Friday, May 29, 2009

From Begin to Netanyahu: Can President Obama, like Carter Before him, Deliver the Promised Peace with the Zionist Entity?

 
Netanyahu: a Chip off the Old Begin Block

President Clinton, after a frustrating meeting with prime minister Netanyahu exclaimed "that SOB does not want a deal." In his former term as prime minister, Netanyahu gave plenty rhetorical support for peace while doing everything possible to derail any progress from 1996 to 1999. Another American president had to deal with an Israeli prime minister who talks peace but does everything to derail it. President Carter described the terrorist- turned- prime minister of Israel, the late Menachem Begin, as "psychotic." President Carter was able to bring peace between Israel and Egypt despite Begin's tactics. Throughout the peacemaking efforts of President Carter, Begin threw obstacle after obstacle. President Sadat, knowing that Begin is stalling and trying to derail the process, gave in more than one time to Begin's demands in order to bring peace between Egypt and Israel. The fact that Sadat gave in to Begin's demands many times made Sadat seem like a bad negotiator that had conceded much to Israel. Sadat knowingly made these concessions to have an American brokered peace treaty that Begin clearly did not want.

Israel: Talking Peace, Making War

Despite the claims that Israel wants peace and the Arabs want to "throw the Jews in the sea," throughout most of the Arab-Israeli conflict it is Israel and the armed Zionist gangs that predated the creation of the state of Israel that have wanted and were able to go to war and the Arabs unable and not ready to go to war. Those who are knowledgeable about peace negotiations between Arabs and Israel know that Israel does not want peace with its Arab neighbors.

Netanyahu and Sabotaging American Peace Efforts: From Waiting for "Arab democracy to Take
Hold" to the Manufacture of the Iran" Threat"

Prime Minister Netanyahu, the record of peace making during the Clinton years shows, just like his spiritual father Begin, does not want peace. Before the invention of the "Iran threat," Netanyahu used to speak about the need to wait for democracy to take hold in Arab societies before Israel is asked to engage in peace with its neighbors. Netanyahu's fancy rhetoric was intended to veil the reality of Israel continuing to occupy and colonize Palestine. Now that certifiably free elections brought Hamas to power Netanyahu and the pro- Israel American fanatics are singing the tune of the "Iran threat." In his first meeting with President Obama, Netanyahu wanted to focus on the Iran threat that he and allegedly the Arab moderate states agree is a priority- despite the fact that even Egypt's president Mubarak has made it clear that the priority is pursuing peace with the Palestinians.

Obama calls Netanyahu's Bluff? Changing the Subject and Negotiating for the Sake of Negotiating

While the world speaks of a two- state solution in Palestine and the urgent need to freeze settlement activity, Netanyahu came to the US intending to change the subject of Palestine by speaking about the "existential threat" that a nuclear Iran poses to Israel. Netanyahu, to waste everyone's time while creating facts on the ground and launching wars against Lebanon and the Palestinians, wants to renegotiate everything anew regardless of the positions of former Israeli governments. Renegotiating from scratch is a tactic that Israeli governments religiously follow in order to keep on talking peace, while making war. It is a tactic that has sickened Syria's Assad, the father and the son.

Israel and the Manufacture of the Iran Threat: Forget Palestine, let's Talk Iran

One of the scandals of Arab politics is the presence on the agenda of the "Iran threat" and "the Shia threat." Israel is promoting the idea of the Iranian threat that Israel and the "moderate Arabs" are facing. While there are a number of real issues between the Arabs and Iran, the question of Palestine remains the main issue and the manufacture of the Iran threat is an attempt to demote the issue of Palestine from the number one spot on the agenda. The question of Palestine is being made a secondary item on the Arab public agenda and in the Arab public sphere. These efforts have largely failed because it is Israel who keeps bombing Arabs, keeps colonizing their lands and keeps creating and threatening to create more refugees. Is it Iran that is holding a siege on Gaza and starving it to the extent that tunnels are built to smuggle diapers and food items? Is it Iran that uprooted the Palestinian people and destroyed more than five hundred villages and created the tragedy of the 61 year old exile? Is it Iran that is passing a law that makes it a crime for the Palestinians who live in Israel to even observe the tragedy of the Nakba?

Obama and the Politics of Engagement: President Obama Can't Do It Alone

We need a grassroots effort to support President Obama. President George W. Bush used to say that he is sick and tired of hearing about the Arab Israeli conflict. President Bush wasted eight years with the US not only not pushing for peace but actively supporting the aggressor, occupier and colonizer of Arab lands with American taxpayer money and unlimited diplomatic and military support despite the damage to American interests this unlimited support is causing in the Arab and Muslim world. President Obama is good for Arabs and Muslims for a number of reasons- one of them is that he is knowledgeable on the issues. Obama is inching closer to engagement with America's adversaries, including Hamas and Hizbullah, without whom no peace can materialize. The policy of refusing to talk to them has only increased their credibility and popularity in the Arab and Muslim world. Both Hizbullah and Hamas have won democratic elections and will not be fading away as political forces in the foreseeable future. It is impossible to have a deal that has a chance of survival with either Lebanon or Palestine without Hizbullah and Hamas at the table. However, a reasonable American foreign policy will face resistance from a solidly pro- Israel Congress. On embarking on the serious tackling of the Arab-Israeli conflict, President Obama deserves the full support of the Arab and Muslim American communities.
 
 
 

American Muslims in the Mosque: God and the FBI are Watching You?

 
 
God, for sure. The FBI, maybe.

FBI Director Robert Mueller testified before the Senate in February 2005 on the issue of the "war on terror" stating "Efforts by extremists to obtain training inside the U.S. is also an ongoing concern. Although there are multiple reports and ongoing investigations associated with the paramilitary training activities of suspected extremists nationwide, the majority of these cases involve small groups of like-minded individuals who are inspired by the jihadist rhetoric experienced in radical mosques or prison proselytizing." (my emphasis).

A Google search using "Detroit Muslims FBI" brings up a first page with 10 items, 9 of them negative. One of these items is "Detroit Muslim groups claim FBI coercion" which quoted Imad Hamad, regional director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, stating "We have worked extensively with the FBI and others in the past, and certainly we would provide any information of a national security concern. But the issue now is this: Will they treat us as partners, or suspects, or both? We want to know." The writer quotes John Miller of the FBI stating that the FBI does not "target mosques" and does not "send people out on fishing expeditions. We investigate people … and with probable cause to do so under the attorney general's guidelines." But what is" Jihadist rhetoric"? A "radical" mosque? that FBI director referred to in his testimony?

Evil Israel, Ungodly US Foreign Policy= Jihadist Rhetoric?

The reality is that a tiny group of Muslims have declared an armed struggle on the US and have based this intention on religious grounds. The list of grievances include support for Israel in its occupation and oppression of the Palestinians, support for undemocratic regimes in the Arab and Muslim world, among other claims. The overwhelming majority of Muslims and Arabs condemn the use of violence and/or terrorism against civilian targets. However, the overwhelming majority of Muslims and Arabs condemn the unlimited support that the US provides to Israel, in many instances in harsh rhetoric. Many of the grievances of the radicals and terrorists are seen by many in the Arab and Muslim world as legitimate grievances. This agreement on grievances, however, does not translate into agreement and acceptance of anything else that involves the terrorists. The US considers Hamas and the Hizbullah as terrorist organizations. The majority of Arabs and Muslims think Hizbullah and Hamas are legitimate resistance groups that deserve to be supported. Providing material support for Hizbullah or Hamas is a serious offense. However, sympathy or emotional support is not a crime. Is that how law enforcement sees it too? It is not unusual in the US for a foreign group to be seen as terrorist by the government but not by a visible ethnic group- the experience of the IRA and the Irish American community comes to mind.

The Metrics of a "Radical" Mosque- The Business of Counting Headscarves

What is a "radical" mosque? How do we know one? Is emotional or rhetorical support for Hizbullah and Hamas an indication of hostility to the US? Is a mosque whose attendees express solidarity with Gaza and even with Hamas a breeding ground for terrorists and therefore should be monitored, infiltrated and manipulated? If a board member once said "Islam is the answer and will one day become the dominant religion in the United States, God willing," does that make the mosque radical? Is hoping and praying that Islam will be the dominant faith in the US and in the world an indication of radicalism and hostility to the US? Radical anti Muslim advocates/Israel cheerleaders such as Daniel Pipes are trying to indoctrinate the public and law enforcement through their "research and advocacy" that wishing that Islam become the major faith of America present a clear and present danger. The underlying theme of the anti-Muslim advocacy is indirect Israel support by weakening the other side and painting it as the enemy within? Who is buying this? One self-described expert on American Muslims concluded that a mosque in Chicago is becoming "radical" because over time more of the female mosque goers were wearing head scarves!

Love Me, Hate My Terrorist Designee?

Loving Uncle Sam and Sayed Hassan
Law enforcement is a balancing act between constitutional protections of the individual and the need to provide security. The government has every right to protect its citizens from attacks, preferably stopping them before they materialize. However, Muslims have the right to free exercise of their faith and free association. Emotional and rhetorical support for groups the US deems terrorist should not be taken as evidence of hostility to the US. I recall speaking with an elderly woman from South Lebanon who asked me if I were a US citizen and recounted how proud she was to get her US citizenship. The old woman at the citizenship interview was asked if she would fight for the US and she told the interviewer that "she would hold a machine gun and shoot the enemies of the US." The officer laughed and granted her the citizenship, she told me. But minutes later this proud American citizens told me how she admires Hizbullah [a group the FBI called the A team of terrorism,] and Sayed Hassan Nasrallah for liberating the South from the Israeli occupation and restoring the dignity of the Southern Lebanese. I laughed when she made these seemingly contradictory statements but on second thought I realized that to her it makes sense. This woman loves the US for what it did for her, providing her with opportunities undreamt of in her native land. At the same time, she admires Sayed Nasrallah and Hizbullah for making it possible for her to visit her village freely without Israel and its mercenaries humiliating her and her children in the process. Also, the Israelis used to think that going into South Lebanon, Rambo style, bombing and occupying is a picnic. The Hizbullah, the fact is the sons and fathers of her family and fellow Southerners, made this "picnic" a nightmare. She has no complaint against the Hizbullah and probably right after she watches the fourth of July fireworks on Michigan Avenue and waives the American flag she performs her evening prayers and prays that" God protect the resistance and the Sayed." This is not cognitive dissonance- to this woman and many like her it makes perfect sense.
Would this woman or a similarly situated person incite violence against the US? If the people she goes to the mosque with hold the same values, is that a mosque that needs to be monitored or infiltrated? Is a preacher who calls the occupation of Iraq a crime a person who is teaching hostility to America and encouraging terrorist attacks on the US, therefore there is a need to dig through his immigration file for a pretext to deport him?

Hating America vs. Hating American Foreign Policy/Policies

American mosques are not teaching hostility to America, hostility to America's foreign policy as to Israel maybe but not to America. American mosques are not encouraging terrorist attacks on the US. American Muslims are strongly against US foreign policy- the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and the US support for Israel. It is alarming to law enforcement that some of the rhetoric used by ordinary Muslim Americans is similar to that used by foreign terrorists/ sworn enemies of the US. While there is some logic for concern, it helps to remember that Timothy McVeigh made arguments about the federal government taking liberties and becoming a danger to the US citizenry and their existence. There is a major political party that has won elections making almost identical arguments about the government being too big and threatening constitutional freedoms.

Monday, May 4, 2009

The 61 Year Zionist Poisonous Tree & Its Fruit of Refugees, Discrimination and Apartheid

In trying to create the state of Israel, the Zionists approached many international powers. They approached the much maligned Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid who soundly rebuffed them despite their offers of support and money that the Ottomans badly needed. The Zionists were also turned away by the German Kaiser who did not as much as offer the atheist Herzl a chance to speak about his project. The Palestinians rejected Zionist colonization all along but many neither believed that the Zionists actually had a shot at achieving a homeland in Palestine nor that they were capable of committing the atrocities, rape and massacres, the Zionist gangs committed in 1948. The Zionist project and the Zionist entity called Israel brought them nothing but death and destruction at a magnitude never foreseen. The fruit of the Zionist poisonous tree include rape and massacres, mass expulsions and millions of refugees, demolished villages, discrimination against the Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship, a system of apartheid in the West Bank and a besieged ghetto in Gaza.

Benny Morris: No Rape, No Murder = No Jewish State in Palestine
No Omelet without Breaking Eggs

In an interview with Haaretz, historian Benny Morris, author of The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, speaks candidly about the war crimes committed by the Zionist gangs against the Palestinian population during the “War of Independence”- a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing using the tools of rape, murder and destruction. His conclusion is that there is no Jewish state without expulsion of Palestinians and no expulsion of Palestinians without war crimes. He states that examining the historical record he found “far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Hagannah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.”

Rape and massacres were used to force the population to flee. Morris states that he found record of dozen cases of rape which he assumes, due to the nature of the crime, that this is “just the tip of the iceberg.” As to massacres, he found record of 24 massacres perpetrated in 1948, “[T]hat can’t be a chance. Apparently various officers, who took part in the Operation, understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder.”
Morris agrees with the violent uprooting of the Palestinians without which “a Jewish state would not have arisen here.” “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands.”

Morris faults Ben Gurion for not going far enough, for not ethnically cleansing the whole of Palestine to the Jordan River. He believes that if Ben Gurion did not get “cold feet” and “falter,” the Arabs would have been completely been removed from 1948 Palestine, the West Bank and Gaza. That would have brought a quieter and more stable Jewish state, Morris believes.

MK Jamal Zahalkeh: Lieberman is the True Face of Zionist Racism
Jamal Zahalkeh, a member of the Israeli Knesset and a head of the United Democratic Front spoke on the issue of Israeli racism in Durbin in an eloquent and succinct manner that summarized the history of the conflict. MK Zahalka stated: "The Palestinian people are victims of racist colonialism. Colonialism has to be defeated and not compromised with. Eradicating racism paves the way for a just peace and coexistence between the Arabs and Jews in our homeland.” He added “After the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister, the Israeli establishment is unable to cover up its racism. Lieberman is openly a racist and called for the execution of the Arab members of the Knesset. He called for dropping nuclear bombs on Gaza and the Aswan dam…He calls on the Palestinian citizens of Israel to declare loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state, that is to declare loyalty to Zionism as an ideology which means betraying themselves and their people. Lieberman immigrated to our homeland and he calls for us the natives of the homeland to declare loyalty to his racist ideology and he threatens to exile us from our homeland if we do not declare allegiance to his blatant racist ideology.”

Anti-Palestinian Racism and the Manufacture of Israeli Identity

According to MK Zahalkeh Israeli racism is a product of a colonialist project that would not have been possible without the manufacturing of anti- Palestinian racism. “This racism toward Arabs, along with the Hebrew language, and an imagined Jewish common history, was needed to form an Israeli identity. This project needed racism to justify ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Without ethnic cleansing and apartheid it would have been impossible to create a Jewish state in Palestine” he argued.

Benny Morris: Complete Palestinian Ethnic Cleansing, Not at this Moment

Lieberman is portrayed as a lunatic fringe racist, just like Meir Kahane used to be portrayed. However, about 60 % of Jewish citizens of Israel support the transfer of the Arab citizens of Israel. Ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is at the core of the Zionist enterprise. Palestine was already populated by another people as the Zionist delegation that visited Palestine reported “the bride is beautiful but she is married to another man.” Benny Morris writes: “If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself. If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion o the Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza, and perhaps from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this oment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within.”

Their One State vs. Our One State

The Palestinians, led by the PLO, have always called for a democratic one state solution where Jews, Christian and Muslims are equal. What the Zionist/Jewish supremacist enterprise has produced so far is also a one state, a one state where the Palestinians living within the green line are treated as second- class citizens and the enemy within with about 60% of Jewish Israelis wanting them transferred; a system of apartheid in the West Bank; and a besieged ghetto in Gaza. This is the reality that Zionism has inflicted on Palestine so far. It could get worse. The Zionist project is awaiting the right moment to ethnically cleanse all historical Palestine. This is the ultimate goal of the Zionist movement.