Friday, December 09, 2011

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

Bookmark and Share

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


 Ikhras اخرس 

The show is sponsored by Royal Jordanian Airlines. Unlikely RJ would sponsor these clowns w/o involvement of Gov agency
 Ikhras اخرس 

Can anyone provide info on this show in Amman, Jordan? Interested in role of US Embassy in this event..
 Ikhras اخرس 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Abbas: The Long Overdue Palestinian State

Bookmark and Share


The Long Overdue Palestinian State 
By MAHMOUD ABBAS 
Ramallah, West Bank 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, April 15, 2011

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

Bookmark and Share

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

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

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

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

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

David Horowitz, editor of the hate blog FrontPageMag

Moshe Phillips, bigot and lackey for David Horowitz

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

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

Little Green Footballs, hate web site extraordinary

KabobFest and its various anti-Christian anti-Arab founders

Columnist Ann Coulter, racist anti-Muslim racist

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

Uprooted Palestinians at UprootedPalestinians.blogspot.com

Columnist Michelle Malkin

Talk show hate host Sean Hannity

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh

end

Sunday, April 03, 2011

Ray Hanania interviewed on alHurra Arabic Satellite TV

Bookmark and Share




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

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Stop comparing Obama to Bush

Bookmark and Share


Stop comparing Obama to Bush
By Ray Hanania

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that’s another issue, too.

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

The answer is a solid and resounding and unequivocal no.

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

It didn’t work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that’s another issue for another time.

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

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

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

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

They are two different battles and two different wars.

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

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

Saturday, February 26, 2011

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

Bookmark and Share

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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




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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are passionately and unapologetically pro-Israel.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And from that center we will lead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

End

Monday, February 14, 2011

Yalla Peace: Let’s look on the bright side

Bookmark and Share

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


It may not seem that way now, 
but democracy in Egypt
 – if it is allowed to take place – 
will be a good thing.


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

People just want to enjoy it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every day of stalemate sees Hamas gaining strength.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

Yalla Peace: Democracy in Egypt likely bad news for Israel

Bookmark and Share


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Palestine papers: A Palestinian tragedy

Bookmark and Share

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


The ‘Al-Jazeera’ documents do little to help save the prospects
for a future Palestinian state, and, in fact, empower the extremists.


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Yalla Peace: What's the alternative?

Bookmark and Share

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


The extremists are the only other option in several Arab countries
and they offer an even more frightening future – devoid of any freedoms.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yalla Peace: Is this not terrorism?

Bookmark and Share

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


When a white man shoots 17 people and kills six, he’s ‘crazy,’
but if the killer were Arab or Muslim, we would be having a very different conversation.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was about to complain.

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

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

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

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

Dupnik is not just some pundit.

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

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

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

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

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

Moderates need to do more.

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

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

There is a way to disagree without being disagreeable.

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

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

Yalla Peace: The Katsav verdict and Arab gloating

Bookmark and Share

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


In the Arab world the oppression and rape of women
is not always considered an offense but a male right.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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