace compromise.
That is a just struggle that must continue, regardless of the terrorist acts committed in the name of Palestine.
As Arabs and Muslims, it is not our responsibility to apologize for the terrorism of a suicide bomber who strikes at Israeli military and civilians.
But we must speak out against acts that have hijacked the Palestinian cause against the will of the Palestinian people.
We do not need terrorism to win. We can win on the power of our justice. We do not need violence to justify what is already justified. Palestinians deserve to be free, and Israel cannot deny that inevitability. In the face of this terrorism, Israel has been able to prolong the illegal occupation of Palestinian land and resist what it considers unfavorable compromises, such as the true sharing of the city of Jerusalem.
By not speaking out against the rising incidence of Palestinian terrorism and suicide bombings, we are allowing these terrorists, who do not represent the majority of Palestinians, to hijack our cause, to marginalize the community and to assert themselves as the symbols of Palestinian liberation when they are not.
Arabs and Muslims were not responsible as a people for Sept. 11. Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and his Taliban hosts in Afghanistan were responsible for this terrorist attack. But continued Palestinian terrorism and the failure of Palestinians to denounce these killers have created a new reality and a new perception that holds us all responsible for the actions of a few. It may not be right, but it is a reality.
We need not apologize for this act of terrorism. But we must apologize for not doing enough to prevent it. We must do more to counter the growing perception that Arabs and Muslims endorse bin Laden's acts by speaking out more forcefully in denouncing bin Laden's atrocities.
Although we do not need to apologize for those in our community who also blame Israel and "Jews" for Sept. 11 -- or the ridiculous claim that Jews were alerted before the attacks to save their lives -- we do need to forcefully speak out against that stupidity in thinking. It's anti-Semitic.
In the growing debate about whether we should apologize for the terrorism, we must accept that we have not done enough to prevent those among ourselves from committing atrocities in our name.
We should struggle to protect our good name and our just causes from being violated by those who would use injustice as a weapon of revenge, and act now to prevent those in our community from committing further acts of terrorism in our name.
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, September 10, 2004
Palestinians standing in the way of peace 9-10-04
Palestinians standing in the way of peace
Creators Syndicate Friday, Sept. 10, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Three years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Palestinians have failed to do enough to condemn the kind of Islamic extremism that caused the terrorism.
And while, technically, some Palestinians are correct in arguing that their cause was not behind Osama bin Laden's terrorism, they were uninvolved and they were unsupportive, a redefinition of terrorism and the rise of terrorism in the intifada place a moral burden on their backs they can't avoid.
Further, the failure of Palestinians to control their own Islamic extremist groups, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, has redoubled the burden.Islamic fanaticism has permeated the Palestinian cause, undermining its justice and threatening Palestinian national aspirations.
They have functioned with the tacit approval of the Muslim world, and Palestinians, who embraced Islam as the so-called official religion of the yet unachieved Palestine, have fueled the linkage.
More than championing the principle of Palestinian justice, Palestinians must address without equivocation the terrorism that has taken place in their own name.
That terrorism parallels the terrorism of Osama bin Laden in the eyes of the West, which has the power not only to deny Palestinian national rights, but to empower Israel's growing right-wing government to exercise even worse acts of state-sponsored terrorism in the guise of self-defense.
Israel would not have been able to build the wall had Palestinians not failed to rein in the terrorists who have hijacked the Palestinian cause. Suicide bombings are immoral, and rather than undermine Israel's actions, they only serve to reinforce world moral support for Israel's repression.Israel would not have been able to expand its racist settlements had Palestinians not failed to control the free-lance terrorists who seem to dominate the current turmoil.
Israel would not have overcome years of Palestinian advances in the world toward nationhood had Palestinians stood firm in decrying not only Israeli atrocities but also atrocities committed by Palestinians or in the Palestinians' name.
Many might argue this is an unfair burden. It's true, it is unfair. But the Palestinian tragedy that is unfolding is worse than unfair, and unless Palestinians take serious steps to arrest the religious extremists among them, their cause will only further erode.
Before Palestinians can even speak out against Israel's actions, they must speak out against the actions of their own people. They can thank the Islamist movement for placing that inevitable burden on their backs. They can thank the rise of Islamic fanaticism for undermining their just cause. They can thank Osama bin Laden for pushing the cause of Palestine to the back burners of the international conscience. They can thank Sept. 11 for making it nearly impossible to stand up and demand justice or demand that Israel's atrocities end.
The truth is that despite the ugliness of Israel's wall, it has reduced Palestinian extremist suicide bombings. The wall is not the right answer for Israel, nor will it ever guarantee true long-term security, but it is providing the answer that Palestinians have failed to provide.
The longer Palestinians delay speaking out against the fanaticism among their own community, the worse the situation will become, and the more difficult it will be for Palestinians to achieve justice.
Even Palestinians who embrace peace and oppose violence cannot succeed as long as the Palestinian community, the conscience of the Palestinian people, fails to stand up and denounce terrorism and suicide bombings.
They must, as a nation, denounce Islamic fanaticism, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the instrument of these horrors, suicide bombings, or else they may be forced to surrender their historic claims for justice, compromise and peace.
Hamas stands in the way of peace, not Israel. The failure of the Palestinians as a nation, not individual groups, to denounce suicide bombings, stands in the way of justice.
Israel may not want to give the Palestinians a real just peace, but Palestinians have made it easy for Israel not to do so.
Ray Hanania was the national president of the Palestinian American Congress in 1995. He can be reached at rayhanania@aol.com.
Creators Syndicate Friday, Sept. 10, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Three years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Palestinians have failed to do enough to condemn the kind of Islamic extremism that caused the terrorism.
And while, technically, some Palestinians are correct in arguing that their cause was not behind Osama bin Laden's terrorism, they were uninvolved and they were unsupportive, a redefinition of terrorism and the rise of terrorism in the intifada place a moral burden on their backs they can't avoid.
Further, the failure of Palestinians to control their own Islamic extremist groups, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, has redoubled the burden.Islamic fanaticism has permeated the Palestinian cause, undermining its justice and threatening Palestinian national aspirations.
They have functioned with the tacit approval of the Muslim world, and Palestinians, who embraced Islam as the so-called official religion of the yet unachieved Palestine, have fueled the linkage.
More than championing the principle of Palestinian justice, Palestinians must address without equivocation the terrorism that has taken place in their own name.
That terrorism parallels the terrorism of Osama bin Laden in the eyes of the West, which has the power not only to deny Palestinian national rights, but to empower Israel's growing right-wing government to exercise even worse acts of state-sponsored terrorism in the guise of self-defense.
Israel would not have been able to build the wall had Palestinians not failed to rein in the terrorists who have hijacked the Palestinian cause. Suicide bombings are immoral, and rather than undermine Israel's actions, they only serve to reinforce world moral support for Israel's repression.Israel would not have been able to expand its racist settlements had Palestinians not failed to control the free-lance terrorists who seem to dominate the current turmoil.
Israel would not have overcome years of Palestinian advances in the world toward nationhood had Palestinians stood firm in decrying not only Israeli atrocities but also atrocities committed by Palestinians or in the Palestinians' name.
Many might argue this is an unfair burden. It's true, it is unfair. But the Palestinian tragedy that is unfolding is worse than unfair, and unless Palestinians take serious steps to arrest the religious extremists among them, their cause will only further erode.
Before Palestinians can even speak out against Israel's actions, they must speak out against the actions of their own people. They can thank the Islamist movement for placing that inevitable burden on their backs. They can thank the rise of Islamic fanaticism for undermining their just cause. They can thank Osama bin Laden for pushing the cause of Palestine to the back burners of the international conscience. They can thank Sept. 11 for making it nearly impossible to stand up and demand justice or demand that Israel's atrocities end.
The truth is that despite the ugliness of Israel's wall, it has reduced Palestinian extremist suicide bombings. The wall is not the right answer for Israel, nor will it ever guarantee true long-term security, but it is providing the answer that Palestinians have failed to provide.
The longer Palestinians delay speaking out against the fanaticism among their own community, the worse the situation will become, and the more difficult it will be for Palestinians to achieve justice.
Even Palestinians who embrace peace and oppose violence cannot succeed as long as the Palestinian community, the conscience of the Palestinian people, fails to stand up and denounce terrorism and suicide bombings.
They must, as a nation, denounce Islamic fanaticism, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the instrument of these horrors, suicide bombings, or else they may be forced to surrender their historic claims for justice, compromise and peace.
Hamas stands in the way of peace, not Israel. The failure of the Palestinians as a nation, not individual groups, to denounce suicide bombings, stands in the way of justice.
Israel may not want to give the Palestinians a real just peace, but Palestinians have made it easy for Israel not to do so.
Ray Hanania was the national president of the Palestinian American Congress in 1995. He can be reached at rayhanania@aol.com.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Why do the Republicans hate us? 9-06-04
Why do they (GOP) hate us?
Creators Tuesday Sept. 6, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Why do the Republicans hate us?
It was almost like the Republican National Convention was a party of Arab bashers, thanks in part to one of the opening night speakers who set this ugly tone, Rudy Giuliani.
The comments of the former mayor of New York may not seem surprising to some, since he was in office when 19 Islamic terrorists attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center and murdered nearly 3,000 innocent victims on Sept. 11th.
But Giuliani's comments shattered all barriers of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred, and he sounded more like one of the fanatic cable new talk show hosts who disguise hate for opinion, and demagoguery for news.
His vitriolic attacks may have rallied the emotional spirits of the Republican delegates gathered at Madison Square Garden, but it did little to strengthen their moral compass.
Giuliani masterfully pushed every hateful anti-Arab button he could, disparaging the Palestinians, the Arab World, Muslims and even Arab American organizations, all based on a philosophy that began with President Bush that has been bastardized just as clearly as Osama Bin Laden bastardized the true meaning of Islam.
"You are either with us or you are with the terrorists."
No. The real formula is that you are either with justice or you are against justice. But that would mean that people like Giuliani, whose careers have been built upon embracing heavy handed injustices, would have to set aside their partisan political agenda.
And Giuliani can't do that.
His clarion wasn't sounded for the world, but for those in America who dissent from his racist, conservative views. His narrow vision of "terrorism" is defined not by reason but by hate and bias. Every example was intended to promote a partisan, anti-Arab agenda that he has carried since the day he was first elected to office in New York.
His message was one of searing emotion and irrational vengeance.
I was sickened by his claim that he cared at all about the "poor people of Iraq," who he now says was the real reason why America invaded a sovereign nation that posed no real threat, only an imagined threat that was based on Bush's lies.
And I shivered when I heard Giuliani, who has never shown compassion for the poor in his own city, claimed to be the patron saint of victims of Sudanese terror or the women of the Arab World.
If Giuliani really cared anything about the women of the Arab World, why doesn't he have Hijab wearing Muslim and Arab women working on his staff?
Worse was his exploitation of the suffering of Sept. 11th.
As an American, I fear living in a Giuliani world. As an American, I am frightened by the policies that have put the tang in one of the most bitter and divisive election campaigns in American history.
As an American, I fear the message of hate that Giuliani was permitted to send out from what should be a beacon of freedom and justice; Giuliani's token abuse of those terms put all who have died to protect this country to shame.
Giuliani spoke with the same fervor and hysteria that once stirred the German people to put a Jewish face on the troubles that plagued their nation in the 1930s.
But there was an accidental truth in his acerbic tirade. He said, " When it catches hold there is nothing more powerful than freedom. Give it some hope, and it will overwhelm dictators, and even defeat terrorists."
If there is a remedy for people like Giuliani, it is true freedom, not the bastardized freedom that Giuliani today represents.
# # #
Creators Tuesday Sept. 6, 2004
By Ray Hanania
Why do the Republicans hate us?
It was almost like the Republican National Convention was a party of Arab bashers, thanks in part to one of the opening night speakers who set this ugly tone, Rudy Giuliani.
The comments of the former mayor of New York may not seem surprising to some, since he was in office when 19 Islamic terrorists attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center and murdered nearly 3,000 innocent victims on Sept. 11th.
But Giuliani's comments shattered all barriers of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred, and he sounded more like one of the fanatic cable new talk show hosts who disguise hate for opinion, and demagoguery for news.
His vitriolic attacks may have rallied the emotional spirits of the Republican delegates gathered at Madison Square Garden, but it did little to strengthen their moral compass.
Giuliani masterfully pushed every hateful anti-Arab button he could, disparaging the Palestinians, the Arab World, Muslims and even Arab American organizations, all based on a philosophy that began with President Bush that has been bastardized just as clearly as Osama Bin Laden bastardized the true meaning of Islam.
"You are either with us or you are with the terrorists."
No. The real formula is that you are either with justice or you are against justice. But that would mean that people like Giuliani, whose careers have been built upon embracing heavy handed injustices, would have to set aside their partisan political agenda.
And Giuliani can't do that.
His clarion wasn't sounded for the world, but for those in America who dissent from his racist, conservative views. His narrow vision of "terrorism" is defined not by reason but by hate and bias. Every example was intended to promote a partisan, anti-Arab agenda that he has carried since the day he was first elected to office in New York.
His message was one of searing emotion and irrational vengeance.
I was sickened by his claim that he cared at all about the "poor people of Iraq," who he now says was the real reason why America invaded a sovereign nation that posed no real threat, only an imagined threat that was based on Bush's lies.
And I shivered when I heard Giuliani, who has never shown compassion for the poor in his own city, claimed to be the patron saint of victims of Sudanese terror or the women of the Arab World.
If Giuliani really cared anything about the women of the Arab World, why doesn't he have Hijab wearing Muslim and Arab women working on his staff?
Worse was his exploitation of the suffering of Sept. 11th.
As an American, I fear living in a Giuliani world. As an American, I am frightened by the policies that have put the tang in one of the most bitter and divisive election campaigns in American history.
As an American, I fear the message of hate that Giuliani was permitted to send out from what should be a beacon of freedom and justice; Giuliani's token abuse of those terms put all who have died to protect this country to shame.
Giuliani spoke with the same fervor and hysteria that once stirred the German people to put a Jewish face on the troubles that plagued their nation in the 1930s.
But there was an accidental truth in his acerbic tirade. He said, " When it catches hold there is nothing more powerful than freedom. Give it some hope, and it will overwhelm dictators, and even defeat terrorists."
If there is a remedy for people like Giuliani, it is true freedom, not the bastardized freedom that Giuliani today represents.
# # #
Friday, September 03, 2004
Schwarzenegger's experience relates to Palestine, too 9-03-04
Schwarzenegger's speech recalls personal horrors
Creators Syndicate Friday Sept. 3, 2004
By Ray Hanania
I could relate to Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech to the Republican Convention in New York when he spoke about how Austrians walked past Russian soldiers during their occupation.
Schwarzenegger said the rule was "not to look the soldiers in the eyes."
If you did, you might attract their indiscriminate wrath.
You can say that about the Russians and everyone believes you. But if you try to describe the same experience with Israelis, no one cares.
During a visit I made there during the beginning of this current rebellion, Intifada, I crossed through several Israeli checkpoints with relatives who lived in Ramallah.
My cousin clutched her two small children who were at the point of tears as we tried to cross a checkpoint to go to Bethlehem where he father, a priest, lives. She said to me, "Don't look the soldiers in the eyes. They hate us. Look away from them otherwise it could cause a problem."
The soldiers were always heavily armed. They had backup soldiers in buildings nearby. Soldiers with machine guns watched from above and at some checkpoints, on nearby hills, Israeli tanks aimed their big guns at the civilians who slowly and painstakingly crossed the checkpoints to move from one city to another.
What my cousin meant, of course, was that any time, the Israeli soldiers could fire their weapon at you. You could be wounded or killed and no one would care.
When a Palestinian is killed, the area is cordoned off and Palestinian paramedics are not permitted near the bodies. Oftentimes, the people killed, according to the Palestine Red Crescent Society (the Palestinian version of the Red Cross) die because no one is allowed to take them to a hospital for treatment.
Many of those killed, according to the PRCS are women and even children, fired at by Israeli soldiers either jumpy because of the tension or driven by a fanatic rage that has swept over much of Israel.
They often fire indiscriminately. Everyday, Palestinians are killed and no one cares. The only time anyone really cares is when a Palestinian extremist commits a suicide bombing and kills Israelis. Pictures of the Israeli victims are splashed across newspaper front pages all the time. But you rarely see the images of Palestinians killed, and they are dying nearly everyday.
The Israeli soldiers hold their automatic weapons high. I walked past to go to Bethlehem to visit my mother's family. She was born under the shadow of the Church of the Nativity, which is today under the shadow of a constant Israeli occupation and unending Israeli military assault.
We walked past the soldiers and I made the mistake of looking up. I just couldn't believe that in this day and age, a soldier could just decide to kill you because he or she doesn't like the look you gave them.
My cousin bowed her head and held the small hands of her two children tight as they cried and quickened their pace past the soldiers.
"Keep moving. Keep moving," she whispered loud enough for me to hear but soft enough so the soldiers, who were a dozen or more yards away could not.
Off on the side of the road was a taxi that had been pulled over. The driver had been screaming at the Israelis who ripped his car apart and destroyed its wheels. The man was yelling in Arabic that he did nothing. People walked by in fright .
The soldier pointed to me as my eye caught his eye and he crooked his finger and waved it towards him. I still did not sense the danger that might take place. I pretended to look away like I didn't see him, but he started to yell in Hebrew and then in Arabic.
Other soldiers ran up to me and pointed their guns at me. And they grilled me like I was a prisoner. They were only satisfied when they saw my blue American passport. One of the soldiers said in English he had a cousin who lived in Chicago. And he asked me about the Bulls and Michael Jordan.
After the chit chat, they let me go.
But everyday I wonder aloud. What if the trigger-happy Israeli shot me? Who would really care?
Palestinians are killed there all the time. Americans, too. I didn't hear that concern in Schwazenegger's speech.
# # #
Creators Syndicate Friday Sept. 3, 2004
By Ray Hanania
I could relate to Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech to the Republican Convention in New York when he spoke about how Austrians walked past Russian soldiers during their occupation.
Schwarzenegger said the rule was "not to look the soldiers in the eyes."
If you did, you might attract their indiscriminate wrath.
You can say that about the Russians and everyone believes you. But if you try to describe the same experience with Israelis, no one cares.
During a visit I made there during the beginning of this current rebellion, Intifada, I crossed through several Israeli checkpoints with relatives who lived in Ramallah.
My cousin clutched her two small children who were at the point of tears as we tried to cross a checkpoint to go to Bethlehem where he father, a priest, lives. She said to me, "Don't look the soldiers in the eyes. They hate us. Look away from them otherwise it could cause a problem."
The soldiers were always heavily armed. They had backup soldiers in buildings nearby. Soldiers with machine guns watched from above and at some checkpoints, on nearby hills, Israeli tanks aimed their big guns at the civilians who slowly and painstakingly crossed the checkpoints to move from one city to another.
What my cousin meant, of course, was that any time, the Israeli soldiers could fire their weapon at you. You could be wounded or killed and no one would care.
When a Palestinian is killed, the area is cordoned off and Palestinian paramedics are not permitted near the bodies. Oftentimes, the people killed, according to the Palestine Red Crescent Society (the Palestinian version of the Red Cross) die because no one is allowed to take them to a hospital for treatment.
Many of those killed, according to the PRCS are women and even children, fired at by Israeli soldiers either jumpy because of the tension or driven by a fanatic rage that has swept over much of Israel.
They often fire indiscriminately. Everyday, Palestinians are killed and no one cares. The only time anyone really cares is when a Palestinian extremist commits a suicide bombing and kills Israelis. Pictures of the Israeli victims are splashed across newspaper front pages all the time. But you rarely see the images of Palestinians killed, and they are dying nearly everyday.
The Israeli soldiers hold their automatic weapons high. I walked past to go to Bethlehem to visit my mother's family. She was born under the shadow of the Church of the Nativity, which is today under the shadow of a constant Israeli occupation and unending Israeli military assault.
We walked past the soldiers and I made the mistake of looking up. I just couldn't believe that in this day and age, a soldier could just decide to kill you because he or she doesn't like the look you gave them.
My cousin bowed her head and held the small hands of her two children tight as they cried and quickened their pace past the soldiers.
"Keep moving. Keep moving," she whispered loud enough for me to hear but soft enough so the soldiers, who were a dozen or more yards away could not.
Off on the side of the road was a taxi that had been pulled over. The driver had been screaming at the Israelis who ripped his car apart and destroyed its wheels. The man was yelling in Arabic that he did nothing. People walked by in fright .
The soldier pointed to me as my eye caught his eye and he crooked his finger and waved it towards him. I still did not sense the danger that might take place. I pretended to look away like I didn't see him, but he started to yell in Hebrew and then in Arabic.
Other soldiers ran up to me and pointed their guns at me. And they grilled me like I was a prisoner. They were only satisfied when they saw my blue American passport. One of the soldiers said in English he had a cousin who lived in Chicago. And he asked me about the Bulls and Michael Jordan.
After the chit chat, they let me go.
But everyday I wonder aloud. What if the trigger-happy Israeli shot me? Who would really care?
Palestinians are killed there all the time. Americans, too. I didn't hear that concern in Schwazenegger's speech.
# # #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)