Memory of Ghada Elayyan lacked enough Arab/Muslim support
Feb. 15, 2006
By Ray Hanania
The last time I was in the Orland Park Civic Center, some 600 people were their shooting expletives at a group of Muslim Arabs who wanted to build a mosque in the village.
So many Arabs and Muslims complained that whenever they try to do good, bigotry and discrimination stands in our way as a community.
The mosque is being built, thanks to the hard work of several dedicated and tireless community leaders.
But on Friday, January 27, I saw something that made my heart pain. And I had to ask are we any better than those who came out to denounce the mosque?
Months earlier, on Nov. 26, while working in her father's store, Frank's Food and Liquor, in the nearby suburb of Robbins, Ghada Elayyan, 27, was shot dead by a robber.
Ghada died on the floor of her father’s store. Her father, Fakhri, was seriously injured during the robbery and has remained hospitalized at Advocate Christ Medical Center. The killer, a known Gangster Disciple Cornell Tyler, was later apprehended and has been charged in Ghada’s murder.
Although many Arab and Muslims Americans have been killed while working in their stores throughout Chicago, Ghada’s story is even more tragic.
A few days before her murder, Ghada graduated with highest honors from Robert Morris College. She set an example for other students and teachers at the school. Many at the college admired Ghada and looked up to as a true role model.
While being Arab or Muslim in this country can draw out anger and animosity from some Americans, Ghada proved that she could rise above the animosity that we all saw with shock at the Mosque public hearings, and yet still go forward achieve great things.
To honor Ghada, her classmates and teachers at Robert Morris College organized a fundraiser that was held on Friday, January 27 at the Orland Park Civic Center, the same place where the hundreds of people came to attack Muslims and Arabs.
Robert Morris College created a scholarship that has been dedicated in Ghada’s name, and the event was intended to raise funds for that scholarship that will help her memory and achievements be remembered for a long time to come.
Ghada’s father Fakhri Elayyan was still hospitalized and could not attend.
Nearly 600 people attended the fundraiser event which featured entertainment, speeches, song, dance and comedy. I was proud to donate my time to help sell tickets and raise money for the Ghada Elayyan Scholarship.
But I was very disappointed, because the truth is very few Arabs and Muslims attended the reception.
Why?
Why didn’t more Arabs and Muslims support this worthy cause?
We all complained loudly about the bigotry of so many Orland Park residents when they denounced the Mosque plans and accused all Arabs and all Muslims of being terrorists.
Yet when we had the chance to do something good, few of us found the time to attend.
In fact, I saw only about 25 Arabs and Muslims at the event. And that includes Ghada’s nine siblings and her mother, who seemed to be on the brink of tears as students stood up to praise her daughter’s great legacy.
Several who attended the event said that some in the community did not want to support this event because, they alleged her father’s store includes alcohol.
I was shocked by the excuse. So many Arab and Muslim Americans sell alcohol in their stores. Alcohol is a legal item in the United States, restricted only by being prohibited from being sold to minors under the age of 21.
I don’t even know if the claim is true. But even if it is true, we, the Arab and Muslim American community, should be ashamed of ourselves for being so judgmental about others.
Some of us will find any excuse not to help a fellow Arab or a fellow Muslim, yet the same people are the first to jump up on their feet and criticize others.
Among those who did attend was Carol Koldenhoven, 40, the daughter of former Palos Heights Mayor Dean Koldenhoven. Carol Koldenhoven was one of Ghada Elayyan's classmates and school friends. The woman, who is a junior at the school, said Elayyan would often come over and play with her children.
She told a local newspaper, "Ghada was a very good friend of mine. We weren't just classmates."
For the fundraiser, Koldenhoven created a memory book of pictures of Elayyan and a table of remembrances, including the program that Elayyan created for a performance of the play "The Lottery."
Robert Morris College deserves a lot of credit for organizing this event. It would have been so easy for others to have complained and prevented it because Ghada was an Arab, in light of the problems associated with Sept. 11. You can bet if that would have happened, more Arabs and Muslims would have complained about bigotry and racism.
Yet, when something good is done for someone who was so good to so many other human beings, and we can’t find the time to help her, we should, as Arabs and Muslims, be ashamed of ourselves.
Ghada Elayyan worked selfishly for everyone. She was a role model not just for Arabs and Muslims, but also for Americans, as was evidenced by the unprecedented turnout in her support Friday Jan. 27 at the Orland Park Civic Center. Her death is clearly a tremendous loss for our community.
But worse, the failure of the community to step up and support her memory is a tragedy that continues to hold us all back.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning Chicago journalist and author. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Friday, March 31, 2006
Our children need parental involvement and leadership
Our children need parental leadership
March 15, 2006, The Future News, Arab Newspaper Chicago
By Ray Hanania
A few years ago in District 230, Arab families noticed that their children were being singled out by the school board, and being punished harshly. Many were being expelled.
The board members, mainly from Palos Heights, were behind what later appeared to be a racist-driven campaign to force the Arab families to move to other communities. That racism boiled over, as we all know, in 2000, when the community protested plans to convert a long-abandoned Christian church into a mosque.
At the time, we organized a campaign to approach the school board to determine how we could work with them to address what was clearly a problem.
District 230 has three schools, Stagg, Andrew and Sandburg, and about 6,600 students in all. Of that, about 10 percent, or 660 were Arab, mostly Palestinian and Jordanian, split evenly between Christian and Muslim in religion.
Yet, of the students expelled, 90 percent were Arab.
We went to the school board meeting and said that if the Arab students are only 10 percent of the school population yet 90 percent of the punishments, didn't that suggest that something was wrong that needed to be addressed?
Instead of responding positively, the school board rejected our efforts and some described our children as "street gang members."
They avoided their responsibility as an elected school board paid for by our tax dollars.
But at the same time, we quickly recognized that the Arab parents of our students also neglected their responsibilities.
Sometimes, we, as parents, don't even know what our children are doing at school. And worse, we don't get involved in the school activities ourselves.
The only time we do something is when we are there to complain. We become reactive, not pro-active.
Things have changed much since the early 1990s. The number of students in District 230 and also in the neighboring Oak Lawn High school district, have increased dramatically.
In Oak Lawn alone, 20 percent of the students there are Arab. I have participated in several programs through Oak Lawn high school from career days to parental training to help get parents involved. I've seen many Arab students at these events, but very few parents.
Oak Lawn is a good example.
Although we have so many students there of Arab heritage, we have very little parental involvement. As a result, our students are not performing as well as they might.
For example, just walking through the hall of the school I noticed a few things and jotted down some statistics.
There are seven members on the Oak Lawn high school board. None are Arabs. In fact, since the school was launched in 1950, there were no Arab members, even though the Arab community in Oak Lawn is significant and continues to grow.
There are four officers on the Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA), and none of them are Arab, either.
On one wall, I did notice something that made me feel pride.
The co-president of this year's student council is Maysa Matariyeh. One of the school's sports stars highlighted in several newspaper stories is Mohamed Abdel-Qader.
But although I know we have many students who are great achievers in sports - like the soccer team which has many Arab members, we are dragging behind in other important areas.
Of the 240 students this year cited with achieving "High Honors" and a grade point average of 3.75 or above, only 8 are Arab. Of the 480 students this year cited with achieving "Honors" and a grade point average of between 3.0 and 3.749, only 39 are Arab.
The school newspaper, which is so influential in terms of defining students and putting the spotlight on student achievement, had no Arab names in it or on its editorial board. The Year Book has about 20 editors and 15 of them are Arab, I was told, which is an encouraging sign.
And, of 200 students who were cited with having "perfect attendance" this semester. Only three were Arab. Tariq Haddad and, presumably his brother,. Khalil Haddad, and Shadi Ahmad.
Of hundreds of teachers, we only have one teacher and two teacher aides who are Arab. We should have far more given the number of students at the school.
And, of all the languages taught at the school, Arabic is not one of them, even though today it is one of the most sought-after languages by companies and the government in job hiring.
Is there a problem?
If there is, it is not with the students. It is with the parents. We don't get involved. Few of us attend school board meetings. Even fewer could tell you what their children ate for lunch.
Some say that the cultural difference place an excessive burden on our students. But I don't believe that is the real reason. It is a factor, but not the most important factor.
Our children don't have role models in the school system or in life who are Arab that they can look up to and help to build their own lives. The role model who is most important is the parent.
We need to do something about it. But don't wait for the school district or even agencies like the Human Relations Commission to do anything. They always have excuses. You have to do it yourself.
Get involved in your child's school life and you will be amazed at how much of a positive impression you will have on them and on the non-Arab parents and families who participate.
It can change the way we live in a positive way and make it easier for our children to achieve great things with their lives.
(Ray Hanania is a 1971 graduate of Reavis High school and former editor of the school's newspaper. He is an award winning journalist, author and standup comedian and can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
March 15, 2006, The Future News, Arab Newspaper Chicago
By Ray Hanania
A few years ago in District 230, Arab families noticed that their children were being singled out by the school board, and being punished harshly. Many were being expelled.
The board members, mainly from Palos Heights, were behind what later appeared to be a racist-driven campaign to force the Arab families to move to other communities. That racism boiled over, as we all know, in 2000, when the community protested plans to convert a long-abandoned Christian church into a mosque.
At the time, we organized a campaign to approach the school board to determine how we could work with them to address what was clearly a problem.
District 230 has three schools, Stagg, Andrew and Sandburg, and about 6,600 students in all. Of that, about 10 percent, or 660 were Arab, mostly Palestinian and Jordanian, split evenly between Christian and Muslim in religion.
Yet, of the students expelled, 90 percent were Arab.
We went to the school board meeting and said that if the Arab students are only 10 percent of the school population yet 90 percent of the punishments, didn't that suggest that something was wrong that needed to be addressed?
Instead of responding positively, the school board rejected our efforts and some described our children as "street gang members."
They avoided their responsibility as an elected school board paid for by our tax dollars.
But at the same time, we quickly recognized that the Arab parents of our students also neglected their responsibilities.
Sometimes, we, as parents, don't even know what our children are doing at school. And worse, we don't get involved in the school activities ourselves.
The only time we do something is when we are there to complain. We become reactive, not pro-active.
Things have changed much since the early 1990s. The number of students in District 230 and also in the neighboring Oak Lawn High school district, have increased dramatically.
In Oak Lawn alone, 20 percent of the students there are Arab. I have participated in several programs through Oak Lawn high school from career days to parental training to help get parents involved. I've seen many Arab students at these events, but very few parents.
Oak Lawn is a good example.
Although we have so many students there of Arab heritage, we have very little parental involvement. As a result, our students are not performing as well as they might.
For example, just walking through the hall of the school I noticed a few things and jotted down some statistics.
There are seven members on the Oak Lawn high school board. None are Arabs. In fact, since the school was launched in 1950, there were no Arab members, even though the Arab community in Oak Lawn is significant and continues to grow.
There are four officers on the Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA), and none of them are Arab, either.
On one wall, I did notice something that made me feel pride.
The co-president of this year's student council is Maysa Matariyeh. One of the school's sports stars highlighted in several newspaper stories is Mohamed Abdel-Qader.
But although I know we have many students who are great achievers in sports - like the soccer team which has many Arab members, we are dragging behind in other important areas.
Of the 240 students this year cited with achieving "High Honors" and a grade point average of 3.75 or above, only 8 are Arab. Of the 480 students this year cited with achieving "Honors" and a grade point average of between 3.0 and 3.749, only 39 are Arab.
The school newspaper, which is so influential in terms of defining students and putting the spotlight on student achievement, had no Arab names in it or on its editorial board. The Year Book has about 20 editors and 15 of them are Arab, I was told, which is an encouraging sign.
And, of 200 students who were cited with having "perfect attendance" this semester. Only three were Arab. Tariq Haddad and, presumably his brother,. Khalil Haddad, and Shadi Ahmad.
Of hundreds of teachers, we only have one teacher and two teacher aides who are Arab. We should have far more given the number of students at the school.
And, of all the languages taught at the school, Arabic is not one of them, even though today it is one of the most sought-after languages by companies and the government in job hiring.
Is there a problem?
If there is, it is not with the students. It is with the parents. We don't get involved. Few of us attend school board meetings. Even fewer could tell you what their children ate for lunch.
Some say that the cultural difference place an excessive burden on our students. But I don't believe that is the real reason. It is a factor, but not the most important factor.
Our children don't have role models in the school system or in life who are Arab that they can look up to and help to build their own lives. The role model who is most important is the parent.
We need to do something about it. But don't wait for the school district or even agencies like the Human Relations Commission to do anything. They always have excuses. You have to do it yourself.
Get involved in your child's school life and you will be amazed at how much of a positive impression you will have on them and on the non-Arab parents and families who participate.
It can change the way we live in a positive way and make it easier for our children to achieve great things with their lives.
(Ray Hanania is a 1971 graduate of Reavis High school and former editor of the school's newspaper. He is an award winning journalist, author and standup comedian and can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
Reasoned Voices in media only emerge when it's safe
Reasoned voices only emerge when it’s safe
Feb. 22, 2006, The Future News, Arab Newspaper of Chicago
By Ray Hanania
A few weeks ago, a senior editor at the Chicago Tribune, one of the nation’s largest daily newspapers and a formidable voice on foreign policy issues, came out of the closet in a column on the issue of media bias against the Palestinians.
Don Wylciff has been a member of the Tribune’s editorial staff since 1990 and its public editor since 2000, positions that have given Wycliff, a former New York Times reporter, a lot of clout.
So when he wrote in a column trying to analyze the recent victory of Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, and the so-called terrorism case against Bridgeview resident Mohammed Salah, Wycliff pulled no punches. He wrote something that is rarely admitted in public journalism circles, acknowledging something candidly about the reality of the American media and the Palestine-Israel conflict:
"Part of the reason we felt blindsided by Hamas' victory is that we don't see or hear things from the Palestinian perspective very often.
"On Sunday, for example, the Tribune's Commentary page carried two articles on Hamas' victory. One was by ‘an American-Israeli peace activist’ from Oak Park, the other by the executive director of the publication of the Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago.
"Our Commentary page features no columnist who can be depended upon to routinely explain and defend Palestinian actions and attitudes as, say, Charles Krauthammer defends Israel's. So on probably the most enduring and insistent foreign policy issue of our time, we routinely do not hear from one side."
Wow. I have never heard an editor at any of the nation’s powerful dailies admit what most observers of the Middle East conflict have known for years. The Op-Ed pages of most major American newspapers are biased, not so much because they are pro-Israel, but because they lack a Palestinian voice.
Krauthammer is probably one of the most racist, anti-Arab columnists in America, but that is a very difficult distinction to draw when so many columnists at American newspapers are anti-Arab bigots and racists.
I wish the Chicago Tribune had a Palestinian columnist who wasn’t like Krauthammer, but just offered the other side, as I have done for 30 years.
I wouldn’t expect the Tribune to ever hire me. I was a veteran City Hall reporter at the rival Chicago Sun-Times and later a critic of Tribune policies, specifically their lack of a balance perspective on the Palestinian-Israeli issue.
I’ve never asked an editor at a major American newspaper to be pro-Arab. I’ve only asked that they be fair.
Wycliff’s column, published on Feb. 2, 2006, finally comes close to offering a neutral perspective and a vindication of that claim of bias against Palestinians.
But, as usual, reasoned voices don’t always surface on such touchy issues as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
About eight days after publishing the column, the Tribune announced that Wycliff was taking a new job, as spokesman for the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, the school where he graduated in 1969.
I doubt that Wycliff was punished for his views, as some in my community emailed me.
The position Wycliff is taking became open when Matt Storin, who happened to be my former editor at the Chicago Sun-Times back in the late 1980s, left the post a few weeks earlier to take on a teaching post at the same university.
I suspect Wycliff had already decided on his departure before writing the column. But clearly, writing the column gave Wycliff a sense of personal relief.
In fact, Wycliff concluded his very eloquent column, saying, "I'm not sure what this has to do with Muhammad Salah and my conscience. Maybe what I feel is the anxiety that comes from knowing that, in this case anyway, ignorance isn't bliss."
You are and always will be my hero, Don. But I wish you had the courage to say that five years ago, instead of eight days before announcing your departure.
You can’t blame him for saving his candid views until this late date in his journalism career.
The fact is that the Tribune is not the only newspaper that lacks balance on the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Most newspapers are even worse.
While the ChicagoTribune has tried to build a reputation as a thought-leader on international issues, it’s rival newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times, my former alma mater, has been an unabashed, shameless and shill for pro-Israel voices. It’s anti-Arab and anti-Muslim columnists have been vicious and strident.
So the Tribune has always looked better. But "better" is a relative term. Because it was better, the Tribune has been the target of a boycott and protests and pressures from the Jewish American community.
Some Jewish American leaders have even called the Tribune anti-Semitic, an often over-used but powerful bludgeon used to silence those who exercise their so-called rights of free speech when criticizing Israel, or challenging Israeli policies.
Still, if Wycliff really wanted to clear his conscience, he would have done something about the imbalance in reporting and hired a Palestinian. There are not a lot of us, but clearly, you can’t really comprehend the complexity of the Palestinian-Israel conflict unless you have access to both sides.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning syndicated columnist, author and Palestinian American standup comedian. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
Feb. 22, 2006, The Future News, Arab Newspaper of Chicago
By Ray Hanania
A few weeks ago, a senior editor at the Chicago Tribune, one of the nation’s largest daily newspapers and a formidable voice on foreign policy issues, came out of the closet in a column on the issue of media bias against the Palestinians.
Don Wylciff has been a member of the Tribune’s editorial staff since 1990 and its public editor since 2000, positions that have given Wycliff, a former New York Times reporter, a lot of clout.
So when he wrote in a column trying to analyze the recent victory of Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, and the so-called terrorism case against Bridgeview resident Mohammed Salah, Wycliff pulled no punches. He wrote something that is rarely admitted in public journalism circles, acknowledging something candidly about the reality of the American media and the Palestine-Israel conflict:
"Part of the reason we felt blindsided by Hamas' victory is that we don't see or hear things from the Palestinian perspective very often.
"On Sunday, for example, the Tribune's Commentary page carried two articles on Hamas' victory. One was by ‘an American-Israeli peace activist’ from Oak Park, the other by the executive director of the publication of the Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago.
"Our Commentary page features no columnist who can be depended upon to routinely explain and defend Palestinian actions and attitudes as, say, Charles Krauthammer defends Israel's. So on probably the most enduring and insistent foreign policy issue of our time, we routinely do not hear from one side."
Wow. I have never heard an editor at any of the nation’s powerful dailies admit what most observers of the Middle East conflict have known for years. The Op-Ed pages of most major American newspapers are biased, not so much because they are pro-Israel, but because they lack a Palestinian voice.
Krauthammer is probably one of the most racist, anti-Arab columnists in America, but that is a very difficult distinction to draw when so many columnists at American newspapers are anti-Arab bigots and racists.
I wish the Chicago Tribune had a Palestinian columnist who wasn’t like Krauthammer, but just offered the other side, as I have done for 30 years.
I wouldn’t expect the Tribune to ever hire me. I was a veteran City Hall reporter at the rival Chicago Sun-Times and later a critic of Tribune policies, specifically their lack of a balance perspective on the Palestinian-Israeli issue.
I’ve never asked an editor at a major American newspaper to be pro-Arab. I’ve only asked that they be fair.
Wycliff’s column, published on Feb. 2, 2006, finally comes close to offering a neutral perspective and a vindication of that claim of bias against Palestinians.
But, as usual, reasoned voices don’t always surface on such touchy issues as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
About eight days after publishing the column, the Tribune announced that Wycliff was taking a new job, as spokesman for the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, the school where he graduated in 1969.
I doubt that Wycliff was punished for his views, as some in my community emailed me.
The position Wycliff is taking became open when Matt Storin, who happened to be my former editor at the Chicago Sun-Times back in the late 1980s, left the post a few weeks earlier to take on a teaching post at the same university.
I suspect Wycliff had already decided on his departure before writing the column. But clearly, writing the column gave Wycliff a sense of personal relief.
In fact, Wycliff concluded his very eloquent column, saying, "I'm not sure what this has to do with Muhammad Salah and my conscience. Maybe what I feel is the anxiety that comes from knowing that, in this case anyway, ignorance isn't bliss."
You are and always will be my hero, Don. But I wish you had the courage to say that five years ago, instead of eight days before announcing your departure.
You can’t blame him for saving his candid views until this late date in his journalism career.
The fact is that the Tribune is not the only newspaper that lacks balance on the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Most newspapers are even worse.
While the ChicagoTribune has tried to build a reputation as a thought-leader on international issues, it’s rival newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times, my former alma mater, has been an unabashed, shameless and shill for pro-Israel voices. It’s anti-Arab and anti-Muslim columnists have been vicious and strident.
So the Tribune has always looked better. But "better" is a relative term. Because it was better, the Tribune has been the target of a boycott and protests and pressures from the Jewish American community.
Some Jewish American leaders have even called the Tribune anti-Semitic, an often over-used but powerful bludgeon used to silence those who exercise their so-called rights of free speech when criticizing Israel, or challenging Israeli policies.
Still, if Wycliff really wanted to clear his conscience, he would have done something about the imbalance in reporting and hired a Palestinian. There are not a lot of us, but clearly, you can’t really comprehend the complexity of the Palestinian-Israel conflict unless you have access to both sides.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning syndicated columnist, author and Palestinian American standup comedian. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
King Tut's First Visit to Chicago -- 1977
The return of King Tut reminds us of near past
Jan. 28, 2005, The Future News, Arab Newspaper of Chicago
By Ray Hanania
King Tut returns to Chicago after 29 years. While the Egyptian Boy King will display remnants of an ancient past, it is King Tut who will see the striking changes that have taken place since his last visit.
When King Tut came to Chicago in 1977, the Arab American community was organized as one. Though smaller than it is today, it was a solid community built around Arab pride.
We had a great dinner, a great celebration and all of our leaders stood together, even when they disagreed or had differences about politics. That ability to come together was the great achievement of the Arab American community of the past.
Christians and Muslims partnered at every level in the many professional organizations and also in political activism.
Today, that is an ancient and long lost Chicago past. On his return to Chicago, King Tut will instead see a community that is very divided on religious lines, and that instead of moving forward has stumbled backwards.
Just mentioning how seriously relationships between Christian and Muslim Arabs have declined will provoke some Arabs to angrily scream hatred and throw epitaphs. Meanwhile, Christian Arabs will do what they do best these days, crawl into their self-enclosed environment and hide silently, uninvolved, voiceless and unproductive.
Muslims and Christians no longer work together in a serious way. Despite some contacts and cooperation, relations are strained and they have each turned in different directions.
Muslim Arabs have turned and embraced their own religion not just as a faith but as a political activism.
The Council on American Islamic Relations is by far the largest and most effective organization championing the Palestinian cause these days. Yet, it is all Muslim, as its national president emphasized to me in an email many months ago.
Christian Arabs are not a part of CAIR, except as filtered guests invited to speak to politically correct topics, as if CAIR fears opening the door to real debate. And many Christians will ask under their breath, in the most hypocritical of new traditions, why they are not included when CAIR claims to address "Arab" causes?
King Tut will learn that Arab Americans in Chicago have learned only one thing, that the best way to deal with our community problems is to ignore them.
Still, King Tut will find that CAIR Chicago is very active and does much, and deserves recognition as one of the most active in Chicago, while the national organization remains under the constant scrutiny of anti-Arab phobia in our American society and in American government.
King Tut will also find himself crowded and yet alone.
In 1977, the few Arab American organizations that existed came together and organized a special reception to welcome him to Chicago.
By playing an official role in the King Tut exhibition at the Field Museum of Natural History, they were making a statement that while King Tut represented the ancient past, the Arabs of Chicago represent the present Arab heritage and pride.
This visit, King Tut will be surrounded almost exclusively by non-Arab Americans who will hypocritically marvel in the greatness of Egypt while scowling at the Arab World.
The organizations that claim to speak for Arab Americanism are basically useless when it comes to organizing outside of their very specific professional and social concerns.
As a result of the recent public quarrel over Zanies Comedy Club, the Chicago Commission on Human Relations has started to stir from its five year slumber. Despite the ugliness of their attacks, the director of the Advisory Commission on Arab Affairs feels pressure to start doing something, holding "meetings" with "filtered" Arab invitees, those that they deem to be acceptable.
I hope the Commission succeeds in rebuilding its mandate, doing the good work that it is capable of achieving, and refocusing efforts where they should be rather than where they have been. They can still embrace an effective strategy of inclusion and democratic effectiveness, if they set aside political differences and reach out to everyone. There are many good members of that board.
There’s no long term planning, only reaction in the Arab community.
During King Tut’s visit, there may be several Arab events, mostly fundraisers often featuring
the same-old, same-old speakers talking about the same-old, same-old topics.
We’ve talked these issues to death and have go no where. In fact, if King Tut kept notes about his last visit in 1977, he would wonder why nothing has been achieved by the community since.
He’ll shake his golden and blue striped royal crown in sadness as he sighs that the glory days of the Arab American community in Chicagoland has long past.
Today, we have some good organizations. And we have many more organizations that were once great that today have nice luncheons, give out many awards to themselves, and then fail to administer the mandates they were handed, such as defending the civil rights of Arab Americans.
King Tut, maybe you can save us. Clearly, we, the Arab community divided between Christian Arabs and Muslim Arabs and living in denial, cannot.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning journalist, author and standup comedian. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
Jan. 28, 2005, The Future News, Arab Newspaper of Chicago
By Ray Hanania
King Tut returns to Chicago after 29 years. While the Egyptian Boy King will display remnants of an ancient past, it is King Tut who will see the striking changes that have taken place since his last visit.
When King Tut came to Chicago in 1977, the Arab American community was organized as one. Though smaller than it is today, it was a solid community built around Arab pride.
We had a great dinner, a great celebration and all of our leaders stood together, even when they disagreed or had differences about politics. That ability to come together was the great achievement of the Arab American community of the past.
Christians and Muslims partnered at every level in the many professional organizations and also in political activism.
Today, that is an ancient and long lost Chicago past. On his return to Chicago, King Tut will instead see a community that is very divided on religious lines, and that instead of moving forward has stumbled backwards.
Just mentioning how seriously relationships between Christian and Muslim Arabs have declined will provoke some Arabs to angrily scream hatred and throw epitaphs. Meanwhile, Christian Arabs will do what they do best these days, crawl into their self-enclosed environment and hide silently, uninvolved, voiceless and unproductive.
Muslims and Christians no longer work together in a serious way. Despite some contacts and cooperation, relations are strained and they have each turned in different directions.
Muslim Arabs have turned and embraced their own religion not just as a faith but as a political activism.
The Council on American Islamic Relations is by far the largest and most effective organization championing the Palestinian cause these days. Yet, it is all Muslim, as its national president emphasized to me in an email many months ago.
Christian Arabs are not a part of CAIR, except as filtered guests invited to speak to politically correct topics, as if CAIR fears opening the door to real debate. And many Christians will ask under their breath, in the most hypocritical of new traditions, why they are not included when CAIR claims to address "Arab" causes?
King Tut will learn that Arab Americans in Chicago have learned only one thing, that the best way to deal with our community problems is to ignore them.
Still, King Tut will find that CAIR Chicago is very active and does much, and deserves recognition as one of the most active in Chicago, while the national organization remains under the constant scrutiny of anti-Arab phobia in our American society and in American government.
King Tut will also find himself crowded and yet alone.
In 1977, the few Arab American organizations that existed came together and organized a special reception to welcome him to Chicago.
By playing an official role in the King Tut exhibition at the Field Museum of Natural History, they were making a statement that while King Tut represented the ancient past, the Arabs of Chicago represent the present Arab heritage and pride.
This visit, King Tut will be surrounded almost exclusively by non-Arab Americans who will hypocritically marvel in the greatness of Egypt while scowling at the Arab World.
The organizations that claim to speak for Arab Americanism are basically useless when it comes to organizing outside of their very specific professional and social concerns.
As a result of the recent public quarrel over Zanies Comedy Club, the Chicago Commission on Human Relations has started to stir from its five year slumber. Despite the ugliness of their attacks, the director of the Advisory Commission on Arab Affairs feels pressure to start doing something, holding "meetings" with "filtered" Arab invitees, those that they deem to be acceptable.
I hope the Commission succeeds in rebuilding its mandate, doing the good work that it is capable of achieving, and refocusing efforts where they should be rather than where they have been. They can still embrace an effective strategy of inclusion and democratic effectiveness, if they set aside political differences and reach out to everyone. There are many good members of that board.
There’s no long term planning, only reaction in the Arab community.
During King Tut’s visit, there may be several Arab events, mostly fundraisers often featuring
the same-old, same-old speakers talking about the same-old, same-old topics.
We’ve talked these issues to death and have go no where. In fact, if King Tut kept notes about his last visit in 1977, he would wonder why nothing has been achieved by the community since.
He’ll shake his golden and blue striped royal crown in sadness as he sighs that the glory days of the Arab American community in Chicagoland has long past.
Today, we have some good organizations. And we have many more organizations that were once great that today have nice luncheons, give out many awards to themselves, and then fail to administer the mandates they were handed, such as defending the civil rights of Arab Americans.
King Tut, maybe you can save us. Clearly, we, the Arab community divided between Christian Arabs and Muslim Arabs and living in denial, cannot.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning journalist, author and standup comedian. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
Friday, January 06, 2006
Fundamentalists of all religiouns threaten Middle East peace Jan. 6, 2006
Christian fundamentalism drives American extremism and racism
Arab American Media Syndicate, Jan. 6, 2006
Permission granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
Imagine, Israelis are outraged with the anti-Semitic comments of their frequent ally, Christian Fundamentalist Pat Robertson.
As he and other Christian fundamentalist demagogues have done in the past, Robertson has offended Jews. He said that the brain hemorrhage of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is God’s punishment for "dividing" the land of Israel and compromising with the Palestinians.
He said the same about Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was murdered by an Israeli extremist. And he continues to blast all those who urge compromise and non-violence as a basis for a Middle East peace accord.
Robertson is typical of American racists who exploit the Arab-Israeli conflict for personal gain. Their support sustains American foreign policy and conservative leaders like President Bush.
In reality, Robertson and the Christian fundamentalists are worse than the Islamic extremists that they, Bush and other American conservatives constantly attack.
Robertson is a Christian Ayatollah. His equivalent of suicide bombing is his "suicide bombast." I am certain that if Christian Fundamentalists in America were to ever find themselves in the same situation as the Palestinians, for example, they would defend suicide bombing as a "justified" form of combat.
Israelis know that Robertson and the Christian fundamentalists are a double-edged scimitar.
I watched one Israeli spokesman on CNN hem and haw in shock when confronted with Robertson’s comments. Instead of denouncing Robertson, the spokesman distracted the issue to inflaming the hatred of Iran’s president who often spouts anti-Semitic and anti-Christian comments.
To extremist Israelis, they, too, exploit Christian Fundamentalism to strengthen their own ideological goals. The dirty, ugly secret of Israel’s embrace of the Christian Evangelical movement is that deep down, they know that Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are in fact more anti-Semitic than the Iranians, and may be the most anti-Semitic people on Earth.
Christian fundamentalism is built on a latent hatred of Jews. But they are not beyond exploiting Biblical prophecy to drive their own money machines, disguised as Christian Ministries. They downplay their anti-Semitism and exploit the tragedy of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Christian fundamentalists like Robertson believe Jesus cannot return to cast judgment on humanity until Israel is established and the Jewish Temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem.
But the core of the Evangelical movement is the belief that all non-believers, including Muslims, moderate Christians and especially Jews will be dispatched to an eternity of hellfire on that Judgment Day.
Ironically, most moderate Christians who wince at the outrageous comments of Christian fundamentalists like Robertson and others tend to ignore these anomalies and contradictions to true Christian belief.
Moderate Christians believe that all people who believe in the One God, be they Christian, Muslims or Jews, will go to Heaven. Fundamentalist Christians, however, believe that only those who embrace their interpretation of religion will go to Heaven.
It is an uncomfortable reflection of the core beliefs of extremist Muslims, too, who believe that those who do not embrace Islam will also burn in hell. That includes all Christians, all Jews and even secular Muslims.
Christians constantly criticize this Islamic view, but their silence on the ignorance of Robertson and other Christian Evangelical Ayatollahs is deafening. Their silence is the real sin, the true violation of Christian belief.
While Robertson preaches his disguised hatred in the United States, Christians who are suffering in Palestine, the Holy Land, never attract his support.
As far as Robertson is concerned, Palestinian Christians are no different from the Jews, except in terms of how they may be exploited. There is no benefit to Robertson and his Christian Evangelical Ayatollahs in defending the rights of Holy Land Christians. That’s why they sacrifice them on the altar of their own selfish fundamentalist cause.
The Jews, on the other hand, offer Robertson and the other Grand Muftis of the Christian fundamentalist movement a political opportunity to feed their supporters.
Christian Fundamentalists need the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in order to build their flock of blind sheep. They do not want a Middle East peace. Everything they do is designed to prevent peace, including pressuring American administrations to pursue one-sided foreign policies that aggravate rather than resolve the Middle East conflict.
Although the Christian Evangelists claim to pray for Judgment Day, they are the ones who should fear it most.
Like all tyrants, demagogues and dictators, Christian fundamentalists do not practice what they preach. They don’t believe God will really come down to judge mankind.
But they do know that the fear of that Judgment Day allows them to easily control their followers and, more importantly, to fill their pockets with money and accumulate power.
Regardless of which religious book they carry, the Torah, the Bible or the Qur’an, fundamentalists of all three religions threaten the future peace.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian American columnist and former national president of the Palestinian American Congress. A Christian, Hanania can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
END
Arab American Media Syndicate, Jan. 6, 2006
Permission granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
Imagine, Israelis are outraged with the anti-Semitic comments of their frequent ally, Christian Fundamentalist Pat Robertson.
As he and other Christian fundamentalist demagogues have done in the past, Robertson has offended Jews. He said that the brain hemorrhage of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is God’s punishment for "dividing" the land of Israel and compromising with the Palestinians.
He said the same about Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was murdered by an Israeli extremist. And he continues to blast all those who urge compromise and non-violence as a basis for a Middle East peace accord.
Robertson is typical of American racists who exploit the Arab-Israeli conflict for personal gain. Their support sustains American foreign policy and conservative leaders like President Bush.
In reality, Robertson and the Christian fundamentalists are worse than the Islamic extremists that they, Bush and other American conservatives constantly attack.
Robertson is a Christian Ayatollah. His equivalent of suicide bombing is his "suicide bombast." I am certain that if Christian Fundamentalists in America were to ever find themselves in the same situation as the Palestinians, for example, they would defend suicide bombing as a "justified" form of combat.
Israelis know that Robertson and the Christian fundamentalists are a double-edged scimitar.
I watched one Israeli spokesman on CNN hem and haw in shock when confronted with Robertson’s comments. Instead of denouncing Robertson, the spokesman distracted the issue to inflaming the hatred of Iran’s president who often spouts anti-Semitic and anti-Christian comments.
To extremist Israelis, they, too, exploit Christian Fundamentalism to strengthen their own ideological goals. The dirty, ugly secret of Israel’s embrace of the Christian Evangelical movement is that deep down, they know that Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are in fact more anti-Semitic than the Iranians, and may be the most anti-Semitic people on Earth.
Christian fundamentalism is built on a latent hatred of Jews. But they are not beyond exploiting Biblical prophecy to drive their own money machines, disguised as Christian Ministries. They downplay their anti-Semitism and exploit the tragedy of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Christian fundamentalists like Robertson believe Jesus cannot return to cast judgment on humanity until Israel is established and the Jewish Temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem.
But the core of the Evangelical movement is the belief that all non-believers, including Muslims, moderate Christians and especially Jews will be dispatched to an eternity of hellfire on that Judgment Day.
Ironically, most moderate Christians who wince at the outrageous comments of Christian fundamentalists like Robertson and others tend to ignore these anomalies and contradictions to true Christian belief.
Moderate Christians believe that all people who believe in the One God, be they Christian, Muslims or Jews, will go to Heaven. Fundamentalist Christians, however, believe that only those who embrace their interpretation of religion will go to Heaven.
It is an uncomfortable reflection of the core beliefs of extremist Muslims, too, who believe that those who do not embrace Islam will also burn in hell. That includes all Christians, all Jews and even secular Muslims.
Christians constantly criticize this Islamic view, but their silence on the ignorance of Robertson and other Christian Evangelical Ayatollahs is deafening. Their silence is the real sin, the true violation of Christian belief.
While Robertson preaches his disguised hatred in the United States, Christians who are suffering in Palestine, the Holy Land, never attract his support.
As far as Robertson is concerned, Palestinian Christians are no different from the Jews, except in terms of how they may be exploited. There is no benefit to Robertson and his Christian Evangelical Ayatollahs in defending the rights of Holy Land Christians. That’s why they sacrifice them on the altar of their own selfish fundamentalist cause.
The Jews, on the other hand, offer Robertson and the other Grand Muftis of the Christian fundamentalist movement a political opportunity to feed their supporters.
Christian Fundamentalists need the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in order to build their flock of blind sheep. They do not want a Middle East peace. Everything they do is designed to prevent peace, including pressuring American administrations to pursue one-sided foreign policies that aggravate rather than resolve the Middle East conflict.
Although the Christian Evangelists claim to pray for Judgment Day, they are the ones who should fear it most.
Like all tyrants, demagogues and dictators, Christian fundamentalists do not practice what they preach. They don’t believe God will really come down to judge mankind.
But they do know that the fear of that Judgment Day allows them to easily control their followers and, more importantly, to fill their pockets with money and accumulate power.
Regardless of which religious book they carry, the Torah, the Bible or the Qur’an, fundamentalists of all three religions threaten the future peace.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian American columnist and former national president of the Palestinian American Congress. A Christian, Hanania can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
END
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
The future without Ariel Sharon Jan. 4, 2006
A future without Ariel Sharon
Arab American Media Syndicate, Jan. 4, 2006
By Ray Hanania
Whether or not Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon survives his most recent stroke may not matter to the future of Palestinian-Israeli relations.
Someone else will probably take over the reigns of Israeli politics and they might not be able to continue with Sharon's vision.
Sharon’s demise from politics, and possible death, would be very inopportune not just for Israelis, but for Palestinians, too.
The secular Palestinian leadership today face two battles. The first is the endless conflict with Israel and their inability to force concessions from Israel to result in an acceptable compromise Palestinian State that includes a contiguous West Bank land mass and sovereignty in East Jerusalem at its heart.
But the second is more serious as secular Palestinian leaders find themselves in a greater struggle today against the growing Islamic militant movement.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is not as strong nor is he as popular as his predecessor, the late President Yasser Arafat. Although disliked by Israelis, Arafat had the power to restrain Hamas and prevent the religious movement from overpowering his own Fatah organization.
In his final years, Arafat’s powers weakened. A Fatah militant splinter group, the al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade, joined rival Hamas in embracing religious fundamentalism and suicide bombings against Israel.
Palestinians will not show as much sympathy for Sharon’s personal tragedies as they did for Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin a decade ago. But Sharon’s unilateral moves may have offered secular Palestinians their only immediate way out of mounting political troubles.
Sharon planned to impose his own vision of a peace plan, unilaterally. Though not to the liking of the Palestinians, they could have lived with it. Sharon's peace would have allowed Abbas to refocus on restoring secular authority in the face of the growing popularity of Hamas.
Sharon is the odd couple partner to peace. A military man all his life, to Palestinians, his legacy is stained with much blood dating back to his days as a border unit commander in the 1950s. A longtime hardliner and a Godfather of the Israeli settler movement.
But in recent years, Sharon seemed to mellow. Maybe it was old age. Sharon saw a chance to define his legacy as a man of peace. Or, maybe Sharon came to accept the popular notion of Israeli military colleagues that there is no military solution to the conflict.
Any and all of those reasons may have prompted him to change.
Sharon helped hurry the collapse of bilateral peace negotiations with the Palestinians in 2000 standing under the shadow of the al-Aqsa Mosque and prompting Palestinians into a second, more religiously defined Intifada.
As an alternative to peace, Sharon build the Wall, a concrete, razor-wire and fence barrier built on occupied Palestinian lands in the West Bank. Although at first, Israelis insisted the it was temporary, most now accept that Sharon’s Wall will define the boundaries separating Israel from a Palestinian State, a state most Israelis accept as inevitable.
With Arafat out of the way, and no equivalent charismatic Palestinian successor who shared the power Arafat once enjoyed, Sharon was free to take even more dramatic steps. Sharon withdrew Israeli soldiers, dismantled 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip and also four smaller settlements in the Northern West Bank. Sharon made it clear he would close more settlements and withdraw from much of the West Bank, too.
Although Sharon’s definition of a Palestinian State is far short of what Ehud Barak reportedly offered Arafat in the final days of the peace process, it would have given Abbas and other secular Palestinians the opportunity to shift their focus away from Israel and toward their real threat, Hamas.
For many years, Hamas has always been the wild card in Palestinian-Israeli relations.
Whenever Palestinians and Israelis appeared to achieve a peace agreement that might lead to more peace, Hamas stepped in with violence and in 1994, suicide bombings. As the bombings increased, Israeli public opinion against the Palestinians hardened.
Arafat could not stop Hamas, but he could keep Palestinians from rallying around the terrorist organization's ranks. During most of the ARafat years, Hamas influence was restricted to certain areas of Gaza. That quickly changed following Arafat's death and Hamas popularity has grown not only on the street but also at the election booth.
Many Palestinians will cheer Sharon’s demise, in much the same way that Israelis rejoiced in Arafat’s death. But in the end, Israelis may find themselves in the same situation as Palestinian’s after Arafat’s death.
It is possible that no other Israeli successor will enjoy the same power or popularity that Sharon enjoyed, and that may empower his foes to block further withdrawals.
Abbas faces a more difficult struggle with Hamas that will further paralyze his administration and further weaken support for compromise with Israel.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian American columnist and author. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
END
Arab American Media Syndicate, Jan. 4, 2006
By Ray Hanania
Whether or not Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon survives his most recent stroke may not matter to the future of Palestinian-Israeli relations.
Someone else will probably take over the reigns of Israeli politics and they might not be able to continue with Sharon's vision.
Sharon’s demise from politics, and possible death, would be very inopportune not just for Israelis, but for Palestinians, too.
The secular Palestinian leadership today face two battles. The first is the endless conflict with Israel and their inability to force concessions from Israel to result in an acceptable compromise Palestinian State that includes a contiguous West Bank land mass and sovereignty in East Jerusalem at its heart.
But the second is more serious as secular Palestinian leaders find themselves in a greater struggle today against the growing Islamic militant movement.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is not as strong nor is he as popular as his predecessor, the late President Yasser Arafat. Although disliked by Israelis, Arafat had the power to restrain Hamas and prevent the religious movement from overpowering his own Fatah organization.
In his final years, Arafat’s powers weakened. A Fatah militant splinter group, the al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade, joined rival Hamas in embracing religious fundamentalism and suicide bombings against Israel.
Palestinians will not show as much sympathy for Sharon’s personal tragedies as they did for Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin a decade ago. But Sharon’s unilateral moves may have offered secular Palestinians their only immediate way out of mounting political troubles.
Sharon planned to impose his own vision of a peace plan, unilaterally. Though not to the liking of the Palestinians, they could have lived with it. Sharon's peace would have allowed Abbas to refocus on restoring secular authority in the face of the growing popularity of Hamas.
Sharon is the odd couple partner to peace. A military man all his life, to Palestinians, his legacy is stained with much blood dating back to his days as a border unit commander in the 1950s. A longtime hardliner and a Godfather of the Israeli settler movement.
But in recent years, Sharon seemed to mellow. Maybe it was old age. Sharon saw a chance to define his legacy as a man of peace. Or, maybe Sharon came to accept the popular notion of Israeli military colleagues that there is no military solution to the conflict.
Any and all of those reasons may have prompted him to change.
Sharon helped hurry the collapse of bilateral peace negotiations with the Palestinians in 2000 standing under the shadow of the al-Aqsa Mosque and prompting Palestinians into a second, more religiously defined Intifada.
As an alternative to peace, Sharon build the Wall, a concrete, razor-wire and fence barrier built on occupied Palestinian lands in the West Bank. Although at first, Israelis insisted the it was temporary, most now accept that Sharon’s Wall will define the boundaries separating Israel from a Palestinian State, a state most Israelis accept as inevitable.
With Arafat out of the way, and no equivalent charismatic Palestinian successor who shared the power Arafat once enjoyed, Sharon was free to take even more dramatic steps. Sharon withdrew Israeli soldiers, dismantled 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip and also four smaller settlements in the Northern West Bank. Sharon made it clear he would close more settlements and withdraw from much of the West Bank, too.
Although Sharon’s definition of a Palestinian State is far short of what Ehud Barak reportedly offered Arafat in the final days of the peace process, it would have given Abbas and other secular Palestinians the opportunity to shift their focus away from Israel and toward their real threat, Hamas.
For many years, Hamas has always been the wild card in Palestinian-Israeli relations.
Whenever Palestinians and Israelis appeared to achieve a peace agreement that might lead to more peace, Hamas stepped in with violence and in 1994, suicide bombings. As the bombings increased, Israeli public opinion against the Palestinians hardened.
Arafat could not stop Hamas, but he could keep Palestinians from rallying around the terrorist organization's ranks. During most of the ARafat years, Hamas influence was restricted to certain areas of Gaza. That quickly changed following Arafat's death and Hamas popularity has grown not only on the street but also at the election booth.
Many Palestinians will cheer Sharon’s demise, in much the same way that Israelis rejoiced in Arafat’s death. But in the end, Israelis may find themselves in the same situation as Palestinian’s after Arafat’s death.
It is possible that no other Israeli successor will enjoy the same power or popularity that Sharon enjoyed, and that may empower his foes to block further withdrawals.
Abbas faces a more difficult struggle with Hamas that will further paralyze his administration and further weaken support for compromise with Israel.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian American columnist and author. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
END
The tragedy of the New Year and the Arab-Israeli conflict
New Year always promises more grief, not good news
Arab American Media Syndicate Jan. 2, 2006
By Ray Hanania
Some people see the New Year as an opportunity to start again. But I think it is the worst time of the year for most people.
First, there is a clear recurring pattern that takes shape.
At the end of the year, we are pushed by businesses and by the media to spend money. Lots of money. On gifts and on cleverly marketed "end-of-year sales."
On top of all that, most people tend to celebrate the end of the year holidays by eating. Americans, especially. We gorge ourselves with food. We consume food at a record pace. And it’s all junk food, too. More junk food is eaten at the end of the year than at the beginning.
And then, the New Year’s Eve arrives. Happy New Year! Auld Lang Syne (Old Long Ago). Celebrations. Hope. Cheer. So, we make New Year’s resolutions, only to break them in the aftermath of the New Year’s binge.
Most New Year’s resolutions are broken. For good reason. Most people promise to do things that common sense normally begs us to do all year, but we don’t. We make them to feel good. Not that we expect to fulfill them.
Sometime in the middle of January, all that good cheer and optimism comes back to haunt us. It hits us like a brick, or maybe like a stone, depoending on where you live.
Hangovers. Indigestion. Weight gain. Record setting personal debt. Most New Year’s resolutions are about losing weight and saving money.
January is also one of the coldest months of the year for many. Cold only adds to our misery.
Diets and debts make people angry. But the New Year piles on all kinds of other, unresolved challenges. In reality, at the beginning of the New Year, people are angrier, meaner, grumpier and out to punish someone. Anyone.
And nowhere are those unresolved challenges more imposing than in the Middle East, between Palestinians and Israelis are always looking to blame someone else for their troubles.
Take the Palestinians, please!
Why would the Palestinians hold elections in January?
American’s hold their primary or political party elections at the end of February (local offices) and in April (national offices.) But the big American elections are always in the Fall, in November. That’s because some genius political consultant recognized a long time ago that people are happier BEFORE the holidays start, not after.
I know Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas wants a good excuse to delay the January 25 elections. The terrorist organization Hamas, which is feeding on extremist Israeli policies, is threatening to gain power as each new election is held. Abbas’ own political group, Fatah, is divided between the greed of the older generation and the greed of the younger generation.
There are a lot of big Mercedes at stake, and contracts and jobs that fat-cat Fatah activists could give to their relatives if they win office.
Abbas doesn’t get very good public relations advice. He has a lot of freelance spokespeople who go around the country telling us why things don’t work, but they never offer solutions on how they can make things better. My favorites are former "Legal Advisers" Diana Bhutto and Michael Tarazi.
Well, instead of delaying the elections in order to hold on to power by blaming Hamas, Abbas should just blame the negative New Year trend. Have elections in the summer when people are happier – which is a relative word, but still in a better mood than they would be in January.
Angry voters vote against things. Happy voters vote for things.
And then there is, as the American’s say, "the 300 pound gorilla" of Israeli politics, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Clearly, it was a big, happy end-of-the-year meal that moved Sharon to act out his melodramatic political adventures.
He broke from the Likud Party and launched a new one called Kadima. The names of the party don’t really matter. They could have been named "Your Marbles" or "My Marbles." But I don’t blame Sharon for leaving Likud.
Who wants to be partners Benjamin Netanyahu, the only Israeli leader who is grumpy all year round, not just at the beginning of the New Year?
Good move, Ari. But you should have done it after the New Year, not before. Israelis are people, too. They are going to be angry, and one mistake on your part and they’ll jump all over you.
Sharon has better PR people. They know how to spin good and bad news to make it all better. Of course, they always look great against the always terrible public relations failures of the Palestinians.
Arabs hate Sharon for many reasons. But I think Sharon’s biggest problem is his lifelong difficulty with managing his weight. He eats too much.
People who eat a lot usually have personal problems or are haunted by ghosts and memories of bad things.
Sure enough, just as he was stuffing himself this Hanukkah, he had a stroke. Israeli doctors found a small hole in Sharon’s heart and they ordered Sharon on a diet. (There was a rumor going around that Netanyahu was sending Sharon eight fat Turkeys for each day of Hanukkah.)
Like a diet’s really going to make a difference for Sharon. Sharon hasn’t been the best partner for peace with the Palestinians and it’s not going to get better. People on diets are the grumpiest people around.
Of course, the positive side of Sharon’s problems is that Israeli doctors discovered that Sharon really does have a heart.
But Palestinians will just say that’s more Zionist propaganda.
Happy secular New Year.
END
Arab American Media Syndicate Jan. 2, 2006
By Ray Hanania
Some people see the New Year as an opportunity to start again. But I think it is the worst time of the year for most people.
First, there is a clear recurring pattern that takes shape.
At the end of the year, we are pushed by businesses and by the media to spend money. Lots of money. On gifts and on cleverly marketed "end-of-year sales."
On top of all that, most people tend to celebrate the end of the year holidays by eating. Americans, especially. We gorge ourselves with food. We consume food at a record pace. And it’s all junk food, too. More junk food is eaten at the end of the year than at the beginning.
And then, the New Year’s Eve arrives. Happy New Year! Auld Lang Syne (Old Long Ago). Celebrations. Hope. Cheer. So, we make New Year’s resolutions, only to break them in the aftermath of the New Year’s binge.
Most New Year’s resolutions are broken. For good reason. Most people promise to do things that common sense normally begs us to do all year, but we don’t. We make them to feel good. Not that we expect to fulfill them.
Sometime in the middle of January, all that good cheer and optimism comes back to haunt us. It hits us like a brick, or maybe like a stone, depoending on where you live.
Hangovers. Indigestion. Weight gain. Record setting personal debt. Most New Year’s resolutions are about losing weight and saving money.
January is also one of the coldest months of the year for many. Cold only adds to our misery.
Diets and debts make people angry. But the New Year piles on all kinds of other, unresolved challenges. In reality, at the beginning of the New Year, people are angrier, meaner, grumpier and out to punish someone. Anyone.
And nowhere are those unresolved challenges more imposing than in the Middle East, between Palestinians and Israelis are always looking to blame someone else for their troubles.
Take the Palestinians, please!
Why would the Palestinians hold elections in January?
American’s hold their primary or political party elections at the end of February (local offices) and in April (national offices.) But the big American elections are always in the Fall, in November. That’s because some genius political consultant recognized a long time ago that people are happier BEFORE the holidays start, not after.
I know Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas wants a good excuse to delay the January 25 elections. The terrorist organization Hamas, which is feeding on extremist Israeli policies, is threatening to gain power as each new election is held. Abbas’ own political group, Fatah, is divided between the greed of the older generation and the greed of the younger generation.
There are a lot of big Mercedes at stake, and contracts and jobs that fat-cat Fatah activists could give to their relatives if they win office.
Abbas doesn’t get very good public relations advice. He has a lot of freelance spokespeople who go around the country telling us why things don’t work, but they never offer solutions on how they can make things better. My favorites are former "Legal Advisers" Diana Bhutto and Michael Tarazi.
Well, instead of delaying the elections in order to hold on to power by blaming Hamas, Abbas should just blame the negative New Year trend. Have elections in the summer when people are happier – which is a relative word, but still in a better mood than they would be in January.
Angry voters vote against things. Happy voters vote for things.
And then there is, as the American’s say, "the 300 pound gorilla" of Israeli politics, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Clearly, it was a big, happy end-of-the-year meal that moved Sharon to act out his melodramatic political adventures.
He broke from the Likud Party and launched a new one called Kadima. The names of the party don’t really matter. They could have been named "Your Marbles" or "My Marbles." But I don’t blame Sharon for leaving Likud.
Who wants to be partners Benjamin Netanyahu, the only Israeli leader who is grumpy all year round, not just at the beginning of the New Year?
Good move, Ari. But you should have done it after the New Year, not before. Israelis are people, too. They are going to be angry, and one mistake on your part and they’ll jump all over you.
Sharon has better PR people. They know how to spin good and bad news to make it all better. Of course, they always look great against the always terrible public relations failures of the Palestinians.
Arabs hate Sharon for many reasons. But I think Sharon’s biggest problem is his lifelong difficulty with managing his weight. He eats too much.
People who eat a lot usually have personal problems or are haunted by ghosts and memories of bad things.
Sure enough, just as he was stuffing himself this Hanukkah, he had a stroke. Israeli doctors found a small hole in Sharon’s heart and they ordered Sharon on a diet. (There was a rumor going around that Netanyahu was sending Sharon eight fat Turkeys for each day of Hanukkah.)
Like a diet’s really going to make a difference for Sharon. Sharon hasn’t been the best partner for peace with the Palestinians and it’s not going to get better. People on diets are the grumpiest people around.
Of course, the positive side of Sharon’s problems is that Israeli doctors discovered that Sharon really does have a heart.
But Palestinians will just say that’s more Zionist propaganda.
Happy secular New Year.
END
Friday, December 16, 2005
American War on Terrorism more a war on minorities and others
When fear rather than common sense drive policies
(C) Arab American Media Services
All Rights Reserved, 12-16-05
By Ray Hanania
I had no hesitation to follow in the footsteps of my father, George, and his brother, Moses.
Dad served in the 5th Army and Uncle Moses served in the Navy, both for more than four years during World War II. I have a brother who served in the Marines, and when my draft number was up for service during the Vietnam War, even though I opposed the war itself, I enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in early 1973.
I spent two years at an F-111 base. The jet fighter was one of the best instruments of terrorism I have seen. It could fly low, and destroy entire Vietnamese villages without ever jeopardizing the pilot. Thousands of civilians were among the casualties as America fought to impose its view of the world order on Southeast Asia.
But hey, my job was to serve and I did. I didn’t have to like the war and my assignment made it easy to accept the assignment, working in the medical clinic. Military service in your adopted country of choice was essential and I didn’t shy away.
There were only two other Arabs serving with me in the unit. The "Asi" brothers. Twins who enlisted and served with me. My two best friends were Jewish, Mitchell from Los Angeles and Michael from New York.
My first year, I wrote a book called "The Palestine Irredentist," about you know what. The Arab-Israeli conflict. More than 500 pages trying to assert define the "moderate" position, a calling I have followed my whole life.
When the October 1973, the base commander called in the Asi brothers and myself, one at a time and asked us if we would have "problems" if the base fighter jets were sent to defend Israel.
I remember my answer was that I did not nit pick about events. I believed the Palestinians had rights and that both sides should compromise.
My base commander accepted my response and even read my manuscript. He suggested I send out to get published. Arnaud de Borchgrave, the Newsweek Middle East correspondent read it and loved it. And so did Palestinian civil rights champion Ibrahim Abu-Lughod.
Abu-Lughod loved it so much that when the Vietnam war came to an ugly end in 1975, he invited me to serve as a spokesman of the Arab American Congress for Palestine.
The Air Force allowed me to trade in my two remaining years of service for four years of service in the Illinois Air National Guard, where I served nearly a decade more.
It wasn’t until years later that I discovered the ugly truth, that the New York publishing establishment was so anti-Arab and hateful that getting a balanced book about the conflict published was near impossible.
I was proud, though, that I had served and so many others had not.
Yet, the day I left military service, because I was "Arab," the U.S. Government assigned several FBI agents who followed me around for more than two years, investigating the assertion that I was a "terrorist."
It was amazing to me that having served two years in active duty and while still in the National Guard, the FBI would waste so much money.
I had a security clearance in the service. What was it that made them think I was a terrorist?
They targeted anyone who was "Arab," or who expressed a view critical of American foreign policy. They wasted hundreds of millions of dollars in resources on needless investigations that were unjustified and that led nowhere. They did nothing to make this a safer country.
And course, in the past 30 years, little has changed.
President Bush has authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on thousands of Americans – on as many as 500 people at any given time – in his so-far unsuccessful "War on Terrorism."
I am sure they are wasting their time listening to me and monitoring my comings, goings, writings and private conversations.
The point is, with no real evidence to suggest someone is engaged in terrorism, why waste your time and money? It’s like buying a lottery ticket. The real way to earn money is to work hard and diligently and with professionalism. The real way to identify the terrorists is through professional criminal investigations based on evidence.
Not based on ethnicity, religion or even political views.
Of course, that would mean admitting that this country’s actions are failures and that we lost more than 2,100 American soldiers for absolutely nothing.
Politically, that is not what America is about to do. So, President Bush and his government would prefer to just pretend they are doing a good job of fighting the terrorists.
Better that, than to admit failure, I guess.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian American journalist and author. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
(C) Arab American Media Services
All Rights Reserved, 12-16-05
By Ray Hanania
I had no hesitation to follow in the footsteps of my father, George, and his brother, Moses.
Dad served in the 5th Army and Uncle Moses served in the Navy, both for more than four years during World War II. I have a brother who served in the Marines, and when my draft number was up for service during the Vietnam War, even though I opposed the war itself, I enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in early 1973.
I spent two years at an F-111 base. The jet fighter was one of the best instruments of terrorism I have seen. It could fly low, and destroy entire Vietnamese villages without ever jeopardizing the pilot. Thousands of civilians were among the casualties as America fought to impose its view of the world order on Southeast Asia.
But hey, my job was to serve and I did. I didn’t have to like the war and my assignment made it easy to accept the assignment, working in the medical clinic. Military service in your adopted country of choice was essential and I didn’t shy away.
There were only two other Arabs serving with me in the unit. The "Asi" brothers. Twins who enlisted and served with me. My two best friends were Jewish, Mitchell from Los Angeles and Michael from New York.
My first year, I wrote a book called "The Palestine Irredentist," about you know what. The Arab-Israeli conflict. More than 500 pages trying to assert define the "moderate" position, a calling I have followed my whole life.
When the October 1973, the base commander called in the Asi brothers and myself, one at a time and asked us if we would have "problems" if the base fighter jets were sent to defend Israel.
I remember my answer was that I did not nit pick about events. I believed the Palestinians had rights and that both sides should compromise.
My base commander accepted my response and even read my manuscript. He suggested I send out to get published. Arnaud de Borchgrave, the Newsweek Middle East correspondent read it and loved it. And so did Palestinian civil rights champion Ibrahim Abu-Lughod.
Abu-Lughod loved it so much that when the Vietnam war came to an ugly end in 1975, he invited me to serve as a spokesman of the Arab American Congress for Palestine.
The Air Force allowed me to trade in my two remaining years of service for four years of service in the Illinois Air National Guard, where I served nearly a decade more.
It wasn’t until years later that I discovered the ugly truth, that the New York publishing establishment was so anti-Arab and hateful that getting a balanced book about the conflict published was near impossible.
I was proud, though, that I had served and so many others had not.
Yet, the day I left military service, because I was "Arab," the U.S. Government assigned several FBI agents who followed me around for more than two years, investigating the assertion that I was a "terrorist."
It was amazing to me that having served two years in active duty and while still in the National Guard, the FBI would waste so much money.
I had a security clearance in the service. What was it that made them think I was a terrorist?
They targeted anyone who was "Arab," or who expressed a view critical of American foreign policy. They wasted hundreds of millions of dollars in resources on needless investigations that were unjustified and that led nowhere. They did nothing to make this a safer country.
And course, in the past 30 years, little has changed.
President Bush has authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on thousands of Americans – on as many as 500 people at any given time – in his so-far unsuccessful "War on Terrorism."
I am sure they are wasting their time listening to me and monitoring my comings, goings, writings and private conversations.
The point is, with no real evidence to suggest someone is engaged in terrorism, why waste your time and money? It’s like buying a lottery ticket. The real way to earn money is to work hard and diligently and with professionalism. The real way to identify the terrorists is through professional criminal investigations based on evidence.
Not based on ethnicity, religion or even political views.
Of course, that would mean admitting that this country’s actions are failures and that we lost more than 2,100 American soldiers for absolutely nothing.
Politically, that is not what America is about to do. So, President Bush and his government would prefer to just pretend they are doing a good job of fighting the terrorists.
Better that, than to admit failure, I guess.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian American journalist and author. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Al-Arian acquittal an indictment of failed US War on Terrorism
al-Arian vindication an indictment of U.S. Government
Dec. 07, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Anyone who knew Ghassan Ballut and Hatem Fariz knew they could not be the terrorist the Justice Department made them out to be.
I knew both men, two of four co-defendants in a trial touted as a showcase of the Bush Administration’s "War on Terrorism" but that most Arab Americans have known is a sham. Their co-defendants are Sameeh Hammouda and Sami al-Arian.
The acquittal of the "Tampa Four" on all 51 indictments this week proves that you can’t take twist international causes that are unrelated to the War against al-Qaeda and turn them into proof of terrorist activity.
Ballut and Fariz were members of the National Arab American Journalists Association which I helped found back in the late 1990s. We had more than 145 members across the United States.
Palestinian Muslims, Ballut and Fariz were based here in Chicago. And they wore their politics on their shoulders, but in a respectful manner.
Both writers were "Islamicists" in the positive sense. They believed strongly in their Islamic faith and they also believed just as strongly that Israel was guilty injustices against the Palestinian people.
They often spoke harshly of Israel, maybe more harshly than myself and others, but they never at any time denounced, criticized or spoke in threatening ways against the United States, their adopted country.
And that is where the Justice Department continues to go wrong. Desperate to prove they are effectively fighting the War on Terrorism, President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft have charged anyone who is Arab and has sad harsh words about anything.
But the conflict against Israel and the attacks of Sept. 11 are not related, just as the War in Iraq has more to do with oil and Bush family vengeance than with protecting this nation from another terrorist assault.
Too many innocent people who have spoken out against Israel are either in jail or are being charged unfairly like Ballut and Fariz. That's not to say there isn't terrorism against Israel or that suicide bombings are justified. Suicide bombings are immoral and wrong. But criticizing Israel is not the same as supporting international terrorism.
There is Mohammad Salah also in Chicago. Salah was arrested in Israel in 1992 and charged with supporting Hamas. He was forced to sign under torture a confession in Hebrew, a language he does not speak or read. He served five years in an Israeli jail where he claims the torture continued and he was released by Israel in 1997.
Salah and his attorneys were about to conclude a deal that would allow him, his wife and three children to live the rest of their lives here in peace when Sept. 11 happened. Ashcroft immediately turned to Salah as the "poster boy" of his misguided "War on Terrorism."
In the past four years, the U.S. Government has harassed, intimidated and persecuted Salah. The family lives in the basement of a small apartment, barely able to make ends meet. All of their possessions and money confiscated. Friends who want to help have been threatened with imprisonment, too, for contributing to the defense of an alleged terrorist.
Like Ballut and Fariz, Salah often spoke harshly against Israel. But he never said a bad word against the United States, the American people nor did he ever say anything that would suggest he supported violence.
I do not know al-Arian, though I have read some of his public quotes that have earned him a nickname as a firebrand Islamicists. Nor do I know Hammoudeh. But I do know Ballut and Fariz. I was included on the defense witness list, prepared to testify on their behalf during the trial if called but was never called.
Clearly, Americans should be concerned by this jury verdict. Concerned not that four suspected terrorists are now free and may pursue further acts of violence.
No. We should be concerned that our government is ineffectively fighting the "War on Terrorism."
We should be concerned that all the Bush administration lies, the distortions, the arrests of the innocent, the weakening of our Constitutional Rights under the Patriot Act and the atmosphere of profiling have made this country more vulnerable to terrorist attack.
These politically motivated prosecutions intended to veil the Bush Administrations failure to fight the real "War on Terrorism" are making this country less and less safe.
While we focus on the wrong front, the real terrorists like Osama Bin Laden remain at large plotting, planning and waiting for the moment to strike again.
The acquittal of the "Tampa Four" sends a loud and clear message that we need to change how we define the "War on Terrorism" and re-examine what this country is really doing.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian journalist and author. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
Dec. 07, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Anyone who knew Ghassan Ballut and Hatem Fariz knew they could not be the terrorist the Justice Department made them out to be.
I knew both men, two of four co-defendants in a trial touted as a showcase of the Bush Administration’s "War on Terrorism" but that most Arab Americans have known is a sham. Their co-defendants are Sameeh Hammouda and Sami al-Arian.
The acquittal of the "Tampa Four" on all 51 indictments this week proves that you can’t take twist international causes that are unrelated to the War against al-Qaeda and turn them into proof of terrorist activity.
Ballut and Fariz were members of the National Arab American Journalists Association which I helped found back in the late 1990s. We had more than 145 members across the United States.
Palestinian Muslims, Ballut and Fariz were based here in Chicago. And they wore their politics on their shoulders, but in a respectful manner.
Both writers were "Islamicists" in the positive sense. They believed strongly in their Islamic faith and they also believed just as strongly that Israel was guilty injustices against the Palestinian people.
They often spoke harshly of Israel, maybe more harshly than myself and others, but they never at any time denounced, criticized or spoke in threatening ways against the United States, their adopted country.
And that is where the Justice Department continues to go wrong. Desperate to prove they are effectively fighting the War on Terrorism, President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft have charged anyone who is Arab and has sad harsh words about anything.
But the conflict against Israel and the attacks of Sept. 11 are not related, just as the War in Iraq has more to do with oil and Bush family vengeance than with protecting this nation from another terrorist assault.
Too many innocent people who have spoken out against Israel are either in jail or are being charged unfairly like Ballut and Fariz. That's not to say there isn't terrorism against Israel or that suicide bombings are justified. Suicide bombings are immoral and wrong. But criticizing Israel is not the same as supporting international terrorism.
There is Mohammad Salah also in Chicago. Salah was arrested in Israel in 1992 and charged with supporting Hamas. He was forced to sign under torture a confession in Hebrew, a language he does not speak or read. He served five years in an Israeli jail where he claims the torture continued and he was released by Israel in 1997.
Salah and his attorneys were about to conclude a deal that would allow him, his wife and three children to live the rest of their lives here in peace when Sept. 11 happened. Ashcroft immediately turned to Salah as the "poster boy" of his misguided "War on Terrorism."
In the past four years, the U.S. Government has harassed, intimidated and persecuted Salah. The family lives in the basement of a small apartment, barely able to make ends meet. All of their possessions and money confiscated. Friends who want to help have been threatened with imprisonment, too, for contributing to the defense of an alleged terrorist.
Like Ballut and Fariz, Salah often spoke harshly against Israel. But he never said a bad word against the United States, the American people nor did he ever say anything that would suggest he supported violence.
I do not know al-Arian, though I have read some of his public quotes that have earned him a nickname as a firebrand Islamicists. Nor do I know Hammoudeh. But I do know Ballut and Fariz. I was included on the defense witness list, prepared to testify on their behalf during the trial if called but was never called.
Clearly, Americans should be concerned by this jury verdict. Concerned not that four suspected terrorists are now free and may pursue further acts of violence.
No. We should be concerned that our government is ineffectively fighting the "War on Terrorism."
We should be concerned that all the Bush administration lies, the distortions, the arrests of the innocent, the weakening of our Constitutional Rights under the Patriot Act and the atmosphere of profiling have made this country more vulnerable to terrorist attack.
These politically motivated prosecutions intended to veil the Bush Administrations failure to fight the real "War on Terrorism" are making this country less and less safe.
While we focus on the wrong front, the real terrorists like Osama Bin Laden remain at large plotting, planning and waiting for the moment to strike again.
The acquittal of the "Tampa Four" sends a loud and clear message that we need to change how we define the "War on Terrorism" and re-examine what this country is really doing.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian journalist and author. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
Friday, September 16, 2005
I have a Dream -- Column from the archives (about 1997-1998)
I have a (an Arab American) dream
By Ray Hanania
I imagine waking up one morning into a different world. One where anti-Arab bigotry doesn’t exist, and where the Chicago news media slogans of fairness and objectivity mean something.
I buy a newspaper and I see among the many by-lines at least one Arab American reporter.
And I flipped through the pages and I find a story about how more than 350 Arab Americans joined to celebrate the retirement of one of our community leaders after many years of serving the City of Chicago.
There is a small Ad at the bottom of the page that teases me about a special section on Palestine, a decade after the Intifadah, and promises of a commentary there by renown Palestinian writer, Edward Said.
I have a dream.
After reading the newspaper, I get up and go to my car parked in the driveway. I see my neighbor, who is Irish American, and he wishes me a Happy Ramadan Kareem.
I wave back in gratitude even though I am not Muslim.I have a dream.I take out several letters that I want to send to friends and I go to the Post Office where they offer me stamps that commemorate Ramadan, Khalil Gibran, and the historic visit of the Orthodox Patriarch to the United States.
I see the stamps on the shelf along with all the other stamps that commemorate Kwanza, Christmas, Hanukkah, and all kinds of community leaders and events.
I have a dream.
I call work, and the message reminds me that today is a holiday, named in honor of Muhammad, the Great Muslim Prophet, or maybe in honor of the first Arab American to die while serving during World War I as a commander of the armed forces. Or, maybe, it is Khalil Gibran Day.I have a dream.
My daughter comes home from school, and instead of telling me about how she is harassed by other kids because she is Arab, she delights in relating to me about how the class will spend the next two weeks learning about the important culture of the Arab World.
The teacher plans to discuss all of the great contributions that Arabs have made to the sciences, to health, to music and to mathematics. There are so many, she can’t tell me about them all.
I have a dream.
And I turn on my television set to watch the news, and Mike Monseur, the CLTV reporter who was demoted as anchor because of his Arab American heritage, is sitting next to Carol Marin, detailing an exclusive investigation into corruption at Chicago’s City Hall.
In response, Mayor Daley has announced the appointment of celebrated Arab American attorney William Haddad as a special investigator to oversee the probe to insure the highest quality of legal leadership.
I have a dream.
The local cable TV program is also flashing on news about upcoming events, and I see that the City of Chicago is gearing up for the Arab American Day celebration.
There will be floats, and bands playing, and children waving Arab World flags. And Americans will be standing on the sides of the street as the parade passes them by, waiving and cheering as they do at the St. Patrick’s Day Parade every year.
I have a dream.
Later, this summer, I will plan a few days off of work, so that I can take my family to the annual Arab Food Fest, which will feature dozens of tents of Arab restaurants selling filafel, hummos, lamb kabob, and stuffed grapeleaves.
It’s so crowded, it takes forever to get to the counter to place my order.
I have a dream.
The Sunday Tribune arrives at my door step and I pick it up and I see on the cover that the book section features a review of my humor book, and books written by other Arab Americans like Sammer Ghouleh, Edward Said, Salameh Zanayed and Rashid Khalidi.
I have a dream.
And then my wife shakes me out of my slumber, and I have to return to the real world where Arabs face bigotry and the media ignores us.
And I sigh.
Wow.
I have a dream!
Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian American journalist, author and writer. His columns are archived on the World Wide Web at ( www.hanania.com)
(One of my favorite columns from the past)
I imagine waking up one morning into a different world. One where anti-Arab bigotry doesn’t exist, and where the Chicago news media slogans of fairness and objectivity mean something.
I buy a newspaper and I see among the many by-lines at least one Arab American reporter.
And I flipped through the pages and I find a story about how more than 350 Arab Americans joined to celebrate the retirement of one of our community leaders after many years of serving the City of Chicago.
There is a small Ad at the bottom of the page that teases me about a special section on Palestine, a decade after the Intifadah, and promises of a commentary there by renown Palestinian writer, Edward Said.
I have a dream.
After reading the newspaper, I get up and go to my car parked in the driveway. I see my neighbor, who is Irish American, and he wishes me a Happy Ramadan Kareem.
I wave back in gratitude even though I am not Muslim.I have a dream.I take out several letters that I want to send to friends and I go to the Post Office where they offer me stamps that commemorate Ramadan, Khalil Gibran, and the historic visit of the Orthodox Patriarch to the United States.
I see the stamps on the shelf along with all the other stamps that commemorate Kwanza, Christmas, Hanukkah, and all kinds of community leaders and events.
I have a dream.
I call work, and the message reminds me that today is a holiday, named in honor of Muhammad, the Great Muslim Prophet, or maybe in honor of the first Arab American to die while serving during World War I as a commander of the armed forces. Or, maybe, it is Khalil Gibran Day.I have a dream.
My daughter comes home from school, and instead of telling me about how she is harassed by other kids because she is Arab, she delights in relating to me about how the class will spend the next two weeks learning about the important culture of the Arab World.
The teacher plans to discuss all of the great contributions that Arabs have made to the sciences, to health, to music and to mathematics. There are so many, she can’t tell me about them all.
I have a dream.
And I turn on my television set to watch the news, and Mike Monseur, the CLTV reporter who was demoted as anchor because of his Arab American heritage, is sitting next to Carol Marin, detailing an exclusive investigation into corruption at Chicago’s City Hall.
In response, Mayor Daley has announced the appointment of celebrated Arab American attorney William Haddad as a special investigator to oversee the probe to insure the highest quality of legal leadership.
I have a dream.
The local cable TV program is also flashing on news about upcoming events, and I see that the City of Chicago is gearing up for the Arab American Day celebration.
There will be floats, and bands playing, and children waving Arab World flags. And Americans will be standing on the sides of the street as the parade passes them by, waiving and cheering as they do at the St. Patrick’s Day Parade every year.
I have a dream.
Later, this summer, I will plan a few days off of work, so that I can take my family to the annual Arab Food Fest, which will feature dozens of tents of Arab restaurants selling filafel, hummos, lamb kabob, and stuffed grapeleaves.
It’s so crowded, it takes forever to get to the counter to place my order.
I have a dream.
The Sunday Tribune arrives at my door step and I pick it up and I see on the cover that the book section features a review of my humor book, and books written by other Arab Americans like Sammer Ghouleh, Edward Said, Salameh Zanayed and Rashid Khalidi.
I have a dream.
And then my wife shakes me out of my slumber, and I have to return to the real world where Arabs face bigotry and the media ignores us.
And I sigh.
Wow.
I have a dream!
Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian American journalist, author and writer. His columns are archived on the World Wide Web at ( www.hanania.com)
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Muslims/Arabs over-react to Tancredo Comments, July 27, 2005
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2005
ARABS AND MUSLIMS OVERREACTING TO TANCREDO COMMENTS
By Ray Hanania
I'm not as angry with Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo as many other Arabs and Muslims are. Tancredo supposedly said America should nuke Mecca, the Muslim Holy City.
Well, that's not what he said, though he came pretty close. Arab and Muslim American organizations quickly denounced Tancredo, demanding he apologize or resign. Not surprisingly, Tancredo stood by his comments, saying they were taken out of context.
Not only will he not apologize, he won't even admit his remarks were more ignorant than rant. That's because Tancredo's comments, accurate or not, are getting great play with an American public that is more and more concerned about a potential terrorist attack.
And Tancredo's getting a lot of media play, too. Most Americans had never heard of plans he had earlier in the year to run for president until the nuke Mecca controversy erupted. Now, his presidential bid is getting national coverage.
What was it that Tancredo really said?
Tancredo was being interviewed Jul. 15 by Pat Campbell, a talk-show host at WFLA radio in Orlando, Florida. The topic was a column posted on the popular WorldNetDaily internet site hosted by columnist Joseph Farah that asserted Islamic terrorists have already brought nuclear weapons into the United States across the impossible-to-monitor Mexican border. That's pretty scary stuff, especially coming right smack in the middle of two separate terrorist strikes by Muslims terrorists in London.
Here is the transcript of the interview, published by the Denver Post:
I think the Arab and Muslim American organizations are overreacting. They bash anyone who even questions their religion. But when it comes to denouncing Islamic terrorists who have hijacked their religion and killed thousands of Americans, they seem selective.
Rather than publicize Tancredo, Arabs and Muslims should ignore him.
What Tancredo said or didn't say doesn't matter. What does matter is the growing hostility against Arabs and Muslims by many Americans that has nothing to do with Tancredo at all. The fact is, Tancredo's comments are mild compared to the chorus of Americans who are screaming for the United States to drop nuclear weapons on Arab and Muslim countries in response to Sept. 11. Just turn on any radio or TV talk show.
To many Americans, Tancredo probably didn't go far enough. The idea of responding with a larger, worse nuclear counter-strike is built into America's policy of nuclear deterrence. More importantly, though, Americans may be angry, but they are not stupid.
They see how Arab and Muslim Americans organizations are selective in criticizing some acts of terrorism but not all. To some Americans, Arabs and Muslims also look hypocritical in the Tancredo controversy. Isn't it Arabs and Muslims who are always arguing that Americans need to get to the "root causes of the terrorism?"
Maybe Arabs and Muslims should practice what they preach, and understand the "root causes" of the growing anti-Arab and anti-Muslim feelings that make it easy for elected officials like Tancredo and the American public to clamor for a tougher response to Islamic terrorism?
That's not to say that Arabs and Muslims should rally behind Tancredo's presidential candidacy. No. Until now, Tancredo was known to Americans for his history of insensitive comments about all immigrants, not just Arabs and Muslims.
But aren't there more important issues Arabs and Muslims should focus on, avoiding the cheap shots that play into, rather than assuage, the growing fears and anger of Americans?
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 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Originally Published on Wednesday July 27, 2005
ARABS AND MUSLIMS OVERREACTING TO TANCREDO COMMENTS
By Ray Hanania
I'm not as angry with Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo as many other Arabs and Muslims are. Tancredo supposedly said America should nuke Mecca, the Muslim Holy City.
Well, that's not what he said, though he came pretty close. Arab and Muslim American organizations quickly denounced Tancredo, demanding he apologize or resign. Not surprisingly, Tancredo stood by his comments, saying they were taken out of context.
Not only will he not apologize, he won't even admit his remarks were more ignorant than rant. That's because Tancredo's comments, accurate or not, are getting great play with an American public that is more and more concerned about a potential terrorist attack.
And Tancredo's getting a lot of media play, too. Most Americans had never heard of plans he had earlier in the year to run for president until the nuke Mecca controversy erupted. Now, his presidential bid is getting national coverage.
What was it that Tancredo really said?
Tancredo was being interviewed Jul. 15 by Pat Campbell, a talk-show host at WFLA radio in Orlando, Florida. The topic was a column posted on the popular WorldNetDaily internet site hosted by columnist Joseph Farah that asserted Islamic terrorists have already brought nuclear weapons into the United States across the impossible-to-monitor Mexican border. That's pretty scary stuff, especially coming right smack in the middle of two separate terrorist strikes by Muslims terrorists in London.
Here is the transcript of the interview, published by the Denver Post:
Campbell: "Worst-case scenario -- if they do have these nukes inside the
borders and they were to use something like that, what would our response be?"
Tancredo: "What would be the response? (pause) Um, you know, there are
things you could threaten to do before something like that happens and you may
have to do afterwards (unintelligible) draconian."
Campbell: "Such as?"
Tancredo: "Well, what if you said something like, 'If this happens in the
United States and we determine that it is the result of extremist,
fundamentalist Muslims.' You could take out their holy sites."
Campbell: "You're talking about bombing Mecca?"
Tancredo: "Yeah. What if you said, 'We recognize this is the ultimate
threat to the United States, so this is the ultimate response.' I'm just
throwing out some ideas because you would be talking about taking the most
draconian measures you could possibly imagine. Because other than that, all you
could do is, once again, tighten up internally."
I think the Arab and Muslim American organizations are overreacting. They bash anyone who even questions their religion. But when it comes to denouncing Islamic terrorists who have hijacked their religion and killed thousands of Americans, they seem selective.
Rather than publicize Tancredo, Arabs and Muslims should ignore him.
What Tancredo said or didn't say doesn't matter. What does matter is the growing hostility against Arabs and Muslims by many Americans that has nothing to do with Tancredo at all. The fact is, Tancredo's comments are mild compared to the chorus of Americans who are screaming for the United States to drop nuclear weapons on Arab and Muslim countries in response to Sept. 11. Just turn on any radio or TV talk show.
To many Americans, Tancredo probably didn't go far enough. The idea of responding with a larger, worse nuclear counter-strike is built into America's policy of nuclear deterrence. More importantly, though, Americans may be angry, but they are not stupid.
They see how Arab and Muslim Americans organizations are selective in criticizing some acts of terrorism but not all. To some Americans, Arabs and Muslims also look hypocritical in the Tancredo controversy. Isn't it Arabs and Muslims who are always arguing that Americans need to get to the "root causes of the terrorism?"
Maybe Arabs and Muslims should practice what they preach, and understand the "root causes" of the growing anti-Arab and anti-Muslim feelings that make it easy for elected officials like Tancredo and the American public to clamor for a tougher response to Islamic terrorism?
That's not to say that Arabs and Muslims should rally behind Tancredo's presidential candidacy. No. Until now, Tancredo was known to Americans for his history of insensitive comments about all immigrants, not just Arabs and Muslims.
But aren't there more important issues Arabs and Muslims should focus on, avoiding the cheap shots that play into, rather than assuage, the growing fears and anger of Americans?
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 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Originally Published on Wednesday July 27, 2005
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Muslims sometimes feed Islamic stereotypes, July 20, 2005
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2005
MUSLIMS SOMETIMES FEED ISLAMIC STEREOTYPES
By Ray Hanania
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) released a PSA last week they hope will convince Americans that Muslims oppose terrorism. But the PSA fails to address some of the real challenges that feed American bigotry against Muslims and Arabs.
In fact, CAIR narrowly defines Muslims so harshly that it might even feed further misunderstanding.
For example, the PSA includes several individuals, including two women who argue that terrorism is not condoned by Islam. Both are wearing a Hijab, a head covering some Muslims wrongly assert is required for women by the Quran. It is not.
The issue of the Hijab has become central to the conflict Americans have with Muslims. Sadly, many Muslim women are forced to wear the Hijab because Muslim men, who live under conditions free of the very restrictive inhibitions they impose on women, insist they wear them. The CAIR PSA therefore feeds, rather than undermines, the bias some Americans have against Muslims. Another issue involves the more complex distinction between Muslims and Arabs.
The two are often interchanged to suit the convenience of both American bigots and Muslims who often engage in their own policies of discrimination against non-Muslim Arabs or Muslims who do not accept the extreme interpretations of Islam.
The Arab-Israeli conflict involves Arab opposition to Israel's discriminatory practices against Arabs who are both Christian and Muslim. It is not the same as the campaign of terror driven by Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
Although Bin Laden claims to represent all Muslims, he does not. And his mission is not one of freeing Muslims or Arabs, but destroying Western civilization and those who do not accept his strict interpretations of Islam, people more commonly referred to by extremist Muslims as "infidels." Infidels not only include Americans and all Jews, but also Christian Arabs and Muslims who are more secular in their lifestyles.
The CAIR PSA feeds into the narrow definition of Muslims, excluding the secular Muslims and most Arabs. More than half of the estimated 4.2 million Arabs in America, for example, are not Muslim at all but are Christian.
The majority of Muslims in America, estimated as 7 million, are in fact non-Arab. Arabs only make up 23 percent of the Muslim-American population, and a slightly larger percentage worldwide.
Many Muslims are not Arab, and, as we have seen in London recently (where the suicide bombers were identified as Pakistani), many Islamic terrorists are not Arab.
Oftentimes, because Americans are uneducated about these subtle distinctions, they discriminate against Christian Arabs believing wrongly that they are Muslims. I am often mistaken for a Muslim. And while I am not insulted in the least, I am surprised at how many Americans don't even know that many Arabs are Christian.
Understanding these important subtleties might help the United States, for example, better prepare itself for another terrorist attack that is certainly going to happen. Chances are, for example, the United States will be the target of another suicide bombing.
Just as we witnessed the terrorism in London, we will see that kind of terrorism against civilian targets here in the America. But it is also a good guess that the perpetrators of the next terrorist act will not be Palestinian, who are engaged in an almost exclusively focused conflict against Israel.
Israel would like Americans to believe their conflict is the same as the war on terrorism, but it is not. The only Americans ever killed in Palestinian attacks were Americans who either were dual nationals carrying Israeli citizenship, too or Americans accidentally caught up in the Palestinian militant violence against Israel.
The violence of groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad that includes suicide attacks is certainly immoral and is an unjustified form of resistance. Palestinians and most Arabs are not anti-American.
The real threat is not from those engaged in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but those who are fighting a larger battle not just against Israel, but against secular Muslims and Christian Arabs. Bin Laden is battling Western civilization and the freedoms its people enjoy.
These are issues that CAIR's national office should address. But Muslims, moderate and extremist, are oftentimes guilty of discriminating against other Muslims and Christian Arabs who disagree with narrow interpretations of Islam and the Middle East conflict.
One of the side effects of Bin Laden's terrorism has been the suppression of the secular Muslim identity and the isolation by extremist Muslims of the Christian Arabs.
In the end, that only helps Bin Laden achieve his terrorist goals.
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 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Originally Published on Wednesday July 20, 2005
MUSLIMS SOMETIMES FEED ISLAMIC STEREOTYPES
By Ray Hanania
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) released a PSA last week they hope will convince Americans that Muslims oppose terrorism. But the PSA fails to address some of the real challenges that feed American bigotry against Muslims and Arabs.
In fact, CAIR narrowly defines Muslims so harshly that it might even feed further misunderstanding.
For example, the PSA includes several individuals, including two women who argue that terrorism is not condoned by Islam. Both are wearing a Hijab, a head covering some Muslims wrongly assert is required for women by the Quran. It is not.
The issue of the Hijab has become central to the conflict Americans have with Muslims. Sadly, many Muslim women are forced to wear the Hijab because Muslim men, who live under conditions free of the very restrictive inhibitions they impose on women, insist they wear them. The CAIR PSA therefore feeds, rather than undermines, the bias some Americans have against Muslims. Another issue involves the more complex distinction between Muslims and Arabs.
The two are often interchanged to suit the convenience of both American bigots and Muslims who often engage in their own policies of discrimination against non-Muslim Arabs or Muslims who do not accept the extreme interpretations of Islam.
The Arab-Israeli conflict involves Arab opposition to Israel's discriminatory practices against Arabs who are both Christian and Muslim. It is not the same as the campaign of terror driven by Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
Although Bin Laden claims to represent all Muslims, he does not. And his mission is not one of freeing Muslims or Arabs, but destroying Western civilization and those who do not accept his strict interpretations of Islam, people more commonly referred to by extremist Muslims as "infidels." Infidels not only include Americans and all Jews, but also Christian Arabs and Muslims who are more secular in their lifestyles.
The CAIR PSA feeds into the narrow definition of Muslims, excluding the secular Muslims and most Arabs. More than half of the estimated 4.2 million Arabs in America, for example, are not Muslim at all but are Christian.
The majority of Muslims in America, estimated as 7 million, are in fact non-Arab. Arabs only make up 23 percent of the Muslim-American population, and a slightly larger percentage worldwide.
Many Muslims are not Arab, and, as we have seen in London recently (where the suicide bombers were identified as Pakistani), many Islamic terrorists are not Arab.
Oftentimes, because Americans are uneducated about these subtle distinctions, they discriminate against Christian Arabs believing wrongly that they are Muslims. I am often mistaken for a Muslim. And while I am not insulted in the least, I am surprised at how many Americans don't even know that many Arabs are Christian.
Understanding these important subtleties might help the United States, for example, better prepare itself for another terrorist attack that is certainly going to happen. Chances are, for example, the United States will be the target of another suicide bombing.
Just as we witnessed the terrorism in London, we will see that kind of terrorism against civilian targets here in the America. But it is also a good guess that the perpetrators of the next terrorist act will not be Palestinian, who are engaged in an almost exclusively focused conflict against Israel.
Israel would like Americans to believe their conflict is the same as the war on terrorism, but it is not. The only Americans ever killed in Palestinian attacks were Americans who either were dual nationals carrying Israeli citizenship, too or Americans accidentally caught up in the Palestinian militant violence against Israel.
The violence of groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad that includes suicide attacks is certainly immoral and is an unjustified form of resistance. Palestinians and most Arabs are not anti-American.
The real threat is not from those engaged in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but those who are fighting a larger battle not just against Israel, but against secular Muslims and Christian Arabs. Bin Laden is battling Western civilization and the freedoms its people enjoy.
These are issues that CAIR's national office should address. But Muslims, moderate and extremist, are oftentimes guilty of discriminating against other Muslims and Christian Arabs who disagree with narrow interpretations of Islam and the Middle East conflict.
One of the side effects of Bin Laden's terrorism has been the suppression of the secular Muslim identity and the isolation by extremist Muslims of the Christian Arabs.
In the end, that only helps Bin Laden achieve his terrorist goals.
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 2005 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Originally Published on Wednesday July 20, 2005
Friday, July 15, 2005
Not enough being done to condemn terrorism by Arabs and Muslims, July 15, 2005
Not enough being done to condemn terrorism by Arabs and Muslims
Creators Syndicate July 15, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Muslim and Arab American groups quickly and sharply condemned the terrorist attacks in London, but remained silent when suicide bombers struck Israel.
Last week, four attackers whom British officials now believe were suicide bombers, separately struck London’s transit system, killing 52 and injuring hundreds.
All four are believed to be a part of al-Qaeda’s loose network.
The attacks pushed the demarcation line on what is and isn’t possible. Many observers including Stephen Emerson warned that is is a matter of when not if suicide bombers strike America, again.
Yet one week later when a Palestinian suicide bomber struck a shopping mall in Netanya near Tel Aviv, nearly all the Arab and Muslim organizations were silent. The attack was blamed in Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic sibling of Hamas.
These American organizations are playing a duplicitous and dangerous game. They are only saying enough to protect themselves against what they fear will be a repeat of the post-Sept. 11 backlash.
The greater danger though is the impact their silence is having on the efforts to bring peace to the Palestine-Israel conflict, often cited as the backbone of the anger many Muslims and Arabs have against Americans and the West.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who was elected in democratic elections held in January, remains politically crippled as Hamas and the PIJ exploit the suffering of Palestinians.
The harder it is to achieve peace, the more the oppressive Palestinian life becomes. Pushed to heightened anguish and emotion, Palestinians are less likely to speak out against the suicide bombings or the extremist groups like Hamas or PIJ, even though a March 2005 survey of Palestinian by pollster Khalil Shikaki shows most support compromise with Israel and oppose suicide bombings. Hamas and the PIJ have both publicly rejected compromise and Israel’s existence.
Although Abbas’ Fatah political organization continues to dominate Palestinian politics on a national level, Hamas and PIJ gains at the local election level are disturbing.
Abbas should ban both organizations and prevent them from participating in any elections until they renounce violence.
He has the legal mandate to pursue this demand as the officially elected leader of Palestine. In contrast, Hamas and the PIJ are basically operating as illegal militias or vigilantes.
On a moral level, the violence of Hamas and the PIJ go far beyond justified resistance. Although Israel is guilty of many actions that violate human rights and international law, nothing justifies a suicide bombing against any targets, especially those that are civilian.
Suicide bombings are morally reprehensible.
Hamas and the PIJ were not only behind the most recent suicide attack in Netanya, but also the last attack last February which was as much directed at killing Israelis as it was at killing the legitimacy of Abbas’ government.
How do American Arab and Muslim organizations fit into this deteriorating scenario?
As long as the major Arab and Muslim organizations refuse or fail to stand up and denounce Hamas or PIJ violence and suicide bombing attacks, Hamas and the PIJ have no real pressure to discontinue.
Last month when Abbas extended his hand to Hamas and invited them into a coalition government if they would end their violent campaigns, Hamas scoffed at the offer. The Netanya suicide bombing can be viewed as their more public rejection of Abbas and his government.
As long as the major Arab and Muslim organizations refuse or fail to denounce Hamas and PIJ attacks, the Arab American media and even the Arab World media will continue to incite the public against peace and in support of continued violence, claiming falsely that suicide bombings are an act of legitimate resistance when it is well beyond the realm of legitimacy.
Finally, while Arab and Muslim American organizations refrain from condemning Hamas and the PIJ, they are active in attacking any Arabs or Muslims, like myself, who speak out against Hamas and the PIJ and who call suicide bombings immoral and unjustified.
In part, these organizations can get away with this because Americans and people in the West allow them to get away with it.
The Palestine-Israel conflict is so complex that it is beyond the comprehension of most Americans.
The fact that the alleged suicide bombers in London were Pakistani and not Palestinians seems to be irrelevant to many Americans who continue to rail against all Muslim causes, including distant causes like the fight for Palestinian justice and statehood.
END
Creators Syndicate July 15, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Muslim and Arab American groups quickly and sharply condemned the terrorist attacks in London, but remained silent when suicide bombers struck Israel.
Last week, four attackers whom British officials now believe were suicide bombers, separately struck London’s transit system, killing 52 and injuring hundreds.
All four are believed to be a part of al-Qaeda’s loose network.
The attacks pushed the demarcation line on what is and isn’t possible. Many observers including Stephen Emerson warned that is is a matter of when not if suicide bombers strike America, again.
Yet one week later when a Palestinian suicide bomber struck a shopping mall in Netanya near Tel Aviv, nearly all the Arab and Muslim organizations were silent. The attack was blamed in Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic sibling of Hamas.
These American organizations are playing a duplicitous and dangerous game. They are only saying enough to protect themselves against what they fear will be a repeat of the post-Sept. 11 backlash.
The greater danger though is the impact their silence is having on the efforts to bring peace to the Palestine-Israel conflict, often cited as the backbone of the anger many Muslims and Arabs have against Americans and the West.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who was elected in democratic elections held in January, remains politically crippled as Hamas and the PIJ exploit the suffering of Palestinians.
The harder it is to achieve peace, the more the oppressive Palestinian life becomes. Pushed to heightened anguish and emotion, Palestinians are less likely to speak out against the suicide bombings or the extremist groups like Hamas or PIJ, even though a March 2005 survey of Palestinian by pollster Khalil Shikaki shows most support compromise with Israel and oppose suicide bombings. Hamas and the PIJ have both publicly rejected compromise and Israel’s existence.
Although Abbas’ Fatah political organization continues to dominate Palestinian politics on a national level, Hamas and PIJ gains at the local election level are disturbing.
Abbas should ban both organizations and prevent them from participating in any elections until they renounce violence.
He has the legal mandate to pursue this demand as the officially elected leader of Palestine. In contrast, Hamas and the PIJ are basically operating as illegal militias or vigilantes.
On a moral level, the violence of Hamas and the PIJ go far beyond justified resistance. Although Israel is guilty of many actions that violate human rights and international law, nothing justifies a suicide bombing against any targets, especially those that are civilian.
Suicide bombings are morally reprehensible.
Hamas and the PIJ were not only behind the most recent suicide attack in Netanya, but also the last attack last February which was as much directed at killing Israelis as it was at killing the legitimacy of Abbas’ government.
How do American Arab and Muslim organizations fit into this deteriorating scenario?
As long as the major Arab and Muslim organizations refuse or fail to stand up and denounce Hamas or PIJ violence and suicide bombing attacks, Hamas and the PIJ have no real pressure to discontinue.
Last month when Abbas extended his hand to Hamas and invited them into a coalition government if they would end their violent campaigns, Hamas scoffed at the offer. The Netanya suicide bombing can be viewed as their more public rejection of Abbas and his government.
As long as the major Arab and Muslim organizations refuse or fail to denounce Hamas and PIJ attacks, the Arab American media and even the Arab World media will continue to incite the public against peace and in support of continued violence, claiming falsely that suicide bombings are an act of legitimate resistance when it is well beyond the realm of legitimacy.
Finally, while Arab and Muslim American organizations refrain from condemning Hamas and the PIJ, they are active in attacking any Arabs or Muslims, like myself, who speak out against Hamas and the PIJ and who call suicide bombings immoral and unjustified.
In part, these organizations can get away with this because Americans and people in the West allow them to get away with it.
The Palestine-Israel conflict is so complex that it is beyond the comprehension of most Americans.
The fact that the alleged suicide bombers in London were Pakistani and not Palestinians seems to be irrelevant to many Americans who continue to rail against all Muslim causes, including distant causes like the fight for Palestinian justice and statehood.
END
Friday, July 08, 2005
London bombings reveal how unsafe the world really is, July 8, 2005
London bombings reveal how unsafe the world really is
July 8, 2005 Creators Syndicate
By Ray Hanania
I think it is pretty clear that the world is not safer as a result of the war in Iraq.
It is also clear that our current security procedures are not working. Profiling Arabs and Muslims only tends to isolate a community that for the most part opposes the extremism of the terrorists.
The fact is, no matter what we might do, without support from the communities where we believe terrorism originates, we cannot properly defend ourselves.
In effect, we are at the mercy of the terrorists who strike not on our failed timetables of fast wars, but on their ideological calendar where the period between attacks may be weeks, months and even years.
The toll of lost lives from the concerted attack against several commuter targets in Britain’s capitol continues to rise. Bombs were set in six bus and subway locations.
Immediately, British officials identified al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization of fugitive Saudi militant Osama Bin Laden.
You would think that a sane person moved by the tragedy of the terrorism might ask the obvious questions: Why haven’t we captured Bin Laden? Why did we focus on Iraq rather than on completing the job in Afghanistan where Bin Laden is reportedly hiding along the border with Pakistan, a nation that supposedly is our ally?
Most Americans are already weary of the contradictions in the answers.
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We so easily pushed that aside and found a new excuse to justify an unjustified war there. But every failed excuse leads to another failed excuse.
What’s next after "making the world a safer place’ proves to also be a failed objective in invading Iraq?
At some point, the American and British people might start demanding accountability from their governments.
But it is so easy to fall into the heated and emotional political debate rather than to examine the failed policies for real answers.
The answers are there for us to find.
We should immediately withdraw from Iraq. It’s a war we cannot win. We began with unbelievably naïve goals of crushing Saddam Hussein and winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
Saddam Hussein is in prison but the persistent and very successful insurgency continues to grow, not diminish while the number of mainly Americans soldiers who are dying there continues to grow.
Rather than creating enemies in the Arab and Muslim World through foreign policies based on injustice and favortism, we should be working to resolve many of the longstanding problems that range from the brutal and unjustified Israeli occupation of Palestine to the continuing support this nation provides to Middle East tyrants and dictators who oppress their own people while speaking hypocritically about embracing Democracy.
We should end the politically driven prosecutions of Arabs and Muslims in America, many of whom have been targeted not because of anti-American activities but because of their political views critical of foreign countries like Israel.
If the United States and Britain imposed a fair and just solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict, that would do far more to undermine the popular support terrorists are receiving from the people of the Arab and Muslim world who are driven to that support by anger and emotion.
When we stop playing politics with our foreign policy and put real meaning behind building Democracies, freeing people and achieving justice in the Middle East, then we might find that the majority of those people will embrace us as the champions that we so far have failed to become.
It will also mean eliminating the injustices and tragedies that the terrorists continue to exploit as a cover for their crimes.
As a result of the London attacks, there is an increased vigilance in America and other Western nations for potential follow-up strikes by al-Qaeda against transportation centers.
But if there is one lesson we must expect from al-Qaeda, and their free leader, it is that they are unpredictable and our current methods of security provide no security at all.
END
July 8, 2005 Creators Syndicate
By Ray Hanania
I think it is pretty clear that the world is not safer as a result of the war in Iraq.
It is also clear that our current security procedures are not working. Profiling Arabs and Muslims only tends to isolate a community that for the most part opposes the extremism of the terrorists.
The fact is, no matter what we might do, without support from the communities where we believe terrorism originates, we cannot properly defend ourselves.
In effect, we are at the mercy of the terrorists who strike not on our failed timetables of fast wars, but on their ideological calendar where the period between attacks may be weeks, months and even years.
The toll of lost lives from the concerted attack against several commuter targets in Britain’s capitol continues to rise. Bombs were set in six bus and subway locations.
Immediately, British officials identified al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization of fugitive Saudi militant Osama Bin Laden.
You would think that a sane person moved by the tragedy of the terrorism might ask the obvious questions: Why haven’t we captured Bin Laden? Why did we focus on Iraq rather than on completing the job in Afghanistan where Bin Laden is reportedly hiding along the border with Pakistan, a nation that supposedly is our ally?
Most Americans are already weary of the contradictions in the answers.
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We so easily pushed that aside and found a new excuse to justify an unjustified war there. But every failed excuse leads to another failed excuse.
What’s next after "making the world a safer place’ proves to also be a failed objective in invading Iraq?
At some point, the American and British people might start demanding accountability from their governments.
But it is so easy to fall into the heated and emotional political debate rather than to examine the failed policies for real answers.
The answers are there for us to find.
We should immediately withdraw from Iraq. It’s a war we cannot win. We began with unbelievably naïve goals of crushing Saddam Hussein and winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
Saddam Hussein is in prison but the persistent and very successful insurgency continues to grow, not diminish while the number of mainly Americans soldiers who are dying there continues to grow.
Rather than creating enemies in the Arab and Muslim World through foreign policies based on injustice and favortism, we should be working to resolve many of the longstanding problems that range from the brutal and unjustified Israeli occupation of Palestine to the continuing support this nation provides to Middle East tyrants and dictators who oppress their own people while speaking hypocritically about embracing Democracy.
We should end the politically driven prosecutions of Arabs and Muslims in America, many of whom have been targeted not because of anti-American activities but because of their political views critical of foreign countries like Israel.
If the United States and Britain imposed a fair and just solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict, that would do far more to undermine the popular support terrorists are receiving from the people of the Arab and Muslim world who are driven to that support by anger and emotion.
When we stop playing politics with our foreign policy and put real meaning behind building Democracies, freeing people and achieving justice in the Middle East, then we might find that the majority of those people will embrace us as the champions that we so far have failed to become.
It will also mean eliminating the injustices and tragedies that the terrorists continue to exploit as a cover for their crimes.
As a result of the London attacks, there is an increased vigilance in America and other Western nations for potential follow-up strikes by al-Qaeda against transportation centers.
But if there is one lesson we must expect from al-Qaeda, and their free leader, it is that they are unpredictable and our current methods of security provide no security at all.
END
Friday, July 01, 2005
Heavy burden of peace falls on Israel July 1, 2005
Heavier burden of peace based on two-states falls on Israel
Creators Syndicate, July 1, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Whether or not Israel does succeed in evacuating its settlers and soldiers from the Gaza Strip, the move will only fuel continued conflict not end it.
There is only one solution and that is the two-state solution. And the two-state solution is only viable if certain steps are taken by both sides that go way beyond the demands set by Israel and the United States on the Palestinians.
The real burden for peace is on Israel. Either Israelis accept the inevitability of a viable Palestinian State or they accept the reality of endless conflict.
Some Israelis view the fate of the Palestinians as being that of the Native American Indians who were overwhelmed by White European settlers so much that they were eventually pushed to the point of marginalized submission.
In the end, the Americans did not have to compromise with the Native Americans at all. They continued to lie, signing treaty after treaty they knew would either be broken by angry Indians driven by the unfairness of the conflict and broken pride or by the needs of their own growing population.
That’s the difference. The enormous population growth of the European settlers was so great that the Native Americans were marginalized to near oblivion.
Israel’s population has no where to grow. Severing off Palestinian population areas, like the Gaza Strip, is only a short-term answer.
You can see much of the same "conquest greed" in the Israelis that drove the American settlers. But it is blinding Israelis from the only real answer to their survival. Working towards anything but a viable two-state solution only guarantees the conflict will never end.
For the two-state solution to work, Israelis and Palestinians must both set aside their pride and accept a few realities.
The two-state solution is impossible if Palestinians insist that all of the refugees Israel forcibly evicted from the country in 1948 (and later in 1967, too) will have to be returned.
It’s not going to happen. Most Palestinians know it won’t happen but in the face of their continued dispossession, they are afraid to admit it. Pride not reason keeps them from accepting that truth.
On its part, there can be no real peace if Israel insists on selfishly controlling all of Jerusalem and preserving most of the illegal settlements in the West Bank like Gilo and Ariel.
Either Israel accepts the fate that all of the settlements must be dismantled, or negotiates a compromise where the settlers become a part of the Palestinian state. Two-states are not possible if the settlements remain.
And two-states are worthless answers if they do not involve a real sharing of Jerusalem, not the fake sharing plan that Israel offered a few years back.
Waiting in the shadows are the extremists and rejectionists and both sides who hope for unrealistic dreams of pushing the other into the sea. They will use the oppression of the conflict to fuel a resistance that will keep the conflict alive for generations to come.
There may be lulls in the conflict. But Palestinians will not become for Israel what Native Americans have become for Americans, wealthy but powerless casino operators and tribal tourist attractions.
Israelis need not fear a strategic Palestinian plan to destroy it. The Palestinians can’t win. But they can prevent Israel from winning.
There is a genuine opportunity to make peace happen, but it will take Israel to take the initial steps defined in a broader vision that defines a future of two-states, side by side and in peace.
It will require both sides to make concessions that today seem equally tough and painful, but in a future defined by peace will no doubt be worth the price paid.
END
Creators Syndicate, July 1, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Whether or not Israel does succeed in evacuating its settlers and soldiers from the Gaza Strip, the move will only fuel continued conflict not end it.
There is only one solution and that is the two-state solution. And the two-state solution is only viable if certain steps are taken by both sides that go way beyond the demands set by Israel and the United States on the Palestinians.
The real burden for peace is on Israel. Either Israelis accept the inevitability of a viable Palestinian State or they accept the reality of endless conflict.
Some Israelis view the fate of the Palestinians as being that of the Native American Indians who were overwhelmed by White European settlers so much that they were eventually pushed to the point of marginalized submission.
In the end, the Americans did not have to compromise with the Native Americans at all. They continued to lie, signing treaty after treaty they knew would either be broken by angry Indians driven by the unfairness of the conflict and broken pride or by the needs of their own growing population.
That’s the difference. The enormous population growth of the European settlers was so great that the Native Americans were marginalized to near oblivion.
Israel’s population has no where to grow. Severing off Palestinian population areas, like the Gaza Strip, is only a short-term answer.
You can see much of the same "conquest greed" in the Israelis that drove the American settlers. But it is blinding Israelis from the only real answer to their survival. Working towards anything but a viable two-state solution only guarantees the conflict will never end.
For the two-state solution to work, Israelis and Palestinians must both set aside their pride and accept a few realities.
The two-state solution is impossible if Palestinians insist that all of the refugees Israel forcibly evicted from the country in 1948 (and later in 1967, too) will have to be returned.
It’s not going to happen. Most Palestinians know it won’t happen but in the face of their continued dispossession, they are afraid to admit it. Pride not reason keeps them from accepting that truth.
On its part, there can be no real peace if Israel insists on selfishly controlling all of Jerusalem and preserving most of the illegal settlements in the West Bank like Gilo and Ariel.
Either Israel accepts the fate that all of the settlements must be dismantled, or negotiates a compromise where the settlers become a part of the Palestinian state. Two-states are not possible if the settlements remain.
And two-states are worthless answers if they do not involve a real sharing of Jerusalem, not the fake sharing plan that Israel offered a few years back.
Waiting in the shadows are the extremists and rejectionists and both sides who hope for unrealistic dreams of pushing the other into the sea. They will use the oppression of the conflict to fuel a resistance that will keep the conflict alive for generations to come.
There may be lulls in the conflict. But Palestinians will not become for Israel what Native Americans have become for Americans, wealthy but powerless casino operators and tribal tourist attractions.
Israelis need not fear a strategic Palestinian plan to destroy it. The Palestinians can’t win. But they can prevent Israel from winning.
There is a genuine opportunity to make peace happen, but it will take Israel to take the initial steps defined in a broader vision that defines a future of two-states, side by side and in peace.
It will require both sides to make concessions that today seem equally tough and painful, but in a future defined by peace will no doubt be worth the price paid.
END
Friday, June 24, 2005
America fails true test of Democracy June 24, 2005
America sullies its image with hypocrisy
Creators Syndicate June 24, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Most of this week, the news channels featured two American Marines jail guards assigned to Saddam Hussein, part of a publicity stunt organized by GQ Magazine.
We’ve learned from the GQ road show that Saddam Hussein still believes he is president of Iraq, is obsessed with cleanliness, makes bad coffee and loves Doritos sprinkled with water.
He also, apparently, offered the male guards advice on marriage saying he was in love only twice, both to his former and current wife.
Yet no matter the puerile nature of the banal details that they shared, one has to express some concerns. Not about Saddam Hussein but about the role the United States continues to play in undermining its already rocky image abroad.
While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is trying to sell the serious message of bringing Democracy to the Arab and Muslim World, the supposed symbol of American Democracy, the American news media, is filled with hypocrisy.
It is disrespectful to expose any prisoner to the circus-like glow of news media coverage. It’s disrespectful not to Saddam Hussein but to the United States as the so-called pillar of Democracy.
No prisoner in any truly Democratic nation would be subjected to that kind of public ridicule or scorn.
This isn’t the only incident. Recently, guards smuggled out photographs that depicted moments of personal privacy for Saddam Hussein wearing his underwear and in other compromising positions.
It makes a mockery of America’s claim to be the champions of Democracy.
Detailing Saddam’s Hussein’s life in a circus-like atmosphere doesn’t constitute war crimes, but it does reinforce the more troubling conduct of Americans at our prisons.
America is already notorious for abusing prisoners in its domestic penal system. The abuses and criminal acts by guards against prisoners who were convicted and sentenced to the American prisons system are endless. Many constitute felony crimes.
But now the United States is also guilty of violating the basic protections that must be accorded prisoners in jails set up to hold captives in our so-called "War on Terrorism."
Those abuses are also well documented and range from murdering prisoners either while in jail or in captivity, to violating the civil rights of individuals who in many cases have not been charged with any crimes and who continue to remain outside of the international legal system not on the basis of the power of law, but on the whim of the U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
The abuses involving death, torture, sexual and physical abuses, some of which were revealed in private photographic collections of U.S. Marine guards assigned to the prisoners is well documented.
All of it has been broadcast by the media, despite opposition from neocons and talk show demagogues who believe that when others commit crimes, they should be publicly flogged, but when America commits crimes they should be hidden.
The recent disclosures concerning Saddam Hussein only enhance the belief that the United States is less of a Democracy these days and more of a hypocrite who defines one set of laws for itself and another for everyone else.
The troubling conduct has had some repercussions with U.S. Senator Dick Durbin expressing disgust at images and photographs he has seen of all this misconduct.
Last week, Durbin read an email he received from an FBI agent who described the terrible conduct of American forces, and then told the U.S. Senate, "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This is the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."
Durbin deserves praise for his courage to tell the truth rather than be attacked as he has for his honesty. Ironically, his critics assert his words undermine America’s efforts both in the war on terrorism and in promoting Democracy.
Rather than blame those responsible for misconduct, many Americans find it more convenient to attack those like Durbin who expose it. Durbin is not the problem. Nor are the millions of Americans who question the war on terrorism and our misconduct in Iraq.
The real problem is in the failure of this nation to live by the principles we seek to impose on others all the while giving ourselves a pass.
In a true test of Democracy, the United States would fall short.
END
Creators Syndicate June 24, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Most of this week, the news channels featured two American Marines jail guards assigned to Saddam Hussein, part of a publicity stunt organized by GQ Magazine.
We’ve learned from the GQ road show that Saddam Hussein still believes he is president of Iraq, is obsessed with cleanliness, makes bad coffee and loves Doritos sprinkled with water.
He also, apparently, offered the male guards advice on marriage saying he was in love only twice, both to his former and current wife.
Yet no matter the puerile nature of the banal details that they shared, one has to express some concerns. Not about Saddam Hussein but about the role the United States continues to play in undermining its already rocky image abroad.
While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is trying to sell the serious message of bringing Democracy to the Arab and Muslim World, the supposed symbol of American Democracy, the American news media, is filled with hypocrisy.
It is disrespectful to expose any prisoner to the circus-like glow of news media coverage. It’s disrespectful not to Saddam Hussein but to the United States as the so-called pillar of Democracy.
No prisoner in any truly Democratic nation would be subjected to that kind of public ridicule or scorn.
This isn’t the only incident. Recently, guards smuggled out photographs that depicted moments of personal privacy for Saddam Hussein wearing his underwear and in other compromising positions.
It makes a mockery of America’s claim to be the champions of Democracy.
Detailing Saddam’s Hussein’s life in a circus-like atmosphere doesn’t constitute war crimes, but it does reinforce the more troubling conduct of Americans at our prisons.
America is already notorious for abusing prisoners in its domestic penal system. The abuses and criminal acts by guards against prisoners who were convicted and sentenced to the American prisons system are endless. Many constitute felony crimes.
But now the United States is also guilty of violating the basic protections that must be accorded prisoners in jails set up to hold captives in our so-called "War on Terrorism."
Those abuses are also well documented and range from murdering prisoners either while in jail or in captivity, to violating the civil rights of individuals who in many cases have not been charged with any crimes and who continue to remain outside of the international legal system not on the basis of the power of law, but on the whim of the U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
The abuses involving death, torture, sexual and physical abuses, some of which were revealed in private photographic collections of U.S. Marine guards assigned to the prisoners is well documented.
All of it has been broadcast by the media, despite opposition from neocons and talk show demagogues who believe that when others commit crimes, they should be publicly flogged, but when America commits crimes they should be hidden.
The recent disclosures concerning Saddam Hussein only enhance the belief that the United States is less of a Democracy these days and more of a hypocrite who defines one set of laws for itself and another for everyone else.
The troubling conduct has had some repercussions with U.S. Senator Dick Durbin expressing disgust at images and photographs he has seen of all this misconduct.
Last week, Durbin read an email he received from an FBI agent who described the terrible conduct of American forces, and then told the U.S. Senate, "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This is the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."
Durbin deserves praise for his courage to tell the truth rather than be attacked as he has for his honesty. Ironically, his critics assert his words undermine America’s efforts both in the war on terrorism and in promoting Democracy.
Rather than blame those responsible for misconduct, many Americans find it more convenient to attack those like Durbin who expose it. Durbin is not the problem. Nor are the millions of Americans who question the war on terrorism and our misconduct in Iraq.
The real problem is in the failure of this nation to live by the principles we seek to impose on others all the while giving ourselves a pass.
In a true test of Democracy, the United States would fall short.
END
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Torture at AMerican Gitmo prison no surprise June 23, 2005
Torture at American Gitmo prison no surprise
June 23, 2005 Arab American Media Services
Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
In the United States, the issue is not really about whether or not American marines have engaged in atrocities, torture and even possible murder.
For most Americans, the issue is "so what?"
Ever since Sept. 11, and the failure of President Bush to arrest Osama Bin Laden, Americans have lost all sense of justice, abandoning a moral conscience to enjoy an emotion-driven vigilantism of hate.
Much of this American hatred has been redefined as "patriotism," although it is not patriotic at all. Just an unjustified anger to strike out at anyone who is an easy target.
And not since the 1950s when African Americans were the targets of American racism, have Americans found a more worthy victim.
Although the 1950s may sound remote, the fact is anti-Black hatred and racism continued through the 1990s. The lynching of Blacks continued, although at a more infrequent pace as the civil rights movement pressured Americans to curb their racism and store it in a closet.
That racism was able to resurface after Sept. 11 in the form of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate. Arabs and Muslims are not as dark skinned as Blacks, but they are darker skinned than most Americans. Even more convenient, while Blacks have created strong advocacy organizations to combat racism, Arabs and Muslims remain the victims of their own political folly and failed leadership.
In the months after Sept. 11, 14 people who "looked Middle Eastern" were murdered by Americans enraged by Bin Laden’s terrorism. Every excuse was found to deny the link between the killings and a Sept. 11 backlash.
Although American officials have publicly urged Americans to show tolerance, the calls were mostly intended for show. The United States could not condone an open campaign of hatred against Arabs and Muslims while seeking the cooperation of Arab and Muslim dictatorships in the Middle East to hunt down Bin Laden, and to invade Iraq, the jackpot benefit that Bush found under the rubble of the destruction of New Yorks’ World Trade Center towers.
Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11, only proving the war on terrorism is really a war on Arabs and Muslims.
Although in every past war the United States has respected the international laws regarding conflict such as the Fourth Geneva Conventions, they cast he legalities aside in dealing with Arab and Muslim targets.
Americans celebrated when Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld explained incomprehensibly that those who attacked America, and those who defended themselves against American provocations, were "illegal combatants," literally a term that the Bush administration fabricated.
As a result, American Marines have been given the "wink greenlight" to abuse, torture and even kill any of the hundreds of prisoners that are being held illegally in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba or in other American prisons in the Middle East and Asia.
Amnesty International, an organization that has a impeccable history of decrying human rights violations in nearly every country, has denounced the American mistreatment of prisoners as "war crimes" and also calling them the "Gulag of our times," a reference to the harsh prison system that the former Soviet Union maintained to punish anyone who challenged the state dictatorship.
While some may be linked to anti-American violence, most of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay are dissendents and are heroes in the eyes of Arabs and Muslims and most people in the world.
Even the United Nations, which the United States loved until it found its independence from American dictates in the 1960s, has declared that prisoners held by American Marines have been tortured.
Just as the Soviets denounced the criticism of their Gulag system, the Bush administration is ferociously denying it is engaged in atrocities, war crimes or human rights violations. Their response is point to the viciousness of insurgents operating in Iraq who have responded to American brutality with a greater brutality of their own.
In other words, the current American government believes it can do whatever it wants and that international laws apply to everyone else but them.
That kind of attitude may appear to be working today. But in the long run, as the Bush administration fades into the sunset and the world continues to document American Marine atrocities, torture and murder, the reality of the civil rights abuses that Americans condoned so arrogantly today will come back to haunt this country.
Only those Americans who stand up and denounce these practices can claim to be true patriots who are defending the essence of American morality from the disease of political expediency and racist hatred.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning nationally syndicated columnist based in Chicago. He can be reached at www.TheArabStreet.com)
June 23, 2005 Arab American Media Services
Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
In the United States, the issue is not really about whether or not American marines have engaged in atrocities, torture and even possible murder.
For most Americans, the issue is "so what?"
Ever since Sept. 11, and the failure of President Bush to arrest Osama Bin Laden, Americans have lost all sense of justice, abandoning a moral conscience to enjoy an emotion-driven vigilantism of hate.
Much of this American hatred has been redefined as "patriotism," although it is not patriotic at all. Just an unjustified anger to strike out at anyone who is an easy target.
And not since the 1950s when African Americans were the targets of American racism, have Americans found a more worthy victim.
Although the 1950s may sound remote, the fact is anti-Black hatred and racism continued through the 1990s. The lynching of Blacks continued, although at a more infrequent pace as the civil rights movement pressured Americans to curb their racism and store it in a closet.
That racism was able to resurface after Sept. 11 in the form of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate. Arabs and Muslims are not as dark skinned as Blacks, but they are darker skinned than most Americans. Even more convenient, while Blacks have created strong advocacy organizations to combat racism, Arabs and Muslims remain the victims of their own political folly and failed leadership.
In the months after Sept. 11, 14 people who "looked Middle Eastern" were murdered by Americans enraged by Bin Laden’s terrorism. Every excuse was found to deny the link between the killings and a Sept. 11 backlash.
Although American officials have publicly urged Americans to show tolerance, the calls were mostly intended for show. The United States could not condone an open campaign of hatred against Arabs and Muslims while seeking the cooperation of Arab and Muslim dictatorships in the Middle East to hunt down Bin Laden, and to invade Iraq, the jackpot benefit that Bush found under the rubble of the destruction of New Yorks’ World Trade Center towers.
Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11, only proving the war on terrorism is really a war on Arabs and Muslims.
Although in every past war the United States has respected the international laws regarding conflict such as the Fourth Geneva Conventions, they cast he legalities aside in dealing with Arab and Muslim targets.
Americans celebrated when Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld explained incomprehensibly that those who attacked America, and those who defended themselves against American provocations, were "illegal combatants," literally a term that the Bush administration fabricated.
As a result, American Marines have been given the "wink greenlight" to abuse, torture and even kill any of the hundreds of prisoners that are being held illegally in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba or in other American prisons in the Middle East and Asia.
Amnesty International, an organization that has a impeccable history of decrying human rights violations in nearly every country, has denounced the American mistreatment of prisoners as "war crimes" and also calling them the "Gulag of our times," a reference to the harsh prison system that the former Soviet Union maintained to punish anyone who challenged the state dictatorship.
While some may be linked to anti-American violence, most of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay are dissendents and are heroes in the eyes of Arabs and Muslims and most people in the world.
Even the United Nations, which the United States loved until it found its independence from American dictates in the 1960s, has declared that prisoners held by American Marines have been tortured.
Just as the Soviets denounced the criticism of their Gulag system, the Bush administration is ferociously denying it is engaged in atrocities, war crimes or human rights violations. Their response is point to the viciousness of insurgents operating in Iraq who have responded to American brutality with a greater brutality of their own.
In other words, the current American government believes it can do whatever it wants and that international laws apply to everyone else but them.
That kind of attitude may appear to be working today. But in the long run, as the Bush administration fades into the sunset and the world continues to document American Marine atrocities, torture and murder, the reality of the civil rights abuses that Americans condoned so arrogantly today will come back to haunt this country.
Only those Americans who stand up and denounce these practices can claim to be true patriots who are defending the essence of American morality from the disease of political expediency and racist hatred.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning nationally syndicated columnist based in Chicago. He can be reached at www.TheArabStreet.com)
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Nawash-Zogby battle over extremism filled with hypocrisy June 16, 2005
Internal battle among Arab Americans moderates and extremists
Thursday June 16, 2005, Arab American Media Services
Permission Granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
While the war on terrorism debate focuses on extremists who excuse violence, not enough is done to support those Arabs and Muslims who denounce terrorism and extremism within their own community.
That’s the concern of a new organization called the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism founded by Kamal Nawash who recently organized a rally against terrorism in Washington D.C.
Not surprisingly, many of the nation’s "mainstream" Arab and Muslim organizations refused to support the rally. Some even denounced Nawash as a "traitor." They continue to attack him in public statements and columns simply because he believes Muslims and Arabs must do more to denounce extremism.
But while some Arab and Muslim American leaders disagree with Nawash, many in the White House and American government do not.
Recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice named a delegation to attend a conference in Cordoba, Spain on intolerance and racism hosted by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Originally, Arab and Muslim groups complained the delegation to Cordoba lacked an Arab or Muslim member, clearly an oversight. Rice heard the message but ignored their self-serving pitches to have themselves appointed to the delegation. Instead, she named Nawash and the vitriole against Nawash by rival Arab and Muslim activists has not stopped.
Rice and the Bush administration deserve a lot of praise for the courage to decipher through the complex challenges of America’s dysfunctional Arab and Muslim communities to find reasoned moderates.
Among the critics is a surprise, Jim Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute and a leading advocate for Arab political empowerment. Nawash claims Zogby falsely asserted in a widely distributed news release that Nawash is allied with notorious anti-Arab writers Daniel Pipes and Michelle Malkin. Nawash accurately notes Zogby is appealing to the emotions rather than reason.
Worse, Zogby knows his accusation is untrue. The week before, Nawash was asked on an AAI hosted TV show, "Will you condemn the statements of Daniel Pipes and Michelle Malkin in suggesting that Arabs be put in internment camps?" Nawash answered with an unequivocal, "I have and I do."
Incredulously, Zogby claims Nawash bashes other Arabs and Muslims, all while Zogby bashes Nawash. Nawash is correct in brushing off Zogby’s attacks off as "self-serving" rather than as "benefiting the Arab and Muslim community."
Despite his errors, Zogby continued the attack in his advocacy column that promotes the Arab American Institute agenda and his personal politics.
Why?
Nawash’s organization is new and its board consists of a wide range of Arabs and Muslims from across the country who openly and passionately debate issues but who remain united in the consensus that more must be done to combat terrorism.
No organization represents the Arab or Muslim American community. Nawash’s organization comes as close as any can, however, mainly because it tolerates free discussion and debate. Its membership is open not only to Muslims but to Christian Arabs, too, a group often excluded from the growing Muslim American activism.
Everyone claims to embrace peace and oppose violence, but Nawash does it unequivocally and more forcefully than most, including his critics.
To Nawash, the issue is principle and morality. Those on the moral high ground can be more effective. Arabs and Muslims who claim to be mainstream must separate themselves from the extremist minority that continues to exploit the growing emotion and dissatisfaction of the community.
Nawash is an unwavering advocate of Palestinian rights, but he does not use the issue as a shield to excuse the violence and immoral acts of suicide bombings that are committed in their name.
When Arabs and Muslims find it easier to criticize moderates than to criticize extremists, that’s not leadership. The continued attacks against Nawash only harm, not help, the challenges facing Arabs and Muslims in America.
Nawash has opened a very sensitive door in the Arab and Muslim community. The issue is not whether Nawash is too harsh on Arabs and Muslims who play both sides of the terrorism game.
Rather, the real question is why so-called "mainstream" Arabs and Muslims can’t muster the courage to denounce extremists who provide funding, forums, and political cover to suicide bombers, extremist organizations and totalitarian Arab World regimes.
(Ray Hanania is an award-winning nationally syndicated columnist. He is former national president of the Palestinian American Congress, an adviser to the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism and a former longtime member of the Arab American Institute. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
END
Thursday June 16, 2005, Arab American Media Services
Permission Granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
While the war on terrorism debate focuses on extremists who excuse violence, not enough is done to support those Arabs and Muslims who denounce terrorism and extremism within their own community.
That’s the concern of a new organization called the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism founded by Kamal Nawash who recently organized a rally against terrorism in Washington D.C.
Not surprisingly, many of the nation’s "mainstream" Arab and Muslim organizations refused to support the rally. Some even denounced Nawash as a "traitor." They continue to attack him in public statements and columns simply because he believes Muslims and Arabs must do more to denounce extremism.
But while some Arab and Muslim American leaders disagree with Nawash, many in the White House and American government do not.
Recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice named a delegation to attend a conference in Cordoba, Spain on intolerance and racism hosted by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Originally, Arab and Muslim groups complained the delegation to Cordoba lacked an Arab or Muslim member, clearly an oversight. Rice heard the message but ignored their self-serving pitches to have themselves appointed to the delegation. Instead, she named Nawash and the vitriole against Nawash by rival Arab and Muslim activists has not stopped.
Rice and the Bush administration deserve a lot of praise for the courage to decipher through the complex challenges of America’s dysfunctional Arab and Muslim communities to find reasoned moderates.
Among the critics is a surprise, Jim Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute and a leading advocate for Arab political empowerment. Nawash claims Zogby falsely asserted in a widely distributed news release that Nawash is allied with notorious anti-Arab writers Daniel Pipes and Michelle Malkin. Nawash accurately notes Zogby is appealing to the emotions rather than reason.
Worse, Zogby knows his accusation is untrue. The week before, Nawash was asked on an AAI hosted TV show, "Will you condemn the statements of Daniel Pipes and Michelle Malkin in suggesting that Arabs be put in internment camps?" Nawash answered with an unequivocal, "I have and I do."
Incredulously, Zogby claims Nawash bashes other Arabs and Muslims, all while Zogby bashes Nawash. Nawash is correct in brushing off Zogby’s attacks off as "self-serving" rather than as "benefiting the Arab and Muslim community."
Despite his errors, Zogby continued the attack in his advocacy column that promotes the Arab American Institute agenda and his personal politics.
Why?
Nawash’s organization is new and its board consists of a wide range of Arabs and Muslims from across the country who openly and passionately debate issues but who remain united in the consensus that more must be done to combat terrorism.
No organization represents the Arab or Muslim American community. Nawash’s organization comes as close as any can, however, mainly because it tolerates free discussion and debate. Its membership is open not only to Muslims but to Christian Arabs, too, a group often excluded from the growing Muslim American activism.
Everyone claims to embrace peace and oppose violence, but Nawash does it unequivocally and more forcefully than most, including his critics.
To Nawash, the issue is principle and morality. Those on the moral high ground can be more effective. Arabs and Muslims who claim to be mainstream must separate themselves from the extremist minority that continues to exploit the growing emotion and dissatisfaction of the community.
Nawash is an unwavering advocate of Palestinian rights, but he does not use the issue as a shield to excuse the violence and immoral acts of suicide bombings that are committed in their name.
When Arabs and Muslims find it easier to criticize moderates than to criticize extremists, that’s not leadership. The continued attacks against Nawash only harm, not help, the challenges facing Arabs and Muslims in America.
Nawash has opened a very sensitive door in the Arab and Muslim community. The issue is not whether Nawash is too harsh on Arabs and Muslims who play both sides of the terrorism game.
Rather, the real question is why so-called "mainstream" Arabs and Muslims can’t muster the courage to denounce extremists who provide funding, forums, and political cover to suicide bombers, extremist organizations and totalitarian Arab World regimes.
(Ray Hanania is an award-winning nationally syndicated columnist. He is former national president of the Palestinian American Congress, an adviser to the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism and a former longtime member of the Arab American Institute. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
END
Friday, June 10, 2005
Palestinians should annex Jewish settlers, June 10, 2005
Palestinians should formally annex Jewish settlements
Creators Syndicate, June 10, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Leaders of three Jewish settlements slated for evacuation in the West Bank are asking the Palestinian Authority to allow them to remain, creating a unique opportunity to show how the Palestinian leadership differs from rejectionists on both sides.
While Israel continues its policies of expelling Palestinians, confiscating land and restricting access to Jerusalem, Palestinians can show how wrong those actions are by doing something right.
Israel has announced plans to unilaterally evacuate the Gaza Strip, four settlements in the West Bank and to turn over to Palestinians control of five major cities. So far, Israel has given Palestinians control of only two cities and the settlement evacuations have faced opposition with some settlers threatening violence.
In contract, the West Bank settlers have appealed to the Palestinians asking the PNA for asylum to remain in the West Bank which will someday become the heart of a Palestinian state.
Asylum sounds reasonable. It would distinguish Palestinians from Israel in a positive way. For far too long, Palestinians have built their society around the conventions of Israeli history and policies.
Too often, Palestinian actions are the result of Israeli provocations, rather than on the basis of well though out strategic moves designed to strengthen not weaken the Palestinian position.
When Ariel Sharon visited the Haram al-Ash Sharif that Israelis call the Temple Mount in late 2000, Palestinians reacted to his action by launching an Intifada that only increased in violence as Israeli responded with more violence itself.
When an Israeli settler massacred 29 Palestinians who were praying at a Hebron Mosque in 1994, Hamas responded by the first of a long string of suicide bombings intended as "retaliation."
Even in public relations community building, the Palestinians seem to always follow Israel’s lead. Condemning Israel’s program to plant trees in honor of Jewish donors, Palestinians did the same for their own.
The pattern of Palestinian reaction politics has failed and must end. The plea from the settlers could reverse a long line of failed Palestinian strategies.
In the notion of compromise based on two sovereign states, nothing precludes Palestinians from living in Israel or Jews living in Palestine.
The concept is to eventually allow Jews and non-Jews to live anywhere, without undermining the concept of a sovereign Jewish State and a sovereign Palestinian state.
This can only come after some measure of trust is restored, and violent extremists on both sides are reigned in, disarmed or jailed.
It gives Palestinians the opportunity to recapture the moral high ground, rather than seeing the justice of their cause undermined by an endless series of reaction and retaliation.
By accepting Jewish settlers who wish to remain in Palestine, Palestinian leaders can demonstrate that their differences with Israel are not based on anti-Semitism, as many extremist supporters of Israel often assert, and are founded on solid objections to Israeli policy.
Palestinians do not discriminate and should not discriminate. By embracing those Jewish settlers who wish to live in a free, Democratic Palestine, Palestinians will be changing their predictable course of always reacting to Israeli policies and actions.
If the three West Bank Jewish settlements can be assimilated into Palestinian society, what will prevent that from becoming the model in dealing with the more complex challenges of the larger Jewish settlements like Gilo and Ariel that Israel is now seeking to keep?
These and other major settlements were originally built by Israel as security outposts after the 1967 war. The lands were illegally confiscated from Palestinian owners. With the passage of time, and continued faltering of the Palestinian position, Israel now hopes to keep most of the major settlements, even as a part of negotiations.
Let Gilo, Ariel and the other settlement blocs remain as a part of a two-state compromise, but seek to put them under the control of a Palestinian government with the Jewish settlers living under Palestinian law.
Some Israeli Jews may chose to not remain. But others might. Those that opt to participate in a future Palestinian State should be welcomed, not rejected.
END
Creators Syndicate, June 10, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Leaders of three Jewish settlements slated for evacuation in the West Bank are asking the Palestinian Authority to allow them to remain, creating a unique opportunity to show how the Palestinian leadership differs from rejectionists on both sides.
While Israel continues its policies of expelling Palestinians, confiscating land and restricting access to Jerusalem, Palestinians can show how wrong those actions are by doing something right.
Israel has announced plans to unilaterally evacuate the Gaza Strip, four settlements in the West Bank and to turn over to Palestinians control of five major cities. So far, Israel has given Palestinians control of only two cities and the settlement evacuations have faced opposition with some settlers threatening violence.
In contract, the West Bank settlers have appealed to the Palestinians asking the PNA for asylum to remain in the West Bank which will someday become the heart of a Palestinian state.
Asylum sounds reasonable. It would distinguish Palestinians from Israel in a positive way. For far too long, Palestinians have built their society around the conventions of Israeli history and policies.
Too often, Palestinian actions are the result of Israeli provocations, rather than on the basis of well though out strategic moves designed to strengthen not weaken the Palestinian position.
When Ariel Sharon visited the Haram al-Ash Sharif that Israelis call the Temple Mount in late 2000, Palestinians reacted to his action by launching an Intifada that only increased in violence as Israeli responded with more violence itself.
When an Israeli settler massacred 29 Palestinians who were praying at a Hebron Mosque in 1994, Hamas responded by the first of a long string of suicide bombings intended as "retaliation."
Even in public relations community building, the Palestinians seem to always follow Israel’s lead. Condemning Israel’s program to plant trees in honor of Jewish donors, Palestinians did the same for their own.
The pattern of Palestinian reaction politics has failed and must end. The plea from the settlers could reverse a long line of failed Palestinian strategies.
In the notion of compromise based on two sovereign states, nothing precludes Palestinians from living in Israel or Jews living in Palestine.
The concept is to eventually allow Jews and non-Jews to live anywhere, without undermining the concept of a sovereign Jewish State and a sovereign Palestinian state.
This can only come after some measure of trust is restored, and violent extremists on both sides are reigned in, disarmed or jailed.
It gives Palestinians the opportunity to recapture the moral high ground, rather than seeing the justice of their cause undermined by an endless series of reaction and retaliation.
By accepting Jewish settlers who wish to remain in Palestine, Palestinian leaders can demonstrate that their differences with Israel are not based on anti-Semitism, as many extremist supporters of Israel often assert, and are founded on solid objections to Israeli policy.
Palestinians do not discriminate and should not discriminate. By embracing those Jewish settlers who wish to live in a free, Democratic Palestine, Palestinians will be changing their predictable course of always reacting to Israeli policies and actions.
If the three West Bank Jewish settlements can be assimilated into Palestinian society, what will prevent that from becoming the model in dealing with the more complex challenges of the larger Jewish settlements like Gilo and Ariel that Israel is now seeking to keep?
These and other major settlements were originally built by Israel as security outposts after the 1967 war. The lands were illegally confiscated from Palestinian owners. With the passage of time, and continued faltering of the Palestinian position, Israel now hopes to keep most of the major settlements, even as a part of negotiations.
Let Gilo, Ariel and the other settlement blocs remain as a part of a two-state compromise, but seek to put them under the control of a Palestinian government with the Jewish settlers living under Palestinian law.
Some Israeli Jews may chose to not remain. But others might. Those that opt to participate in a future Palestinian State should be welcomed, not rejected.
END
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Real peace begins with battle against extremists, June 3/6, 2005
Real peace begins with the battle against extremists
June 3/6, 2005 Creators/Arlington Heights Daily Herald
By Ray Hanania
In 1994, Egyptian author and humorist Ali Salem climbed into his Soviet built car and drove to Israel. The next year, he wrote a book about the three-week experience called "A Drive to Israel."
This week, Salem was about to make the same trip by plane to accept an honorary doctorate from an Israeli university when Egypt stopped him.
Salem’s experience exposes challenges threatening Arab and Israeli moderates who are vilified by extremists for supporting peace.
Arabs are not allowed to communicate with the "Zionist entity" while Israel prevents criticism of its policies or being too supportive of Palestinian independence.
Penalties range from being prevented from traveling and subjected to public ridicule, to worse fates including arrest, detention and even death.
Egypt, against the better judgment of many Arabs who felt the country should not act on its own, signed a peace accord in the 1970s with Israel, without forcing Israel return Palestinian lands and recognizing a Palestinian State.
Egypt was boycotted by the Arab World and "President" Anwar Sadat (not really a president but an autocrat), was murdered. Years later, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was also murdered for signing a peace accord with the Palestinians.
In the case of Ali Salem, preventing him from receiving the doctorate from Ben Gurion University in the Negev Desert town of Beer Sheba made more news than allowing him to go.
The extremists don’t always have to murder you to make their point. They can exploit the emotions of their publics marginalize, disparage, persecute and slander moderates who try to break through the cycle of hatred that keeps Israelis and Palestinians from achieving a compromise based on two states, the return of land and a real front against violence.
Palestinian leader Sari Nusseibeh came under fire recently when he criticized a British teachers union boycott against an Israeli university that supported one of the Israeli settlements. Extremists pressured Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to have Nusseibeh fired as president of al-Quds University.
When I wrote that although Palestinian refugees have a rock-solid legal right of return founded in law and moral principle, but that achieving that return in a compromise is unrealistic to expect, extremists came out in force and branded me a "traitor."
Their campaign continues, pressuring Arab World newspapers and many Arab online web sites to drop my columns, and they have pressured Arab and Muslim organizations to cancel my speeches and comedy for peace performances.
Israeli extremists have and continue to do the same to moderates who criticize excesses in Israel’s brutal occupation and urge Israel’s total withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Arab East Jerusalem. Jewish American newspapers boycott Palestinian moderates while many mainstream Israeli and Jewish online news sites constantly harangue them with accusations of being "terrorist sympathizers" simply for questioning Israel’s actions.
The real challenge to peace is the ability of extremists to so easily silence the moderate voices like Salem, Nusseibeh and others
Ali Salem should be allowed to accept the accolade. Those who have the courage to support peace based on compromise publicly should be defended for their courage and not so easily punished as "traitors."
If governments in Israel and the Arab World can’t tolerate peace contacts between their own people, no wonder they fail so miserably in achieving lasting peace.
END
June 3/6, 2005 Creators/Arlington Heights Daily Herald
By Ray Hanania
In 1994, Egyptian author and humorist Ali Salem climbed into his Soviet built car and drove to Israel. The next year, he wrote a book about the three-week experience called "A Drive to Israel."
This week, Salem was about to make the same trip by plane to accept an honorary doctorate from an Israeli university when Egypt stopped him.
Salem’s experience exposes challenges threatening Arab and Israeli moderates who are vilified by extremists for supporting peace.
Arabs are not allowed to communicate with the "Zionist entity" while Israel prevents criticism of its policies or being too supportive of Palestinian independence.
Penalties range from being prevented from traveling and subjected to public ridicule, to worse fates including arrest, detention and even death.
Egypt, against the better judgment of many Arabs who felt the country should not act on its own, signed a peace accord in the 1970s with Israel, without forcing Israel return Palestinian lands and recognizing a Palestinian State.
Egypt was boycotted by the Arab World and "President" Anwar Sadat (not really a president but an autocrat), was murdered. Years later, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was also murdered for signing a peace accord with the Palestinians.
In the case of Ali Salem, preventing him from receiving the doctorate from Ben Gurion University in the Negev Desert town of Beer Sheba made more news than allowing him to go.
The extremists don’t always have to murder you to make their point. They can exploit the emotions of their publics marginalize, disparage, persecute and slander moderates who try to break through the cycle of hatred that keeps Israelis and Palestinians from achieving a compromise based on two states, the return of land and a real front against violence.
Palestinian leader Sari Nusseibeh came under fire recently when he criticized a British teachers union boycott against an Israeli university that supported one of the Israeli settlements. Extremists pressured Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to have Nusseibeh fired as president of al-Quds University.
When I wrote that although Palestinian refugees have a rock-solid legal right of return founded in law and moral principle, but that achieving that return in a compromise is unrealistic to expect, extremists came out in force and branded me a "traitor."
Their campaign continues, pressuring Arab World newspapers and many Arab online web sites to drop my columns, and they have pressured Arab and Muslim organizations to cancel my speeches and comedy for peace performances.
Israeli extremists have and continue to do the same to moderates who criticize excesses in Israel’s brutal occupation and urge Israel’s total withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Arab East Jerusalem. Jewish American newspapers boycott Palestinian moderates while many mainstream Israeli and Jewish online news sites constantly harangue them with accusations of being "terrorist sympathizers" simply for questioning Israel’s actions.
The real challenge to peace is the ability of extremists to so easily silence the moderate voices like Salem, Nusseibeh and others
Ali Salem should be allowed to accept the accolade. Those who have the courage to support peace based on compromise publicly should be defended for their courage and not so easily punished as "traitors."
If governments in Israel and the Arab World can’t tolerate peace contacts between their own people, no wonder they fail so miserably in achieving lasting peace.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)