Sunday, December 8, 2013

The Reasons They Piled on Imad Hamad and ADC

From left Former FBI director John Bell, former US attorney Jeff Collins, Imad Hamad, recognized for their BRIDGES involvement. In the picture is current US attorney Barbara L. McQuade

The Reasons They Piled on Imad Hamad and ADC:

Dialogue with the U.S. Government, Opening Up to the Gulf
A who’s who of “progressive” and “leftist” Arab American activists piled on Mr. Imad Hamad, the former Michigan regional director of the American Arab anti- Discrimination Committee (ADC), with unexpected viciousness.

In hindsight, it is expected viciousness.

For many reasons - reasons that have nothing to do with the stale harassment claims, the 15- year- old claim of Rashida and the 8- year- old claim of Rana- or Rashida Tlaib and Rana Abbas.
There are two key reasons for this viciousness- one domestic and one international.

“Sin” # 1: Dialogue with the Government

The domestic reason is the engagement and dialogue with the government that Imad Hamad adopted and institutionalized. Imad Hamad and ADC sat with the government. Imad Hamad met regularly and openly with the government officials. He believed and preached that the government is a partner and not an adversary. He believed that the community should be seen by the government as a partner and not as a suspect. Among the agencies that ADC and Imad Hamad met regularly with is the FBI, an agency that the fringe of Arab America sees as Hoover’s FBI. Not only did Imad engage in a dialogue with the government, he institutionalized this dialogue, brought major players from the government and the community to the table, forming the internationally-known law enforcement-community forum of BRIDGES. That was breaking all the taboos for the small but vocal segment of the Arab American community. That “progressive” segment thought that Imad and ADC were “in bed” with the government.  They bided their time and piled on when the opportunity arose or was manufactured.

“Sin” # 2 Opening Up to Arab Gulf Monarchies

A second key reason Imad is hated by the fringe is international. This small and marginal segment, the “progressives” and “leftists” have a self-declared war on “patriarchy” and the “oppression of women” that they see behind everything in society-especially Arab and Muslim society.  And, make no mistake about it, there is no Arab region that this tiny, marginal, but obnoxiously loud, group hate more than the Arab Gulf region. They hate the monarchies and the traditional social system which they see as “oppressive” and in need of revolutionary change. Imad Hamad committed the sin of all sins when he opened up to the Arab Gulf region and engaged them, with respect, as he should have. The ADC is a mainstream Arab organization that represents a community that is largely conservative and mainstream in it s views.  Most Arab Americans are conservative and voted Republican until fairly recently. The majority of Arab Americans, if not openly opposed to feminists, progressives, leftists, and  Nawal Saadawi worshippers like  Nadine Christine Naber, they are not fans of them and for sure do not believe that they are representative of mainstream Arab American views and values.

The Campaign of Sabotage and Destuction

The bottom line is the ADC/ Imad Hamad saga is not about Rana Abbas and Rashida Tlaib, whatever the truths or untruths of their stale claims and their highly suspect timing with the manufactured media circus. The war against ADC and Imad Hamad is not about the two women or women. It is not about sexual harassment. It is simply the campaign of a marginal radical segment of the Arab American population, due to its almost zero resonance with the larger Arab American community, unable to democratically play a key role in shaping the policies and running the affairs of ADC, going for sabotage and destruction of the organization.

A War of Leftist “Terror”

This anti- ADC/anti Imad Hamad campaign is nothing short of leftist “war of terror” that will succeed in destruction only- as leftist wars are usually successful at.

Have any doubts about the intentions, the tactics and strategy of these leftist fanatics?  Ask the people involved with ADC’s once very active San Francisco chapter.





Former ADC President Sara Najjar's “Open Letter” to Imad Hamad

Former ADC President Sara Najjar-Wilson

Former ADC regional director Mr. Imad Hamad
An “Open Letter” to MR. IMAD S. HAMAD      

December 4, 2013



Dear Imad,


It is my understanding that on November 22, 2013, you retired as Senior National Advisor of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and Regional Director of ADC-Michigan.   It is regrettable that your retirement occurred on the 50th Anniversary of the assassination of President john F.  Kennedy.  As you probably also know, November 22 is also the date of Lebanon’s Independence Day.  Accordingly, it is with heartfelt sadness that I find myself writing you this thank you letter, but (at the same time) maintaining a sense of hope that you will now have the independence and freedom to continue serving the community at large in some other capacity.  For the entire time that I have known you, you exemplified the calling and creed of President Kennedy, who paraphrased Kahlil Gibran – ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.  You did not ask what your country can do for you, but you did everything you can for your country.  


You have built bridges of understanding and enshrined mutual respect, not just within the Arab-American community, but also throughout your local communities, your State of Michigan, and our entire country.  Your outreach to all people – persons in the highest levels of our government, business and other community leaders, or the poorest citizens in your local communities – is unmatched.  You honored all of us by your tireless and selfless efforts in combating discrimination of any kind and bringing diverse communities together.  Your caring and compassion for those in need in your community have been incredibly unrelenting.   


Your contributions are beyond measure, and it would take pages to list them and thank you for each one individually, something beyond this one-page letter.  You have been an outstanding shepherd in serving your community, even though it was at a tremendous personal sacrifice; and we pray that you will consider continuing your commendable work.  


Last, but not least, words are simply inadequate to convey the loss of your good works; but, as I said above, it is my hope that you will consider continuing to pursue your service to the community at large in a different capacity.  In that context, a heartfelt Thank YOU – Thank YOU!  We are very proud of you, and I bid you Godspeed.


Highest regards,



Sara Najjar-Wilson

Former ADC President

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Lebanese Al-Akhbar Newspaper Misrepresents Al Walid Bin Talal’s Views on Shiite –Sunni Relations

Prince Al Walid Bin Talal

Prince Al Walid Bin Talal is a half Saudi, half Lebanese billionaire. That’s enough for the "leftists"[who knows what it means in today's Lebanon] Lebanese al-Akhbar newspaper to dislike him.

They have the right to dislike him.

However, they don’t have the right to misrepresent his views and in doing so add to Sunni-Shia tensions that are already at sky high levels.

al-Akhbar accused the prince of speaking in the name of all Sunnis. He never claimed that and he cannot claim it. They claimed that he spoke in the name of the Sunnis advocating cooperating with Israel against Iran and the Shia.

 The prince is a highly successful businessman. He did not become this successful and rich by dwelling on sectarian issues. He merely provided a descriptive picture of the unfortunate reality in the Muslim world. Anyone who peruses Gallup survey numbers and PEW numbers knows that what the prince said is what survey data have provided ample evidence of. We know, for example, that Hizbullah is very unpopular in Sunni Majority countries. In Lebanon  while the overwhelming majority of Shia support Hizbullah, an even bigger majority of Sunnis oppose Hizbullah. The prince did not create this reality and did not contribute to it in any shape or form. Sunnis blame the policies of Hizbullah and Iran for this reality.
Newspaper commentaries in many parts of the Arab and Muslim world also reflect these sentiments. These sentiments are explained by Sunni observers and others as largely due to the role that Iran and its allies are playing in Iraq and in Syria. These sentiments are  not grounded in theological doctrine and historical and serious still -relevant disagreements. The numbers are not cast in stone. The survey data before the Iraq and Syria conflicts showed that Iran and Hizbullah were quite popular with Sunnis.

What changed?

By misrepresenting the views of the prince the paper did not just harm the reputation of the prince. They also added fuel to the fire of sectarian tensions.

     This is the link to the report: