Edward Herman Unleashed

This article of Herman's is from March of last year, but still relevant today.


Richard Holbrooke, Samantha Power, and the "Worthy Genocide" Establishment

by Edward S. Herman

It may seem odd to speak of a worthy-genocide establishment, with Richard Holbrooke and Samantha Power as notable members, but we are living in the Kafka era, when major genocidists and their friends and allies can get very passionate and even win Pulitzer Prizes for their denunciation of some genocides and “problems from hell” while actually facilitating, ignoring and apologizing for others. [1] Worthy genocides are those mass killings carried out by bad people, notably U.S. enemies and targets, and they receive great attention and elicit much passion; the unworthy ones are carried out by the United States or one of its client states, and they receive little attention or indignation and are not labelled genocides, even where the scale of killings greatly exceeds those so designated, obviously based on political utility. As the United States is an aggressive superpower that has been “projecting power” and opposing popular and revolutionary movements on a global scale since World War II, a very good case can be made that the unworthy genocides that it has carried out or supported have been predominant over the past half century—that it has been the source of more “problems from hell” than any other state.

It follows that a man like Richard Holbrooke, who has been a part of the U.S. foreign policy establishment for over 40 years, is likely to have been a participant in the genocides that have taken place during that period. Thus, while Holbrooke regularly speaks and gets a warm welcome from the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard and from Human Rights Watch, [2] we should recall that he was an official of the U.S. government during the Vietnam war era, from 1962 through 1969; he was the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs in charge of Indonesian relations during the Carter administration, and during the worst and most genocidal phase of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor in 1977-1978. He was also an official of the Clinton administration, and eventually the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, in the years when the United States was enforcing the “sanctions of mass destruction” on Iraq.

If we measure “genocide” by the numbers deliberately and intentionally killed and the threat these actions pose to the survival of the target population, all three of these episodes in which Holbrooke was involved qualify for inclusion. In the case of Vietnam, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out, given the lack of U.S. establishment interest in Vietnamese casualties the actual number killed is uncertain within the range of millions, but serious estimates run up to three million or more dead, unknown millions more injured or traumatized, a land devastated and widely ruined by bombs and chemicals, and as late as 1997 an estimated 500,000 children mentally or physically deformed as a result of ruthless chemical warfare. [3] Indonesia’s invasion-occupation resulted in the death of an estimated 200,000 East Timorese out of a total population of approximately 800,000, or a quarter of the total. The sanctions of mass destruction imposed on Iraq by the UN under U.S. influence and pressure resulted in the deaths of probably a million or more people, only some 6 percent of the total, but an absolutely very large number—ten times the total killed in Bosnia in the years 1992-1995. The two most famous quotes regarding these Iraq sanctions are those of Holbrooke’s boss Madeleine Albright, telling Leslie Stahl on CBS in 1996 that the price of the sanctions, 500,000 dead children, was “worth it;” the other quote, by John and Karl Mueller, in Foreign Affairs in June 1999, was that the sanctions of mass destruction “may well have been a necessary cause of the deaths of more people in Iraq than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history.”

Read the rest.

Carter: A Reasonable Option on Israel-Palestine

I guess you have to be a former President of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize winner to land an op-ed in the New York Times discussing Hamas as an actual political entity.


Pariah Diplomacy

by Jimmy Carter

Atlanta - A counterproductive Washington policy in recent years has been to boycott and punish political factions or governments that refuse to accept United States mandates. This policy makes difficult the possibility that such leaders might moderate their policies.

Two notable examples are in Nepal and the Middle East. About 12 years ago, Maoist guerrillas took up arms in an effort to overthrow the monarchy and change the nation's political and social life. Although the United States declared the revolutionaries to be terrorists, the Carter Center agreed to help mediate among the three major factions: the royal family, the old-line political parties and the Maoists.

In 2006, six months after the oppressive monarch was stripped of his powers, a cease-fire was signed. Maoist combatants laid down their arms and Nepalese troops agreed to remain in their barracks. Our center continued its involvement and nations — though not the United States — and international organizations began working with all parties to reconcile the dispute and organize elections.

The Maoists are succeeding in achieving their major goals: abolishing the monarchy, establishing a democratic republic and ending discrimination against untouchables and others whose citizenship rights were historically abridged. After a surprising victory in the April 10 election, Maoists will play a major role in writing a constitution and governing for about two years. To the United States, they are still terrorists.

On the way home from monitoring the Nepalese election, I, my wife and my son went to Israel. My goal was to learn as much as possible to assist in the faltering peace initiative endorsed by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Although I knew that official United States policy was to boycott the government of Syria and leaders of Hamas, I did not receive any negative or cautionary messages about the trip, except that it might be dangerous to visit Gaza.

The Carter Center had monitored three Palestinian elections, including one for parliamentary seats in January 2006. Hamas had prevailed in several municipal contests, gained a reputation for effective and honest administration and did surprisingly well in the legislative race, displacing the ruling party, Fatah. As victors, Hamas proposed a unity government with Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah as president and offered to give key ministries to Fatah, including that of foreign affairs and finance.

Hamas had been declared a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel, and the elected Palestinian government was forced to dissolve. Eventually, Hamas gained control of Gaza, and Fatah is "governing" the Israeli-dominated West Bank. Opinion polls show Hamas steadily gaining popularity. Since there can be no peace with Palestinians divided, we at the Carter Center believed it important to explore conditions allowing Hamas to be brought peacefully back into the discussions. (A recent poll of Israelis, who are familiar with this history, showed 64 percent favored direct talks between Israel and Hamas.)

Similarly, Israel cannot gain peace with Syria unless the Golan Heights dispute is resolved. Here again, United States policy is to ostracize the Syrian government and prevent bilateral peace talks, contrary to the desire of high Israeli officials.

We met with Hamas leaders from Gaza, the West Bank and Syria, and after two days of intense discussions with one another they gave these official responses to our suggestions, intended to enhance prospects for peace:

• Hamas will accept any agreement negotiated by Mr. Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel provided it is approved either in a Palestinian referendum or by an elected government. Hamas's leader, Khaled Meshal, has reconfirmed this, although some subordinates have denied it to the press.

• When the time comes, Hamas will accept the possibility of forming a nonpartisan professional government of technocrats to govern until the next elections can be held.

• Hamas will also disband its militia in Gaza if a nonpartisan professional security force can be formed.

• Hamas will permit an Israeli soldier captured by Palestinian militants in 2006, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, to send a letter to his parents. If Israel agrees to a list of prisoners to be exchanged, and the first group is released, Corporal Shalit will be sent to Egypt, pending the final releases.

• Hamas will accept a mutual cease-fire in Gaza, with the expectation (not requirement) that this would later include the West Bank.

• Hamas will accept international control of the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt, provided the Egyptians and not the Israelis control closing the gates.

In addition, Syria's president, Bashir al-Assad, has expressed eagerness to begin negotiations with Israel to end the impasse on the Golan Heights. He asks only that the United States be involved and that the peace talks be made public.

Through more official consultations with these outlawed leaders, it may yet be possible to revive and expedite the stalemated peace talks between Israel and its neighbors. In the Middle East, as in Nepal, the path to peace lies in negotiation, not in isolation.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the founder of the Carter Center and the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

The Infamous MSA: Terror Supporter or Match Maker?

I recently wrote about the absurdity of the argument made by anti-Muslim pundits when they claim that the Muslim Students Association or most major, mainstream Muslim organizations in the United States are some sort of vehicles for supporting terrorism or Islamic supremacism.

The article featured below, about the MSA functioning as a matrimonial organization, debunks many stereotypes about Muslim organizations. David Horowitz and friends have been going after MSAs all across the country recently in a bid to tarnish their reputations and to paint all MSAs as being part of some colossal conspiracy to spread anti-American ideas on campuses and to push Islamic supremacism. As my previous post on this subject highlighted, the MSAs that are spread all over the nation do not follow orders from above like some sort of corporation, but instead their agendas are as diverse as the students who make up those different groups. Horowitz's insinuations are completely off the mark. A better understanding of MSAs is noted at Muslim Media Network:

Most MSAs in South Florida—and in the country—are simply undergraduate concerns with rotating executive committees made up of a new crop of students every semester or two. They usually organize a small number of informational or religious-based events each semester, with the specific ideology of the group varying to reflect whatever mindset is prevalent amongst active students at a given time, some more liberal, some more conservative.

The presence of hatefully anti-Western leaning MSAs—usually groups that are short-lived unless they forgo standard election procedures or other university club norms, and who fail to realize the irony of their anti-western stance as western college students—has never been dominant as a factor in the area. Such groups have become virtually non-existent or completely muted since the events of Sept. 11th, 2001.

I would say that goes along exactly with what I have said about this issue. The article below demonstrates this point more clearly.

Young Muslim Americans Pioneer a New Dating Game

by Tom A. Peter

East Lansing and Dearborn, Mich. - It was an all-American college moment on the Michigan State University campus in East Lansing: Tosif Khatri was laughing and chatting with two fellow students – both women – as they walked to a local cafe.

But the buzz of Mr. Khatri's cellphone popped the bubble. It was his cousin calling to invoke a bit of the family's old country Indian-Muslim traditions. "Not that it's any of my business or anything like that," the cousin said, "but are you, like, hanging out with girls right now?"

"I said 'Oh, no ... it's nothing silly or anything like that, it's just for the sake of a student event," Khatri recalls.

"Okay. I was just checking," signed off the suspicious cousin.

From an Islamic perspective, Khatri hadn't done anything wrong. He was hanging with two female colleagues to discuss organizational matters for the Muslim Student Association (MSA). But the line blurs when Khatri admits that the outing was also an excuse to socialize. Many Muslims would even call such a mixed-sex meeting haram, sinful.

Haram or not, outings like this happen increasingly among American Muslims as they integrate into the US. Reactions like Khatri's watchful cousin's illustrate the challenge young Muslim men and women face trying to interact, let alone "date."

Read the rest.

Spying on Lawyers?

Oh boy.

Lawyers Fear Monitoring in Cases on Terrorism

by Philip Shenon

PORTLAND, Ore. — Thomas Nelson, an Oregon lawyer, has lived in a state of perpetual jet lag for the last two years. Every few weeks, he boards a plane in Portland and flies to the Middle East to meet with a high-profile Saudi client who cannot enter the United States because he faces charges here of financing terrorism.

Mr. Nelson says he does not dare to phone this client or send him e-mail messages because of what many prominent criminal defense lawyers say is a well-founded fear that all of their contacts are being monitored by the United States government.

Because he is constantly shifting time zones to see his client face to face, “I just don’t sleep normally anymore,” Mr. Nelson said. “But I don’t have a choice. It’s very clear to me that anything I say to my client or to other lawyers in this case is being recorded.”

Across the country, and especially here in Oregon, it seems, lawyers who represent suspects in terrorism-related investigations complain that their ability to do their jobs is being hindered by the suspicion that the government is listening in, using the eavesdropping authority it obtained — or granted itself — after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Steven T. Wax, a Portland lawyer involved in several terrorism cases, said he has told clients to assume that everything they say to him is being secretly monitored. Mr. Wax said he “self-censors” his e-mail messages, even to other lawyers and friends. The situation, he said, has elements of “Kafka and ‘Alice in Wonderland.’ ”

Read the rest.

Wajahat Interviews Robert Fisk

Interesting perspectives on an array of subjects provided by the legendary Robert Fisk.


Fisk Fighting

by Wajahat Ali

ALI: A recent British report said Gaza is in its worst condition since the last 30 years. Just last week, a seminary was targeted and several civilians were killed. Americans see this and think “Arabs vs. Jews, they’re just always killing each other.” What’s the ground scene reality regarding the current volatility? Is one side to be blamed more than the other for the recent conflagration?

FISK: Oh, God! Sounds like a CNN question! You know, this is about history, this is about the way our societies develop and what we’re told and what we’re not told. You’ve got the same situation in The West Bank, Gaza, Israel or “Palestine” as you had after the end of the First World War. Two groups of people want to live on the same piece of real estate and they have conflicting claims, one of which is based largely on deed which goes right back to the Ottoman period and the British period. And the case of settlements seems to be based on the idea of what God has promised. And those two things don’t work out. You can’t say on the one hand, well, I have got the deeds to the land, but no God’s actually given it to me. That’s the end of conversation, isn’t it? From there on, you can spin out to all sorts of historical allegories, and ways of reporting, and ways of reporting history, and it doesn’t go anywhere. Each time we’re told we have to start again, we have to start the clock from now and we have to forget the past. You can’t forget the past anymore than you can in Iraq or you can in Europe or America.

The Second World War is and was constantly being drudged up by Blair and Bush to rationalize the invasion of Iraq. Well, you can’t constantly go back to WW2 and call Saddam the Hitler of Baghdad, and then on the other hand say we aren’t going to go back to history to other parts of the Middle East, because that’s inconvenient, so we’re just going to start from here. We always hear people say, “Let’s move forward.” (Laughs.) The psychobabble language of marriage guidance counselors, you know, only look to the future let’s not look at the past even though so much sorrow has happened. I’m afraid you have to.

The Middle East is a land of great injustice. The Israelis can claim, or wish to at least, that Lord Balfour’s Declaration of 1917 promised Britain support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, which didn’t just mean the left hand bit that became Israel. Many Israelis now and would be Israelis they could claim that Palestine meant everything up to the Jordan River. It was Chaim Weizmann’s hope that Jewish settlements would be allowed East of the Jordan River after the Cairo conference held in 1921. You have two groups of people who were made conflicting promises by the British. One for Arab independence and promises that Jewish immigration would not in any way make the indigenous Arabs dispossessed or suffer in any way. And the other which was a promise by Britain for support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Those things are as impossible to integrate then as they are today.

We keep going around the Middle East and setting up our various dictators, whether they be the Kings of Arabia, or whether they be King Farooq in Egypt, or King Idris in Libya. Then, when people didn’t want the various kings, we brought in the various generals. General Sadat and Colonel Kaddafi. King Abdullah was a soldier, King Hussein was a solider. So, we get surprised when people say, “Enough is enough!” But, in the end of the day, when you say, “Who is right and who is wrong?” It’s history that is wrong. It’s the mistakes we’ve made and the injustices we’ve committed in that region. You can start it off with the Ottoman Empire, you can start it off in post WW1, and you can start it off with the Americans. And as you look back in history, the papers get more thin and fragile, don’t they?

Read the rest.

Exposing Robert Spencer Part XI: Gender Issues

More gibberish from the world's leading example on how not to be a scholar on Islam. I respond to Spencer 's comments below.

Islamic spokesmen in the West routinely claim that non-Muslims are only suspicious of Muslim intentions out of “ignorance” of the true, peaceful Islam. This, of course, goes hand-in-hand with the idea that it is not Muslims, but non-Muslims (like Geert Wilders in Fitna), who are responsible for linking Islam with violence. This approach deftly shifts the focus away from acts of violence committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, and onto the alleged “Islamophobes” who are supposedly victimizing Muslims by connecting Islam with violence.

Actually, non-Muslims are probably suspicious of Muslims because people like Spencer routinely attempt to connect Islam and violence through the guise of simply reporting on the activities of radicals, while continuously mentioning that such actions and ideology are actually part of pure Islam. If you mean misunderstandings about the faith, such as the garbage you write in this piece, then maybe that qualifies. There's a very simple way to solve the dilemma Spencer is faced with. "Islamophobes" do not simply connect Islam with violence. They are saying that Islam is violent. It's a political movement, as Pat Robertson comments, and one bent on world domination. While it is true that there are Muslims committing crimes and justifying them by using Islamic texts that does not mean that Islam, per se, is violent in of in itself. Those "Islamophobes" then are in fact "victimizing" the great majority of Muslims because they are saying that the Muslims who commit violent actions are simply following "Islam" when in fact those criminals have distorted Islamic teachings to justify their own criminal actions.

An example of this came Friday in The Ranger Online, a publication of San Antonio College and Alamo Community College. An article entitled “Islam teaches respect for women” by Martin R. Herrera reported on a lecture series held on women in the Islamic world:

Meneses and the other two women on the panel, Aurora Deiri and Narjis Pierre, acknowledged conditions for women vary from country to country but they stem largely from the culture that existed prior to Islam’s spread throughout the world and the nuances of varied interpretations of the theology.

Deiri likened it to the subtleties of the many Christian faiths that exist today.

Except for extreme instances of disparity, which Meneses said is becoming more rare, Islam has pushed women’s rights sooner and more significantly than Christianity. “If you ask me if there is any feminism in the Muslim world I say ... it is in the Muslim world,” Pierre said.

Was it Christianity that promoted women's rights in the West? Usually Christianity was used as a means of subordinating women in Christendom (witch hunts, for example) much like slavery was justified through the Bible. I think the analogy is wrong here. Let us ask Mike Huckabee his thoughts on the proper place of a woman, for example.

It is difficult for the Western world to see this, Deiri said, because there is very limited understanding of the Islamic religion.

This ignorance causes people to misinterpret some of the external practices of Muslims that Westerners often cite as oppressive, she said, such as the wearing of head scarves by women.

I don't understand the issue with hijabs and burqas. If a woman freely decides to wear this then there should be no issue. She is free to cover her hair if she wants. If, however, she is forced to cover her head or forced not to cover it (as in Turkey and France, for example) then both sides are wrong. If the woman believes her religion tells her to wear a head scarf then what is the problem? Nuns cover their hair, but no one says they're oppressed. But like I said, if a woman is forced to cover her hair then there's a problem. I'm speaking about the West and most Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia is a different story; I'll discuss that some other time.

When asked how Christianity and Islam can be so far apart today when they have so much they share in common ancestry, Deiri replied, “In some instances, ignorance allows you to retain power.”

So any oppression of women in the Islamic world is simply a remnant of pre-Islamic culture, and Islam has been better for women than Christianity. It is doubtful that Deiri mentioned any of this:

The right to inherit, the choice to accept or decline a marriage proposal, to speak out politically, and the right to learn were all included in the Qur'an and in the life of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and prayers be upon him. Now to say that "any oppression of women in the Islamic world is simply a remnant of pre-Islamic culture" is obviously a false claim. Many people use religion to justify their actions - like beating up their wife or blowing people up. A justification is only that, a justification. It does not mean one's justification is in accordance with the facts.

Rather than regarding women as human beings equal to men, the Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223).

This verse has nothing to do with men using women in whatever way they want or that the Qur'an thinks of women as less equal than men. It has to do with sexual relations between man and wife - specifically about positions couples can use when having sex as long as it is vaginal intercourse. The "tilth" reference is a metaphor for the woman's vagina, as Imam al-Qurtabi relates: "The ayat uses the word "harth" (fields) and so this must apply to the vagina, because that entails fertility (Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, translated by Aisha Bewley, p. 569). This verse does not mean that a husband can do whatever he wants to his wife, as Spencer portrays it. Nor does it imply that women are just sex slaves for men. From the Tafsir al-Jalalayn: "Your women are a tillage [tilth or field] for you, that is, the place where you sow [the seeds of] your children; so come to your tillage, that is, the specified place, the front part, as, in whichever way, you wish, whether standing up, sitting down, lying down, from the front or the back: this was revealed in response to the Jews saying that if a person had vaginal intercourse with his wife from behind, the child would be born cross-eyed... " The commentators also say this verse was revealed about Ansari women who were not comfortable with having intercourse in different positions, as Qurayshi men were accustomed to. Qurayshi men who married Ansari women were told through this verse, and all Muslim couples afterward, that having sex in different positions is perfectly fine, as long as it is vaginal intercourse, sodomy being prohibited of course.

This verse has something to do with gender equality though: "If any do deeds of righteousness, be they male or female, and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them" [4:124]. It is abundantly clear from this verse that the Qur'an looks upon males and females as equals.

The Qur’an also declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” (2:282).

Dr. Said Ramadan al-Buti says: "The reason for which the Qur'an lays the condition of two women to testify in place of one man in financial case has nothing to do with the woman's femininity as some people imagine. It springs from a basic condition in the testimony itself, represented in the witness's being highly related to the subject to which he testifies no matter whether the testifier be a man or a woman." What this means is that a Muslim woman's testimony is not regarded as reliable if she is not familiar with what is being arranged, but if she is then her testimony is equal to that of a man. Some Muslim scholars went further and said that if the woman was competent and known to be intelligent then her testimony was sufficient without the need to bring another woman. This is not a modern interpretation either, but this opinion was held by notable Muslims scholars like ibn al-Qasim, ibn Taymiyya, and ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya as well as by Imam al-Tabari, the dean of Qur'anic commentators. Spencer's words are nothing more than miserable propaganda.

It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” (4:3).

Yes, a man can marry four women in Islam. So? If a man decides to do so he must treat them all equally in regards to taking care of them financially. Didn't Abraham have two wives? But no Christian gets bent out of shape over that. As far as having "sex with slave girls" this was allowed under Islamic law with conditions, such as the slave women could only be given over to men by the state authority, and it is not as if the men could just treat these women as garbage either. This legal area is essentially a dead letter though.

It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (4:11).

That's true. The reason for this supposed inequality is the fact that men under Islamic laws must financially support their spouses and must also pay a dowry for their bride's hand. A Muslim woman is legally free from paying a dowry and is also legally free from having to financially support her spouse and children. All of that is the man's financial responsibility and thus the reason a male is given more money under such circumstances.

Worst of all, the Qur’an tells husbands to beat their disobedient wives: “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them” (4:34).

It's amazing what happens when you don't use tafsir (Qur'anic commentary) to discuss a verse. I've already addressed this issue in detail here. Spencer either deliberately or mistakenly did not use a commentary when discussing this issue. Translations only lead to the mistaken understanding that Muslim men can "beat up" their wives when in reality they are allowed a light tapping or patting if their wife indulges in inappropriate activities, which was defined by the Prophet Muhammad himself during his final sermon where he told the Muslim men their right over their wives: "And it is your right that they do not make friends with any one of whom you do not approve, as well as never to be unchaste." So, can a Muslim man beat up his wife? Absolutely not. The tapping or patting is only allowed when a very, very serious issue like adultery comes up. And that is only after the other means in the verse are taken (admonishing, banishing, etc.). Even this "beating" is only allowed as a rukhsa or dispensation, not as something that is recommended.

I'm sure Spencer owns a copy of the Reliance of the Traveler, the Shafi'i fiqh manual that he routinely brings up. It was written by ibn Naqib al-Misri in the fourteenth century and he described the "beating" as such: "His hitting her may not be in a way that injures her, and is his last recourse to save the family" (Reliance, section m11.0, p. 542). How do you beat someone without injuring them? Obviously the meaning is that some form of physical encouragement is needed only when such a situation between man and wife is on a seriously bad level, and should only be used when a husband believes it will help the situation.

None of that is cultural; nor is it an historical artifact. To take the case of wife-beating, for example, the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that over ninety percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually — for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal. Others were punished for failing to give birth to a male child. In Spring 2005, when the East African nation of Chad tried to institute a new family law that would outlaw wife beating, Muslim clerics led resistance to the measure as un-Islamic.

Do things like this happen, as the panelists above said, because of pre-Islamic cultural hangovers? No, they happen because Islamic clerics worldwide have spoken approvingly of wife-beating. In 1984, Sheikh Yousef Qaradhawi, who is one of the most respected and influential Islamic clerics in the world, wrote: “If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored, and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts.” Even the prominent American Muslim leader Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), has said that “in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife,” and has explicitly invoked Islam in support of this view: “The Koran is very clear on this issue.”

There's no doubt that there is a serious problem all over the world with domestic abuse, not just in Muslim majority countries. Nearly a third of American women report domestic abuse, so this is a worldwide problem and not one relegated to the Islamic world. Does Robert have proof that domestic abuse occurs in the Islamic world because "Islamic clerics worldwide have spoken approvingly of wife-beating?" No one is exhorting Bob in Texas to beat his girlfriend based on Qur'an 4:34, but it's happening in the United States, and at a very high level. And Robert, please quote all of what Siddiqi had to say on the topic because it's very disingenuous of you to cherry pick his comments to suit your agenda when he clearly stated that "The word 'beating' is used in the verse, but it does not mean 'physical abuse.' The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explained it 'dharban ghayra mubarrih' which means 'a light tap that leaves no mark.' He further said that face must be avoided. Some other scholars are of the view that it is no more than a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush." Like I said, use a tafsir.

Reporting on this, or on how women still suffer from these and other Islamic teachings, a matter of “ignorance.” In fact, paradoxically enough, it is Deiri and others like her who are spreading genuine ignorance by ignoring, denying, and downplaying all this. And indeed, ignorance allows one to retain power -- in light of that precise and apposite statement, it is important to ask: to what end is Deiri retailing these half-truths and distortions? What power are people who do this trying to retain? Will not the only ones who benefit from this ignorance be those who are oppressing women in the Islamic world?

It's more important and relevant to ask to what end are you, Robert Spencer, retailing these half-truths and distortions? Every single verse you mentioned above was distorted in order to make the religion of Islam look as if it is discriminatory and violent against women. Your arguments are beyond pathetic.

It is a mystery as to why Deiri would possibly want to help them – the Stockholm Syndrome comes to mind, but perhaps this is simply a matter of religious loyalty. If so, it is misplaced: the situation of women in Islam will not improve until Muslim women are willing to dare to speak about their plight, rather than to gloss over it and hope no one will notice. Perhaps in this they can follow the example of Muhammad’s wife Aisha, who once admonished him: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.”

That’s the first step toward ending that suffering.

Aisha said this in hyperbole in regards to a dispute between a husband and wife. Spencer should know of the many ahadith that Aisha narrated extolling the virtues of the Prophet since he's been studying Islam independently since 1980. In actuality though, the first step needed by modern Muslims is to look back into classical Islamic texts and reexamine the rulings and thoughts the great Muslim scholars of the past had regarding issues that are now clouded in confusion. In that, I believe, will they find solace and understanding. As for Spencer, the first step he needs to take is towards a basic Qur'an and hadith commentary class. His explanations and analysis of the above cited verses only demonstrates either his ignorance or dishonesty. In either case, he looks like nothing more than your typical missionary. And not a very good one at that.

Finkelstein on Graduate School

Man oh man, this is the truth about graduate school in the social sciences. My two years at FIU were spent avidly researching and writing. The discussions were about serious topics that tied in the real world situations we read about in the news. My heart nearly died at Boston University, for a number of reasons, but it mainly had to do with discussions on topics I felt were better left for imbeciles rather than aspiring intellectuals and academics. I mean, how do you have a serious conversation on whether Victorians were prude or not? How do you discuss seriously 19th century European art? I would spend three hours of my life a week listening to others discuss such issues, while I wondered how they derived energy for such a discussion. I don't consider myself a very smart person, but I know I'm not stupid. I didn't get accepted into a Masters and PhD program and also a JD program because I'm an idiot - my parents and sister did well raising me. But these types of conversations - just a complete waste of time. Like I said, I'm not an idiot, but when I read these books on these topics I felt stupid, honestly. I think most people would - and then you would feel even stupider once others began discussing it like the fate of the world depended on it.

That's academia in a nut shell in many instances. I'm not saying there are not serious academics out there, but a great many of them have invested their lives into becoming intellectual frauds. Why are they frauds? Because they have a responsibility to educate and serve people with less intelligence and time in order to improve our society. Instead they waste their lives away studying topics and issues that have little to no bearing on humanity so they can discuss these issues at pubs and cocktail parties to bolster their egos and lengthen their CVs.

Anyway, here is the quote from Finkelstein:

JH/ML: You've described yourself as "forensic scholar." Explain your approach to research and how you developed it. Do many other scholars do similar things?

NF: It's very easy to describe my approach to scholarship. It's everything you were taught in graduate school...not. Graduate school is designed to teach you how to be a fake: namely, how to say you read this book and that book, when all you did is read the first and last chapter of the book, or the last paragraph of each chapter, or you read a review of the book, and you pretend like you read the book. That's what graduate school is about; it's the art of complete chicanery and fakery. I don't say these words with relish. I was absolutely shocked when I went to graduate school. I remember my first few months; I would sit in the library in a state of utter panic. I would have eight hefty volumes to the right of me in my cubby, unable to concentrate on what I was reading because I couldn't imagine how I could read eight freaking books a week, and then prepare my seminar report, which meant an extra three books, and then prepare my seminar paper, which is what your entire grade is based on anyway. How do you do that?

And I was a very slow learner. It was maybe only at the end of maybe my first year in graduate school - when I was already a disaster - that I got the idea. Nobody does the reading. First of all, they concentrate on that seminar report, because that's the only thing that counts - publishing, preparation to learn how to publish. And secondly, what they do read is the first and last chapter of the book. I was dumbstruck. My attitude always was, there are many books out there in the world, and if you select one book to read, there has to be a good reason for choosing that book over another book. And if you chose it because you think it is significant enough to read, then you should read it, and you should read it seriously, which is what I do. You should read every word, and check every footnote, and take the book seriously. That's exactly what graduate school doesn't teach you.

You ask if anyone else does what I do. No, because nobody cares. They don't treat books as significant items. Unless they're asked to review it, and then they need to show who is smarter, so they proceed to shred their opponent's book. But apart from trying to again boost their ego, they don't care about books. They care about their own books; ‘very important' works, read by six people. That's what they care about. They have no regard for scholarship, no regard for argument; it's pitiful. Again, I speak of a very limited range - the social studies. The natural sciences, I assume they're serious, but I don't know. That's what I'm told. But what I do? Oh my gosh.

Finkelstein Interview on ZNet

A very lengthy interview with Norman Finkelstein on ZNet.


Power, Politics, and Scholarship - an interview with Norman Finkelstein

by ZNet

Dr. Norman G. Finkelstein is one of the world's foremost authorities on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the politics of anti-Semitism. He is the author of five books, including Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History; Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict; and The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. His work has been praised by many of the leading scholars of the fields he works in, including the late Raul Hilberg, Avi Shlaim, Sara Roy, and Noam Chomsky. His website is www.normanfinkelstein.com.

The following interview took place on April 15 and 16, 2008, in Providence, Rhode Island. The wide-ranging discussion touches on the role of the Israel lobby in shaping US policy toward the Middle East, Finkelstein's forthcoming book on American Zionism, the history and politics of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Venezuelan politics, Finkelstein's approach to teaching, the Palestine solidarity movement in the US, and much more.

JH/ML: You have described the two-state solution as "The option which is embraced by the whole of human kind, apart from Israel and the United States... that is return to the June 1967 borders, mutual recognition between an Israeli and Palestinian State and some sort of mutually acceptable resolution of the refugee question." It's obvious why Israel would reject the two-state solution, but what about the US?

NF: Well, it's not really why obvious why Israel would reject the two-state settlement. That itself is a matter of perplexity, because what does it really have to lose with the two state settlement? First of all, there are significant forces - for example, among the people who backed what was Shimon Peres's ‘new Middle East' notion, that is, ‘Let's profit from being the dominate economic power in the area, and the way to profit from that is to simply withdraw, end the conflict. Anyhow, this Palestinian state will be completely dominated from one side or the other - by Israel or Jordan - so what do we even need these occupied territories for?'

So, I mean, even the premise of the question of the question is not entirely clear. Why are they persistent? There have been basically three theories put forth -- two, and then I have my own view on the topic. One is the ideological one, that these people are Zionists and they're not going to concede any of Eretz Israel - to which they believe they have title - so it's basically an ideological Zionist commitment. And then there's the school of thought which says it's a rational commitment to wanting to preserve the water resources, the land resources, and so forth.

My own view is, I don't really think it's either. I think it's more of a political issue. It has nothing to do with security and never has. The mentality of the Israelis is that you don't concede anything to Arabs, because when you give them an inch, they're going to take a mile. So once you have something you don't give it up unless you're forced to leave. And they control the occupied territories and they will not budge until they're kicked out.

You take the case of the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. OK, at the beginning people said they wanted to keep it because they wanted the waters of the Litani. But after a while that was no longer a credible explanation. So why didn't they leave? I think they didn't leave because the Arabs wanted them to leave, and you don't leave because they want you to leave, because in their minds that shows weakness, and if you show any weakness, they're going to exploit it. So they stayed in Lebanon until May 2000, until when? Until they were kicked out. So I don't really think the ideological or the rational explanation is the right one. I think it's a political one, it's a whole mentality on the part of the Israelis.

So, let's just now get to the question. I don't see any obvious reason why Israel would want to keep the occupied territories. As for the United States, there is, in my opinion, no rational motive. You ask yourself a simple question. I happen to have been discussing it with Professor Chomsky the other day, because he doesn't really agree with me on this and he's pretty persistent in disagreeing. I said to him, ‘Ask yourself a simple question. If tomorrow, the Israelis said ‘We're packing up and we're leaving; we're going back to the June 4, 1967 border.' Is there anyone in the US ruling elite who would regret that? Is there anyone who would shed a tear? Is there anyone who would tell them ‘No, don't go'? I think the answer is obviously not. So if no one in the US administration feels a real commitment to those occupied territories, the pressure cannot be coming from here; that is to say, from within the US government. It's coming from the lobby. On the question of the narrower, or the local question of the Israel-Palestine conflict, to my mind it's pretty clear it's lobby that keeps the US supporting the settlements, the colonization, and so forth.

Read the rest.

Missile Defense is About Offense, Not Defense

Noam Chomsky reviews the underlying logic of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe and the ramifications such an initiative carries for the entire world.


The installation of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe is, virtually, a declaration of war

by Noam Chomsky

Simply imagine how the US would react if Russia or China or Iran or in fact any foreign power dared even to think about placing a missile defense system at or near the borders of the US, let alone carrying out such plans. In these unimaginable circumstancse, a violent US reaction would be not only almost certain but also understandable. for reasons that are simple and clear.

It is well known on all sides that missile defense is a first strike weapon. Respected US military analysts describe missile defense as "not simply a shield but an enabler of U.S. action." It "will facilitate the more effective application of U.S. military power abroad.” “By insulating the homeland from reprisal, [missile defense] will underwrite the capacity and willingness of the United States to `shape' the environment elsewhere." "Missile defense isn't really meant to protect America. It's a tool for global dominance.” “Missile defense is about preserving America's ability to wield power abroad. It's not about defense. It's about offense. And that's exactly why we need it.” All quotes, from respected liberal and mainstream sources -- who favor developing the system and placing it at the remote limits of US global dominance.

The logic is simple, and well understood. A functioning missile defense system informs potential targets that “we will attack you as we please, and you will not be able to retaliate, so you cannot deter us.” The system is being marketed to Europeans as a defense against Iranian missiles. Even if Iran had nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, the chances of its using them to attack Europe are lower than the chances of Europe being hit by an asteroid, so if defense is the reason, Czech Republic should be installing a system to defend the country from asteroids. If Iran were to indicate even the slightest attention of such a move, the country would be vaporized. The system is indeed aimed at Iran, but as a first strike weapon. It is a component of the escalating US threats to attack Iran, threats that are in themselves a serious violation of the UN Charter, though admittedly this issue does not arise in outlaw states.

When Gorbachev agreed to allow a unified Germany to join a hostile military alliance, he was accepting a very severe threat to Russian security, for reasons too familiar to review. In return, the US government made a firm pledge not to expand NATO to the East. The pledge was violated a few years later, arousing little comment in the West, but raising the threat of military confrontation. So-called “missile defense” ratchets the threat of war a few notches higher. The “defense” it provides is to increase the threat of aggression in the Middle East, with incalculable consequences, and the threat of terminal nuclear war.

Over half a century ago, Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein issued an extraordinary appeal to the people of the world, warning them that they face a choice that is “stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?” Accepting a so-called “missile defense system” makes that choice, in favor of an end to the human race, perhaps in the not-too-distant future.

The U.S. Prison Population

The New York Times reported today that the United States leads all nations of the world in the size of its prison population. One of the peculiarities of our prison system is the high number of Blacks in jail. But the Times brushes this off by stating:

Many specialists dismissed race as an important distinguishing factor in the American prison rate. It is true that blacks are much more likely to be imprisoned than other groups in the United States, but that is not a particularly distinctive phenomenon. Minorities in Canada, Britain and Australia are also disproportionately represented in those nation’s prisons, and the ratios are similar to or larger than those in the United States.

Oh, you know, Black people get jailed a lot more in all Anglo-Saxon nations so it's nothing to be concerned with. In fact, it's not just Blacks in Anglo-Saxon nations, but all minorities. The more relevant question to ask is not whether other countries imprison Blacks as much or more, but why they do so. What is it about Black people that leads them to prison more or, to ask in a different way, why do Blacks get picked on more when they make up only a sizable minority?

What is it about our society and Black Americans that leads to the fact that they are imprisoned more in this country? Is it something in their genes or is it because our criminal justice system is flawed? Such a question is not proper to discuss in polite society apparently.


Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations'

by Adam Liptak

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.

The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King’s College London.

Read the rest.

EI Uncovers Zionist Wikipedia Plot

I almost laughed when I read the headline, but it's totally serious. CAMERA, the Israeli media watchdog organization, was exposed recently by the folks at Electronic Intifada for telling its members to become Wikipedia editors so that they could change around the information on certain entries that have to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict. EI writes the following:

A 13 March action alert signed by Gilead Ini, a "Senior Research Analyst" at CAMERA, calls for "volunteers who can work as 'editors' to ensure" that Israel-related articles on Wikipedia are "free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context." However, subsequent communications indicate that the group not only wanted to keep the effort secret from the media, the public, and Wikipedia administrators, but that the material they intended to introduce included discredited claims that could smear Palestinians and Muslims and conceal Israel's true history.

Talk about "stealth jihad!" Besides this, the folks at CAMERA also notably wanted to alter articles having to do with dhimmis. This is the part of the report that caught my attention the most. It's been well documented by historians (even Bernard Lewis for crying out loud) that Jews definitely lived a better life under Islamic rule than under Christian rule for the last 1, 400 years. But leave it to the folks at CAMERA to suggest otherwise.

Interestingly the CAMERA editors also target the article on the early Islamic period concept of Dhimmi, a protected status for non-Muslims which historically allowed Jews to thrive in Muslim-ruled lands while other Jews were being persecuted in Christian Europe. Pro-Israel activists have often tried to portray the concept of Dhimmi as akin to the Nuremberg laws in order to denigrate Muslim culture and justify ahistorical Zionist claims that Jews could never live safely in majority Muslim countries.

Well, I guess that demonstrates the connection between Zionist supporters and anti-Muslim pundits.

I went through the emails that EI posted on their web site and found the best quote here: "The other side is orgenized well, they control wkipedia." Oh yea, I forgot that most of the documented record on the Israeli-Palestine conflict demonstrates quite clearly how the Israelis were nothing more than colonial usurpers of Palestinian land and who now lecture Palestinians on how to be civilized, while they continue their barbaric practices against the population they have held under occupation for forty years. I guess posting such obvious historical truths demonstrates the conspiracy being concocted against Israel by even staunchly pro-Israel supporters like historian Benny Morris.

How could I have missed that?

Another funny line: "Good sources are very hard to find on this subject." The "subject" in question regards allegations of Israeli apartheid. I would imagine that "good" sources are difficult to come by for this pro-Israeli because the historical analogy is quite accurate and has been pointed out by a former U.S. president as well as numerous academics and human rights activists.

It must be a terrible position to be in when the most appropriate historical analogy to your nation's creation is the one between the United States and its Native population. I think we all know how that turned out.

Zawahri's Legal Judgement

I was reading the comments of Ayman al-Zawahri on Muslims living in the West: "In another answer Tuesday, al-Zawahri said it was against Islamic religious law for any Muslim to live permanently in a Western country because in doing so they would 'have permanent stay there under the laws of the infidels.'"

What Muslim country is ruled by Shariah? Saudi Arabia? I can't think of any other state. Does he expect the millions of Muslims living in the West to migrate to Saudi Arabia? What of the Muslims living in Egypt or Pakistan? The laws in those countries are not entirely based upon Islamic law. Are those then infidel countries? Should the Muslims living there migrate? Or are they simply to revolt against their leaders, set off a bloody revolution with no guarantee that they will succeed? I'm sure Mr. Zawahri can elaborate on such a scheme and how to achieve it since he has so enthusiastically embarked on such an idea (with absolutely zero success).

As long as we are free to practice our faith we have no obligation to leave these lands, whether it be the United States, Mexico, or South Africa. It's irrelevant because we can practice our religion freely. We're even free to spread our religion here in the U.S. Zawahri needs to go back to his fiqh books and find some other subject to study because he obviously failed the exam on the fiqh of minorities. More and more people enter Islam everyday, not because of him, but because of God's grace. And they enter God's religion while still living in their infidel nations. It's time Mr. Zawahri signed up for a SunniPath class or just decides to blow himself up instead of brainwashing Muslim youth to do his dirty work for him.

Another Israel Supporter Defects

I saw Miller giving a talk on C-SPAN the other night. He said pretty much what he said below. The important point was that if real peace was to be achieved then the United States had to be a fair arbitrator between the two sides, otherwise it was an unfair discussion. That's the bottom line: be fair. Our government's problem is that its members believe they can't get reelected without Jewish support. Since when did 2% of the population speak for the entire mass? Even with all the Evangelical support, Miller says all it will take is a strong commander-in-chief to set the agenda and then everyone, even Israel supporters, will follow along.

Dear Diplomat, whose side are you really on?

by Akiva Eldar

In his recent book, "The Much Too Promised Land: America's Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace" (Bantam Books; scheduled to be published in Hebrew translation next week by Yedioth Books), Aaron David Miller relates the following anecdote about his father, Sam Miller: "He once challenged my brothers, sister, and me to name three of our non-Jewish friends who would hide us in the event the Nazis took over America." The black cloud of anti-Semitism constantly hovered over the head of the very successful real estate agent and Jewish philanthropist from Cleveland, whose parents had immigrated to America from Russia. Israel's victory in the Six-Day War of June 1967 filled his heart with pride. Sam Miller was on friendly terms with Israeli prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin, and, like them, he believed that Israel could rely only on itself.

In the fall of 1990, his son, Aaron David Miller, a U.S. State Department official, met with a group of Jewish leaders in a Washington hotel. Miller, then the young deputy of Dennis Ross, head of the American peace team to the Middle East, reported progress being made under the leadership of James Baker, then secretary of state for George Bush, Sr. One reaction was very unpleasant: "'You're nothing but a self-hating Jew, and your boss is an anti-Semite,' a man from Atlanta shouted at me. 'You ought to be ashamed of yourself.'" (p. 87). As an American and as a Jew, Miller was deeply offended. "'Let's get out of the gutter,' I told Mr. Atlanta. 'If you have problems with U.S. policy, let's talk about them. But don't drag the secretary of state or his staff through the mud while you're doing it.'"

Read the rest.

The Sham of a Peace Deal

The foundations of Zionist support continue to crumble. The more intelligent observations are gaining ground, like the one below, while the childish rants of people like Dershowitz and Foxman only reinforce the notion that Israel supporters are losing intellectually and will lose eventually politically as well.

Tough Love for Israel

by Henry Siegman

We now have word that Tony Blair, envoy of the Middle East Quartet (the UN, the EU, Russia and the United States), and German Chancellor Angela Merkel intend to organize yet another peace conference, this time in Berlin in June. It is hard to believe that after the long string of failed peace initiatives, stretching back at least to the Madrid conference of 1991, diplomats are recycling these failures without seemingly having a clue as to why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is even more hopeless today than before these peace exercises first got under way.

The scandal of the international community's impotence in resolving one of history's longest bloodlettings is that it knows what the problem is but does not have the courage to speak the truth, much less deal with it. The peace conference in Germany will suffer from the same gutlessness that has marked all previous efforts. It will deal with everything except the problem primarily responsible for the impasse. That problem is that for all the sins attributable to the Palestinians--and they are legion, including inept and corrupt leadership, failed institution-building and the murderous violence of rejectionist groups--there is no prospect for a viable, sovereign Palestinian state, primarily because Israel's various governments, from 1967 until today, have never had the intention of allowing such a state to come into being.

It would be one thing if Israeli governments had insisted on delaying a Palestinian state until certain security concerns had been dealt with. But no government serious about a two-state solution to the conflict would have pursued, without letup, the theft and fragmentation of Palestinian lands, which even a child understands makes Palestinian statehood impossible.

Given the overwhelming disproportion of power between the occupier and the occupied, it is hardly surprising that Israeli governments and their military and security establishments found it difficult to resist the acquisition of Palestinian land. What is astounding is that the international community, pretending to believe Israel's claim that it is the victim and its occupied subjects the aggressors, has allowed this devastating dispossession to continue and the law of the jungle to prevail.

As long as Israel knows that by delaying the peace process it buys time to create facts on the ground, and that the international community will continue to indulge Israel's pretense that its desire for a two-state solution is being frustrated by the Palestinians, no new peace initiative can succeed, and the dispossession of the Palestinian people will indeed become irreversible.

Read the rest.

Victories in Anti-Terrorism Cases Few and Far Between

The Washington Post discusses our government's failures in winning major terror cases. Manufacturing terror cases or over hype of certain cases has been essentially the only thing our government has won so far. The Liberty City Seven case was a clear example of entrapment. Those seven guys probably couldn't pull off a gas station robbery let alone blow up the Sears Tower, but I guess that's what the FBI's agenda is right now - making things up.

Wajahat Ali Interviews Howard Zinn

Zinn's informative as usual, though somewhat brief in his comments.


At 85 years old, the indefatigable Howard Zinn still maintains the prolific activist and academic jab fueled by his political and social activism nurtured during The Civil Rights Movement. The esteemed historian and controversial rabble rouser’s seminal work, The People’s History of the United States, taught in high schools and colleges across the nation, has been adapted as a documentary, The People Speak, featuring readings by Sean Penn, Matt Damon, Viggo Mortenson and Marisa Tomei. Still touring and giving lectures, Zinn shows no signs of stopping, however his hectic schedule has slowed to devote more time for his family obligations. After nearly a month of back and forth emails and missed opportunities, Professor Zinn agreed to an interview reflecting on his historic and memorable time at Spelman College in the ‘60’s, his thoughts on the Democratic Party, his philosophy of dissent as democracy, and his hope for America’s future.

ALI: Your experiences and acts of civil disobedience at Spelman College are, by now, thoroughly well known. However, in the 21st century, one could look at the student body at many liberal college campuses and see that fiery protest and consciousness replaced by apathy and materialism. Where has that fighting spirit gone? You spoke against “discouragement” at the 2005 Spelman College commencement speech - what of it now?

ZINN: What you describe as the difference between the Sixties and today on campuses is true, but I would not go too far with that. There are campus groups all over the country working against the war, but they are small so far. Remember, the scale of involvement in Vietnam was greater – 500,000 troops vs. 130,000 troops in Iraq. After five years in Vietnam, there were 30,000 U.S. dead vs. today we have 4,000 dead. The draft was threatening young people then, but not now. Greater establishment control of the media today, which is not reporting the horrors inflicted on the people of Iraq as the media began in the U.S. to report on U.S. atrocities like the My Lai Massacre. In the case of the movement against the Vietnam War, there was the immediate radicalizing experience of the Civil Rights Movement for racial equality, whose energy and indignation carried over into the student movement against the Vietnam War. No comparable carry over exists today. And yes, there is more materialism, more economic insecurity for young people going to college – huge tuition costs putting pressure on students to concentrate on studies and do well in school.

ALI: You were heavily involved in the Civil Rights Movement that dealt not only with racial empowerment and equality, but also re-examination of U.S. foreign policy and withdrawal from the brutal Vietnam War. Here we are now in 2008 with a seemingly unending, and many say illegal, occupation of Iraq. “Racism” has emerged as a contentious topic due to Obama running for President and his Reverend’s controversial comments. Yet, most say he and other candidates talk “pretty” but are unwilling to fundamentally confront and change the problems of race and foreign policy. As one who has observed this socio-political climate from the grassroots since the 1960’s, what has changed if anything in regards to racial enlightenment and the humanizing of non – American, “foreign others”?

Zinn: The Civil Rights Movement was an educational experience for many Americans. The result was more opportunities for a small percentage of Black people, perhaps 10% or 20%, so more Black youth going to college and going into the professions. A greater consciousness among White people - not all, but many - of racism. For most Black people, however, there is still poverty and desperation. The Ghettos still exist, and the proportion of Blacks in prison is still much greater than Whites. Today, there is less overt racism, but the economic injustices create an “institutional racism” which exists even while more Blacks are in high places, such as Condoleezza Rice in Bush’s Administration and Obama running for President.

Unfortunately, the greater consciousness among Whites about Black equality has not carried over to the new victims of racism – Muslims and Immigrants. There is no racial enlightenment for these groups, which are huge. Millions of Muslims and an equal number of immigrants, who whether legal or illegal, face discrimination both legally from the government and extra-legally from White Americans – and sometimes Black and Hispanic Americans. The Democratic Presidential candidates are avoiding these issues in order to cultivate support among White Americans.

This is shameful, especially for Obama, who should use his experience as a Black man to educate the public about discrimination and racism. He is cautious about making strong statements about these issues and about foreign policy. So, in keeping with the tradition of caution and timidity of The Democratic Party, he takes positions slightly to the left of The Republicans, but short of what an enlightened policy would be.

ALI: You said the democratic spirit of the American people is best represented when people are picketing and voicing their opinion outside the White House. How does this nature of dissent and protest serve as the crux of a democracy and a healthy, functioning civic society? Many would argue this is divisive, no?

ZINN: Yes, dissent and protest are divisive, but in a good way, because they represent accurately the real divisions in society. Those divisions exist – the rich, the poor – whether there is dissent or not, but when there is no dissent, there is no change. The dissent has the possibility not of ending the division in society, but of changing the reality of the division. Changing the balance of power on behalf of the poor and the oppressed.

ALI: The People’s History of The United States is now considered a seminal work taught in high schools and universities across the country. Why do you think the work has had such lasting, influential impact?

ZINN: Because it fills a need, because there is a huge emptiness of truth in the traditional history texts. And because people who gain some understanding on their own that there are things wrong in society, they look for their new consciousness; their new feelings to be represented by a more honest history.

ALI: Minority voters, like Hispanic Catholics, voted solidly for Bush in 2002, and some sons of immigrants have virulent anger and disdain against “illegal” immigrants. It seems many marginalized voices have forgotten their history and now side with those actively intent on keeping them either on the sidelines or in some form “oppressed.” How do we explain this discrepancy?

ZINN: It is to the interest of the people in power to divide the rest of the population in order to rule them. To set poor against middle class, White against Black, Native born against immigrants, Christians against other religions. It serves the interest of the establishment to keep people ignorant of their own history,

ALI: Most say that corporations now own American media. What is the proper outlet for democratic discourse and dissemination of information if indeed there is a biased monopoly over media?

ZINN: Because of the control of the media by corporate wealth, the discovery of truth depends on an alternative media, such as small radio stations, networks like Pacifica Radio, programs like Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now. Also, alternative newspapers, which exist all over the country. Also, cable TV programs, which are not dependent on commercial advertising. Also, the internet, which can reach millions of people by-passing the conventional media.

ALI: Will anything change in regards to US foreign policy in the Middle East, specifically on Palestine and Israel, if the Democratic Party wins in 2008?

ZINN: The Democratic candidates, Clinton and Obama, have not shown any sign of a fundamental change in the policy of support of Israel. They have not shown sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people. Obama has occasionally referred to the situation of the Palestinians but as the campaign has gone on, he seems reluctant to bring this up, and instead emphasizes his support of Israel.

So, a change in policy will require more pressure from other countries and more education of the American people, who at this point know very little about what has been happening to the Palestinian people. The American people are naturally sympathetic to those they see as oppressed, but they get very little information from political leaders or the media, which would give them a realistic picture of the suffering of Palestinians under the Occupation

ALI: How can “the left” reconcile their assumed indifference to religion with the growing “religious” sector of society siding with the “conservative” parties? Can there be a peace between the two or is this a permanent schism? I’ve noticed bigotry on both sides, between the “secularists” and “religionists.”

ZINN: The Left needs to more clearly make a distinction between the bigotry of fundamentalism and the progressive tradition in religion. In Latin America, there is “liberation theology.” In the U.S., there were the priests and nuns who supported Black people in the South and who protested against the Vietnam War. So, it’s not a matter of being for or against religion, but of deciding whether religion can play a role for justice and peace rather than for violence and bigotry.

ALI: Most don’t know that you were a brigadier during WW2. Did this experience bring about the “anagnorisis” and epiphany catalyzing fundamental changes in your ideology?

ZINN: I did not know much history when I became a bombardier in the U.S. Air Force in World War II. Only after the War did I see that we, like the Nazis, had committed atrocities…Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, my own bombing missions. And when I studied history after the War, I learned from reading on my own, not from my university classes, about the history of U.S. expansion and imperialism.

ALI: You’re now a man in his golden years, and you look back at your many accomplishments. You’ve done amazing things. Any regrets? And also, if you could choose something that would embody your legacy – what would it be?

ZINN: I have no regrets about my political activity, only that I sometimes got carried away with it and didn’t find the right balance between obligations to my family and my need to be involved in social movements. As for a work of mine that embodies my “legacy,” probably it is not one book, but rather the combination of being a writer and an activist, being a public intellectual, by using my scholarship for social change.

ALI: Many look to the future horizons with bleak, cynical eyes foreshadowing disastrous scenarios resulting from our hubris and excess. Recession. War. Deficit. Extremism. Global Anti Americanism. Insincere Partisan politics. Will we implode? Can we move forward? Do you have hope for the future of America?

ZINN: The Present situation for the U.S. looks grim, but I am hopeful, as I see the American people waking up and being overwhelmingly opposed to this war and to the Bush regime, as I reflect on movements in history and how they arose surprisingly when they seemed defeated. I believe the American people have the capacity to create a new movement, which would change the direction of our nation from being a military power to being a peaceful nation, using our enormous wealth for human needs, here and abroad.

Wajahat Ali is Pakistani Muslim American who is neither a terrorist nor a saint. He is a playwright, essayist, humorist, and Attorney at Law, whose work, "The Domestic Crusaders," (www.domesticcrusaders.com) is the first major play about Muslim Americans living in a post 9-11 America. His blog is at http://goatmilk.wordpress.com/. He can be reached at wajahatmali@gmail.com

Whitehead Telling Tall Tales

It seems Andy Whitehead is becoming fonder of me as the days go by. He wrote a piece about my comments regarding Sami Al-Arian. Since he's out there to attempt to discredit me with more false accusations I think it's more than appropriate that I respond.

Omer Subhani, the communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) South Florida, authors a blog. On April 16, he wrote that he had “serious doubts” about Sami Al-Arian, the disgraced former college professor and Islamist terrorist. Read his post here.

In his blog entry, Subhani attempts to come across as an impartial observer of the trial who was swayed by the outcome of the case. If his claim weren’t so biased, it’d be funny. But when it comes to CAIR and radical Islam, nobody is laughing.

I never said I was swayed by anything. My questions about the case still linger and what is on my blog is my own opinion based upon limited knowledge of the actual case. I don't make a living off of it like some people, ahem. And Andy, don't talk about bias when your web site is called "Anti-CAIR" and you devote your life to defaming any politically active Muslim American as an "Islamist."

Perhaps Subhani is not aware that CAIR is calling Al-Arian a “political prisoner”?

Is Subhani not aware that CAIR has sided with Al-Arian against the United States from day one?

I'm aware, Andy.

Is Subhani really this ignorant? Consider, he is the communications director for a CAIR chapter; this means he is on CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper’s speed-dial list. Is Hooper not keeping Subhani up to date on the party line? Subhani attends American universities; he cannot claim he doesn’t speak, read and write English.

Some facts: I began working for CAIR in September of 2007. Ibrahim doesn't have me on speed dial, but he sure does have my email address, and he has not informed me of any "party line." And I do not currently attend "American universities." I graduated, as is stated on my blog profile, and am working with CAIR to better serve fellow Muslim Americans and my community in general.

So, what motivates Subhani?

Simple. It’s another case of CAIR trying to con the rubes. Only this time it didn’t work. At the time Anti-CAIR reviewed Subhani’s post, he had exactly zero supporters among those responding. True to the CAIR playbook, Subhani has deleted posts — could they have been critical (i.e., telling the truth) of Subhani or CAIR?

First of all, barely anyone visits my blog in the first place. I started it in October of 2007. Most of the people who comment on my blog are people who disagree with me. I've had the pleasure of fielding comments from Muslims Against Shariah, Jihad Watch, and now from you, Andy. Having "zero supporters" is nothing new because my blog is not publicized by me and it seems that right wing groupies have nothing better to do than write remarks on my blog. Lastly, I have never deleted a single post anyone has written on my blog. I am more than happy to watch friends of yours make complete fools of themselves, like that moron at Muslims Against Shariah, Khalim Massoud. The post you are mentioning was deleted by the person who posted it. Probably a friend of yours, maybe you should ask him/her. As for my motivations, I just stated one of them above: "to better serve fellow Muslim Americans and my community in general."

Subhani has learned that when you associate with the terrorist supporters of CAIR that every word you say is naturally suspect; this is as it should be.

I learned that? Are you sure? And held suspect by whom? You? That's fine with me, Andy. I'm definitely not looking to convince you of anything lest my Islamist agenda for world domination be discovered. Definitely wouldn't want that to happen.

For the record, Al-Arian’s claim that his plea agreement voided any requirement to further testimony was denied.

We note that Subhani calls Anti-CAIR bigots and that we “tell lies”.

I documented your bigoted and xenophobic remarks already. The lie you told was that Al-Arian refused to uphold his plea deal. No where in the deal does it say he must testify in other cases. Further, the prosecution and his defense agreed, verbally in court, that he would not have to deal with the government any more after the deal, but of course as we now know our government broke the deal and is forcing him to testify.

Subhani, a law school student, should know that defamation is against the law; i.e., you can sue someone if they tell a lie about you. If CAIR believes that Anti-CAIR is defaming them, why don’t they sue us?

Or did they try that once before and run away from their case when the truth became too uncomfortable?

My post was about Sami Al-Arain, genius. Not about CAIR. I never said you lied about CAIR, but about Al-Arian. Do you know how to read?

As for Anti-CAIR suing Subhani for defaming us? Not a chance. After many years of following CAIR’s lap dogs, we’ve found that they do more damage to their organization than we ever could.

We hope that Subhani continues to stand up for Islamic terrorists and terrorist supporting groups like CAIR.

Gee, thanks for not suing me (???). And why would you hope that I continue to stand up for Islamic terrorists? That's like me saying I hope you continue to be a blatant idiot. I wouldn't hope for that. It seems like you want me to be an Islamic terrorist or to become one. Based upon my own writings you would have to be a moron to think that was going to happen. But I won't put that past you, Andy.

Dr. Sherman Jackson: Authority Crisis & Muslims in America

A very enlightening video on a talk given by Dr. Sherman Jackson of the University of Michigan.

Responding to Andy Whitehead of Anti-CAIR

There has been an ongoing discussion at my recent post on the Sami Al-Arian case. A couple of people are arguing that Al-Arian is in contempt of court, as has been ruled by a U.S. Circuit Court in Atlanta. Now Andy Whitehead, founder of Anti-CAIR, has also chimed in. I respond to his comments below.

Omer Subhani, CAIR South-Florida Communications Director, has apparentley forgotten that the courts have found that Al-Arian has not lived up to his plea-bargain agreement. No amount of wishful thinking on the part of Subhani will change this fact.

I have not forgotten that fact. And in no way have I wishfully thought of changing this fact. My point throughout this conversation has been that there was no stipulation one way or the other for Al-Arian to testify anywhere in his plea deal. In fact, the verbal agreement made between the government and his defense team makes it abundantly clear what the agenda of our government is: to continue to punish him even after having verbally promised that he would not be requested to testify anywhere else. It shows how much the word of our government is worth.

As to the accusation that Anti-CAIR is bigoted, where is the proof?

Oh, let me think - "The evidence will show that under Moslem law, 'attacks against Islam' must be fought with violence. CAIR’s intentional and repeated use of the 'attack' imagery is,
therefore a potential call to violence.'" So you are basically saying that Muslims are obligated to use violence any time "Islam" is attacked? Can you explain what "Islam" is? How are you defining the term? Can you show me the evidence that CAIR is potentially calling to violence by saying that Islam or Muslims are under attack? Additionally, your idea or notion that "under Moslem law" Muslims must fight others if their religion is insulted or attacked is a very ignorant and bigoted comment. I really hope you don't think that Muslims must wage war against others if they feel someone insulted their faith. Portraying Muslims as irrational barbarians is about as bigoted as one can get. And so is trying to tarnish the reputation of a major American Muslim organization.

Unlike Anti-CAIR's carefully researched, documented proofs against CAIR, all Subhani can do is throw mud and hope it sticks.

Right. All that "researched" and "documented" proof that you borrowed from Steve Emerson's web site. The only mud being thrown is yours at CAIR with the help of Emerson and other vehement and rabid anti-Muslims. Apparently our government is not privy to all that information and is the reason why it continues to work with CAIR both nationally and locally.

Subhani should remember that it was CAIR that ran from their lawsuit against me; I was perfectly willing to meet them in court.

Would Subhani care to comment on why CAIR refused to defend their "good name" in court? He won't...because he can't. How do you defend CAIR, a group with proven ties to Islamic terrorists and Islamic terrorist groups?

Ran? I don't think settling in court is running away, but you're entitled to your opinion.

I won't and I can't, you're right. But that is because I am completely ignorant of what took place regarding that case since one, I don't work in the National office, and two, this all happened before I began working for CAIR.

As far as being tied to terrorists and terrorist groups, that's false. If it was true or even remotely plausible then don't you think our government would be investigating CAIR - just as it did with HLF and others (though that didn't turn out so well for your side, now did it)? If anyone at CAIR was ever found to be tied to terrorists or terrorist groups then CAIR, as an organization, would definitely cooperate with law enforcement and be happy to have such individuals removed from the organization and put in prison.

Of course, Subhani will delete this before anyone see's it because he knows it is the truth...and the truth is the last thing a lap dog for CAIR can tolerate.

Nope, I'm more than happy to have an open discussion on my blog. And I'm not Jack Nicholson, I can handle the truth, buddy. The only lap dog around here is you, for being nothing more than an Emerson crony looking to stifle American Muslims by trying to link them with any evil you can imagine in your warped mind.

Liberty City Six Mistrial... Again

The Department of Justice either needs better evidence or it needs to leave these wannabe terrorists alone. For the second time, the Liberty City Six (or Seven) case was declared a mistrial. These were a bunch of nobodies who didn't have more than a handgun. Swearing allegiance to al-Qaeda does not make you a terrorist... killing people for political reasons makes you a terrorist. If they were guilty of anything you would figure at least one of the two juries would have said so, but that certainly did not happen. Can't our government focus its resources on Bin Laden and the real terrorists?

B'Tselem: Shooting Back

Very powerful footage of daily life for Palestinians under the occupation. It's bad enough not having your own land, but it's even worse to be around monsters who don't even consider you human. The footage, shot by Palestinians themselves, shows how despicable the behavior is of some Israeli settlers - especially the coming generation of Israeli settlers.

B'Tselem Video - Shooting Back

An Editorial You Will Never See in America

Haaretz tells fellow Israelis that they owe Jimmy Carter great respect and probably much more.

Our Debt to Jimmy Carter
by Haaretz Editorial

The government of Israel is boycotting Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, during his visit here this week. Ehud Olmert, who has not managed to achieve any peace agreement during his public life, and who even tried to undermine negotiations in the past, "could not find the time" to meet the American president who is a signatory to the peace agreement with Egypt. President Shimon Peres agreed to meet Carter, but made sure that he let it be known that he reprimanded his guest for wishing to meet with Khaled Meshal, as if the achievements of the Carter Center fall short of those of the Peres Center for Peace. Carter, who himself said he set out to achieve peace between Israel and Egypt from the day he assumed office, worked incessantly toward that goal and two years after becoming president succeeded - was declared persona non grata by Israel.

The boycott will not be remembered as a glorious moment in this government's history. Jimmy Carter has dedicated his life to humanitarian missions, to peace, to promoting democratic elections, and to better understanding between enemies throughout the world. Recently, he was involved in organizing the democratic elections in Nepal, following which a government will be set up that will include Maoist guerrillas who have laid down their arms. But Israelis have not liked him since he wrote the book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid."

It is doubtful whether it is possible to complain when an outside observer, especially a former U.S. president who is well versed in international affairs, sees in the system of separate roads for Jews and Arabs, the lack of freedom of movement, Israel's control over Palestinian lands and their confiscation, and especially the continued settlement activity, which contravenes all promises Israel made and signed, a matter that cannot be accepted. The interim political situation in the territories has crystallized into a kind of apartheid that has been ongoing for 40 years. In Europe there is talk of the establishment of a binational state in order to overcome this anomaly. In the peace agreement with Egypt, 30 years ago, Israel agreed to "full autonomy" for the occupied territories, not to settle there.

These promises have been forgotten by Israel, but Carter remembers.

Whether Carter's approach to conflict resolution is considered by the Israeli government as appropriate or defeatist, no one can take away from the former U.S. president his international standing, nor the fact that he brought Israel and Egypt to a signed peace that has since held. Carter's method, which says that it is necessary to talk with every one, has still not proven to be any less successful than the method that calls for boycotts and air strikes. In terms of results, at the end of the day, Carter beats out any of those who ostracize him. For the peace agreement with Egypt, he deserves the respect reserved for royalty for the rest of his life.

Anti-CAIR Blatantly Lies About Al-Arian Plea Deal

I had serious doubts about Sami Al-Arian for a very long time. Watching the case against him take nearly a decade to conclude I felt that he must have been guilty of something. Well, irrespective of what anyone thinks, myself included, Al-Arian was acquitted of eight counts against him, while the jury deadlocked on nine other counts. But Al-Arian was tired of the legal battle and his legal team advised him to work out a plea deal with the government so that he could be deported and so he and his family could live in peace. That was the arrangement: plea deal, serve time, get deported. There was nothing in the plea deal saying he had to testify anywhere else. But our government prosecutors have thought otherwise and each time he refuses to testify in some other terrorism related case Al-Arian stays in prison longer.

Those who have been hounding Al-Arian and slinging mud at him for years are more than happy that he is suffering. Anti-CAIR though, a web site dedicated to throwing the good name of CAIR under the bus, blatantly lies on its front page about Al-Arian stating "Sami refuses to uphold his plea deal and testify." Uhm, no. Like I said above, Al-Arian is not refusing to do anything associated with his plea deal instead it is the government that is failing to uphold its end of the agreement. It's one thing to vilify him, even continuously call him a terrorist supporter (even after a jury of his peers did not find him guilty of a single count), but let's not lie. That's never good. It's bad enough that the folks at anti-CAIR are bigots, but let's not tell lies.

Even the article that anti-CAIR links to does not support their claim that Al-Arian refused "to uphold his plea deal."

Al-Arian, a former professor at the University of South Florida, was tried in 2005 on terrorism-related charges when federal prosecutors alleged he was a fundraiser for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Jurors acquitted him of eight counts and deadlocked on nine others.

Al-Arian later pleaded guilty to a charge he conspired to provide assistance to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Under a plea deal, he was to have been deported after he served his sentence. His family has since moved to Egypt, and Al-Arian's supporters want prosecutors to abide by the plea agreement and deport him.

Al-Arian's sentence was to have been completed in April 2007, but federal prosecutors in Virginia subpoenaed him to testify before a grand jury there, and he was held in contempt when he refused. That contempt has run out, but prosecutors have subpoenaed Al-Arian again.

Where's the evidence that he was supposed to testify anywhere else? Do you think Al-Arian's legal team would have allowed him to enter a plea deal where he could be potentially stuck in legal limbo for years on end? I highly doubt that and so should anyone with common sense.

Tibetans Have Homes Demolished by Chinese

Actually, its the Palestinians having their homes demolished by the Israelis as more and more illegal settlements are built upon Palestinian land. It's all part of Zionist Manifest Destiny. But you won't find articles like this one in the New York Times. Heaven forbid.

Where are Elie Wiesel, Alan Dershowitz, and Daniel Pipes speaking out against this? Joe Kaufman, Robert Spencer? Anyone? Ah, they must be out researching how Islam causes radicalism and extremism and not bulldozing some guy's house. It's so obvious I must be blind.

Gideon Levy: Why Tibet and Not Palestine?

A very rational argument posed to Israelis and citizens of the world.

Excerpt:

The world has fallen in love with Tibet. How easy it is to do so. The picturesque figure of the Dalai Lama and the non-violent struggle he leads with his scarlet-robed monks is truly captivating. Indeed, the world has smothered the leader with awards and recognition, from the Nobel Peace Prize to an honorary doctorate at Ben-Gurion University.

The Palestinians are not as nice as the Tibetans in the eyes of the world. But the Palestinian people deserve exactly the same rights as the occupied Tibetan people, even if their leaders are less enchanting, they have no scarlet robes and their fight is more violent. There is absolutely no connection between rights and the means of protest, and from that perspective, there is no difference between a Tibetan and a Palestinian - they both deserve the exact same freedom.

Moreover, in the first years of the Israeli occupation, most Palestinians accepted it submissively, with practically no violence. What did they get as a result? Nothing. The world and Israel cloaked themselves in apathy and callousness. Only when planes started being hijacked in the 1970s did the world begin to notice that a Palestinian problem even existed. In contrast, the Tibetan struggle also was tainted with violence in the past, and it is reasonable to assume that violence will increase if the Tibetans do not attain their goal.

Jewish Liberals to Launch A Counterpoint to AIPAC

As Norman Finkelstein has said in recent months, it seems the pro-Israel establishment is beginning to crumble. The "mainstream" has begun to come out against the Israel Lobby: first it was Walt and Mearsheimer and then Jimmy Carter. You really can't get more respectable than the heads of the political science departments of Harvard and the University of Chicago, and the former President of the United States who brokered the first peace deal between an Arab state and Israel (calling Carter an anti-Semite or a dhimmi only demonstrates ones lack of perception of reality more than anything else). Now we see a strong contingent of left leaning Jewish elites coming out against AIPAC and other rabid Zionist organizations that have made war, not peace, their main priority in lobbying the U.S. Government.

If this organization can achieve even a fair and open minded debate of the Israel-Palestine issue in the mainstream that would be a major achievement in any estimation. As Finkelstein has noted, most American Jews are realizing that unconditional support for Israel has become synonymous with apartheid and oppression. It's just not a reasonable position to hold any longer because the facts are quite obvious: Israel, not the Palestinian leadership, is fighting against peace.

Christo-Fascist Denounced by Christian

Thankfully there are Christians speaking up against the violent rhetoric of some psychotic Christian preachers. Though you will likely never hear "good" Christians like those who hover at anti-Muslim web sites denouncing such blatantly bigoted comments. Martin Marty calls out Rod Parsley for being a genocidal calling maniac.

Rod Parsley on Islam by Martin Marty

William Franklin Graham famously called Islam a wicked and evil religion, but I don't think he called for its extinction through violence, as in war. Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, a wild politician, did call for the bombing of Mecca to shatter the Muslim center. Now, Parsley—as in Rod Parsley—is the flavor of the month among the controversial clergy being spotlighted in the camps of the three presidential campaigners. Parsley, pastor of Ohio's mega-est megachurch, twelve-thousand-member World Harvest Church in Columbus, calls for "destroying" Islam.

Parsley is most explicit in his well-selling Silent No More and in broadcasts to large and presumably assenting audiences. While Americans know that some who claim Allah would like to destroy Christian civilization, citizens often overlook the tit-for-tat or tat-for-tit (that is, "who started it?") calls for war from militants on both sides. As reported in Mother Jones (March 12), Parsley says there is a war and he wants bigger war, as America can only "fulfill its divine purpose" by seeing to it that Islam, "this false religion, is destroyed." Though he spells out no specific strategy, he writes things like, "We find now we have no choice. The time has come" to destroy "this anti-Christ religion," inspired by demons who spoke to Allah.

Shall some Muslims be spared—the moderates down the street or anywhere else, for example? No: "mainstream believers" in the "1,209 mosques" in America drink from the same well as do the extremists whom all citizens condemn. Screaming that he does not want to be "another screaming voice moving people to extremes," Parsley has plunged into presidential politics in the hope that he will find policies that will help "destroy" or lead to the "destruction" of Islam, the goal of his war.

Islam has no central authority. It is a family religion, a village religion, with millions of bases for a billion believers. Islam is not an institution or a dogma. When one calls for the destruction of Islam one has to mean the killing of all Muslims. Rather than accuse Parsley of calling for genocide, it is in place to ask him to spell out alternatives. Does "destroy" Islam mean winning a debate until every last targeted Muslim cries uncle and says, "I give up, you win"? He may mean that. Does the "destruction of Islam" mean the deconversion of a billion people and, preferably, conversion to Parsley's "Christian civilization"? Try converting as many as one in your town, and then take on the millions more in Indonesia. Does "destroy" mean bombing the 1,209 mosques in America, which number includes only a few of the world-wide total? As of now, Parsley simply calls for "war." By most definitions, doesn't "war" mean "killing"?

The United Nations document on the Prevention of Genocide condemns attempts to exterminate others through "acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial, ethnical, or religious group, as such." Ben Kiernan's Blood and Soil, a new "world history of genocide," finds genocide to be identified by "philosophical outlooks and obsessions, often harmless in themselves yet invidiously related," that supply "lethal ideological ammunition" for violence, and that these include "racial and religious hatreds." Reviewer William H. McNeill in the New York Review of Books (April 17) traces such in "our" culture back to Deuteronomy 20:17, where the Lord demanded that his people "utterly destroy" the other peoples. Most Jews and Christians, we thought, have buried that language. Brother Parlsey and followers have raised it up.

Is it time to scream, "Brother, there is still time" for you to spell out how your "war" to "destroy" Islam does not mean killing all Muslims, the way a genocidist would?

References:
Ben Kiernan, Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. Yale University Press, 2007.

Pipes Gets It Wrong

Daniel Pipes mentions Joe "Kahane" Kaufman's article on CAIR South Florida's banquet on March 1, 2008 where Kaufman and his minions protested our banquet. Pipes says the following:

CAIR denies Hamas is a terrorist organization: Reverting to its roots – for CAIR is a step-child of Hamas – a CAIR Florida staffer, Jawhar Badran, stated on video that "Hamas is not a terrorist organization." The U.S. government has listed it, however, as such. (March 7, 2008)

Some quick points:

1. Badran is not a staffer for CAIR. He does not work for us and does not sit on any board for the South Florida chapter or on the state board. He is a supporter of CAIR and that's all.

2. He's entitled to his opinion just like Pipes and Kaufman are entitled to their opinion that Israel is not a rogue state and a terrorist state that is in violation of countless UN resolutions.

3. I've spoken before about Hamas. My own opinion does not substitute for CAIR, but I will point out that Hamas does commit terrorism. It's too bad they have and it's good that they've discontinued suicide bombing for besides the fact that it violates classical Islamic law for harming innocent civilians and for the fact that the bomber is committing suicide. Not limited to the Islamic side, it is a terrible thing to do no matter what Israel does to the Palestinian population. Two wrongs don't make a right. In any case, despite the terror attacks that Hamas has committed they are not just a terrorist organization - they were elected by the Palestinian people so no matter what the State Department, Israel, and the U.S.'s European puppets say Hamas must be viewed as representatives of the Palestinian people.

These idiotic demands that every Muslim American renounce Hamas and Hezbollah serves no other purpose than to legitimize Israeli atrocities and crimes in the Occupied Territories. Palestinians are not allowed to resist Israel's barbarity apparently. And no matter how many rockets Hamas and Hezbollah send into Israel it will not make up for the continual murder, harassment, and humiliation that Israel has afflicted upon these people. The crimes are not comparable.

All Israel has to do is act in accord with UNSC 242 and leave the occupied territories. It will then gain peace. But every time peace is near at hand Israel and its Zionist supporters think up some new enemy that needs to be feared. Nasser, Arafat, and now Hamas. It's always something to keep the game going.

Let there be no doubt that Hamas has committed terrorist acts and those actions are reprehensible, yet they pale in comparison to what Israel has done to the Palestinian people for sixty years: ethnic cleansing (as noted by a Zionist historian himself, Benny Morris), flying F-16 fighter jets over civilian areas in order to terrorize Palestinian civilians, assassinations of suspected terrorists (no jury necessary), cluster bombings during the Lebanon war (in violation of international law), sniping children, house demolitions, running over a wheel chair bound man, running over an American with a bulldozer, indiscriminate bombings in highly populated civilian areas, constructing illegal settlements on Palestinian land, and of course torturing prisoners and kidnapping civilians. Imagine if Hamas had ever committed any combination of these crimes - the reaction by the Western world would be a sight to see.

In any case, let Mr. Pipes sing to the choir about Hamas and terrorism as he remains a staunchly strong supporter of American and Israeli terrorism against those who resist American hegemony. His notions of Western civilization only hearken back to the barbarism of the Middle Ages where might made right and justice was a concept as alien to Europeans as baths. His blatant xenophobia against Muslims becomes clearer every time he opens his mouth, as I demonstrated here before. To take Pipes seriously after stating that Muslim Americans pose a threat to Jewish Americans is like taking Michael Vick serious about being a judge at a dog show.

The Idiocy of the Mainstream Media

I spent the weekend glued to the television as much as I could in an effort to see if the three main cable news networks (CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC) would cover the fact that the White House was directly involved in approving torture of detainees held by the United States.

What did I see instead? Coverage of some U.S. Marine who murdered a pregnant lady and coverage of some high school cheerleaders who beat up a fellow cheerleader. That's what I found being covered. Cheney and company? They were off the hook this weekend because more important things needed to be covered. The White House approving torture in violation of international law need not be covered or even mentioned casually by the mainstream media. Cheerleader royal rumbles are obviously more news worthy.

Media Matters, the Democratic Party's media watchdog, had an interesting article posted about Chris Matthews' focus during his show Hardball. It seems Matthews is far more concerned with Barack Obama's bowling skills and beverage choices than with his stances on issues. Apparently this a reflection of Obama's elitist background because no regular American would order orange juice over coffee or could suck at bowling. All true American patriots drink coffee and are good at bowling.

Anyway, here's the article:

There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke

On last night's Hardball, host Chris Matthews and David Shuster focused like a laser on the things that really matter:

MATTHEWS: He's [Sen. Barack Obama] not that good at that -- handshaking in a diner.

SHUSTER: No --

MATTHEWS: Barack doesn't seem to know how to do that right.

SHUSTER: -- he doesn't do that well. But then you see him in front of 15,000 people in some of these college towns, and that's why, Chris, we've seen Chelsea Clinton and Bill Clinton in Bloomington and South Bend and Terre Haute. I mean --

MATTHEWS: What's so hard about doing a diner? I don't get it. Why doesn't he go in there and say, "Did you see the papers today? What do you think about that team? How did we do last night?" Just some regular connection?

SHUSTER: Well, here's the other thing that we saw on the tape, Chris, is that, when Obama went in, he was offered coffee, and he said, "I'll have orange juice."

MATTHEWS: No.

SHUSTER: He did.

And it's just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, "Here, have some coffee," you say, "Yes, thank you," and, "Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?" You don't just say, "No, I'll take orange juice," and then turn away and start shaking hands. That's what happens [unintelligible] --

MATTHEWS: You don't ask for a substitute on the menu.

SHUSTER: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: David, what a regular guy. You could do this. Anyway, thank you, David Shuster. I mean, go to the diners.

The mind-blowing inanity of this conversation can't properly be appreciated through the transcript. When Matthews said "No" in response to Shuster's revelation that Obama ordered orange juice in a diner, he sounded as though he had just been told that Obama had punched a nun in the face. Watch for yourself.

When CNN's Candy Crowley suggested after the 2004 election that John Kerry's attempt to order green tea in an Iowa restaurant showed a "disconnect" between the presidential candidate and "most of America," it seemed unlikely that we would see a sillier attempt to find meaning in a candidate's beverage choice. Not only was Crowley taking the elitist attitude that simple Iowans couldn't possibly be familiar with green tea, she was also wrong. The Kmart in Dubuque, Iowa, stocked Lipton's green tea.

But last night's exchange between Matthews and Shuster was far worse. Offered coffee, Barack Obama asked for orange juice instead. And Chris Matthews and David Shuster pounced, aghast that he would dare do such a thing as ask for orange juice. A preference for orange juice was supposed to demonstrate that Obama is out of touch with "regular" people. (For what it's worth, neither Matthews nor Shuster so much as hinted that a single, actual voter who was in that diner was put off by Obama's interest in orange juice. But Matthews and Shuster were upset enough for everyone.)

MSNBC runs commercials for itself in which Tim Russert solemnly explains why MSNBC covers politics: "It's about the war. Our sons and daughters. It's about the economy. Our jobs. It's about education. Our schools. It's about health care. Our families' well-being. It's about everything that matters."

MSNBC doesn't run any ads that claim that what really matters is whether the candidates choose to drink coffee or orange juice. But that's what the cable channel's brightest stars (Matthews is reportedly paid $5 million a year for this nonsense) chose to spend their time discussing last night.

Orange juice -- and bowling.

Immediately after his exchange with Shuster, Matthews hosted Obama supporter Sen. Bob Casey. Here's the very first question Matthews asked this United States Senator:

MATTHEWS: Isn't that interesting, Senator Casey, that Barack Obama, your candidate, can walk before 15,000 people with complete calm and assurance, but he seems a little out of place in A) a bowling alley and B) a diner? What is the problem with your guy?

Obama ordered orange juice in a diner and isn't a very good bowler -- and based on these facts, which can only aspire to qualify as trivia, Chris Matthews demanded to know "[w]hat is the problem with your guy?"

Matthews has been positively obsessed with Obama's lack of bowling skills. He talked about it on Hardball on March 31 -- in two separate segments -- and announced, "[T]his gets very ethnic, but the fact that he's good at basketball doesn't surprise anybody, but the fact that he's that terrible at bowling does make you wonder." And again on April 1 -- this time bringing it up in three separate segments and opening his interview with Obama supporter Sen. Claire McCaskill: "[D]id you advise Obama to go out and try to bowl the other day?" On April 2, Matthews interviewed Obama himself -- and his very first question was about the presidential candidate's bowling. On April 8, Matthews said, "I'm actually surprised by the fact that neither Barack or Hillary have bowled much in their lives. Maybe that tells you something about the Democratic Party." He referenced Obama's bowling again on April 9.

A profile by Mark Leibovich in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine suggests that Matthews thinks his other television show -- The Chris Matthews Show airs on Sundays -- disproves the notion that he isn't serious. Leibovich writes:

When I asked Matthews about the bloviator stigma, he dismissed it as jealousy or at the very least ignorance among those who don't know him or who don't regularly watch his Sunday show or who have not read his books or who are not aware that he is a student of history and film or that he is on the board of trustees of the Churchill Center or that he has received -- did he mention? -- 19 honorary degrees.

Leibovich also quotes the executive producer of The Chris Matthews Show describing that program's audience as "smart people who want smart analysis."

But even on a show that purports to offer "smart analysis," Matthews can't resist focusing on Obama's inability to bowl well; he included a segment on the topic in last week's broadcast.

These discussions of bowling and beverages may be stupid, but they aren't pointless. They are part of a broader pattern of media portraying prominent progressives as elitists.

Matthews routinely asks if Obama can "connect with regular people." Apparently, all those people who have been voting for Obama are irregular. And, just so you don't have to wonder exactly who it is Chris Matthews considers irregular, he spelled it out for you, continuing: "Or does he only appeal to people who come from the African-American community and from the people who have college or advanced degrees?"

New York Times columnist Gail Collins said Obama "can be disturbingly Ivy League." Candy Crowley, doubling down on her green tea comments, refers to Obama supporters as "latte liberals." The Chicago Tribune refers to Obama supporters as "wine-track" voters and chides the senator for referencing arugula while in Iowa. Obama's arugula reference drew a barrage of (inane) media criticism, with Glenn Beck falsely claiming "arugula is not even grown in the state." In fact, it is -- and it is readily available in Iowa supermarkets, too. Apparently they even having indoor plumbing in much of the state, despite what Candy Crowley and Glenn Beck seem to think. Even George Will got in on the act, mocking Obama for mentioning arugula to Iowans. Yes, George Will wants you to think Barack Obama is an out-of-touch elite.

And, of course (according to the media) John Edwards' big house and expensive haircut showed that he was out of touch with "regular people," as did John Kerry's windsurfing and Al Gore's childhood attendance of a private school and his decision to occasionally wear brown clothing.

Most people who are no longer in middle school understand that it isn't a great idea to judge people based on things like their haircuts, their wardrobe choices, or what beverage they drink. Most people understand that we shouldn't choose a president based on these things. Most people -- but not political journalists.

Most people understand that in a time of war, with the nation teetering on the edge of recession (if one hasn't already started), and the housing market collapsing, and an administration that views the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and the Bill of Rights as optional, assessing candidates based on who would be the most fun to have a beer with is not the way out of this mess; it's the way we got into it in the first place. Most people -- but not political journalists.

Which isn't to say that there is nothing candidates can do to avoid having reporters relentlessly mock them as out-of-touch elitists: They can run for office as Republicans.

George W. Bush and Al Gore were both sons of successful politicians, both attended private schools and Ivy League colleges, but only one was portrayed by the media as an out-of-touch elite; the other was a "regular guy." Bush owns $13,000 worth of bicycles -- a fact that never seemed to come up when the media were portraying John Kerry's windsurfing as the pastime of the wealthy. Kerry was skewered for ordering a cheesesteak with Swiss cheese -- and when Bush lied about ordering his with Cheez Whiz, the news media politely stayed silent. John Edwards' expensive haircut was endlessly portrayed by the media as evidence that he was an out-of-touch elitist dandy --but how often have you seen a reporter mention that George W. Bush handpicks the cloth for his $2,000 suits?

During the height of the media frenzy over Edwards' haircut, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd made fun of him for visiting "the Pink Sapphire spa in Manchester, which offers services for men that include the 'Touch of Youth' facial, as well as trips 'into the intriguing world of makeup.' " But, as Bob Somerby pointed out, John McCain has also taken a trip "into the intriguing world of makeup" at the Pink Sapphire. Somehow, Dowd forgot to include that in her column -- and the rest of the media (except for the New Hampshire Union Leader) forgot as well. (A Nexis search for "John Edwards AND Pink Sapphire" returns 71 hits. One news report available on Nexis mentions McCain's visit to the salon. One.)

Last year, CNN's Wolf Blitzer called Hillary Clinton a "flip-flopper" because she sometimes drinks her coffee black, and sometimes with cream. The very same Associated Press article from which Blitzer learned this completely irrelevant fact also reported that Rudy Giuliani drinks his coffee with "Sweet'n Low or Equal, whichever is available," and that John McCain likes "[c]appuccino or coffee with cream and sugar." Blitzer saw no troubling insecurity in Giuliani's or McCain's preferences (and, to be clear: He shouldn't have. Just as he shouldn't have branded Clinton a flip-flopper because she sometimes puts cream in her coffee and sometimes does not).

And that same AP article also reported that Mitt Romney doesn't drink coffee at all -- but "has been known to have hot chocolate." Try to imagine how Chris Matthews would react if he found out that Barack Obama doesn't drink coffee -- and that, instead, he drinks hot cocoa.

Now imagine how Chris Matthews would react if Obama didn't drink coffee -- and was as rich as Mitt Romney is.

—J.F.

The Benign Occupation Continues

Physical torture and now psychological torture. It's just another day at the office for the only democracy in the Middle East.

Report: Israel Uses Mental Torture

By ARON HELLER – 19 hours ago

JERUSALEM (AP) — A human rights group accused Israel on Sunday of stepping up its psychological torture of Palestinian suspects, in part by insinuating that their families would be hurt if they don't cooperate.

The Shin Bet internal security agency, which conducts the interrogations, denied the allegations.

The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel made the accusations in an 86-page report that examined six cases over the past year. It said Israel has put more emphasis on psychological torture since Israel's Supreme Court restricted the use of physical torture in a 1999 ruling.

In one case, the group said, Israeli agents convinced a suspect his wife had also been arrested and tortured, driving him to attempt suicide. In another, they detained a couple for an extended period, tortured them physically, and withheld information about their two young children to try to break them, the report said.

A parliamentary committee heard the group's findings in a special session Sunday.

A 1999 Israeli Supreme Court ruling sharply limited the security service's interrogation methods, essentially outlawing torture except when there was clear evidence the suspect had information that could save people from an attack in the making. The Supreme Court outlawed what the Shin Bet called "moderate physical pressure," such as exposure to extreme temperatures and tying up detainees in painful positions.

However, the Shin Bet has come under criticism for new methods, which include shackling suspects in contorted positions and depriving them of sleep for long periods of time.

Yoav Loeff, a spokesman for the human rights group, said the Shin Bet has added using relatives as leverage during interrogations.

"They use family members to force people to confess, and they cross all the red lines along the way," he said.

The Shin Bet said in a statement that it never detains relatives of suspects, or presents false information to its suspects in an attempt to elicit information.

"Terrorist investigations are conducted by the Shin Bet according to the Supreme Court ruling, under the restrictions of the law and the tight supervision of the Justice Ministry and the courts," a statement read.

"The information acquired in these investigations allows for foiling acts of terror, and many civilians in Israel owe their lives to these actions," it added.

Robert Fisk on Iran, Israel

Hezbollah turns to Iran for new weapons to wage war on Israel

Excerpt:

For months, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbollah leader, has been warning Israel that his organisation has a "surprise" new weapon in its armoury and there are few in Lebanon who do not suspect that this is a new Iranian-developed ground-to-air missile – rockets which may at last challenge Israel's air supremacy over Lebanon. For more than 30 years, Israel's fighter-bombers have had the skies to themselves, losing only two aircraft – one to a primitive Palestinian SAM-7 shoulder-fired missile, the other to Syrian anti-aircraft guns – during and after its 1982 invasion.

After its 1980-88 war with Iraq, Iran introduced a new generation of weapons, one of which – a development of a Chinese sea-to-sea missile – almost sank an Israeli corvette in the last Hizbollah-Israeli war in 2006.

Can the Hizbollah shoot Israeli jets out of the sky in the event of another conflict? It is a question much discussed within the 13,000-strong United Nations force in southern Lebanon – essentially a Nato-led army, which contains French, Spanish and Italian troops as well as Chinese, Indian and sundry other contingents – which would find itself sandwiched between the two antagonists.

Carter Defends His Actions

Jimmy Carter sounds reasonable, while Condoleezza Rice sounds idiotic.

Jimmy Carter defends meeting with Hamas

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press WriterSun Apr 13, 7:49 AM ET

Former President Jimmy Carter said he feels "quite at ease" about meeting Hamas militants over the objections of Washington because the Palestinian group is essential to a future peace with Israel.

Carter, interviewed Saturday for ABC News' "This Week," airing Sunday, also said he would oppose a U.S. Olympic boycott and hopes all countries will join in the Beijing games.

He spoke from Katmandu, Nepal, where his team of observers from the Carter Center monitored an election that appeared likely to transform rule by royal dynasty into a democracy with former Maoist rebels in a strong position, judging by incomplete returns.

Several State Department officials, including the secretary, Condoleezza Rice, criticized Carter's plans to talk in Syria this week with exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in the first public contact in two years between a prominent American figure and the group. Carter said he had not heard the objections directly, although a State Department spokesman said earlier that a senior official from the department had called the former president.

"I feel quite at ease in doing this," Carter said. "I think there's no doubt in anyone's mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process."

Although he said the meeting would not be a negotiation, he outlined distinct goals.

"I think that it's very important that at least someone meet with the Hamas leaders to express their views, to ascertain what flexibility they have, to try to induce them to stop all attacks against innocent civilians in Israel and to cooperate with the Fatah as a group that unites the Palestinians, maybe to get them to agree to a cease-fire — things of this kind," he said.

The State Department says it advised Carter twice against meeting representatives of Hamas, which Washington considers a terrorist organization.

"I find it hard to understand what is going to be gained by having discussions with Hamas about peace when Hamas is, in fact, the impediment to peace," Rice said Friday, after reports of the planned meeting surfaced.

Carter said he'd be meeting Syrians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudi Arabians and others "who might have to play a crucial role in any future peace agreement that involves the Middle East."

Asked whether it was right to meet a group that has not renounced violence or recognized Israel, he said, "Well, you can't always get prerequisites adopted by other people before you even talk to them."

Pressure to drop the meeting has come from his own party. Democratic Reps. Artur Davis of Alabama, Shelley Berkley of Nevada, Adam Schiff of California and Adam Smith of Washington state wrote a letter to Carter saying the meeting could confer legitimacy on a group that embraces violence.

"I've been meeting with Hamas leaders for years," Carter said.

The Carter Center said his "study mission" was taking him to Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan this week.

Carter, a broker of the 1978 Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel, won the Nobel Peace Prize for his conflict mediation as president and since.

As president, Carter led the boycott of the Moscow Olympics in protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. "That was a totally different experience in 1980, when the Soviet Union had brutally invaded and killed thousands and thousands of people," he said, rejecting the idea of boycotting the Beijing games to protest China's crackdown in Tibet. He did not address whether just the opening ceremonies should be boycotted.

Christian Supremacist At It Again

Pat Robertson, Thursday's worst person - in the wooooooorrrlllddd!!!

From Media Matters:

During the April 10 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named Pat Robertson the "winner" of his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for, as Media Matters for America documented, stating: "I want to say it again, and again, and again: Islam is not a religion, it's a political system meant on -- bent on world domination, not a religion. It masquerades as a religion, but the religion covers a worldwide attempt to exercise power and to subjugate the world into their way of thinking." Of Robertson's comments, Olbermann asserted: "Whatever your views about Islam or religion in general, just think about this for a second. This is from a guy heading up a giant corporation devoted to eliminating science from schools, eliminating freedom of choice for women, who himself ran for president, and who said that 9-11 was the result of people not abiding by his political system -- I'm sorry, it was the result of people not abiding by his religious beliefs."

From the April 10 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: But our winner, Pat Robertson. Goes on his TV network and says, "I want to say it again, and again, and again: Islam is not a religion, it's a political system meant on -- bent on world domination, not a religion. It masquerades as a religion, but the religion covers a worldwide attempt to exercise power and to subjugate the world into their way of thinking."

Whatever your views about Islam or religion in general, just think about this for a second. This is from a guy heading up a giant corporation devoted to eliminating science from schools, eliminating freedom of choice for women, who himself ran for president, and who said that 9-11 was the result of people not abiding by his political system -- I'm sorry, it was the result of not abiding by his religious beliefs.

Pat Robertson -- today's "Worst Person in the World."

For Horowitz and Spencer

I think the "intellectual trend-setters of the feminist movement," as David Horowitz and Robert Spencer call themselves, would have a special interest in the work some women are doing to fight against female genital mutilation, early childhood marriages, and honor killings. Besides just talking a bunch of crap about how they're so concerned about Muslim women afflicted by such issues, these women have dedicated their time and resources towards fixing these issues at the grassroots in their own countries. But of course Horowitz and Spencer already knew that such organizations existed and were going to join them in this type of work instead of simply exploiting these issues to portray Muslims as barbarians and Islam as an uncivilized religious cult of death. Of course they were because they have such a long track record in working towards women's rights both in the United States and all around the globe. Right guys? Right?

Anyway, below is an excerpt of a transcript from Amy Goodman's interview on Democracy Now! with a Kenyan woman who works on ending female genital mutilation and early childhood marriages:

AMY GOODMAN: That was the Congolese activist Christine Schuler Deschryver speaking about the Congo. She’ll be speaking here this weekend at the V-Day to the Tenth celebration that is taking place in the Superdome. I say “celebration” after she described such a dire situation for women, because women are gathering here to fight back, to fight against violence against women and children.

We’re joined right now by two other international women rights activists who are in New Orleans for the weekend. Agnes Pareyio is the coordinator of the Tasaru Ntomonok Initiative in Kenya, the community-based group that helps save girls from female genital mutilation and early marriages. In 2002, she helped V-Day open a safe house in Kenya to create a safe haven for young girls. In 2005, Agnes Pareyio was named Kenyan Person of the Year by the United Nations. We’re also joined by Yanar Mohammed. She is here in New Orleans from Iraq, co-founder of the Organization for Women’s Freedom in Iraq, the group that vocally supports women’s rights in Iraq. She shelters Iraqi women targeted in honor killings and sectarian violence. She was born in Baghdad in 1960. She left Iraq in 1993, then returned after the US Invasion.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Can you explain the title of your organization, Agnes?

AGNES PAREYIO: My organization is Tasaru Ntomonok Initiative, which means rescuing girls. And I’m the coordinator of the program.

AMY GOODMAN: What are you rescuing them from?

AGNES PAREYIO: We rescue these girls from female genital mutilation and early childhood marriages.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about both. Talk about early childhood—talk about female genital mutilation.

AGNES PAREYIO: Female genital mutilation is a culture that is deeply rooted among my community, and this involves the cutting of the clitoris and part of the labia majora. And this is performed because they believe it’s a culture that makes one an adult.

AMY GOODMAN: That makes a girl an adult.

AGNES PAREYIO: An adult, and accepted in the community. And early childhood marriages are culture that happens in my community, too, because girls are married at an early age, as from nine years to fifteen, which we think these girls are still married when they are children and cannot be wives. And that’s why we came up—Tasaru Ntomonok Initiative came up with that idea of educating their community to understand the effects of female genital mutilation and early childhood marriages.

AMY GOODMAN: How do you go about the education process? And what part of Kenya are you from?

AGNES PAREYIO: I’m from Narok. That is in the southern part of Kenya.

AMY GOODMAN: So you’re talking to your own community.

AGNES PAREYIO: I am talking to my own community, because when you want to change a culture, you have got to understand the culture, and you have also have to come from that culture so that you know what to talk about and how to approach the culture, because if you don’t approach the culture in the right way, people might mistake you to be misusing their culture.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you find is the most effective way to convince the community not to engage in these practices?

AGNES PAREYIO: By making them understand the effects of female genital mutilation, because some of these effects they see and cannot relate with the act of female genital mutilation, like, for example, we practice a type two of female genital mutilation that is called excision, and excision involves the cutting of the clitoris, the labia majora, leaving a scar. And women experience prolonged labor pains as a result of this scar. And our community have never related that to female genital mutilation. And some of the girls die, because some of them are sensitive to cutting, and once they are cut, they bleed and they die. But still, the community have not related that to their cutting. They have always been thinking, oh, they are just dying because they—something happened to them. But once we take them, educate them, make them understand that it is as a result of the scar that some girls bleed to death, and it is as a result of this cut some of these women undergo prolonged labor pains, then they listen to us. And we also give them examples of role models, other communities, because it’s not all the communities in Kenya that practice female genital mutilation.

AMY GOODMAN: Is it illegal?

AGNES PAREYIO: Well, these days we have the Children’s Act that is in place, and that prohibits one to mutilate a girl below eighteen.

AMY GOODMAN: How old are these girls that are being mutilated?

AGNES PAREYIO: They are mutilated from the ages of nine, ten to fifteen.

AMY GOODMAN: And are there examples of girls themselves saying no?

AGNES PAREYIO: Yes, since we’ve started, because we met with Eve seven years ago, and of course these days we have role models. We have got some of them who have finished their Form Four level education, because after—after Eve helping us to construct this safe house, we also introduced [inaudible] education to the community, which they didn’t value. So we take these girls to school, V-Day pays the school fees for these girls, and they are helping those girls from poor communities to pay their school fees and go to school. And now we have role models girls who are now going to colleges.

AMY GOODMAN: Agnes Pareyio is from Kenya. When we come back from our break, we’re also speak with Yanar Mohammed. She is in New Orleans from Iraq. Stay with us.

Torture? What Torture?

I've been following this story for a few weeks now, but now it seems that not only was the Department of Justice in on the whole torturing suspected terrorists extravaganza, but so was the White House! Another point on the board for freedom and justice!!!

Like I said before, this is what lawyers are NOT supposed to do. The Washington Post has the details:

Top Bush aides, including Vice President Cheney, micromanaged the torture of terrorist suspects from the White House basement, according to an ABC News report aired last night.

Discussions were so detailed, ABC's sources said, that some interrogation sessions were virtually choreographed by a White House advisory group. In addition to Cheney, the group included then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, then-secretary of state Colin Powell, then-CIA director George Tenet and then-attorney general John Ashcroft.

At least one member of the club had some qualms. ABC reports that Ashcroft "was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

"According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: 'Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.'"

No crap, John. Read the rest of it.

More on Bosnia, Milosevic

John Laughland writes about the case of Slobodan Milosevic at the International Court of Justice. It seems justice prevailed. But the system of "humanitarian intervention" created by the United States and its allies in NATO still remains. Greater justice will be achieved once this Orwellian system is dismantled and replaced with a truly just international system.

Lies of the vigilantes

The Srebrenica ruling punctures the false claims that underpin the doctrine of intervention

Slobodan Milosevic was posthumously exonerated on Monday when the international court of justice ruled that Serbia was not responsible for the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica. The former president of Serbia had always argued that neither Yugoslavia nor Serbia had command of the Bosnian Serb army, and this has now been upheld by the world court in The Hague. By implication, Serbia cannot be held responsible for any other war crimes attributed to the Bosnian Serbs.

The allegations against Milosevic over Bosnia and Croatia were cooked up in 2001, two years after an earlier indictment had been issued against him by the separate international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at the height of Nato's attack on Yugoslavia in 1999. Notwithstanding the atrocities on all sides in Kosovo, Nato claims that Serbia was pursuing genocide turned out to be war propaganda, so the ICTY prosecutor decided to bolster a weak case by trying to "get" Milosevic for Bosnia as well. It took two years and 300 witnesses, but the prosecution never managed to produce conclusive evidence against its star defendant, and its central case has now been conclusively blown out of the water.

The international court of justice (ICJ) did condemn Serbia on Monday for failing to act to prevent Srebrenica, on the basis that Belgrade failed to use its influence over the Bosnian Serb army. But this is small beer compared to the original allegations. Serbia's innocence of the central charge is reflected in the court's ruling that Serbia should not pay Bosnia any reparations - supplying an armed force is not the same as controlling it. Yugoslavia had no troops in Bosnia and greater guilt over the killings surely lies with those countries that did, notably the Dutch battalion in Srebrenica itself. Moreover, during the Bosnian war, senior western figures famously fraternised with the Bosnian Serb leaders now indicted for genocide, including the US general Wesley Clark and our own John Reid. Should they also be condemned for failing to use their influence?

However, Monday's ruling is about far more than Milosevic. Ever since the end of the cold war, the US and its allies have acted like vigilantes, claiming the right to bomb other countries in the name of humanity. The Kosovo war was the most important action taken on this basis and, as such, the curtain-raiser for Iraq. Fought, like the Iraq war, without UN approval, it was waged partly because the international community felt it should have intervened more robustly against Yugoslavia over Bosnia. It now turns out that Serbia was not in control in Bosnia after all. The ruling therefore punctures a decade-and-a-half of lies in support of the doctrine of military and judicial interventionism.

The ICJ, indeed, operates on a radically different philosophy of international relations than that which inspires the ICTY. Unlike the ICTY, the ICJ is not a criminal court and claims no power of constraint over states. Its jurisprudence is based on the anti-war sovereignty-based philosophy of the Nuremberg trial and the UN charter. In the international system, born out of the second world war, war is illegal except in a very restricted cases. States have no right to attack other states, not even on human rights abuse claims. This position is based on the understanding that there are no war crimes without war, and that war always makes things worse.

Mere anarchy was loosed upon the world when the cold war ended and the US sought to create a unipolar world system by destroying the old one. After the 1991 Iraq war, the US and Britain claimed the right to bomb Iraq to protect the Kurds and Shias, which they did for 12 years. Nato bombed the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and Yugoslavia in 1999. The ICTY, created in 1993, operates on the basis of this doctrine of interventionism, which has come to its ghastly conclusion in the bloodbaths of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Created and controlled by the Great Powers, the ICTY, like its sister courts for Rwanda and the new international criminal court, corrupts the judicial process for political ends, the most important of which is to support the US's supposed right to act as the world's policeman. The new ICC, created by Britain, also seems to operate on the basis that white men do not commit war crimes: its prosecutors are currently investigating two local wars in Africa while turning a blind eye to Iraq. Only when that hideous strength which flows from the hypocrisy of interventionism is sapped, will the world stand any chance of returning to lawfulness and peace.

· John Laughland is the author of Travesty: the Trial of Slobodan Milosevic and the Corruption of International Justice jlaughland@btinternet.com

Exposing Robert Spencer Part X

I recently added my refutations of Robert Spencer to the side of my blog for quick and easy reference for those interested in the continual blunders of a demonstrated anti-Muslim moron. When Spencer replied to my article on Juvenile Hadith Interpretations he demonstrated that he clearly could not counter a single point I raised against him. But more importantly for this thread he made more errors of scholarship in his rebuttal, errors that actually had me laughing out loud. Among them were:

1. He stated that when the Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, said he was given the most concise words he was referring to the Qur'an. As I showed in my reply to Spencer, the Prophet Muhammad was speaking about his own speech contained in ahadith and not about the Qur'an, which are considered God's words.

2. Spencer said the Muslims attacked the "workers of Khaybar" at the Battle of Khaybar. That's either a blatant lie by Spencer or another mistake he made. His own citation proves him otherwise. For him to come to such a conclusion is a total disregard for the very source he uses where it said clearly that the workers turn and fled away.

In any case, I had read one of Spencer's Qur'an blog commentaries on Surah al-Kahf or The Cave, chapter 18 of the Qur'an. In that blog Spencer says the following:

"Another point emerges in Islamic tradition: don’t kill children, unless you know they’re going to grow up to be unbelievers. “The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside.” The assumption thus enunciated may help explain the persistence of the phenomenon of honor-killing in Islamic countries and even among Muslims in the West."

He also says this about Khidr:

"Some consider Khidr to be immortal (Ibn Taymiyya thinks so)."

I'll start with his second statement, that Khidr was considered immortal by ibn Taymiyya. Ibn Taymiyya never considered Khidr to be immortal - free from death. That would be akin to saying Khidr and God would live for eternity - that's complete blasphemy. I found a more thorough rebuttal of Spencer's erroneous comment at a site called seekingilm.com. You can see the relevant text by ibn Taymiyya stating clearly that he believed Khidr was alive, but not immortal as Spencer stated.

Moving on to the first point raised about Spencer's Qur'an blog, namely the remarks about killing children. I don't even know what to say about where Spencer's mind goes or how he thinks because I find him to be more and more idiotic everyday and with every article he writes and with every comment he makes.

The first thing I'll point out is that the hadith Spencer mentions is taken from the USC hadith compendium. It's found in Sahih Muslim and there are FOUR variations of the hadith of which Spencer chose only this version:

Book 019, Number 4457:

This tradition has been narrated by the game authority (Yazid b. Hurmus) through a different chain of transmitters with the following difference in the elucidation of one of the points raised by Najda in his letter to Ibn Abas: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside.

The other three versions mention that Yazid bin Hurmus related that "Najda b. 'Amir al-Haruri wrote to Ibn Abbas asking him about the slave and the woman as to whether they would get a share from the booty (it they participated in Jihad) ; about the killing of (enemy) children (in war) ; about the orphan as to when his orphanhood comes to an end; about kinsmen (of the Holy Prophet) as to who they are." The three other versions of this hadith all mention explicitly that Ibn Abbas was asked about the killing enemy children, not Muslim children. I think that needs to be clarified since Spencer, for whatever reasons, used the only version of the four that leaves out the fact that this question was about enemy children.

There are two points that need to be clarified in regards to what Spencer said. The first I just highlighted above, that the issue was about the children of the enemies of the Muslims, specifically the polytheist enemies, as mentioned in one of the versions of the hadith. The second point is what did Ibn Abbas mean when he said "thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed." I do not have any hadith exegesis to support my interpretation, but I believe what he was saying was that unless you know the unseen (ghaib) like Khadir/Khidr knew the unseen (because God had given him such knowledge, while other mortals did not have that knowledge including Moses who was his companion on that journey) then you cannot kill the enemy child even if you suspected that the child was going to become an unbeliever when they grew up. This correlates nicely with basic principles of Islamic fiqh, namely that a judge can only judge what he or she sees as plain evidence and cannot make a judgment on subjective evidence.

So, what have we learned so far?

1. These ahadith were about the children of the enemy.

2. Ibn Abbas was rhetorically chiding the questioner with the logic of the fact that no one except Khidr had the knowledge of the unseen about such an issue, i.e. if a child would become a believer or unbeliever.

Finally, Spencer's last statement regarding this hadith will be analyzed: "The assumption thus enunciated may help explain the persistence of the phenomenon of honor-killing in Islamic countries and even among Muslims in the West."

Can Spencer provide one example of a Muslim killing their relative based on such an absurd interpretation of this hadith, that a Muslim can kill a child based on one's subjective notion that such a child may become an unbeliever? I would like just one example because I've never heard of such a thing in relation to honor killings. They are called honor killings for a reason because someone's or some group's honor had been tarnished.

The Prophet Muhammad, peace and prayers be upon him, told his Companions not to kill their daughters. There are no reports that state any Companion killed their child because they knew that they would grow up to become an unbeliever and that they had the knowledge to make such a judgment, such as the knowledge that Khidr had.

Spencer out does himself again by making ridiculous statements about things he apparently has very little knowledge of. It just goes to show you what happens when someone like Spencer roams into territory that he is obviously unfamiliar with. It demonstrates clearly that his scholarship is "utter twaddle."

Below is another version of the hadith that Spencer quotes. You might find this version a bit more clear about what children to kill and what ibn Abbas' judgment was on such an issue.

Book 019, Number 4460:

It has been narrated on the anthority of Yazid b. Hurmuz who said: Najda wrote to Ibn Abbas. I was sitting in the company of Ibn 'Abbas when he read his letter and wrote its reply. Ibn Abbas said: Were it not for preventing him from falling into wickedness. I would not have replied to his letter, may he never be joyful. He wrote in reply to him referring to the share of the close relatives (of the Holy Prophet) (from the booty) whom God has mentioned. (I have to tell you that) we thought we were the close relatives of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), but our people have refused to recognise us as such. You have asked about the orphan as to when his orphanhood comes to an end. (I have to say that) when he reaches the age of marriage, attains maturity of mind, and his property is returned to him, then he is no longer an orphan. You have inquired whether the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upo him) used to kill anyone from the children of the polytheists in the war. (You should know that) the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill any one of their children, and you (too) should not kill any one of them, except when you knew about them what Khadir had known about the boy whom he killed. And you have inquired whether there is a fixed share of the booty for women and slaves when they participate in a battle. (I have to tell you that) there is no fixed share for them except that they will be given some reward from the spoils of war.

Sweatin' the Quran

A very illuminating article by Katha Politt of The Nation about Harvard's women only gym hours and inherent bigotry and hatred of Islam and Muslims.

But then again, this might all be a part of the "stealth jihad!" Beware!!!

Jimmy Carter to Meet Hamas Leader

But Israel can continue to refuse recognizing Palestinians and their claim (and every relevant UN document) to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem and can continue using terror. No problem.

Jimmy Carter Goes to Syria to Meet Hamas Leader

Donahue Rips Hannity

I watched this the other night. Phil Donahue, who we know had his show canceled by MSNBC because the network was worried about his anti-war stance when the rest of the media was following Bush into violating the UN Charter, was on Hannity & Colmes on Tuesday night discussing the Iraq invasion. News Hounds has the details. The video is definitely worth watching.

Donahue: "You shouldn't shush a nation when a president decides he's gonna go to war. If we ever need the First Amendment, we need it then. We have people honestly believing that if a president calls a war, you have to shut up and sing. That is not the nation my mother raised me to pledge my allegiance to. We should speak out. That's when we need it the most. And, by the way... We sent thousands of Americans to foreign battlefields to protect our way of life which includes free speech. If we're not gonna use it when we need it the most, stop wasting their blood. Don't send any morel. If you're not gonna use it, it's already lost. We'll find a Mussolini who'll tell us what's good for us."

Muslims Converting to Other Faiths

A very poignant and reasonable argument by Hesham Hassaballa at altmuslim.com. Why should any Muslim get upset over another Muslim converting to a different religion? It demonstrates a lack of faith in God and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and prayers be upon him, when a person becomes angry that someone else has left the faith of Islam. Why would God want someone to worship him if that person does not sincerely believe in Him in the first place? If that person thinks Jesus is his savior then so be it. It's that person's life and afterlife. Our religion does not need defending - it stands on its own and has done so for 1,429 years.

Israel like the Nazis, according to Richard Falk

It's not like this comparison has not been made before. But I assume it's bigger news because a UN official stated it. And an American Jew at that. Falk is professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and will be the new special investigator of Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories for the UN Human Rights Council. He will be serving a six year term.

UN expert stands by Nazi comments

By Tim Franks BBC Middle East correspondent

Falk believes that Israel has been avoiding criticism

The next UN investigator into Israeli conduct in the occupied territories has stood by comments comparing Israeli actions in Gaza to those of the Nazis.

Speaking to the BBC, Professor Richard Falk said he believed that up to now Israel had been successful in avoiding the criticism that it was due.

Professor Falk is scheduled to take up his post for the UN Human Rights Council later in the year.

But Israel wants his mandate changed to probe Palestinian actions as well.

Professor Falk said he drew the comparison between the treatment of Palestinians with the Nazi record of collective atrocity, because of what he described as the massive Israeli punishment directed at the entire population of Gaza.

He said he understood that it was a provocative thing to say, but at the time, last summer, he had wanted to shake the American public from its torpor.

Israeli actions in Gaza are collective punishment, says Falk

"If this kind of situation had existed for instance in the manner in which China was dealing with Tibet or the Sudanese government was dealing with Darfur, I think there would be no reluctance to make that comparison," he said.

That reluctance was, he argued, based on the particular historical sensitivity of the Jewish people, and Israel's ability to avoid having their policies held up to international law and morality.

These and other comments from Professor Falk comments are, if anything, even harsher than the current UN investigator, John Dugard, who himself has been withering about Israel's actions.

A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that Israel wanted the UN investigator's mandate changed, so that he could look into human rights violations by the Palestinians as well as Israel.

If that were not to happen, the Israeli government may consider barring entry to the new UN investigator.

"Islamist" Organizations

I recently reread an article a friend of mine, Fawad Siddiqui, wrote about local basketball tournaments run by Muslim youth in the South Florida area. I remember back when I was a freshman in high school, me and my closest friend initiated the first annual MYNA Basketball Tournament at Florida International University in 1996 I believe. The tournament was very modest initially, but then later ballooned to contain upwards of 25 teams for boys and nearly half a dozen girl teams. All the proceeds went to charity each year, we only kept enough money to break even.

Going through the article I was reminded of the constant ramblings of anti-Muslim pundits. I grew up like many Muslim American youth, being involved with a Muslim youth group and then going on to college and joining the Muslim group on campus. It seems that every religiously minded college student ends up with their respective religious college organization. Christians have their Catholic or Bible groups, Jews have Hillel, Hindus have the Indian student group, and Muslims usually the Muslim Students Association or some other derivative. But obviously only the MSA is viewed as suspect in light of the fact that probably most of the people who founded the original MSA in Illinois (or Indiana?) were former members or nominally inclined to the Muslim Brotherhood and its teachings of activism (and world domination of course).

The MSA then led to the creation of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and then to the creation and establishment of the Muslim Youth of North America (MYNA). These three organizations, the MSA, ISNA, and MYNA, were at one time the three largest Muslim American organizations in the country. ISNA and MSA are still very strong, but MYNA has essentially become defunct since much of its leadership was made up of high school kids who obviously moved on to college, while likely failing to recruit new kids to keep the organization going.

I read the articles of the radical right with amusement when they describe what they see as the goals of such Muslim organizations. The MSA is described as some sort of indoctrination clan for Muslim college students and ISNA and its annual convention as the hub of "Islamists." Obviously, nothing could be further from the truth. MSAs all over the country usually don't follow any set objectives ordered from above by MSA National. At most MSAs will copy cat events that other MSAs conduct and were proven to be successful like the Ramadan Fast-a-thon or Hijab solidarity events. ISNA is even less influential. The annual convention is a time for Muslim families to come together and... shop. The bazaar is probably the most popular attraction at the annual conference, while listening to lectures from Muslim scholars is a distant second. But for many Muslim high school and college students, the annual ISNA conference is all about exploring gender issues, namely approaching the opposite sex and looking to get married or at the very least, getting a phone number or email address.

The reason I mention the above is because when I read the articles of the radical right about these Muslim organizations I'm shocked at how ignorant they are of these organizations and their functions and influence. MSAs all over the country do not adhere to some sort of Ikhwan guide to survival in America - far from it. Almost every MSA I have worked with (and I have worked with many all across the south) functions differently largely because it's the members who make up the agenda of that particular Muslim college group. Few are Salafi dominated, while most are just clubs that do very little serious work and do not follow any ideology, let alone the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, there was a time probably through the 1990s that many MSAs adhered to Ikhwan like teachings, while some others were heavily influenced by Salafi teachings. From what I've seen most of that went out the window with the arrival of Imam Hamza Yusuf (and scholars like him) in the late 1990s as probably the most liked and dominant Muslim personality in the U.S. at the time (his lectures were always jam packed, and still are, at ISNA conventions). Imam Hamza's call was to adhere to traditional Islamic teachings, what may be called neo-traditionalism. The Ikhwan and Salafi agendas didn't appeal as much in comparison because Imam Hamza and others like him were looked upon by most Muslim youth in America as representative of America and an American Islam - someone they could relate to. Foreign ideologies became less appealing from my estimation and their influence seems to diminish with every new Fall semester.

Personally, I look back on my resume of "Islamic" work with MYNA, the FIU MSA, the Islamic Society at Boston Univ., and now with CAIR and no where did I find any sort of calling to extremism. No exaggeration. At FIU for one year Salafism was being promoted by a bunch of goons. Their actions though were just typical anti-American jargon and calls to the path of the Qur'an and Sunnah - typical Salafi propaganda that almost all Muslim students on campus were turned off by (empty general body meetings were signs that their "call" to the Qur'an and Sunnah was falling on deaf ears). Harmless as they were, it's probably guys like that who give most Muslims a bad name. In any case, the work we did as youths and now as adults I can proudly say was never tainted by anything extreme or radical. We visited nursing homes, fed the homeless, held camps where we learned to become better individuals and explored topics that were of interest to us, like how to avoid drugs and peer pressure. We also held a gazillion sporting events - and that has been the constant that I've witnessed throughout my 25 years of life: Muslims love sports tournaments. And we sent all the money we raised as kids to charity. And then as college students we did pretty much the same thing except after 9-11 we had to carry a more serious agenda of presenting Islam as a religion where terrorism has no place.

The larger issue in all of this is how so many of these right wing bigots have attempted to silence the majority of Muslims in this country. In their estimation everything the Muslim population in the United States says is a lie (taqiyya according to some who have failed to grasp that their definition of this word is found no where in Islamic discourse the last 1,400 years). Every reputable Muslim organization has had mud slung at them in order to marginalize and ultimately to silence them. Muslim Americans are a threat to them not because Muslims want to overthrow the Constitution, but because Muslims are amongst a large majority of people who see right through the crass propaganda efforts of the right to scare everyone into submission of their agenda. Islam and Muslims have to be viewed by Americans as a threat in order for more wars to be fought and more people people to be killed in the name of the war on terrorism, but for which such violent actions are done in the best interest of ruling elites and the corporations whose boards they sit on. Progressives have to be termed the "loony left" so that their obvious observations of how corrupt our government is can be laughed away as the observations of a crazy person bent on conspiracy theories.

It's a shame that reason cannot prevail with such people. Their hatred of Islam and Muslims is so apparent and obvious that taking them seriously at all is very difficult when it comes to their "advice" on how to battle Muslim extremism. It's their own extremism that plagues our society and helps to give fodder to the radicals on the other side of the Atlantic. Muslim American organizations are trying to help our country better understand the religion of the people it is killing in multiple countries across the globe. People on the extreme right are looking to stifle such work because it interferes with their world view of clashing civilizations. It will be a shame if they succeed.

More on Bush Laws

Abducted, Tortured and Deprived of His Rights

Should Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be Set Free?

By MIKE WHITNEY

"This is the time to demonstrate to the world that the United States need not abandon its principles even as it seeks to ensure the safety of its citizens."

-- Janet Reno, former Attorney General and member of ACLU Guantánamo Defense "Dream Team"

Should Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be set free?

It's a difficult question, but it deserves a serious answer. Here's why. The only reason the Bush administration has decided to conduct a trial for Mohammed, the alleged terrorist mastermind of the attacks on September 11, is because they feel confident in the outcome. It's a slam dunk. There's no chance that the perpetrator of the biggest act of terrorism in American history (against America, that is) will be found innocent. Bush thinks a Mohammed conviction will be a vindication for his kangaroo courts (Military tribunals) at Guantánamo Bay as well as reinforce the belief that the president has the inherent right to arbitrarily imprison anyone he chooses if he brands him an enemy combatant. It is a cynical power-play meant to increase presidential authority while further undermining fundamental legal protections. That means that the so-called tribunals will be choreographed by the Bush public relations team to rehash 9-11 in as frightening terms as possible invoking the same, worn demagoguery we've heard for the past six years.

On the other hand, the ACLU, which has courageously decided to defend Mohammed, will try to demonstrate the basic unfairness of the proceedings (which provide defendants with fewer rights than civilian trials or courts-martial) and how the Bush administration has violated the law at every turn by denying Mohammed due process and by using harsh interrogation techniques, including torture, to extract a confession.

Bush is no friend of civil liberties or justice. Since he first took office in 2000, he's waged a persistent and systematic no-holds-barred attack on the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Conventions. Last week, a 30-page memo authored by senior Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo surfaced, showing that the Bush administration worked assiduously to create a legal framework for justifying the cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees in their custody.

"Could the president, if he desired, have a prisoner's eyes poked out? Or, for that matter, could he have 'scalding water, corrosive acid or caustic substance' thrown on a prisoner? How about slitting an ear, nose or lip, or disabling a tongue or limb? What about biting?"

According to Yoo's 81-page memo, which was declassified last week, the president had the legal authority to order any of these acts of barbarism because, as Yoo says, "Federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes by military interrogators are trumped by the president's ultimate authority as commander in chief." The memo also repeats the Yoo's assertion that an interrogation tactic cannot be considered torture unless it results in "death, organ failure or serious impairment of bodily functions."

The memo proves that Bush was aggressively seeking legal justification for the cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners and deliberately circumventing the law. Yoo was paid to dignify Bush's coercive detainee policies with legal flim-flam. He was fully aware of what he was doing; he was a willing accomplice to a crime. As conservative pundit, Andrew Sullivan, pointed out on "Hardball" this week, "The latest revelations on the torture front show the memo from John Yoo...means that Don Rumsfeld, David Addington and John Yoo should not leave the United States any time soon. They will be, at some point, indicted for war crimes."

Yoo worked in the Office of Legal Counsel, which means that his written opinions had "the force of law within the government because its staff is assigned to interpret the meaning of statutory or constitutional language." (Washington Post) In other words, Yoo was the "go-to" guy. The memo proves that the treatment of terror suspects was premeditated and criminal.

But what does Yoo's memo have to do with the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

Everything.

It shows that the government was intentionally carrying out war crimes while conducting its so-called war on terror. It shows that the military tribunals have nothing to do with establishing the guilt or innocence of the defendants. They're just politically-motivated show trials designed to enhance executive powers and further savage civil liberties. The administration hopes that by trotting out the so-called "worst of the worst" they can scare the pants off the public and weaken their commitment to the rule of law. But whatever hatred or rage Americans may feel for the perpetrators of 9-11, it is not worth destroying the laws that protect us all from the long arm of the state. If Bush is allowed to create his own parallel justice system, with its own courts and procedures, what's to stop him or a successor from using that same model at home? Does anyone seriously think that Bush would hesitate to use the military tribunals on alleged eco-terrorists, protestors at the School of the Americas, or antiwar activists like the Irish member of the Pitstop Ploughshares who was just barred from the US for his efforts to stop Bush's bloodbath in Iraq?

No way.

Bush has done everything in his power to place himself above the law, particularly when it comes to deciding issues of life and death. These are not matters that should be left to the flawed judgment of one man. By ignoring the flagrant violations of the law in the imprisonment and subsequent torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we further reinforce the precedents that Bush is setting. That's a blueprint for dictatorship.

The law is our only refuge from would-be tyrants like George W. Bush. Thomas More summed it up like this in "A Man for all Seasons":

"And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake!"

However horrible he may be, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed poses no threat to our system or our freedom. Bush does. We'd be better off letting one guilty man free than than destroying the laws that protect all of us from liberty's greatest enemy; the State.

Mohammed has been abducted, tortured, and deprived of his rights. Give him an ankle bracelet, and let him go.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

Al-Jazeera Interview Mearsheimer and Finkelstein about Iraq

Great interview. Inside Iraq - Motives for war

I think Mearsheimer makes sense. I don't think he and Walt are arguing that the Israel Lobby controlled U.S. foreign policy. But that the same people in charge of the war (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) had loyalties to both countries and probably drew great support from both elite sectors, from the United States and Israel. How did Israel benefit? An enemy was defeated in Saddam Hussein and attention was diverted from Israel's occupation and murder of the Palestinians. It obviously benefited the Israelis, even if only marginally. But obviously the core reason for invading Iraq was about controlling the oil - not WMD or democracy.

It just so happen that Israel also benefited from the invasion, but even if Israel didn't benefit the U.S. still would have invaded. I think even to the detriment of Israel. U.S. hegemony comes first, Israeli security and land grab comes second. I believe that's what Mearsheimer is arguing and Finkelstein is misunderstanding him and Walt's argument.

NYC Cabbie on Crack - Countering Saudi "Islam"

Yousef al-Khattab, a Jewish convert to Islam, and a nut ball, was featured in a story on FOX News yesterday. Khattab mocks dead American soldiers, is anti-American, and speaks out against every law enforcement agency in the U.S. His web site is devoted to spreading the ideology of his religious guide, Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal, a Jamaican born Christian who converted in Saudi and earned a degree from there in Riyadh.

Are people not catching on to Saudi Arabia? Is not every radical in some way or form connected to Saudi? It seems like it. Besides the mundane teachings that likely occur in Saudi universities, it is known that an extreme Khawarij version of Islam is preached and followed there. The "mujhadeen" who went to Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq are almost all from the Gulf area where this form of extremism is strongest. It is this type of "Islam" that is leading to violence all over the world, but for which Islam is blamed.

We have to fight this ideology, we have to eradicate it from the Middle East. Thank God it's not prevalent here in the U.S. (at least not anymore), but in the Middle East, as violence and unjust wars are continuously brought down upon the populations there, this sort of thinking can and will become more appealing. Invasions by Western nations does not justify resorting to this apocalyptic ideology, but despite that reasoned argument, it doesn't mean it won't happen.

I think the work of people like Habib Umar and Habib Ali and others can help, but there must be a counter program against the Saudi ideology by Middle Easterners themselves. Us in the West will have little influence over this core issue. Violence has led to more violence for the people of the Middle East. They must adopt just and lawful ways of tackling there problems otherwise God's grace will never be with them. Hatred and anger are not part of "the Jihad mentality" as al-Faisal says, but honor, humility, and patience are. Might does not make right - that is completely anathema to the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and prayers be upon him. When the Quraysh were humiliating the Muslims in Mecca, did that make the Quraysh "right"? That's complete insanity.

Ibn Taymiyya says as much: "The jihad of nafs and hawa is the foundation of jihad of the disbelievers and hypocrites; one cannot do jihad of them before he first does jihad of his nafs and hawa, then he goes out and fights them."

How many of these men have defeated their own egos before they go to fight others? Probably none. And for that they will continue to disgrace themselves and the people they claim to represent until this ummah decides to stand up and defeat them like Ali, God ennoble his face, did when he confronted these monsters 1,400 years ago.

Chomsky on Tibet and Palestine

The analogies only carry so many similarities before the comparison breaks down upon rational observation. This from Noam Chomsky on ZNet:

Sustainer: Professor Chomsky, Are there parallels between the situation unfolding in Kosovo/Serbia and the recent history (since 1948) of Palestine/Israel?

Noam Chomsky: I doubt that there is much in the way of useful analogies, in this case. Maybe I'm missing something.

Seems to me there is a much closer analogy between the Palestinian occupied territories and Tibet right now. There are dissimilarities too. Thus, rightly or wrongly, Tibet is internationally recognized (by the US too) as part of China, so what is happening there is internal. In contrast, outside of Israel (and in practice, the US), no one recognizes the OT as part of Israel, and in an authoritative judgment, confirming early Security Council resolutions, the International Court of Justice determined that the Geneva Conventions apply to the OT, so all settlement activity is in violation of international law, as are all measures (like the "separation wall") to protect settlers (the US Justice concurred). However, despite the sharp legal distinction, there are some instructive parallels that can be explored.

Take the recent US-backed Israeli violence in the OT and Chinese violence inTibet. The former is far greater, and the justifications far weaker. Just imagine how the US and Israel would react if Palestinians in illegally annexed East Jerusalem were to burn down a bank and Jewish stores, attack Jews, etc., as in Tibet We can then compare the actual reactions. In the case of US-backed Israeli violence and illegal actions in the OT, overwhelming support for embattled Israel. In the case of Chinese violence in Tibet, much grandstanding, as when Nancy Pelosi -- an enthusiastic supporter of Israeli violence -- declares passionately that if we don't stand up for Tibet we will lose our "moral authority" (she didn't explain on what that authority rests).

One can proceed -- that is, if one is interested in truth and justice and immune to shrieks of horror and a deluge of brickbats.

NC

Avnery on Tibet and Palestine

I agree with pretty much everything Avnery has to say except the little bit about Kosovo. As we know, Kosovo is 90% Albanian largely in part to the ethnic cleansing that took part because of the NATO bombing campaign. Most Serbs ran out of Kosovo once the bombing campaign began.

His points demonstrate how to go about gaining the sympathy of the Western world. Manufacturing Sympathy should be the title to a new book by Chomsky and Herman at some point using Bosnia, Kosovo, Tibet and Israel as prime examples of how to exploit suffering to gain world sympathy and more importantly, American sympathy, in order to further political goals. Palestine, Chechnya, the Congo, East Timor and the Kurds are all prime examples of how not to go about gaining world sympathy.

One problem with Avnery's idea: using his logic Utah should become its own country since it "inhabits a defined territory and has a clear national character" then it should be "entitled to independence." But we sure as hell know that's not going to happen. The international system currently installed is problematic on many fronts, but using that login most countries or states would be unsustainable because they would be so small and resource lacking. Like Palestine, it will likely have to leech off of Israel, Egypt and Jordan for decades before it becomes a viable state. Unless people are happy living in caves and huts, this idea is problematic.

Anyway, without further ado.

"Not You! You!!!"

Tibet and Palestine

By URI AVNERY

"Hey! Take your hands off me! Not you! You!!!"--the voice of a young woman in the darkened cinema, an old joke.

"Hey! Take your hands off Tibet!" the international chorus is crying out, "But not from Chechnya! Not from the Basque homeland! And certainly not from Palestine!" And that is not a joke.

* * *

LIKE EVERYBODY else, I support the right of the Tibetan people to independence, or at least autonomy. Like everybody else, I condemn the actions of the Chinese government there. But unlike everybody else, I am not ready to join in the demonstrations.

Why? Because I have an uneasy feeling that somebody is washing my brain, that what is going on is an exercise in hypocrisy.

I don't mind a bit of manipulation. After all, it is not by accident that the riots started in Tibet on the eve of the Olympic Games in Beijing. That's alright. A people fighting for their freedom have the right to use any opportunity that presents itself to further their struggle.

I support the Tibetans in spite of it being obvious that the Americans are exploiting the struggle for their own purposes. Clearly, the CIA has planned and organized the riots, and the American media are leading the world-wide campaign. It is a part of the hidden struggle between the US, the reigning super-power, and China, the rising super-power - a new version of the "Great Game" that was played in central Asia in the 19th century by the British Empire and Russia. Tibet is a token in this game.

I am even ready to ignore the fact that the gentle Tibetans have carried out a murderous pogrom against innocent Chinese, killing women and men and burning homes and shops. Such detestable excesses do happen during a liberation struggle.

No, what is really bugging me is the hypocrisy of the world media. They storm and thunder about Tibet. In thousands of editorials and talk-shows they heap curses and invective on the evil China. It seems as if the Tibetans are the only people on earth whose right to independence is being denied by brutal force, that if only Beijing would take its dirty hands off the saffron-robed monks, everything would be alright in this, the best of all possible worlds.

* * *

THERE IS no doubt that the Tibetan people are entitled to rule their own country, to nurture their unique culture, to promote their religious institutions and to prevent foreign settlers from submerging them.

But are not the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria entitled to the same? The inhabitants of Western Sahara, whose territory is occupied by Morocco? The Basques in Spain? The Corsicans off the coast of France? And the list is long.

Why do the world's media adopt one independence struggle, but often cynically ignore another independence struggle? What makes the blood of one Tibetan redder than the blood of a thousand Africans in East Congo?

Again and again I try to find a satisfactory answer to this enigma. In vain.

Immanuel Kant demanded of us: "Act as if the principle by which you act were about to be turned into a universal law of nature." (Being a German philosopher, he expressed it in much more convoluted language.) Does the attitude towards the Tibetan problem conform to this rule? Does it reflect our attitude towards the struggle for independence of all other oppressed peoples?

Not at all.

* * *

WHAT, THEN, causes the international media to discriminate between the various liberation struggles that are going on throughout the world?

Here are some of the relevant considerations:

- Do the people seeking independence have an especially exotic culture?

- Are they an attractive people, i.e. "sexy" in the view of the media?

- Is the struggle headed by a charismatic personality who is liked by the media?

- It the oppressing government disliked by the media?

- Does the oppressing government belong to the pro-American camp? This is an important factor, since the United States dominates a large part of the international media, and its news agencies and TV networks largely define the agenda and the terminology of the news coverage.

- Are economic interests involved in the conflict?

- Does the oppressed people have gifted spokespersons, who are able to attract attention and manipulate the media?

* * *

FROM THESE points of view, there is nobody like the Tibetans. They enjoy ideal conditions.

Fringed by the Himalayas, they are located in one of the most beautiful landscapes on earth. For centuries, just to get there was an adventure. Their unique religion arouses curiosity and sympathy. Its non-violence is very attractive and elastic enough to cover even the ugliest atrocities, like the recent pogrom. The exiled leader, the Dalai Lama, is a romantic figure, a media rock-star. The Chinese regime is hated by many - by capitalists because it is a Communist dictatorship, by Communists because it has become capitalist. It promotes a crass and ugly materialism, the very opposite of the spiritual Buddhist monks, who spend their time in prayer and meditation.

When China builds a railway to the Tibetan capital over a thousand inhospitable kilometers, the West does not admire the engineering feat, but sees (quite rightly) an iron monster that brings hundreds of thousands of Han-Chinese settlers to the occupied territory.

And of course, China is a rising power, whose economic success threatens America's hegemony in the world. A large part of the ailing American economy already belongs directly or indirectly to China. The huge American Empire is sinking hopelessly into debt, and China may soon be the biggest lender. American manufacturing industry is moving to China, taking millions of jobs with it.

Compared to these factors, what have the Basques, for example, to offer? Like the Tibetans, they inhabit a contiguous territory, most of it in Spain, some of it in France. They, too, are an ancient people with their own language and culture. But these are not exotic and do not attract special notice. No prayer wheels. No robed monks.

The Basques do not have a romantic leader, like Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama. The Spanish state, which arose from the ruins of Franco's detested dictatorship, enjoys great popularity around the world. Spain belongs to the European Union, which is more or less in the American camp, sometimes more, sometimes less.

The armed struggle of the Basque underground is abhorred by many and is considered "terrorism", especially after Spain has accorded the Basques a far-reaching autonomy. In these circumstances, the Basques have no chance at all of gaining world support for independence.

The Chechnyans should have been in a better position. They, too, are a separate people, who have for a long time been oppressed by the Czars of the Russian Empire, including Stalin and Putin. But alas, they are Muslims - and in the Western world, Islamophobia now occupies the place that had for centuries been reserved for anti-Semitism. Islam has turned into a synonym for terrorism, it is seen as a religion of blood and murder. Soon it will be revealed that Muslims slaughter Christian children and use their blood for baking Pitta. (In reality it is, of course, the religion of dozens of vastly different peoples, from Indonesia to Morocco and from Kosova to Zanzibar.

The US does not fear Moscow as it fears Beijing. Unlike China, Russia does not look like a country that could dominate the 21st century. The West has no interest in renewing the Cold War, as it has in renewing the Crusades against Islam. The poor Chechnyans, who have no charismatic leader or outstanding spokespersons, have been banished from the headlines. For all the world cares, Putin can hit them as much as he wants, kill thousands and obliterate whole towns.

That does not prevent Putin from supporting the demands of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for separation from Georgia, a country which infuriates Russia.

* * *

IF IMMANUEL KANT knew what's going on in Kosova, he would be scratching his head.

The province demanded its independence from Serbia, and I, for one, supported that with all my heart. This is a separate people, with a different culture (Albanian) and its own religion (Islam). After the popular Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, tried to drive them out of their country, the world rose and provided moral and material support for their struggle for independence.

The Albanian Kosovars make up 90% of the citizens of the new state, which has a population of two million. The other 10% are Serbs, who want no part of the new Kosova. They want the areas they live in to be annexed to Serbia. According to Kant's maxim, are they entitled to this?

I would propose a pragmatic moral principle: Every population that inhabits a defined territory and has a clear national character is entitled to independence. A state that wants to keep such a population must see to it that they feel comfortable, that they receive their full rights, enjoy equality and have an autonomy that satisfies their aspirations. In short: that they have no reason to desire separation.

That applies to the French in Canada, the Scots in Britain, the Kurds in Turkey and elsewhere, the various ethnic groups in Africa, the indigenous peoples in Latin America, the Tamils in Sri Lanka and many others. Each has a right to choose between full equality, autonomy and independence.

* * *

THIS LEADS us, of course, to the Palestinian issue.

In the competition for the sympathy of the world media, the Palestinians are unlucky. According to all the objective standards, they have a right to full independence, exactly like the Tibetans. They inhabit a defined territory, they are a specific nation, a clear border exists between them and Israel. One must really have a crooked mind to deny these facts.

But the Palestinians are suffering from several cruel strokes of fate: The people that oppress them claim for themselves the crown of ultimate victimhood. The whole world sympathizes with the Israelis because the Jews were the victims of the most horrific crime of the Western world. That creates a strange situation: the oppressor is more popular than the victim. Anyone who supports the Palestinians is automatically suspected of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

Also, the great majority of the Palestinians are Muslims (nobody pays attention to the Palestinian Christians). Since Islam arouses fear and abhorrence in the West, the Palestinian struggle has automatically become a part of that shapeless, sinister threat, "international terrorism". And since the murders of Yasser Arafat and Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the Palestinians have no particularly impressive leader - neither in Fatah nor in Hamas.

The world media are shedding tears for the Tibetan people, whose land is taken from them by Chinese settlers. Who cares about the Palestinians, whose land is taken from them by our settlers?

In the world-wide tumult about Tibet, the Israeli spokespersons compare themselves - strange as it sounds - to the poor Tibetans, not to the evil Chinese. Many think this quite logical.

If Kant were dug up tomorrow and asked about the Palestinians, he would probably answer: "Give them what you think should be given to everybody, and don't wake me up again to ask silly questions."

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is o a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.

Christian Right No Different than Muslim Extremists

This from Susan Brooks who blogs on the Washington Post's On Faith blog. No mention of this stuff in the mainstream news, which demonstrates how the intellectual elite of this country choose to focus their attention. Jeremiah Wright looks like Santa Claus compared to Rod Parsley. At least Wright wasn't looking to destroy the Constitution and make America the Kingdom of (Parsley's) God. And what about Christian supremacism? Could you imagine if Hamza Yusuf or some other Muslim American leader said anything like what Parsley advocates? And in such detail? Where are the condemnations from conservatives and Republicans on this sort of thinking? You won't hear it because many advocate it, they just don't openly state it.

McCain's Hate Problem

The Question: John McCain's spiritual guide, televangelist Rod Parsley, calls Islam a "false religion" that should be "destroyed." Should McCain renounce Parsley? Will Islam be an issue in this year's U.S. presidential election?

John McCain should immediately renounce Rod Parsley not only for his astounding hate mongering against Islam, but also for his extreme views on a range of issues including his denunciation of separation of church and state.

Why hasn’t McCain already distanced himself from such a radical as Parsley? Well, first because Parsley apparently says what the “base” wants to hear, and McCain, who, in February of 2000, denounced the two best-known leaders of the Christian religious right, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, as “agents of intolerance,” needs the base to win. Of course, it helps that McCain reversed himself and went to Liberty University in the spring of 2006 to deliver the commencement address, defend the war and try to make up with religious conservatives.

Even so, what Parsley says is so over the top on Islam that it would make it virtually impossible for McCain, should he be elected President, to communicate any kind of respect for Islamic nations in his foreign relations and be believed. Even President George W. Bush has been careful to communicate respect toward Islam.

In his writings, Parsley has called upon Christians to actively confront the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it. He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity and Islam is unavoidable: "We find now we have no choice. The time has come." He ramps up the fear: "We may already be losing the battle. As I scan the world, I find that Islam is responsible for more pain, more bloodshed, and more devastation than nearly any other force on earth at this moment." Parsley claims that Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" predicated on "deception." The Muslim prophet, Mohammed, he writes, "received revelations from demons and not from the true God."

Bill Moyers, when he and his wife Judith received the Union Medal from Union Theological Seminary in 2005 “for their contributions to faith and reason in America,” chose to focus, in his speech, “9/11 and the Sport of God” in large part, on Rod Parsley.

He spoke of Parsley, the “Ohio Restoration Project” and Parsley’s “Patriot Pastors” who were identified and trained to “get out the conservative religious vote” in 2006. “According to press reports, the leader of the movement - the senior pastor of a large church in suburban Columbus [Parsley] - casts the 2006 elections as an apocalyptic clash between ‘the forces of righteousness and the hordes of hell.’ The fear and loathing in his message is palpable: He denounces public schools that won't teach creationism, require teachers to read the Bible in class, or allow children to pray. He rails against the ‘secular jihadists’ who have ‘hijacked’‘ America and prevent school kids from learning that Hitler was ‘an avid evolutionist.’ He links abortion to children who murder their parents. He blasts the ‘pagan left’ for trying to redefine marriage. He declares that ‘homosexual rights’ will bring ‘a flood of demonic oppression.’ On his church website you read that ‘Reclaiming the teaching of our Christian heritage among America's youth is paramount to a sense of national destiny that God has invested into this nation.’"

In his wonderful book American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America, Chris Hedges, spends a lot of time on Rod Parsley as well and Parsley’s advocacy of “dominionism,” a view that Christians should have “dominion over the nation and eventually over the earth itself.” Hedges describes “Christian dominion” as the plan for an America where “the 10 Commandments form the basis of our legal system, creationism and ‘Christian values’ form the basis of our eductional system,and the media and the government proclaim the Good News to one and all. Labor unions, civil-rights laws and public schools will be abolished. Women will be removed from the workforce to stay home, and all those deemed insufficiently Christian will be denied citizenship.”

It is shocking enough that there are American citizens who hold these views. But it must be said, in no uncertain terms, that this is a vision of a repressive, theocratic society so at odds with the American Constitution that a president who held these views would be unable to swear to uphold the Constitution in the oath of office.

Parsley cannot be a “spiritual guide” for a reputable candidate for President of the United States. Senator McCain must immediately renounce Rob Parsley and all his extreme and dangerous views, not only his hate mongering views of Islam, but also Parsley’s fundamental opposition to core American democratic principles.

And we all need to pay a LOT more attention to what the so-called conservative “base” is actually advocating.

Book Review of Hirsi Ali's Infidel

Asma Uddin, a fellow Miamian and family friend, writes a commentary on Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book Infidel. You can get the full article from Wajahat Ali's blog GOATMILK.

Excerpt:

"So now I’m on page 270 of Infidel. As I near the end of the book, I am seeing more and more of what I had picked up on earlier in the book - that many, if not all, of her conclusions about Islam are simplistic and logically fallible. She states her conclusions point-blank, and doesn’t even acknowledge the existence or possibility of counterarguments. I’m at the point in the book right after she learned of the 9/11 attacks and is reevaluating her views on Islam. Her colleague states that this attack is due more to socioeconomic, political and cultural matters than it is to religious belief. She denies his position vehemently, using as proof that because, for example, the hijackers weren’t Palestinian, there is no way this can be related to the Palestine-Israel conflict. Or that because they themselves are not poor and oppressed, it has nothing to do with social and political oppression. For someone who fancies herself deeply connected to rationalism and Western Enlightenment, she doesn’t exhibit much in the way of either logical consistency or sociological sensitivity. Just because the hijackers claim to be committing crimes in order to attain religious reward doesn’t preclude the fact that (1) the hijackers’ version of religion is taught and encouraged by social circumstances and that this version may be entirely distinct and even antithetical to the religion itself; and (2) that the hijackers don’t have to be poor, or Palestinian for that matter, to feel tied enough to those causes that they feel the need to act for them.

Although the attacks cannot be justified, some holistic explanation is in order, something that pinpoints a problem that needs to be intelligently addressed. Racist, simplistic conclusions that are not related to the core issue are not going to help. That the Dutch commentators point to Islam’s history of peace and intellectual fervor doesn’t make them somehow out of touch with reality, as Hirsi Ali states. Instead, these commentators are looking for reasons why a culture that bred tolerance and rationalism can suddenly be used to justify totally barbaric acts against humanity. Particular religious interpretations feeding off of peripheral issues are the problem, not the core itself - otherwise the entire history of Islam would be about violence and hatred."

The UnAccidental Empire

As the agent from the Matrix said so appropriately to Neo: "That's the sound of inevitability." Israel is hoping that the Palestinians, through settlements, checkpoints, walls, barbed wire, gunfire, and torture will get the message as the international community stays in its slumber and will just get the hell out of the Occupied Territories.

Don't hold your breath on that.

Henry Siegman writes reviews on two recent publications of the Occupied Territories.

"It is clear from Gorenberg’s account, and from Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar’s comprehensive survey of the settlement project, Lords of the Land, that the issue dividing Israeli governments has not been the presence of settlements in the West Bank. Shimon Peres of the Labour Party played a key role in launching the settlement enterprise. Their differences have been over what to do with the Palestinians whose lands were being confiscated. Most have argued they should be granted home rule and Jordanian citizenship. Over the years, some cabinet members – Rehavam Ze’evi, Rafael Eitan, Effi Eitam and Avigdor Lieberman, for example – have openly advocated ‘transfer’, a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. There has been general agreement that, rather than adopt a formal position on the future status of the West Bank’s residents and risk provoking international opposition, Israel should continue to create ‘facts on the ground’ while remaining discreet about their purpose. In time, it was thought, the world would come to accept the Jordan River as Israel’s eastern border."

Bushing the Law

Anthony DiMaggio wrote a great piece on Z Mag about President Bush's signing statements where he has effectively rendered signed legislation useless by openly stating he will not follow the legislation he is signing into law if he feels like it. So much for checks and balances.

Executive Signing Statements by Anthony DiMaggio

Demonstrating Steve Emerson's Credentials

Steve Emerson, the Don Quixote of terrorist experts, has recently unveiled his report on CAIR, linking the group to terrorism and to stifling debate in the United States on Muslims and their supposed support of terrorism and violence.

Emerson has been notorious in his associating links between terrorism and every single mainstream Islamic organization in the United States. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) printed an article by John Sugg in their magazine Extra! back in 1999 exposing Emerson as an anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigot who has attempted for the past fifteen years to portray the Muslim American community as suspect, anti-Semitic, anti-American and prone to violence.

The article below demonstrates accurately how Emerson has twisted information in order to portray Muslim Americans as a suspect community within America. His ties to Israel and other anti-Muslim organizations and individuals also casts serious questions over his credibility. There is little doubt that Emerson's objective is to destroy the credibility of every mainstream Islamic organization in the United States.



Extra! January/February 1999

Steven Emerson's Crusade
Why is a journalist pushing questionable stories from behind the scenes?

By John F. Sugg

Did self-styled anti-terrorism expert Steven Emerson help push the world toward nuclear war?

On Sunday, June 28, a sensational story appeared in the British newspaper The Observer: "Pakistan was planning nuclear first strike on India." The stunning revelation that South Asia was on the brink of thermonuclear war was credited to an unnamed "senior Pakistani weapons scientist who has defected." The next day, papers on the Indian subcontinent were full of the news. Shock spread and distrust mounted. "The scenario is frightening," stated the Times of India (6/29/98).

On Wednesday, July 1, a USA Today report by Barbara Slavin named the defector, Iftikhar Chaudhry Khan. The press scrambled to contact New York lawyer Michael Wildes, who represents Khan in his attempt to get political asylum.

Emerson, in an odd role for a journalist, worked behind the scenes to interest reporters in Wildes' client. A top network news producer says his congressional sources and news contacts were tipped to the story by Emerson. Slavin says she was mainly convinced of the story's legitimacy because of one of the Observer's three writers was associated with the prestigious military analysis group Jane's, but that Emerson's involvement added credibility. Attorney Wildes himself says, "Emerson was helpful in corroborating information and making scientific clarifications."

As the story matured, skepticism mounted about Khan, especially after sources in Pakistan described him as "a former low-level accountant at a company that makes bathroom fixtures." (San Diego Union-Tribune, 7/3/98) By July 7, U.S. nuclear physicists had interviewed Khan and pronounced him a fraud (USA Today, 7/7/98).

Emerson's priorities

Emerson has escaped notice in the affair--but his efforts had helped craft a hard-to-erase public perception that Pakistan was the bad guy among Asia's nuclear novices.

The role Emerson played may at first seem perplexing. He presents himself as a journalist, yet he handed off what appeared to be a major story to rivals. A closer look at Emerson's career suggests his priority is not so much news as it is an unrelenting attack against Arabs and Muslims. From this perspective, his gambit with Khan seems easier to understand: Pakistan is a Muslim nation, while India's nuclear program has long been linked to Israel. As the Indian Express noted (6/29/98), Pakistani politicians were "convinced that they were about to be attacked by India, possibly with Israeli assistance."

Emerson's willingness to push an extremely thin story--with potentially explosive consequences--is also consistent with the lengthy list of mistakes and distortions that mar his credentials as an expert on terrorism.

Those blemishes had, for a time, seemed to drive Emerson from major news outlets. He has had to resort to new tactics to maintain his anti-Muslim crusade--an "anti-terrorism" journal that he uses as a soapbox, associates whose reputations aren't as damaged as his, and, as in the Khan episode, staying behind the curtains.

Emerson was back in the news last August--when terrorist bombs shattered U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. While most Americans watched the grisly nightly news in open-mouthed dismay, self-styled anti-terrorism experts seemed to be jostling with one another to grab a few minutes on Rivera Live, the Today show and CNN. For a brief few days, they even displaced the Monicagate pundits.

In the vanguard of the chattering heads was Emerson, whose past errors were quickly forgotten in the wake of African and Middle Eastern carnage.

"Middle Eastern Trait"

Emerson gained prominence in the early '90s. He published books, wrote articles, produced a documentary, won awards and was frequently quoted. The media, Capitol Hill and scholars paid attention. "I respect his research. He gets to people who were at the events," says Jeffrey T. Richelson, author of A Century of Spies.

As Emerson's fame mounted, so did criticism. Emerson's book, The Fall of Pan Am 103, was chastised by the Columbia Journalism Review, which noted in July 1990 that passages "bear a striking resemblance, in both substance and style" to reports in the Post-Standard of Syracuse, N.Y. Reporters from the Syracuse newspaper told this writer that they cornered Emerson at an Investigative Reporters and Editors conference and forced an apology.

A New York Times review (5/19/91) of his 1991 book Terrorist chided that it was "marred by factual errors…and by a pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias." His 1994 PBS video, Jihad in America (11/94), was faulted for bigotry and misrepresentations--veteran reporter Robert Friedman (The Nation, 5/15/95) accused Emerson of "creating mass hysteria against American Arabs."

Emerson was wrong when he initially pointed to Yugoslavians as suspects in the World Trade Center bombing (CNN, 3/2/93). He was wrong when he said on CNBC (8/23/96) that "it was a bomb that brought down TWA Flight 800."

Emerson's most notorious gaffe was his claim that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing showed "a Middle Eastern trait" because it "was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible." (CBS News, 4/19/95) Afterward, news organizations appeared less interested in Emerson's pronouncements. A CBS contract expired and wasn't renewed. Emerson had been a regular source and occasional writer for the Washington Post; his name doesn't turn up once in Post archives after Jan. 1, 1996. USA Today mentioned Emerson a dozen times before September 1996, none after.

"He's poison," says investigative author Seymour Hersh, when asked about how Emerson is perceived by fellow journalists.

Dubious document

Yet Emerson seems irrepressible. In 1997, for example, an Associated Press editor became convinced that Emerson was the "mother lode of terrorism information," according to a reporter who worked on a series that looked at American Muslim groups.

As a consultant on the series, Emerson presented AP reporters with what were "supposed to be FBI documents" describing mainstream American Muslim groups with alleged terrorist sympathies, according to the project's lead writer, Richard Cole. One of the reporters uncovered an earlier, almost identical document authored by Emerson. The purported FBI dossier "was really his," Cole says. "He had edited out all phrases, taken out anything that made it look like his."

Another AP reporter, Fred Bayles, recalls that Emerson "could never back up what he said. We couldn't believe that document was from the FBI files."

Emerson's contribution was largely stripped from the series, and he retaliated with a "multi-page rant," according to Cole. AP Executive Editor Bill Ahearn does not dispute that the incident happened, but refuses to comment or to release documents because the episode was deemed an "internal matter." A ranking AP editor in Washington says: "We would be very, very, very, very leery of using Steve Emerson."

Also during Emerson's lean years, he scored a November 1996 hit in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (11/3/96)--owned by right-wing Clinton-basher Richard Mellon Scaife, who also partially funded Jihad in America. Considering Scaife's patronage, it is not surprising that Emerson declared that Muslim terrorist sympathizers were hanging out at the White House. Emerson had a similar commentary piece printed three months earlier in the Wall Street Journal (8/5/96), one of the writer's few consistent major outlets.

Tampa's "terrorists"

His most fruitful media foray during this period was at a Tampa, Florida, newspaper. Emerson's Jihad in America video had, in part, targeted Islamic scholars at the University of South Florida in Tampa. Following Emerson's leads, a reporter for the Tampa Tribune launched a series of articles in 1995 titled "Ties to Terrorists." The series and subsequent articles relied on Emerson as a primary source.

The Tribune's managing editor, Bruce Witwer, wrote in a July 15, 1997, letter to an attorney: "Emerson is an acknowledged expert in the field, while he may be controversial. Emerson has the information. It is legitimate information." But the information that Emerson is "controversial"--much less Emerson's record of mistakes and the allegations of bias that swirl around him--has never been disclosed by the Tribune to its readers.

The Tribune's articles lacked balance and fairness, according to other newspapers that have covered the events, including the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald. The Herald (3/22/98) ran a lengthy analysis of the Tribune's reporting and concluded the Tampa newspaper had ignored "perfectly innocent" interpretations of activity, giving vent only to characterizations that suggested "extremely dark forces were on the prowl."

Among the Tribune's and Emerson's charges are that Muslims, while at the University of South Florida, were active Islamic Jihad commanders. Emerson told Congress: "One of the world's most lethal terrorist factions was based out of Tampa." If that's so, federal agents must have missed something. Although the FBI and INS have been searching for clues for more than three years, no charges have been filed.

Like Emerson, the Tribune uses tenuous chains of association to bolster its claims that individuals are linked to terrorist groups. For example, in one article, the Tribune claimed that because an Islamic Jihad leader had given a Reuters reporter, Paul Eedle, several articles, including one interview published in a Tampa magazine, and because material seized by federal agents in Tampa included a 1993 Jihad calendar, this proved an organizational linkage. The Tribune (7/28/98), ignoring the stated purpose of the South Florida scholars to collect material about and from all Middle East points of view, stated: "Eedle's experience appears to tighten the relationship between the Jihad and the Tampa group."

Eedle, when interviewed for this article, said that while it was clear people in Tampa were sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, "being given the magazine didn't prove that there was any organizational link between Islamic Jihad and the publishers of the magazine in Tampa."

Although no criminal charges have been filed in the Tampa case, Emerson flatly states there is insidious wrongdoing. In February 1996, Emerson claimed that Tampa Muslim academics were directly involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (St. Petersburg Times, 2/10/96). "I am constrained at this point from revealing some of those details," Emerson said. "But they include money transfers, they include actual reservations and planning for the conspirators in the bombing, and they include visits back and forth between Tampa and New York and New Jersey, between officials here of the groups [operating in Tampa] and officials there."

Yet no federal record of such allegations could be found. A Freedom of Information request to the Justice Department seeking any information tying Tampa residents to the World Trade Center bombing produced this reply from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General: "Please be advised that no responsive records were located."

Actions have been taken against a couple of Emerson's targets. Emerson seemed to gloat (Miami Herald, 3/22/98) that one Tampa academic, Mazen Al-Najjar, has been jailed during a deportation appeal since May 1997 based on secret evidence that he is a national security threat. And he appeared gleeful that another University of South Florida professor, Sami Al-Arian, was removed from the classroom and is now unable to "propagate his message to young students" (Miami Herald, 3/22/98). Typical of Emerson's fact-checking, the university says no one has ever alleged that Al-Arian, who is again teaching, brought politics into the classroom.

"Arabaphobia"

This summer's U.S. embassy bombings produced others who believed in Emerson's legitimacy. Geraldo welcomed Emerson, as did NPR, Good Morning America and MSNBC's Internight. Emerson popped an opinion piece into the Wall Street Journal (8/8/98), that attacked Clinton for "legitimizing self-declared 'civil rights' and 'mainstream' Islamic organizations that in fact operate as propaganda and political arms of Islamic fundamentalist movements."

Although he piously prefaces diatribes by saying there are good Muslims and bad Muslims, it's a hollow defense. He claimed, in a March 1995 article in Jewish Monthly, that Islam "sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine."

Occasionally, Emerson outdoes himself with hyperbole. In an inflammatory letter to the Voice of America (12/2/94), he fumed that radical Muslims in the United States are plotting the "mass murder of all Jews, Christians and moderate Muslims." Buddhists, Wiccans and Scientologists are apparently exempt in the apocalypse Emerson prophesies. Last year he warned that "the U.S. has become occupied fundamentalist territory" (Jerusalem Post, 8/8/97).

While Emerson makes incredible claims about Muslim conspiracies that purportedly intend to commit terrorism inside U.S. borders, he ignores the fact that far more of these American atrocities, such as the anti-abortion bombings and murders, are committed by apple-pie militant Christian fundamentalists.

His denunciations are often backed up only by allusions to unnamed law enforcement sources. "Emerson makes unsubstantiated allegations of widespread conspiracies in Arab-American communities and brushes aside his lack of documented evidence by implying it only proves how clever and sinister the Arab/Muslim menace really is," investigative reporter Chip Berlet has written (Covert Action Quarterly, Summer/95). "This is a prejudiced and Arabaphobic twist on the old anti-Semitic canard of the crafty and manipulative Jew."

Emerson buffs, such as Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Arizona) provide the journalist with a podium from which to make claims that are then recycled as part of the public record. A Kyl subcommittee welcomed Emerson as a witness in February, allowing him to present a 46-page harangue against mainstream American Muslim organizations.

Savaging critics

When criticized by journalists, Emerson retaliates with invective-laden letters, often from lawyers. He has launched salvos at the Miami Herald, The Nation, Voice of America, FAIR (which publishes Extra!), and a Council on Foreign Relations newsletter, as well as at numerous individual journalists.

Kojo Nnamdi, a talk show host on Howard University's WHUT, remembers that when he invited some Muslims on a program, "Emerson started making threats. He wanted to link academics to terrorists. He succeeded in delaying the program, I'm sorry to say."

After Emerson in 1996 attacked the Council on Foreign Relations for including Muslim points of views in its newsletter, the group's president, Leslie Gelb, dubbed Emerson the "grand inquisitor." (Forward, 5/10/96)

The Miami Herald's highly regarded senior writer, Martin Merzer--who has experience as a bureau chief in Jerusalem--demolished many of Emerson's and the Tampa Tribune's claims in a March 1998 article (3/22/98). Prior to publication, Emerson sent a letter to the Herald's top editor, Doug Clifton, with copies to Jewish leaders, in an attempt to derail the story. The letter called Merzer, who is Jewish, "nothing short of racist."

Subsequently, in a publication run by Emerson allies that has become his bully pulpit, the Journal of Counterterrorism & Security International (Spring/98), Emerson published what he claimed was a transcript of his interview by Merzer. The "transcript" presents Merzer as stammering and admitting to extraordinary ignorance. Merzer calls the transcript a fabrication. "It's crap," he says. "A few tiny kernels of truth surrounded by a mountain of lies."

Ironically, despite Emerson's many attempts to silence his critics, he spends much of his time nowadays wailing that he's the victim. Recently, an NPR producer was moved by protests over Emerson's anti-Muslim prejudice to stop using him as an expert on the network. That prompted Emerson fans, such as Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby (8/31/98), to cry "blacklisting"--never bothering to note that Emerson is a blacklister with few rivals.

Money trail

As recognition of Emerson's liabilities has grown, he has handed his bullhorn to less controversial fellow travelers. Retired federal agents Oliver "Buck" Revell and Steve Pomerantz, who run a security business, showed up echoing Emersonisms in an October 31 Washington Post article warning of conspiracies and front organizations.

In an interview prior to the article's publication, the co-author of that piece, John Mintz, said he was aware that Emerson was highly controversial. The Post's solution: Don't mention Emerson but use his allies. (Mintz had been provided with material documenting links among Emerson, Pomerantz and Revell.)

The three "experts" spend a lot of time congratulating each other on their courage and expertise. Pomerantz, for example, has written that Emerson "is actually better informed in some areas than the responsible agencies of government." (That came as news to Bob Blitzer, the FBI's top counterterrorism official, who says Emerson "doesn't have access to any high-level FBI intelligence.")

Revell's credits include quashing an investigation of the Iran-Contra arms smuggling operation (Leslie Cockburn, Out of Control, p. 231). Revell also acknowledges another member of the fraternity is Yigal Carmon, a right-wing Israeli intelligence commander who endorsed the use of torture (Washington Post, 5/4/95), and who has stayed at Emerson's Washington apartment on trips to lobby Congress against Middle East peace initiatives (The Nation, 5/15/95). An Associated Press reporter who has dealt with Emerson and Carmon says: "I have no doubt these guys are working together."

Says Vince Cannistraro, an ABC consultant and a retired CIA counterterrorism official, of Emerson's allies, Pomerantz, Revell and Carmon: "They're Israeli-funded. How do I know that? Because they tried to recruit me." Revell denies Cannistraro's assertion, but refuses to discuss his group's finances.

Emerson's own financing is hazy. He has received funding from Scaife. Some Emerson critics suspect Israeli backing. The Jerusalem Post (9/17/94) has noted that Emerson has "close ties to Israeli intelligence."

"He's carrying the ball for Likud," says investigative journalist Robert Parry, referring to Israel's right-wing ruling party. Victor Ostrovsky, who defected from Israel's Mossad intelligence agency and has written books disclosing its secrets, calls Emerson "the horn"--because he trumpets Mossad claims.

Presumed credible

Emerson is aided by those who appear to be ignorant of his record, or who fear reprisal from his backers. He testified in February before a Senate subcommittee chaired by Sen. Kyl. The testimony accused most major American Muslim organization of terrorist connections. "We presumed him to be credible [because] he is known to have contact with street agents," said Jim Savage, at the time a Kyl staffer. "He represented his findings as authentic. We haven't verified them."

After the NPR spat over the summer, Jacoby's column quickly bludgeoned the network into capitulation. Jeffrey Dvorkin, NPR's news chief, kowtowed and stated in a letter to the Boston Globe that Emerson "has never been banned from NPR and never will be. Emerson is one of many commentators available to NPR on events involving his area of expertise (terrorism and counter-terrorism). No doubt there will be other opportunities for him to appear again."

A warning to us all.

SIDEBAR:
Emerson on Islam

"The level of vitriol against Jews and Christianity within contemporary Islam, unfortunately, is something that we are not totally cognizant of, or that we don't want to accept. We don't want to accept it because to do so would be to acknowledge that one of the world's great religions -- which has more than 1.4 billion adherents -- somehow sanctions genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine." --Steven Emerson, Jewish Monthly (3/95)

John F. Sugg is senior editor of the Weekly Planet, the alternative newspaper in the Tampa Bay area. He regularly writes media criticism, including articles on Steven Emerson and the Tampa Tribune's coverage of Muslims. Sugg has received three threatening letters from Emerson's lawyer seeking--unsuccessfully--to deter further reporting.

What's in a Name?

I was about "this" close to posting my reply to Spencer on Jihad Watch, but decided not to after searching through the database for "Hamza Yusuf" and "Zaid Shakir." Imam Hamza apologized for his comments that were viewed as anti-American or inflammatory. As most Muslims know here in the States, Imam Hamza has become less of a critic of America and has urged the Muslim community to be more introspective. I figured such a statement by the Imam in the NYT would silence his critics and that his work to build bridges with the Christian and Jewish communities would further demonstrate his goal of reconciliation and mutual understanding between the children of Abraham.

But at Jihad Watch you have to become their dhimmi in order to become acceptable. You essentially have to renounce Islam or say Islam is terrible and it sucks. There is no interpretation you can offer Spencer and his minions, no matter how orthodox, no matter how classical, on any subject, that they will accept from you. That's what I got from Spencer's writings on Imam Hamza, and all the nasty comments written about him in the comments section. So I figured, why bother? My words will only lead to more vicious attacks by Spencer's goons. I've seen other Muslims take stabs at trying to argue with these people, showing them links from Masud Ahmed Khan's web site or Shaikh al-Akiti's fatwa, but all in vain. Everything gets shot down with shouts and screams or dismissed as taqiyya.

These people are basically the Khawarij of the United States. You can't reason with them and you definitely can't hold a civil debate with them. They get upset about "Islamic supremacism" comments made by Imam Hamza and others, like wanting to make America an Islamic country. That is taken to mean that all us Muslims want to impose Sharia law and make everyone dhimmis. It can't be taken to mean that Muslims want their non Muslim friends to gain salvation or something more positive. It's always about "dhimmitude." Or imposing Islamic law on everyone. But nutty Christians can say whatever they want about whoever they want and you definitely won't hear a peep regarding such nuts by Spencer and friends. Take for example, Pat Robertson, who said "The mission of the Christian Coalition is simple," says Pat Robertson. It is "to mobilize Christians -- one precinct at a time, one community at a time -- until once again we are the head and not the tail, and at the top rather than the bottom of our political system." Robertson predicts that "the Christian Coalition will be the most powerful political force in America by the end of this decade." And, "We have enough votes to run this country...and when the people say, 'We've had enough,' we're going to take over!" Or even better than that, Robertson said "The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening."

Not a word about any of Robertson's Christian supremacist comments. Not a word.

But in any case, I found this little comment from Spencer below pretty funny. As most of you Pakistanis and Indians know, "Naseem" is a unisex name. My mom's cousin is named Naseem. She's a woman.

Warning to readers:

This "Naseem" claims to be a Muslim woman living in Pakistan.

Several people have noted on numerous occasions the many incongruities in "her" scenario, not least of all being that "Naseem" is a man's name. This person is likely not a Muslim at all, as is suggested by several of his more absurd posts. He is either not a woman or is so ignorant of actual Islamic culture that he didn't know "Naseem" was a man's name until it was too late, and had to concoct a phony story accordingly. And he is not in Pakistan: his IP traces to Winchester in the UK.

I am leaning toward banning him at this point, but even if I don't I do urge you to ignore him and recognize him for what he is: a non-Muslim provocateur enjoying getting you riled.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 28, 2008 7:13 AM

Friggin idiot. You can add that gaffe to his collection of blunders that I have noted before, especially the ones about the Treaty of Hudaibiya and the Battle of Khaybar. Hoped you enjoyed that as much as I did.

Condemning Attacks on Non Muslims

Robert Spencer is whining again how Muslims have not (according to him) condemned attacks on non Muslims by radical Muslims. He says the following: "It would be refreshing to see Muslim spokesmen in the West who say they oppose Al-Zawahri to explain why his reasoning is wrong here, and why American civilians killed by Al-Qaeda on 9/11 are indeed innocent and cannot lawfully be killed even on Islamic grounds. But I won't be holding my breath. For one thing, you will notice that the questioner asks him about the legitimacy of killing innocent civilians in a way that makes it clear that he is only angry about Al-Qaeda killing Muslims. Where is the indignation, where is the anger from Muslims when Al-Qaeda kills non-Muslims?"

There are three requests here that I see. I will answer them one by one as briefly as possible.

1. Why is Zawahiri's reasoning wrong?

Because he and his group of fanatics go against the very basic rules of combat laid out in practically every school of fiqh. The Prophet, peace and prayers be upon him, said very clearly that non combatants are not allowed to be harmed. The very wise and erudite Shaikh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti said in his fatwa that "Imam al-Subki ( may Allâh be pleased with him!) made it unequivocally clear what scholars have understood from this prohibition in which the standard rule of engagement taken from it is that: "[a Muslim soldier] may not kill any women or any child-soldiers unless they are in combat directly, and they can only be killed in self-defence" [al-Nawawi, Majmû', 21:57]."

He added further that "even a novice student of fiqh would be able to see that the first dâbit above concerns already a non-Muslim opponent in the case of a state of war having been validly declared by a Muslim authority against a particular non-Muslim enemy, even when that civilian is a subject or in the care [dhimma] of the hostile non-Muslim state [Dâr al-Harb]. If this is the extent of the limitation to be observed with regards to non-Muslim civilians associated with a declared enemy force, what higher standard will it be in cases if it is not a valid war or when the status of war becomes ambiguous?" Indeed. If Zawahiri had been trained in traditional fiqh he would know this, and he possibly does, but ignores it or is unaware of it and thus commits major crimes that he should be brought to justice for in this life and will most certainly be taken to task for in the next, God willing.

2. Why were American civilians killed by Al-Qaeda on 9/11 innocent and why cannot innocents like them be lawfully killed even on Islamic grounds?

Similar to the above answer, the people killed on 9-11 were innocent according to traditional Islamic jurisprudence because they were not engaged in combat at the time of their deaths, that being the most obvious reason as can be deduced from the extracts of Shaikh al-Akiti's fatwa above. They were civilians who were not engaged in combat and innocents like them, even if they were idolaters (gasp!), cannot be attacked on the same premise. Additionally, even if a state of war existed between the United States and whatever fantasy state al-Qaeda leaders thought they were in charge of those people who were killed on 9-11 could never be considered legitimate targets in any traditional Islamic legal interpretation because they are civilians.

Shaykh al-Akiti is even clearer on this point, saying "as our jurists have succinctly summarized its rule of engagement: a soldier can only attack a female or (if applicable) child soldier (or a male civilian) in self-defence and only when she herself (and not someone else from her army) is engaged in direct combat. (As for male soldiers, it goes without saying that they are considered combatants as soon as they arrive on the battlefield even if they are not in direct combat - provided of course that the remaining conventions of war have been observed throughout, and that all this is during a valid war when there is no ceasefire)."

3. Where is the anger from Muslims when al-Qaeda kills non Muslims?

I cannot speak for every Muslim, obviously, but there is a well documented record of Muslim scholars and Muslim organizations all over the world that have condemned the 9-11 attacks as crimes and un-Islamic and there have been talks given by many prominent Muslims scholars all over the world on how Muslims need to be introspective and deal with the problems of radicalism within our communities. Scholars like Hamza Yusuf, Zaid Shakir, Abdal Hakim Murad, Abdallah bi Bayyah, Habib Ali al-Jifri, and many others have given such talks and their audio and video lectures on these topics of terrorism and extremism are available online.

The organization I work for, CAIR, has been persistent in its condemnations of terrorism perpetrated by such radicals against Muslims and non Muslims. Immediately following the events of 9-11, CAIR issued a strong condemnation of the murderous acts. CAIR continues to condemn Hamas, Hezbollah and anyone else who commits unjust violence in the name of Islam.

I hope you're reading Mr. Spencer. And spare me the "oh, but they don't mean non Muslims" argument or the "oh, but they say it's OK to kill Israelis" argument as well. Shaikh al-Akiti says quite clearly to a question in that fatwa of his that Israeli civilians, even off duty soldiers who are women, are not to be harmed and cannot be harmed. Other Muslims scholars who are not biased and blinded by the Palestinian cause have said the same. You can throw Qaradawi and others out the window because we both know they're blatantly wrong. People like Hamza Yusuf, Zaid Shakir and others have said unequivocally that non Muslims cannot be fought or killed. Unlike Qaradawi these two and the others mentioned above don't have an Ikhwan bias.

I hope to hear from you soon.

What All Aspiring Lawyers Need to Avoid

John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales: don't be like them.

Glen Greenwald's article at Salon.com on John Yoo's War Crimes.

Updates

I've been playing around with the aesthetics of my blog. I like the lay out, but the colors and fonts were bothering me. I'll probably end up changing it all again in a few weeks, who knows.

I also updated my bio on the side of the blog. I really don't know what else to add besides work and education background. I don't want it to get too long and become an eye sore to the blog.

Also, Wajahat will be posting my article from here on the Cartoon Controversy up on his site soon. I really like the interviews Wajahat conducts - he doesn't limit himself to one issue or idea. He's all over the place. I thought the Ishmael Reed interviews were awesome and very enlightening.

Anyway, enjoy.

Edward Herman on the Bosnian War

The article is up on Z Magazine's web site. Like I said yesterday, many myths about this war will disintegrate upon reading Herman's piece.

Excerpt below:

Schindler contends that Izetbegovic and his "Leninist style vanguard of Islamists" were possibly the most important force in producing the Bosnian wars and breakup of the country. The Bosnian Serbs tried to come to an accord with Izetbegovic before any fighting started, in 1990, but "the Muslims expressed no interest"; a power-sharing arrangement with the Serbs negotiated in July 1991 which caused Izetbegovic to say "our positions are very close," collapsed as "Izetbegovic had hardly left the room when he renounced the request," and his party soon announced that it "would not participate in any power-sharing arrangement with the Serbs." The last ditch effort to prevent a major war in late February 1992 brought all three parties to Lisbon, where they all signed on to an arrangement with a single state that granted substantial autonomy to ethnic regions. But, "No sooner than he had given the go-ahead, then Izetbetgovic changed his mind." As Schindler says, "The Lisbon debacle was the immediate cause of the war."

This withdrawal from the Lisbon agreement was carried out with the encouragement of the U.S. ambassador, Warrren Zimmerman, and Schindler and other informed commentators contend that Izetbegovic's refusal to negotiate was based on his conviction and understanding that he would be able to enlist the United States and NATO to achieve his political ends via war. What his SDA (Party of Democratic Action) wanted, according to party ideologist Dzemaludin Latic, was at least 45 percent of Bosnia plus Sandzak (a region in Serbia), an objective "Sarajevo had no chance of achieving without major American military help." General Philippe Morillon, commander of UN forces in Bosnia, told the Yugoslav Tribunal that, "The aim of the Presidency of Bosnia, from the very outset, was to ensure the intervention of the international forces for their own benefit and [that is] why they never were inclined to engage in talks." Canadian General and first UN commander in Sarajevo Lewis MacKenzie, while harshly critical of the Serbs, on leaving his post in Sarajevo said that 19 ceasefires were broken by the Muslims, "because their policy was, and is, to force the West to intervene."

They succeeded, suggesting that Izetbegovic and his U.S. supporters, not the Serbs, were mainly responsible for the wars that ensued. The answer of the Safari apologists is that the Serbs had gained territory by preliminary fighting and could not be allowed to obtain any fruits of "aggression" (such as the United States can obtain in Iraq or Israel on the West Bank); but those aggression fruits had followed the Muslim refusal to settle before fighting, they were not large, and the basis of a proper settlement that Izetbegovic rejected had satisfied Portuguese diplomat Jose Cutilheiro, and later Cyrus Vance and Lord David Owen—all Western officials and none of them friends of Serbia. This should embarrass the Safari brigade members, whose campaign for war paralleled the Izetbegovic-U.S. refusal to settle peaceably and assured many dead and vast numbers of refugees as part of Izetbegovic's (failed) struggle for more land.

Schindler contends, and gives supportive evidence, that Izetbegovic and his party not only violated more ceasefires and other agreements than the Serbs or Croats, but that he was willing to kill or see killed Muslim civilians to score political points (given that with Safari and U.S. official aid these killings would always be attributed to the Serbs), and that the atrocities against enemy civilians and prisoners carried out by his forces, which included 4,000 or more mujahadin, were ruthless and on a large scale.

Al-Qaeda, Israel, and the United States on Killing Innocent People

The rationale is exactly the same, unsurprisingly. If you were to kill someone you would obviously blame your actions on either ignorance of the circumstance or situation, or on someone else's actions. It seems al-Qaeda is just taking the approach that the U.S. and Israel have used for decades: the old "collateral damage" argument and the "we didn't intend to kill all those innocent people" argument.

Israel has this tactic down to an art form. During the Israel-Lebanon War in 2006 Israeli spokespersons continually denied that they were targeting civilians, that it was Hezbollah who was making them kill civilians because they would fire rockets from civilian areas. Israel then proceeded to drop thousands of cluster bombs after the ceasefire leading to more deaths of innocent Lebanese civilians. The United States has similarly made use of this logic, while the media and elites have swallowed this notion down so fully that they cannot fathom their country can do something wrong intentionally. The bombings of innocent Afghani villagers is eradicated from memory with a simple U.S. Government press release apologizing for their mistake. A mistake that should land those commanders and officials in charge in jail for the rest of their lives, but who receive no punishment whatsoever for the innocent lives they have taken.

Al-Qaeda is no different based upon the comments of their no. 2 man Ayman al-Zawahiri. They don't kill innocent people - even though he admitted to 9-11. I guess all those people working in the Towers that infamous morning didn't receive the memo that two jetliners were scheduled for arrival there that morning. Zawahiri uses the same rationale to justify his group's actions as the U.S. and Israel: collateral damage ("necessity" as he calls it) or unintentional consequences of his peoples' actions.

What all of this implies is that cold blooded killers, no matter their ethnicity or religions or upbringings, think the same way. All three entities have societal norms or laws that they feel they must make their actions compatible with: democracy/freedom or Islamic laws pertaining to warfare. In both cases killing innocents is a despicable crime, but all three entities find justifications for sidestepping responsibility. The justifications are noted above.



http://www.miamiherald.com/889/story/480241.html

By PAUL SCHEMM

Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri, rejecting criticism of attacks by the terror network's followers that have killed thousands, maintained that it does not kill innocent people.

His comment came during a 90-minute audio response Wedneday that was billed as the first installment of answers to the more than 900 questions submitted on extremist Internet sites by al-Qaida supporters, critics and journalists in December.

"We haven't killed the innocents, not in Baghdad, nor in Morocco, nor in Algeria, nor anywhere else," al-Zawahri said, according to a 46-page English transcript that accompanied the audio message posted on Web sites linked to al-Qaida.

The answer was in response to the question: "Excuse me, Mr. Zawahri, but who is it who is killing with Your Excellency's blessing the innocents in Baghdad, Morocco and Algeria?"

Al-Qaida has claimed responsibility for the Sept. 11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York and Washington in 2001, while its affiliates in Iraq, Afghanistan and Algeria regularly set off bombs in crowded urban areas that have taken thousands of lives.

"If there is any innocent who was killed in the mujahedeen's operations, then it was either an unintentional error or out of necessity," al-Zawahri said.

He went on to accuse al-Qaida's opponents of being the ones who kill innocent people. He also charged that "the enemy intentionally takes up positions in the midst of the Muslims for them to be human shields for him."

A banner bearing the logo of al-Qaida's media arm, al-Sahab, appeared earlier in the day on Web sites linked to the network to announce that al-Zawahri's first round of answers.

Al-Zawahri, the chief deputy to Osama bin Laden, said in the audio that he had chosen approximately 100 questions to answer.

Al-Sahab announced in December that al-Zawahri would take questions from the public posted on Islamic militant Web sites and would respond "as soon as possible."

Queries were submitted on the main Islamist Web site until the cutoff date of Jan. 16. After the deadline, the questions disappeared from the site.

Self-proclaimed al-Qaida supporters appeared to be as much in the dark about the terror network's operations and intentions as Western analysts and intelligence agencies.

The questioners appeared uncertain whether al-Qaida's central leadership directly controls the multiple, small militant groups around the Middle East that work in its name, or whether those groups operate on their own.

Some asked if al-Qaida had a long-term strategy, while others wanted advice about conducting Islamic holy war.

Jewish leader calls Hagee 'extremist'

Do you think CNN, MSNBC, or FOX will be covering John Hagee like they did Jeremiah Wright?

http://www.miamiherald.com/889/story/480646.html

The leader of the largest branch of American Judaism said Wednesday that synagogues in the movement shouldn't work with the Rev. John Hagee, a Christian Zionist, calling him an "extremist" on Israeli policy who disparages other faiths.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the liberal Union for Reform Judaism, said Hagee and his group, Christians United For Israel, reject any Israeli land concessions to achieve peace with the Palestinians.

Reform Judaism supports creating a Palestinian state; Hagee sees a biblical mandate for the territory so End Times prophecy can be fulfilled.

Yoffie also condemned Hagee's views on Roman Catholicism and Islam. The San Antonio pastor has suggested that Catholic anti-Semitism shaped Adolf Hitler, among other comments.

Hagee has vehemently denied he is anti-Catholic and said his remarks have been mischaracterized.

But Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, distanced himself from Hagee last month, after the pastor endorsed him, following an uproar over Hagee's views of Catholicism.

"On Israeli-Palestinian politics, John Hagee and the CUFI are extremists," Yoffie said, in a speech to Reform rabbis meeting in Cincinnati. "In expressing contempt for other religions and rejecting territorial compromise under any and all circumstances, their views run against the American grain."

The Union for Reform Judaism represents more than 900 North American synagogues.

The Folly of Attacking Iran

Wajahat interviews Steven Kinzer, author of All the Shah's Men about Iran, the United States and a possible military conflict.

http://www.counterpunch.org/waj04022008.html

The Bosnian War

Edward Herman wrote a very eye opening article in the latest issue of Z Magazine on the Bosnian War, which occurred from 1992 to 1995.

I have read, with major interest, other articles by recent scholars on Kosovo, which I have posted here on my blog. Now I am reading more about the nature of the war that took place in Bosnia and seeing the myth of that war disintegrate. It seems three major wars that took place prior to 9-11 and that were supported whole heartedly by Muslims generally and the United States generally were actually training grounds for al-Qaeda and bastions of extremism that have spawned all over the world.

The Russian invasion of Afghanistan was the first such war where radical Muslims took part in a campaign against non Muslims. This is the most famous example of blow back probably in world history. But Bosnia and Kosovo, long camouflaged by the supposed morality of intervening in these conflicts by both Muslims and Americans, are now being reviewed by historians as examples of biased U.S. intervention and Bosniac and Kosovar manipulation. It seems now, upon deeper investigation, that the leaders of these now independent nations (sort of) turned down peace offers with the Serbs, initiated hostilities with the expectation that the Americans would come to their rescue. In both cases it worked, but not just because the U.S. wanted to prevent genocide or ethnic cleansing (in fact, the ethnic cleansing occurred in both situations by the two countries being discussed here and not by their adversaries as was and has been the myth all along), but because these two interventions benefited the United States militarily and politically.

The Kosovo issue I have already discussed here, but in a nutshell the United States got a big military base out of it as well as the restoration of legitimacy for NATO through the Kosovo War. As far as the Bosnian War goes, the U.S. supported an "Islamist" in Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic. Herman notes in the article he wrote for Z Mag that Izetbegovic was a member of the Nazi Waffen-SS during WWII, a member of the Young Muslims (a youth organization initiated by the Ikhwan), wrote the Islamic Declaration outlining how Bosnia would not be a multi ethnic state, but one solely for Muslims, contradicting his talks with Western media in the early 1990s as a democrat, and to top it all off he received immense military aid from the Saudis and Iranians and more than welcomed in the "mujahideen" who would eventually become known as al-Qaeda.

But you will never hear of this from Muslims here in the States. Why? Because they also bought the propaganda that everyone else here ate up. That was all I learned of as a kid growing up when this war was going on. "Oh, the terrible Serbs - they're Nazis." I am not defending the Serbs. The Srebrenica massacre certainly occurred and I will definitely not play that down, but Muslims should be aware of Naser Oric, a Bosniac (Muslim) commander that was responsible for the murder of over 1,000 Serb civilians in the Srebrenica area, and who would gloat about these killings to the Western media. This is the sort of stuff that was going on during the war: major atrocities committed by both sides. But the Muslims involved in the killing and murdering and raping of Serbs must be known to Muslims and should never be played down. The same maniacs who are in Iraq and Afghanistan now are the same maniacs who were in Bosnia and Kosovo and Afghanistan in the 1980s.

I have been the victim of so much propaganda in my life it's not even funny. But in any case, when Herman's article is up on the Z Mag web site I will post it here.

Ilan Pappe: The Israeli historian some don't want you to hear

Courtesy of Z Magazine.


By Ilan Pappe
Source: Rabble.ca

Ilan Pappe's ZSpace Page

Dr. Ilan Pappe, whose parents fled Nazi Germany, received his doctorate at Oxford University and was Senior Lecturer of Political Science at Haifa University in Israel, Academic Director of the Research Institute for Peace at Givat Haviva, and Chair of the Emil Tourma Institute.

He is currently Chair of the Department of History at the University of Exeter and Co-Director of the Exeter Center for Ethno-Political Studies. Pappe has just completed a cross-Canada tour on the topic of his book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Am Johal interviewed him in Vancouver for rabble.ca.

Am Johal: Why did you decide to leave Israel?

Ilan Pappe: The main reason was an inability to function as an academic which is what I was within the Israeli academic community.

I could not manage a proper dialogue with my professional group or with the public at large. There was a feeling of being irrelevant to the debate. Israel was becoming a closed society.

My family wasn't safe because of threats. That alone wouldn't have pushed me out, but was a factor.

Thirdly, I thought the focus of the struggle over the public discourse is much more outside of Israel to change public opinion to a different reality.

Johal: As someone who travels to different places in the West, the debate around the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is mediated differently in parts of Europe, Canada and the U.S. What is your view of how the conflict is disseminated in different places and the diversity of the public sphere?

Pappe: I think there are differences. In the U.S. and Canada, for the purpose of this question, there is no real debate in the mainstream media. I think there is a stifling affect that happens. Whenever someone tries to enlarge the scope of the debate, the existing mechanisms don't allow it.

In Britain, the Scandinavian countries, Spain, Italy, parts of France, different opinions can be heard. Germany is not that different from the U.S., Canada or Austria. The new members of the European Union in Eastern Europe are even worse. I'm amazed. I didn't expect to see such a difference. The variety of views, the lack of pluralism.

Even Jimmy Carter said that there is a difference in terms of how things are talked about in Israel and outside of it.

If you compare the U.S. to Canada, or to Israel, there are differences in the limitations of the discussion. The difference is that in Israel, it is done by self-censorship. People are very confident in their own truisms, their own moral high ground.

This is the function of years and years of indoctrination. We have some changes in the civil society. Here, in Canada, people are timid. They are afraid to say what their human instinct tells them they should say. It is an intimidating situation to speak out.

Johal: What are the limitations today facing the Palestinian citizens of Israel, who comprise 20 percent of the Israeli population?

Pappe: The situation in Israel today is that the Arab citizens of Israel are treated differently. They do suffer from a regime of discrimination in terms of Israel being portrayed as a democracy. There are certain laws passed by the Israeli Knesset that are discriminatory. There are barriers to owning land, the Israeli Land Authority administers the situation in a discriminatory way - social benefits in the society are often connected to military service.

On a less formal level, budgets are being delivered to health, education and school systems in an unfair way. The school system is segregated. There are quotas for Palestinians for professional programs. Even less obvious is the institutional duress placed on Arab citizens. It's important to remember that leaders of Zionist parties have basically agreed that the Arab citizens of Israel can only be a small minority. If they get larger, they represent a demographic challenge to the Israeli state, which is being portrayed as an existential threat.

Johal: You are in support of a one-state solution to address the historic challenges of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and support the right of return. It seems to me politically unrealistic given the trauma of this conflict that Israel would willingly agree to such a situation of democracy where the population would be almost 50/50 Israeli and Palestinian. Even the progressive movements within Israeli and Palestinian movements are split on this. Are not two states more realistic in the immediate term, even if it is imperfect?

Pappe: Taking over all of Palestine is an impossible dream for the Israelis. The two-state solution does not take in to account the history of the region. If Israel exists the way it does now, it antagonizes not just the Arab world, but the Muslim world.

One day the world will wake up. The two-state solution or the wish of full Israeli control is not possible. It can be taken by force perhaps, but is not a viable long-term solution.

The peace process failed after 2000 for the same reasons it failed before that. The two-state solution is not going to work - they are not equal partners at the table. What happened in 2000 was a more ridiculous form of what they offered before. There still is not Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Even in 2000, they didn't bother to promise that. It was remote control as opposed to direct control.

Johal: Is the Kosovo example relevant to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

Pappe: I think Kosovo is not the right example. South Africa is the much better one. They didn't say that whites should have their own state in the apartheid debate.

There was a war for liberation which was supported by pressure from the outside. You can change the ideology of the state. They are both based on notions of supremacy and racism. In other words, Jews and Palestinians, if they have a chance to survive in the future, must choose a future together in one state.

There are not two states right now. There is only one state. The state is already there. Can you create a state with a better situation? Israel is very much in a colonialist position right now.

A bi-national model with secular democracy is also a possibility. It would take invention - it would require the principle of territorial integrity, return of refugees, exclusive ethnic, religious ideology. From these principles, we must end the military occupation. We have to convince the world that Israel is an oppressive, racist state.

Johal: Your visit to Canada was portrayed as the visit of some sort of radical figure in the Israeli political landscape when in fact you have often engaged in lively public debates with new historians like Benny Morris and others. On the other hand, the visit of Moshe Feiglin, a right-wing activist within the Likud Party, seems to be presented as within the mainstream in Canada even though he engages in hate speech and supports the ethnic transfer of Arab Israelis, amongst other policies. What are your views of this?

Pappe: It's a very interesting comparison. Feiglin believes that he could translate his beliefs in to reality. A pure, ethnic religious state for Jewish people in Israel. He addresses very specific religious laws and others like the racist Rabbi Kahane. For that reason, the British didn't allow him in. The Canada-Israel Committee shouldn't be defending this guy. He has extremely racist views.

I am presented as a great danger to Israel because I support the establishment of a democratic state. In the name of the struggle for "democracy," countries are being invaded and destroyed by the U.S.

It is this kind of abnormal world of concepts and positions that we have been living in with respect to Israel. The juxtaposition of an historian who acts according to humanist international principles shows how distorted the media can be.

Government Secret Warrantless Wiretapping and the NYT

You have to read the whole thing: a very eye opening interview by the wonderful folks at Democracy Now!. The most glaring information from this interview was that Bush and Co. suppressed this information until after the '04 election. Absolutely amazing. You would figure Chomsky and Herman and Falk and Friel had exposed the Paper of Record as a sham news organization, but I guess one of their own even one upped these notorious critics of the NYT. I mean, did it ever dawn on the editors that maybe the Bush administration was lying in order to suppress this information prior to the election? Holy crap, man.

Even this "whistle blower" seems caught up in the idea that "oh no, it wasn't about the election, but about preserving national security. That's why we didn't publish it" Right, like the Iraq invasion was about WMD. Why doesn't the NYT just add Cheney and Ashcroft to its editorial board since they're so concerned with what the White House will say about their news reports? My God... complete idiots and completely gutless. And this is the "liberal" media, right? Bowing down before a Republican White House. But even better, a Democrat speaking out against the Patriot Act, but supporting these warrentless wiretaps... at the same time! I guess I'll learn how to be a moron at law school since this is the state of our lawmakers in this country.

An excerpt below:

AMY GOODMAN: Tell us how you stumbled on the NSA warrantless wiretapping story.

ERIC LICHTBLAU: Well, what I lay out in the book is that in the chapter that discusses the back story, if you will, the story of how the New York Times came to publish the story, was that there was an intense nervousness over this program from the very beginning, literally from the first hours and days that it began in October 2001. There were people within the government, within the FBI, within the Justice Department, who were worried that the NSA was doing something illegal. Remarkably, they kept a bottle on that for the better part of two-and-a-half years.

My partner and I—Jim Risen—simultaneously, but separately, began hearing some of these rumblings in 2004 through sources that we had. I covered mainly Justice Department issues; Jim covered mainly intelligence and CIA issues. We both began hearing things in 2004. At the time—we only learned later, it was at the time that really there was this revolt within the government that led to the near-resignations of more than twenty people within the administration over this program. What we were hearing was really the steam blowing over on this program, and that led to months of reporting that led to internal strife within the paper over whether or not to publish this paper—whether or not to publish this story. And the paper initially decided, after really agonizing internal deliberations, that because of the administration’s insistence that this could harm national security, it would not publish the story. They came back at that decision obviously more than a year later in late 2005 and ultimately did decide to publish the story.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain what happened, because this was not just any date when the New York Times squelched the story in 2004. It was right before the—

ERIC LICHTBLAU: Well, you’re referring to the November ’04 election, I assume.

AMY GOODMAN: Yes.

ERIC LICHTBLAU: Yeah, I think the timing was more-or-less coincidental, but yes, the period around which we were discussing this was October, November 2004. There was, as I describe in the book, there was a draft of the story in hand with the outlines of the program, as we essentially know it today, in hand. And the paper went over that draft, went to the administration, discussed what we knew, heard out the White House in great detail as to its objections, ultimately decided just before the election of November ’04 that—as I say, the timing was somewhat coincidental; that couldn’t be removed from the debate entirely, but it was really a matter of happenstance that we happened to be debating this right before the election—decided initially before the election that the editors felt we did not quite have enough to go, then came back at it immediately after the election, decided we still did not quite have a story that we could publish, given the administration’s insistence about the national security concerns. And then the story—

AMY GOODMAN: Eric, explain the meeting—explain the meeting that the New York Times first had with the White House. Who was there?

ERIC LICHTBLAU: Sure. There were a number of meetings, and I’m not going to get into those in any great detail, partly because I was not at a number of the meetings. I was at some of them, but not all of them. There were ground rules that I’ve tried to respect. The White House has put some of those meetings on the record; the newspaper has put some on the record. So I’m a little bit careful about what I can and can’t say here.

But once the newspaper went to the administration to say we understand that there is such a program, that led to a whole series of meetings with the administration, with intelligence and political officials within the administration who laid out the case in quite strident terms that this was, in their view, a critical national security program, that this was a vital way to stopping the next attack, that there were no legal concerns about this program.

Now, as I lay out in the book, and I think this is one of the strongest arguments for publication, many of the assertions that were made by the White House in those meetings and in the subsequent meetings a year later turned out to be untrue, especially about the legal safeguards of the program. The administration insisted, as Alberto Gonzales would insist once this became public, that there was never any legal debate about the program, that no members of Congress who were briefed privately about this ever expressed any concern, that there were clear safeguards in place from the very beginning, clear protocols at the NSA. Our reporting independently had called all those assertions into question, if not debunked them entirely.

Islamic Supremacism at Harvard?

Haaardly! Seems it wasn't even the Muslim students who initiated the whole womens only gym hours, but non Muslims in the Harvard administration who went running with the idea. But obviously none of this will be reported and we'll only remember how radical Muslim women forced Harvard into dhimmitude.

"One of the most surprising aspects of this story is how detached Harvard's Islamic community was from a decision for which it is being castigated. The impetus came from Howard Georgi, the master of one of Harvard's residential houses, who told me via e-mail that he was approached by one of the house administrators--he couldn't remember which--who had been contacted by 'some of the Muslim women in the House.' He then sent an e-mail to Susan B. Marine, the Director of the Harvard College Women's Center, asking her to look into the policy. Ola Aljawhary, the student Marine asked to confirm the interest on behalf of the Muslim community, told me that she casually consulted with friends 'who certainly didn't mind the idea'--which administrators took as sufficient demand to adopt the policy. Neither Georgi nor Marine spoke directly to the women who requested the policy in the first place. The Harvard Islamic Society--the active campus organization for undergraduate Islamic affairs--did not know about the change until it was being formalized and in its final stages, according to the society's president. This clearly wasn't Harvard 'capitulating' to Islam, considering how minimally Muslim students were involved in the decision."

Islam vs Christianity?

There have been a number of news articles and commentaries I have read recently from both Muslims and non Muslims about a conflict or coming conflict between Islam/Muslims and the West/Christianity.

The idea of "Islamization" of the West has instilled fear in the hearts of many Westerners. Daniel Pipes, no stranger to stoking the fire of blatant racism, suggests the following:

"Some analysts of Islam in Western Europe argue that the continent cannot escape its Eurabian fate; that the trend lines of the past half-century will continue until Muslims become a majority population and Islamic law (the Shari‘a) reigns.

I disagree, arguing that there is another route the continent might take, one of resistance to Islamification and a reassertion of traditional ways. Indigenous Europeans – who make up 95 percent of the population – can insist on their historic customs and mores. Were they to do so, nothing would be in their way and no one could stop them.

Indeed, Europeans are visibly showing signs of impatience with creeping Shari‘a. The legislation in France that prohibits hijabs from public school classrooms signals the reluctance to accept Islamic ways, as are related efforts to ban burqas, mosques, and minarets. Throughout Western Europe, anti-immigrant parties are generally increasing in popularity."

I am not going to tell how Europeans to govern their countries, but I will ask Pipes what he means by "Islamification." "Insist on their historic customs and mores?" Like what? Colonize other people, genocide of ethnic groups deemed a hindrance to spreading "civilization," or how about denying women the right to vote until the last century? How about slavery? How about Catholicism? Oh wait, that historic custom seems to be steadily disintegrating, such as in France where church attendance is around 3%.

And there is the "creeping Shari'a" observation by Pipes: what Shari'a? So if Orthodox Jews don't work on Saturdays then that's fine and dandy, but God forbid that a Muslim man wants to take an extended lunch break and go for jumua prayer on Fridays. What about that idiotic ban on hijab and other religious symbols by the French in public schools? I guess freedom of religion didn't factor into that decision. But a school girl wearing a hijab is apparently a trend in the Islamification of Europe as Pipes suggests. Her hijab is not an expression of religious freedom that Pipes, Robert Spencer and other anti-Muslim bigots contend. It's a symbol of anti-Westernism and jihadism and radicalism.

Pipes continues:

"Indeed, Allam and Wilders may represent the vanguard of a Christian/liberal reassertion of European values. It is too soon to predict, but these staunch individuals could provide a crucial boost for those intent on maintaining the continent's historic identity."

Reassertion of European values, huh? Like a Muslim free Europe apparently that was the trend for essentially a whole millennium. If it's liberalism that they want to reassert then that would entail the freedom to practice ones religion freely without the government interfering with ones practices as long as those practices do not infringe on the rights of others. Maybe Pipes can explain how a 12 year old girl wearing a hijab infringes on other peoples' rights.

Let us be very clear here. Behind all this mumbo jumbo about the "reassertion of European values" is a reality that both the North American and European continents need to confront. They are racist societies. This does not mean that racism and classism and other forms of bigotry do not exist in other societies (just ask Blacks in Arab countries how they are treated or certain ethnic groups in Pakistan and India). But it seems the West in general has a serious issue with dark colored people moving into their countries that is not admitted. It's a relatively new phenomena. Some people want to keep Europe White. Some just don't like immigrants for whatever reasons. The way Pipes posits the problem one is left to assume that Muslims have taken over Western nations - not just numerically, but politically. Nothing could be farther from the truth. But if Pipes is correct, and this "vanguard" is able to maintain the "continent's historic identity" then that is most likely an identity where Muslims are nowhere to be seen or found.

This is the same sort of thinking Saudis use to keep Christians and others out of their kingdom (except for U.S. armed forces, of course). And it is attacked by anti-Islam pundits regularly. These right wing Westerners don't use Shari'a as their ideological justification to bar certain people from their countries, but use "liberalism" or the notion of preserving the "continent's historic identity" as the ideological underpinning for their immigration and societal reforms.

It seems many Europeans have their own supremacist issues.