My Irshain

2009-02-11T10:14:00.000-05:00

A New Mideast Approach

By Yousef Munayyer
Saturday, January 24, 2009; A13

The Obama administration appointed former senator George Mitchell as its special envoy to the Middle East this week in a positive step toward resolving the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While a fragile cease-fire has brought a temporary halt to the recent bloodshed in Gaza, the outburst of violence at the end of the Bush administration was the culmination of eight more years of failed U.S. policy. The new administration will need to break with that policy if it is to make progress toward ending the conflict.

The Bush policy can be divided into two periods. Initially, the administration sought to marginalize Yasser Arafat and pushed for the democratization of the Palestinian Authority. President Bush supported the Palestinian presidential election of 2005 and supported the Palestinian parliamentary elections early the next year -- until he saw the outcome of the vote.

The election of Hamas in January 2006, and the faltering of the longest-ruling party in Palestinian politics, was a wake-up call. The administration, understanding the pressure that Islamic movements were putting on regimes in the Middle East, shifted to "bolstering the moderates." The goal became marginalizing Hamas through economic sanctions and siege, while funding and supporting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

But this tactic of backing "our guy in the fight" achieved results much like those of the Cold War-era tactics it resembled. Ideology-driven civil conflict has raged on. Neither side has moved toward peace or security.

To make real progress toward a lasting peace, a fundamental shift in U.S. policy is needed. Simply put, a divided Palestinian partner can never make serious concessions to arrive at a lasting agreement when it is viewed as legitimate by only half of its population.

The United States must work to forge a unified Palestinian partner and must be wary of the dynamics of legitimacy in domestic Palestinian politics. Attempts to continue aligning Mahmoud Abbas with Israel against Hamas only serve to erode Abbas's legitimacy among his people. And Abbas's Fatah party members will continue to be targeted by domestic opposition as "sellouts." This appearance of submission contributed to their defeat in the 2006 parliamentary elections.

Rather than seeking to bolster the moderates in this conflict, the Obama administration should focus on moderating the extremists. The idea of eliminating Hamas could not be seriously proposed by anyone with any knowledge of domestic Palestinian politics. The notion that Hamas is a primarily militant organization based in Gaza ignores the movement's vast support in the West Bank and elsewhere.

Dealing with Hamas and groups such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Islamic Jihad in arenas of legitimacy, such as elections, negates the possibility that outside parties will spoil peace negotiations.

Those who would resolve the conflict must understand that such parties and groups, often labeled rejectionist, are not primarily ideologically based and are not monolithic. They, like most political parties, are beholden to a constituency.

Yet while their politics are not always the same, the political alliances between them are far stronger than any ideological divisions. For example, consider the image of the Islamist Khaled Meshal of Hamas seated next to communist George Habash at rejectionist party conferences.

Yes, Hamas and other groups must stop the violence. But the process cannot begin by demanding that they recognize Israel.

The support for rejectionist parties in Palestinian politics, Islamist or otherwise, comes straight out of the refugee camps. Gaza has the highest concentration of refugees; nearly half of the population shares in the personal experience of dispossession.

Asking rejectionist parties to recognize Israel's right to exist, thereby justifying the displacement of the majority of their constituents, is not something that could be agreed to under today's circumstances. Most Palestinians owe their tragedies to the very genesis of Israel.

The key to real progress in resolving the conflict is, and has always been, providing a just resolution to the refugee issue. While a resolution will not be easy or immediate, a significant step in the right direction would be an acknowledgment from the state of Israel of at least partial responsibility for creating the refugee problem.

Such a statement, made in a serious and genuine tone and supported by American mediation, would destroy the perception held among many in the Middle East that Israel does not want peace. This, in turn, would begin to moderate the extremists.

The territorial outline for a two-state solution is largely agreed upon, even by some rejectionists. What remains outstanding is a just resolution for the refugee issue. The Obama administration should begin by tackling this necessary step toward comprehensive and lasting Arab-Israeli peace.

2009-01-13T15:57:00.003-05:00

Gaza:USA

Putting the Destruction in Perspective

On Scale to the United States (1.5M :300M) these are the numbers

262 Gazans who died during the siege for lack of medical treatment or supplies = 52,400 Americans (almost as much as died in Vietnam)

971 Gazans who died in the last 18 days = 194,200 Americans (almost 10 times the number which died at the battle of Antietam in the Civil War, Americas bloodiest day)

Civilians per Square Kilometer where

….Hamas is launching Rockets: 654 (For every Square meter that is targeted .6 Israelis are in the way, much of this is desert)

….Israel is dropping bombs from land, air and see: 4118 (For every Square meter that is targeted 4.1 Gazans are in the way, all of this is built up urban centers)

The most accurate bombs Israel has have a 5 meter accuracy radius from the center of the laser locked target, the shell that hit the UN school for example had an accuracy radius of 30 meters.

Kinda puts things in perspective.

2009-01-13T11:37:00.001-05:00

An analogy of my own

A couple years ago they destroyed all our power plants. When the Canadian jets flew over head we knew the worst was to come. They had already crippled our defenses. We have no tanks or planes left. Our ICBMs and Silos were all destroyed, Area 51 and NORAD gone. For years they had been jailing our armed forces. They even colluded with Mexico to prevent us from crossing the border. Then the sanctions came. Food was becoming scarce; there were no jobs and malnutrition reached third world levels. They build walls around the land borders. Concrete walls 20 yards high with snipers waiting to pick off anyone trying to make a jail break. The economy came to a halt. No fuel meant no transportation of goods or people.

They decided how much electricity we could have since they prevented us from making our own. Lights didn’t work and I haven’t been able to use my XBOX 360 for three years now. For dinner, we eat bread, sometimes rice if the rations get to us. My mom pretends to cook on the stove so my younger siblings will think all is well. The pot is always empty though, because there is no cooking gas permitted into America by the Canadians. They prevented aid trucks from coming in. The Canadian Navy blockaded our shores.

All of this because we elected a government the Canadians did not like. Yeah, our government thinks Toronto and Ottawa should be American land and maybe we do to. Our government thinks that Americans should be able to go to Toronto or Ottawa especially if their ancestral roots are there. But the Canadians will have none of it. So this means you get to choke us into submission?

We dug tunnels under the border with Mexico. We try to bring in food. The resistance tries to bring in weapons. The Canadians are cowards. They want us to die and submit but don’t have the courage to come to America - they want to strangle us from far away. They put up walls so they don’t have to be reminded of their crimes. We can’t go out and fight them but we will not sit here and die.

We’ve been able to fashion some home-made rockets from old sewage pipes. Some can fly a few miles. At least they make it to the outside world. They won’t do much damage but at least they will get over the walls. Maybe, just maybe someone will see what happening here in America, maybe when the Canadians are reminded that we exist and that their crimes will be exposed maybe then they will change, maybe then the world will act. What government in the world would stand to see it’s people strangled?

They may come to kill us but what have we to loose? First they promised us progress if we showed them democracy and they reacted to our elections by making our daily lives worse than ever before. Then they tried to blame our government for doing this to us but it is not our ships blockading the sea, or our bombs dropping on our heads, or our walls enclosing us. It is their crime, not ours.

No matter how hard the Canadians try, no matter how many of us they starve or kill, they will never kill our desire for freedom. Freedom is an American value. Freedom is a Palestinian value.

And our tell-tale heart will not stop beating.

2009-01-11T22:16:00.007-05:00

What we need from a cease-fire

A tenable and successful cease-fire between Israel and Hamas must be based on the premise that both parties do not want to return to the stalemated situation which left many dead, with little accomplished, and at the same time must be put into the context of moving forward with a final agreement to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

For this to happen, a cease-fire agreement should be based on the same terms as the last cease-fire agreement with one caveat; this time it should be enforced.

During the cease-fire agreement, which called for an end to rocket fire by Hamas and an end to blockade by Israel, rocket fire dropped drastically however the Israel blockade continued. To be fair, rocket fire did not stop completely but dropped 95% during the cease-fire. The blockade however was not eased proportionally.

For Gaza’s largely refugee and impoverished population to survive, approximately 625 truckloads of food are needed. On the best days during the cease-fire, Israel permitted only 125. This part of the story, which the American media has failed to relay, indicates that Hamas was willing to comply for the majority of the cease-fire despite Israeli noncompliance.The numbers in the

illuminating chart on the left are based on Israeli Statistics. The numbers on trucks needed to meet basic food requirements are from the UN.

An end to this most recent part of the conflict will require an enforcement mechanism. One solution could be placing international monitors on the exit and entry points of the Gaza Strip to monitor and secure the steady flow of supplies. Trucks should be inspected to ensure rockets are not smuggled in, but at the same time a steady supply of food and fuel should be guaranteed. Hamas must be held accountable for rocket fire if the supplies flow into Gaza and their compliance is likely given their desire to gain legitimacy on a regional level and their past compliance with the previous cease-fire.

Enforcement will go a long way to bringing stability and security to the people of Gaza and Israel, but it is only one piece of the larger puzzle; getting negotiations back on track after this devastating and bloody diversion. For this reason, the cease-fire agreement must come as part of a new and necessary framework in US and international policy toward the conflict in general. Since Hamas’ election in 2006, in elections which were supported vehemently by the Bush Administration prior to the counting of the ballots, the US and Israel have worked largely to marginalize Hamas and move forward with negotiation without them.

But even observers with cursory knowledge of the conflict will understand that no lasting and durable agreement between Israelis and Palestinians can come about without a unified Palestinian partner. Even though the Bush administration argues its policies have worked to “bolster the moderates” and support the likes of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abass, the policies have in fact largely undercut support for Abass domestically by constantly putting him in a position where he sides with Israel against Hamas. Because this policy is largely ignorant of internal Palestinian dynamics, it has created a situation where the moderates it claims to bolster are in an increasingly weaker position, and groups like Hamas have grown stronger.

The best and most reliable way to remove Hamas from power is to allow the Palestinian people to vote them out, just as they voted them in. So long as US and Israeli policies continue to give Hamas an excuse for governing and providing security for the people of Gaza, they will only weaken the moderates, perpetuate division in Palestinian society, and delay any real and lasting agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

This must begin with a cease-fire in Gaza, with fair and equal enforcement, and a respect for lives on both sides of the border. Putting a greater value on Israeli lives than Palestinians ones only perpetuates an imbalance in policy and death tolls and in inability to broker an agreement.

But the cease-fire is the starting point in what must be a fundamental shift in US policy, justified by many years of failed policy, which places responsibility on all parties for complying with agreements and does not hesitate to enforce them.

Ultimately, negotiating with a democratic, representative and all-inclusive Palestinian leadership is the only way to ensure that spoilers will not interfere with negotiations and that the Palestinian negotiating partner has the legitimacy to sign a potentially unpopular agreements.

It falls on the incoming Obama administration to promptly make these changes after several years of failed Bush Administration policy, if we are ever going to see peace in the Middle East.

2009-01-07T10:38:00.002-05:00

OP-ED I wrote on November 5th, 2008 on Israeli Cease-fire Violation (Not Accepted for Publication)

While millions of American viewers and journalists where anxiously waiting to see which states would go red and which would go blue last Tuesday night, an Israeli strike left 6 Palestinians dead in the Gaza strip and Hamas responded with dozens of rockets.

The most significant threat to a 5-month truce between the two parties serves as a sobering reminder of the daunting tasks which await President-Elect Obama as he prepares for office. Upcoming events also suggest that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict maybe the first foreign policy crisis the next administration will have to deal with after inauguration.

It seemed, after the Egyptian brokered truce, that Israel and Hamas were biding time, licking their wounds, and preparing for major changes in the political landscape. There is no doubt that foreign countries and parties, like Israel and Hamas, understand the ineffectiveness of a lame duck president and know that legitimacy is a key characteristic of a viable negotiating partner. However, change is not only coming in American leadership. One could argue that right now in the United States, Israel and the Palestinian Authority we witness a lame duck trifecta.

The could be Prime Minister of Israel Tzivpi Livni, taking over for an embattled Ehud Olmert, currently leads the Kadima Party. However, she was unable to create a coalition government leading to necessary national elections in early February 2009. Livni, relatively unknown in Israeli Politics 5 years ago, leads a party that is void of traditional leadership. Kadima was formed by Ariel Sharon, who’s hawkish record garnered him the legitimacy among right-wingers to make legitimate concessions. With Olmert- Sharon’s pick to carry Kadima- marginalized, this formerly unshakable party faces a crisis of legitimacy.

On the Palestinian side things are also very unclear. The 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections, encouraged by President Bush, lead to the election of a Hamas government and a bloody divide between Palestinian political parties. Now Palestinians are dealing with their own legitimacy crisis because President Mahmoud Abass, leader of the Fatah party, is arguing for a one year extension of his term as president while Hamas and other Palestinian parties refute the claim. Interestingly polls of the Palestinian electorate indicate that if Presidential elections were held today Fatah would receive the edge over Hamas by about 14 percentage points, however, the majority of Palestinians, 63% believe Abass’ term ends in January 2009 and not in January 2010, as Abass claims.

If a peace agreement is to be reached between the two parties it will take difficult concessions. And because leadership on both sides are tied to emotional and nationalistic electorates, it is unlikely that any credible concessions will come from weak or illegitimate leaders.

For President Obama this will be the greatest challenge when he first engages the Israelis and Palestinians as the new American interlocutor. Ironically, it maybe he alone which can solve this problem of legitimacy. If the new administration plays an active role in negotiations, offering both carrots and sticks to both sides, leadership can argue to their domestic audiences that their hands are tied by outside powers. If an American policy toward the conflict is even handed, and both sides are rewarded and punished for their behavior, domestic audiences will have faith in the process and the mediator. However, if President Obama does not carry out an even handed policy we are likely to see a continuation of conflict and defection of both parties from negotiations. Israelis and Palestinians, the entire Middle East, and our own economic and national security interests cannot afford this.

The biggest mistake President Obama can make is to largely ignore this conflict until has last year in office like his two predecessors. There is little doubt that upcoming events will put the Israeli/Palestinian conflict at the forefront of foreign policy priorities in Obama’s first weeks. And, because of the centrality of the conflict to a region where America is at War in Iraq, attempting to curb terror, and hoping to prevent nuclear proliferation, one must hope that President Obama is ready to roll up his sleeves and succeed in dealing with one foreign policy issue where his predecessors have failed miserably.

2008-12-31T08:28:00.001-05:00

chicagotribune.com

Struggle for peace

Obama has to take control of mediating Mideast conflict

By Yousef Munayyer

December 30, 2008

In Israel, it is time to be tough. Not because being tough will stop rocket fire from the Gaza Strip, but because being tough will get you elected. With elections upcoming, the incumbents have a direct advantage over the challengers because they are in the position to create, and act upon, issues of national security to prove their ability to handle these challenges. This of course proves very useful when Benjamin Netanyahu, the front-runner for prime minister, has been campaigning on a platform of security and attacking the incumbents as too soft.

The situation we see in Gaza today is one that was escalated by Israel and particularly the decision-makers in government. We have a very short-term memory when it comes to daily reports of rocket attacks so we often forget important events in sequence that brought us to this point.

Israel and Hamas were at their most peaceful state in the history of their coexistence for five months this year. During the Egyptian-brokered truce, aggressive attacks plummeted and for the first time in years, the alarm sirens indicating incoming rocket attacks had largely fallen silent.

All of this changed, however, on Nov. 4. While the world was in awe at an American election, Israel launched an aerial strike killing four people in Gaza it claimed were digging a tunnel to smuggle weapons. Yet this, the largest violation of the truce, was swept under the rug by a tsunami of U.S. election coverage. Hamas responded with rockets, and then Israel quickly reapplied a tight blockade, bringing us back to the cycle of violence.

While the world was busy with Barack Obama's historic victory, those in charge in Israel were laying the foundation of a pre-election opportunity to flex their muscles before their electorate. This is not new in Israel; in fact, it is standard practice in a country where security is such an important concern. We may remember Ariel Sharon's visit to the sacred Temple Mount, in a swarm of armed guards, right before the election in 2001. The intifada, or Palestinian uprising, which ensued, led the Israeli electorate to choose a right-wing hard-liner like Sharon over Ehud Barak.

Hanging in the balance of this election strategy are the lives of 1.5 million people in Gaza, already desperate for a normal life, and thousands more on the Israeli side who are tired of rocket attacks.

Though few are talking about it, this may be the most significant series of events in the history of the conflict. The two-state solution is on the line in the next several years because of ever-changing realities on the ground.

If President-elect Barack Obama does not take quick control of mediating the peace process after he assumes office, peace will not come during his administration and the two-state solution may effectively be dead.

Now, in this critical point in transition the players involved must align in favor of reaching an agreement and this can only happen with a unified Palestinian partner.

If peace talks fail to get off the ground during an Obama administration, we will look back at this point in time, and this important sequence of events, and realize how things could have been different. There has never been a more important time than now for American intervention in this conflict.

There is no doubt Israelis should have the right to security, just as Palestinians should have the right to security, but the current situation is leading to a lack of security for both peoples long into the future.

What Israel learned from the 33-day war with Hezbollah in 2006 was that the quickest and most efficient way to end rocket fire was armistice. Israel had that with a cease-fire with Hamas, and this can be achieved again but it will take quick and direct American involvement.

The recipe to cease-fire is simple: All cross-border attacks must cease and all blockades must end. Perhaps several months ago the Egyptians had the leverage to broker an agreement, but the situation has escalated beyond that now. It's time for the United States to step in because the long-term stakes are much greater than the short-term goals of politicians in Israel or Hamas.

Yousef Munayyer is a policy analyst for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

2008-12-21T08:15:00.001-05:00

Ignoring the plight in Gaza

By Yousef Munayyer | December 21, 2008

THE LIGHTS are out in Gaza again and few are paying attention. The 1.5 million Palestinians living in the densely populated strip are being collectively punished once more, while Israel attempts to strangle the Hamas government. The UN agency that feeds hundreds of thousands of people is unable to get supplies in because the border is closed, and a plea from UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has been ignored.

Today, Gaza is a horrifying and miserable place. In many areas, the air smells like human waste because of failures in the sewage system that have led to raw sewage overflows. Mosquitoes swarm throughout the area.

When Israel first withdrew its settlers from Gaza in the fall of 2005, it followed the withdrawal with a campaign of sonic booms. Terrifying noises banged through the night. Children began displaying zombie-like behavior and consistently complained of nightmares. Miscarriages rose dramatically during this period.

After Hamas was democratically elected, sanctions followed and the grip began to tighten on the Gaza Strip. Fuel supplies ran short, malnutrition rose, and Gaza's only power plant could not be relied on to provide electricity. Store shelves were often empty of food, and many who were already impoverished were now struggling even more.

And what, if anything, has been gained by all this? If the objective was to diminish public support for the Hamas government, it is hardly working.

Some public-opinion polling of Palestinians has consistently showed that Hamas remains as popular today as it was before it was elected. Some polls also indicate that Hamas garners its highest approval ratings when the collective measures against the Gaza Strip have been most punitive.

But aside from the fact that the Israeli policy of collective punishment, and world complacency to it, is counterproductive, there is a greater problem with this policy: It is morally reprehensible.

In 1949, when Soviets had surrounded Berlin and were ready to choke a war-torn population into submission, the Western world refused to stand silent. In the boldest move in the history of the Cold War, the United States spearheaded an airlift of food and supplies to Berlin, flying in the face of Soviet oppression, confident the Soviets would not fire upon humanitarian aid.

Where, one has to wonder, is that moral courage now?

I am not asking President Bush or President-elect Obama to declare "Ana Ghazawi," the Palestinian equivalent of "Ich bin ein Berliner." Rather, the United States should strongly state to Israel that this failed policy is only hurting innocent civilians and is making Israel and the United States look terrible in the process. While Hamas must moderate its positions if it is to be considered a legitimate political player, this policy has failed to change Hamas.

The collective punishment in Gaza has left a deep and troubling scar on America's image in the world and has hindered our ability to maneuver politically in the region. If we are truly living in a new era, and change has come, let us hope it will come for the innocent civilians in Gaza too.

Yousef Munayyer is a policy analyst for the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

2008-11-22T16:59:00.001-05:00

End counterproductive racial profiling

Yousef Munayyer

Friday, November 21, 2008

Racial or ethnic profiling is nothing new. In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Arabs and Muslims in America are often the targets of ethnic profiling, despite the argument that racial and ethnic profiling runs contrary to American values. Counterterrorism strategists argue that targeting particular ethnicities or races during investigation is a more efficient way to catch perpetrators. They may also argue that while not all Arabs and Muslims are terrorists, all the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11 were Arabs or Muslims.

Yet the greatest damage done by this practice is not violation of civil liberties but this: Profiling doesn't work.

A recent study on a secret Department of Homeland Security operation code-named "Frontline" and spearheaded by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, revealed damning evidence against the use of ethnic or racial profiling in counterterror operations.

Operation Frontline was designed to "detect, deter and disrupt terror operations" among immigrants during the months leading up to the presidential election.

An analysis of data obtained from the Department of Homeland Security through a lawsuit showed that an astounding 79 percent of the targets investigated were immigrants from Muslim-majority countries.

This policy was exposed by the numbers, despite numerous reassurances from DHS that racial, ethnic and religious criteria were not the basis of its investigations.

The number of arrests made under national-security related charges? Zero.

To put this in context, immigrants from Muslim countries were 1,280 times more likely to be targeted for investigations than immigrants from other countries. Despite that, not one national security-related charge was levied, even though the investigation targeted hundreds of immigrants who "fit a terrorist profile."

One would think that such a massively inefficient policy would serve as a lesson for other law enforcement agencies. Yet the FBI is about to begin operating Dec. 1 under new attorney general guidelines that allow ethnic background, race and religion to be part of the criteria for launching investigations. This is a policy that flies in the face of everything we've come to know about the efficiency of racial profiling.

Racial and ethnic profiling is a genuine and important national security concern. Criticizing racial profiling can no longer be characterized by the right as the policy of dovish, immigrant-loving liberals. We know now that every dollar spent targeting innocent Arabs or Muslims could have been spent developing or following legitimate leads.

The Obama administration and the new Congress should make a legislative priority to ban racial profiling, without the loopholes that exist today, from all levels of law enforcement. The federal government should institute a system of data collection to ensure racial profiling is not being conducted illegally.

The End Racial Profiling Act would do just that, and is long overdue. As Operation Frontline and other operations have made clear, racial profiling is not aiding counterterrorism efforts but instead, unfortunately, impeding them.

Yousef Munayyer is a policy analyst for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in Washington, D.C. For more information, go to www.adc.org.

2008-10-16T07:44:00.004-04:00

FBI takes step back on civil rights

BY YOUSEF MUNAYYER • October 16, 2008

There are times when the U.S. government allows politics to interfere with policy and ends up shooting itself in the foot. Guidelines set to take effect Dec. 1 for the FBI may be a perfect example.

Issued by Attorney General Michael Mukasey's Department of Justice, the new guidelines for FBI agents will be a dangerous step back into J. Edgar Hoover's era of disregard for civil rights and civil liberties.

The guidelines permit agents to use criteria such as national origin, travel history, race or ethnic background as part of opening an investigation. Ironically, the attorney general's original guidelines in this area were established to curb such profiling, after information surfaced about the unwarranted investigation of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

These new guidelines represent a danger to the Arab- and Muslim-American community in particular, but to all Americans as well. In the era in which we live, it has almost become cliché -- sadly -- to point out that an attack on one American's civil liberties is an attack on all Americans and the American ideal.

But, to all Americans, the danger of this new policy is less romantic than that. The reality is that little or no scientific evidence supports the idea that racial profiling actually works. This alone should make every American concerned about the massive inefficiencies in the use of resources by the FBI in national security, an area in which we cannot afford to misappropriate one cent.

Furthermore, the guidelines will put a strain on a relationship that, contrary to racial profiling, has been proved to lead to the arrests of terror suspects. For years, leaders of the Arab- and Muslim-American community have been working with the FBI, and other law enforcement throughout the country, to break down barriers and create trust.

For these leaders, convincing community members that federal law enforcement is trustworthy after a long history of less-than-pleasant encounters is not an easy task. From Operation Boulder, a spying operation targeting Arab Americans initiated by President Richard Nixon in 1972, to the post-9/11 response, law-abiding Arab and Muslim Americans have often been unfairly targeted by law enforcement officials.

Still, community leaders and organizations have made great strides into bridging this gap and have created the type of cooperation that stops terror. This cooperation, for example, led to the FBI's breakup of a terror cell, the Lackawana Six, in Buffalo, N.Y., in 2002, which was greatly aided by a tip from the Arab and Muslim community in the area. Or other various cooperative meetings between FBI agents and Muslim community leaders to combat radicalization at the grassroots level.

Sadly, these new guidelines will put this relationship at risk. The FBI has taken steps to reach out to community members to develop and maintain a relationship precisely because solid human intelligence is invaluable when it comes to stopping crime.

The question that remains is: Does the Department of Justice realize how much more difficult the FBI's job will become if this relationship is in jeopardy, or do they simply not care?

The new guidelines come to light at a curious time, so close to a national election that may pivot on questions of national security and patriotism.

One cannot but wonder how much of this policy-making is being motivated by politics instead of a genuine interest in national security. It's time to focus on the types of methods that put terrorists behind bars, not those geared toward putting politicians in office.

YOUSEF MUNAYYER is special assistant to the president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in Washington, and a doctoral student at the University of Maryland. Contact him at yousef@adc.org.

2008-08-01T16:18:00.001-04:00

chicagotribune.com

New view on Mideast needed

By Yousef Munayyer

August 1, 2008

Barack Obama and John McCain must take a careful look at our foreign policy in the Middle East and prepare to make significant adjustments.

The United States has found itself in a difficult and vulnerable position. We are engaged in Iraq in a conflict that we have grown tired of yet cannot seem to exit. The end of the Saddam Hussein regime has eliminated a geographic buffer between Iran and the rest of the Arab world, altering the balance of power. Now, with the humming of military exercises, the talk of nuclear weapons programs and a so-called "Shiite Crescent," it will take a concerted effort to push back from the brink of conflict.

The U.S., the most powerful nation in the world, has found itself in this position today because Iran succeeds in one area where we continue to fail: winning Arab public opinion. Year after year, poll after poll, the Arab public ranks the U.S. and Israel as the two greatest threats facing them, while Iran lags far behind. Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of the Lebanese Shiite party Hezbollah, often associated with Iran, is the most popular leader in the Arab world. The belligerent rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad toward Israel is used regularly to garner support in the Arab world.

We cannot make the mistake of thinking, however, that there is a lovefest between the Arab world and Iran. While these neighbors are certainly not natural enemies, the affinity between them stems more from American policy than any statement or action Iran takes.

Polls of the Arab world, conducted by the Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, showed that an astounding 86 percent considered the issue of Palestine a top priority. This, and the past two decades of an inconsistent and ineffectual American role in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, shed light on precisely why the U.S. lacks legitimacy in the region to broker a political solution in Iraq and a negotiated solution with Iran.

The U.S. insists on the prevention of a nuclear Iran, when the Arab public is well aware that the world's largest per capita nuclear arsenal is in Israel. Further, the American position has largely been to not negotiate with Iran before it suspends its nuclear program. Yet the U.S. pushes the Palestinian Authority to negotiate while Israel continues settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank. When the U.S. government acquiesces to the Israeli claim that settlement expansion is an outcome of natural growth, Palestinians in towns such as Qalqilya, which is completely encircled by a towering separation wall and subjected to unnatural contraction, look on with despair.

Unfortunately, the Arab world has become all too accustomed to policies it sees as hypocritical.

A sound and evenhanded policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most direct and efficient way to gain the necessary political leverage the U.S. is sorely missing. This means being an actively engaged partner, committed to a just solution for Israelis and Palestinians, and being willing to enforce commitments and human rights equally. This also means an end to occupation, a just solution for the refugee issue and an end of violence on all sides.

The end of the Cold War left a vacuum of leadership in the Middle East that is yet to be filled. While the Arab public is hungry for American leadership and reform, it is torn over whether to follow the United States. Understanding this dynamic, and working toward a genuine and just peace between Israelis and Palestinians, puts us far closer to filling the void. If ignored again, we face the continued risk of competing for legitimacy with radicalism.

Our presidential candidates may frequently travel to the Middle East but it would behoove them, and us, to take a closer look at the aspirations of Middle Easterners.

Yousef Munayyer is a special assistant to the president at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

2008-07-31T10:52:00.000-04:00

West Bank wall bigger than Berlin's

Yousef Munayyer

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Before leaving Israel, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama told reporters that, if elected, he plans to engage in peacemaking efforts between Israelis and Palestinians, based on the principle of two states for two people. However, before Sen. Obama's plane landed in Germany for his next stop, an Israeli government panel approved the building of a new settlement deep inside the West Bank's Jordan Valley.

Since the first talks that led to the Oslo Accords, every U.S. president has pursued a policy of peace-making based roughly recognizing the 1967 borders of Israel. Yet even as American policymakers have come to realize that the growth of an Israeli presence in West Bank is a direct challenge to a viable two-state solution, little has been done to prevent this from happening.

Jerusalem, perhaps the area most affected by settlement expansion, remains a critical and controversial city because of the role it will play in any agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. East Jerusalem, which Palestinians want as their capital, is surrounded by newly expanded settlements and the security structures that come with them.

As a result, the two-state solution - the backbone of negotiations for nearly two decades - is in jeopardy. Many already argue that the sun has set on a two-state solution.

American presidential candidates compete for votes based, in part, on who has the best policy on Iraq, Iran and the energy crisis. Voters should also pay close attention to which candidate will be most committed to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The greatest obstacle in the way of peace today is an infrastructure of apartheid. American policymakers must make clear to the Israelis that this matrix of settlements, walls and checkpoints must change to make the territory for the Palestinians, and a two-state solution, viable.

If it is the objective of U.S. policy to let a two-state solution fail, then little has to change.

However, if committed to the two-state solution, the next administration must be willing to work specifically toward the dismantling of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the removal of roadblocks and checkpoints. It must also be ready to demand that human rights for Palestinians, including the freedom of movement and education, are as important as Israeli security.

This requires political courage. The United States remains the only player that can talk tough to Israel, and back it up.

The next American partner in the peace process needs to give Palestinians hope - hope that negotiations will yield freedom from occupation. It is the lack of hope that leads many to believe that violence is the only option.

Sen. Obama delivered a significant speech in Berlin, just hours after arriving from Israel, in which he promised, if elected, to tear down the walls that divided citizens of the world from one another.

The next commander in chief, be it Sen. John McCain or Sen. Obama, can start by trying to tear down the wall in the West Bank, which is much larger than the one that once divided Berlin, but far more important for creating a peaceful, stable and democratic Middle East.

Yousef Munayyer is a special assistant to the president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and a doctoral student at the University of Maryland.

2008-07-30T21:20:00.000-04:00

Posted on Wed, Jul. 30, 2008

Tear down the walls in the West Bank

By YOUSEF MUNAYYER

Before leaving Israel last week, Democratic presidential nominee Barak Obama told reporters that, if elected, he plans to immediately engage in peacemaking efforts between Israelis and Palestinians, based on the principle of two states for two peoples. However, before Obama's plane landed in Germany for his next stop, an Israeli government panel approved the building of a new settlement deep inside the West Bank's Jordan Valley.

Since the beginning of the Oslo Peace Process, every U.S. president has pursued a policy of peacemaking that was based roughly on the 1967 borders. Even the Bush administration, which stood by as Israel developed an immense separation wall deep inside the West Bank, has been critical of Israeli settlement expansion in the disputed territories. Yet even though U.S. policymakers have come to realize that the growth of an Israeli presence in the West Bank is a direct challenge to a viable two-state solution, little has been done to prevent this from happening.

The most recent decision by the Israelis toward settlement expansion, despite the threat it poses to peace negotiations, is nothing new. In fact, throughout the 1990s and after the Oslo Accord was signed in the White House Rose Garden, Israeli settlement expansion increased exponentially for almost 15 years, regardless to whether the more left-leaning Labor Party or the more hawkish right-wingers were in government.

Jerusalem, perhaps the area most affected by settlement expansion, remains a critical and controversial city because of the role it will play in any future agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. East Jerusalem, which Palestinians want as the capital of their state, is surrounded by newly expanded settlements and the security structures that come with them. The Holy City has become separated from the surrounding Palestinian population, which used to frequent the city's markets, churches and mosques.

The geography left for the Palestinians is divided into Bantustan-like areas separated from each other by Israeli territory. The walls, checkpoints and soldiers that surround Israeli settlements on this territory have led to the devastation of the Palestinian economy, untold human rights abuses and the weakening of the Palestinian Authority (our only anointed negotiating partner in the conflict).

The result of these policies, and American appeasement to them, is that the two-state solution -- the backbone of negotiations for almost two decades -- is in jeopardy.

The next American president must immediately engage in negotiations with both sides, but also must be prepared to use all tools at his disposal to enforce commitments. Many already argue that the sun has set on a two-state solution. And while the proponents of a binational state remain outside of the accepted discourse on this issue in the United States, the changing realities on the ground are only lending credence to their arguments.

With a national election upcoming in November -- and candidates competing for votes in part based on who has the best policy on Iraq, Iran and the energy crisis -- voters should also pay close attention to which candidate will be most committed to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This act alone would give the United States the political leverage necessary to succeed elsewhere in the region and ultimately triumph in the war on terror.

Road to peace

Obama delivered a rousing speech in Berlin, hours after arriving from Israel, and promised, if elected, to tear down the walls that divided citizens of the world from one another.

Surely, this would be a noble policy for whoever the next president is. The next commander-in-chief can start by trying to tear down the wall in the West Bank, which is much larger than the one that once divided Berlin but also far more important for our success in creating a peaceful, stable and democratic Middle East.

2008-07-30T21:19:00.000-04:00

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/22841629.html?location_refer=Opinion

Yousef Munayyer: Obama shouldn't take Muslims and Arabs for granted

By YOUSEF MUNAYYER

July 2, 2008

In October 2000, George W. Bush declared in a presidential debate that Arab-Americans had been racially profiled and targeted unfairly by "secret evidence" laws. This issue was so central to Arabs and Muslims in the United States that many cast their ballots for Bush.

The eight years that have followed have been difficult years for Arab-Americans. The administration could hardly be portrayed as friendly to their interests. The all-American principles of inclusion, on which Bush seemed to stand during the debate, went out the window with the suspension of habeas corpus, the offshore imprisonments at Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, Abu Ghraib and the conduct of the most disastrous Middle East foreign policy in our history. It goes without saying that Arab- and Muslim-Americans, like most Americans, disapprove of the job President Bush has done.

But this year is different -- or so one would hope. This year the entire country -- and perhaps most of all Arab- and Muslim-Americans -- are ready for change. Once again, and more resoundingly than ever, a message of reform through inclusion is touted by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

The senator from Chicago, home to the largest concentration of Palestinian-Americans in the nation, secured the nomination by distancing himself from the foreign-policy and civil-liberties stances of the Bush administration, as well as by championing the cause of working- and middle-class Americans and our veterans of war. For Arab- and Muslim-Americans, who for generations have toiled in automobile and steel factories, who have served in our armed forces and who have occupied every profession, Obama would seem like a shoo-in.

However, the senator should not take these votes for granted, and in the eyes of many Arab- and Muslim-Americans, he already has. Obama, who has criticized special-interest groups influencing lawmakers, delivered a rousing speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, where he outlined his views on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The speech, calling for an undivided Israeli capital in Jerusalem, drew great ovation and put him to the right of most Arab- and Muslim-Americans as well as most Jewish-Americans who want to see a negotiated solution based on the 1967 borders. The stance Obama took is even to the right of Bush's road-map policy. In a letter to Bush dated June 24, he puts the onus on other Arab states for easing the hardship of the Palestinian people while calling for continued aid to Israel. For Obama to take such positions sends a very uncomfortable message to those who want to see a genuine Mideast peace.

What may be even more disturbing is Obama's attitude toward anything Muslim. When his far-right-wing opponents brand him as a Muslim because of his father's background, Obama's campaign responds by calling it a smear tactic. But this defender of civil rights, this champion of inclusion, should respond to his critics resoundingly that "Islam" and "Arab" are not dirty words.

Obama must work hard to repair the perception among Arab- and Muslim-Americans that they are expendable. These people are Republicans and Democrats. They want better lives, health care, good jobs, a strong economy, a safe and secure homeland and a foreign policy that espouses the values of equality and liberty -- just like all Americans. More than anything, Arab- and Muslim-Americans want to be included, but they also know that the only thing worse than the absence of hope is the false promise of it.

Yousef Munayyer is director of Information and Technology at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, based in Washington, D.C.

2008-05-15T07:46:00.000-04:00

For Palestinians, Mourning

By Yousef Munayyer May 11, 2008
Boston Globe

COMING TO TERMS with one's own history is often difficult. For a state this process is even harder. During this month the State of Israel celebrates its 60th year. For Palestinians, however, this is not a time of celebration but rather a period of mourning for their tragedy in 1948. On May 15, Jewish communities will hold many celebrations while Palestinian communities will be holding vigils just across the street. To this day these dual narratives have not been reconciled and this failure lies at the very foundation of the saddening conflict we have today.

Walking through Israel today you can still see many signs that a different people once inhabited the land. Open fields filled with stones and boulders mark the areas where Palestinian villages once stood. Ordered formations of cacti still stand where Palestinian farmers demarcated the edges of their farming land. Even the names of some Palestinian villages have been changed Hebraicized into the names of Israeli cities or towns - Al-Yibna became Yavne, Al-Dayshum became Dishon.

Israeli historians have debated whether the 700,000-800,000 Arabs who were living in Palestine before the war of 1948 left voluntarily or through systematic depopulation. What is not disputed, however, is that the inhabitants were not permitted to return to their homes and villages after the war and, in their place, Israel absorbed 1 million Jewish immigrants, more than doubling the population of the state in a single year. Many of these immigrants moved into homes built, owned and previously occupied by Arabs who are now refugees unable to return.

After the war, the State of Israel was constituted as a nearly homogeneous Jewish territorial entity. Yet the public consciousness of what led to this reality, in both the United States and Israel, is minimal. Many still believe that the State of Israel was created on a barren land. Some Israeli historians have made use of newly opened military archives to detail an account of the war in 1948 that differs from the traditional state narrative. Still these voices have had little effect. The people of Yavne and Dishon, like the people of Manhattan or Chicago, are rarely conscious of where the names of their cities came from, let alone know anything about the previous inhabitants.

Sixty years ago a movement among the Jewish people achieved its stated objective. Finally, a state for Jews was created. The Zionists believed that only in a state where Jews could protect and defend themselves would they be safe from the horrors of anti-Semitic Europe. Surely marking this achievement is a reason to celebrate. However this achievement, only three years after the fall of the most despotic and destructive anti-Semitic regime the world has ever known, led to the creation of another "superfluous" people.

The right of return to their lands remains an integral part of Palestinian demands. Israel demands its continued existence as a near homogeneous Jewish state making the Palestinian right of return unacceptable.

To this day both Israelis and Palestinians mark May 15 for different reasons. One side celebrates, the other mourns. Palestinians must realize the significance of the creation and existence of a safe haven for world Jewry. Likewise, Israelis must realize that the creation of a safe haven for Jews in no way justifies the dispossession of another people.

Negotiators talk about borders, settlements, roadblocks, terrorism, self-defense and a host of other tangible and easily measurable variables on the road to peace. This process results only in a separation of people but not a genuine peace. Only a common sense of truth and reconciliation between both parties can lead to lasting peace. This anniversary is a good place to start.

Ten years from now, when the 70th anniversary of the war is upon us, we can only hope that Israelis and Palestinians are much closer to a common narrative about 1948. If not, they will both simply remain on different sides of the same street that they will eternally share.

Yousef Munayyer is director of information and technology at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/11/for_palestians_mourning/

2008-03-12T15:35:00.001-04:00

Diagnosing the 'David Project'

03/12/08

Published in The Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A few years ago I sat in the UMass Hillel house and heard a representative from the David Project say that their goal was "making it appear as if Israel is the David in the conflict and not the Goliath."

Shortly after his introduction, a film called "Columbia Unbecoming" was screened. The film, part of a propaganda campaign, smeared professors at Columbia University and alleged they had silenced students who were "pro-Israel."

Since then, several of the classes which supposedly hosted these incidents put forth signed statements saying the allegations were false. Most students in the class were appalled by the false accusations. Their voices, however, went largely unheard and the David Project's smear campaign became well known.

The David Project is not done. Yesterday, (Mar. 11) the Student Alliance for Israel screened another film by the David Project. This one, "The Forgotten Refugees," is about the exodus of Arab Jews from their native lands in the second half of the 20th century. One may ask how this topic portrays Israel as the biblical David.

The answer lies at the crux of a bloody conflict. It is a history that the David Project will never directly address because any serious account of that history, the history of the depopulation of Palestine, will shatter all illusions of Israel's innocent victim identity.

This argument is not new. Vehement supporters of Israel often respond to charges of ethnic cleansing by saying that the Arabs "kicked out" Jews from their states. The latter may be true. While there is definitely debate within the academic historian community about the extent of Arab state involvement in this, there is little doubt in my mind that there is some truth to it.

However, this in no way justifies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. It does not answer the charge and does not excuse the state of Israel from abiding by its commitments to uphold the universal declaration of human rights and the charter of the United Nations, as a member state, and allow the refugees to return. Likewise, all Arab states, who once housed the Arab Jews, should abide by the same commitments and allow these Arab Jews and their descendents the right to return to the places they were forced out from.

There are two main problems with arguing that the exodus of Arab Jews from Arab states in anyway justifies Israel's actions in depopulating Palestine from 1947-49.
First, it makes Palestinians, a distinct people tied to a territorial concept, liable for the actions of other Arab states. It would be an obvious farce if Brazil held Spanish speakers within its borders responsible for the actions of Mexico or Spain.

The second problem with the argument is that it supports the process of homogenization during state creation. It justifies the idea of ethnic cleansing.

The David Project is engaged in quite a task. Creating the illusion that Israel is the underdog, while every observable fact points otherwise, is a difficult endeavor. The reality is that Israel could never be painted as the "David." Even Israeli historians have pointed out that in 1948, on the eve of the creation of the state of Israel, Israeli forces outnumbered the combined forces of five poorly-trained and uncoordinated Arab armies.

Today, Israel has peace with Egypt, its greatest threat in modern history. It has peace with Jordan. It also has the world's largest per capita nuclear deterrent and the best equipped and best trained army in the Middle East. In the past eight years, less than 15 Israelis have been killed by homemade Qassam rocket fire. However, in response to Qassam fire, Israel dropped American made bombs on Gaza, killing over 120 people in two days.

SAFI should publicly distance itself from the David Project. The David Project has shown that it is in line with the most right-wing elements in Israel who do not want peace. Recent polls in Israel have shown that over 60 percent of the Israeli public is in favor of talking to groups like Hamas if it can bring peace.

It is unclear why SAFI would choose to put forward this hawkish perspective by promoting the propaganda of these extremists. It is unclear why SAFI, an American student group, puts forward a more right-wing agenda than the Israeli public.

SAFI must acknowledge that trying to "score points" by twisting reality will never lead to a peaceful resolution to this conflict. The only way to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians is by reconciling differences in the historical narratives and understanding the root causes.

2008-03-08T15:33:00.007-05:00

Gaza on my mind

It is hard to find words to really express the multitude of thoughts and feelings I have had in the past few months watching the crisis in Gaza worsen. It is very important to place the current situation in proper context. The recent events which have left scores dead did not occur in a vacuum.

In 2005 Israel made a tactical decision to remove its potential targets out of Gaza. Protecting so few settlers was not worth the military investment. The occupation of Gaza would continue and the people of Gaza would soon face the fiercest and most depressing conditions they have faced. The Fall of 2005 featured a consistent sonic boom campaign, incursions and bombings. It also featured the highest ranking US officials including Condoleezza Rice and President George Bush embracing the idea of the upcoming Palestinian Legislative Elections.

Then, as we know, the Change and Reform Party or the party of the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) won the majority of seats in parliament (74 to 45) and the constitutional right to form a government. Before the votes were even tallied legislation was written and submitted in the halls of congress that would cut aid to the Palestinian Authority the very next day. This was just one of several bills introduced the day after the election.

The Change and Reform party did not even have a change to realize they were victors when the American government and consistent supporters of the elections began to undercut them. For the first time ever Palestinian government that incorporated many of the diverse views of the Palestinian political spectrum was formed. This could have been then government that would have delivered peace. The so-called “spoilers” were now within the system. This representative government had the legitimacy to make the sacrifices that would have resulted in political suicide for Arafat or Abass.

The opportunity was squandered however. The American and Israeli policy first became the attempted suffocation of Hamas. Palestinian tax dollars, extracted from the Palestinian population and held by Israel, were no longer disbursed to the PA so government officials could not be paid. Then in the summer of 2006 Hamas and Fateh came closer to unity when members of all major Palestinian factions in Israeli prisons took the initiative to create and sign the national conciliation agreement. The document, which was a loose agreement on the principles of the Palestinian movement, would be soon forgotten. June and July of 2006 would be two of Gaza’s bloodies months and an Israeli soldier was captured.

Further reconciliation talks were held, which we now clearly know was attempted in spite of American objections. A recent expose in Vanity Fair details just how adamant the American administration was about eliminating Hamas as an actor. As the months went by conditions in Gaza worsen. The policies, administered by Israel with the blessing and support of the United States, were not at punishing Hamas but punishing Hamas’ base. The thinking behind this was that if enough pressure could be brought down on the backs of Palestinians in Gaza Hamas would have to alter its policies.

Hamas’ take over in June of 2007, pre-emptive or not, maneuvered them into a position where they could consolidate internally and prepare for what Israel and the United States had signaled would be a long and drawn out battle.

An embargo would follow. As would food shortages and then power cuts. Medicine was not available and then hospitals began to run medical equipment on generators. Fuel was running low as well. The large-scale collective punishment of 1.5 million people in the Gaza strip is evolving into the least talked about large-scale crime against humanity in history.

Through all of this the people of Gaza and Hamas have persisted. Also, throughout this period, Hamas has attempted to establish a deterrent of sorts. While Qassams, homemade tube-like projectiles, are no match for the overpowering American weaponry used by the Israelis, Hamas has been able to utilize them to prove that Israel’s policy (first marginalization, then suffocation and strangulation) has not provided security for the Israeli towns surrounding the Gaza strip. If you think being small means you can’t be effective you have obviously never been in bed with a mosquito.

To Provide Some Perspective: Damage from Israeli Missle in Gaza on top, Qassam Rocket in Sderot below.

Is it right for Hamas to be firing Qassams into Israel which may hit civilians? No. But why bring morality into this. Morality left this conflict in 1948. Let’s concentrate on efficient policy that leads to security.

To paraphrase Fanon, the colonized do not speak the language of the colonizer. Therefore, if the colonizer uses force and oppression against the colonized, the colonized understands this as the only method of communication and the both enter into a dialog of violence. The important part of this is that it is the stronger power, in this case Israel, sets the tone of the dialog. Israel’s policy of strangulation in the past two years, 42 years of occupation and 60 years of dispossession have created only one form of dialog. While the U.S. and Israeli governments say they won’t talk to Hamas they certainly have created a dialogue and it is one that has condemned both sides to the current stagnation.

While some, like the American Task Force for Fateh, has concluded that Hamas IS the problem all they have accomplished is exposing themselves for being the biased organization they are and have demonstrated that they have placed their own ideals and principles above those of the Palestinian people. They have epitomized, and with a religious zeal I might add, the type of old fashioned, holier-than-thou, liberal-secularist ideology that Arabs across the world and especially Palestinians are tired of being force fed as a precondition for equality.

Simply stated there is no way to move forward with negotiations without a representative Palestinian partner. The chance of a sustainable peace is greater when all ends of the political spectrum are actually involved in the commitment making process. The PLO claims to be an umbrella organization and that is why it was recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The reality is however the PLO is a made up of much different ideas and principles today as it was when it was given that distinction in 1974. Today the PLO, and much thanks to the work of former Chairman Arafat, is comprised mostly of Fateh.

It is hard to see how much legitimacy this organization can actually claim after nearly 30 years of grassroots efforts by Hamas to build a power base within the occupied territories and presence of a rejectionist front as well.

I do not consider myself Hamsawi or Fathawi. I abhor this terminology. However it seems clear to me that for all parties involved engaging Hamas into the political conversation without preconditions of relinquishing principles is critical. The majority of Israelis are even ready for this step, the question that now remains is whether the U.S. administration, Israel’s powerful right wing supporters in the U.S., and organizations like ATFF, are ready to put the interests of Israelis and Palestinians ahead of their own.

2008-02-29T15:03:00.002-05:00

Can someone please explain how the reality depicted in the video above somehow was twisted into the video below? In the answer lies the reason why so many have suffered in this conflict.

2008-01-27T13:55:00.000-05:00

The Wretched of the Earth

Trapped. The people have no where to go. They can not exit and help can not come in. Life is dismal, depressing and hard. Though a thriving capital is nearby no one cares about these souls. The government has convinced everyone else that it is perfectly fine to treat human beings like this because these humans are a security threat.

Food is scarce. They have been eating basic starches for weeks now. The malnutrition is rampant. With no electricity the previously scarce water is now not being pumped at all. Families crowd into houses and the conditions for widespread disease are ripe. Trapped like animals, not knowing which moment maybe their last, this is life in the Warsaw Ghetto.....this is life in Gaza.

The state which came to be while the words "never again" and "we will never forget" were on the lips of the western world has forgotten. In stead of "never again", Israeli policies of collective punishment have continued again and again. This time, with the siege of Gaza, they have reached a new and despicable low.

But Israel has convinced itself that the people of Gaza pose a security risk and by doing so Israel can justify its vulture-like behavior. The reality is that while only12 people have been killed by rocket attacks from Gaza since the attacks began a few years ago more than 150 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces in the last 2 months.

Yet where is the outcry? The western world voiced its support for the students of Tianamen square. The image of a young person standing in front of a row of tanks is symbolic of the resistance that humans around the world should rally behind. All of us where Chinese on that day. All of us who believed in political and human rights where standing before tanks that day.

And when Germans decided they would no longer except foreign influence and oppression and brought down the wall in Berlin heading the call of then President Reagan the western world stood behind them in support. Shock, disbelief and elation filled us as we stood at the end of an era. All of us were German that day.

And today we must ask ourselves...are we brave enough to be Palestinians today? Like their German and Chinese counterparts before them the Palestinians in Gaza refuse to be subjugated to the will of an oppressor. They refuse to be denied food and water. They refuse to be denied basic human rights. And they refuse to wait for the world to wake up because Gaza would have been dead before the western world had the dignity and audacity to call Israel what it is.....an Oppressor.

Human rights organizations across the globe, from east to west, from Arab to Israeli to American, all agree that what Israel is doing in Gaza is collective punishment of a civilian population. While there are international laws against torture and also against genocide there does not seem to be a crime that is by definition both torture and genocide at the same time. However this is precisely what is transpiring in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli state.

The collective torture of the Palestinian people in Gaza through sonic booms, malnutrition, aerial
bombardment, economic sanctions, periodic incursions, targeted
assassinations, food shortages, water shortages, electricity outages and the
day to day horrors of Israel occupation is nothing but the state sponsored systematic extermination of a people.....in slow motion.

What makes the policy of strangulation even more despicable is that it is politically motivated, which, since it is the targeting of civilians for political gain, is state sponsored terrorism. After Hamas was democratically elected in January of 2006 Israel, the US, and the Palestinian Authority recognized that engaging Hamas and taking into consideration the aspirations of the people in the West Bank and Gaza would mean there plans for a post-Arafat, non-representative "peace process" would be ruined. Hence, we have what we see today. After two years Hamas will not budge. The people in Gaza are not turning against them and because of this Israel, with the US and Palestinian Authority's blessing, have decided to break the Palestinians of Gaza by attempting to starve them into submission.

In the end, the events of this week have left egg on the face of Israel and the Palestinian Authority and the United States. The sight of hundreds of thousands of Gazans pouring out of the prison they call home just to by food reminded me of the imagery of thousands of African-Americans struggling to find aid after hurricane Katrina devastated the gulf coast. Like America but far worse the deamons in Israel's closet have escaped and the only remaining question is: What are we going to do about it?

2007-11-21T15:54:00.001-05:00

Reverting to Modernity

As I was debating the decision to write this entry in my head the Palestinian flag that hangs in front of my office window was blown down by an entering breeze. It was at that point when I realized this entry had to be written.

Today I found myself re-reading the principles of the American Task Force on Palestine. The first item on the list was the demand for a solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict based on “Two Sovereign States- Israel and Palestine”. I stared at this sentence in deep thought for several minutes and remain confused. I found myself wondering why proponents of a two-state solution are obsessed with the ideas of sovereignty and nationalism. I have yet to come up with a good answer.

Starting with this demand is the crux of the problems that face negotiators. Idealism is demanded but political and physical realities continue to make such daydreams unpractical. Yet those who support the idea of a one-state solution are called idealists, apparently for believing in the ludicrous notion that Israelis and Palestinians can live together without continued violence. I argue however that it is proponents of the two-state solution that are fundamentally based on idealism precisely because they continue to recant the Wilsonian principles of sovereignty and self-determination that modernity regurgitated throughout the 20th century.

What has the nation-state done for mankind? Nationalism has brought us the most violent and anarchic century in the history of man. Nationalism has brought us genocides and state sponsored mass killings. Nationalism has brought us the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Nationalism has brought us conflicts like World War I and II and others where millions died- and what did they die for? A flag? Patria? Mother Russia? Because the tall trees had to be chopped?

The creation of the politics of otherness has been the greatest catalyst for violence and war since the rise of modernity. Why is it then that the ATFP and other two-state proponents proscribe modernist solutions to a problem created by modernity? It certainly does not make sense or have any potential to create lasting peace between people.

Israelis and Palestinians have been denied the promises of modernity for decades. Now that the world has taken steps to move past modernity, a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian dispute should not put both peoples where they should have been in a world 60 years ago, but take bold steps to allow the inhabitants of Israel/Palestine to coexists in a world where borders, flags and anthems mean much less than they used to.

2007-11-21T10:48:00.001-05:00

2007-11-16T12:00:00.000-05:00

Lack of Sanity in Annapolis

A meeting is set to take place between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Annapolis, MD later this month. One has to wonder whether this meeting will be different than its predecessors or simply join the long list of failed peace conferences. Acknowledging the political realities on all sides it is hard to see how this meeting can be successful. The deck is stacked against optimism higher than ever before. Below I will outline some of the major issues that will prevent Annapolis from succeeding.

1.This is the first time in direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that the PLO’s legitimacy as the sole representative of the Palestinian people has been dubious. Party politics aside, the fact that the Palestinian people democratically elected a government that will not be present at the negotiating table deals an immediate and perhaps deadly blow to any possibility of a successful outcome.

The government of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) is not innocent of wrongdoing nor should it be protected from criticism, however, the fact remains that this government was elected democratically and then sacked by every other player at the Annapolis conference (Israel, USA, Fateh-led PLO)

2.There also continues to be the question of personal integrity and legitimacy of the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen). When the Israeli and Palestinian representatives were brought together at the rose garden to sign the Oslo Accords then PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat made a point of having Abu Mazen sign the document. Exactly why Arafat did that is unclear however one could assume that Arafat was concerned about how Oslo would be received by the Palestinian people and if they would hold their leaders accountable. Arafat was the charismatic face of the Palestinian struggle for years. Corrupt as he may have been his image was associated with Palestinian defiance in the face of dispossession and occupation. Today, the world of Palestinian politics is completely different. Palestinian people have grown increasingly skeptical of Israel’s intentions. Party lines have been drawn deep into a society which never dealt with this before. It is in this tense climate that Mahmoud Abbas will put his legitimacy into play. A troubling question remains: How much is his signature worth?

If we were to ignore the questions above about the exclusion of a democratically elected government and shaky ground Abbas stands on, we would find ourselves back at Camp David in the year 2000 – yet another failed peace initiative.

This indicates that the complexities that have developed after the death of Arafat and the Hamas election contributed to making Annapolis even less likely to succeed than Camp David. We could revisit the problems encountered in the negotiations in Camp David but since no one seems to agree what those really were it would be better if we could think through potential problems ourselves.

The Israelis and Palestinians have always wanted three things:

A. Sovereignty over the whole of Historic Palestine – For Palestinians this entails a just solution to the refugee issue based on the right of return. For Israelis this means sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza and ability to enforce the Law of Return for Jews to Israel.

B. Jerusalem- For both sides this has meant that the undivided city is the eternal capital of the state.

C. Self-Determination (as a Jewish or Palestinian state) - For Palestinians this has meant a state of their own where they can elect rulers from amongst themselves. For Israelis this has meant maintaining a state with a “Jewish Character” (while this term is unclear I understand it to mean a ethnic or religious Jewish majority)

Of course we can see how and Israeli and Palestinian realization of all of these things is impossible. Palestinian self-determination and sovereignty over the entirety of historic Palestine and Israeli realization of the same is mutually exclusive. Something’s got to give.

For years this has been the problem. The PLO had trumpeted the idea of a secular democratic Palestine through the late 1980s. (Anyone who tells you this is a ridiculous idea should be reminded that it was the platform of the PLO for the majority of its existence and only changed recently). Israel, after it initiated its settlement blitz into the West Bank in the late 1970s, made any idea of separation impractical since its control permeated all of historic Palestine.

In the early 1990s the PLO leadership was facing a harsh reality. It had been kicked out of Jordan, then Lebanon, and was only moving further away from Jerusalem when it attempted to lead a resistance movement from North Africa. The fall of the Soviet Union meant the loss of an important diplomatic supporter. The first Palestinian uprising drew international attention and at the same time provided the political space for new resistance leadership to grow. These activists, unlike the PLO, were on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank and were born into occupation. The first intifada that served as the mobilizing mechanism for the Islamic Resistance Movement. The Madrid conference and the Oslo Accords led to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority which was Arafat’s ticket back into the party.

Oslo led to concessions; some more real than others. The PLO recognized Israel. Israel recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians and territorial governance agreements were made for areas A, B, and C. (See Map-Right/Above)

The reality is however that the Israeli concessions amounted to little more than spoken word. Oslo allowed for the Palestinian Authority to be formed but through a matrix of control involving roadblocks, walls, checkpoint and settlement expansion and control of airspace and borders, Israel maintained full control over the West Bank and Gaza. (See Map-Right/Below)

So this brought us to where we are today only since Oslo we have seen the weakening of Palestinian parties through division and great Israeli control over the West Bank through the completion of the apartheid wall and settlement expansion. What chance does Annapolis have of succeeding under these circumstances? None.

The political reality makes it impossible to pursue a two-state solution. The failure of this upcoming conference will only serve to highlight the implausibility of negotiated solution based on the demands of both sides. A recent poll conducted by Khalil Shikaki ,among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, found that 41% disagreed with the proposed two-state solution. Also “only 46% would support and 48% would oppose a permanent settlement of the borders of the Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders”. Bear in mind that this polling is only representative of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. The PLO, the entity negotiating with Israel at Annapolis, is the representative of the Palestinian PEOPLE. This means the PLO also represents the millions of Palestinian who became refugees as a result of depopulation carried about by soon to be Israeli forces from 1947-49.

While polling numbers about a two-state solution are not available one can logically assume that the refugees, particularly those living in squalid conditions, would be less favorable of a solution that neglects their right of return than those Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza. Clearly, as the head of the PLO and representative of the Palestinian people, Mahmoud Abass can claim no legitimate mandate to pursue a two-state solution.

This becomes even more complicated when you consider that 20% of Israel’s population is Palestinian and is not being represented by the PLO. Birthrates indicate that this population will continue to increase and baring exceptional circumstances (like ethnic cleansing for example) this population will constitute a near majority in the next 50 years.

So what is to be done? It has become increasingly clear that the two-state idea must be abandoned. The time is not right for a one-state solution to be negotiated. However, it is imperative that we begin discussing it seriously. Three actions can bring us closer to this end:

An Israeli led civil rights movement in Israel- This would have to be based on equal opportunity for all, regardless of ethnicity or religion, and should challenge the ethno-centric nature of the state in all of its arenas.

A non-violent intifada inside Israel- The one million Palestinians inside Israel must rise up and demand equality and challenge the idea of a Jewish state.

Agreement on a common historical narrative in from 1947-49 – While this was once thought of as a dream it is becoming more of a reality every day. The effect of the New Historians is becoming evident and the Israeli public (Arab and Jewish) must continue to openly discuss this open and still bleeding wound in the state’s history.

It is time to change the debate in this conflict and create a new framework that would provide an opportunity for success. All land can belong to both sides, with a mutual capital; the sacrifice would come in the form of each sides need for ethnocentricity.

Benjamin Franklin cleverly noted “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results”. The conference at Annapolis is nothing short of insanity.

2007-10-23T21:32:00.000-04:00

If only David Horowitz had Dignity, Audacity, or a Spine

I want to follow up on a post from last week about challenging Mr. David Horowitz to a debate. After sending an E-Mail to the Young America's Foundation at George Washington University I received the following reply:

Thank you for contacting us, but it is to close to the event for us to change the set-up which we have been working on for months. We appreciate the offer and will keep it in mind for any future events on this topic.

Sincerely,

GW-YAF

I find it hard to believe that a private school like George Washington, or any school for that matter, would not have the resources to provide, say, a table, two chairs and two microphones. I doubt that YAF would have trouble "changing the set-up" unless what they mean is that they have for months been preparing a forum for Mr. Horowitz to spew his moronic propaganda unchecked.

Clearly what is going on here is that the YAF and Mr. Horowitz can not defend their views without using propaganda and taking things out of context. Of course when you are trying to promote outright lies you would never want to allow an opportunity to be exposed. Sadly, a lie told often enough becomes truth and just as Mr. Horowitz and company helped scare this country into war with Iraq they are attempting to do the same with Iran. They know they can only do this by hiding behind podiums instead of engaging in debate.

2007-10-18T17:17:00.000-04:00

The Arab Left, Right and Wrong

The Op-Ed which appeared in the Lebanese Daily Star entitled ”Defend the Palestinian cause against its most unreasonable supporters” by Hussien Ibish was a synopsis of a lengthier issue paper prepared for the American Task Force on Palestine. The following is a response to the issue paper and the Op-Ed, both of which were fundamentally flawed in their approach, analysis and conclusions.

The argument laid out by Ibish, particularly in the issue paper, is errant because is it founded on two critical conceptual errors. The first error, typical of some interest groups like the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP), is the assumption that the dynamics of the Palestinian political struggle (qadiyeh) is something limited to the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. The second error, which is clearly present throughout Mr. Ibish’s writing, is the assumption that the Palestinian political spectrum revolves around (or should revolve around) domestic attitudes and social issues. Both these errors could not be further from the truth and because of these conceptual flaws Ibish’s analysis and conclusions are likewise incorrect.

Ibish is perplexed by what seems to him to be an unlikely alliance between what he calls the Arab Left and the Muslim Right. He wonders how it is possible that Leftys like Asad Abu Khalil and Ali Abu Nimah can defend a party like the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). Of course this would seem problematic if the Palestinian political spectrum is divided on social agendas. The reality is though that the Palestinian political spectrum is divided by attitudes toward Israel. There is the right end of the spectrum which is inherently distrusting of Israel and opposed to negotiated agreements and the left end which willingly negotiates (perhaps naively so) with Israel. The spectrum is not split on domestic or social issues and the mere suggestion of such a thing is an example of the failure to understand the conflict’s politics. If Edward Said were alive today one can only wonder about the scathing critique he would luanch at what seems to be such an orientalist analysis.

Perhaps Ibish’s motivation for painting such a picture is to navigate himself and the ATFP to the center. This attempt becomes even more apparent in the second half of the issue paper where he criticizes the so-called Arab left of taking sides and then does so himself, largely by omitting important information. For example he denounces Hamas’ claims to democratic legitimacy and lauds Mahmoud Abbas’ 63% victory in 2005 all while conveniently neglecting to mention that Abbas ran largely unopposed by serious competition in a period of extreme confusion in Palestinian political history after the death of Yasser Arafat. Secondly, while he was quick to accuse Hamas of being unprepared to govern he ignores that fact that Fateh was clearly unprepared to serve the Palestinian people as the second most powerful party in the government. Ibish points out Hamas’ failures since taking control of the government but omits the fact that Fateh refused to join a unity government.

That last point is an extremely important one. Fateh’s refusal to join a unity government immediately after Hamas’ victory in January 2006 sent the tone of the dialogue between the two parties from that point forward. The Palestinians, for the first time in history, had the opportunity to create a government that represents Islamists and secularists. It could have been the most representative and inclusive government in the Arab world. It could have been a critical moment in the history of the Arab world which led to true representation and not autocracy. It could have been a moment where a complete Palestinian national dialogue was created. It could have been....but it was not.

While I agree with Hussien Ibish that ending the occupation must be the primary objective of the Palestinian cause now and that internal division is only hurting this effort, I do not agree that the end of the occupation will bring a solution to the Palestinian problem. This is perhaps the divide on the Palestinian spectrum. There are those who see the issue being resolved after the occupation ends (if not immediately so, soon after) and those like myself, and perhaps others which Ibish calls the “Arab Left”, who believe that the end of the occupation is critical but only the first step in resolving the Palestinian problem.

Consistently, interest groups like the ATFP or government agencies like the U.S. State Department believe the politics and agenda of the Palestinian issue should be limited to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The reality however is that the Palestinian issue is deeper, both historically and territorially, than 1967. The failure to understand this point, and to strategize based on it, is the inherent acceptance of a position of weakness. The Palestinian issue can only be resolved if the equation is shifted to maximize the Palestinian position. Until then the real Arab Left will waste away while promoting negotiations with the occupier.

2007-10-17T20:51:00.001-04:00

And Down Goes my Gauntlet...

David Horowitz is speaking at George Washington University on October 25th. Today I sent an e-mail to the Young America's Foundation (which is sponsoring the event) and their faculty supervisor asking if Mr. Horowitz would accept a challenge to debate.

I have yet to hear from them but await optimistically. Hopefully Mr. Horowitz will be willing to support his views, in an even-timed debate, and not hide behind propaganda films and one sided "lectures".

The text of the E-mail appears below:

From: Yousef Munayyer
To: yaf.gwu@gmail.com ; bbehling@gwu.edu
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 11:25 AM
Subject: David Horowitz Speaking on Campus

Dear GWU-Young America's Foundation,

I am writing to inquire whether or not YAF, who is hosting a discussion with David Horowitz, would be interested in having a different perspective at the event, i.e. a debate. I would be happy to discuss, in an open forum, the issues Mr. Horowitz will bring to light and would look forward to the discussion that would transpire. Please let me know if you would be interested in such a debate.

Regards,

Yousef Munayyer

2007-10-15T14:21:00.000-04:00

The Horowitz-Dershowitz Catch-22

In a follow up to the last entry I will continue to point out just how biased Mr. David Horowitz is and just what type of agenda he has. I will do this by simply looking at documents he supports or places on his website or statements he himself makes. Let the unraveling begin…

Mr. Horowitz’s website is filled with all sorts of propaganda. Typical of such propaganda is historical “narratives”, if they can even be called such, about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One example which appears on his site is a pamphlet by David Meir-Levi for which Mr. Horowitz wrote the introduction. In the pamphlet called “Big Lies: Demolishing the Myths of the Propaganda War Against Israel” Horowitz claims that this information “restores the memory of the facts that lie at the heart of the conflict in the Middle East.”

One claim, central to so-called historical narratives such as Big Lies, is the assertion that Palestinians did not exist prior to the creation of the Israeli state and that the inhabitants of what was Israel (if any, they were not much) were Arabs NOT PALESTIANS. This is a claim that Horowitz and others like Alan Dershowitz make. Consistent with this is the claim that Palestinian nationalism does not come into being until much after 1948 in an Arab attempt reclaim Israel as legitimate Palestinian land.

We can see examples of this in “Big Lies”

“There were no “Palestinian” lands at the time because there were no people claiming to be Palestinians. There were Arabs who lived in the region of Palestine who considered themselves Syrians.”

And also in other nonsensical presentations produced by the “David Horowitz Freedom Center” like the flash presentation “Jimmy Carters War Against the Jews” which claims:

“When Israel was created in 1948, the words “Palestine” and Palestinian did not refer to an Arab people or an Arab nation.”

There is a central utility to making these claims. If your goal is to prove that there is no legitimate Palestinian claim to land which is now controlled by Israel then you want to assert that there is no such thing as Palestinians (only Arabs) and if there is, it is a post-Israel creation and therefore Arabs should be content as they already have other Arab states to call their own. Any claim for Israel by Arabs then becomes a greed filled demand for more land they could not possibly deserve.

I hope my readers understand that I am not endorsing or even challenging the accuracy of these statements. I am simply presenting them and explaining how such statements are needed to arrive to the conclusions presented by Horowtiz and others.

Recently, the new claims of Horowitz and the like is that there is an intricate connection between Islam and Fascism. We must be aware of the so-called “Islamo-Fascist” threat. In an attempt to avoid looking completely foolish Horowitz and the promulgators of the term “Islamo-Fascism” attempt to connect Palestinians, who they would like to cast as modern day enemies of the Jews, as co-conspirators with Hitler.

“Research” has been conducted by a German historian on the connection between Haj Amin Al Hussieni and Adolf Hitler. I place the word research in quotes only because after reading the most contentions parts of this article and looking at the citations I cannot comment on the quality of the sources because they are all in German, a language I am not proficient in. Let us assume that the sources are reliable, as Mr. Horowitz and others like Alan Dershowitz do.

Horowitz and Dershowitz have both recently called on the connection between Hajj Amin Al Hussieni and Hitler to suggest a connection between Islam and Fascism exists. Horowitz uses this to claim that Palestinians are “the quintessential Islamo-Fascists”. Dershowitz claims that “The truth is that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler's Holocaust. The Palestinian leader at the time was Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufit of Jerusalem.”

Suddenly there is ample talk of Palestinians in the pre-war period! The alleged connections between Hussieni and Hitler go back to the 1930s. Horowitz and Dershowitz, who before loved to claim that there were no Palestinians and that Palestinian nationalism is a post-1948 invention, are supporting the idea that there was a distinct Palestinian leadership and distinct Palestinian masses and using nationalist terms to do so.

They cannot claim an Arab-Nazi connection because Jordanians, for example, fought alongside British in World War Two. In fact, it was Jordanian loyalty during WWII that earned them independence from the British Mandate. So to make the claim in any way they have to focus on one individual, Husseini, and they cannot claim that his actions represent Arabs. They still however need to claim he is not an isolated individual but rather a representative of masses which want to obliterate the Jews. So instead they are forced blame it on Palestinians and in doing so they completely contradict themselves.

People like Desrshowtiz and Horowitz should not be welcomed into academia. In the halls of higher learning one sets out to find a conclusion by doing research. Dershowitz and Horowitz routinely start out with a conclusion (based on their political agenda) and then look for “research” to support it. This inevitably leads to self-contradiction.

So what is the answer? Is there a Palestinian nationalism before the creation of the state of Israel or not? Mr. Dershowitz and Horowitz cannot have their cake and eat it too. They have to chose one answer and by doing so they will expose their politically driven agenda. If they refuse to choose they will acknowledge that agenda by default.

Tags: David Horowitz Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week Alan Dershowitz Israel Palestine

Generated by: Technorati Tag Generator

2007-10-13T15:53:00.000-04:00

Why "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" is a joke & Why David Horowitz should not be trusted.

When I first heard of “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” (IFAW) and looked into it I thought it was not intended to be serious. I doubted that anyone could believe the ridiculously simple explanations the IFAW had for the problems in the Middle East. Now after looking into this for nearly two months I have realized what is going on:

An interest group, and more specifically a small group of individuals, is simply looking to make money.

We will get back to this point later but first let’s begin with a narrative of events. First, after viewing the terrorism awareness project’s website and seeing that the David Horowitz Freedom Center claimed that IFAW would “rock the nation” at over 200 college campuses and then proceeded to list the names of the schools I was delighted. I was delighted not because I supported IFAW craziness but because Horowitz, like an overconfident James Bond villain, revealed the details of his plan way to early in the game. We wrote a letter to each University's president that was allegedly hosting an IFAW and explained in this letter why the campaign was bigoted and hateful. We included in this letter the website for IFAW so that administrators could actually see the self-incriminating site.

The total number of different schools which appeared on this list over the course of the last 2 months was 161 and so we sent 161 letters. There are two types of responses we received. The first type of response from University presidents was that they thoroughly searched all student activity calendars and student groups and could not find ANY INSTANCES OR EVENTS related to IFAW. The second type of response echoed the first but also added that no such events would be condoned if scheduled. It is hard to blame Universities for taking this stance considering how hypocritical IFAW is. The campaign is supposedly focusing on the oppression of women and the oppression of homosexuals. Yet by some bizarre logic the organizers of this campaign thought that qualified speakers for these issues would be former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (who by no stretch of the imagination could be construed as a supporter of gay rights) and Ann Coulter (who has advocated eliminating women’s suffrage). Also, for a campaign that is so opposed to Fascists Nazis, it is amazing that organizer David Horowitz defended Ann Coulter recently for her supremacist and anti-Semitic comments that leading Jewish organizations strongly condemned.

Initially the list was numbered on the site but it is not numbered any longer. This is probably because Horowitz and the organizers of IFAW did not want the public to easily discern the large number of schools which have dropped off the list. As of today that list only has about 99 names on it. It still lists, however, schools which have asked not to be associated and have claimed not to be the hosts of any IFAW events. In actuality IFAW maybe happening at a small number of schools but it is certainly not going to “rock” anything. It is just much more of the same from the same group of extremists.

Is there a problem with radicalism in Muslim countries? Absolutely. However Horowitz and IFAW are not helping address this issue in anyway. Instead of reaching out to moderate Muslims they reject them and instead malign an entire religion.

Horowitz and IFAW are no different from the leftists they supposedly love to hate. The term Islamo-Fascism is used to lump in as many Muslims nations as possible and brand them with a term (Fascism) that people at all ends of the political spectrum agree is wrong. How different is this, however, from leftists that go around yelling and screaming about “American Neo-Imperialism”? We all agree that the age of empires was a sad one that brought with it the horrors of slavery, the holocaust, exploitation and depopulation but to use politically charged terms like “American or Western Neo-Imperialism” or “Islamo-Fascism” shows that one has no desire of persuading the mainstream or general public but rather only the intention to score points with a small extremist segment of the population.

This is where we can come back to the conclusion I drew earlier on. I asked myself how is it possible that people like Mr. Horowitz and the like can actually say what they say and do what they do even though they have a high school education. Certainly anyone with a college degree should know very well that the world is far more complex than IFAW would like to make it. How could someone like Horowitz, who was a committed Marxist, become a right wing extremist? Generally ideological attachments develop at a young age and get stronger; rarely do you see ideological epiphanies years into ones intellectually developed life like we see in Mr. Horowitz’s example. What Mr. Horowitz realized, (and I believe he is a real leftist still at heart) is that Leftists were too marginalized in the United States and the Reagan era cemented that into reality. Mr. Horowitz brilliantly decided to exploit capitalism for his own personal gain since he was finding it far more difficult to earn a decent wage or get rich as a Lefty. So he jumped ship, and publicly disavowed leftist’s ideology and followed the cash.

I think this is the only explanation for the type comments and actions we see by these individuals. The more controversial they can be in public on the right end of the political spectrum the more money they can solicit from extremists and the more books they can sell through their right wing networks. Unfortunately for leftists the same dynamic does not exist on the left. How many left wing pundits do you really see? Al Franken? Compared to the right? Remember the question is not about activists but pundits. Certainly there are numerous activists on the left and the right but being a pundit is where the exposure, fame (or infamy) and consequently, the cash is.

David Horowitz’s so called 501 ( c ) 3 “Non-Profit” organization the David Horowitz Freedom Center, formerly known as the Center for the Study of Popular Culture is the front Horowitz has set up to make money. You would think that at a “Non-Profit” the officers would be dedicated to the educational goals of the organizations, the educational goals which got them a tax exempt status, and not in it for the cash. Usually in organizations like this, salaries are divided among several individuals in different programs and amount to a minor percentage of the overall budget so that the majority of dollars donated go to programs and not administrative costs. Perhaps Horowitz is a committed “conservative” and doesn’t care about the money; well let’s check out the organizations 2004 public tax returns.

Mr. Horowitz doesn’t seem to be living the average “non-profit” lifestyle since he was raking in a cool $337,000.00 a year. That equals nearly 19% of the entire “non-profit’s” assets for that year. Being the head of this organization he likely sets his own salary. I am sure he and people like Ann Coulter bring in some cash from the books they sell too. Maybe it was just a good year; you can find tax returns for the other years available publicly here 2005, 2003, and 2002.

As you can seed Mr. Horowitz seems to make more each year after the start of the war with Iraq. Do you think he might have a personal monetary interest in beating war drums at Iran? Interestingly, for Mr. Horowitz it seems that the sound of rattling sabers is “Cha-Ching!”

The formula for these pundits is simple: Say you hate the left, get your cash from the right.

Make no mistake, this is not a group that has no values, it is just that what they value is money and they are willing to exploit the right to get it. I wonder when the real conservatives will wake up and realize they are being scammed by leftists in disguise who are playing on their weaknesses.

Tags: David Horowitz Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week Ann Coulter IFAW Fake Conservatives

Generated by: Technorati Tag Generator

2006-10-09T09:37:00.000-04:00

Ok Perhaps this is cheating again but it has been a long time since I posted something and while listening to a radio program this morning featuring a retired U.S. general discussing the war I was reminded of an Op-Ed I wrote before the war. After going back and reading it I thought I would share it with you....

You Break it, You Buy it...

(from the Daily Collegian, www.dailycollegian.com)

2/28/03

Two days ago, Hamid Karzai, Prime Minister of Afghanistan (or mayor of Kabul as he has been called), appeared before the Foreign Relations Committee and pleaded that they not forget to aid Afghanistan if a war with Iraq begins. Well, unfortunately for him, the forgetting process has already begun.

When the bombs began to fall on Afghanistan on Oct. 7, 2001 and we began to free them from the Taliban, we did so with the promise that we would aid the reconstruction of the country. Afghanistan, a nation of many ethnic peoples like Pashtos, Uzbeks, and Tajiks, desperately needed help to stabilize. They feared that without stabilization the country would fall back into the constant faction wars that have plagued the nation since the end of the Soviet invasion in the early 1980s. And since this process takes time, constant support would be necessary, or so one would think.

So you would assume President Bush's proposed budget for 2004 would include a good chunk of aid to Afghanistan. Unfortunately it didn't. When the budget reached Congress, the Bush administration had forgotten (yes, forgotten) to put that in as an item on the budget. Embarrassed members of Congress had to pencil in $300 million to cover up this blunder.

In the world of international relations today it seems that there is this common understanding among nations. It's very similar to policies in pottery shops: if you break it, you buy it. This is probably because there is some sort of international order right now and no one wants to disrupt it. If a nation decided to attack another nation or change the regime there it becomes responsible for fixing it, especially if it acts unilaterally.

So this has to be considered in what seems to be an inevitable war on Iraq. Are we prepared to pay for Iraq's reconstruction once we break it? I'm doubtful. Some might point to post-WWII Germany and say that it was successful after we broke and fixed it. However, we cannot neglect the fact that Iraq is drastically different because it is much more like Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia in that it is much more divided ethnically, religiously, and ideologically. Sure, Germany was an instant success but you can't expect to take a broken Iraq, add democracy, and watch it grow the same way.

I have heard these arguments about going in to help the oppressed Iraqi people. But I ask, in the long run will they be any better off? Not if we plan on walking away and leaving them in a broken, destabilized, sorry excuse for a nation.

What we have begun to forget to do in Afghanistan cannot happen in a post-Saddam Iraq especially if there is no strong central government.

Today Iraq has within its badly drawn borders Kurds and Arabs, Shi'ites and Sunnis (not to mention a small group of Christians), Ba'athist Socialists and Islamic fundamentalists. There has also been inter-group fighting, especially between the Kurds who are looking for autonomy, in northern Iraq.

The Kurdish issue continues to be a big problem. Turkey has already said that it will not accept an autonomous Kurdish state. Since the Kurds span from eastern Turkey to the south Caspian Sea they cross many internationally recognized borders, and an autonomous Kurdish state in this area would undoubtedly spark a conflict far greater than any war to oust Saddam Hussein.

The Shi'ites in the south, once freed, may invite Iran to restart the bloody border war of the 1980s and may lead to an even larger regional conflict tearing the Middle East apart on denominational lines, leaving Christians and Israel in between this horrific possibility.

So are we prepared to take on this responsibility? If this administration ignores Afghanistan while they still have thousands of troops there, how can we trust that they will not forget Iraq?

To all those people in America out there who are still gung-ho about this war, take some time to think about the responsibilities and long-term investment we will have to put into rebuilding Iraq. Many countries do not want to get involved because of this reason. Right now our allies seem to be the United Kingdom, Bulgaria and um...um....Cheneystan and Rumsfeldia. We are not going to walk out of Iraq in a year or two or 10 even if Saddam is gone on the first day of war. Many experts have said that we may never leave Iraq because of how potentially instable it will become. Are you prepared to pass on that debt to future generations?

This needs to be part of the thinking process on this war because it has not been talked about enough and is definitely crucial. If we continue to make decisions that only look good in the short term, we will be dealing with conflict forever. Reconstructing a nation we destroy cannot be neglected before war and should not be forgotten afterwards.

2006-09-20T12:16:00.000-04:00

Delay, Delay, Dissapear

There are two issues I wanted to focus on in this post. Neither of which will receive the time and space they deserve but it has occured to me that these issues must be raised and further discussion can rise from them.

First and Israeli High Court today questioned the decision of the Israeli Defense (chuckle) Force not to launch a criminal investigation into the shooting of Brian Avery.

For those who do not know Brian's story it is a sad one. Brian, pictured here after the shooting, was working as a peace activist with the International Solidarity Movement in the West Bank when he was shot in the face for appearantly no reason by IDF fire. The IDF has found no reason to open an investigation and Congress, who should normally stand up for American citizens like Brian has ignored his pleas. Ironically the High Court in Israel is willing to stand up for Brian's rights while the U.S. Congress can't be bothered to preasure Israel.

What can we expect, I suppose, from a Congress that is consistently putting Israel's interests before its own. Just two weeks ago, after nightmarish human rights reports were released about Israel's indiscriminate use of American made cluster bombs in civilian areas in Lebanon, a bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate calling for the end of cluster munition sales to parties which use them in and around civilian populations. The bill was co-sponsored by Patrick Leahy and Diane Fienstien (Jewish herself and this should not matter in a perfect world but as you can tell from the picture above little about the world is perfect if even decent). So one would think this Bill would pass without much debate. Preventing the use of cluster bombs going off in civilian areas. This is similar to bills calling for funds to build parks for disabled orphan children. This is the type of bill sneaky congressmen attach controversial riders too. This should be a no-brainer!
While the senate certainly showed thier failure to use brain power it certainly was not toward what should have been the outcome. The bill failed 30 yays - 70 nays. So much for the disabled orphan children.

Israel indiscriminate use of cluster bombs has left a deadly unexploded mine filed across much of Lebanon. Prior to the recent war there were approximatly 20,000 Israeli landmines in southern Lebanon. Israel had refused to hand over the maps detailing the location of these mines and instead have left Lebanese school children to discover the surprises on thier own. After the war the nightmare only got worse. An article from the Independent report this today:

"Bomb disposal experts are working around the clock to clear the lethal leftovers after Israel fired 1.2 million bomblets in the last three days of the war. The pods containing the 650 bomblets, which burst apart at a pre-determined height, have a failure rate of up to 30 per cent, leaving clear evidence of their American origin."

So I will turn to the second issue by asking; is it all worth it? Is it really worth defending this vicious state? We are often too concerned about the survial of the state of Israel and maintaining its existance at all costs. But is the demise of a Jewish "Democratic" state inevitable? Will this not just make all the bloodshed seem even more pointless?

In a recent Washington Post Op-Ed Richard Cohen (again himself Jewish) wrote the following:

"The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself."

Cohen is touching on something very important. This realization can not be ignored and as long as it is ignored Israeli policy will be based on survival but will only delay the inevitable demise of a state spiraling toward further moral decay.

There is a simple but vital fact which can not be ignored. In fact a historical comaprison of policies shows that the early leaders of the Jewish State had a much clearer understanding of this than there more recent counterparts. There is a pink elephant in Israel's living room and no one is paying attention. Note the graphic on the right.

I chose this map to make a point. The area you see is often refered to as "Israel proper". The missing sections are ofcourse the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Our focus now is on Israel Proper. In Israel Proper 20% of the Population is Palestinian. These people are Israeli citizens. The remainder of the 80% is "Jewish" and is from a variety of national backgrounds. The Palestinian block maybe the single largest national group within Israel (Except Israel doesn't recognize Palestinian as a nationality)

Most people would look at this situation and see nothing wrong with it. Even given that Israel seeks to maintain a Jewish Charachter (i.e. Jewish Majority) to the State a measely 20% can not pose a problem can they? Perhaps if we are only living in this moment in time forever this fifth of the Israeli Population will not be a concern but since we know that the sun is likely to come up tomorrow and they day after that too we have to think about if this 20% will remain the same over time.

To answer this we need to ask if there are major immigration trends. For the most part the immigration trends within Israel will not effect the current numbers. However the most drastic change has come and will continue to come from the differing birth rates. Below a diagram from the Israeli Beaurau of Statistics depicts the trends in the coming years. Please note the dark blue bar, which represents the "arabs" or Palestinian citizens of Israel and also note how in the coming years the gap closes dramatically.

For Israeli policy makers this is not just a pink elephant- this is a screaming juggleing pink elephant on fire riding a unicycle. Some may argue that Israeli policy makers do acknowledge this and that explains some of the policies they have towards discriminating against and segragating the Palestinians in Israel from the rest of its citizens. If I was an Israeli that was adamant about maintaining the Jewish charachter of the State I would be demanding much more serious action to deal with this problem.

So is it worth it? If this is a state which is creeping toward inevitable evaporation is it worth supporting its delay tactics that result in Brian Avery and countless innocent Palestinians like him every day? This is a questions Americans and Israelis should be asking.

No serious solution to this issue has been raised by Israelis who support a Jewish State. The only policies so far have been to maintain seperation at all costs, drawing fences and walls of concrete and law to keep the Palestinians out. While walls can continue to be built they will only close in on the state and Israel, born after the tragedies of the Second World War may become nothing but a collection of Jewish ghettos again.

Ironically this time, it seems, it will be with the consent of many Jews.

2006-08-24T13:13:00.000-04:00

There is no Anti-Arab or Muslim Bias in the USA

I know I havn't posted in a while and I'm sorry about that. I suppose this is also a cheap way out but in anycase I thought I would share this with you all and hear your comments.

Below is the text of a letter I recieved today in the office with no name:

"My Dear Muslim Brothers,

In this time of strife between the Christians, Jews and the Muslims we of the Christian faith would like to extend the hand of friendship.

We would like to come to Mecca and host a BBQ for our Muslim brethren. We will provide the Pork Spareribs, beans, coleslaw and the beer and hopefully we can sit down in fellowship and build bridges between our communities.

Please do not pass up this opportunity as our BBQ masted BUBBA cooks the best Pork Spareribs in the American South and you haven't lived until you taste Bubbas' spareribes. Mohamed I am sure would approve.

In Friendship,

Your Christian Brothers"

2006-07-28T17:44:00.000-04:00

How Misguided They Are

I recieved an e-mail today which listed several questions about "Palestine" and how such a thing never existed. Since it was obviously copied and pasted from an misguided source I decided to reply to the e-mail to enlighten my interlocutor. My answers immediatly follow each of his questions which appear below in bold print.

If you are so sure that "Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded history", I expect you to be able to answer a few basic questions about that country of Palestine:

Before I address each question I think it would help to clarify that many of the questions and doubts you have can be raised about most modern day nation-states. Most of what seems to be unclear to you will make more sense if you understand the emergence of the modern nation-state system and the rise of the colonized world to becoming the developing world after achieving independence from their colonizers.

This being said....

When was it founded and by whom?

No nation is really founded like buildings are. However the people living in Palestine who have been there for centuries can trace their roots back past the crusades and even past the rise of Islam in the 6th and 7th century. There is no point in recorded history where we can safely say that the land was "uninhabited".

What were its borders?

Historic Palestine was defined geographically by the Mediterranean Sea to the west, the river Jordan to the east. The vast majority of the population lived directly between these borders however to the south of the country, which was largely desert, there was a Bedouin population which traveled across open lands never having to worry about borders. To the north the border with Lebanon begins to be defined by the higher mountains in the north of the Galilee. These natural borders have surrounded the land that has been referred to as Palestine by its inhabitants for centuries. In fact the borders of Palestine are the most naturaly defined boundaries of any post-colonial country in the region.

What was its capital?

As we mentioned earlier Palestine was part of the colonized world. From 1517 to 1917 the land of Palestine was governed by the Ottoman Empire. This does not mean however that the people of Palestine did not have a regional administrative center on their land. This of course was Jerusalem, which was the capital of the Mustasarraflik of Jerusalem (independent governorate in the center of Palestine- similar to the District of Columbia today)

In earlier years the capital of Palestine had changed. While Jerusalem had been an important epicenter for religious activity the city of Al-Ramle served as the administrative capitol during the 12th and 13th centuries. Mustafa Khaiyr Id-Dine Al-Ramli was a well known religious scholar in the 16th century was sought out throughout the land for legal opinions. In his opinions, which were widely read and respected in other major capitols like Damascus and Beirut, he comfortably used the term Palestine to refer to the area described above. This demonstrates that there was not only a term "Palestine" used by its inhabitants for centuries but also that that term was associated with specific land thereby constituting a territorial concept.

Other notable writers from centuries past like Evlyia Chelebi, a renowned traveler and writer in the Ottoman Empire, commonly referred to the area as "Palestine".

What were its major cities?

The major Palestinian cities were Jerusalem, Yaffa, Nablus, Haifa and Hebron. Other notable cities which played major roles throughout history are Al-Ramle, Jericho, and Safad.

What constituted the basis of its economy?

For centuries grains, olives and soap have been main exports from Palestine. In the 19th century citrus and specifically the Yaffa Orange became world famous. Its thicker peel kept it fresher longer and it was able to be shipped on long trips. Soon it became famous in Europe. It is important to note that major dynamism and even spikes were occurring in the Palestinian economy before the advent of the Zionist movement.

What was its form of government?

The land of Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire and the head of the dynastic government of the empire was a Sultan who ruled from Istanbul. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, England took the territory as part of the spoils of war in 1918. The British Mandate lasted until May 14th, 1948. Previous to the Ottomans the land of Palestine was governed by an Arab Sultanate.

Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?

Yes, I can name several. In the modern era a direct predecessor to Arafat was Ahmad Shukairy. During the mandate there was Abdel Qader Al Hussieni and in the period of the Arab Revolt to Ottoman Rule there were several active leaders of civil society in Palestine who actively opposed Ottoman Rule and aspired for independence and self-determination. For more information on this era you may find George Antonius' "Arab Awakening" helpful.

Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?

If we are to accept that a nation only exists because others say it does then I supposed this is a relavent question. Upon declaring independence in 1988 as a state in the international community Palestine was recognized by several other states. The legitimacy of those states, like China, Germany, Indonesia, Ukraine and India is up to you. You can read more about this in the Archives of the UN General Assembly Summary Record of the 157th Meeting of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

What was the language of the country of Palestine?

The inhabitants of Palestine are Arabic speakers. This includes all religious groups, even Jews. Hebrew resurfaced only in the 20th century. Prior to that, in the modern era, it was a strictly religious language and the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine spoke fluent Arabic.

What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?

The prevalent religion of the people of Palestine was Islam. There was a significant Christian minority and a much smaller Jewish minority. Palestine has also been the home of a Holy Site of the B'hai Faith. It is also home to Druze.

What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that date.

Palestinians used many different currencies through out history including Roman, Ummayyad, Ottoman and British. In the 1920s the British Mandate Established the Palestinian Pound which bore the word PALESTINE on it in Arabic, English and Hebrew. For more on an economic History of Palestine I would recommend the work of Roger Owen and particularly "The Middle East in the World Economy 1800-1914"

And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

The land of Palestine has always existed and continues to exist however governments have come and gone. The tone of these questions are obviously politically charged and it seems that they hope to prove the Zionist propaganda slogan "A Land without a people for a people without a Land" Even Israeli historians have written extensively about the fallacy of this slogan.

By this logic the sandwich I had for lunch never existed because now I can not see it. Surprisingly I’m still full.

Even today the entirity of historic Palestine has a vast Arab Majority if you consider that in the land between the river and the sea there is 4 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, 1 million Palestinian's with Israeli Citizenship, and a large section of Israel Jews who came from Arab lands.

Please feel free to contact me about sources you can refer to for more information on this issue.

2006-07-27T10:44:00.000-04:00

Israel’s lose-lose
situation

I have looked at this over and over and tried to understand how the war Israel is waging in Lebanon now can possibly solve any of its problems or serve its interests. In every scenario Israel is playing with a loosing hand. In fact at this point in the conflict it is attempting damage control to minimize what the leaders of Israel have already accepted to be irreversible losses.

Let’s analyze the different options and strategic actions Israel has.

A Continued Air Assault

Should the Israelis choose this route they will be incapable of solving their objective of limiting Hezbollah. In fact this aerial bombing campaign has only proven capable of destroying civilian infrastructure and lives while the Katyushas landing in Israel continue to strike and even rise in number. Certainly neither Israel nor Lebanon benefit from a continuance of the status quo over a prolonged period. With thousands of Katyushas suspected in Hezbollah’s possession this could potentially drag out for months.

A Land Invasion

Israel is currently trying this and learning very harshly that the price they will pay for this strategy is too high. With Israeli soldiers publicly recounting stories of “Hell on Earth” at Bint Jbeil in Lebanon it doesn’t seem likely that the Israeli Military will be able to carry out a prolong limited incursion either. While Hezbollah did not anticipate this scale of Israeli response Israel equally did not anticipate Hezbollah’s ability to reach deep into Israel. This new reality, proven as Hezbollah rockets continue to land in Haifa, Nazareth and Afula, has changed the dynamic of military balance and has forced Israel to recalculate its entire northern strategy. At this point they seem very confused. These long range rockets mean that Israel would have to invade and secure a Hezbollah-free region in Lebanon over 10-miles past the Litany River to insure that rockets will be out of range. Already in its limited campaign into Bint Jbeil Israel has learned that Southern Lebanon has changed drastically in the 6 years since they withdrew. Hezbollah’s hold on the area has only grown and they seem to be inviting a land invasion- this is a signal for any military general to be wary of.

A Cease-Fire

The best opportunity Israel has to stop Hezbollah’s rocket attacks is to negotiate a cease-fire. At this point in time it seems like the only reasonable option Israel has to obtain their military objective. While a cease-fire will not immediately return their captured soldiers it will at least allow for the conditions where such a release can be possible. The political leaders in Israel will have to decide what they value more- their reputations or the lives of the captured soldiers, currently both are in jeopardy.

Israel is playing a dangerous game and is engaging in a type of war they simply can not win. The leadership in Israel has realized this and has also realized the devastating blow this will have to the legitimacy of their government which has proven incapable of protecting their citizens. The strategy for Israel, which is supported by the United States, seems to be damage control. The United States has agreed to allow Israel to put them in a better position before a cease-fire. These are the “proper conditions” Madame Secretary Rice really refers to when talking about the framework of a cease-fire. However things for Israel seems to be getting worse and more insulting as this conflict is prolonged. There are still some outstanding questions: How long the Israeli leadership is going to wait before they admit that they too made a miscalculation in engaging Hezbollah? How patient will the US be before it tells Israel to cut its losses and run? How many more innocents will die?

It is important to understand that Hezbollah is by no means stronger than Israel in military capability but only strong enough to put a vulnerable Israeli state in a position of indecision and inevitable loss. In return, Israel finds no other response but to attack innocents while it attempts to reassess its blunder.

Tags: Lebanon Hezbollah Hizbollah Hizbullah Israel

Generated by: Technorati Tag Generator

2006-07-19T13:32:00.000-04:00

The Epitome of Hypocrisy

I was sitting in a lecture yesterday when an Israeli professor was trying his utmost to give a balanced and accurate analysis of the war on Lebanon. He stressed that Iranian support for Hizbollah was an unfair and hostile intervention and an attempt to use the Shi'ite Lebanese resistance group as a proxy to carry out attacks on Israel. He further emphasized this issue by pointing the finger at Syria . The smoking gun was apparent as what appeared to be Iranian manufactured Fajr missiles landed inside Israel.

I could not help but think of the hypocrisy in all of this. The Israeli complaint is that a third party is acting unfairly in supporting its enemies. Suddenly this all sounded familiar. Ah yes... the sound of sonic booms over Gaza cause by American made F-16s comes to mind. Or perhaps the rattling of standard issue American made M-16 automatic riffles in the hands Israeli soldiers rings a bell. Even the subtle whistle of missiles leaving Apache Helicopters before the earth shattering destruction they cause points at the interference of another party.

Just think about Apache helicopters for a second. Can there be a more ironic circumstance. A an American weapon named for a tribe America dispossessed given to another dispossessed people (the Israeli Jews) so that they can disposes yet another people (the Palestinians). Yet we forget all this as it has become so commonplace but when Iran supplies Hizbollah with missiles it becomes the smoking gun needed to prove violations of international law which we only selectively enforce anyway.

In his "Wretched of the Earth" Fannon wrote that in the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized (or in this case the occupier and the occupied) the language of the dialogue is set by the colonizing party. What this means is that should the stronger party set the dialogue of violence and force the language of communication understood by the occupied is in turn force and only force.

The burden continues to fall on the stronger party, in this case Israel, to change the dialogue. With the most superior army in the region, armed by the most dominant military force in the world, and the largest per capita nuclear arsenal there is no doubt that Israel remains the regions hegemon.

So if Israel continues to follow a psychologically twisted and paranoid policy of "We will strike them till they love us" the Zionist dream of creating a SAFE and SECURE place for the Jewish people to live will never materialize.

As for the United States it is unclear what the policy in the Middle East is towards democracy. If it is the case that democracy is what the U.S. wants to see in the Mid East it is quite contrary to what has been accepted as "American Interests" in the last half century. Think about it...if a democracy is, in its most basic form, a government that represents the general will of its people than the regimes that would be created in a truly democratic Middle East would be strongly anti-American since the Arab world continues to perceive the United States as a very biased third party which has only contributed to Israeli war crimes.

So if the United States continues to follow a policy of democracy promotion while supporting an unjust Israeli occupation machine the dream of a friendly and stable Middle East will also never materialize.

2006-07-16T13:05:00.000-04:00

Violence Comes not from a Vacuum

It happened again. The Middle East is flaring up, some say on the brink of regional war, and the United States and its general public seem to think this came out of the blue. The President and Secratary of State have criticized Syria and Iran and have said that they are purposly undermining the peace process which was "moving forward".

Comments like this make me wonder what planet our leaders are on. What peace process are they talking about? Three weeks ago Huda Ghalia became the last remaining member of her family which was wiped out by an Israeli shell while they were enjoying a picnic on the beach. Perhaps we should ask her about the peace process and how well it was going. Alas Huda only became the next Muhammad Al-Durra, whose 12 year old life came to an end at the begining of the second Intifada when he was shot in his fathers arms by Israeli soldiers. The world blamed the Palestinians for the uprising forgetting the ongoing occupation which has lasted for 40 years.

The United States faces a critical moment now. They can make a strategic decision to intervene and call off the destructive and disprortionate Israeli military response or they can stay silent as Israel blasts Lebanon back to despair. If they choose to stay idle we will take a dramatic step back in our war on terror.

The Arab world is in uproar and rightfully so. Not only has the situation in Gaza become a humantiarian crisis but now there is an open war in Lebanon. Arab leaders are silent while thier popultions are calling for action.

What happened to international norms? Is this the reaction that should follow an attack on an handful of soldiers? It is clear that the Israeli objective is wide scale distruction and this premeditated attack falls in line with Israels long term strategy of delaying any regional peace and stability.

Finally we hear the talk of Security Council Resolution 1559 from both the Israelis and the United States. Israel and the United States have lost all moral grounds from which they can ask for the implementation of UNSC resolutions. In fact it is the United States and its blind support for Israel that has torpedoed the international system. Well before 1559 there are tens of UNSC resolutions which Israel is defying. For example UNSC 194 which calls for the repatriation of refugees from 1948 or UNSC 242 which calls for the end of the Israeli occupation from all territories occupied in 1967 and also UNSC 687 which calls for the middle east to be a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. Israel currently holds the largets per capita nuclear arsenal. It currently violates international court decisions about the path and construction of the aparthied wall in the West Bank.

Let us not forget who is the aggressor in the region. While Iraq, Lebanon and the Occupied Palestinian territories face continued violence the most destructive force in the region and most consistant violater of international law and norms is Israel.

To end this current crisis, which is rivaling the 6-day war in terms of duration, we need immediate American intervention. Should this not be the case, the Middle East with its youthful population (eg. 50% of the 1.4 million Gazans under the age of 15) will remember for generations to come that the world was silent and permitted Israel to destroy thier homes and thier lives.

2006-07-07T16:21:00.000-04:00

I have entered the bloggesphere and have yet to burn up but I can not say that I will not burn out. So many friends have asked me to start a blog and I have hesitated simply because I fear my own lack of commitment to it. Recent events have stirred so much emotion inside me that I longed for the outlet I once had in my college newspaper years. (For more articles of mine from the Daily Collegian click here). It seems almost impossible to publish in the so-called mainstream media today especially if you are concerned about human rights but the internet/blog revolution has allowed everyone to chime in. What follows in the coming entries are my thoughts on what I see happening. I welcome your feedback.