"Is AMERICA Islamophobic?''
JEFF JACOBY
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/12/08/the_islamophobia_myth/
When that provocative question appeared on the cover of Time in August, the accompanying story strained to imply, on the basis of some anecdotal evidence, that the answer might be yes. The FBI's latest compendium of US hate-crimes data suggests far more plausibly that the answer is no.
"Where ordinary Americans meet Islam, there is evidence that suspicion and hostility are growing,'' the Time article said. "To be a Muslim in America now is to endure slings and arrows against your faith -- not just in the schoolyard and the office but also outside your place of worship and in the public square, where some of the country's most powerful mainstream religious and political leaders unthinkingly (or worse, deliberately) conflate Islam with terrorism and savagery.''
Time published that article amid the tumult over plans to build a Muslim mosque and cultural center near Ground Zero in New York, and not long after a fringe pastor in Gainesville had announced that he intended to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The piece noted that a handful of other mosque projects nationwide have run into "bitter opposition,'' and it cited a Duke University professor's claim that such resistance is "part of a pattern of intolerance'' against American Muslims. Yet the story conceded frankly that "there's no sign that violence against Muslims is on the rise'' and that "Islamophobia in the US doesn't approach levels seen in other countries.''
In fact, as Time pointed out, while there may be the occasional confrontation over a Muslim construction project, "there are now 1,900 mosques in the US, up from about 1,200 in 2001.'' Even after 9/11, in other words, and even as radical Islamists continue to target Americans, places of worship for Muslims in the United States have proliferated. And whenever naked anti-Islamic bigotry has appeared, "it has been denounced by many Christian, Jewish, and secular groups.''
America is many things, but "Islamophobic'' plainly isn't one of them. As Time itself acknowledged: "Polls have shown that most Muslims feel safer and freer in the US than anywhere else in the Western world.'' That sentiment is powerfully buttressed by the FBI's newly released statistics on hate crimes in the United States.
In 2009, according to data gathered from more than 14,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide, there were 1,376 hate crimes motivated by religious bias. Of those, just 9.3 percent -- fewer than 1 in 10 -- were committed against Muslims. By contrast, 70.1 percent were committed against Jews, 6.9 percent were aimed at Catholics or Protestants, and 8.6 percent targeted other religions. Hate crimes driven by anti-Muslim bigotry were outnumbered nearly 8 to 1 by anti-Semitic crimes.
Year after year, American Jews are far more likely to be the victims of religious hate crime than members of any other group. That was true even in 2001, by far the worst year for anti-Muslim incidents, when 481 were reported -- less than half of the 1,042 anti-Jewish crimes tabulated by the FBI the same year.
Does all this mean that America is in reality a hotbed of anti-Semitism? Would Time's cover have been closer to the mark if it had asked: "Is America Judeophobic?''
Of course not. Even one hate crime is one too many, but in a nation of 300 million, all of the religious-based hate crimes added together amount to less than a drop in the bucket. This is not to minimize the 964 hate crimes perpetrated against Jews last year, or those carried out against Muslims (128), Catholics (55), or Protestants (40). Some of those attacks were especially shocking or destructive; all of them should be punished. But surely the most obvious takeaway from the FBI's statistics is not that anti-religious hate crimes are so frequent in America. It is that they are so rare.
In a column a few years back, I wrote that America has been for the Jews "a safe harbor virtually without parallel.'' It has proved much the same for Muslims. Of course there is tension and hostility sometimes. How could there not be, when America is at war with violent jihadists who have done so much harm in the name of Islam? But for American Muslims as for American Jews, the tension and hostility are the exception. America's exemplary tolerance is the rule.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Justice Department Sues Chicago School
The Obama Administration Fights For Sharia Law
At The Expense of Public School Students
2010 December 15
by Joseph Klein
The 'Is it Legal?' segment of The O'Reilly Factor last night dealt with a disturbing decision by the Obama Justice Department that has received very little publicity. It is yet another example of the Obama administration's policy of accommodation to Islamic sharia law, irrespective of its impact on our own society.
Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to sue a suburban Chicago school district for denying a Muslim middle school female teacher three weeks of unpaid leave to abandon her students and make a pilgrimage to Mecca. The teacher wanted to perform the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia which every adult Muslim is supposed to make at least once in a lifetime if he or she is able to do so.
Ironically, the Obama administration is suing over a practice that discriminates against women. Under Islamic law, a woman is not allowed to perform Hajj alone and must be accompanied by an adult Muslim Mahram (father, husband, son or brother etc.). And for an administration that claims it regards a quality education for our public school students to be one of its highest priorities, it is willing to fight for the "right" of a Muslim teacher to abandon the students in her charge so that she can trek to Mecca for a few weeks.
In any case, note that the religious requirement for a Muslim to perform Hajj is once in a lifetime if financially and physically able to do so. This teacher, Safoorah Khan, had no more than two years of service under her belt at the suburban Chicago school when, in 2008, she decided that she could not wait any longer to make her pilgrimage. After the school district twice denied her request, the teacher wrote the board that "based on her religious beliefs, she could not justify delaying performing hajj." She resigned shortly thereafter. In November 2008, Khan filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which punted the case over to the Justice Department after finding that there was reasonable cause to believe that discrimination had occurred.
This week, Eric Holder's team in the Justice Department's civil rights division decided to bring the school district to federal court on Khan's behalf. The relief that the Obama administration is seeking is a court order requiring the school district to adopt policies that reasonably accommodate its employees' religious practices and beliefs, to reinstate Khan with back pay and pay her compensatory damages.
There is nothing "reasonable" in Khan's demand for making her pilgrimage on her own timetable. If anyone deserves "compensatory damages," it is the school system which has to defend itself against this frivolous lawsuit.
As usual, the Obama administration is pandering to accommodate the demands of the radical Muslim community. Obama is fulfilling his promise to the Muslim world, made during his Cairo speech last year, "to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit."
Khan saw fit to leave her students for about ten percent of the school year because she desired to perform her pilgrimage when, and for however long, she desired. Why now when Khan has a lifetime to fulfill her religious duty (provided that she has a male Muslim accompanying her)? And why did she ask for a three week leave when all the essential duties of the pilgrimage are normally performed in 5 to 6 days?
This isn't the first time that the Obama administration has gone out of its way to enforce special accommodations for Muslims. For example, as I described in my book Lethal Engagement, in response to complaints filed by Somali Muslim employees with the help of a Chicago-based chaptr of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided that JBS Swift violated their civil rights by dismissing those who refused to work during Ramadan because they were not permitted to take special time off during work hours for prayer. The demand would have disrupted work schedules, leaving their fellow non-Muslim workers to pick up the slack. The EEOC chose to send its decision by letter directly to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, showing their close relationship in the Obama era.
Barack Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder are willing to subordinate American values of individual liberty, freedom of expression and equal treatment under the law in order to accommodate radical Muslims' special demands in "practicing religion as they see fit."
Radical Muslims are exploiting our democratic system and using the irreproachable shield of "religion" to disguise a barbaric system of oppressive sharia laws. Rather than accommodate them, Western democracies must instead challenge the ideas and methods of radical Islamists at every turn.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/12/15/the-obama-administration-fights-for-sharia-law-at-the-expense-of-public-school-students/
At The Expense of Public School Students
2010 December 15
by Joseph Klein
The 'Is it Legal?' segment of The O'Reilly Factor last night dealt with a disturbing decision by the Obama Justice Department that has received very little publicity. It is yet another example of the Obama administration's policy of accommodation to Islamic sharia law, irrespective of its impact on our own society.
Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to sue a suburban Chicago school district for denying a Muslim middle school female teacher three weeks of unpaid leave to abandon her students and make a pilgrimage to Mecca. The teacher wanted to perform the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia which every adult Muslim is supposed to make at least once in a lifetime if he or she is able to do so.
Ironically, the Obama administration is suing over a practice that discriminates against women. Under Islamic law, a woman is not allowed to perform Hajj alone and must be accompanied by an adult Muslim Mahram (father, husband, son or brother etc.). And for an administration that claims it regards a quality education for our public school students to be one of its highest priorities, it is willing to fight for the "right" of a Muslim teacher to abandon the students in her charge so that she can trek to Mecca for a few weeks.
In any case, note that the religious requirement for a Muslim to perform Hajj is once in a lifetime if financially and physically able to do so. This teacher, Safoorah Khan, had no more than two years of service under her belt at the suburban Chicago school when, in 2008, she decided that she could not wait any longer to make her pilgrimage. After the school district twice denied her request, the teacher wrote the board that "based on her religious beliefs, she could not justify delaying performing hajj." She resigned shortly thereafter. In November 2008, Khan filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which punted the case over to the Justice Department after finding that there was reasonable cause to believe that discrimination had occurred.
This week, Eric Holder's team in the Justice Department's civil rights division decided to bring the school district to federal court on Khan's behalf. The relief that the Obama administration is seeking is a court order requiring the school district to adopt policies that reasonably accommodate its employees' religious practices and beliefs, to reinstate Khan with back pay and pay her compensatory damages.
There is nothing "reasonable" in Khan's demand for making her pilgrimage on her own timetable. If anyone deserves "compensatory damages," it is the school system which has to defend itself against this frivolous lawsuit.
As usual, the Obama administration is pandering to accommodate the demands of the radical Muslim community. Obama is fulfilling his promise to the Muslim world, made during his Cairo speech last year, "to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit."
Khan saw fit to leave her students for about ten percent of the school year because she desired to perform her pilgrimage when, and for however long, she desired. Why now when Khan has a lifetime to fulfill her religious duty (provided that she has a male Muslim accompanying her)? And why did she ask for a three week leave when all the essential duties of the pilgrimage are normally performed in 5 to 6 days?
This isn't the first time that the Obama administration has gone out of its way to enforce special accommodations for Muslims. For example, as I described in my book Lethal Engagement, in response to complaints filed by Somali Muslim employees with the help of a Chicago-based chaptr of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided that JBS Swift violated their civil rights by dismissing those who refused to work during Ramadan because they were not permitted to take special time off during work hours for prayer. The demand would have disrupted work schedules, leaving their fellow non-Muslim workers to pick up the slack. The EEOC chose to send its decision by letter directly to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, showing their close relationship in the Obama era.
Barack Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder are willing to subordinate American values of individual liberty, freedom of expression and equal treatment under the law in order to accommodate radical Muslims' special demands in "practicing religion as they see fit."
Radical Muslims are exploiting our democratic system and using the irreproachable shield of "religion" to disguise a barbaric system of oppressive sharia laws. Rather than accommodate them, Western democracies must instead challenge the ideas and methods of radical Islamists at every turn.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/12/15/the-obama-administration-fights-for-sharia-law-at-the-expense-of-public-school-students/
Friday, December 10, 2010
Political Correctness Equals Terrorist Infiltration
Political Correctness Kills: Study Shows How Terrorists Infiltrate U.S. Government
Barry Rubin reviewed, "Top 10 Failures of the US Government on the Domestic Islamist Threat" in today's PJM.
The actual paper is Here.
A review of PJM contributor Patrick Poole’s hair-raising 10 Failures of the U.S. Government on the Domestic Islamist Threat.
December 5, 2010 - by Barry Rubin
There is a very important — one might even say life-and-death — distinction that should be made in considering U.S. counterterrorism policy. Certainly, U.S. forces have had many successes in stopping intended terrorist attacks against the United States. Yet there have also been a number of failures. How to distinguish what made the difference?
The successes in the post-September 11 era have come when the techniques of police and military work or intelligence-gathering were used against full-time terrorists. Indeed, an observer could sum up the handling of terrorism in the United States in the almost-decade since September 11 by saying there have been no major attacks, and the policy has been successful.
When it comes to organizations planning attacks, this approach works very well. But when the threat involves individuals or small groups being radicalized and perhaps joining or supporting terrorist groups, the record is much worse.
The weakness is in analysis, profiling, decision-making, and understanding the nature of the enemy ideology. As a result, there have been a number of smaller attacks, including some not counted at all by a government that wants to keep its batting average high, and some near-misses that were averted due more to luck than to skill.
In addition, a huge amount of money has been wasted and effort misdirected, as many are coming to see regarding the current methods of airport security.
In understanding these vital issues one can read no better work than Patrick Poole’s 10 Failures of the U.S. Government on the Domestic Islamist Threat. (Patrick Poole is a frequent PJM contributor.)
He provides ten case studies, each of which is hair-raising, and none of which, arguably, has led to major corrective action. At the root of each one is a failure or refusal to comprehend revolutionary Islamism or the bureaucratic fear of taking on the enemy. Moreover, some cases show how the other side has even gained political influence in America.
Consider Abdulrahman Alamoudi, the Muslim leader who most frequently visited the Clinton White House. Poole rightly describes Alamoudi as:
The most prominent Islamic activist leader in America at the time, he had infiltrated the highest levels of political power. … [He was asked] by the Defense Department to establish the military’s Muslim chaplain corps, and appointed by the State Department to serve as a civilian ambassador, taking six taxpayer-funded trips to the Middle East. … Just days after the 9/11 attacks, he appeared with President Bush and other Muslim leaders at a press conference at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. despite his public comments a year earlier at a rally just steps from the White House identifying himself as a supporter of the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations.
In July 2005 the Treasury Department revealed that Alamoudi had been one of al-Qaeda’s top fundraisers ….
Go back and reread the last two paragraphs. Shouldn’t this experience have created great skepticism about proclaiming Muslim leaders to be moderate without critically examining their record? Instead, the opposite has happened.
Then there was Ali Mohamed, a man who trained American soldiers on Arab culture and infiltrated the U.S. Army’s training program for intelligence officers in the Middle East. Simultaneously, he was teaching Islamist militants in the United States — including the cell that carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing — how to shoot and blow things up. Later, he became al-Qaeda’s chief military expert.
How might the Army have known to distrust this man? Well, he had been expelled from the Egyptian army because of his terrorist sympathies, and Egypt warned the United States about him.
We’ve heard a lot lately about al-Qaeda’s new star, Anwar al-Awlaki, who has been behind many of the recent terrorist attacks on America. But did you know, as Poole writes:
Despite being subject to a FBI investigation initiated in 1999, and having been interviewed by the FBI at least four times after 9/11 for his contacts with two of the hijackers, Al-Awlaki was leading prayers for congressional Muslim staffers inside the U.S. Capitol. … Al-Awlaki was also feted at a luncheon inside the still-smoldering Pentagon following the 9/11 attacks …
Poole also writes of:
… Anwar Hajjaj, a local Islamic cleric who still leads prayers for the Congressional Muslim Staff Association. Hajjaj headed the Taibah International Aid Association, which was designated a global terrorist organization by the Treasury Department in May 2004.
And about lobbyist Faisal Gill, appointed to a senior post in the Department of Homeland Security:
… a former aide to al-Qaeda fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi … [Gill] had omitted his previous employment as director of government relations for Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council on the Standard Form 86 required for Gill’s security clearance. Gill had been at the forefront of AMC’s political efforts to end the use of secret evidence in terrorism deportation proceedings. In his position in the Homeland Security Intelligence division, he had access to a wide range of top-secret information, including vulnerabilities of national critical infrastructure.
Gill was investigated and cleared at the time, despite the fact that he had lied.
Hesham Islam has been an especially powerful figure: the senior advisor for international affairs for Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and the Pentagon’s point-man for Muslim outreach. When one officer wrote a good study of revolutionary Islamist ideology, Islam campaigned to get him fired. Other officials told me that Islam tried to push them out also.
Islam’s autobiography on a Defense Department site contained clear contradictions and omissions, while his own academic work was rather shockingly radical. His father had worked for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, while Islam claimed that he had survived a ship sinking that apparently never happened.
This study doesn’t include many other cases, most notably that of Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist, where the Army’s negligence was responsible for the tragedy. At the time, I called Hasan the first terrorist to give an academic lecture with Power Point — to an Army audience — explaining his intention to commit a terrorist attack. Since then, things haven’t improved, including the Army’s report that didn’t even dare to talk about jihad.
Let’s be clear. There should be no witch-hunt of Muslims. This is about applying the same kind of scrutiny to Muslims that anyone else gets. The truth: bureaucrats are afraid to follow clear leads and point out obvious problems, lest their careers be injured by accusations of Islamophobia.
During the 1930s, it was regarded as impolite to look into whether there were Soviet agents in the U.S. government. Despite the lies and exaggerations of certain people later, there was a very serious Communist infiltration that damaged U.S. interests.
There is clearly a parallel effort — no matter how uncoordinated and individual in nature — today. Read Poole’s study, and then demand better media coverage and government response to this problem.
Barry Rubin reviewed, "Top 10 Failures of the US Government on the Domestic Islamist Threat" in today's PJM.
The actual paper is Here.
A review of PJM contributor Patrick Poole’s hair-raising 10 Failures of the U.S. Government on the Domestic Islamist Threat.
December 5, 2010 - by Barry Rubin
There is a very important — one might even say life-and-death — distinction that should be made in considering U.S. counterterrorism policy. Certainly, U.S. forces have had many successes in stopping intended terrorist attacks against the United States. Yet there have also been a number of failures. How to distinguish what made the difference?
The successes in the post-September 11 era have come when the techniques of police and military work or intelligence-gathering were used against full-time terrorists. Indeed, an observer could sum up the handling of terrorism in the United States in the almost-decade since September 11 by saying there have been no major attacks, and the policy has been successful.
When it comes to organizations planning attacks, this approach works very well. But when the threat involves individuals or small groups being radicalized and perhaps joining or supporting terrorist groups, the record is much worse.
The weakness is in analysis, profiling, decision-making, and understanding the nature of the enemy ideology. As a result, there have been a number of smaller attacks, including some not counted at all by a government that wants to keep its batting average high, and some near-misses that were averted due more to luck than to skill.
In addition, a huge amount of money has been wasted and effort misdirected, as many are coming to see regarding the current methods of airport security.
In understanding these vital issues one can read no better work than Patrick Poole’s 10 Failures of the U.S. Government on the Domestic Islamist Threat. (Patrick Poole is a frequent PJM contributor.)
He provides ten case studies, each of which is hair-raising, and none of which, arguably, has led to major corrective action. At the root of each one is a failure or refusal to comprehend revolutionary Islamism or the bureaucratic fear of taking on the enemy. Moreover, some cases show how the other side has even gained political influence in America.
Consider Abdulrahman Alamoudi, the Muslim leader who most frequently visited the Clinton White House. Poole rightly describes Alamoudi as:
The most prominent Islamic activist leader in America at the time, he had infiltrated the highest levels of political power. … [He was asked] by the Defense Department to establish the military’s Muslim chaplain corps, and appointed by the State Department to serve as a civilian ambassador, taking six taxpayer-funded trips to the Middle East. … Just days after the 9/11 attacks, he appeared with President Bush and other Muslim leaders at a press conference at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. despite his public comments a year earlier at a rally just steps from the White House identifying himself as a supporter of the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations.
In July 2005 the Treasury Department revealed that Alamoudi had been one of al-Qaeda’s top fundraisers ….
Go back and reread the last two paragraphs. Shouldn’t this experience have created great skepticism about proclaiming Muslim leaders to be moderate without critically examining their record? Instead, the opposite has happened.
Then there was Ali Mohamed, a man who trained American soldiers on Arab culture and infiltrated the U.S. Army’s training program for intelligence officers in the Middle East. Simultaneously, he was teaching Islamist militants in the United States — including the cell that carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing — how to shoot and blow things up. Later, he became al-Qaeda’s chief military expert.
How might the Army have known to distrust this man? Well, he had been expelled from the Egyptian army because of his terrorist sympathies, and Egypt warned the United States about him.
We’ve heard a lot lately about al-Qaeda’s new star, Anwar al-Awlaki, who has been behind many of the recent terrorist attacks on America. But did you know, as Poole writes:
Despite being subject to a FBI investigation initiated in 1999, and having been interviewed by the FBI at least four times after 9/11 for his contacts with two of the hijackers, Al-Awlaki was leading prayers for congressional Muslim staffers inside the U.S. Capitol. … Al-Awlaki was also feted at a luncheon inside the still-smoldering Pentagon following the 9/11 attacks …
Poole also writes of:
… Anwar Hajjaj, a local Islamic cleric who still leads prayers for the Congressional Muslim Staff Association. Hajjaj headed the Taibah International Aid Association, which was designated a global terrorist organization by the Treasury Department in May 2004.
And about lobbyist Faisal Gill, appointed to a senior post in the Department of Homeland Security:
… a former aide to al-Qaeda fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi … [Gill] had omitted his previous employment as director of government relations for Alamoudi’s American Muslim Council on the Standard Form 86 required for Gill’s security clearance. Gill had been at the forefront of AMC’s political efforts to end the use of secret evidence in terrorism deportation proceedings. In his position in the Homeland Security Intelligence division, he had access to a wide range of top-secret information, including vulnerabilities of national critical infrastructure.
Gill was investigated and cleared at the time, despite the fact that he had lied.
Hesham Islam has been an especially powerful figure: the senior advisor for international affairs for Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and the Pentagon’s point-man for Muslim outreach. When one officer wrote a good study of revolutionary Islamist ideology, Islam campaigned to get him fired. Other officials told me that Islam tried to push them out also.
Islam’s autobiography on a Defense Department site contained clear contradictions and omissions, while his own academic work was rather shockingly radical. His father had worked for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, while Islam claimed that he had survived a ship sinking that apparently never happened.
This study doesn’t include many other cases, most notably that of Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist, where the Army’s negligence was responsible for the tragedy. At the time, I called Hasan the first terrorist to give an academic lecture with Power Point — to an Army audience — explaining his intention to commit a terrorist attack. Since then, things haven’t improved, including the Army’s report that didn’t even dare to talk about jihad.
Let’s be clear. There should be no witch-hunt of Muslims. This is about applying the same kind of scrutiny to Muslims that anyone else gets. The truth: bureaucrats are afraid to follow clear leads and point out obvious problems, lest their careers be injured by accusations of Islamophobia.
During the 1930s, it was regarded as impolite to look into whether there were Soviet agents in the U.S. government. Despite the lies and exaggerations of certain people later, there was a very serious Communist infiltration that damaged U.S. interests.
There is clearly a parallel effort — no matter how uncoordinated and individual in nature — today. Read Poole’s study, and then demand better media coverage and government response to this problem.
Sunday, December 05, 2010
What The American Media Misses
Abu Toameh: What the Western Media Misses
by Arsen Ostrovsky, Frum Forum
http://www.frumforum.com/abu-toameh-what-the-western-media-misses
A few days ago, I was fortunate to attend a talk by Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh in Jerusalem.
Toameh gave an incredibly wide ranging talk about the peace process, the double standards rife in the West and the media when it comes to coverage of the Middle East and his perspective as a Muslim Arab of Palestinian descent living in Israel (and you thought you had identity issues!).
Toameh has been working as a journalist for almost 30 years now, covering Palestinian affairs, focusing predominantly on the West Bank and Gaza, including for the Palestinian press under the PLO and for various international media outlets in the US and Europe. He is currently at the Jerusalem Post writing on Palestinian issues. Toameh is also an Israeli citizen living in Jerusalem. In other words, he is aptly qualified to comment on the issues of his discussion.
However, if you expected Toameh to jump on the anti-Israel bandwagon with the familiar cries that Israel is an un-democratic apartheid state responsible for all that is wrong including the bubonic plague or to have a single-minded focus on the occupation, you would have been sorely disappointed.
Instead, he spoke openly, courageously and in his words, said it "as it is". Asked what he thought was the essence of the conflict, Toameh said it was not about money or even settlements, as many so-called pundits often imply, as a precursor to blaming Israel. Rather, his answer was very simple: "This conflict is about Israel's very existence in this part of the world."
But before you get any conclusions, Toameh is not a card-carrying Zionist or as somebody once asked him "when did you get on the Israel lobby payroll". In his own words, he says:
"I'm not pro-Israel, I'm not pro-Palestinian and I'm not pro-American. But as a journalist, I'm pro the facts and pro the truth."
Here are some of Toameh's illuminating comments:
I asked Toameh how, as an Arab Muslim Israeli, he responds to accusations that Israel is an apartheid state.
His response:
"Israel is not an apartheid state. But there are problems and some discrimination with the Arab minority inside Israel. If Israel were an apartheid state, I, for example, would not be allowed to work for a Jewish newspaper or live in a Jewish neighborhood or own a home. The real apartheid is in Lebanon, where there is a law that bans Palestinians from working in over 50 professions. Can you imagine if the Knesset passed a law banning Arabs from working even in one profession? The real apartheid is also in many Arab and Muslim nations, like Kuwait, where my Palestinian uncle, who has been living there for 35 years, is banned from buying a house. The law of Israel does not distinguish between a Jew and an Arab."
As for the uniqueness of the Israeli media in the middle East, Toameh added:
"Israel is a free and open country with a democracy, that respects the freedom of the media. You can basically write any anti-Israel story and still walk in downtown Jerusalem or Tel Aviv without having to worry about your safety. Anyone can be a journalist in Israel."
Toameh says he finds it ironic that as an Arab Muslim living in this part of the world, the only place he can express himself freely is in a 'Jewish newspaper', noting that:
"We don't have a free media in the Palestinian area, we didn't have one when I was working there in the late 70's and early 80's, we didn't have one when the PLO came here after the signing of the Oslo accords and we still don't have one under Fatah and Hamas."
But what about the media's need for an anti-Israeli angle on stories? Toameh says that when he tried to alert many of his foreign colleagues that Palestinians were dying because of an internal power struggle or gross corruption by Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, their reflex response was:
Where's the anti-Israel angle to the story? Give us an anti-occupation story. Make our lives much easier. An Arab killing an Arab, that's not a story for us.
Toameh notes that the same foreign journalists would then ask him: "Are you on the payroll of the Israel lobby?" "Do they [the Jews] pay you to say these things against Arafat and the PLO?" Toameh's response to them:
"What do the Jews have to do with this? I'm telling you what the Palestinians are saying about there being corruption in the Palestinian Authority. I'm even telling you that the PA is saying that the PA is corrupt.
"It is a sad reflection on the state of society, and in particular, the media industry, that not only are they not sufficiently concerned or outraged at the death of Arabs by Arabs (which coincidentally has claimed many more lives than the Israel ? Palestinian conflict), but that they will only muster even an iota of concern if they can put in an 'anti-Israel' angle."
On the proposed loyalty oath as well, Toameh offered a pragmatic response: "I have no problem with it because it applies equally to both Jews and non-Jews alike."
One of the biggest and most intractable sticking points has consistently been the Palestinian demand for a right of return, which Israel will not agree to because it would mean the death knell of Israel as a Jewish state.
However, Toameh offers a very simple and pragmatic three stage solution, where the Palestinian refugees could:
1. Go to the future Palestinian state;
2. Resettle elsewhere, including other Arab states; and
3. Be offered compensation.
Most tellingly though, and in a statement seldom ever heard from Arabs (or the West), Toameh then asked: "And what about Jewish refugees that were forced to flee Arab nations", suggesting that the issue of Jewish refugees must also be part of any future solution.
Focusing on the problem from Arab dictatorships and their insistence on inciting their people against Israel, Toameh says that we have a problem in the West in failing to believe what people tell us.
"If Hamas say they want to destroy you, you have no reason not to believe them. And if Ahmadinejad says he wants to destroy you, there's no need to start analyzing what he means by that. Stop fooling ourselves, and if anyone thinks that Hamas will ever recognize Israel's right to exist, you're also living in an illusion. Take it from their mouth directly?the PLO however is different ? they will tell you one thing in English and then another in Arabic."
On the subject of Arab dictatorship, Toameh says:
"Arab dictators survive by constantly blaming the misery of their people on Jews and the West and never accepting responsibility for anything. And by inciting against Israel and the West, you divert attention from problems at home. Why? Because you always need to make sure that your people are busy hating someone else. If they're not hating Israel and the West, they might wake up one day and come to you, and God forbid, demand reform and democracy."
The crux of the message is:
"If you keep inciting your people, then they ask 'well, why are we then making peace with the Jews?' We should be killing them as Hamas is saying'."
So what does Toameh think about Mahmoud Abbas, the PA President?
"Abbas is corrupt, discredited, weak and does not have much power. He is reliant on Israel, whose presence in the West Bank is ironically the only reason he has managed to stay in power."
And if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders as demanded by Abbas and the PLO:
"Abbas will collapse and Hamas will take over the West Bank in less than a day. If I were Israel, I would not give Abbas one inch of land in the West Bank ? not for ideological reasons, but to avoid a situation where Hamas and others would take over the area."
When we asked him how best to defeat the extremists, radicals and terrorists like Hamas and Hizbullah, Toameh answered:
"The first and most important thing is you go to the Arab governments and tell them, "Stop the incitement that's feeding these radicals and driving people into their hands." Sometimes there's no difference between what is written about Israel and the Jews in the papers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia with what is written by Hamas."
Noting again the billions of dollars in aid provided by the US and EU to various Arab dictatorships, Toameh says: In other words, and even more clearly, they should tell them: "Stop calling for my death with my money."
I asked Toameh about what steps were needed to move forward. According to him, the answer is "very simple" and involves the following steps:
1) The Palestinians must start investing money (provided to them mainly by the US and EU) for the welfare of their people instead of incitement. Then dismantle all militias, establish a free press and democratic institutions, end the infighting, insist on good governance and speak with one voice so at least we know who we're talking to. And then, he suggests, they should go speak with Israel and see what it has to offer them.
2) Deal with the enemies of peace ? if you weaken the enemies of peace, like Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, the moderates will rise and start speaking out. But as long as Iran is breathing down the neck and threatening, together with Hamas and Hizbullah, who are threatening to kill anyone who makes concessions, no moderate Arab will ever dare sign an agreement with Israel. Toameh says:
"I don't even rule out military action against any of them because this is the only language these guys understand. Talking to them and appeasing them is even more dangerous."
3) "We can't move forward when you don't have a clear, strong, reliable and credible partner on the Palestinian side" says Toameh. According to him: "Abbas is not a partner. He and Fayaad might be nice guys with good intentions ? but they cannot deliver. So the PA are not partners because they cannot deliver and Hamas are not partners because they don't want to be partners."
Addressing the issue of whether there was a clear and credible partner on the Israeli side, Toameh said:
"I don't care who is in government in Israel. There is a partner. And my partner is the Jewish people. Why? Because a majority of Jews have already accepted a two-state solution. I see a majority of Jews who don't care anymore about Gaza. I see a majority of Jews who want to disengage from the Palestinians. I see a majority of Jews over the last 15 years marching toward moderation and pragmatism. I don't know today of one Jewish mother that wants to send her son back to the streets of Ramallah or Gaza. I don't know of one Jew who wants to control the lives of the Palestinians and run their education and health system. Sadly though, while the Jewish public has been marching towards pragmatism and realism and moderation, on the Arab side the message remains no, no and no."
In an incredibly candid address, for me perhaps the most defining statement Toameh made was when I asked him: Would you rather continue living as a member of a minority in Israel or move to another Arab country? Toameh's response was simple, honest, and telling:
"Israel is a free and open democratic country. I enjoy living here and I would rather live as a second-class citizen in Israel, even though I'm not, than a first-class citizen in any Arab country."
In a world where it's all too easy to turn a blind eye to courage, Khaled Abu Toameh is a welcome breath of fresh air. A man, deeply committed to peace, who is seen as a traitor by many and who bravely continues to put his own life on the line each day, Toameh perhaps says it best himself:
"I'm not pro-Israel, I'm not pro-Palestinian and I'm not pro-American. But as a journalist, I'm pro the facts and pro the truth."
by Arsen Ostrovsky, Frum Forum
http://www.frumforum.com/abu-toameh-what-the-western-media-misses
A few days ago, I was fortunate to attend a talk by Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh in Jerusalem.
Toameh gave an incredibly wide ranging talk about the peace process, the double standards rife in the West and the media when it comes to coverage of the Middle East and his perspective as a Muslim Arab of Palestinian descent living in Israel (and you thought you had identity issues!).
Toameh has been working as a journalist for almost 30 years now, covering Palestinian affairs, focusing predominantly on the West Bank and Gaza, including for the Palestinian press under the PLO and for various international media outlets in the US and Europe. He is currently at the Jerusalem Post writing on Palestinian issues. Toameh is also an Israeli citizen living in Jerusalem. In other words, he is aptly qualified to comment on the issues of his discussion.
However, if you expected Toameh to jump on the anti-Israel bandwagon with the familiar cries that Israel is an un-democratic apartheid state responsible for all that is wrong including the bubonic plague or to have a single-minded focus on the occupation, you would have been sorely disappointed.
Instead, he spoke openly, courageously and in his words, said it "as it is". Asked what he thought was the essence of the conflict, Toameh said it was not about money or even settlements, as many so-called pundits often imply, as a precursor to blaming Israel. Rather, his answer was very simple: "This conflict is about Israel's very existence in this part of the world."
But before you get any conclusions, Toameh is not a card-carrying Zionist or as somebody once asked him "when did you get on the Israel lobby payroll". In his own words, he says:
"I'm not pro-Israel, I'm not pro-Palestinian and I'm not pro-American. But as a journalist, I'm pro the facts and pro the truth."
Here are some of Toameh's illuminating comments:
I asked Toameh how, as an Arab Muslim Israeli, he responds to accusations that Israel is an apartheid state.
His response:
"Israel is not an apartheid state. But there are problems and some discrimination with the Arab minority inside Israel. If Israel were an apartheid state, I, for example, would not be allowed to work for a Jewish newspaper or live in a Jewish neighborhood or own a home. The real apartheid is in Lebanon, where there is a law that bans Palestinians from working in over 50 professions. Can you imagine if the Knesset passed a law banning Arabs from working even in one profession? The real apartheid is also in many Arab and Muslim nations, like Kuwait, where my Palestinian uncle, who has been living there for 35 years, is banned from buying a house. The law of Israel does not distinguish between a Jew and an Arab."
As for the uniqueness of the Israeli media in the middle East, Toameh added:
"Israel is a free and open country with a democracy, that respects the freedom of the media. You can basically write any anti-Israel story and still walk in downtown Jerusalem or Tel Aviv without having to worry about your safety. Anyone can be a journalist in Israel."
Toameh says he finds it ironic that as an Arab Muslim living in this part of the world, the only place he can express himself freely is in a 'Jewish newspaper', noting that:
"We don't have a free media in the Palestinian area, we didn't have one when I was working there in the late 70's and early 80's, we didn't have one when the PLO came here after the signing of the Oslo accords and we still don't have one under Fatah and Hamas."
But what about the media's need for an anti-Israeli angle on stories? Toameh says that when he tried to alert many of his foreign colleagues that Palestinians were dying because of an internal power struggle or gross corruption by Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, their reflex response was:
Where's the anti-Israel angle to the story? Give us an anti-occupation story. Make our lives much easier. An Arab killing an Arab, that's not a story for us.
Toameh notes that the same foreign journalists would then ask him: "Are you on the payroll of the Israel lobby?" "Do they [the Jews] pay you to say these things against Arafat and the PLO?" Toameh's response to them:
"What do the Jews have to do with this? I'm telling you what the Palestinians are saying about there being corruption in the Palestinian Authority. I'm even telling you that the PA is saying that the PA is corrupt.
"It is a sad reflection on the state of society, and in particular, the media industry, that not only are they not sufficiently concerned or outraged at the death of Arabs by Arabs (which coincidentally has claimed many more lives than the Israel ? Palestinian conflict), but that they will only muster even an iota of concern if they can put in an 'anti-Israel' angle."
On the proposed loyalty oath as well, Toameh offered a pragmatic response: "I have no problem with it because it applies equally to both Jews and non-Jews alike."
One of the biggest and most intractable sticking points has consistently been the Palestinian demand for a right of return, which Israel will not agree to because it would mean the death knell of Israel as a Jewish state.
However, Toameh offers a very simple and pragmatic three stage solution, where the Palestinian refugees could:
1. Go to the future Palestinian state;
2. Resettle elsewhere, including other Arab states; and
3. Be offered compensation.
Most tellingly though, and in a statement seldom ever heard from Arabs (or the West), Toameh then asked: "And what about Jewish refugees that were forced to flee Arab nations", suggesting that the issue of Jewish refugees must also be part of any future solution.
Focusing on the problem from Arab dictatorships and their insistence on inciting their people against Israel, Toameh says that we have a problem in the West in failing to believe what people tell us.
"If Hamas say they want to destroy you, you have no reason not to believe them. And if Ahmadinejad says he wants to destroy you, there's no need to start analyzing what he means by that. Stop fooling ourselves, and if anyone thinks that Hamas will ever recognize Israel's right to exist, you're also living in an illusion. Take it from their mouth directly?the PLO however is different ? they will tell you one thing in English and then another in Arabic."
On the subject of Arab dictatorship, Toameh says:
"Arab dictators survive by constantly blaming the misery of their people on Jews and the West and never accepting responsibility for anything. And by inciting against Israel and the West, you divert attention from problems at home. Why? Because you always need to make sure that your people are busy hating someone else. If they're not hating Israel and the West, they might wake up one day and come to you, and God forbid, demand reform and democracy."
The crux of the message is:
"If you keep inciting your people, then they ask 'well, why are we then making peace with the Jews?' We should be killing them as Hamas is saying'."
So what does Toameh think about Mahmoud Abbas, the PA President?
"Abbas is corrupt, discredited, weak and does not have much power. He is reliant on Israel, whose presence in the West Bank is ironically the only reason he has managed to stay in power."
And if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders as demanded by Abbas and the PLO:
"Abbas will collapse and Hamas will take over the West Bank in less than a day. If I were Israel, I would not give Abbas one inch of land in the West Bank ? not for ideological reasons, but to avoid a situation where Hamas and others would take over the area."
When we asked him how best to defeat the extremists, radicals and terrorists like Hamas and Hizbullah, Toameh answered:
"The first and most important thing is you go to the Arab governments and tell them, "Stop the incitement that's feeding these radicals and driving people into their hands." Sometimes there's no difference between what is written about Israel and the Jews in the papers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia with what is written by Hamas."
Noting again the billions of dollars in aid provided by the US and EU to various Arab dictatorships, Toameh says: In other words, and even more clearly, they should tell them: "Stop calling for my death with my money."
I asked Toameh about what steps were needed to move forward. According to him, the answer is "very simple" and involves the following steps:
1) The Palestinians must start investing money (provided to them mainly by the US and EU) for the welfare of their people instead of incitement. Then dismantle all militias, establish a free press and democratic institutions, end the infighting, insist on good governance and speak with one voice so at least we know who we're talking to. And then, he suggests, they should go speak with Israel and see what it has to offer them.
2) Deal with the enemies of peace ? if you weaken the enemies of peace, like Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, the moderates will rise and start speaking out. But as long as Iran is breathing down the neck and threatening, together with Hamas and Hizbullah, who are threatening to kill anyone who makes concessions, no moderate Arab will ever dare sign an agreement with Israel. Toameh says:
"I don't even rule out military action against any of them because this is the only language these guys understand. Talking to them and appeasing them is even more dangerous."
3) "We can't move forward when you don't have a clear, strong, reliable and credible partner on the Palestinian side" says Toameh. According to him: "Abbas is not a partner. He and Fayaad might be nice guys with good intentions ? but they cannot deliver. So the PA are not partners because they cannot deliver and Hamas are not partners because they don't want to be partners."
Addressing the issue of whether there was a clear and credible partner on the Israeli side, Toameh said:
"I don't care who is in government in Israel. There is a partner. And my partner is the Jewish people. Why? Because a majority of Jews have already accepted a two-state solution. I see a majority of Jews who don't care anymore about Gaza. I see a majority of Jews who want to disengage from the Palestinians. I see a majority of Jews over the last 15 years marching toward moderation and pragmatism. I don't know today of one Jewish mother that wants to send her son back to the streets of Ramallah or Gaza. I don't know of one Jew who wants to control the lives of the Palestinians and run their education and health system. Sadly though, while the Jewish public has been marching towards pragmatism and realism and moderation, on the Arab side the message remains no, no and no."
In an incredibly candid address, for me perhaps the most defining statement Toameh made was when I asked him: Would you rather continue living as a member of a minority in Israel or move to another Arab country? Toameh's response was simple, honest, and telling:
"Israel is a free and open democratic country. I enjoy living here and I would rather live as a second-class citizen in Israel, even though I'm not, than a first-class citizen in any Arab country."
In a world where it's all too easy to turn a blind eye to courage, Khaled Abu Toameh is a welcome breath of fresh air. A man, deeply committed to peace, who is seen as a traitor by many and who bravely continues to put his own life on the line each day, Toameh perhaps says it best himself:
"I'm not pro-Israel, I'm not pro-Palestinian and I'm not pro-American. But as a journalist, I'm pro the facts and pro the truth."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)