"Sentinels of the causes" undermine Palestinian freedom
May 24, 2005, Arab American Media Services
Permission Granted to Reprint
By Ray Hanania
Irrational rejectionism is a disease in the Arab and Islamic Worlds that stands in the way of Palestinian freedom and promotes intolerance. It broadens Israel’s occupation to create a self-occupation mentality.
It must be stopped.
Suffering under years of Israel’s oppressive occupation and by the suppression of Democracy and freedom in the Arab World, too many Palestinians find all they have left is to criticize and reject.
When it comes to Israel, there is a lot to criticize. But when it comes to preserve the Palestinian nation by achieving peace, rejection must give way to compromise.
Palestinians are burdened by self-appointed "sentinels of the causes" who claim to protect many of the sacred cows of the Palestinian national tragedy such as the Right of Return.
But instead of protecting these causes, these "sentinels of the causes" create a destructive environment that encourages extreme acts of violence. That violence goes far beyond the rights of resistance and instead include the immoral acts of suicide bombings and the murder of Israeli civilians or other Palestinians.
Recently, the "sentinels of the causes" turned their ugliness on Sari Nusseibeh, the president of al-Quds University. Nusseibeh is a leading moderate and co-signer of the Geneva Accords which defines a vision of a two-state solution for Palestinians and Israelis.
Nusseibeh dares to prompt Palestinians to find ways out of the conflict through non-violence, using free speech to define a new public dialogue.
This week, Nusseibeh weighed in on the emotional debate over whether or not Israel’s Bar Illan University should affiliate with a college in Ariel, a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank.
The move by Bar Illan University prompted a boycott by the British Association of University Teachers. Boycotts are common weapons not just by pro-Palestinian groups but by pro-Israeli groups, too.
The issues of Ariel extend beyond simple matters of academic freedom. Ariel is an illegal settlement allegedly created to provide "security." Israel said Ariel was temporary, as it violated international laws regarding the confiscation of occupied lands.
As time has passed with no solution, partly because of the rejectionists themselves, Ariel turned into what Israel calls a permanent city.
But Nusseibeh wasn’t addressing the issue of illegal settlements, something that must be decided in negotiations. He simply described the BAUT action as "wrong and unjustified," arguing that this and other issues must be settled at the negotiating table.
The Palestinian Union of University Teachers and Employees quickly condemned Nusseibeh saying his comments constituted a "normalization" with Israel and it’s rightwing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
They called for Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas to fire Nusseibeh as al-Quds president and "to put an end to this behavior."
Palestinians are living under difficult times. The Israeli occupation, despite all the talk of peace, continues to be oppressive and claims innocent lives on both sides.
But maybe the PUUTE hasn’t read the news lately. President Abbas is engaged in "normalization" with Israel. The late President Yasser Arafat, a Palestinian hero, was engaged in "normalization" with Israel. Palestinians who elected Abbas embraced the concept of normalization, an end to the violence and peace based on compromise
Abbas is seeking to negotiate an end to the conflict and it is the PUUTE that must accept some facts. Compromise is unavoidable. The belief that Israel can be destroyed is a pipe dream. More importantly, uncompromising extremist positions continue to condemn Palestinians to a life of bitter oppression and unending suffering.
Yes, Israel is the occupier. But the "sentinels of the causes" who easily turn public reason into fierce and vicious mob-like hatred, are the occupiers’ greatest weapon.
In these times of increased individual freedoms, Palestinians and many Arabs find themselves burdened by restrictions on free speech making it nearly impossible to achieve an end to the bitter Palestine-Israel conflict.
Ironically, these "sentinels of causes" fail to achieve any of their goals such as restoring the legitimate rights of the refugees, destroying Israel and re-establishing "1947 Palestine," or undermining the oppressive rule of Arab and Islamic World dictatorships.
Incapable of achieving, their only power is in their ability to block, prevent, stop or destroy.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning syndicated columnist. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.)
END
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Friday, May 20, 2005
Qur'an desecration creates Amazon jungle of issues, May 20, 2005
Qur’an desecration creates Amazon jungle of issues
May 20, 2005
Arab American Media Services
Permission Granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
Many things are not surprising about reports of the desecration of an Islamic Holy Book, the Koran (Qur’an), including that many Americans don’t see what the problem is.
In today’s post-Sept. 11 American world of growing anti-Arab and anti-Muslim animosity, no reason to hate a Muslim or Arab is a bad reason, including desecrating a book that is the Muslim equivalent of the Bible and Jewish Torah.
But fueled by hatred, this story has grown to be so much more.Here are so of the issues that I have seen.First is the role of Newsweek, which published the item reporting that an interrogator at an American prison for Islamic and Arab prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ripped up pages of the Koran and flushed them down a toilet to further agonize the Muslim prisoners.
It wasn’t really a news story, but was a “news item” carried in a front section of the weekly news magazine where other “light” and unusual items are placed called “Periscope.” It’s basically an “afterthought” section for news that isn’t quite news.Newsweek’s first problem is its professional journalism failure to recognize the item for the larger news story that it really is.
Desecrating a Koran may not sound like news to American journalists, but in the Muslim World it is huge. You would only know that if you cared enough about that audience to recognize what is and what is not news.
The report outraged the Muslim World and provoked anti-American street protests throughout. In situations like this, Western media have one characteristic trait. On stories that they really care about and consider important, the editors always stand by their story and the reporters who wrote it.
Not Newsweek. They immediately apologized and confessed in a candor uncharacteristic of American journalism that their reporters failed to get a proper confirmation for the report. The report, by the way, was old news, reported previously by many other sources such as Amnesty International and the Red Cross. But in a reflection of the American media’s typical poor journalism, it was ignored by the mainstream American media.
This week, an Indonesian Muslim in Los Angeles, Azza Basarudin, said she had ordered a copy of a Koran from Amazon.com, the behemoth online bookseller. Ironically, most Arabs and Muslims in American order all their books online because many American book store retailers don’t carry the books of most interest to them.
When she received the book, Basarudin opened it and found a profanity scribbled on one of its pages along with “Death to all Muslims.”Basarudin brought her experience to one of the only American organizations that cares about racism and bigotry against Muslims in this country, the Muslim Public Affairs Council based in her hometown of Los Angeles. MPAC immediately denounced the act and demanded the Amazon.com explain the incident, apologize and take action against those that might be responsible.
At first, Amazon apologized for the distress caused to Basarudin, but MPAC pressed for more action, including “zero tolerance” for that kind of racist act. It is the same demand made often by Jewish and Christian organizations responding to acts of anti-Semitism or racism against their own.
Basarudin’s book actually came from Bellwether Books, which distributes through Amazon. Pressed by MPAC, Amazon suspended Bellwether from selling copies of the Quran through Amazon.It all seems reasonable.
In Bellwether’s defense, it’s owner said that the book Basarudin had purchased was a “used” copy. He said that if he could determine an employee of his company had been involved in desecrating the book or had written the obscenity, that employee or employees would be fired.
Immediately, notorious anti-Arab and anti-Muslim Internet hate sites challenged the incident suggesting the timing of the racism coming on the heels of the Guantanamo Bay controversy may have been contrived by Basarudin.
Of course, these same critics never suggest that the acts in and of themselves are wrong, but always place the burden of the crime on the victims.
Clearly, these events show two very disturbing trends. The first is the steady increase in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab racist acts committed by Americans.
But more troubling, the failure of the American media to treat anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate with the same ferocity that they treat anti-Semitism against Jews or racism against other minorities.
In that environment, the only thing surprising is that these incidents of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred don’t occur often.
Of course, maybe they do, but the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim media just doesn’t seem too concerned about reporting them.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning syndicated columnist, humorist and author based in Chicago. A former national president of the Palestinian American Congress, Hanania’s columns are archived at http://www.hanania.com/.)
May 20, 2005
Arab American Media Services
Permission Granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
Many things are not surprising about reports of the desecration of an Islamic Holy Book, the Koran (Qur’an), including that many Americans don’t see what the problem is.
In today’s post-Sept. 11 American world of growing anti-Arab and anti-Muslim animosity, no reason to hate a Muslim or Arab is a bad reason, including desecrating a book that is the Muslim equivalent of the Bible and Jewish Torah.
But fueled by hatred, this story has grown to be so much more.Here are so of the issues that I have seen.First is the role of Newsweek, which published the item reporting that an interrogator at an American prison for Islamic and Arab prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ripped up pages of the Koran and flushed them down a toilet to further agonize the Muslim prisoners.
It wasn’t really a news story, but was a “news item” carried in a front section of the weekly news magazine where other “light” and unusual items are placed called “Periscope.” It’s basically an “afterthought” section for news that isn’t quite news.Newsweek’s first problem is its professional journalism failure to recognize the item for the larger news story that it really is.
Desecrating a Koran may not sound like news to American journalists, but in the Muslim World it is huge. You would only know that if you cared enough about that audience to recognize what is and what is not news.
The report outraged the Muslim World and provoked anti-American street protests throughout. In situations like this, Western media have one characteristic trait. On stories that they really care about and consider important, the editors always stand by their story and the reporters who wrote it.
Not Newsweek. They immediately apologized and confessed in a candor uncharacteristic of American journalism that their reporters failed to get a proper confirmation for the report. The report, by the way, was old news, reported previously by many other sources such as Amnesty International and the Red Cross. But in a reflection of the American media’s typical poor journalism, it was ignored by the mainstream American media.
This week, an Indonesian Muslim in Los Angeles, Azza Basarudin, said she had ordered a copy of a Koran from Amazon.com, the behemoth online bookseller. Ironically, most Arabs and Muslims in American order all their books online because many American book store retailers don’t carry the books of most interest to them.
When she received the book, Basarudin opened it and found a profanity scribbled on one of its pages along with “Death to all Muslims.”Basarudin brought her experience to one of the only American organizations that cares about racism and bigotry against Muslims in this country, the Muslim Public Affairs Council based in her hometown of Los Angeles. MPAC immediately denounced the act and demanded the Amazon.com explain the incident, apologize and take action against those that might be responsible.
At first, Amazon apologized for the distress caused to Basarudin, but MPAC pressed for more action, including “zero tolerance” for that kind of racist act. It is the same demand made often by Jewish and Christian organizations responding to acts of anti-Semitism or racism against their own.
Basarudin’s book actually came from Bellwether Books, which distributes through Amazon. Pressed by MPAC, Amazon suspended Bellwether from selling copies of the Quran through Amazon.It all seems reasonable.
In Bellwether’s defense, it’s owner said that the book Basarudin had purchased was a “used” copy. He said that if he could determine an employee of his company had been involved in desecrating the book or had written the obscenity, that employee or employees would be fired.
Immediately, notorious anti-Arab and anti-Muslim Internet hate sites challenged the incident suggesting the timing of the racism coming on the heels of the Guantanamo Bay controversy may have been contrived by Basarudin.
Of course, these same critics never suggest that the acts in and of themselves are wrong, but always place the burden of the crime on the victims.
Clearly, these events show two very disturbing trends. The first is the steady increase in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab racist acts committed by Americans.
But more troubling, the failure of the American media to treat anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate with the same ferocity that they treat anti-Semitism against Jews or racism against other minorities.
In that environment, the only thing surprising is that these incidents of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred don’t occur often.
Of course, maybe they do, but the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim media just doesn’t seem too concerned about reporting them.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning syndicated columnist, humorist and author based in Chicago. A former national president of the Palestinian American Congress, Hanania’s columns are archived at http://www.hanania.com/.)
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Defiling Koran exposes myth of American Morality/Democracy, May 15, 2005
Koran story exposes myth of American Democracy and morality
May 15, 2005 Arab American Media Services
Permission granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
In a way, you have to blame Americans like former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and media bigots like Sean Hannity and Daniel Pipes for the moral corruption that drives many of the abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With their help, most Americans easily made the jump from not only hating the hijackers responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but also all Arabs and Muslims.
Few Americans questioned their nation’s decision to expand the war on terrorism from Afghanistan, where the al-Qaeda terrorists were based, to Iraq, a secular Arab dictatorship equally threatened by al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
Even fewer Americans believe that their soldiers who have engaged in murder, torture, physical abuses and acts of religious desecration such as the flushing of a copy of the Koran down a toilet at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, are guilty and should be punished.
Why should they have when their government leaders had waived all of the civilized guidelines of military conduct, declaring, for example, that Arab and Muslim prisoners would not be protected by the protections of the Geneva Conventions, used to protect the prisoners of all civilized countries in wars going back to World War II.
In reality, most countries like Nazi Germany, the Empire of Japan, Stalinist Russia and the Vietcong, violated those protections as often as we did. But at least, none were arrogant to openly declare their intent to violate those rights.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq represented a new evolution in American racial patriotism and "Christian pride."
Americans rushed to fight in both Afghanistan and Iraq, not just to avenge those responsible or not responsible for Sept. 11. They went there to act out generations of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim animosity fanned by Hollywood movies, the mainstream media, our educational system and their elected government leaders.
Claiming to be a Democracy seeking to avenge an injustice, the United States acted more like a mob gone wild willing to string up any Arab they crossed, in much the same way they tolerated the lynching of Blacks falsely accused of having looked at White women with envy.
I don’t know if the Newsweek story that an American interrogator did or did not flush a copy of the Koran down a toilet at the Guantanamo Bay prison. It doesn’t matter. American soldiers have done worse to the Arab and Muslim prisoners, many of whom have been detained without any civil rights protections for more than two years.
Even a serial killer or mass murderer – historically all in the United States have been Christians and White – are accorded legal protections to have representation, to have the charges against them reviewed for truth, and to be able to fight the charges not only in court but in the public forum.
Not so for the thousands of Arabs and Muslims held at numerous American prisons. The conditions under which most are being kept would never have withstood the scrutiny given the prison conditions of prior wars.
And even as the evidence of American abuses mounts, rather than admit to the behavior as criminal, many Americans and media pundits continue to brush the abuses aside as "justified."
In other words, immoral behavior is justified when it is us against "them." Slaughtering innocent people and "suicide bombings" are immoral if the bombers are Muslim and the targets are American, but are justified when the victims are American.
We saw examples of how Americans historically crossed the line of moral behavior in numerous Hollywood movies including "The Patriot" starring Mel Gibson, and "Pearl Harbor" with Alec Baldwin playing the legendary avenger Col. Jimmy Doolittle. Doolittle (Baldwin) vowed that if he could not return from his mission over Tokyo, he would crash his plane into any Japanese building in a justified act of suicide that brought cheers from teary-eyed American audiences in movie theaters across the country.
Of course, while the populations of many Arab and Muslim countries are protesting the defiling of the Koran, most of their governments remain silent and afraid to challenge the American racial imperialism.
That should be as troubling to the Arabs and Muslims of the world as much as the act of an American defiling their holiest religious icon.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning nationally syndicated columnist and managing editor of www.TheArabStreet.com. He can be reached at rayhanania@aol.com.)
May 15, 2005 Arab American Media Services
Permission granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
In a way, you have to blame Americans like former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and media bigots like Sean Hannity and Daniel Pipes for the moral corruption that drives many of the abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With their help, most Americans easily made the jump from not only hating the hijackers responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but also all Arabs and Muslims.
Few Americans questioned their nation’s decision to expand the war on terrorism from Afghanistan, where the al-Qaeda terrorists were based, to Iraq, a secular Arab dictatorship equally threatened by al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.
Even fewer Americans believe that their soldiers who have engaged in murder, torture, physical abuses and acts of religious desecration such as the flushing of a copy of the Koran down a toilet at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, are guilty and should be punished.
Why should they have when their government leaders had waived all of the civilized guidelines of military conduct, declaring, for example, that Arab and Muslim prisoners would not be protected by the protections of the Geneva Conventions, used to protect the prisoners of all civilized countries in wars going back to World War II.
In reality, most countries like Nazi Germany, the Empire of Japan, Stalinist Russia and the Vietcong, violated those protections as often as we did. But at least, none were arrogant to openly declare their intent to violate those rights.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq represented a new evolution in American racial patriotism and "Christian pride."
Americans rushed to fight in both Afghanistan and Iraq, not just to avenge those responsible or not responsible for Sept. 11. They went there to act out generations of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim animosity fanned by Hollywood movies, the mainstream media, our educational system and their elected government leaders.
Claiming to be a Democracy seeking to avenge an injustice, the United States acted more like a mob gone wild willing to string up any Arab they crossed, in much the same way they tolerated the lynching of Blacks falsely accused of having looked at White women with envy.
I don’t know if the Newsweek story that an American interrogator did or did not flush a copy of the Koran down a toilet at the Guantanamo Bay prison. It doesn’t matter. American soldiers have done worse to the Arab and Muslim prisoners, many of whom have been detained without any civil rights protections for more than two years.
Even a serial killer or mass murderer – historically all in the United States have been Christians and White – are accorded legal protections to have representation, to have the charges against them reviewed for truth, and to be able to fight the charges not only in court but in the public forum.
Not so for the thousands of Arabs and Muslims held at numerous American prisons. The conditions under which most are being kept would never have withstood the scrutiny given the prison conditions of prior wars.
And even as the evidence of American abuses mounts, rather than admit to the behavior as criminal, many Americans and media pundits continue to brush the abuses aside as "justified."
In other words, immoral behavior is justified when it is us against "them." Slaughtering innocent people and "suicide bombings" are immoral if the bombers are Muslim and the targets are American, but are justified when the victims are American.
We saw examples of how Americans historically crossed the line of moral behavior in numerous Hollywood movies including "The Patriot" starring Mel Gibson, and "Pearl Harbor" with Alec Baldwin playing the legendary avenger Col. Jimmy Doolittle. Doolittle (Baldwin) vowed that if he could not return from his mission over Tokyo, he would crash his plane into any Japanese building in a justified act of suicide that brought cheers from teary-eyed American audiences in movie theaters across the country.
Of course, while the populations of many Arab and Muslim countries are protesting the defiling of the Koran, most of their governments remain silent and afraid to challenge the American racial imperialism.
That should be as troubling to the Arabs and Muslims of the world as much as the act of an American defiling their holiest religious icon.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning nationally syndicated columnist and managing editor of www.TheArabStreet.com. He can be reached at rayhanania@aol.com.)
Friday, May 13, 2005
The dangers of the so-called bi-national state, May 13, 2005
The dangers of the so-called "bi-national" state
May 13, 2005
By Ray Hanania
As the Palestinian leaderships’ failures in achieving peace become more and more evident, some are hoping to distract their despondent people by defining a new and more troubling "solution" to the conflict with Israel.
It’s called the "bi-national" state. In theory it sounds great. In reality, it is a formula for permanent conflict.
The advocates of the bi-national state include those Palestinians who once advocated Israel’s total destruction through conflict. But, the fact that they have been complete and utter failures at leading that "conflict" doesn’t seem to trouble them.
The other advocates are those whose patience have been wasted by poor leadership and who believing the two-state solution has not worked, will hope and dream for any other alternative.
The bi-national state concept essentially espouses that Israel will absorb the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and maybe even the Gaza Strip, putting millions of Palestinians under Israeli control.
Proponents of the bi-national option argue that eventually, the Palestinian population in this new scenario will surpass Israel’s Jewish population resulting in a "de facto" Palestinian state.
Eventually, they surmise, the bi-national scenario will undermine the Jewish character of Israel and create a Democracy where Christians, Muslims and Jews can live together in societal bliss.
Of course, that idea of a secular Democratic Palestine where Jews, Christians and Muslims can live together is a fallacy promoted for PR purposes. The fact is, Christian and Muslim Palestinians can’t live together at all. Well, they can live together if Christian Palestinians accept a status as "second class citizens" in a Muslim society.
But sometimes the lie always sounds better than the truth.
The two-state solution is a proposal where Israel withdraws from most or all of the territories it occupied in 1967. That’s when the incompetent Arab World governments threatened to "drive Israel into the sea." Instead, Israel defeated all their combined Arab armies in less than six days in one of World history’s most humiliating fiascos.
Assuming this two-state plan can be achieved through negotiations, Israel would remain a Jewish State and a second state would be recognized called Palestine and which would serve as the home for Palestinian Christians and Muslims.
Most extremists reject the two-state solution, and prefer to destroy Israel outright. But since they can’t do it through conflict – they can send young people to blow themselves up in suicide attacks but can’t seem to muster a true military insurgency against Israel’s military occupation – they instead support the lazy approach to their goals.
Let the high Arab birthrate overcome Israel’s birthrate and make Israel a Muslim dominated country where Jews would be a minority and Christians would be practically non-existent.
Some normally intelligent thinking moderates, frustrated with the failure of the peace process, actually believe the bi-national state concept may be a good alternative.
But it’s not. It will result in disaster. Not just for Israel but for Palestinians, too.
This bi-national state will become a nation where the Muslim and Christian Palestinian majority will be subjugated by a Jewish Israeli minority, pretty much what we have today.
I mean, the Israeli occupation is basically a portend of what is in store for Palestinians and Israelis in a bi-national state. Israel will never give Muslim and Christian Palestinians equal status in a bi-national state. They don’t do it now under occupation, and many Palestinians who are citizens of Israel argue that even as citizens of Israel they lack the same rights as Jews in Israel.
The only solution is a two-state solution. Compromise is the only road to achieving that goal.
Israelis must be ready to accept the reality of giving Palestinians sovereignty not just in the West Bank and Gaza Strip but also in parts of Jerusalem.
And Palestinians must accept the fact that Israel exists, it cannot be wiped out.
Palestinians should focus on reigning in their own growing extremists and fanatics who use violence and insist on Israel’s destruction. That goal only spells more doom for the Palestinians as a people and delays the inevitability of a two-state solution.
It’s going to happen. Both side should recognize that and spend their energies preventing more of their people from being killed as that certainty is delayed.
END
May 13, 2005
By Ray Hanania
As the Palestinian leaderships’ failures in achieving peace become more and more evident, some are hoping to distract their despondent people by defining a new and more troubling "solution" to the conflict with Israel.
It’s called the "bi-national" state. In theory it sounds great. In reality, it is a formula for permanent conflict.
The advocates of the bi-national state include those Palestinians who once advocated Israel’s total destruction through conflict. But, the fact that they have been complete and utter failures at leading that "conflict" doesn’t seem to trouble them.
The other advocates are those whose patience have been wasted by poor leadership and who believing the two-state solution has not worked, will hope and dream for any other alternative.
The bi-national state concept essentially espouses that Israel will absorb the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and maybe even the Gaza Strip, putting millions of Palestinians under Israeli control.
Proponents of the bi-national option argue that eventually, the Palestinian population in this new scenario will surpass Israel’s Jewish population resulting in a "de facto" Palestinian state.
Eventually, they surmise, the bi-national scenario will undermine the Jewish character of Israel and create a Democracy where Christians, Muslims and Jews can live together in societal bliss.
Of course, that idea of a secular Democratic Palestine where Jews, Christians and Muslims can live together is a fallacy promoted for PR purposes. The fact is, Christian and Muslim Palestinians can’t live together at all. Well, they can live together if Christian Palestinians accept a status as "second class citizens" in a Muslim society.
But sometimes the lie always sounds better than the truth.
The two-state solution is a proposal where Israel withdraws from most or all of the territories it occupied in 1967. That’s when the incompetent Arab World governments threatened to "drive Israel into the sea." Instead, Israel defeated all their combined Arab armies in less than six days in one of World history’s most humiliating fiascos.
Assuming this two-state plan can be achieved through negotiations, Israel would remain a Jewish State and a second state would be recognized called Palestine and which would serve as the home for Palestinian Christians and Muslims.
Most extremists reject the two-state solution, and prefer to destroy Israel outright. But since they can’t do it through conflict – they can send young people to blow themselves up in suicide attacks but can’t seem to muster a true military insurgency against Israel’s military occupation – they instead support the lazy approach to their goals.
Let the high Arab birthrate overcome Israel’s birthrate and make Israel a Muslim dominated country where Jews would be a minority and Christians would be practically non-existent.
Some normally intelligent thinking moderates, frustrated with the failure of the peace process, actually believe the bi-national state concept may be a good alternative.
But it’s not. It will result in disaster. Not just for Israel but for Palestinians, too.
This bi-national state will become a nation where the Muslim and Christian Palestinian majority will be subjugated by a Jewish Israeli minority, pretty much what we have today.
I mean, the Israeli occupation is basically a portend of what is in store for Palestinians and Israelis in a bi-national state. Israel will never give Muslim and Christian Palestinians equal status in a bi-national state. They don’t do it now under occupation, and many Palestinians who are citizens of Israel argue that even as citizens of Israel they lack the same rights as Jews in Israel.
The only solution is a two-state solution. Compromise is the only road to achieving that goal.
Israelis must be ready to accept the reality of giving Palestinians sovereignty not just in the West Bank and Gaza Strip but also in parts of Jerusalem.
And Palestinians must accept the fact that Israel exists, it cannot be wiped out.
Palestinians should focus on reigning in their own growing extremists and fanatics who use violence and insist on Israel’s destruction. That goal only spells more doom for the Palestinians as a people and delays the inevitability of a two-state solution.
It’s going to happen. Both side should recognize that and spend their energies preventing more of their people from being killed as that certainty is delayed.
END
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Al-Arian prosecution symbolizes American Gulag, May 12, 2005
Arab American prosecutions symbolize the new American Gulag
May 12, 2005, Arab American Media Syndicate
Permission granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
If anyone in the Arab World has any doubts about the bankruptcy of the American pledge to bring Democracy and freedom to their country, all they need do is examine the case of Sami Al-Arian.
Al-Arian is one of four political prisoners being prosecuted for criticizing Israel, supporting the liberation of Palestine and opposing the Soviet war against Muslims, issues shared by nearly every citizen of the Arab World.
Next week, American prosecutors will pick a jury to hear charges that Al-Arian, 47, a former University at South Florida professor, raised money to support Palestinian and Islamic causes, and gave speeches denouncing Israel at rallies and conferences.
His co-defendants include: Sameeh Hammoudeh, 44, a former instructor and student at USF and an administrator at the Islamic Academy of Florida; Ghassan Zayed Ballut, 43, a small business owner who lived in Tinley Park, Ill.; and Hatem Naji Fariz, 32, who was manager of a medical clinic in Spring Hill, Florida.
Both Ballut and Fariz are also Arab American journalists who I know. While they are devout Muslims with strong political views critical of Israel, they have never engaged in anti-American activities or promoted violence.
None of the four defendants danced around handing out cookies on Sept. 11 after Al-Qaeda terrorists and followers of Osama Bin Laden crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or try to hit the White House.
Yet that is exactly why they can’t get a fair trial in America. They have been targeted unfairly as a part of the emotional wave of post-Sept. 11 anti-Arab hate that is sweeping this nation.
American prosecutors charge the four Arab Americans with supporting Islamic Jihad, a Palestinian militant group that hasn’t targeted Americans nor advocates any anti-American policies. The group is blamed, however, in more than 100 deaths in Israel.
None of the four defendants are accused of being directly involved in any of those attacks.
To make matters worse, the American judge overseeing the case has ruled that none of the four Arab Americans have the right to bring into their defense any aspects of the Palestine-Israel conflict or issues involving their Muslim beliefs.
None of the defendants are anti-American. None were engaged in any terrorist activities against the United States or American citizens. More importantly, none were involved in Sept. 11.
What it really all comes down to is that Al-Arian, Ballut, Fariz and Hammoudeh are American political prisoners being punished for criticizing Israel. In today’s America, that is the "new terrorism." That is the new crime.
To further underscore the political nature of this case, Judge James Moody Jr., has ruled that the defendants cannot discuss the political or religious aspects of the Middle East conflict,
In effect, Judge Moody has condemned every Arab American to the same eventual fate. Even though we are patriotic Americans who have defended this country against foreign threats, denounced terrorism, shared in the suffering of Sept. 11, we can all be prosecuted for the same crimes as the "Al-Arian Four."
America today is a nation of growing human and civil rights abuses. At any time, any Arab American can be harassed, victimized and even jailed with no legal recourse under the US Patriot Act, a law adopted to prosecute Arab and Muslim Americans.
This attitude of hatred has been carried into battle by some American soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. There seems to be no end to incidents where American Marines sent to liberate Arabs have instead engaged in the torture and murder of Arabs instead.
At one time, America stood against the oppression of political dissidents, especially in the Soviet Union, where individuals where convicted in similar trials and imprisoned for years.
One of the most famous dissidents is Alexander Solzhenitsyn whose writings describe in brutal detail the horrors of the Gulag Archipelago, the prison system where political dissidents were thrown after being denied their civil and human rights and railroaded through kangaroo courts.
Sami Al-Arian, Ghassan Zayed Ballut, Hatem Naji Fariz and Sameeh Hammoudeh are all modernday Solzhenitsyns.
Prosecuted on trumped up, phony charges, brought before politically motivated kangaroo courts where they are being denied the right to a defense, all four face the same fate as Solzhenitsyn in what surely is the beginning of the new American Gulag.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning syndicated columnist and former national president of the Palestinian American Congress. He is the managing editor of www.TheArabStreet.com.)
END
May 12, 2005, Arab American Media Syndicate
Permission granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
If anyone in the Arab World has any doubts about the bankruptcy of the American pledge to bring Democracy and freedom to their country, all they need do is examine the case of Sami Al-Arian.
Al-Arian is one of four political prisoners being prosecuted for criticizing Israel, supporting the liberation of Palestine and opposing the Soviet war against Muslims, issues shared by nearly every citizen of the Arab World.
Next week, American prosecutors will pick a jury to hear charges that Al-Arian, 47, a former University at South Florida professor, raised money to support Palestinian and Islamic causes, and gave speeches denouncing Israel at rallies and conferences.
His co-defendants include: Sameeh Hammoudeh, 44, a former instructor and student at USF and an administrator at the Islamic Academy of Florida; Ghassan Zayed Ballut, 43, a small business owner who lived in Tinley Park, Ill.; and Hatem Naji Fariz, 32, who was manager of a medical clinic in Spring Hill, Florida.
Both Ballut and Fariz are also Arab American journalists who I know. While they are devout Muslims with strong political views critical of Israel, they have never engaged in anti-American activities or promoted violence.
None of the four defendants danced around handing out cookies on Sept. 11 after Al-Qaeda terrorists and followers of Osama Bin Laden crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or try to hit the White House.
Yet that is exactly why they can’t get a fair trial in America. They have been targeted unfairly as a part of the emotional wave of post-Sept. 11 anti-Arab hate that is sweeping this nation.
American prosecutors charge the four Arab Americans with supporting Islamic Jihad, a Palestinian militant group that hasn’t targeted Americans nor advocates any anti-American policies. The group is blamed, however, in more than 100 deaths in Israel.
None of the four defendants are accused of being directly involved in any of those attacks.
To make matters worse, the American judge overseeing the case has ruled that none of the four Arab Americans have the right to bring into their defense any aspects of the Palestine-Israel conflict or issues involving their Muslim beliefs.
None of the defendants are anti-American. None were engaged in any terrorist activities against the United States or American citizens. More importantly, none were involved in Sept. 11.
What it really all comes down to is that Al-Arian, Ballut, Fariz and Hammoudeh are American political prisoners being punished for criticizing Israel. In today’s America, that is the "new terrorism." That is the new crime.
To further underscore the political nature of this case, Judge James Moody Jr., has ruled that the defendants cannot discuss the political or religious aspects of the Middle East conflict,
In effect, Judge Moody has condemned every Arab American to the same eventual fate. Even though we are patriotic Americans who have defended this country against foreign threats, denounced terrorism, shared in the suffering of Sept. 11, we can all be prosecuted for the same crimes as the "Al-Arian Four."
America today is a nation of growing human and civil rights abuses. At any time, any Arab American can be harassed, victimized and even jailed with no legal recourse under the US Patriot Act, a law adopted to prosecute Arab and Muslim Americans.
This attitude of hatred has been carried into battle by some American soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. There seems to be no end to incidents where American Marines sent to liberate Arabs have instead engaged in the torture and murder of Arabs instead.
At one time, America stood against the oppression of political dissidents, especially in the Soviet Union, where individuals where convicted in similar trials and imprisoned for years.
One of the most famous dissidents is Alexander Solzhenitsyn whose writings describe in brutal detail the horrors of the Gulag Archipelago, the prison system where political dissidents were thrown after being denied their civil and human rights and railroaded through kangaroo courts.
Sami Al-Arian, Ghassan Zayed Ballut, Hatem Naji Fariz and Sameeh Hammoudeh are all modernday Solzhenitsyns.
Prosecuted on trumped up, phony charges, brought before politically motivated kangaroo courts where they are being denied the right to a defense, all four face the same fate as Solzhenitsyn in what surely is the beginning of the new American Gulag.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning syndicated columnist and former national president of the Palestinian American Congress. He is the managing editor of www.TheArabStreet.com.)
END
Monday, May 09, 2005
Palestinians must confront their own demons to achieve justice, May 9, 2005
Palestinians undermine credibility with silence
May 9, 2005 Arab American Media Syndicate
Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
Palestinians are notorious for screaming about Israeli extremism while responding to their own extremism with silence.
It’s not that the majority of Palestinians don’t want to speak out against the extremists in their midst, but they are easily intimidated into silence by libelous and unchecked attacks from their community fanatics.
Ironically, these verbal terrorists who seem to dominate the Internet find it easier to attack their own moderates because they are impotent in confronting pro-Israeli activists.
It’s easier for Palestinian extremists to attack their own, in part because Palestinians as a whole – extremist and moderate – are marginalized in the mainstream media. Moderates, especially, are shunned by supporters of Israel, those who would be natural allies who also seek a fair and just peace.
But Palestinians cannot denounce Israeli acts with moral strength if they avoid speaking out against the same alleged grievances against Palestinians. In other words, you can’t say that Israeli actions are wrong if you remain silent on the very same actions of your own people.
The Internet has spawned a cottage industry of extremist Palestinian sentinels who easily undermine Palestinian moderates within their own community circles.
The attacks are vicious and constant, and border on hate, but fall outside of the radar screen of mainstream and pro-Israeli audiences.
As long as Palestinians denounce Israel, they are hailed and embraced, as I was for many years.
The Palestinian sentinels tolerate some moderate voices as long as they stop short of serious issues, such as in addressing the Palestinian right of return or the issue of Palestinian extremism.
Once you cross that line, they target you more ferociously than they even target Israelis. It’s easy to attack a Palestinian, while it takes much more talent and effort to confront the Israelis, moderates and extremists alike.
I believe that line must be crossed more now than ever if we hope to strengthen the growth of a peace movement in Palestine and strengthen the hand of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas against the growing influence of Hamas and their secular allies on the extreme left.
I believe Palestinian refugees have a legal and moral right of return. It is undeniable, regardless of whether you blame their flight on Israeli military actions during the 1947-48 conflict (as Arabs often do), or if you blame their flight on the Arab countries who urged them to leave, vowing to push the "Jews into the sea" (as Israelis and Jews often argue.)
Somewhere in-between is the truth, but extremists on both sides work hard at keeping anyone from seeing that middle ground, which gathers dust and little public acknowledgment.
As a Palestinian moderate, I must criticize actions that I view are wrong, regardless of whether they are the result of Palestinian or Israeli actions. That includes criticizing the political policies of Israeli leaders like Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
But I also have a greater obligation to fight harder to expose the threatening presence of extremists in my own community who find cover by wrapping themselves in the suffering of the Palestinians under occupation, in the Diaspora and especially in the refugee camps.
Palestinians must accept the fact that the refugees will not return. They can believe firmly that they have a legal right to return, as detailed in the Fourth Geneva Conventions and international law. But in the course of seeking to achieve a compromise with Israel, Palestinians must accept the fact that the refugees cannot return to their original homes and lands in areas that are now a part of Israel.
Palestinian extremists also have a tendency to excuse away their own violence, while exaggerating the violence of the Israelis. Similarly, Israelis often excuse or ignore the violence of their own while constantly blaming all violence on the Palestinians.
It is wrong to claim that you support compromise and peace if you cannot stand up with moral courage and denounce suicide bombings. Suicide bombings are not justified and are immoral. Pushing individuals to serve as suicide bombers is even more morally reprehensible.
Peace is possible, but only if Israelis and their supporters, especially in the American Jewish community, recognize the need to define the line between right and wrong.
It is also only possible if, at the same time, Palestinians are willing to define a moderate voice based on reason, rather than on extremist rhetoric and hateful anti-Semitism, both of which are far too common in Palestinian discussion groups on the Internet.
It will take courage to stand up to these bullies. But it takes even more courage to stand up to the verbal terrorists when they are members of your own community.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning syndicated columnist and former National President of the Palestinian American Congress. His web page is www.hanania.com.)
May 9, 2005 Arab American Media Syndicate
Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
Palestinians are notorious for screaming about Israeli extremism while responding to their own extremism with silence.
It’s not that the majority of Palestinians don’t want to speak out against the extremists in their midst, but they are easily intimidated into silence by libelous and unchecked attacks from their community fanatics.
Ironically, these verbal terrorists who seem to dominate the Internet find it easier to attack their own moderates because they are impotent in confronting pro-Israeli activists.
It’s easier for Palestinian extremists to attack their own, in part because Palestinians as a whole – extremist and moderate – are marginalized in the mainstream media. Moderates, especially, are shunned by supporters of Israel, those who would be natural allies who also seek a fair and just peace.
But Palestinians cannot denounce Israeli acts with moral strength if they avoid speaking out against the same alleged grievances against Palestinians. In other words, you can’t say that Israeli actions are wrong if you remain silent on the very same actions of your own people.
The Internet has spawned a cottage industry of extremist Palestinian sentinels who easily undermine Palestinian moderates within their own community circles.
The attacks are vicious and constant, and border on hate, but fall outside of the radar screen of mainstream and pro-Israeli audiences.
As long as Palestinians denounce Israel, they are hailed and embraced, as I was for many years.
The Palestinian sentinels tolerate some moderate voices as long as they stop short of serious issues, such as in addressing the Palestinian right of return or the issue of Palestinian extremism.
Once you cross that line, they target you more ferociously than they even target Israelis. It’s easy to attack a Palestinian, while it takes much more talent and effort to confront the Israelis, moderates and extremists alike.
I believe that line must be crossed more now than ever if we hope to strengthen the growth of a peace movement in Palestine and strengthen the hand of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas against the growing influence of Hamas and their secular allies on the extreme left.
I believe Palestinian refugees have a legal and moral right of return. It is undeniable, regardless of whether you blame their flight on Israeli military actions during the 1947-48 conflict (as Arabs often do), or if you blame their flight on the Arab countries who urged them to leave, vowing to push the "Jews into the sea" (as Israelis and Jews often argue.)
Somewhere in-between is the truth, but extremists on both sides work hard at keeping anyone from seeing that middle ground, which gathers dust and little public acknowledgment.
As a Palestinian moderate, I must criticize actions that I view are wrong, regardless of whether they are the result of Palestinian or Israeli actions. That includes criticizing the political policies of Israeli leaders like Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
But I also have a greater obligation to fight harder to expose the threatening presence of extremists in my own community who find cover by wrapping themselves in the suffering of the Palestinians under occupation, in the Diaspora and especially in the refugee camps.
Palestinians must accept the fact that the refugees will not return. They can believe firmly that they have a legal right to return, as detailed in the Fourth Geneva Conventions and international law. But in the course of seeking to achieve a compromise with Israel, Palestinians must accept the fact that the refugees cannot return to their original homes and lands in areas that are now a part of Israel.
Palestinian extremists also have a tendency to excuse away their own violence, while exaggerating the violence of the Israelis. Similarly, Israelis often excuse or ignore the violence of their own while constantly blaming all violence on the Palestinians.
It is wrong to claim that you support compromise and peace if you cannot stand up with moral courage and denounce suicide bombings. Suicide bombings are not justified and are immoral. Pushing individuals to serve as suicide bombers is even more morally reprehensible.
Peace is possible, but only if Israelis and their supporters, especially in the American Jewish community, recognize the need to define the line between right and wrong.
It is also only possible if, at the same time, Palestinians are willing to define a moderate voice based on reason, rather than on extremist rhetoric and hateful anti-Semitism, both of which are far too common in Palestinian discussion groups on the Internet.
It will take courage to stand up to these bullies. But it takes even more courage to stand up to the verbal terrorists when they are members of your own community.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning syndicated columnist and former National President of the Palestinian American Congress. His web page is www.hanania.com.)
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Analyzing the Hamas-Fatah elections May 7, 2005
The challenge of navigating Palestinian politics
May 8, 2005, Arab American Media Syndicate
Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
The existence and growth of the Hamas movement is directly linked to the brutality of Israel’s policies against the Palestinians.
That was demonstrated in recent municipal election contests between the two largest rival Palestinian factions, Fatah founded by Yasser Arafat and Hamas founded by Sheik Ahmed Yassin.
Although Yassin was murdered by Israeli assassins, the growth of his movement ends the Israeli myth that the personality-driven policies of the occupied Palestinians can be controlled by killing the leader.
Fatah and Hamas are strikingly different. Fatah is a secular ideological movement capable of making political compromises with Israel. Hamas is a religious political movement driven by faith and incapable of compromise.
For Palestinian voters, the choice is simple, continue to believe Fatah and its leader Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas can deliver an independent state through compromise, or that Israel can be eventually defeated by the promise of more Hamas militancy.
A third movement marginalized by the Hamas-Fatah rivalry also exists, but its influence is among Diaspora Palestinians and led by the disciples of the more violent and uncompromising secular movement, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, founded by George Habash’s and commonly called the "Jabha."
Jabha activists in the United States and Europe have been forced into a marriage of convenience with Hamas movement. They dominate most of the NGOs based outside of occupied Palestine including the powerful international al-Awda movement, which defines the rights of Palestinian refugees but fails to offer a strategy to implement those rights. And the Jabha rejects compromise with Israel.
Like many Palestinians, the Jabha activists see that one day Hamas will dominate all Palestinian politics.
Hamas got its start by accident when Likud leaders in the 1970s sought to "create" a rival to Arafat by shoring up the disorganized religious factions under Sheik Yassin in the Gaza Strip.
Yassin accepted Israeli help in raising funds and in building hospitals, schools and social centers that later became a political base. During the first Intifada, Yassin used that strength to launch Hamas, something the Israeli plotters never envisioned. Ironically, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who played a direct role in shoring up Yassin’s strength, ordered his murder last year.
Although Hamas is denounced as a terrorist organization, it’s main attraction is the very network of social, health and public services, an area where other groups like Fatah have failed.
In fact, during the recent municipal elections, Hamas candidates countered their open rejection of compromise with Israel by promising more increased social and health services.
Support for that message grows.
Fatah won 56 percent of the overall vote compared to 33 percent for Hamas. Early returns show Fatah won in 45 of 84 communities while Hamas won 23 including in the three biggest towns up for grabs.
When you examine past election returns, Fatah dominates areas where the occupation and the deterioration of public services are less severe. Hamas dominates areas of heightened conflict and oppression.
Qalqaliya, where Israel has imposed the harshest of conditions on its residents, has become a Hamas stronghold. The Apartheid Wall encircles divides the city into zones, separating farmers from their land. The Apartheid Wall doesn’t protect Israelis from Palestinian attacks, but allows Israel to confiscate more land and define new political borders.
The Apartheid Wall is built inside occupied Palestinian territory, not on the 1967 "Green Line." The path of the Apartheid Wall places important land assets such as farms and water wells on Israel’s side while imprisoning the bulk of Palestinian population on the other.
This has created an enormous hardship on the residents worse than most other occupied cities, feeding a growing political discontent and undermining confidence in Abbas.
Hamas has found footholds outside of the Gaza Strip in West Bank towns like Qalqaliya where it staged a massive post-election victory rally.
Hamas reinforced power in Gaza towns and refugee camps like Rafah and al-Bureij, one of the poorest camps. Hamas strength continues to grow in the West Bank in direct proportion to growing discontent with the secular policies of the government.
Although Fatah has managed to remain in control and dominate the government, Hamas knows that its influence will continue to grow.
Parliamentary elections will be held in July. There, Palestinian representation in local municipalities will be reflected on a national decision-making level.
While it is too early to predict the results, Abbas and the Fatah movement surely will cling to an eroding lead.
Eventually, though, it is not unreasonable to predict that Hamas will soon take over the government as the promises of independent statehood remain elusive and unachievable.
Once in control, Hamas ideology will prevent any movement towards negotiated peace and will lead only to more conflict and violence.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning syndicated columnist and former national president of the Palestinian American Congress. He is managing editor of www.TheArabStreet.com.)
May 8, 2005, Arab American Media Syndicate
Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
The existence and growth of the Hamas movement is directly linked to the brutality of Israel’s policies against the Palestinians.
That was demonstrated in recent municipal election contests between the two largest rival Palestinian factions, Fatah founded by Yasser Arafat and Hamas founded by Sheik Ahmed Yassin.
Although Yassin was murdered by Israeli assassins, the growth of his movement ends the Israeli myth that the personality-driven policies of the occupied Palestinians can be controlled by killing the leader.
Fatah and Hamas are strikingly different. Fatah is a secular ideological movement capable of making political compromises with Israel. Hamas is a religious political movement driven by faith and incapable of compromise.
For Palestinian voters, the choice is simple, continue to believe Fatah and its leader Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas can deliver an independent state through compromise, or that Israel can be eventually defeated by the promise of more Hamas militancy.
A third movement marginalized by the Hamas-Fatah rivalry also exists, but its influence is among Diaspora Palestinians and led by the disciples of the more violent and uncompromising secular movement, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, founded by George Habash’s and commonly called the "Jabha."
Jabha activists in the United States and Europe have been forced into a marriage of convenience with Hamas movement. They dominate most of the NGOs based outside of occupied Palestine including the powerful international al-Awda movement, which defines the rights of Palestinian refugees but fails to offer a strategy to implement those rights. And the Jabha rejects compromise with Israel.
Like many Palestinians, the Jabha activists see that one day Hamas will dominate all Palestinian politics.
Hamas got its start by accident when Likud leaders in the 1970s sought to "create" a rival to Arafat by shoring up the disorganized religious factions under Sheik Yassin in the Gaza Strip.
Yassin accepted Israeli help in raising funds and in building hospitals, schools and social centers that later became a political base. During the first Intifada, Yassin used that strength to launch Hamas, something the Israeli plotters never envisioned. Ironically, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who played a direct role in shoring up Yassin’s strength, ordered his murder last year.
Although Hamas is denounced as a terrorist organization, it’s main attraction is the very network of social, health and public services, an area where other groups like Fatah have failed.
In fact, during the recent municipal elections, Hamas candidates countered their open rejection of compromise with Israel by promising more increased social and health services.
Support for that message grows.
Fatah won 56 percent of the overall vote compared to 33 percent for Hamas. Early returns show Fatah won in 45 of 84 communities while Hamas won 23 including in the three biggest towns up for grabs.
When you examine past election returns, Fatah dominates areas where the occupation and the deterioration of public services are less severe. Hamas dominates areas of heightened conflict and oppression.
Qalqaliya, where Israel has imposed the harshest of conditions on its residents, has become a Hamas stronghold. The Apartheid Wall encircles divides the city into zones, separating farmers from their land. The Apartheid Wall doesn’t protect Israelis from Palestinian attacks, but allows Israel to confiscate more land and define new political borders.
The Apartheid Wall is built inside occupied Palestinian territory, not on the 1967 "Green Line." The path of the Apartheid Wall places important land assets such as farms and water wells on Israel’s side while imprisoning the bulk of Palestinian population on the other.
This has created an enormous hardship on the residents worse than most other occupied cities, feeding a growing political discontent and undermining confidence in Abbas.
Hamas has found footholds outside of the Gaza Strip in West Bank towns like Qalqaliya where it staged a massive post-election victory rally.
Hamas reinforced power in Gaza towns and refugee camps like Rafah and al-Bureij, one of the poorest camps. Hamas strength continues to grow in the West Bank in direct proportion to growing discontent with the secular policies of the government.
Although Fatah has managed to remain in control and dominate the government, Hamas knows that its influence will continue to grow.
Parliamentary elections will be held in July. There, Palestinian representation in local municipalities will be reflected on a national decision-making level.
While it is too early to predict the results, Abbas and the Fatah movement surely will cling to an eroding lead.
Eventually, though, it is not unreasonable to predict that Hamas will soon take over the government as the promises of independent statehood remain elusive and unachievable.
Once in control, Hamas ideology will prevent any movement towards negotiated peace and will lead only to more conflict and violence.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning syndicated columnist and former national president of the Palestinian American Congress. He is managing editor of www.TheArabStreet.com.)
Thursday, May 05, 2005
The issue oif al-Awda MUST be discussed fully and more, May 5, 2005
Understanding the emotional issues surrounding al-Awda
May 5, 2005 Arab American Media Syndication
Permission Granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
No other issues evokes more emotion from Palestinians than the issue of "The Return," in Arabic, al-Awda.
It is a difficult and painful issue to address, as I and others have discovered in recent weeks when I began exploring ways to approach a peaceful compromise for Palestinians in Israelis. It involves real lives, real suffering and the hopes and dreams of millions.
Critics on both sides, Palestinians and Israelis, have weighed in on the issue, some attacking me personally. I understand it. But there are even more who responded with reason, understanding what I wrote and who agree we must explore the difficulty of navigating this issue if we intend to achieve a peace based on a two-state solution.
And I even understand the emotion from some activists and members of discussion lists who I believe have ignored the issues. That’s a topic for a future column, why we Palestinians sometimes prefer to burn down our own rather than understand the complexities of emotional issues that overwhelm us and that sometimes hold us hostage to a life of continued despair. It's something that plagues all communities.
I intend to move beyond that and explore the al-Awda issue in greater detail. We must all do it.
Even though I reiterated my belief that the Palestinian refugees who were expelled from their homes by Israel in 1948 have a legal, moral and ethical right to return that is solid and uncompromising, some who read the columns failed to understand that meaning. Maybe I didn't explain it properly.
The right of the refugees to return is a law. It is founded on a legal premise of human rights that is so great that no individual can erase and yet so hopeless fragile that it is the only thing from which Palestinian refugees have managed to preserve their very existence.
In the context of achieving two-states and resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict peacefully, how do we resolve the issue of al-Awda?
Regardless of the answer, the fact is that the Palestinian right to return is undeniable and solid. It doesn’t mean it will happen. It doesn’t mean that in a two-state solution, refugees can expect to return to their lands. It does mean the law is on their side.
Who knows what might happen in the future? Individuals cannot change laws, deny rights or compromise on fundamental justice.
In achieving a compromise, there is also the view that while that legal and moral and ethical right exists, it may never be implemented.
And that is my challenge to my critics – the harsh critics and the sound ones who have offered intelligent responses. How do you organize a movement to achieve that right, as opposed to creating a movement that celebrates that right?
In other words, if it is a right, why haven’t Palestinians succeeded in implementing their legal, moral and ethical right to return to their rightful lands and homes?
Whose fault is that failure to achieve that goal, and how do we go about making it a reality?
Of course, some Palestinians have pointed out issues extraneous to the discussion, which they often refuse to debate. I am a Christian. I am married to a Jew. I oppose all violence and I support compromise. I believe that we should work toward ending the suffering of the Palestinian refugees, not cling to their suffering as an excuse to agitate.
Is the point of our existence to hold meetings and conferences and stand around nodding our heads in agreement that an injustice has been done? Or, should we demand more from our leaders and hold them accountable?
Should we not demand that those who claim to champion the al-Awda movement – and there are many great members of al-Awda who have been outside of this debate – must be accountable and responsible for what has happened and what has not happened?
Leaders are judged not on their personalities or the popularity of the issues they champion. Leaders are judged by results.
In responding to my columns, some have not been leaders. They typify the stereotype of the over-burdened Palestinian fraught with suffering and a life of despair who cannot get past their emotions. They find it easier to attack those among our community who seek to have an open and free discussion, rather than channel that energy into a positive movement that shows results.
I believe we can have better leaders. I also believe al-Awda deserves more public discussion than one or two columns. For the sake of the refugees. We may discuss and debate the issue but the refugees live the tragedy.
I believe it deserves further understanding on all sides, my side included. I will explore the reality of the return against the reality of compromise. There is the challenge to define how we embrace al-Awda if we achieve a two-state solution where Palestinians have real sovereignty over only part of the land.
It may not mean that refugees will be going back to their homes. But it also does not mean that they must be forced to give up their legal and moral and ethical right in a compromise.
That’s a challenge Israelis will have to confront and Palestinians must better understand.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning syndicated columnist and writer based in Chicago. He is the former national president of the Palestinian American Congress. He can be reached at rayhanania@aol.com)
May 5, 2005 Arab American Media Syndication
Permission Granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
No other issues evokes more emotion from Palestinians than the issue of "The Return," in Arabic, al-Awda.
It is a difficult and painful issue to address, as I and others have discovered in recent weeks when I began exploring ways to approach a peaceful compromise for Palestinians in Israelis. It involves real lives, real suffering and the hopes and dreams of millions.
Critics on both sides, Palestinians and Israelis, have weighed in on the issue, some attacking me personally. I understand it. But there are even more who responded with reason, understanding what I wrote and who agree we must explore the difficulty of navigating this issue if we intend to achieve a peace based on a two-state solution.
And I even understand the emotion from some activists and members of discussion lists who I believe have ignored the issues. That’s a topic for a future column, why we Palestinians sometimes prefer to burn down our own rather than understand the complexities of emotional issues that overwhelm us and that sometimes hold us hostage to a life of continued despair. It's something that plagues all communities.
I intend to move beyond that and explore the al-Awda issue in greater detail. We must all do it.
Even though I reiterated my belief that the Palestinian refugees who were expelled from their homes by Israel in 1948 have a legal, moral and ethical right to return that is solid and uncompromising, some who read the columns failed to understand that meaning. Maybe I didn't explain it properly.
The right of the refugees to return is a law. It is founded on a legal premise of human rights that is so great that no individual can erase and yet so hopeless fragile that it is the only thing from which Palestinian refugees have managed to preserve their very existence.
In the context of achieving two-states and resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict peacefully, how do we resolve the issue of al-Awda?
Regardless of the answer, the fact is that the Palestinian right to return is undeniable and solid. It doesn’t mean it will happen. It doesn’t mean that in a two-state solution, refugees can expect to return to their lands. It does mean the law is on their side.
Who knows what might happen in the future? Individuals cannot change laws, deny rights or compromise on fundamental justice.
In achieving a compromise, there is also the view that while that legal and moral and ethical right exists, it may never be implemented.
And that is my challenge to my critics – the harsh critics and the sound ones who have offered intelligent responses. How do you organize a movement to achieve that right, as opposed to creating a movement that celebrates that right?
In other words, if it is a right, why haven’t Palestinians succeeded in implementing their legal, moral and ethical right to return to their rightful lands and homes?
Whose fault is that failure to achieve that goal, and how do we go about making it a reality?
Of course, some Palestinians have pointed out issues extraneous to the discussion, which they often refuse to debate. I am a Christian. I am married to a Jew. I oppose all violence and I support compromise. I believe that we should work toward ending the suffering of the Palestinian refugees, not cling to their suffering as an excuse to agitate.
Is the point of our existence to hold meetings and conferences and stand around nodding our heads in agreement that an injustice has been done? Or, should we demand more from our leaders and hold them accountable?
Should we not demand that those who claim to champion the al-Awda movement – and there are many great members of al-Awda who have been outside of this debate – must be accountable and responsible for what has happened and what has not happened?
Leaders are judged not on their personalities or the popularity of the issues they champion. Leaders are judged by results.
In responding to my columns, some have not been leaders. They typify the stereotype of the over-burdened Palestinian fraught with suffering and a life of despair who cannot get past their emotions. They find it easier to attack those among our community who seek to have an open and free discussion, rather than channel that energy into a positive movement that shows results.
I believe we can have better leaders. I also believe al-Awda deserves more public discussion than one or two columns. For the sake of the refugees. We may discuss and debate the issue but the refugees live the tragedy.
I believe it deserves further understanding on all sides, my side included. I will explore the reality of the return against the reality of compromise. There is the challenge to define how we embrace al-Awda if we achieve a two-state solution where Palestinians have real sovereignty over only part of the land.
It may not mean that refugees will be going back to their homes. But it also does not mean that they must be forced to give up their legal and moral and ethical right in a compromise.
That’s a challenge Israelis will have to confront and Palestinians must better understand.
(Ray Hanania is an award winning syndicated columnist and writer based in Chicago. He is the former national president of the Palestinian American Congress. He can be reached at rayhanania@aol.com)
Monday, May 02, 2005
Palestinian President must strengthen his public relations to Americans May 5, 2005
Palestinian President Abbas lacks clear media strategy
May 05, 2005/Arab American Media Syndicate
Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has taken significant steps to distinguish himself from his predecessor, the late President Yasser Arafat who was reviled by Israel’s rightwing government and by President Bush as an obstacle to peace.
Just over 100 days in office, Abbas has responded mainly to the concerns of the Bush administration, gaining some praise and empowering the United States to take tougher stands against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government on issues of land confiscation and settlements.
But the steps Abbas has taken are not enough and lack the one thing that more than anything undermined the movement for peace that began in 1998 when Arafat initiated contact with Israel and declared the Palestinian willingness to recognize Israel’s right to exist within the pre-1967 borders.
Arafat lacked a strategic public relations campaign that exposed him to the whims of the Israelis whose public relations efforts are notorious for their ability to oftentimes spin public opinion against facts.
When the peace process collapsed, the Israeli PR machine went into full gear, convincing the public that the peace process collapsed because of Arafat’s inability to make peace rather than Israel’s unwillingness to dismantle settlements or return occupied lands captured in 1967.
Without a clear media strategy, Abbas will find himself susceptible to the same Israeli whims despite reforming the Palestinian government, replacing intransigent cabinet foes of peace with Israel and reigning in Hamas.
Yet an effective media strategy can produce more results in winning support among Americans than all of the likely concessions Abbas will make to Israel.
Israel has and continues to employ an army of media strategists and public relations firms, investing millions in a highly effective campaign that has one clear objective: reinforce American public perception that the Palestinians, not Israelis, are the obstacles to peace, are engaged in violence and seek unrealistic demands that Israel cannot make.
Yet with a modest investment and a clearly defined public relations strategy, Abbas could not only reverse much of the American public’s attitudes toward the Palestinians but even cast Israel as the aggressor.
The fact that President Bush has praised Abbas publicly gives him the ability to bring his message personally to the American people, who continue to view Palestinians as news stories and statistics rather than as a people.
Abbas could implement an immediate plan to visit major cities in the American heartland and avoiding the cities where Israel’s media machinery remains concentrated.
Cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Orlando and Boston where large Arab and Palestinian audiences can offer friendly forums.
The tours would have to also be coordinated outside of the controls of Arab American organizations based in Washington D.C. that lack national grassroot constituencies and have a tendency to promote themselves, or their leadership personalities, over and above the broader needs of the Palestinian agenda.
An American tour coordinated with local rather than national Arab American organizations could also result in the placement of friendlier news coverage in regional newspapers based in those cities.
Abbas would easily attract coverage from the international news media and the international desks of the American media. But what he really needs is to sidestep the international beat reporters and editors and instead connect with regional editors not entrenched in pro-Israel political narratives.
Media specialists would help Abbas craft his messages so they address issues pertinent to American audience concerns. It is a tactical procedure employed by Israel.
Once you understand the nuances of American attitudes, you can undermine inaccurate stereotypes and promote a message that will be accepted.
Abbas also has the benefit of the "political honeymoon." In office under 120 days, the American public will be more receptive to Abbas and listen to his messages. It’s the American way.
His visit could be followed up by the implementation of satellite representative advocates – rather than formal PNA offices – in each of the cities his visits to help reinforce his messages when he returns to Palestine and the negotiating table.
When peace process again collapses when Israel refuses to dismantle the settlements in the West Bank and around Jerusalem, or dismantle the Apartheid Wall, Abbas will be in a stronger position to respond to the expected Israeli media onslaught.
(Ray Hanania is the former national president of the Palestinian American Congress, an award winning syndicated columnist and author. He is managing editor of TheArabStreet.com.)
May 05, 2005/Arab American Media Syndicate
Permission granted to reprint
By Ray Hanania
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has taken significant steps to distinguish himself from his predecessor, the late President Yasser Arafat who was reviled by Israel’s rightwing government and by President Bush as an obstacle to peace.
Just over 100 days in office, Abbas has responded mainly to the concerns of the Bush administration, gaining some praise and empowering the United States to take tougher stands against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government on issues of land confiscation and settlements.
But the steps Abbas has taken are not enough and lack the one thing that more than anything undermined the movement for peace that began in 1998 when Arafat initiated contact with Israel and declared the Palestinian willingness to recognize Israel’s right to exist within the pre-1967 borders.
Arafat lacked a strategic public relations campaign that exposed him to the whims of the Israelis whose public relations efforts are notorious for their ability to oftentimes spin public opinion against facts.
When the peace process collapsed, the Israeli PR machine went into full gear, convincing the public that the peace process collapsed because of Arafat’s inability to make peace rather than Israel’s unwillingness to dismantle settlements or return occupied lands captured in 1967.
Without a clear media strategy, Abbas will find himself susceptible to the same Israeli whims despite reforming the Palestinian government, replacing intransigent cabinet foes of peace with Israel and reigning in Hamas.
Yet an effective media strategy can produce more results in winning support among Americans than all of the likely concessions Abbas will make to Israel.
Israel has and continues to employ an army of media strategists and public relations firms, investing millions in a highly effective campaign that has one clear objective: reinforce American public perception that the Palestinians, not Israelis, are the obstacles to peace, are engaged in violence and seek unrealistic demands that Israel cannot make.
Yet with a modest investment and a clearly defined public relations strategy, Abbas could not only reverse much of the American public’s attitudes toward the Palestinians but even cast Israel as the aggressor.
The fact that President Bush has praised Abbas publicly gives him the ability to bring his message personally to the American people, who continue to view Palestinians as news stories and statistics rather than as a people.
Abbas could implement an immediate plan to visit major cities in the American heartland and avoiding the cities where Israel’s media machinery remains concentrated.
Cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Orlando and Boston where large Arab and Palestinian audiences can offer friendly forums.
The tours would have to also be coordinated outside of the controls of Arab American organizations based in Washington D.C. that lack national grassroot constituencies and have a tendency to promote themselves, or their leadership personalities, over and above the broader needs of the Palestinian agenda.
An American tour coordinated with local rather than national Arab American organizations could also result in the placement of friendlier news coverage in regional newspapers based in those cities.
Abbas would easily attract coverage from the international news media and the international desks of the American media. But what he really needs is to sidestep the international beat reporters and editors and instead connect with regional editors not entrenched in pro-Israel political narratives.
Media specialists would help Abbas craft his messages so they address issues pertinent to American audience concerns. It is a tactical procedure employed by Israel.
Once you understand the nuances of American attitudes, you can undermine inaccurate stereotypes and promote a message that will be accepted.
Abbas also has the benefit of the "political honeymoon." In office under 120 days, the American public will be more receptive to Abbas and listen to his messages. It’s the American way.
His visit could be followed up by the implementation of satellite representative advocates – rather than formal PNA offices – in each of the cities his visits to help reinforce his messages when he returns to Palestine and the negotiating table.
When peace process again collapses when Israel refuses to dismantle the settlements in the West Bank and around Jerusalem, or dismantle the Apartheid Wall, Abbas will be in a stronger position to respond to the expected Israeli media onslaught.
(Ray Hanania is the former national president of the Palestinian American Congress, an award winning syndicated columnist and author. He is managing editor of TheArabStreet.com.)
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Palestinians must battle their own extremists to achieve peace May 5, 2005
Palestinians must battle their extremists to achieve peace
May 5, 2005/Arab America Media Syndicate
Permission granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
Palestinian and Israeli peace is threatened by a growing movement of uncompromising rejectionists nourished by the ongoing conflict.
Extremists can’t afford to let the conflict end.
Many Israelis are thwarted by an inability to distinguish between the criticism of Palestinians moderates and the criticism of extremists.
Palestinians suffer under two occupations, the occupation by Israel and the occupation of Palestinian extremists who believe that continued suffering is a better alternative to compromise.
Palestinian moderates face dual obstacles, not the least of which are Israel’s sentinels. Conditioned to defend Israel at all cost, they fail to distinguish between Palestinian moderation and extremism focusing instead on issues of differences that results in a destructive debate.
But the greater threat to peace is the challenge facing Palestinian moderates from within their own confused and battered community.
Palestinians are too defensive and consumed with their suffering and anger. The hatred sometimes produced prevents them from seeing past these emotions. Yet they must see beyond.
In recent months, leaders of the American based al-Awda movement, the organization advocating for the return of all Palestinian refugees to Israel, have unleashed a campaign of hate against moderates seeking to compromise with Israel. Targeted are Palestinians who dare to speak out against unreasonable policies of rejectionism.
There is a conspiracy of doctrine that unites the extremists. They attack those who question the faults of their policies and those who speak out against violence, denounce terrorist organizations like Hamas and denounce suicide bombings as immoral.
As Palestinians strive to define the moderate voice and speaking out against anti-Semitism, extremists are responding with stronger and more forceful campaigns to discredit them.
The most difficult hurdles facing the creation of two states are the sharing Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugee problem. In addressing the refugee problem, Palestinian moderates are seeking to end the suffering of the refugees and their disenfranchised descendents.
To salvage Palestinian rights and to achieve statehood, Palestinians must find the courage to speak to these difficult issues and to prevail over the uncompromising ideologues.
The al-Awda extremists are exploiting not fighting to end Palestinian suffering. They need that suffering to continue, just as all extremists need the conflict to rage on endlessly.
These rejectionists have a direct stake in the conflict. If it ends, they end, too. They have created an industry of exploitation that thrives on the suffering. They have jobs, salaries, lives and a soapbox from which they can continue to preach uncompromising hatred to their choir of disillusioned, disheartened and lost.
For more than half century, this unholy brotherhood has imprisoned the Palestinian refugees in their camps. To prevent peace, they will use any tool including violence that goes far beyond the boundaries of legitimate resistance.
They have duped many well-intentioned supporters of human rights who want to help the Palestinians, but who have no other voices to support.
The average Palestinian is living in a Diaspora of emotion and injured national pride that cannot easily be overcome to see the truth. Rather than challenge the extremists, most Palestinians remain silent, empowering the extremists. It’s a cycle of viciousness that must be broken.
Rather than receiving full support from moderate Israelis and Jews, they are being challenged, not on issues of larger substance but on smaller issues of vanity.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has generated two separate historical narratives that will never meet, not even after a peace accord is achieved. The solution, though, is to recognize that while we cannot agree on details of history, we can agree on the details of a future based on mutual respect, security and sovereignty.
Peace does not mean we cannot criticize each other. We can and we should. But we can criticize policies, not people. Events, not emotions.
Instead of looking back at history to find reasons why we cannot come together, Palestinians and Israelis must turn away and look toward a future, and work together to overcome all extremists working together.
Before this can happen, though, Palestinians must find their true independence. They have to break free from the choke hold of fanaticism that is eroding their future. They must find the courage to face the unreasonable stridency that smothers Palestinians under a more vicious occupation.
Supporters of Israel can either standup and support this effort, or they can continue to remain silent wrongly believing that this debate undermines the strength of the Palestinian cause.
At some point, Israelis and Jews must also standup to the extremists who also exist in their community.
Then and only then can the future be free of violence and Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and dignity in two states.
(Ray Hanania is the former national president of the Palestinian American Congress. An award winning journalist and author, Hanania can be reached at rayhanania@aol.com)
May 5, 2005/Arab America Media Syndicate
Permission granted to republish
By Ray Hanania
Palestinian and Israeli peace is threatened by a growing movement of uncompromising rejectionists nourished by the ongoing conflict.
Extremists can’t afford to let the conflict end.
Many Israelis are thwarted by an inability to distinguish between the criticism of Palestinians moderates and the criticism of extremists.
Palestinians suffer under two occupations, the occupation by Israel and the occupation of Palestinian extremists who believe that continued suffering is a better alternative to compromise.
Palestinian moderates face dual obstacles, not the least of which are Israel’s sentinels. Conditioned to defend Israel at all cost, they fail to distinguish between Palestinian moderation and extremism focusing instead on issues of differences that results in a destructive debate.
But the greater threat to peace is the challenge facing Palestinian moderates from within their own confused and battered community.
Palestinians are too defensive and consumed with their suffering and anger. The hatred sometimes produced prevents them from seeing past these emotions. Yet they must see beyond.
In recent months, leaders of the American based al-Awda movement, the organization advocating for the return of all Palestinian refugees to Israel, have unleashed a campaign of hate against moderates seeking to compromise with Israel. Targeted are Palestinians who dare to speak out against unreasonable policies of rejectionism.
There is a conspiracy of doctrine that unites the extremists. They attack those who question the faults of their policies and those who speak out against violence, denounce terrorist organizations like Hamas and denounce suicide bombings as immoral.
As Palestinians strive to define the moderate voice and speaking out against anti-Semitism, extremists are responding with stronger and more forceful campaigns to discredit them.
The most difficult hurdles facing the creation of two states are the sharing Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugee problem. In addressing the refugee problem, Palestinian moderates are seeking to end the suffering of the refugees and their disenfranchised descendents.
To salvage Palestinian rights and to achieve statehood, Palestinians must find the courage to speak to these difficult issues and to prevail over the uncompromising ideologues.
The al-Awda extremists are exploiting not fighting to end Palestinian suffering. They need that suffering to continue, just as all extremists need the conflict to rage on endlessly.
These rejectionists have a direct stake in the conflict. If it ends, they end, too. They have created an industry of exploitation that thrives on the suffering. They have jobs, salaries, lives and a soapbox from which they can continue to preach uncompromising hatred to their choir of disillusioned, disheartened and lost.
For more than half century, this unholy brotherhood has imprisoned the Palestinian refugees in their camps. To prevent peace, they will use any tool including violence that goes far beyond the boundaries of legitimate resistance.
They have duped many well-intentioned supporters of human rights who want to help the Palestinians, but who have no other voices to support.
The average Palestinian is living in a Diaspora of emotion and injured national pride that cannot easily be overcome to see the truth. Rather than challenge the extremists, most Palestinians remain silent, empowering the extremists. It’s a cycle of viciousness that must be broken.
Rather than receiving full support from moderate Israelis and Jews, they are being challenged, not on issues of larger substance but on smaller issues of vanity.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has generated two separate historical narratives that will never meet, not even after a peace accord is achieved. The solution, though, is to recognize that while we cannot agree on details of history, we can agree on the details of a future based on mutual respect, security and sovereignty.
Peace does not mean we cannot criticize each other. We can and we should. But we can criticize policies, not people. Events, not emotions.
Instead of looking back at history to find reasons why we cannot come together, Palestinians and Israelis must turn away and look toward a future, and work together to overcome all extremists working together.
Before this can happen, though, Palestinians must find their true independence. They have to break free from the choke hold of fanaticism that is eroding their future. They must find the courage to face the unreasonable stridency that smothers Palestinians under a more vicious occupation.
Supporters of Israel can either standup and support this effort, or they can continue to remain silent wrongly believing that this debate undermines the strength of the Palestinian cause.
At some point, Israelis and Jews must also standup to the extremists who also exist in their community.
Then and only then can the future be free of violence and Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and dignity in two states.
(Ray Hanania is the former national president of the Palestinian American Congress. An award winning journalist and author, Hanania can be reached at rayhanania@aol.com)
Friday, April 22, 2005
Palestinians must accept Reality of Right of Return April 22, 2005
PALESTINIANS MUST ACCEPT REALITY OF THE "RIGHT OF RETURN"
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 2005
Arab News Saudi Arabia
Orlando Sentinel, Florida, USA
By Ray Hanania
In Arabic, the term "al-Awda" means "the return," and it symbolizes the dreams and hopes of millions of Christian and Muslim Palestinians forced into exile as refugees by Israel in 1948. It's the essence of the Palestine-Israel conflict.
In order to create a Jewish state, Jews had to increase their population through immigration. When the notion of a Jewish homeland was embraced in 1917, there were about 85,000 Jews and 650,000 Christian and Muslim Palestinians.
That changed 30 years later to 614,000 Jews and 1.4 million Palestinians. They were still short of what they needed.
The United Nations proposed a partition plan to create a "Jewish state" and an "Arab state." But, the "Jewish state" had as many non-Jews as Jews. The proposed "Arab state" was overwhelmingly non-Jewish. Israel was faced with a harsh reality. It had to forcibly expel the non-Jews.
The 1947 war sent more than 700,000 Palestinians into exile. Israel also occupied half of the "Arab state," leaving Arabs with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, about 22 percent of the original land.
That population change has stymied all progress toward peace. To remain a Jewish state, Israel cannot take the refugees back. Yet how do you reconcile refugee rights, which are supported by clear and irrefutable international laws?
It is such a difficult issue that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat could not accept Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's plan because it brushed off refugee rights and failed to provide a real sharing of Jerusalem.
For years, Palestinian refugees have been fed endless empty promises from the Arab countries that they will someday return. It's the main reason why most have lived and died in refugee camps rather than relocate and assimilate into the Arab world.
The problem has also created a powerful movement called "al-Awda," which is run by uncompromising ideologues and extremists who use the right of return as a political bludgeon to prevent Palestinian moderates from compromise with Israel.
The newly formed American Task Force on Palestine, an advocacy group based in the nation's capital, became one of the first Palestinian organizations to publicly define a moderate approach, writing: "Implementation of the right of return cannot obviate the logic of a resolution based on two states.
The challenge for the Israeli and Palestinian national leaderships is to arrive at a formula that recognizes refugee rights but which does not contradict the basis of a two-state solution and an end to the conflict." The ATFP was immediately denounced as "traitors" by the international al-Awda movement, even though compromising on the right of return is fundamental to achieving a two-state solution.
The Palestinian refugees have a legal and moral right to return to their lands. But the reality of the world today is not the reality of 1947, when the conflict forced the refugees into camps. Fifty-five years later, Palestinians have no choice but to accept a full and fair compromise, which Israel has yet to embrace. That compromise must include compensation and, more importantly, Israel's acknowledgment of their role in causing their plight.
Surveys show that despite the uncompromising al-Awda movement, most refugees do not expect to return to their original homes or lands.
So what's the real problem?
The al-Awda movement's rejection of compromise is based on generations of suffering that are easy to exploit. But it is the height of irresponsibility for any Arab group to tell the refugees that they should sit tight because one day they will return to the hills and valleys of 1947 Palestine. It is never going to happen.
The al-Awda activists, who rallied this past week at the University of California in Los Angeles, insist no one has a right to negotiate away the right of return.
That is not true. In fact, when a people turn to democracy and elect a government, as Palestinians have done twice, the government has a greater right to act above the individual interest and preserve the more important national interest.
The refugees deserve the truth, not more lies. Some may be able to return as a part of a negotiated deal with Israel. The rest will live in a smaller Palestine, compensated by their memories. In order to save Palestine, the bulk of the refugees must accept that reality.
A negotiated Palestine state will be their final homeland. Organizations like al-Awda are well-intentioned but are doing a great national disservice to Palestinians by insisting on the "legal right of return" while irresponsibly ignoring the "reality of the return."
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 Friday April 22, 2005
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 2005
Arab News Saudi Arabia
Orlando Sentinel, Florida, USA
By Ray Hanania
In Arabic, the term "al-Awda" means "the return," and it symbolizes the dreams and hopes of millions of Christian and Muslim Palestinians forced into exile as refugees by Israel in 1948. It's the essence of the Palestine-Israel conflict.
In order to create a Jewish state, Jews had to increase their population through immigration. When the notion of a Jewish homeland was embraced in 1917, there were about 85,000 Jews and 650,000 Christian and Muslim Palestinians.
That changed 30 years later to 614,000 Jews and 1.4 million Palestinians. They were still short of what they needed.
The United Nations proposed a partition plan to create a "Jewish state" and an "Arab state." But, the "Jewish state" had as many non-Jews as Jews. The proposed "Arab state" was overwhelmingly non-Jewish. Israel was faced with a harsh reality. It had to forcibly expel the non-Jews.
The 1947 war sent more than 700,000 Palestinians into exile. Israel also occupied half of the "Arab state," leaving Arabs with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, about 22 percent of the original land.
That population change has stymied all progress toward peace. To remain a Jewish state, Israel cannot take the refugees back. Yet how do you reconcile refugee rights, which are supported by clear and irrefutable international laws?
It is such a difficult issue that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat could not accept Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's plan because it brushed off refugee rights and failed to provide a real sharing of Jerusalem.
For years, Palestinian refugees have been fed endless empty promises from the Arab countries that they will someday return. It's the main reason why most have lived and died in refugee camps rather than relocate and assimilate into the Arab world.
The problem has also created a powerful movement called "al-Awda," which is run by uncompromising ideologues and extremists who use the right of return as a political bludgeon to prevent Palestinian moderates from compromise with Israel.
The newly formed American Task Force on Palestine, an advocacy group based in the nation's capital, became one of the first Palestinian organizations to publicly define a moderate approach, writing: "Implementation of the right of return cannot obviate the logic of a resolution based on two states.
The challenge for the Israeli and Palestinian national leaderships is to arrive at a formula that recognizes refugee rights but which does not contradict the basis of a two-state solution and an end to the conflict." The ATFP was immediately denounced as "traitors" by the international al-Awda movement, even though compromising on the right of return is fundamental to achieving a two-state solution.
The Palestinian refugees have a legal and moral right to return to their lands. But the reality of the world today is not the reality of 1947, when the conflict forced the refugees into camps. Fifty-five years later, Palestinians have no choice but to accept a full and fair compromise, which Israel has yet to embrace. That compromise must include compensation and, more importantly, Israel's acknowledgment of their role in causing their plight.
Surveys show that despite the uncompromising al-Awda movement, most refugees do not expect to return to their original homes or lands.
So what's the real problem?
The al-Awda movement's rejection of compromise is based on generations of suffering that are easy to exploit. But it is the height of irresponsibility for any Arab group to tell the refugees that they should sit tight because one day they will return to the hills and valleys of 1947 Palestine. It is never going to happen.
The al-Awda activists, who rallied this past week at the University of California in Los Angeles, insist no one has a right to negotiate away the right of return.
That is not true. In fact, when a people turn to democracy and elect a government, as Palestinians have done twice, the government has a greater right to act above the individual interest and preserve the more important national interest.
The refugees deserve the truth, not more lies. Some may be able to return as a part of a negotiated deal with Israel. The rest will live in a smaller Palestine, compensated by their memories. In order to save Palestine, the bulk of the refugees must accept that reality.
A negotiated Palestine state will be their final homeland. Organizations like al-Awda are well-intentioned but are doing a great national disservice to Palestinians by insisting on the "legal right of return" while irresponsibly ignoring the "reality of the return."
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 Friday April 22, 2005
Friday, April 15, 2005
Racism of Sharansky bigotry clouds peace April 15, 2005
Sharansky Symbolizes Anti-Arab Hatred
Ray Hanania, Creators Syndicate/Arab News (Saudi Arabia)
April 17, 2005
Natan Sharansky is supposed to be responsible for ministerial oversight of Jerusalem. But his real job is to serve as chief character assassin responsible for a vicious campaign of lies intended to undermine Palestinian rights.
Before coming to Israel, Sharansky was the victim of Soviet oppression. He claims he was tortured in the old Soviet campaign of hatred against Jews.
It’s a convenient shield Sharansky often exploits to deflect criticism that he and many of his right-wing Israeli colleagues are engaged in a vicious hate campaign against Palestinians.
While Sharansky often speaks about Palestinian failures in the peace process, he fails to address Israel’s own violations. Israel continues to confiscate Palestinian lands, expand illegal settlements and build the Apartheid Wall that is slowly encircling Palestinian cities.
When the issues do surface, as they did recently in meetings between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Sharansky’s boss, and President Bush, Sharansky’s job is to deflect public attention elsewhere.
For example, Sharansky recently repeated exaggerated claims that Palestinians, as a society, promote anti-Semitism and teach their children hate.
Of course, Palestinians don’t have to teach their children to hate Israel. Israelis teach Palestinians to hate Israel by their own policies.
When Israeli snipers shot and killed three Palestinian children who were playing soccer near an illegal Israeli settlement, Sharansky and others defended the soldiers, asserting that the children were transporting bombs. And of course, we have to take Sharansky’s word, because Israel prohibits neutral third parties from investigating such incidents.
Brushing off the murder of Palestinian children, Sharansky mentions that many maps displayed by Palestinians do not show Israel, as evidence that Palestinians are anti-Semitic.
That may be so. But I have seen many maps displayed by Israelis that do not show Palestine, even as occupied territory. And, Israel continues to assert that Jerusalem is its capital, in clear violation of international law. But what’s the law to a champion of free speech like Sharansky?
When Sharansky talks about free speech, he is referring to the fact that Israelis are free to hate Palestinians, but Palestinians have no right to be angry or to criticize Israel.
Palestinians, Sharansky claims, continue to refer to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” the anti-Semitic fabrications published by the Russian secret police in the early 20th century to blame the Jews for Russia’s troubles. Sharansky doesn’t mention that copies of the Protocols are freely sold in many Western nations, including in many American bookstores, alongside copies of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”
For every example that Sharansky highlights as evidence of Palestinian anti-Semitism, there are just as many examples of Israelis denying Palestinian rights, history and justice. Many Israelis insist Palestinians “don’t exist.” Others deny Palestinian Christians and Muslims outnumbered Jews significantly* when the UN partition was approved.
Some Palestinians are learning to hate Israelis. But that lesson is not being taught in Palestinian classrooms or by Palestinian parents. It’s taught every day by Israeli soldiers who are rarely held accountable for the taking of innocent Palestinian lives.
The real obstacle to peace is Sharansky and his right-wing colleagues. Sharansky is living proof that a victim of oppression often makes the worst oppressor.
Few Israelis have the courage to speak out against Sharansky. It’s so much easier to blame Palestinians for everything. But that doesn’t contribute to peace. It only makes peace more unlikely.
— Ray Hanania, the former national president of the Palestinian American Congress, is an author and syndicated columnist based in Chicago.
[NOTE: UNSCP Figures for 1947 show 68.5 percent Christian and Muslim Palestinians and 31.5 percent Jewish. But Palestinian representatives have argued the number did not include 200,000 bedouin Arabs roaming the lands, and that Jewish numbers were exaggerated while Palestinian numbers were deflated to help support Zionist claims. But for the point of this column "significantly" is appropriate.]
Ray Hanania, Creators Syndicate/Arab News (Saudi Arabia)
April 17, 2005
Natan Sharansky is supposed to be responsible for ministerial oversight of Jerusalem. But his real job is to serve as chief character assassin responsible for a vicious campaign of lies intended to undermine Palestinian rights.
Before coming to Israel, Sharansky was the victim of Soviet oppression. He claims he was tortured in the old Soviet campaign of hatred against Jews.
It’s a convenient shield Sharansky often exploits to deflect criticism that he and many of his right-wing Israeli colleagues are engaged in a vicious hate campaign against Palestinians.
While Sharansky often speaks about Palestinian failures in the peace process, he fails to address Israel’s own violations. Israel continues to confiscate Palestinian lands, expand illegal settlements and build the Apartheid Wall that is slowly encircling Palestinian cities.
When the issues do surface, as they did recently in meetings between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Sharansky’s boss, and President Bush, Sharansky’s job is to deflect public attention elsewhere.
For example, Sharansky recently repeated exaggerated claims that Palestinians, as a society, promote anti-Semitism and teach their children hate.
Of course, Palestinians don’t have to teach their children to hate Israel. Israelis teach Palestinians to hate Israel by their own policies.
When Israeli snipers shot and killed three Palestinian children who were playing soccer near an illegal Israeli settlement, Sharansky and others defended the soldiers, asserting that the children were transporting bombs. And of course, we have to take Sharansky’s word, because Israel prohibits neutral third parties from investigating such incidents.
Brushing off the murder of Palestinian children, Sharansky mentions that many maps displayed by Palestinians do not show Israel, as evidence that Palestinians are anti-Semitic.
That may be so. But I have seen many maps displayed by Israelis that do not show Palestine, even as occupied territory. And, Israel continues to assert that Jerusalem is its capital, in clear violation of international law. But what’s the law to a champion of free speech like Sharansky?
When Sharansky talks about free speech, he is referring to the fact that Israelis are free to hate Palestinians, but Palestinians have no right to be angry or to criticize Israel.
Palestinians, Sharansky claims, continue to refer to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” the anti-Semitic fabrications published by the Russian secret police in the early 20th century to blame the Jews for Russia’s troubles. Sharansky doesn’t mention that copies of the Protocols are freely sold in many Western nations, including in many American bookstores, alongside copies of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.”
For every example that Sharansky highlights as evidence of Palestinian anti-Semitism, there are just as many examples of Israelis denying Palestinian rights, history and justice. Many Israelis insist Palestinians “don’t exist.” Others deny Palestinian Christians and Muslims outnumbered Jews significantly* when the UN partition was approved.
Some Palestinians are learning to hate Israelis. But that lesson is not being taught in Palestinian classrooms or by Palestinian parents. It’s taught every day by Israeli soldiers who are rarely held accountable for the taking of innocent Palestinian lives.
The real obstacle to peace is Sharansky and his right-wing colleagues. Sharansky is living proof that a victim of oppression often makes the worst oppressor.
Few Israelis have the courage to speak out against Sharansky. It’s so much easier to blame Palestinians for everything. But that doesn’t contribute to peace. It only makes peace more unlikely.
— Ray Hanania, the former national president of the Palestinian American Congress, is an author and syndicated columnist based in Chicago.
[NOTE: UNSCP Figures for 1947 show 68.5 percent Christian and Muslim Palestinians and 31.5 percent Jewish. But Palestinian representatives have argued the number did not include 200,000 bedouin Arabs roaming the lands, and that Jewish numbers were exaggerated while Palestinian numbers were deflated to help support Zionist claims. But for the point of this column "significantly" is appropriate.]
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Palestinian foreign policy stymied by in-fighting April 12, 2005
Are we a revolution or a government?
April 12, 2005, Arab American Media Services
By Ray Hanania
Are the Palestinian people moving toward government, or are they clinging to the memories of a fading revolution that was more successful?
This is a question that must be answered before Palestinians can activate an American Palestinian movement to help educate Americans about the realities of the Middle East rather than the myths so successfully manufactured by Israel.
Palestinian efforts are stymied by the dual conflicts that continue to exist between the old guard led by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and the new guard of the Palestine National Authority (PNA).
The PLO was founded by individuals who rose to leadership through conflicts that successfully forced the world to recognize the rights of the Palestinian people that were ceased by Israel in 1948 and repressed in 1967.
It is unDemocratic and consists of the old boy’s network of revolutionaries and disciples of the late Yasser Arafat. It’s chief spokesman is Farouk Kadoumi, also known as Abu Lutf, who is super-glued to the post of Foreign Minister.
The PNA, in contrast, is Democratically elected. Arafat was the first elected president and he was been succeeded after his death by Mahmoud Abbas in elections held this past January.
Abbas named Nasser al-Qidwa, an Arafat cousin and the former Palestinian Ambassador to the United Nations, as the PNA’s foreign minister in a reshuffle of his cabinet.
Abu Lutf has greater power outside of Palestine, where he has vowed never to step foot while it remains under "Zionist" occupation, while al-Qidwa has free reign in the Palestinian territories where foreign policy is restricted to media reports and public emotion.
While being an articulate and able spokesman of the Palestinian cause, Abu Lutf is ineffective as a foreign minister. The world has only one super power, the United States. And the United States, working closely with Israeli, aggressively manages its foreign policy with respect to Israel.
In an ideal world, Palestine would have an effective foreign policy strategy managed by an ambassador skilled in maneuvering the American political landscape.
But Abu Lutf’s clumsy foreign policy ineffectiveness is driven by the fact the he is marginalized by the United States and Israel. His sole purpose is to protect his post while "lecturing" like a professor without tenure to small groups of Palestinian loyalists in the United States and abroad.
That’s not to say that Abu Lutf is not a Palestinian hero who earned his stripes and medals of honor in the early days when the revolution went head-to-head in combat with Israel and won.
As one of Arafat’s strategists, he deserves much credit for the many victories that were achieved in the 1970s and 1980s.
Although he is sometimes compared to the charismatic and late Palestinian intellectual and writer, Edward Said, Abu Lutf is not nearly his equal. Abu Lutf lacks Said’s charisma and has an even narrower audience that he frequents than the privileged circles that Said would address with his wonderfully stuffy writings that few people other than activists, academics, Palestinians and Israelis ever bothered to read.
Certainly no average Americans who need to hear the Palestinian narrative ever read any of Edward Said’s brilliant but heavily footnoted dissertations. And even few Americans have even heard of Abu Lutf, and that’s not a good thing for any foreign minister.
The problem is that Palestinians have been oppressed so long that they don’t know how to react when given freedom. Instead of using the freedoms that exist in the United States to build and implement an effective foreign policy strategy to win over American support, most Palestinians find themselves doing what comes naturally, expending all their energies to protect their small successes.
In Palestinian politics, crumbs look like cake. Every Palestinian is his own advocate. There are several Palestinian organizations in the United States but not one is effective, has a grass roots constituency essential to building a strategic communications and political movement to change American attitudes.
Rather than support existing institutions and bringing them together as one strong voice, Palestinians spend most of their time undermining each other as if Americans care about the fate of those groups.
The victims of this Palestinian political tragedy are the Palestinians themselves who continue to live under a continued occupation that is brutal and repressive.
They’re helpless to bring the bickering of their American Palestinian activists to an end. Every Palestinian has an untested answer to the challenge but none is capable of acting.
In that disorder, Abu Lutf reigns supreme and Israel remains unfettered in imposing its unilateral decisions confiscating more land, expanding settlements, undermining long term peace and ignoring the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people.
The divisiveness of Palestinian American politics remains unthreatened and thereby ineffective, causing the government of Palestine to be weaker when it should be far stronger. The real foreign minister, al-Qidwa, has a powerless voice.
The only thing Palestinians seem to succeed in is in not succeeding at all.
(Ray Hanania, former National President of the Palestinian American Congress, is an author and syndicated columnist based in Chicago.)
END
April 12, 2005, Arab American Media Services
By Ray Hanania
Are the Palestinian people moving toward government, or are they clinging to the memories of a fading revolution that was more successful?
This is a question that must be answered before Palestinians can activate an American Palestinian movement to help educate Americans about the realities of the Middle East rather than the myths so successfully manufactured by Israel.
Palestinian efforts are stymied by the dual conflicts that continue to exist between the old guard led by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and the new guard of the Palestine National Authority (PNA).
The PLO was founded by individuals who rose to leadership through conflicts that successfully forced the world to recognize the rights of the Palestinian people that were ceased by Israel in 1948 and repressed in 1967.
It is unDemocratic and consists of the old boy’s network of revolutionaries and disciples of the late Yasser Arafat. It’s chief spokesman is Farouk Kadoumi, also known as Abu Lutf, who is super-glued to the post of Foreign Minister.
The PNA, in contrast, is Democratically elected. Arafat was the first elected president and he was been succeeded after his death by Mahmoud Abbas in elections held this past January.
Abbas named Nasser al-Qidwa, an Arafat cousin and the former Palestinian Ambassador to the United Nations, as the PNA’s foreign minister in a reshuffle of his cabinet.
Abu Lutf has greater power outside of Palestine, where he has vowed never to step foot while it remains under "Zionist" occupation, while al-Qidwa has free reign in the Palestinian territories where foreign policy is restricted to media reports and public emotion.
While being an articulate and able spokesman of the Palestinian cause, Abu Lutf is ineffective as a foreign minister. The world has only one super power, the United States. And the United States, working closely with Israeli, aggressively manages its foreign policy with respect to Israel.
In an ideal world, Palestine would have an effective foreign policy strategy managed by an ambassador skilled in maneuvering the American political landscape.
But Abu Lutf’s clumsy foreign policy ineffectiveness is driven by the fact the he is marginalized by the United States and Israel. His sole purpose is to protect his post while "lecturing" like a professor without tenure to small groups of Palestinian loyalists in the United States and abroad.
That’s not to say that Abu Lutf is not a Palestinian hero who earned his stripes and medals of honor in the early days when the revolution went head-to-head in combat with Israel and won.
As one of Arafat’s strategists, he deserves much credit for the many victories that were achieved in the 1970s and 1980s.
Although he is sometimes compared to the charismatic and late Palestinian intellectual and writer, Edward Said, Abu Lutf is not nearly his equal. Abu Lutf lacks Said’s charisma and has an even narrower audience that he frequents than the privileged circles that Said would address with his wonderfully stuffy writings that few people other than activists, academics, Palestinians and Israelis ever bothered to read.
Certainly no average Americans who need to hear the Palestinian narrative ever read any of Edward Said’s brilliant but heavily footnoted dissertations. And even few Americans have even heard of Abu Lutf, and that’s not a good thing for any foreign minister.
The problem is that Palestinians have been oppressed so long that they don’t know how to react when given freedom. Instead of using the freedoms that exist in the United States to build and implement an effective foreign policy strategy to win over American support, most Palestinians find themselves doing what comes naturally, expending all their energies to protect their small successes.
In Palestinian politics, crumbs look like cake. Every Palestinian is his own advocate. There are several Palestinian organizations in the United States but not one is effective, has a grass roots constituency essential to building a strategic communications and political movement to change American attitudes.
Rather than support existing institutions and bringing them together as one strong voice, Palestinians spend most of their time undermining each other as if Americans care about the fate of those groups.
The victims of this Palestinian political tragedy are the Palestinians themselves who continue to live under a continued occupation that is brutal and repressive.
They’re helpless to bring the bickering of their American Palestinian activists to an end. Every Palestinian has an untested answer to the challenge but none is capable of acting.
In that disorder, Abu Lutf reigns supreme and Israel remains unfettered in imposing its unilateral decisions confiscating more land, expanding settlements, undermining long term peace and ignoring the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people.
The divisiveness of Palestinian American politics remains unthreatened and thereby ineffective, causing the government of Palestine to be weaker when it should be far stronger. The real foreign minister, al-Qidwa, has a powerless voice.
The only thing Palestinians seem to succeed in is in not succeeding at all.
(Ray Hanania, former National President of the Palestinian American Congress, is an author and syndicated columnist based in Chicago.)
END
Friday, April 08, 2005
Pope inspired Palestinian peace and rights 4-08-05
Palestinians fondly recall Pope John Paul II
April 8, 2005
By Ray Hanania
The Palestinian cause has received support from many courageous and inspiring world leaders, including Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and many years before them, Mahatma Gandhi.
One of the most inspiring was the support of Pope John Paul II, who died this past week. And he spoke from a powerful moral platform that helped to add backbone to Europe's longstanding support of Palestinian rights and criticism of the excesses of Israel's occupation.
Pope John Paul II was the first non-Italian to hold the title in 455 years, elected on Oct 16, 1978. His defense of Palestinian rights held strong resonance especially because his priesthood was driven during the height of the Nazi occupation of Poland where he lost all his family members.
In March of 2000, Pope John Paul II visited Palestine conducting services at the Church of the Nativity. He met many times with the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, and urged a peaceful compromise that recognized the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. During a visit with Arafat, the Pope kissed a bowl of Palestinians oil brought to him by Palestinian children, a powerful symbolic gesture in the eyes of many Arabs who revere the cause of Palestine.
While conducting a two hour mass at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the Pope declared, “No one can ignore how much the Palestinian people have had to suffer in recent decades. Your torment is before the eyes of the world. And it has gone on too long,” the Pope declared. “The Holy See has always recognized that the Palestinian people have the natural right to a homeland, and the right to be able to live in peace and tranquility with the other people of this area.”
He reiterated, “I have repeatedly proclaimed that there would be no end to the sad conflict in the Holy Land without stable guarantees for the rights of all the peoples involved, on the basis of international law and the relevant United Nations resolutions and declarations. Only with a just and lasting peace, not imposed but secured through negotiation, will legitimate Palestinian aspirations be fulfilled.”
Later, he visited the Dheisheh Refugee Camp in Bethlehem to remind the world of the palestinian’s suffering and their Diaspora.
The following year, he became the first Pope to ever enter a Mosque during his visit of peace to Syria. His motivation may have been as much a pilgrimage to an historic Christian religious site in May 2001 when he entered the Umayyed Mosque in Damascus, said to be the site of the grave of Saint John the Baptist.
That was not out of character for Pope John Paul II. He also was the first Pope to visit a synagogue and also the first to visit a Holocaust concentration camp memorial at Auschwitz.
Clearly Pope John Paul’s support of Palestinian rights reflected his personal struggle for the soul of humanity, always on the side of justice and fairness.
Much attention in the Western press has been given to extremist Muslim leaders of al-Qaeda and more mainstream fundamentalists as activist and editor Gamal Sultan of the al-Manar Journal in Egypt, which shares the name of the satellite broadcasts of the Hizbollah terrorist organization.
But despite these few expected voices of extremism, Pope John Paul II’s death has captured the hearts of mainstream Arabs. His funeral has been given unprecedented coverage in more mainstream Arab Media including on Arab satellite stations such as al-Jazeera and al-Arabiyya.
Troubling to me is the absence of a champion who will succeed the Pope and who has the Pope’s stature. Will the next Pope take up the Palestinian cause which more and more is identified as a Muslim cause and as the numbers of Palestinian Christians continue to dwindle?
If the new Pope is from the Third World, the answer maybe yes. If more Western – although pundits have ruled out a successor who is American – the political weight of the Vatican might shift significantly.
END
April 8, 2005
By Ray Hanania
The Palestinian cause has received support from many courageous and inspiring world leaders, including Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and many years before them, Mahatma Gandhi.
One of the most inspiring was the support of Pope John Paul II, who died this past week. And he spoke from a powerful moral platform that helped to add backbone to Europe's longstanding support of Palestinian rights and criticism of the excesses of Israel's occupation.
Pope John Paul II was the first non-Italian to hold the title in 455 years, elected on Oct 16, 1978. His defense of Palestinian rights held strong resonance especially because his priesthood was driven during the height of the Nazi occupation of Poland where he lost all his family members.
In March of 2000, Pope John Paul II visited Palestine conducting services at the Church of the Nativity. He met many times with the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, and urged a peaceful compromise that recognized the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. During a visit with Arafat, the Pope kissed a bowl of Palestinians oil brought to him by Palestinian children, a powerful symbolic gesture in the eyes of many Arabs who revere the cause of Palestine.
While conducting a two hour mass at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the Pope declared, “No one can ignore how much the Palestinian people have had to suffer in recent decades. Your torment is before the eyes of the world. And it has gone on too long,” the Pope declared. “The Holy See has always recognized that the Palestinian people have the natural right to a homeland, and the right to be able to live in peace and tranquility with the other people of this area.”
He reiterated, “I have repeatedly proclaimed that there would be no end to the sad conflict in the Holy Land without stable guarantees for the rights of all the peoples involved, on the basis of international law and the relevant United Nations resolutions and declarations. Only with a just and lasting peace, not imposed but secured through negotiation, will legitimate Palestinian aspirations be fulfilled.”
Later, he visited the Dheisheh Refugee Camp in Bethlehem to remind the world of the palestinian’s suffering and their Diaspora.
The following year, he became the first Pope to ever enter a Mosque during his visit of peace to Syria. His motivation may have been as much a pilgrimage to an historic Christian religious site in May 2001 when he entered the Umayyed Mosque in Damascus, said to be the site of the grave of Saint John the Baptist.
That was not out of character for Pope John Paul II. He also was the first Pope to visit a synagogue and also the first to visit a Holocaust concentration camp memorial at Auschwitz.
Clearly Pope John Paul’s support of Palestinian rights reflected his personal struggle for the soul of humanity, always on the side of justice and fairness.
Much attention in the Western press has been given to extremist Muslim leaders of al-Qaeda and more mainstream fundamentalists as activist and editor Gamal Sultan of the al-Manar Journal in Egypt, which shares the name of the satellite broadcasts of the Hizbollah terrorist organization.
But despite these few expected voices of extremism, Pope John Paul II’s death has captured the hearts of mainstream Arabs. His funeral has been given unprecedented coverage in more mainstream Arab Media including on Arab satellite stations such as al-Jazeera and al-Arabiyya.
Troubling to me is the absence of a champion who will succeed the Pope and who has the Pope’s stature. Will the next Pope take up the Palestinian cause which more and more is identified as a Muslim cause and as the numbers of Palestinian Christians continue to dwindle?
If the new Pope is from the Third World, the answer maybe yes. If more Western – although pundits have ruled out a successor who is American – the political weight of the Vatican might shift significantly.
END
Campaign against Arab professors stumbles with study, April 8, 2005
Charges of anti-Semitism at colleges unfounded
Creators Syndicate April 15, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Much has been written about charges that professors who support Palestinian rights have engaged in anti-Semitism against students who support Israel.
When I was a student at the University of Illinois, we complained that pro-Israel professors constantly discriminated against us because we were Palestinian. No one cared or examined our complaints.
Now the shoe is on the other foot and pro-Israel students complain that pro-Arab professors are discriminating against them.
One case involves Columbia University in New York, home to the late Professor Edward Said. Said was an articulate and brilliant literary genius whose defense of Palestinians defined the war of wars that continues between extremists on both sides of the conflict.
He has been succeeded by former University of Chicago Professor Rashid Khalidi who is an author but not nearly as articulate or charismatic as Said. He is a decent advocate, who like Said, has his own political bend that not all Palestinians support.
But it was the actions of another professor, Joseph Massad, who lecyures at Palestinian events around the country, who drew the most concern. The incident involved his alleged reaction to one of his students who asked if it is true that before striking out at militant Palestinian targets in civilian neighborhoods, Israel issues warnings.
Instead of saying no, that it is not true at all, Massad reportedly exploded in anger and threatened to throw the student out of his classroom. (Massad denied the incident took place.) It is a classic example of why people with short fuses should never be put in charge of classrooms or why it’s wrong to ascribe extremist behavior to all Palestinians or Israelis, for that matter.
Last week, Columbia released its report on allegations by pro-Israel students that professors supporting the Palestinian cause had discriminated against them to the point of being anti-Semitic.
The findings show none of the incidents investigated by a special committee (which included pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli professors) involved anti-Semitism. The charges were false.The report notes the incident involving Massad, but identified another issue not addressed in the complaint regarding pro-Israel students who harassed and disrupted pro-Arab professors.
The report goes into detail about the broader "environment of incivility" on campus with pro-Israel students "disrupting lectures" on Middle Eastern studies and some teachers claimed they were "spied on."
When I was a Circle Campus student, the school newspaper always covered pro-Israeli events and never covered pro-Palestinian events. That prompted me to become a journalist and working for the Illini where my battles over the discrimination with editors was never-ending.
Circle always worked with pro-Israel students to provide funding for their speakers, but rarely approved honorariums for pro-Palestinian speakers. They even routinely refused to give us classrooms to hold our events.
Finally, I remember being in an Arabic language class taught by a Jewish Arab teacher whose final exam asked us to precisely translate three sentences, or face getting a failing grade missing only one.
The sentence that no Palestinian could ever translate let alone utter read, "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel."
It was, we felt, a clever way to flunk pro-Palestinian students from the class.
Our complaints to the university went unheard and unanswered. Although today’s pro-Israel students can get someone to care about their complaints, that’s more than we ever got.
American Palestinians and Jews should be permitted to openly discuss the Middle East conflict from their perspectives and without fear of being labeled as racist or anti-Semitic.
Although examples of anti-Arab racism are present in many pro-Israel lectures and events, and examples of anti-Semitism are present in many pro-Palestinian events, the majority of speech at both reflect justified criticism.
In order to achieve Middle East peace, Palestinians and Israelis might have to take a stand and stop the pendulum from swinging in either direction. Rather than censor everyone, we should instead listen to the criticism with open hearts and open minds on both sides.
That is exactly the kind of education that students at American universities and colleges should receive.
END
Creators Syndicate April 15, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Much has been written about charges that professors who support Palestinian rights have engaged in anti-Semitism against students who support Israel.
When I was a student at the University of Illinois, we complained that pro-Israel professors constantly discriminated against us because we were Palestinian. No one cared or examined our complaints.
Now the shoe is on the other foot and pro-Israel students complain that pro-Arab professors are discriminating against them.
One case involves Columbia University in New York, home to the late Professor Edward Said. Said was an articulate and brilliant literary genius whose defense of Palestinians defined the war of wars that continues between extremists on both sides of the conflict.
He has been succeeded by former University of Chicago Professor Rashid Khalidi who is an author but not nearly as articulate or charismatic as Said. He is a decent advocate, who like Said, has his own political bend that not all Palestinians support.
But it was the actions of another professor, Joseph Massad, who lecyures at Palestinian events around the country, who drew the most concern. The incident involved his alleged reaction to one of his students who asked if it is true that before striking out at militant Palestinian targets in civilian neighborhoods, Israel issues warnings.
Instead of saying no, that it is not true at all, Massad reportedly exploded in anger and threatened to throw the student out of his classroom. (Massad denied the incident took place.) It is a classic example of why people with short fuses should never be put in charge of classrooms or why it’s wrong to ascribe extremist behavior to all Palestinians or Israelis, for that matter.
Last week, Columbia released its report on allegations by pro-Israel students that professors supporting the Palestinian cause had discriminated against them to the point of being anti-Semitic.
The findings show none of the incidents investigated by a special committee (which included pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli professors) involved anti-Semitism. The charges were false.The report notes the incident involving Massad, but identified another issue not addressed in the complaint regarding pro-Israel students who harassed and disrupted pro-Arab professors.
The report goes into detail about the broader "environment of incivility" on campus with pro-Israel students "disrupting lectures" on Middle Eastern studies and some teachers claimed they were "spied on."
When I was a Circle Campus student, the school newspaper always covered pro-Israeli events and never covered pro-Palestinian events. That prompted me to become a journalist and working for the Illini where my battles over the discrimination with editors was never-ending.
Circle always worked with pro-Israel students to provide funding for their speakers, but rarely approved honorariums for pro-Palestinian speakers. They even routinely refused to give us classrooms to hold our events.
Finally, I remember being in an Arabic language class taught by a Jewish Arab teacher whose final exam asked us to precisely translate three sentences, or face getting a failing grade missing only one.
The sentence that no Palestinian could ever translate let alone utter read, "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel."
It was, we felt, a clever way to flunk pro-Palestinian students from the class.
Our complaints to the university went unheard and unanswered. Although today’s pro-Israel students can get someone to care about their complaints, that’s more than we ever got.
American Palestinians and Jews should be permitted to openly discuss the Middle East conflict from their perspectives and without fear of being labeled as racist or anti-Semitic.
Although examples of anti-Arab racism are present in many pro-Israel lectures and events, and examples of anti-Semitism are present in many pro-Palestinian events, the majority of speech at both reflect justified criticism.
In order to achieve Middle East peace, Palestinians and Israelis might have to take a stand and stop the pendulum from swinging in either direction. Rather than censor everyone, we should instead listen to the criticism with open hearts and open minds on both sides.
That is exactly the kind of education that students at American universities and colleges should receive.
END
Friday, April 01, 2005
Second conviction of Maynulet offers more hope, April 1, 2005
Arab World can find some hope in American justice
April 1, 2005
By Ray Hanania
American justice manages to prevail even despite itself, and that might open the door to Democracy in the Middle East.
This week, a military court convicted a 30-year old US Army Tank Commander from Chicago, Capt. Rogelio Maynulet, of murdering a wounded Iraqi prisoner last year.
Maynulet claimed he killed the prisoner to "put him out of his misery." He was convicted of a lesser charge of "assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter" which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, half what he deserved under tougher, more deserving charges.
Despite the leniency of our system to our own soldiers engaged in such crimes, people in the Middle East should see the conviction as a glimmer of hope.
In the face of the brutal manner in which Americans abuse, torture and even kill prisoners at Abu Gharib, Guantanamo and in conflicts around the globe, Arabs hope America will someday become the Democracy it seeks to impose elsewhere.
Arabs know their governments abuse civil rights. They know the Muslim World mistreats women. They know the Muslim World is governed by tyrants cloaked in religious fervor that promote ignorance as a societal tranquilizer.
But we, in America, pretend everything is perfect here when it’s really not. Before Americans preach to the Arab or Muslim Worlds about Democracy, shouldn’t we practice it first?
How about truly freeing American women from the institutional discrimination that continues to deny women their full rights?
Wouldn’t it be nice if America really eliminated racism in our cities and schools and in the way we fight crime, rather than accepting a status quo where the primary victims of abuse are African Americans?
How about doing more than pretend we mean what we say when our leaders denounce post-Sept. 11 violence against Arab Americans?
Since Sept. 11, more than 14 people "who looked" Middle Eastern were the victims of hate crimes, yet those crimes have never been recognized as hate crimes and were treated as "isolated" incidents of murder where the victim happened to be different and the killer happened to utter racist threats in the killings.
All this talk about bringing Democracy to the Middle East is encouraging, but how about bringing Democracy to the American media first, the place where the message begins and drives American attitudes.
The truth is most Americans don’t spend a lot of time understanding the complex realities of the Middle East. They have no idea what is really accurate history or what even is fair. What they do know is what they see in hundreds of Hollywood movies that portray Arabs in a vicious and racist manner, or from popular fiction like Exodus which is built on the compost of anti-Arab hatred.
The conviction of Maynulet and the few others who have been charged since the illegal Iraq war began is a good start toward sending the right messages about Democracy to the Middle East.
How much more torture at Abu Gharib has been covered up? How many Iraqi civilians have been murdered in Iraq that our media doesn’t report but that the Arab media reports constantly?
But Americans still have a long and difficult way to go.
If there is one real character in being an American, it’s that we rarely ever admit that we are wrong, even when it’s so apparent to others.
END
April 1, 2005
By Ray Hanania
American justice manages to prevail even despite itself, and that might open the door to Democracy in the Middle East.
This week, a military court convicted a 30-year old US Army Tank Commander from Chicago, Capt. Rogelio Maynulet, of murdering a wounded Iraqi prisoner last year.
Maynulet claimed he killed the prisoner to "put him out of his misery." He was convicted of a lesser charge of "assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter" which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, half what he deserved under tougher, more deserving charges.
Despite the leniency of our system to our own soldiers engaged in such crimes, people in the Middle East should see the conviction as a glimmer of hope.
In the face of the brutal manner in which Americans abuse, torture and even kill prisoners at Abu Gharib, Guantanamo and in conflicts around the globe, Arabs hope America will someday become the Democracy it seeks to impose elsewhere.
Arabs know their governments abuse civil rights. They know the Muslim World mistreats women. They know the Muslim World is governed by tyrants cloaked in religious fervor that promote ignorance as a societal tranquilizer.
But we, in America, pretend everything is perfect here when it’s really not. Before Americans preach to the Arab or Muslim Worlds about Democracy, shouldn’t we practice it first?
How about truly freeing American women from the institutional discrimination that continues to deny women their full rights?
Wouldn’t it be nice if America really eliminated racism in our cities and schools and in the way we fight crime, rather than accepting a status quo where the primary victims of abuse are African Americans?
How about doing more than pretend we mean what we say when our leaders denounce post-Sept. 11 violence against Arab Americans?
Since Sept. 11, more than 14 people "who looked" Middle Eastern were the victims of hate crimes, yet those crimes have never been recognized as hate crimes and were treated as "isolated" incidents of murder where the victim happened to be different and the killer happened to utter racist threats in the killings.
All this talk about bringing Democracy to the Middle East is encouraging, but how about bringing Democracy to the American media first, the place where the message begins and drives American attitudes.
The truth is most Americans don’t spend a lot of time understanding the complex realities of the Middle East. They have no idea what is really accurate history or what even is fair. What they do know is what they see in hundreds of Hollywood movies that portray Arabs in a vicious and racist manner, or from popular fiction like Exodus which is built on the compost of anti-Arab hatred.
The conviction of Maynulet and the few others who have been charged since the illegal Iraq war began is a good start toward sending the right messages about Democracy to the Middle East.
How much more torture at Abu Gharib has been covered up? How many Iraqi civilians have been murdered in Iraq that our media doesn’t report but that the Arab media reports constantly?
But Americans still have a long and difficult way to go.
If there is one real character in being an American, it’s that we rarely ever admit that we are wrong, even when it’s so apparent to others.
END
Friday, March 25, 2005
Pantano conviction raises hope for justice and democracy, March 25, 2005
Fate of Marine will test American assertions of "justice for all"
March 25, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Marine 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano led a unit of Marines investigating reports of insurgents operating out of a home in Mahmudiyah, south of Baghdad, Iraq on April 15, 2004 when two men tried to flee the building.
The two Iraqi men jumped into an SUV but were apprehended and handcuffed after Marines disabled the vehicle by firing on the tires, disabling the vehicle. It was a perfect arrest.
A search of the house revealed some weapons although the two Iraqi men offered no resistance nor did they threaten Pantano or the Marine detachment.
But within a few minutes, something went terribly wrong. Pantano killed the two prisoners, riddling their unarmed bodies with more than 50 bullets in a hail of gunfire from him that required a reload and a second magazine cartridge.
Nearly one year later, in an interview on Dateline NBC (Sunday, March 20), Pantano insisted that he fired on the two prisoners after they moved in a manner that he felt had threatened his life.
Apparently, Pantano explained, he suspected the SUV might have explosives and he claims he unhandcuffed the prisoners and ordered them to search the vehicle for weapons and explosives.
Pantano explained he heard them whispering together and when they failed to stop after ordering them to do so in Arabic, he opened fire.
Pantano didn’t shoot to wound, maim or injure. He emptied a full magazine and then reloaded and fired another magazine from his automatic weapon at the two prisoners, riddling their body with bullets. Each magazine holds 25 to 30 bullets. The two bodies were reportedly riddled with 52 total bullets.
Like many killings by Marines of Iraqi civilians reported by the Arab media, this murder would have gone unnoticed except that one of Pantano’s Marine detachment reported the incident to a superior weeks later.
Certain facts suggested that maybe the killings were unjustified and driven by an American whose hatred of Arabs caused him to re-enlist in the Marines after Sept. 11 after having already served one pre-Sept. 11 tour.
Those facts include:
The two Iraqis were unarmed. No explosives or weapons were found in the SUV.
The two Iraqis were riddled with bullets throughout their body, including being shot repeatedly while their backs were turned. Witnesses said both were shot in the back
Pantano claims he feared the SUV was booby-trapped, but he admitted that he stood less than 10 feet from the prisoners (some reports put it at two feet) as they searched the vehicle. Someone fearing a booby-trapped vehicle would certainly have stood further away.
After the killings, Pantano put a sign on the vehicle that reflected one of the many mottos of the Marine detachment’s commanders, which read "No better friend, no worse enemy."
To Arabs, the phrase "No better friend, no worse enemy" literally translates into "The only good Arab is a dead Arab."
Pantano had served in the Marines but after Sept. 11th, he volunteered to return reportedly telling Marine interviewers "They attacked us" and he wanted to attack them back.
Of course, no Iraqis were involved in the terrorism on Sept. 11. No Iraqis were involved with al-Qaeda. But apparently to Pantano, Arabs are just that, Arabs.
Questions remain. Did Pantano intentionally over-fire at the lifeless bodies to cover up his original shots to the backs of the prisoners?
Today, Pantano faces premeditated murder charges and a hearing is scheduled for April at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Pantano’s story is being championed by hate-mongers in the media, but little is being said about the two Iraqi victims, Hamaady Kareem and Tahah Ahmead Hanjil.
They can’t tell their side of the story. No effort is being made to convey it either. Americans have been whipped up into a frenzy of racist-driven hate mislabeled as "patriotism" and clearly the American news media is censoring itself not only in its day-to-day coverage of Iraq, but in its reporting here in the United States.
It is not patriotic to murder prisoners. It is not patriotic to murder innocent men. It is not patriotic to seek to cover-up murders simply because the victims are Iraqi and the killer is an American.
Pantano’s actions reflect poorly not only on the United States Marines, but also on a nation struggling to overcome the widespread racism and hatred that has gripped many Americans and inflamed by racist talk on radio and TV stations.
Will the dead Iraqis receive justice, or will the new American hate-patriotism excuse Pantano’s deeds?
March 25, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Marine 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano led a unit of Marines investigating reports of insurgents operating out of a home in Mahmudiyah, south of Baghdad, Iraq on April 15, 2004 when two men tried to flee the building.
The two Iraqi men jumped into an SUV but were apprehended and handcuffed after Marines disabled the vehicle by firing on the tires, disabling the vehicle. It was a perfect arrest.
A search of the house revealed some weapons although the two Iraqi men offered no resistance nor did they threaten Pantano or the Marine detachment.
But within a few minutes, something went terribly wrong. Pantano killed the two prisoners, riddling their unarmed bodies with more than 50 bullets in a hail of gunfire from him that required a reload and a second magazine cartridge.
Nearly one year later, in an interview on Dateline NBC (Sunday, March 20), Pantano insisted that he fired on the two prisoners after they moved in a manner that he felt had threatened his life.
Apparently, Pantano explained, he suspected the SUV might have explosives and he claims he unhandcuffed the prisoners and ordered them to search the vehicle for weapons and explosives.
Pantano explained he heard them whispering together and when they failed to stop after ordering them to do so in Arabic, he opened fire.
Pantano didn’t shoot to wound, maim or injure. He emptied a full magazine and then reloaded and fired another magazine from his automatic weapon at the two prisoners, riddling their body with bullets. Each magazine holds 25 to 30 bullets. The two bodies were reportedly riddled with 52 total bullets.
Like many killings by Marines of Iraqi civilians reported by the Arab media, this murder would have gone unnoticed except that one of Pantano’s Marine detachment reported the incident to a superior weeks later.
Certain facts suggested that maybe the killings were unjustified and driven by an American whose hatred of Arabs caused him to re-enlist in the Marines after Sept. 11 after having already served one pre-Sept. 11 tour.
Those facts include:
The two Iraqis were unarmed. No explosives or weapons were found in the SUV.
The two Iraqis were riddled with bullets throughout their body, including being shot repeatedly while their backs were turned. Witnesses said both were shot in the back
Pantano claims he feared the SUV was booby-trapped, but he admitted that he stood less than 10 feet from the prisoners (some reports put it at two feet) as they searched the vehicle. Someone fearing a booby-trapped vehicle would certainly have stood further away.
After the killings, Pantano put a sign on the vehicle that reflected one of the many mottos of the Marine detachment’s commanders, which read "No better friend, no worse enemy."
To Arabs, the phrase "No better friend, no worse enemy" literally translates into "The only good Arab is a dead Arab."
Pantano had served in the Marines but after Sept. 11th, he volunteered to return reportedly telling Marine interviewers "They attacked us" and he wanted to attack them back.
Of course, no Iraqis were involved in the terrorism on Sept. 11. No Iraqis were involved with al-Qaeda. But apparently to Pantano, Arabs are just that, Arabs.
Questions remain. Did Pantano intentionally over-fire at the lifeless bodies to cover up his original shots to the backs of the prisoners?
Today, Pantano faces premeditated murder charges and a hearing is scheduled for April at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Pantano’s story is being championed by hate-mongers in the media, but little is being said about the two Iraqi victims, Hamaady Kareem and Tahah Ahmead Hanjil.
They can’t tell their side of the story. No effort is being made to convey it either. Americans have been whipped up into a frenzy of racist-driven hate mislabeled as "patriotism" and clearly the American news media is censoring itself not only in its day-to-day coverage of Iraq, but in its reporting here in the United States.
It is not patriotic to murder prisoners. It is not patriotic to murder innocent men. It is not patriotic to seek to cover-up murders simply because the victims are Iraqi and the killer is an American.
Pantano’s actions reflect poorly not only on the United States Marines, but also on a nation struggling to overcome the widespread racism and hatred that has gripped many Americans and inflamed by racist talk on radio and TV stations.
Will the dead Iraqis receive justice, or will the new American hate-patriotism excuse Pantano’s deeds?
Friday, March 18, 2005
Iraq war raises unanswered questions/And Timeline, March 18, 2005
Aftermath of Iraq war raises unanswered concerns
March 18, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Three years ago, and months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Bill Maher, the host of the popular show "Politically Incorrect," had the courage to say what many Americans were too emotional to recognize:
We, Americans, can just as easily fall into the trap of emotion and perpetrate untold horrors on another people in the name of a righteous and just cause, just as al-Qaeda had done on Sept. 11.
His exact words: "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building -- say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."
Maher was bullied from his pulpit and his show was immediately cancelled. Yet, two years since President Bush invaded Iraq, toppled it’s legitimate government in the name of Sept. 11 vengeance, and occupied a foreign country that did no wrong to America, some Americans are finally willing to ask the hard question, "Did we really do the right thing?"
The answer is a shockingly frank "No!" And today, Americans are paying a painful price for that unjustified action.
There was absolutely no evidence that Iraq was involved in any manner with al-Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist organization led by Osama bin Laden responsible for killing nearly 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11.
Today, however, as a result of an ongoing war Bush once declared over, al-Qaeda support has spread throughout Iraq. Suicide bombings are the weapon of choice there and the resistance against our American occupation has taken more than 1,500 American lives.
According to IraqBodyCounty.org, more than 16,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. And although the American media prides itself on reporting the brutal truth, we read very few stories about the tens of thousands of American soldiers who are quietly returning home horrifically disabled and missing limbs, and their lives are destroyed.
For what?
Democracy in Iraq? You call what we just saw Democracy? A military controlled election where people who support us are allowed to vote and dissent is discouraged?
The media in Iraq is as much the victim as the civilian population of our occupation and the "kindler and gentler dictatorship" than the one they suffered under Saddam Hussein.
News media outlets that have challenged the claims of the American occupation and who report news that the American occupation dislikes have been censored and expelled from the country. In some cases, journalists have been shot. And while the Italian journalist held hostage by dissidents claims she was shot at intentionally, she is not the only one.
Here at home, Americans are paying the price of the unreasoned emotion that has driven this wrongful policy in Iraq.
Our national debt has reversed. Instead of getting smaller, it is growing at a rapid pace, imposing all kinds of unbearable hardships on those who at the lowest rings of the economy.
The American dollar is falling against the rising Euro, the economic symbol of the very European community that opposed our invasion and opposes our policies.
Oil prices controlled by the very dictatorships we continue to support in the Middle East and elsewhere – countries who clamored for us to invade Iraq like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait -- are rising for the first time faster than they are rising in Europe where motorists there pay more than $4 for a gallon of gas.
The average American is paying about $2.40 per gallon for unleaded gas. Who still drives a vehicle that can consume the cheaper 84 octane fuel?
Most Americans have come to the reluctant realization that Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 terrorism. But our pride and the strident voices of neocons in government and in the "new media" prevents us from saying so with conviction.
The threat of being labeled "unpatriotic" still weighs heavy over those who seek the truth.
More frightening, though, is the growing fear that to distract Americans from the failure of Iraq, the neocons who control our government and drive this extremist foreign policy are now thinking about starting a new war against maybe Syria. Or Iraq. Or other nations labeled by an unjust system of measure as "tyrants" and terrorist-states.
Maher is back on the air hammering away at these questions relentlessly. But at some point, speaking out against the government will move from TV entertainment to a courageous American movement.
How many more Americans will have to die before that happens?
END
Iraq war timeline
Iraq War Timeline
Jan. 29, 2002: In his State of the Union address, President Bush calls Iraq part of an "axis of evil," and vows that the U.S. "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
June 2: President Bush publicly introduces the new defense doctrine of preemption in a speech at West Point. Sometimes, he asserts, the U.S. must strike first against another state to prevent a potential threat from growing into an actual one.
June 16, 2002: ABC cancels Bill Maher’s show Politically Incorrect after comments he made criticizing Bush.
Sept. 12: President Bush addresses the UN, challenging it to swiftly enforce its own resolutions against Iraq. If not, Bush contends, the U.S. must act on its own.
Oct. 11: Congress authorizes an attack on Iraq.
Nov. 8: The UN Security Council unanimously approves resolution 1441 imposing tough new arms inspections on Iraq.
Nov. 18: UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq for the first time in almost four years.
2003
Jan. 28, 2003: In his State of the Union address, President Bush announces that he is ready to attack Iraq even without a UN mandate.
Feb. 14: In a UN weapons inspections report on Iraq, chief inspector Hans Blix indicates that slight progress has been made in Iraq's cooperation with the weapons team.
Feb. 24–March 14: The U.S. and Britain's lobbying efforts among UN Security Council members to garner support for a strike on Iraq yield only two supporters (Spain and Bulgaria).
March 20: The war against Iraq begins 5:30 a.m. Baghdad time (9:30 p.m. EST, March 19), when the U.S. launches Operation Iraqi Freedom.
March 21: The major phase of the war begins with heavy aerial attacks on Baghdad and other cities. The campaign, publicized in advance by the Pentagon as an overwhelming barrage meant to instill "shock and awe," is actually more restrained.
March 24: Troops march within 50 miles of Baghdad. They encounter strong resistance from Iraqi soldiers and paramilitary fighters along the way.
March 26: About 1,000 paratroopers land in Kurdish-controlled Iraq to open a northern front.
March 30: U.S. Marines and Army troops launch first attack on Iraq's Republican Guard, about 65 miles outside Baghdad. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld deflects criticism that the U.S. has not deployed enough Army ground troops in Iraq.
April 2: Special operations forces rescue Pfc. Jessica Lynch from a hospital in Nasiriya. She was one of 12 soldiers captured by Iraqi troops on March 23.
April 5: U.S. tanks roll into the Iraqi capital and engage in firefights with Iraqi troops. Resistance weaker than anticipated. Heavy Iraqi casualties.
April 7: British forces take control of Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. April 9: Baghdad falls to U.S. forces. Looters pillage government buildings, museums, hospitals, and stores. Statue of Saddam Hussein symbolically toppled.
April 11: Kirkuk falls to Kurdish fighters.
April 13: Marines rescue five U.S. soldiers captured by Iraqi troops on March 23 in Nasiriya, and two pilots shot down on March 24 near Karbala.
April 15: Gen. Jay Garner is appointed by the U.S. to run post-war Iraq.
May 1: President Bush declares an end to major combat operations.
May 12: Diplomat Paul Bremer replaces Jay Garner as Iraqi administrator.
June 15–29: About 1,300 troops launch Operation Desert Scorpion, combatting organized Iraqi resistance against American troops near Falluja.
July 13: Iraq's interim governing council, composed of 25 Iraqis appointed by American and British officials, is inaugurated. American administrator Paul Bremer, however, retains ultimate authority.
July 16: Gen. John Abizaid, commander of allied forces in Iraq, calls continued attacks on coalition troops a "guerrilla-type campaign" and says soldiers who will replace current troops may be deployed for year-long tours.
July 22: Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay Hussein, die in firefight in a Mosul palace.
Aug. 19: Suicide bombing destroys UN headquarters in Baghdad, killing 24, including top envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello.
Aug. 29: A bomb kills one of Iraq's most important Shiite leaders, Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, among about 80 others.
Sept. 7: President Bush announces that $87 billion is needed to cover additional military and reconstruction costs.
Oct. 23–24: The Madrid Conference, an international conference to raise funds for Iraq's reconstruction, yields $33 billion but falls short of the target of $56 billion.
Oct. 27: Four coordinated suicide attacks in Baghdad kill 43 and wound more than 200. Targets include the headquarters of the Red Crescent and three police stations. Insurgents increasingly victimize civilians, Iraqi security forces, and aid agencies, not simply U.S. troops.
Nov. 2: Iraqi guerrillas shoot down an American helicopter, killing 16 U.S. soldiers and injuring 21 others. Additional attacks this month make it the bloodiest since the war began: at least 75 U.S. soldiers die.
Nov. 14: The Bush administration reverses policy in a deal with the Iraqi Governing Council, agreeing to transfer power to an interim government much sooner, in 2004.
Dec. 9: Directive issued by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, bars France, Germany, and Russia from bidding on lucrative contracts for rebuilding Iraq, creating a diplomatic furor.
Dec. 13: Saddam Hussein is captured by U.S. troops. He is found hiding in a hole near his hometown of Tikrit and surrenders without a fight.
Jan. 11, 2004: The Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq, says members of the country's interim government must be selected by direct vote. He opposes the U.S. plan to hold regional caucuses. The U.S. has argued that it would be impossible to ensure free and safe elections on such a tight timetable—the U.S. plans to hand control of the government to Iraqis on June 30.
Jan. 15: Thousands of Shiites hold a peaceful demonstration in Basra in support of direct elections.
Jan. 19: The U.S. asks the UN to intercede in the dispute over the elections process in Iraq.
Jan. 28: David Kay, the former head of the U.S. weapons inspection teams in Iraq, informs a senate committee that no WMD have been found in Iraq and that prewar intelligence was "almost all wrong" about Saddam Hussein's arsenal.
Feb. 2: Under pressure from both sides of the political aisle, President Bush calls for an independent commission to study intelligence failures.
Feb. 10: About 54 Iraqis are killed in a car bombing while applying for jobs at a police station. The next day an attack kills about 47 outside an army recruiting center. Iraqi security forces become a regular target of insurgents.
Feb. 23: UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi issues a report concluding that the earliest that credible, direct elections could be held is early 2005.
March 2: Suicide attacks in Karbala on Shiite Islam's most holy feast day kill more than 85 and wound 233 others. It is believed that the perpetrators are attempting to foment unrest between Shiites and Sunnis.
March 8: The Iraqi Governing Council signs interim constitution.
March 31: Iraqi mob kills and mutilates four American civilian contract workers and drags them through the streets of Falluja.
April 4: U.S. troops begin assault on Falluja in response to March 31 killings. Coordinated attacks by Shiites are launched in the cities of Kufa, Karbala, Najaf, al-Kut, and Sadr City. The militias are led by Moktada al-Sadr.
April 9: U.S. contract worker Thomas Hamill is taken hostage. In all, more than 20 foreigners have been kidnapped in Iraq, and hostage-taking becomes a regular tactic of the insurgents.
April 15: The Bush administration agrees to a UN proposal to replace the Iraqi Governing Council with a caretaker government when the U.S. returns sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30.
April 22: U.S. announces that some Iraqi Baath Party officials who had been forced out of their jobs after the fall of Saddam Hussein will be allowed to resume their positions. About 400,000 lost their jobs, draining Iraq of skilled workers.
April 30: The appalling physical and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad comes to light when photographs are released by the U.S. media. The images spark outrage around the world.
May 8: Nicholas Berg, an American contractor, is beheaded by Iraqi militants. Beheadings of foreign workers become a regular terrorist tactic.
May 17: A suicide bomber kills the head of the Governing Council, Izzedin Salim, and six others.
May 27: After seven weeks of fighting in Najaf, U.S. forces and militias loyal to al-Sadr reach a truce.
May 28: Iyad Allawi is designated prime minister of the Iraqi interim government. A Shiite neurologist, Allawi has close ties to the CIA.
June 1: Ghazi al-Yawar, a Sunni, is chosen president, a ceremonial post. The Governing Council decides to dissolve itself immediately rather than wait for the official handover of sovereignty.
June 16: The 9/11 Commission concludes in its report that there is "no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." The link between al-Qaeda and Iraq was one of the justifications for the war.
June 28: In a surprise move, the United States transfers power back to Iraqis two days early. The ceremony was held in secret to thwart attacks by Iraqi insurgents.
July 7: Prime Minister Allawi signs a law permitting him to impose martial law.
July 9: The Senate Intelligence Committee releases a unanimous, bipartisan "Report on Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq," harshly criticizing the CIA and other American intelligence agencies for the "mischaracterization of intelligence." "Most of the major key judgments" on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were "either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence report." It also concluded that there was no "established formal relationship" between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
Aug. 24: The Pentagon-sponsored Schlesinger report's investigation into the Abu Ghraib scandal calls the prisoner abuse acts of "brutality and purposeless sadism," and rejects the idea that the abuse was simply the work of a few aberrant soldiers. It asserts that there were "fundamental failures throughout all levels of command, from the soldiers on the ground to Central Command and to the Pentagon."
Aug. 27: A bloody, three-week battle in Najaf between U.S. forces and militia of militant cleric al-Sadr ends in August when Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani negotiates a settlement.
Sept. 7: U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 1,000; about 7,000 soldiers have been wounded. In August, attacks on American forces reached their highest level since the beginning of the war, an average of 87 per day. No official record of Iraqi civilian deaths is kept, but as of this date estimates range from 12,000 to 14,000 (Iraq Body Count).
Sept. 15: The Bush administration requests that the Senate divert $3.4 billion of the $18.4 billion Iraq reconstruction budget to improving security in the country. The worsening security situation—with pockets of Iraq essentially under the control of insurgents—threatens to disrupt national elections, scheduled for January. Republican and Democratic senators alike harshly criticize the request as a sign that the American campaign in Iraq has been poorly executed. Senators also denounce the slow progress in rebuilding Iraq: just 6% ($1 billion) of the reconstruction money approved by Congress has in fact been spent.
Sept. 15: In a BBC interview, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan says the war against Iraq was illegal and violated the UN Charter. The U.S., UK, and Australia vigorously reject his conclusion.
March 18, 2005
By Ray Hanania
Three years ago, and months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Bill Maher, the host of the popular show "Politically Incorrect," had the courage to say what many Americans were too emotional to recognize:
We, Americans, can just as easily fall into the trap of emotion and perpetrate untold horrors on another people in the name of a righteous and just cause, just as al-Qaeda had done on Sept. 11.
His exact words: "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building -- say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."
Maher was bullied from his pulpit and his show was immediately cancelled. Yet, two years since President Bush invaded Iraq, toppled it’s legitimate government in the name of Sept. 11 vengeance, and occupied a foreign country that did no wrong to America, some Americans are finally willing to ask the hard question, "Did we really do the right thing?"
The answer is a shockingly frank "No!" And today, Americans are paying a painful price for that unjustified action.
There was absolutely no evidence that Iraq was involved in any manner with al-Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist organization led by Osama bin Laden responsible for killing nearly 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11.
Today, however, as a result of an ongoing war Bush once declared over, al-Qaeda support has spread throughout Iraq. Suicide bombings are the weapon of choice there and the resistance against our American occupation has taken more than 1,500 American lives.
According to IraqBodyCounty.org, more than 16,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. And although the American media prides itself on reporting the brutal truth, we read very few stories about the tens of thousands of American soldiers who are quietly returning home horrifically disabled and missing limbs, and their lives are destroyed.
For what?
Democracy in Iraq? You call what we just saw Democracy? A military controlled election where people who support us are allowed to vote and dissent is discouraged?
The media in Iraq is as much the victim as the civilian population of our occupation and the "kindler and gentler dictatorship" than the one they suffered under Saddam Hussein.
News media outlets that have challenged the claims of the American occupation and who report news that the American occupation dislikes have been censored and expelled from the country. In some cases, journalists have been shot. And while the Italian journalist held hostage by dissidents claims she was shot at intentionally, she is not the only one.
Here at home, Americans are paying the price of the unreasoned emotion that has driven this wrongful policy in Iraq.
Our national debt has reversed. Instead of getting smaller, it is growing at a rapid pace, imposing all kinds of unbearable hardships on those who at the lowest rings of the economy.
The American dollar is falling against the rising Euro, the economic symbol of the very European community that opposed our invasion and opposes our policies.
Oil prices controlled by the very dictatorships we continue to support in the Middle East and elsewhere – countries who clamored for us to invade Iraq like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait -- are rising for the first time faster than they are rising in Europe where motorists there pay more than $4 for a gallon of gas.
The average American is paying about $2.40 per gallon for unleaded gas. Who still drives a vehicle that can consume the cheaper 84 octane fuel?
Most Americans have come to the reluctant realization that Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 terrorism. But our pride and the strident voices of neocons in government and in the "new media" prevents us from saying so with conviction.
The threat of being labeled "unpatriotic" still weighs heavy over those who seek the truth.
More frightening, though, is the growing fear that to distract Americans from the failure of Iraq, the neocons who control our government and drive this extremist foreign policy are now thinking about starting a new war against maybe Syria. Or Iraq. Or other nations labeled by an unjust system of measure as "tyrants" and terrorist-states.
Maher is back on the air hammering away at these questions relentlessly. But at some point, speaking out against the government will move from TV entertainment to a courageous American movement.
How many more Americans will have to die before that happens?
END
Iraq war timeline
Iraq War Timeline
Jan. 29, 2002: In his State of the Union address, President Bush calls Iraq part of an "axis of evil," and vows that the U.S. "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
June 2: President Bush publicly introduces the new defense doctrine of preemption in a speech at West Point. Sometimes, he asserts, the U.S. must strike first against another state to prevent a potential threat from growing into an actual one.
June 16, 2002: ABC cancels Bill Maher’s show Politically Incorrect after comments he made criticizing Bush.
Sept. 12: President Bush addresses the UN, challenging it to swiftly enforce its own resolutions against Iraq. If not, Bush contends, the U.S. must act on its own.
Oct. 11: Congress authorizes an attack on Iraq.
Nov. 8: The UN Security Council unanimously approves resolution 1441 imposing tough new arms inspections on Iraq.
Nov. 18: UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq for the first time in almost four years.
2003
Jan. 28, 2003: In his State of the Union address, President Bush announces that he is ready to attack Iraq even without a UN mandate.
Feb. 14: In a UN weapons inspections report on Iraq, chief inspector Hans Blix indicates that slight progress has been made in Iraq's cooperation with the weapons team.
Feb. 24–March 14: The U.S. and Britain's lobbying efforts among UN Security Council members to garner support for a strike on Iraq yield only two supporters (Spain and Bulgaria).
March 20: The war against Iraq begins 5:30 a.m. Baghdad time (9:30 p.m. EST, March 19), when the U.S. launches Operation Iraqi Freedom.
March 21: The major phase of the war begins with heavy aerial attacks on Baghdad and other cities. The campaign, publicized in advance by the Pentagon as an overwhelming barrage meant to instill "shock and awe," is actually more restrained.
March 24: Troops march within 50 miles of Baghdad. They encounter strong resistance from Iraqi soldiers and paramilitary fighters along the way.
March 26: About 1,000 paratroopers land in Kurdish-controlled Iraq to open a northern front.
March 30: U.S. Marines and Army troops launch first attack on Iraq's Republican Guard, about 65 miles outside Baghdad. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld deflects criticism that the U.S. has not deployed enough Army ground troops in Iraq.
April 2: Special operations forces rescue Pfc. Jessica Lynch from a hospital in Nasiriya. She was one of 12 soldiers captured by Iraqi troops on March 23.
April 5: U.S. tanks roll into the Iraqi capital and engage in firefights with Iraqi troops. Resistance weaker than anticipated. Heavy Iraqi casualties.
April 7: British forces take control of Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. April 9: Baghdad falls to U.S. forces. Looters pillage government buildings, museums, hospitals, and stores. Statue of Saddam Hussein symbolically toppled.
April 11: Kirkuk falls to Kurdish fighters.
April 13: Marines rescue five U.S. soldiers captured by Iraqi troops on March 23 in Nasiriya, and two pilots shot down on March 24 near Karbala.
April 15: Gen. Jay Garner is appointed by the U.S. to run post-war Iraq.
May 1: President Bush declares an end to major combat operations.
May 12: Diplomat Paul Bremer replaces Jay Garner as Iraqi administrator.
June 15–29: About 1,300 troops launch Operation Desert Scorpion, combatting organized Iraqi resistance against American troops near Falluja.
July 13: Iraq's interim governing council, composed of 25 Iraqis appointed by American and British officials, is inaugurated. American administrator Paul Bremer, however, retains ultimate authority.
July 16: Gen. John Abizaid, commander of allied forces in Iraq, calls continued attacks on coalition troops a "guerrilla-type campaign" and says soldiers who will replace current troops may be deployed for year-long tours.
July 22: Saddam Hussein's sons, Uday and Qusay Hussein, die in firefight in a Mosul palace.
Aug. 19: Suicide bombing destroys UN headquarters in Baghdad, killing 24, including top envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello.
Aug. 29: A bomb kills one of Iraq's most important Shiite leaders, Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, among about 80 others.
Sept. 7: President Bush announces that $87 billion is needed to cover additional military and reconstruction costs.
Oct. 23–24: The Madrid Conference, an international conference to raise funds for Iraq's reconstruction, yields $33 billion but falls short of the target of $56 billion.
Oct. 27: Four coordinated suicide attacks in Baghdad kill 43 and wound more than 200. Targets include the headquarters of the Red Crescent and three police stations. Insurgents increasingly victimize civilians, Iraqi security forces, and aid agencies, not simply U.S. troops.
Nov. 2: Iraqi guerrillas shoot down an American helicopter, killing 16 U.S. soldiers and injuring 21 others. Additional attacks this month make it the bloodiest since the war began: at least 75 U.S. soldiers die.
Nov. 14: The Bush administration reverses policy in a deal with the Iraqi Governing Council, agreeing to transfer power to an interim government much sooner, in 2004.
Dec. 9: Directive issued by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, bars France, Germany, and Russia from bidding on lucrative contracts for rebuilding Iraq, creating a diplomatic furor.
Dec. 13: Saddam Hussein is captured by U.S. troops. He is found hiding in a hole near his hometown of Tikrit and surrenders without a fight.
Jan. 11, 2004: The Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq, says members of the country's interim government must be selected by direct vote. He opposes the U.S. plan to hold regional caucuses. The U.S. has argued that it would be impossible to ensure free and safe elections on such a tight timetable—the U.S. plans to hand control of the government to Iraqis on June 30.
Jan. 15: Thousands of Shiites hold a peaceful demonstration in Basra in support of direct elections.
Jan. 19: The U.S. asks the UN to intercede in the dispute over the elections process in Iraq.
Jan. 28: David Kay, the former head of the U.S. weapons inspection teams in Iraq, informs a senate committee that no WMD have been found in Iraq and that prewar intelligence was "almost all wrong" about Saddam Hussein's arsenal.
Feb. 2: Under pressure from both sides of the political aisle, President Bush calls for an independent commission to study intelligence failures.
Feb. 10: About 54 Iraqis are killed in a car bombing while applying for jobs at a police station. The next day an attack kills about 47 outside an army recruiting center. Iraqi security forces become a regular target of insurgents.
Feb. 23: UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi issues a report concluding that the earliest that credible, direct elections could be held is early 2005.
March 2: Suicide attacks in Karbala on Shiite Islam's most holy feast day kill more than 85 and wound 233 others. It is believed that the perpetrators are attempting to foment unrest between Shiites and Sunnis.
March 8: The Iraqi Governing Council signs interim constitution.
March 31: Iraqi mob kills and mutilates four American civilian contract workers and drags them through the streets of Falluja.
April 4: U.S. troops begin assault on Falluja in response to March 31 killings. Coordinated attacks by Shiites are launched in the cities of Kufa, Karbala, Najaf, al-Kut, and Sadr City. The militias are led by Moktada al-Sadr.
April 9: U.S. contract worker Thomas Hamill is taken hostage. In all, more than 20 foreigners have been kidnapped in Iraq, and hostage-taking becomes a regular tactic of the insurgents.
April 15: The Bush administration agrees to a UN proposal to replace the Iraqi Governing Council with a caretaker government when the U.S. returns sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30.
April 22: U.S. announces that some Iraqi Baath Party officials who had been forced out of their jobs after the fall of Saddam Hussein will be allowed to resume their positions. About 400,000 lost their jobs, draining Iraq of skilled workers.
April 30: The appalling physical and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad comes to light when photographs are released by the U.S. media. The images spark outrage around the world.
May 8: Nicholas Berg, an American contractor, is beheaded by Iraqi militants. Beheadings of foreign workers become a regular terrorist tactic.
May 17: A suicide bomber kills the head of the Governing Council, Izzedin Salim, and six others.
May 27: After seven weeks of fighting in Najaf, U.S. forces and militias loyal to al-Sadr reach a truce.
May 28: Iyad Allawi is designated prime minister of the Iraqi interim government. A Shiite neurologist, Allawi has close ties to the CIA.
June 1: Ghazi al-Yawar, a Sunni, is chosen president, a ceremonial post. The Governing Council decides to dissolve itself immediately rather than wait for the official handover of sovereignty.
June 16: The 9/11 Commission concludes in its report that there is "no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." The link between al-Qaeda and Iraq was one of the justifications for the war.
June 28: In a surprise move, the United States transfers power back to Iraqis two days early. The ceremony was held in secret to thwart attacks by Iraqi insurgents.
July 7: Prime Minister Allawi signs a law permitting him to impose martial law.
July 9: The Senate Intelligence Committee releases a unanimous, bipartisan "Report on Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq," harshly criticizing the CIA and other American intelligence agencies for the "mischaracterization of intelligence." "Most of the major key judgments" on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were "either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence report." It also concluded that there was no "established formal relationship" between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
Aug. 24: The Pentagon-sponsored Schlesinger report's investigation into the Abu Ghraib scandal calls the prisoner abuse acts of "brutality and purposeless sadism," and rejects the idea that the abuse was simply the work of a few aberrant soldiers. It asserts that there were "fundamental failures throughout all levels of command, from the soldiers on the ground to Central Command and to the Pentagon."
Aug. 27: A bloody, three-week battle in Najaf between U.S. forces and militia of militant cleric al-Sadr ends in August when Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani negotiates a settlement.
Sept. 7: U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 1,000; about 7,000 soldiers have been wounded. In August, attacks on American forces reached their highest level since the beginning of the war, an average of 87 per day. No official record of Iraqi civilian deaths is kept, but as of this date estimates range from 12,000 to 14,000 (Iraq Body Count).
Sept. 15: The Bush administration requests that the Senate divert $3.4 billion of the $18.4 billion Iraq reconstruction budget to improving security in the country. The worsening security situation—with pockets of Iraq essentially under the control of insurgents—threatens to disrupt national elections, scheduled for January. Republican and Democratic senators alike harshly criticize the request as a sign that the American campaign in Iraq has been poorly executed. Senators also denounce the slow progress in rebuilding Iraq: just 6% ($1 billion) of the reconstruction money approved by Congress has in fact been spent.
Sept. 15: In a BBC interview, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan says the war against Iraq was illegal and violated the UN Charter. The U.S., UK, and Australia vigorously reject his conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)