Ahmed Rehab2013-05-21T10:09:39-04:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=ahmed-rehabCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Ahmed RehabGood old fashioned elbow grease.Let's Face it: It's the Radical Right, not Islam, that is the Greatest Threat to the American Waytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11448422011-12-16T13:05:14-05:002012-02-15T05:12:01-05:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-rehab/ Imagine if a major American advertiser were to pull its ads off of Jersey Shore because they received objections that the show while portraying a group of Italian-Americans, made the glaring error of excluding Mafiosi.
Imagine if the absence of characters "whacking knee caps" and "making offers you cannot refuse" was deemed as an "omission" and therefore pro-Italian propaganda, and as a result too controversial to sponsor.
Pathetic? Incredulous?
Well imagine no more.
Such is the pitiful state that Islamophobia has reached in this country, and it's very real.
All-American Muslim is an American reality show like any other. It portrays the trials and travails of five Michigan families with typical reality show themes like marriage, birth, business, faith, food and of course drama queens.
There is one problem however, at least for the Florida Family Association: the characters in the show are American Muslims.
The Florida Family Association got its members to send in dozens of emails to the show's advertisers based on a pre-written template that stated in part:
"The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to the liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish."
So basically, their objection is that the show is portraying "ordinary Muslims" as -- you may need to sit down for this -- "ordinary Muslims"! Of course this runs the risk that unsuspecting Americans may come to view their ordinary Muslim neighbors as ordinary. According to this Florida group of nuts, this would be a travesty that American corporations must not contribute to.
We are more or less used to the unfortunate fact that there are anti-Muslim loons lurking about out there. There's the burn-a-Quran-day pastor from Florida, there's the group from Florida that tried to ban a Muslim professor from the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission because he was Muslim, and there's that guy who tried to organize against Muslim family day at a Six Flags Texas theme park in Texas. Yes, yes, he was from Florida.
But what is the real cause for alarm is the creeping influence of Islamophobia into mainstream American politics and culture. From the Peter King radicalization hearings that use taxpayer funds to put mainstream American Muslims and their institutions on mock trial, to the frequent anti-Muslim rantings of the Congressman from Florida, Allen "Islam is not really a religion" West all the way to presidential hopeful Newt "Palestinians don't really exist" Gingrich. And now, we have the weak-kneed primetime corporate sponsors.
That a group of extremists from Florida would exercise their First Amendment right to carry out bigoted campaigns is unfortunate but not all that shocking. That 65 out of 67 advertisers (according to the Florida Family Association's website of which only Lowe's is independently confirmed) would capitulate to their nonsensical complaints that "ordinary Muslims are being portrayed as ordinary" is an alarming new milestone in the mainstreaming of bigotry in this country. For that reason, it ought to catch the attention of Americans who, for far too long, have stayed on the sidelines of the Islamophobia horror picture show.
Lowe's admitted that they cut their ads short as a result of the emails they were receiving and after reviewing some websites and blogs out there (in the "bigotosphere"). Lowe's is not just a tool in the hands of the far right, it's the entire hardware store.
What Lowe's is essentially saying by choosing to pull its sponsorship is that NOT portraying American Muslims as terrorists is just, well, too controversial for its brand:
"We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance. We strongly support and respect the right of our customers, the community at large, and our employees to have different views. If we have made anyone question that commitment, we apologize."
Lowe's is putting forth a very dangerous argument: that the far right bigots and the mainstream Muslim voices with their pro-tolerance allies of all faiths are equal opposites; that those who wish to humanize a faith community that comprises 25 percent of humanity and those who wish to demonize them are equal opposites; that the forces of bigotry and the forces of anti-bigotry are equal opposites. The pervasive assumption that there is a moral equivalency between the two sparring sides is a major factor in the rise of Islamophobia in the US. But Lowe's goes further than to claim moral equivalency. It actually takes sides, the wrong side: the side of the bigots.
The running complaint used to be that Muslims are always portrayed as terrorists. But now, the message being sent is that "not portraying American Muslims as terrorists" is sufficient for complaint and controversy. It's moving the goal posts to a dangerous new "lowe."
There are three lessons to be extracted from this episode:
First, it is a confirmation of what we have been stating all along: Islamophobia is not merely a reaction to terrorism or radical ideologies (which would have been a welcome exercise), but, in fact, it is a form of bigotry that targets an entire faith community: the religion of Islam itself and its mainstream practitioners.
Second, Islamophobia is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's sort of like "we hate you because you are terrorists, but when you're not terrorists, we want you to be terrorists so we can hate you." In the case of American Muslim leaders and organizations, the line is "we hate you because you are terror-linked, but when you're not, we need you to be terror-linked so we can hate you."
Third, Islamophobia is but a smokescreen, a projection of sorts. We are often told that Muslims are trying to Islamize America and institute Islamic Shariah law ("Sharrorize" America as Imam Suhaib Webb puts it). We are told that the less than 1 percent of American Muslims is but a fifth column who is here to take over and subjugate the remaining 99 percent. Setting aside the obvious ludicrousness of the claim for a second, ask yourself when was the last time American Muslims organized to pull advertisements off the air from shows that do not conform with their faith values (and trust me there are many)? Our organizing campaigns are themed around anti-bigotry and social justice, not the imposition of our faith.
To the contrary, it is the Christian right, the same folks who comprise many of the leading anti-Muslim alarmists, groups like the Florida Family Association (and trust me there are many) that are time and again organizing to force their way of thinking on other Americans. A quick visit to their website shows that this is not the first time they have successfully harassed advertisers for advertising on shows that do not conform to their ideology. They've targeted gays, sexually liberal shows, and others they disagree with.
It is not a coincidence that the organized Islamophobia networks in this country often include the same people who are trying to force-feed the Bible into government, schools, and public life.
And so comes the most important realization:
The organized American Muslim community's agenda is in fact a social justice agenda. Any objective scrutiny of our organizations, campaigns, projects and discourse reveals that this is widely and consistently the case.
On the other hand, as I already mentioned, you will find that it is it is none other than the far right that is out to force their narrowly conceived socio-religious ideology and way of life on Americans.
They conveniently promulgate the whole Islamist supremacist takeover fantasy and the Shariah scare as a divergence, a distraction, a smokescreen.
Projection is the name of the game.
They often use soft namesakes like "family" and "freedom" to give the impression of docility, and they inundate their websites and blogs with American flags and eagles to give the impression that they are the tried and true patriotic Americans who are best poised to speak for the majority.
They are not the majority, but they are not less than 1 percent either. They are in the millions, have access to billions of dollars, and have sufficiently organized at both the grassroots level and onas well as the internet in recent years to start to flex some muscle. (It is often stated that if fascism were to ever come to America, it would be wrapped in the US flag and bearing a cross.)
There is a ray of light. More Americans are beginning to wake up to the Islamophobia disease and the attempts at divergence from the real threat to our freedoms and democracy.
A year ago, the scorching Park51 controversy, while contrived and sensationalized at the end of the day, failed to impress the media or the public. In the case of the Lowe's controversy, Americans are joining hands in speaking out against bigotry. Muslim, Catholic, and Jewish groups, as well as notable individuals, including 2010 Spirit of Anne Frank awardee Anya Cordell, California State Senator Ted Lieu, music mogul Russell Simmons, actress Mia Farrow, and several other celebrities, have come out strongly to say "enough is enough."
For Lowe's and other companies that gave in to bigotry, the choice is simple: own up to your error and do the right thing -- or risk being chalked up on the wrong side of history (not to mention the wrong side of an impending boycott).
Their motto is "let's build something together." Well how about some backbone for starters?]]>Egyptians Brave Long Lines for First Free Elections (Video)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11166972011-11-28T13:00:57-05:002012-01-28T05:12:01-05:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-rehab/
History continues to be made in Egypt as today, Egyptians in 9 provinces seek to participate in the nation's first full free elections ever. The remaining 18 provinces will vote in the next two phases on December 14 and January 3.
Cairo residents came out in such large numbers that officials extended voting until 9 p.m., after having already extended it for a second day tomorrow. Lines went as far as 2 kilometers at some voting stations. Women are reported to represent the majority of those standing in line to vote today.
(Video Exclusive to the Huffington Post)
Egyptians are calling them "Freedom Lines."
It is estimated that whopping 80% of today's voters are voting for the first time in their lives.
"I'm 56 years old and never voted before," said Ahmed Moustafa of Heliopolis. "Why would I vote before if I knew the results of the elections before hand, but today, it's another thing, I truly feel that this is my country. It's a great feeling."
The vote follows a dramatic week of confrontation between protesters on one hand and the military and police in another that included a 3 day fatal street battle outside the ministry of interior on the outskirts of Tahrir Square.
Since Egypt's youth revolution earlier this year, the nation has been through an emotional roller coaster of ups and downs as revolutionary groups push against the reluctance of the ruling military and the silent majority to usher in immediate and drastic changes.
Today's elections represent a key milestone in the move towards democracy and a much needed shift in the nation's mood from depression to a feeling of pride and hope.
This morning, I spoke to many family and friends and it seems that everyone I know, without exception, has gone out to vote - even those who formerly identified as of the "couch party" (or the silent majority).
As always with anything "Egyptian Revolution," Facebook and Twitter has been abuzz. "I am so happy, I can't stop smiling since the morning," Neveen El-Shamy wrote on her twitter feed.
(Members of the Armed Forces stationed at an election station in the city of Dumyat assist an elderly woman who insisted on going out to vote)
Sahar El-Nadi, a Tahrir square activist, took her whole family with her to their assigned voting station, she spent the three-hour wait interviewing fellow voters for her blog.
"Whatever the results of these elections, thanks to Tahrir for this dream come true," Sahar said.
That message was not lost upon We are all Khaled Said, the now world- famous Facebook page that was instrumental in mobilizing youth into the streets in the early days of the revolution.
"Had it not been for Tahrir Square, we could not have voted with our social security numbers (rather than hard-to-get voter registration cards) in an election that pits 100 candidates for a seat, all of whom believe they stand a winning chance, in a free and fair election.
"Had it not been for Tahrir Square, millions could never have gone out to vote without fearing government thugs intimidating them in the line, corrupt officials forging results, only for the official media to celebrate a day of great democracy under Mubarak.
Thank you Tahrir Square!"
Meanwhile Google Egypt celebrated the historic day with a Google doodle:
]]>US Tacit Support for Mideast Autocrats Reeks of Short-Sightedness, Undermines US Intereststag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8140922011-01-27T17:29:34-05:002011-05-25T18:25:24-04:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-rehab/
A couple of weeks ago, Tunisia became the first Arab nation to succeed in shaking off decades of debilitating dictatorship through a popular uprising that sent shock waves through the entire region.
Egyptians who have long voiced discontent with their government are now taking to the streets in unprecedented numbers demanding change. If Egypt succeeds, analysts agree that a domino effect is likely.
Having withered decades of institutionalized corruption, police brutality and lack of freedoms under despotic regimes, Arab citizenries are finally beginning to believe that freedom and democracy are within reach. Their demands are straight-forward: democratically elected governments that truly represent and serve their citizens, in place of apathetic despots that work against the interests of their own citizens. They dream of free elections, government transparency, bureaucratic accountability, and rule of law.
It is perplexing that in the ensuing confrontation between citizens longing for democracy and iron-fisted dictators clamping down on dissent in the Arab world, the US official policy is to side with the dictators.
From the perspective of US interests, it is a severely misguided policy that could soon prove its short-sightedness.
To a certain extent, the US government's blurry vision when it comes to the Arab world is a victim of its own simplistic two-bit approach to the region: lust for oil and fear of Islamism. As such, "good" regimes are ones that facilitate our access to the region's natural resources, and that successfully crack down on Islamist movements. From Ben Ali to Mubarak to King Abdullah, that seems to be enough to declare them our "allies."
Whether in Congress or in the media, our public discourse on the Middle East is so skewed exclusively in these two directions, it almost comes off as willful ignorance.
Despite evidence on the ground that is increasingly hard to miss, we have somehow convinced ourselves that the Arab world suffers from an inherent aversion to Western freedoms and a burning desire to turn back the clock to a medieval caliphate. Our close relationship with Israel and its lobby in Washington, in whose best interest it is to actively reinforce this minimalist misconception at every opportunity, further limits our reading of the region and sets up the intellectual justification for our policy of supporting autocratic Arab regimes who fulfill these two criteria. Naturally, the Arab dictators have themselves lobbied hard to convince Washington that they are the only viable alternative to violent Islamist rule.
But the successful populist revolt in Tunisia and the organic push for democracy in Egypt are offering an entirely different reality; one that should act as a wake up call for the US to quickly reassess its approach.
In Tunisia, the Jasmin Revolution was not ideologically religious in nature, nor was it hatched by opposition parties. It was a raw expression of everyday Tunisian citizens from every walk of life who rose up in one voice demanding civic reform, freedom, dignity, and democracy.
Similarly, in Egypt, demand for change has little to do with religion or the West, and everything to do with fair wages, just government, free democratic elections, and constitutional oversight.
Better informed by unprecedented access to alternative media via the Internet and satellite, and buoyed by the nimbleness of social media like Facebook and Twitter, Tunisians, Egyptians and other Arabs are better able to communicate their grievances (which are primarily of a civic nature) and effectively mobilize their dissent beyond the otherwise watertight state control of mass media and means of communication.
The Arab masses, who are more astute than we give them credit for, want us to know that our hypocrisy when it comes to their region is not missed upon them. On one hand they see the US paying lip-service to flowery calls for freedom and democracy like Obama did in his State of the Union address and Bush before him; on the other, they note its tacit support for autocrats who deny them just that.
Egyptians were largely turned off, for instance, by US Secretary of State's Hillary Clinton's comments on the January 25 popular uprising in Egypt:
"I urge all people to exercise restraint. I support the fundamental right of expression, but our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people," said Clinton.
Shukry, an Egyptian activist, responded on Facebook:
"Egyptians do not define epidemic police brutality, torture in prisons, and extrajudicial killings as restraint. We do not consider a government that forces an unelected president on us for over 30 years and that rigs our parliamentary elections to a whopping 97% win for its one party system to be stable. We do not consider firing tear gas and rubber bullets into peaceful demonstrations that demand fair wages and basic dignities for citizens to be a legitimate response to our needs."
"Compare the American government's statements and its media coverage of Iran after their corrupt elections and during the Iranian green street protest with that of Egypt for those exact same events," said Nadia, an Egyptian street protester. "It is not hard to see a double standard."
Watching endless hours of Egyptian satellite talk shows, talking to scores of Egyptians on the street, and monitoring Facebook groups set up by Egyptian protesters, it is my assessment that Nadia and Shukry have a much more accurate reading of the general sentiments of Egyptians than Hillary Clinton.
Ironically, as Tunisians, Egyptians and other Arabs succeed in their push for freedom and democracy, anti-Americanism may be on the rise. But it is not because of Arab support for terrorism or religious extremism or because of inherent hatred for our Western freedoms as we wish to believe. To the contrary, it is because Arabs, especially the youth who are largely educated and who are leading the push for change, see the US as an enabler of the dictatorships that keep them oppressed -- an enemy of their freedoms for short-term strategic gains.
The US would do well to recognize that religious fundamentalism in the Arab world is more served than hindered by oppressive regimes and institutionalized government corruption; that the number one factor contributing to anti-American sentiment among Arab peoples is our support for those regimes; and that America's image and interests are best served by supporting populist Arab quests for self-determination -- not by stifling them. It is in our interest to turn the US from villain to hero, once again respected and looked up to. It is in our interest to not waste our money appeasing certain dictators while spilling our blood deposing others.
With or without us, Arabs will eventually succeed in overthrowing autocratic regimes and installing free democracies in their place. It would be shameful -- perhaps even disastrous -- if we remain on the wrong side of history.
UPDATE: Since the time of this article's writing, the State department has improved its rhetoric and called on Mubarak to respect his citizens and introduce reforms. But timid politically correct rhetoric does not make for policy. Though an improvement over Clinton's initial remarks, it remains as window dressing so long as it comes without action. The US policy of supporting and empowering Mubarak's dictatorial regime as a "US ally" remains in tact.
]]>A Silver Lining to Egypt's Dark Cloudtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8039282011-01-18T12:10:57-05:002011-05-25T18:20:30-04:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-rehab/
The recent bombing outside a Coptic church in the Egyptian seaport of Alexandria that claimed 21 lives and injured 96 has sent shockwaves throughout Egypt and made headlines around the world.
Much of the global media has limited its interest in the story to the bombing itself and the subsequent angry street protests by Coptic youth; more savvy journalists included some discussion of government negligence and the context of sectarian strife that plagues Egypt today.
Still, an integral part of the story remains untold outside of Egypt: the strong response of everyday Egyptians -- Muslims and Copts.
A popular storm of anger, defiance, and national unity is sweeping the country expressed by political leaders, members of the clergy, movie stars, students, and men and women on the street all reiterating one resounding theme: this is an attack against Egypt and all Egyptians.
While sectarian strife -- even violence -- is a serious problem in this mostly Muslim nation with a sizable Coptic population, Muslims and Copts generally live in peace side by side and have for many centuries.
Egyptians of all stripes seem to concur that the Alexandria bombing -- the most serious act of terrorism in a decade -- is an attack on the Egyptian way of life with the intent to drive a wedge between faith communities and push the nation into turmoil.
"This is not just an attack on Copts, this is an attack on me and you and all Egyptians, on Egypt and its history and its symbols, by terrorists who know no God, no patriotism, and no humanity," said Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Egypt.
"This cannot be classified as religious extremism, this can only be classified as religious apostasy," said sheikh Khaled El Gendy a popular Muslim TV personality. "I do not offer my condolences to Christians, but to all Egyptians and to Egypt, All Copts are Egyptian and all Egyptians are Copts; their places of worship are national places of worship, a bomb that targets them bleeds us all." A high ranking member of the Coptic clergy who sat beside him echoed his words.
"Egypt will not be Beirut. Our religious histories are intertwined, and our national history is one. We eat together, play together, and study together. We live side by side and fight in wars side by side. We are all Egyptians and this is an attack on all of us," said Samir, an economics student at the University of Cairo.
"An act like this is wholly condemnable in Islam. Muslims are not only obligated not to harm Christians, but to protect and defend them and their places of worship," said Imam Ahmed Al Tayeb the Grand Imam of Al Azhar, Egypt's seat of Orthodoxy.
"Let us hang black flags from our homes and black ribbons on our cars to mourn this cowardly attack against our brothers and sisters, let us send a symbolic message of defiance against those who are trying to divide us", said a visibly enraged Adel Imam, Egypt's most popular living actor, a Muslim, and a long time advocate for Coptic rights.
The message was not much different on Egypt's most watched talk shows that were abuzz with Muslim and Coptic guests in the studios and on the streets, expressing their solidarity with each other and defiance against what they see as a common enemy trying to drive a wedge between Egyptians.
Muslim college students in Alexandria and Cairo vowed to join Copts at their Christmas celebrations on January 7th (and they did). "We will be there with signs bearing the Crescent and the Cross, celebrating with them, standing with them, and falling with them if necessary," said a young, veiled student leader surrounded by her colleagues two days after the attack.
As an Egyptian, I am as invigorated by the current mood in Egypt as I am distraught by the bombing. However, I pray that this welcome surge of unity and camaraderie is seized and eternalized. I hope that it becomes ingrained into our societal fabric and that it is leveraged to induce long needed reforms.
I agree that an attack such as this has the bearings of Al Qaeda and its imitation groups therefore taking us outside the realm of common sectarian strife and into one of national security; nonetheless, Egyptians should see the current atmosphere of empathy as an opportunity to address Coptic grievances and strive towards a more equal society.
We can no longer deny that since the rise of Muslim extremist ideology in the 1970's, Egypt's once exemplary Muslim-Coptic relations has deteriorated significantly.
My father tells me that growing up in the 50's, he often did not know if one of his friends was a Muslim or Copt except by sheer coincidence, and then when he did it mattered little. This was not my experience growing up in Egypt where my religion teacher made sure to warn me against the "treachery" of my Coptic colleagues.
In the 40's, no one seemed to care that Naguib El Rihany, Egypt's then greatest comedian and a national treasure, was a Copt; he was simply Egyptian. Likewise, Copts did not bat an eyelid when Omar Sharif, a Christian, converted to Islam in the 50's, at the height of his celebrity, a far cry from today's intense reactions against conversions.
As far back as the 12th century, Egyptian Muslims and Copts fought side by side against the Crusaders, viewed then as a national security threat and not a religious war. Together, they stood tall against British colonialism - a lasting image of the period depicts Muslim sheikhs and Coptic priests marching together side by side and chanting "long live the crescent and the cross!"
One needs not look farther than the Alexandria Church itself to gain a glimpse of the sort of religious cohabitation that is uniquely Egyptian: the church is brightly lit up by flood lights perched up on a Mosque, only 30 feet across the street.
Egyptians are asking today privately and publicly, where has all this gone?
But we need to do more than ask and lament. We need to act.
The post-Alexandria solidarity between Muslims and Copts - the likes of which Egypt has not witnessed in decades - represents a silver lining in Egypt's dark cloud of sectarian strife and mistrust.
We would be wrong not to acknowledge and applaud it, but equally wrong to settle for it; a silver lining never made for a brighter day.
We need to carry the momentum forward into the realm of real change:
When extremist religious discourse at Mosques (and in Coptic circles) is regularly and unequivocally condemned and countered with a proactive and effective discourse of respectful coexistence, it will be a brighter day.
When Egyptians no longer have to list their faith affiliation on their official government ID's, it will be a brighter day.
When Copts no longer need a special government decree to build churches (or fix bathrooms in their churches), it will be a brighter day.
When I see talented young Coptic men playing on the Egyptian football national team at a rate proportional to the Coptic talent in my 6th grade class in Cairo, it will be a brighter day.
When the glass ceiling barring Copts from reaching the highest levels of government is shattered, it will be a brighter day.
When Egyptian law, prosecutors, officers, and judges treat Muslims and Copts as merely Egyptians - that is as equal citizens - with merit being the only qualifier, it will be a brighter day.
Given the candid conversations happening all over Egypt today, I believe that a brighter day is within reach. It is up to us "to change this tragedy into an opportunity," to borrow the words of Sheikh Ali Gomaa.
Clearly, the immediate priority is security, but that must be followed - if not paralleled - with addressing Coptic civic grievances. For this to stand a realistic chance of success, the Coptic cause must become a national cause led and fought for by Muslims under a program of comprehensive civil rights reform.
Ahmed Rehab is a board member of the Egyptian American Society and a co-author and signatory of the Chicago Declaration, a practical document calling for equal treatment of Copts under the law, submitted to the Egyptian government in 2005.
]]>Shilling for the Israeli Occupation: The ADL's New Mission Statement?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7650502010-10-18T10:11:42-04:002011-05-25T18:05:23-04:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-rehab/list of the "top ten most influential anti-Israel groups in America."
In other words, an organization that describes itself as "the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency that fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all" is spending its resources decrying American organizations that are not blindly supportive of a foreign government it likes to align itself with.
If that's not fishy enough, what the ADL's list really showcases are the top ten most influential groups that have taken a principled anti-occupation and anti-displacement position and who call for a just peace. Why does that bother the ADL?
Here are a few thoughts on this list:
The ADL is slowly but surely shifting its focus from fighting real bigotry to doing public relations work for the government of Israel, including shilling for its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories.
The list includes many Jews including some who self-identify as friends of Israel, and yet the report still manages to accuse them of being anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic. This is because the ADL hopes it can convince you that anti-occupation is synonymous with anti-Israel and anti-Israel is synonymous with anti-Semitism.
This latest stunt by the ADL comes on the heels of several other bizarre decisions, including the ADL's decision to side with far right-wing anti-religious freedom groups like the notorious SIOA (Stop the Islamization of America) against the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero. So much for "fighting all forms of bigotry and defending democratic ideals and protecting civil rights for all." The ADL is now trying to backtrack from its position on this issue after a public backlash that seemed to take it by surprise.
Since this list mostly targets organizations that have not been afraid to take a bold moral stance against the illegal Israeli occupation and other inhumane policies carried by the government of Israel against the occupied Palestinians, J Street ought to take a long hard look at itself and ask itself why it failed to make the list.
Jewish Voice for Peace which proudly made the list wrote an excellent five point response to the ADL. If you were to contrast the morally expedient language of the ADL's report with the clarion values in the JVP's response, it is evident who represents the voice of extremism and who represents the voice of reason.
Other "disturbingly" named organizations that accompany Jewish Voice for Peace include: Act Now to Stop Warand End Racism, If Americans Knew, Students for Justice in Palestine, and US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. Peace? No War? No Racism? Knowledge? Justice? No Occupation? Horrifying stuff.
The list also includes mainstream U.S. Muslim organizations like CAIR. CAIR, like the other organizations on the list, is pro-peace and anti-injustice. CAIR's work centers on defending civil rights and dispelling misinformation and stereotypes about Muslims - doing for America's Muslims what the ADL used to do (and should be doing) for America's Jews. It does not concern itself with the political aspect of the conflict but with the legal, civil and human rights aspects that have repercussions on local constituents here and that are often supported by our tax dollars. CAIR's position has been one of opposition to the occupation and disenfranchisement of Palestinians.
The ADL cannot point to one release from CAIR that can be described as bigoted against Israelis as a people, let alone against Jews. CAIR's releases and rallies have only addressed the occupation and the questionable actions of the government of Israel. But as I mentioned the ADL tries to equate opposition to the occupation and the illegal practices of the Likud government to bigotry and anti-Semitism in order to create a chilling effect.
The ADL's report is announced on the front page of the ADL's website, right above its decision to honor Rupert Murdoch for his "stalwart support of Israel" (yet another mind-boggling moment from the ADL). Why would the ADL who claims to "fight all forms of bigotry, defend democratic ideal and protects civil rights for all" turn around and award the man behind FOX News, a network that is notorious for spewing bigoted material and making a daily mockery of the news industry?
Does the ADL really believe that FOX News "fights bigotry and promotes democratic ideals and equal civil rights for all"? Has Abe Foxman watched FOX News coverage of Muslims, Latinos, or immigrants lately? Why would the ADL offer Murdoch its "International leadership" award? Because the ADL's awardee selection committee is more concerned with where a candidate stands on Israel, even at the expense of where he stands on bigotry, democratic ideals, and equal civil rights - once again bringing to light the disturbing shift in the ADL's mission and raison d'etre.
Lastly, the ADL's report takes issue with yours truly:
In response to the Israeli Navy's raid of a flotilla of ships heading to Gaza in May 2010, the executive director of CAIR-Chicago accused Israel of a "failure to apply Jewish values"
I am not sure what Abe Foxman's problem is with that? The Chicago Tribune piece that he is referring to was decidedly pro-Judaism. I received many thank you notes from Jewish friends and strangers including Rabbis. Given the gravity of the Israel violations at the time, many emailed to say that I was gracious and restrained.
So why did Foxman take issue with this piece, you may ask? Well, because the piece was decidedly anti-occupation. Another exhibit for the ADL's changing priorities.
]]>Tea Party Reveals Real Reason Behind Mosque Opposition Frenzytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6935792010-08-27T03:20:01-04:002011-05-25T17:25:21-04:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-rehab/Not-At-Ground-Zero-Muslim-Center can't seem to decide on an argument. They have thrown everything and the kitchen sink at us in the way of fabricated reasons.
First, they tried the "legal" route. When it became apparent that American Muslims had a constitutionally guaranteed right to religious, cultural, and communal services in lower Manhattan just like everyone else, they invoked the "sensitivity to the 9/11 families" line.
When it was argued that there is nothing insensitive about Muslims with no connection to 9/11 establishing a center two blocks away (unless you assume collective guilt), and that Muslims died in the Twin Towers, too, they tried to smear the center's imam as a radical.
When it was revealed that imam Feisal's 37-year track record was so consistently antithetical to radicalism that it earned him the "moderate model imam" accolade from this administration, the Bush administration, the FBI, and the New York interfaith community, they tried the "sacred ground" argument.
When it was revealed that the center was not actually "at" Ground Zero and that there were offices, delis, dollar stores, bars, and a strip club in the same vicinity that no one was taking issue with for being on sacred ground, they tried the foreign funding route.
When it was revealed that the imam has no intention of receiving funding from foreign governments or groups, or even individuals with a less-than-stellar reputation, they tried the sensitivity route again.
Privately, however, there seems to be little such confusion. The reasons there are given clearly, and it turns out it is precisely what many of us have argued all along: opposition organizers are motivated by an ideological belief that "Islam is evil and must be stopped; America is Judeo-Christian."
That's it.
That is the undisguised rallying cry on the private email listservs, the blogs, and the viral youtube videos administered by the right-wing oppositional leadership. On the prime time networks, they openly lie to the American people about harboring an anti-Muslim agenda, perhaps wishing to avoid being exposed for their religious intolerance.
Not for long.
Check out the uber-creepy Tea Party email below, released by no less than teaparty.org.
In it, the Tea Party folks argue that America is exclusively "Judeo-Christian" and that Islam should be "expelled from our shores."
And that's just for starters.
The rest of the email displays a fundemental disdain for a pluralistic America and reveals chilling levels of Islamophobia and hatemongering.
It poses the freakish question: "Will 'blanket tolerance' be the downfall of the Judaic/Christian basis of the American society?"
It quotes select passages from of the Quran out of context, a game that can just as easily be played with the Torah or the Bible.
It then suggests to its members that Muslims at large -- not terrorists, mind you, but Muslims at large -- plan for the "complete annihilation of the west," for "our demise," for "our destruction," and that they are "working dilligently" to "celebrate the day America will be no more." It warns that "the United States Judaic/Christian roots are being 'God Shocked,'" and wonders if "the courts should hand down a litmus test" for religions before they are "expelled from our shores."
So let me ask you again? Do you still think that the sudden rise in anti-mosque hysteria is really about sacred ground? Sensitivities to 9/11 victims? Funding sources?
Or is it about the rise of an ideological anti-Islam movement and the desire to curb, if not outlaw, religious freedoms for Muslims?
What would it take to wake the media up, if not this blatant piece of evidence? Will the media now pay attention? Is it remotely interested in the facts that are practically smacking it in the face? Where is the FOX News coverage of everything "Mosque at Ground Zero," the same FOX News that desperately scrutinizes Imam Feisal's every utterance in the hope of unearthing a controversial statement? Laura Ingraham, are you listening?
The American people find articulating their concern over the proposed Mosque near the sight of the 911 attacks problematic. On one hand, many view the First Amendment a shield of protection for religious freedom, on the other hand, some view the First Amendment as providing a haven for religions with a hostile political agenda wrapped in cleric's robes.
Is it any wonder that there is so much confusion on this matter? Most Citizens of the United States have never experienced the driving and all consuming force of a Theocratic government with its crushing Theo-political tenet.
The American religious experience is the usual Sunday morning 'hymn singing'; passing the offering plate, an off tempo choir and the occasional neighborhood revival. The 'Church supper and bake sale mentality' gives way to a much colder and more formidable view of religious practices, which are not only unfamiliar, but also antithetical to the 'Sunday Go To Meeting' crowd.
The United States Judaic/Christian roots are being 'God Shocked' by the concept that a religion can and does demand world domination by any means, including violence if necessary.
The Koran states: Sura 61:9 He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islamic monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah and His Messenger Muhammad) hate (it). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)
Allah's Messenger said: "By Him (Allah) in Whose Hand my soul is, surely the son of Mary [Isa (Jesus)] will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims), and will judge mankind justly by the Law of the Quran (as a just ruler) and will break the Cross and kill pigs and abolish the Jizyah [a tax] ...." (Bukhari 3:2222) .
The growing confusion among Ministers and their Congregations over the nature of legitimate Islamic worship and the practice of Taqiyya[1] is causing serious questions regarding the constitutionally protected practice of religion, if that religion is detrimental to the welfare and domestic tranquility of the very nation whose constitution protects it.
The emerging question is: Should the first amendment protect the practice of a religion which has a hostile political agenda wrapped in cleric's robes? Should the U.S. Constitution protect a religion whose focus is converting the United States from a Democratic Republic into a Theocracy lead by religious cleric's who are antithetical to what made this nation great and what keeps it great? Is this the change America should have or needs?
How can the Citizenry demarcate a concept which holds the well established fact that millions of the Islamic faith have called for a Holy Jihad and thereby demand the complete annihilation of the west? Yet, this same Citizenry is expected to open their arms to that very same religion, welcoming them as friends, protecting them with the same Constitutional protection Synagogues and Churches have enjoyed for over 234 years.
To make matters worse, this same Citizenry is expected to grant permission to build a Mosque on American hallowed ground, thereby, offering sanctuary and worship for the same religion which was instrumental in the 911 attacks.
Will it become necessary for the courts to hand down a litmus test for religion? If a religion passes the litmus test, then and only then that religion is welcome and protected?
However, if the religion in question fails the litmus test... will that be reason enough to expel the failed theological expression from our shores?
Should 'We The People" give haven to religions whose main purpose it to install a system of Theo-political colonization? Shall the American people welcome with open arms a religion having untold millions of members demanding the beheading of western infidels? Shall the People of America grant safe haven to those who cheerfully work for the day Israel, the United States and all other non-Islamic states are finally eradicated off the face of the earth?
These bothersome questions are not ones of religious rights, but rather of the will of the people. Will the people tolerate everything?
Will 'blanket tolerance' be the downfall of the Judaic/Christian basis of the American society?
Is there nothing which will compel We The People to stand up and say: "It stops here and no further," shall this be America's crucifixion?
Or, shall the American people create a feathered bed for all those who plan our demise, who work diligently for our destruction and for those who will celebrate the day America will be no more.
Stephen Eichler J.D.
America's Legal Analyst
[1] The practice of precautionary dissimulation whereby believers may conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya
Click here for the real skinny on "Taqiyya"
]]>The Untold Story Behind the "Mosque at Ground Zero"tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6886692010-08-20T10:22:38-04:002011-05-25T17:25:21-04:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-rehab/right to assemble and worship freely in this country, period. It's not only a founding principle of this nation, but a main justification for its founding. It is why many White Christians flooded to this country in the first place.
Those opposed to American Muslims practicing their right to build a religious and cultural center on their private property near Ground Zero and in concordance with all laws and regulations reluctantly concede that they have no legal grounds to challenge it. So they argue instead that they should voluntarily forgo their right out of sensitivity for the sacredness of that site.
This is a particularly disingenuous line.
If it is about sensitivity for the sacred, then why aren't those same people opposing the deli, bar, coffee shop, and offices, or strip club for that matter, that are open for business in that same sacred vicinity?
What is particularly indecent or insensitive about American Muslims building a house of peace, community, and worship that doesn't apply to the New York Dolls gentlemen's club?
Let's be blunt: it is only indecent and insensitive if you buy into the canard that American Muslims are somehow collectively guilty for 9/11. That is the coded message at the heart of opposition to the center. It is a message we reject on its face.
American Muslims bear no collective guilt or blame for the crime of 9/11. We have nothing to apologize for and everything to be proud of, including our loyalty and hard-earned livelihoods. We are not guest citizens, we are not second-rate citizens; we reject marginalization and require no validation. We are equal citizens living and worshipping in our country.
We are part and parcel of the diversity of America including the diversity of the 3,000 people who died on 9/11. We are part of the diversity of the hundreds who were injured and those who were first responders to Ground Zero. We are part of the diversity of the millions who grieved and still grieve. When "they" attacked "us," we were attacked. We are part of the "us" not the "they."
The whole brouhaha about the "Mosque at Ground Zero" is frankly bogus. It has little to do with sacred ground, or sensitive hearts. It does however have everything to do with the exploitation of the sacred and the sensitive for the furtherance of the sacrilegious and the insensitive: the phenomenon of Muslim-bashing that is ravaging our nation today.
The Cordoba House, now Park51, is an old story. In fact, it was reported on in the New York Times and other mainstream media as far back as two years ago. Why the frenzy now?
That's not all: Muslims have been worshipping at Mosque Manhattan a few blocks away from Ground Zero, long before Ground Zero was Ground Zero; in fact, since 1970, before the twin towers were the twin towers.
So again, why the sudden frenzy?
Failure to ask "why" is a collective indictment of the media establishment (with a few notable exceptions). Just as the media shirked its responsibilities in questioning the Bush administration on the justifications for the war in Iraq, now too it fails to properly investigate, scrutinize, and report the origins of this controversy. Here is what it failed to tell you:
The"Ground Zero Mosque" fiasco is a fabricated controversy that traces its origins to a couple of long-time anti-Muslim goons from the annals of the hate blogosphere by the names of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller as a flagship campaign of their newly founded organization, Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA). SIOA is part of an emerging phenomenon of astroturf anti-Muslim organizations that seek to project any public expression of Muslim life in this country as tantamount to a stealth "Islamization of America." (Except it's not so stealth since everyone and their mother is talking about it).
It was SIOA that first coined the misnomer "Mosque at Ground Zero," purposely twisting the reality that the proposed Muslim cultural center near Ground Zero is neither a Mosque nor at Ground Zero. It was the SIOA that sought to redefine Imam Rauf as a radical Imam even though he was heralded by the Bush administration, the FBI and others as a moderate voice of reason. It was the SIOA and its partners that ruthlessly sought to stoke the fears and suspicions of otherwise good, unsuspecting Americans.
The fact that bigots see fit to peddle sensational drivel for a living is not shocking.
The fact that the media is unwilling or incapable of calling it out is disturbing.
The fact that a significant segment of this population stands to be duped by it is disappointing.
And the fact that public officials who should know better are all too content pandering to the bigoted, misguided, and confused in search of votes this election season is outright nauseating.
Here's another underreported fact:
The battle raging on now is not one that pits Muslims on one side and non-Muslims on the other as critics would have you believe. It is in fact a showdown between Americans of all backgrounds (Muslim and otherwise) who are fighting for the freedom and dignity of what it means to be American, on one side; and those who are willing to throw those values under the bus in exchange for publicity, notoriety, ratings, or votes, on the other.
It is a struggle between those wishing to affirm our pluralism and our equality as color-blind, race-blind, and faith-blind citizens and those wishing to immerse us into identity politics that make some more equal than others.
The Park51 battle is a microcosm of this generation's struggle for the soul of America.
That's the untold "Mosque at Ground Zero" story any red-blooded American journalist who still has respect for the integrity of the profession should be telling.]]>What the Vuvuzela Is Up With the Jabulani? Why World Cup 2010 Sucks So Fartag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6134162010-06-17T12:37:10-04:002011-05-25T16:45:26-04:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-rehab/
Hey, someone has to do it.
Let's start with the Vuvuzela.
I love saying Vuvuzela a lot more than I like hearing it. It's a pretty word but it makes one hell of an annoying constant bee-buzzing sound that seems to be the soundtrack of every World Cup match, and not just during goal celebrations but throughout the entire 90 minutes.
It's monotonous, it drowns out the chants that some countries are famous for, it makes it difficult for players to hear the whistle or their team mates, and it makes it hard for audiences at home to hear the commentary on TV.
The debate on the Vuvuzela began before the World Cup. FIFA's president Sepp Blatter managed to kill dissent early on, only for the controversy to resurface after Argentina's Lionel Messi, Robin Van Persie and other players complained in their opening games. FIFA again considered banning the trumpet-like instrument for a moment, then decided against it.
Supporters of the Vuvuzela argue that it is a South African cultural trademark (a bit if a stretch considering it was only introduced in the 90's) and that banning it is intolerant and offensive.
But there is a compromise: why not permit Vuvuzelas for South Africa's games, but ban them from other games? Allow each country's fans to celebrate in their own cultural trademark; some like to chant, sing, dance to samba beats or a mariachi, or just cheer the old fashioned ways with "ooh's" and "aah's." Allow fans to moan when goals are missed, to ebb with attacks and climax with goals, to cheer heroes and jeer villains. Instead of all that variety that is a critical part of the game, we are stuck with a one-note zombie hum that saps the living daylights of the emotion of the World Cup experience.
Let this be a resounding warning to FIFA and the South African authorities: failure to ban the damn Vuvuzela will single-handedly destroy this World Cup.
And then there's the Jabulani.
Players have complained that the new-technology ball, courtesy of Adidas, is not very accurate. This may or may not be an excuse for poor individual performance, but one thing is clear: very few free kicks have been on target, and more than one goalie has failed to handle easy balls. It does seem that the ball accelerates and bounces faster than normal.
Here's a question: why meddle with ball technology in the first place? Did players complain that the run-of-the-mill Adidas ball was getting too boring? How come technologists don't meddle with the crossbar, or the pitch size, or the goal lines, or the net?
This is about selling a new product, isn't it? Well, I am all for marketing campaigns, but could it not come at the expense of my World Cup viewing experience? In truth, the Jabulani was introduced during the Confederations Cup last year, not the World Cup, but player feedback was not entirely positive then either.
Of course, Adidas will be happy to argue that this tournament is simply tainted by poor goalies and overzealous free-kickers. They quickly point to US goalie's Tim Howard's stellar performance (I say they owe him a sponsorship). As for the free kicks, the word is still out; we will need Beckham -- or Zidane or Mihajlovic or Roberto Carlos to come out of retirement -- for a field test to settle this one.
Then there's the empty seats.
In any World Cup, any stadium that is anything less than full to the brim is a bit sacrilegious to viewers like me who would give a pinkie to be there. Here's betting that if there were to be a Tuvalu vs. Djibouti match-up in Brazil 2014, you won't find an empty seat. I understand that South Africa is not as soccer-crazed as Brazil, and that its non-black population puts rugby and cricket ahead of soccer; but how about the South African organizers make up for that by offering free tickets to poor school children or any of the street fans whom I am sure would be more than willing to act as seat warmers.
Then there's the disappointment of the big gun players: Ronaldo, Drogba, Kaka, Etoo, Rooney, Torres, and Ribery. None of the hyped players -- who are admittedly very talented -- delivered on the hype in their much anticipated South Africa debut. In fact, Ronaldo's best moment in Portugal's opening match against the Ivory Coast came in a half-time commercial for Nike (fine, he also hit the sidebar during the game).
The same disappointment goes for the big gun teams: World Cup favorites Spain surprisingly lost to a defensive Switzerland while second favorites England tied with the US (thankfully). Brazil (ranked 1st in the world) barely managed to beat North Korea (ranked 185th), while favored Portugal failed to beat the Ivory Coast.
In general, the footballing quality of this World Cup has been anything but world class judging by the incomplete passes, wayward shooting, poor goalkeeping, lack of creativity from the midfield, and stifling team formations from conservative and boring managers.
Lastly, apart from Germany's first game and Argentina's second, so far it seems that most of the matches have been low-scoring and low energy while there has been no shortage of red cards. In fact the first round of this World Cup has had the lowest number of goals per game and the highest number of ties, including scoreless stalemates, in recent memory.
Here's hoping that the quality picks up and the Vuvuzela tones down. If not, it could be the worst World Cup in modern times. So far the second round indicates that there may be hope, at least for quality to pick up (good luck on silencing the Vuvuzela though).]]>Does France Stand a Chance Post-Zidane?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6091052010-06-11T17:27:10-04:002011-05-25T16:45:26-04:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-rehab/
The real question is, does France stand a likely chance post-Zidane? Unfortunately for me, a France fan, the answer to that question is no.
History gives us a glimpse of why.
While some outfits like Germany win on team coherence, others require the presence of "the special one," to use a term made famous by Jose Mourinho.
France is one of those teams. Its greatest achievements seem always to have coincided with the presence of a top-three world class player on its roster -- a luxury it can no longer boast now that Zidane has retired.
France's notable World Cup performances came in 1958, 1982, 1986, 1998, and 2006. In Europe, it was 1984 and 2000, and in the Confederations Cup it was 2001 and 2003. In each and every one of those years, France had a mercurial legend on the team -- only three in total.
In 1958, it was Just Fontaine, the man who still holds the record for the most goals scored in a single World Cup, 13. Having thrashed Germany 6-2 in the quarter-finals, France was on track to win the tournament, but understandably bowed out to Pele's Brazil.
In 1986, France, under Michel Platini's leadership, took revenge against Brazil in the quarter finals, and ended up a respectable third. Two years before that, the supremely-skilled Platini had helped France win the Euro Nation's cup its first ever major trophy -- while two years prior, he had guided France to a fourth place World Cup finish in 1982.
Then came the greatest player ever to don the France jersey, the mesmerizing Zinedine Zidane. His career contributions would leave France with accolades, the likes of which it had never reached before.
Two headers from Zidane in the 1998 World Cup final at last entered France into the elite club of World Cup winners and Zidane into instant French sainthood.
In 2006, the last World Cup, Zidane single-handedly breathed life into an old, sluggish team, dancing the Samba with Brazil in the semi-finals and turning in a second place performance for France. (It could have been a first place performance had it not been for the now infamous Zidane head butt and send off against Italy in the dying moments of the final game.)
It was also mostly thanks to Zidane's magical footwork and inspirational leadership that France won the 2000 Euro Nation's Cup, and the 2001 and 2003 Confederations Cups.
Contrast that with France's recent track record sans Platini or Zidane.
In the two World Cups of 1990 and 1994, between Platini's retirement and Zidane reaching his prime, France did not even qualify for the finals in Italy and the USA respectively.
In 2002 in Japan/South Korea when Zidane could only make a substitute appearance in the last group game due to an injury, the then defending champions famously lost to Senegal in the tournament opener and could not even get past the first round.
Then in 2006, France's rebound coincided with Zidane's return: It's a universal fact that had it not been for Zidane's determination, France would never have gotten as far as it did.
But now with Zidane out again, France seems to be back to its struggling ways. It barely qualified for South Africa, and did so only thanks to a controversial Thierry Henry sneaky handball in a decisive moment against Ireland, infuriating Irish fans and making headlines around the world.
So is France on the wrong side of history in South Africa? Clearly so.
And yet, astute fans may argue that in football, history is not always right. They may point to the fact that before 1998, France had never won a World Cup. (But then again, history has shown that strong teams stand a good chance of winning the tournament at home.)
Sure, it could happen, but it takes a mercurial legend to reverse the curse of history. Which brings us back to square one -- France has none.
I will say this: If France ever proves me wrong, watch out for Franck Ribery and Nicolas Anelka to be the ones to do it.]]>More Outrage Over Helen Thomas Comment Than Murder of US Citizentag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6036172010-06-09T12:27:55-04:002011-05-25T16:40:24-04:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-rehab/
There is more outrage in this country over some bumbling comments she recently made than over the murder of a US citizen and eight others by our ally, Israel, on the high seas. Never mind the fact that she has apologized while Israel still refuses to apologize.
Judging by any standard, Helen Thomas has enjoyed a long and illustrious career. She made history as the first female member of the White House Correspondents' Association, covering the administrations of 10 U.S. presidents, beginning with Kennedy.
Helen Thomas epitomized the role of the people's reporter, a woman who was not afraid to ask tough questions that other reporters were too meek or politically correct to ask, the sort of questions that sought to hold the nation's highest elected official accountable to the people who put him there.
Thomas was a White House fixture, an American icon, earning a permanent front row seat and rights to the first question (in all but the George W. Bush administration).
But it only took one unfortunate comment made in her personal capacity to a video blogger last week to bring this long and remarkable career to a screeching halt. The comment came on the heels of the Israeli raid of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla that resulted in the death of nine human rights activists and the wounding of many more.
"Tell them to get the get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people [the Palestinians] are occupied and it's their land. It's not Germany, it's not Poland." She was asked where they should go and she answered, "They should go home, to Poland, Germany and America".
The comment was made viral by rabbilive.com and it did not take long for Helen to face a backlash including calls for her firing by former White House spokesperson, Aril Fleischer (yes the same guy during whose tenure she was stripped of perks allowed her by other administrations).
Do I agree with Helen Thomas' statement?
No, I do not. (For the record, I believe that the only way forward is for Israel to get the hell out of the occupied territories rather than for Jews to get the hell out of Israel).
It turns out, neither does Helen Thomas who has since retracted the statement and apologized for it.
I am glad she did. This article is not about defending her off-the-cuff comment; it is about defending her good person and questioning the motives of those who wish her ill.
Her comment was uncalled for; her apology was a welcome remedy. But curiously, that was not enough. Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League - a group that has mutated over the years from defending Jews to politicking for Israel - did not like the apology and asked for a second longer one. The backlash did not let off and she was forced to retire.
It irks me that for an expedient cadre out there, a "few seconds" of emotional speech are seemingly enough to cancel out a 67 year long career of honorable service.
But let us not be so gullible as to miss the background on this story.
Helen Thomas has been a nuisance for the Pro-occupation lobby in this country since forever. Her unfortunate gaffe presented those who had long sought to silence her with the golden opportunity they had been waiting for. (It is rather telling that they had to wait this long, with Thomas turning 90 years this August).
It is particularly disingenuous that Ari Fleischer should be the one to lead the call for her head.
What moral authority does he have to call for the firing of a reporter who has served American audiences with integrity and honesty for decades while he himself was a mouthpiece of lies and propaganda that cost Americans their lives and treasures in a needless war?
If anyone should have been fired for offensive conduct, it was Fleischer, a man who duped - or allowed himself to be used to dupe - the American people.
Secondly, whatever happened to freedom of speech, the same freedom of speech that is championed (by the same people who called for Thomas's firing) when the outrageous comment is about Muslims, Arabs, or Palestinians? More on that later.
Thirdly, while I don't agree with Thomas as I've already stated, it makes a difference to me that her comment was not given in her official reporting capacity but in response to an off-the-job question. Like everyone else, she is entitled to a personal opinion. Those who question her professional integrity need to provide evidence from her voluminous work to corroborate their concerns of potential professional bias.
Fourthly, the notion that she is advocating genocide is a fabrication. Neither her personal history, professional track record, nor the comment itself, point in that direction. Notice her words, "should get out" not "should be gotten out," they clearly indicate active and willful action on the part of the subject, not coercive objectification.
As such, whether you agree or disagree with her, it is a logical error on anyone's behalf to accept the trumped-up allegation that this is "a call to genocide."
Rabbilive.com adds spin to her comment with a video caption that "6 million Jews were killed at home." But Thomas' comment was made in 2010, not 1940, a time in which Germany and Poland are not killing Jews. Plus she mentioned America as home, too; Jews were never killed here.
Again, this does not make her comment right; it just absolves her of "calling for genocide" as Fleischer and others have charged.
Fleischer further argued that "if a journalist, or a columnist, said the same thing about blacks or Hispanics, they would already have lost their jobs."
His comparison of Israelis to US Blacks and Hispanics is bizarre. Helen is not talking about American Jews, but about a foreign country. Her opinion as such is not as relevant or reverent to Americans as a comment made about African Americans, Hispanic Americans, or Jewish Americans, etc.
Lastly, if the same standard was applied to reporters and politicians who said things half as offensive as this about Palestinians, a significant portion of that workforce would be fired, including many who have defended Israel's mass killing of civilians.
Having said all that, this episode is mostly significant in that it provides a revealing portrait of the hypocritical state of freedom of speech in America.
Many self-proclaimed defenders of freedom of speech are quick to hail the many derogatory Muhammad cartoons as a symbol of defiance against Muslim radicals who wish to deter free speech with death threats. But if we are in the business of challenging red lines, then it is hypocritical to obsess with the case of the prophet but turn a blind eye over the case of the gorilla in the room, Israel.
Those who venture to offend the pro-Israel lobby may not face death threats, but they likely will face enough pressure to hasten the death of their careers - a deterrent against free speech that is no less offensive and apparently more effective. Indeed if this were not so, American reporters and politicians would do a better job at presenting both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian issue rather than the abysmal one-sided track record Americans have been subjected to for so long.
]]>Israel Gaza Attack: Do Actions of the 'Jewish State' Represent Jewish Values?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.5981602010-06-03T20:08:00-04:002011-05-25T16:40:24-04:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-rehab/
That is a question ultimately for Jews to answer.
Personally, as a Muslim whose own faith values are often undermined by the misdeeds of those who claim to act in the name of defending the honor and freedom of Muslims, I know better than to blame Jewishness for Israel's egregious violations.
Israel's failure is not a failure of Jewish values. If anything, it's a failure to apply Jewish values.
The massacre of humanitarian aid activists by Israeli commandos who stormed their flotilla in international waters made global shockwaves. The flotilla hoped to deliver 10,000 tons of food, medicine, and construction materials to the besieged Gazans who, experts say, face a critical shortage of basic needs following three years of a land, air, and sea blockade imposed by Israel and abetted by Egypt. The incident was met by a flurry of condemnations and protests by many around the world who felt that Israel's pre-dawn attack was just another example of Israel thinking it can breach international law with special impunity.
Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu said of the incident:
This action was uncalled for. Israeli actions constitute a grave breach of international law. In simplest terms, this is tantamount to banditry and piracy. It is murder conducted by a state. It has no excuses, no justification whatsoever. A nation state that follows this path has lost its legitimacy as a respectful member of the international community.
But here at The Seeker, a blog that concerns itself with religion and its role in the public sphere, we ask the question: does this crisis have anything to do with religion?
Well, not directly. Israel's decision to storm the flotilla was more likely motivated by political rather than religious considerations. While Israel could probably tolerate the delivery of international aid to the Gazans, it is doubtless queasy about the flotilla's role as a symbol of defiance against its state-imposed blockade and its national willpower. After all, the blockade is itself a political strategy to force the Palestinians into despair and thus revolt against Hamas, the democratically-elected party perceived by Gazans as a legitimate resistance and social services enterprise, but deemed by Israel as a terrorist organization.
So where does religion come in?
Religion, whether Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or any of the other great global faiths of the world, at its core works to address a problem that is man's most treacherous undoing: his reckless drive for power. It does so by mitigating this force of human nature via a concept arguably more powerful: morality (the notion of self-imposed red-lines).
Israel's failure is no doubt one of moral proportions.
Israel's willingness to send its armed commandos to attack unarmed activists in international waters is doubtlessly a clear breach of international law, but more importantly, it is a breach of a basic moral code of honor. Former Israeli Knesset member, Uri Avnery, called it "a warlike attack against aid ships and deadly shooting at peace and humanitarian aid activists," adding, "It is a crazy thing that only a government that crossed all red lines can do."
Israel's willingness to inflict collective punishment against a civilian population of 1.5 million people in the form of a life-choking blockade poses many legal problems, but more importantly, it poses a moral dilemma amid concerns of human dignity and human rights. State morality is a concept that gets little play; it is a meek concept that quickly buckles under the weight of the somber rhetoric of realpolitik; it's the classic "let the dreamers make way for the big boys" and "welcome to the real world" treatment.
Judaism, like Islam and Christianity, has a long tradition of respecting and honoring human life. The challenge for Jews, as for Christians and Muslims, is whether or not those values will stand strong in the face of life's tests and tribulations, or whether they will merely be celebrated in theory, only to quickly make way for raw human ego and unabashed power trips when the going gets tough.
This article originally appeared on Chicagotribune.com]]>Miss USA Scrutiny Indicates Weird Obsession with Islamtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.5809952010-05-19T11:42:00-04:002011-05-25T16:30:24-04:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-rehab/
And why does it invariably end up linking that person through multiple degrees of separation to terrorism?
The fact that even a Miss USA could not be spared this exercise in futility puts away any remaining doubt that there is a segment of America that is suffering from a bizarre and unhealthy obsession with Islam.
Diverse examples abound:
When Dubai Ports World won a contract to manage six US seaports in 2006, US Lawmakers rushed to invalidate the deal. Their objections essentially came down to the shocking discovery that Dubai was an "Islamic" country (even as they bore no qualms about billions of dollars in US business contracts going the other way). Of no weight was the more relevant fact that the Dubai Ports World is one of the most reputable operators in its industry.
And when Mazen Asbahi was appointed as the Obama campaign's liaison to the Muslim community in 2008, the Wall Street Journal riled up just enough "guilt by association" terrorism-related controversy against the clean-as-a-whistle Asbahi to force him to resign only a few days into his post.
Most recently, when Dr. Parvez Ahmed was nominated for Jacksonville's Human Rights Commission, the established humanitarian was smeared with "ties to terrorism." He subsequently faced a torrent of abuse (including one commissioner's request that he demonstrate to the commission how he prays to his God) before eventually being confirmed.
The fact that Muslims who aspire to prominence in business, political, and service circles routinely face special scrutiny as a result of their faith is alarming. The fact that Muslims involved in the banality of looking good would not be spared similar scrutiny is comical -- in a sad sort of way, of course.
And yet just one day after Rima Fakih, an Arab-American Lebanese Muslim from Michigan, won the Miss USA pageant, her faith took center stage, and sure enough, some found a way to "link" her to terrorism.
AOL News, no less, led the foray with the provocative title, "Controversy Swirls Around Miss USA Winner." They quote right-wing blogger Debbie Schlussel, who tells us that Miss USA has "many relatives" who are terrorists and that "a Hezbollah supporter helped bankroll her pageant run."
"It's a sad day in America but a very predictable one, given the politically correct, Islamo-pandering climate in which we're mired," she says.
As paranoid as Schlussel sounds, this was in fact a sanitized version of the original Islamophobic, foul-mouth tirade found on her blog under the flattering title, "Hezbollah's American Sharmuta" ("whore" in Arabic).
Fox & Friends host Gretchen Carlson also blamed "political correctness" as the culprit in Fakih's victory. "Did the Muslim-American win because of the whole PC society that we find ourselves in?" she wonders.
Another conservative blogger, Michelle Malkin, lamented that "Fakih's cheerleaders are too busy tooting the identity politics horn to care what comes out of her mouth," while neo-conservative blogger Daniel Pipes argued that this and five other recent Muslim beauty pageant winners in the West indicate "an odd form of affirmative action."
And as always, there is no shortage of kooky blogs that feed off of this stuff.
Other articles questioned whether Muslims would celebrate or bemoan a Muslim Miss USA.
The fact is, just like the 58 winners before her, Rima Fakih's faith has absolutely nothing to do with her beauty.
Rima is just another American girl who pursued a personal dream. The fact that she happens to be Muslim is completely irrelevant to the story. She should neither be hailed as a Muslim hero, nor made into a punching bag for anti-Muslim haters.
That her religion is even brought up is only indicative of how far our unhealthy obsession with this age-old global faith and its adherents has gone.
Future Muslim spelling bee champions, beware.
Originally published onChicago Tribune Blog.]]>A Tale of Two Terrors: Times Square vs. Jacksonvilletag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.5757182010-05-13T18:48:15-04:002011-05-25T16:30:24-04:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-rehab/Times Square, New York City
"It is clear that this was a terrorist plot," said US Attorney General Eric Holder of the recent New York Times Square incident in which a young Pakistani-American attempted but failed to detonate a second grade home-made bomb.
Some reports suggest that Faisal Shahzad, a happily married 30-year-old father of two with a master's degree in Business Administration may have "snapped" after having recently lost his suburban home to foreclosure. Other reports suggest a political motive, mostly that he sought revenge for the US military drones that have claimed a significant number of civilian casualties in his native Pakistan, but also that he may be reeling against the lingering Bush doctrine and the Iraq war. Others yet suggest that he was radicalized and co-opted by Al Qaeda or a similar group.
Faisal may have been motivated by any one or all four of the above; investigations are still pending. But whatever his motive, one thing seems fairly clear: he planted a bomb with the intention of inflicting physical harm against a civilian population. Eric Holder is correct; this is an act of terrorism.
To their credit, American Muslim organizations did not wait for Holder's conclusion to speak out. CAIR, MPAC, MAS, ISNA, and others immediately issued statements and held press conferences in which they condemned terrorism in general and the Times Square bomb incident in particular. For them, it was important to publicly register a zero tolerance policy for radicalized behavior emanating from members of the Muslim community -- even if basic logic dictates that Faisal's actions are of his own doing and should not reflect on the larger Muslim community.
Of course, American Muslim organizations were not the only ones talking. The national and global news media were abuzz with headlines, emerging reports, expert analysis, and condemnations. Elected officials, terrorism analysts, and think tanks rallied to have their say.
All this is well and good.
But what happens when a similar scenario takes place only a few days later and with only one minor difference: that the target of the bombing is an American Mosque? What if the bomb actually goes off?
Chances are news of this incident did not even make your paper or favorite news show, so let me briefly take you to Jacksonville, Florida where an unidentified man trespasses on mosque grounds and detonates an incendiary device that successfully goes off causing a blast and igniting a fire.
Jacksonville, Florida:
FBI Special Agent James Casey testifies:
It was a dangerous device. Had anybody been around it they could have been seriously injured or killed. We want to emphasize the seriousness of the thing and not let people believe that this was just a match and a little bit of gasoline that was spread around.
That kind of weapon could also mean terror charges for the person arrested for the crime, carrying a lifetime sentence in federal prison.
To their credit, Jacksonville's Mayor and its FBI unit are taking the incident seriously. The local media has also given it some play.
But this is much more than your average local village prank, this is a potential act of terrorism.
With that in mind, the question must be asked: where is the national media buzz, the expert analysis, the condemnations? Where is the statement from the White House and Eric Holder? Where is the outrage from our national security, terrorism, and civil rights watchdogs?
Failure to take this incident seriously by our national press, elected officials, and community organizations sends the message that a bomb attack in this country is not such an alarming prospect so long as the target is "them."
That's right, the passive response to this act of terrorism at worst, hate crime at best, has "it's just them" written all over it.
American Muslims are Americans, "us" not "them" (much in the same vein as the American Muslim response to Faisal was that he is messing with "us" not "them"). An American Mosque is an American target.
Hate crimes against mosques in this country, including violent crimes, are on the rise; interestingly, so is anti-Muslim expression in our media, churches, and political establishments.
Do we dare connect the dots?
Do we dare investigate whether there is a politicization element in the motive or goal of the guy who planted the bomb at the Jacksonville mosque with the intent to maim and kill? And if the FBI dares to say yes, do the media and the think tank groups then dare to ponder the nature, machinations, and consequences of an "anti-Muslim radicalization" process taking root in our society?
The Other Radicalization:
Every day, concerned experts in government and media circles gather to ponder the effects that anti-American preachers have on young disgruntled Muslims - a valid concern no doubt.
But do we dare explore the effects that radical American pastors have on their followers, when they write Islam off as a "wicked and evil" religion or call upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it? Do we dare ponder the effects this rhetoric is certain to have on disgruntled members of their loyal congregations who otherwise have little knowledge of Islam and little interaction with Muslims? Do we dare assess the unabashed incitement gushing out of the end-of-times Christian TV and radio shows that brainwashes audiences with the belief that the Muslim stands between the Christian faithful and the return of Jesus?
Do we dare ponder the effects that rabidly anti-Muslim statements from elected officials and their surrogates have on unsuspecting Americans who fear their Muslim neighbors as "the other" or the "enemy within"? Do we dare ponder the effects these "leaders" have on the public when they deliver somber warnings that America has too many Mosques or too Many Muslims?
Do we dare ponder the "otherization" of Muslims even from the least probable sources including progressives such as Bill Maher and neutrals such as Anderson Cooper whose recent smirk-filled, generalization-laden exchange contrasting "Muslims" with "Americans" (broadcast on "the most trusted name in news" that seeks "to keep them honest") came down to a comparison between "over there" and "over here," and a bewailing of "that desert stuff"? Do we dare consider that what was even more alarming than the exchange itself was that few people found it alarming?
If we did dare to ponder, we may find that we are surprisingly lax when it comes to anti-Muslim violence in that we do not even consider the question whether or not it is politicized violence, let alone the answer.
Increasingly, there are data, trends, and other reasons to believe that acts like the Jacksonville bombing are not just "hate" crimes but a violent response to an emerging succinct anti-Muslim political discourse.
If so, if it is a violent act, against a civilian population, with the intent to incur death and destruction, and with a political motive or goal, then it is automatically an act of terrorism.
Acknowledging this, we may then be better equipped to protect that segment of "our" citizens within the auspices of our existing counter terrorism measures.
Some may think that my argument is far-fetched. But consider that more Americans have died since 9/11 from attacks of the "Jacksonville sort" (the type we seem content to gloss over), than the "Times Square sort" that rightly concerns us but which since 9/11 has thankfully claimed zero lives.
A Single Standard:
So long as we assume an exclusive association between terrorism as a tactic and Muslims as a faith community, we create for ourselves a false impression of causality, rather than correlativity. This is simply inaccurate and self-delusional. To continue to delude ourselves is to undermine our chances of successfully confronting and defeating the general threat of terrorism wherever and whenever it appears.
Our stance against terrorism ought to be a morally principled one, drawn from our commitment to a safe, free, and just society. If we allow ourselves to politicize our fight against terrorism, purposefully or unwittingly, we lose our credibility in this fight and the moral grounds upon which it is drawn.
It is of vital importance that our stance against terrorism be rooted in law and order and not dub as a self-fulfilling prophecy, a faithline war with pre-designated villains and victims.
Muslim leaders are often called upon to condemn terrorism. That we do without qualm or reservation. What is overdue however is a commitment from all Americans - government, media, and people - to condemn all acts of terror with the same strength and vigor and without favoritism to faith or political affiliation.
Terrorism designation ought to classify acts not peoples.
]]>Why Racial Profiling Makes for Dumb Securitytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.4148842010-01-07T15:17:40-05:002011-05-25T15:10:21-04:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-rehab/
After Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab slipped by airport security only to be stopped thanks to the vigilance of fellow passengers, a debate on the effectiveness of airport security and counter-terrorism intelligence is no doubt in order.
But trying to fix a problem without actually fixing the problem is misguided. Trying to fix it by introducing a new problem is dumb.
This guy seemed to have left every clue short of raising his hand and proclaiming, "Arrest me, I am a terrorist!"
Can someone explain to me how he managed to purchase a one way ticket, pay for it in cash, board the plane with no luggage, have his own father report him as a radicalized threat to a CIA base in Nigeria, be denied a visa to the UK where he previously lived and worked, and on top of that be on an active US terror watch list for two years, yet still not be flagged by the system as a security threat?
And can someone explain to me how after those six glaring red flags were missed - not to mention the explosive material in his underwear - the debate today is not about why and how they were missed, but about whether he could have been flagged for being of a certain skin color, hair texture, place of birth, faith, or namesake?
The racial profiling argument is lazy and unimaginative; most of all it is irresponsible because it evades the real problem starring us in the face: a fatal breakdown in communication between our intelligence units. Ironically, this is a problem so troubling that an entire new department, the National Homeland Security Department, was created with the sole mission to address it.
Make no mistake about it; it is hardly ever a case of not having the necessary Intelligence. Even in the case of the 9/11 hijackers, we had security files on each of the 19 hijackers. The problem is in our repeated failure to act upon intelligence between our fingertips in a timely manner. Introducing new and untested wild card measures will not correct what's failing, though the debate makes for a convenient distraction from bearing responsibility.
The idea that there are some racial profiles we need to check out thoroughly in order to conclusively determine that they do not have bombs on them is not what troubles me most. What truly troubles me is the corollary of that idea: that we know of a way to conclusively determine whether someone has a bomb on them or not but we are going to exempt most people from it because we do not deem them suspicious enough, or we do not have the resources for it. How is that supposed to make us feel safer?
There is nothing comforting about a de facto admission by security officials that our primary airport security lines are a prop up and that secondary ones are where it's really at. So, what's the point of primary security? Placebo? Clearly, what will make us safer is beefing up our primary security measures so that they actually do what they are supposed to do for the entire population (conclusively determine that no bombs or explosive material makes it through). It certainly isn't adding a secondary layer that, by design, most passengers will end up skipping. As good as that layer may be it won't be good enough, given that it is only partially applied to the passenger population.
Any security analyst will tell you that if we have a national security defense system that waits until an airport security gate to identify terrorists, then it's only a matter of time before it's good night and good luck. But even at security gates, our last-guard measures need to be scientific and objective, like improving bomb detecting machines; you know, the ones that didn't beep when dynamite underpants stepped through. Objective and scientific measures however do not include part-timers eyeballing passengers for people who look like characters out of Disney's Aladdin or whatever image their mind conjures of what a terror suspect looks like that day of the week.
So what do they look like? Presumably we are talking about Muslim men, but short of Muslims wearing green arm bands, what does that really mean?
Any Middle-Eastern looking person with an exotic sounding name?
Fine, this may work, provided we can count on Middle-Eastern terrorists with exotic sounding names being unaware of our little precautionary measure. Nobody tell them. As for non-terrorists who fit that profile (which would unfortunately include Jesus himself should he come back and try to enter the United States with his real name Yeshua Bin Yosef), get ready to take one for the team.
An African looking person with an exotic sounding name?
Well, fortunately for Barack Obama, he does not work for say Microsoft or Motorola, instead of the White House, otherwise he'd be spending his days at airports.
But never mind the absurdity in a system that is unfriendly to people who look like our president and Jesus, here's the real problem with racial profiling: it is ineffective. There are two main reasons for that, the first is scientific as concluded by what few studies on racial profiling have taken place.
The second is logical:
Think about it, the purpose of security checkpoints is to prevent future terror attacks not past ones. If it is future ones, then should we limit ourselves to what did happen or would it make more sense to address the possibilities of what could happen?
Racial profiling is an elusive game, and Al Qaeda can always racially profile too. This is not a probability game, one improbable situation is enough to do the damage we hope to prevent.
Do we really want a system where we are always one step behind?
Say we do go for the bearded brown guy, Al Qaeda will send a clean-shaven black one next. Oh wait, they already did; in fact, one that looks like your average all-state American high school athlete. Will that now be the next profile to look out for?
And when we've flagged all Middle-Eastern and Black men with exotic names, they are going to send a white British guy with an Anglo name like Richard Reid. Oh wait, they already did that. And after they send a Russian recruit and a Chinese one and we start profiling all men of all races, they'll recruit a woman. Oh wait, there were two cases of women blowing up Russian airliners in 2004.
At this rate, the only profile that won't be racially profiled is that Scandinavian grandmother everyone keeps talking about.
Of course, after billions are spent and humanity inconvenienced to no avail, we could always go back to actually acting upon hard intelligence and actually detecting bomb material at airports.
Or, we could do that now.
]]>Swiss Radicalization: A Sign of Things to Come?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3772422009-12-04T00:05:00-05:002011-05-25T14:50:26-04:00Ahmed Rehabhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/ahmed-rehab/
These are a few of the things -- mostly pretty -- that come to mind when you say "Switzerland."
But now thanks to a recent popular vote on a controversial referendum, things like "intolerance," "paranoia," and "limitations on freedom of religion" have joined the merry list.
In case you have not heard already, 57% of Swiss voters approved a proposal Sunday to ban mosque minarets in a nationwide referendum sponsored by the Swiss People's Party (SVP), a right-wing group long known for its anti-immigration campaigns. A complacent Swiss government subsequently stated that it will "respect the decision" of the people and will affect the ban on all new minarets in the country.
The SVP flooded the tiny landlocked Alpine state with posters in which minarets appeared as missiles rising from the Swiss flag. They told voters that "the minaret is a sign of political power and demand, comparable with whole-body covering by the burqa, tolerance of forced marriage and genital mutilation of girls." This is not true of course.
Most Muslims accept the minaret as an architectural conduit for the call to prayer, but most do not seek political power, subscribe to the burqa, tolerate forced marriages, or accept genital mutilation of girls. Forced marriages and female circumcision happen mostly in poor, uneducated parts of the world and have no foundation in Islam. The burqa is worn by less than 1% of Muslim women. How these three things are "comparable" with a minaret must be Switzerland's dirty little secret because I cannot figure it out.
Yet by casting the minaret, a mainstream symbol of normative Islam, as some kind of Trojan horse bearing the Achilles heel that will vanquish Swiss political and cultural hegemony, the SVP seems to have petrified people into a knee-jerk acceptance of a draconian ban that amounts to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
While the ban has dismayed Muslims, it should also embarrass Switzerland whose polished image will likely take a major beating. The Swiss logic here is as arbitrary and nonsensical as if Dubai were to ban skyscrapers because they "represent American corporate greed which is partially to blame for the misguided war in Iraq." Imagine the scornful reaction around the world then.
Personally, I have vacationed in Switzerland many times. I have taken the famed glacier express from St. Moritz in the West to Zermatt in the East, climbed the Matterhorn in the Alps, enjoyed promenades in the Boulevards of Geneva, and walked among the rooftops of Zurich and Neuchatel. I found the Swiss to be generally pleasant (though somewhat aloof). It is beyond me why such a beautiful country would choose to take a turn for the ugly. Swiss Muslim Professor Tariq Ramadan says it is fear. Perhaps, but it is more than that. It is also cluelessness. Fear is not always such a bad thing; the Swiss had every right to fear the Nazis. But to ban an architectural form that scares you is a thing of prehistoric naiveté. Worse still, to be ignorant of what a minaret truly symbolizes -- to the tune of some 57% of voters -- signals that the wrong people are talking and a clueless majority are listening and following.
The minaret has been around, appropriated in the unique architectural traditions of every culture, for 14 centuries. Sure there are minarets that surround the Taliban, but minarets also surrounded the scholars, philosophers and scientists of Baghdad, Damascus, Tashkent, Seville, Toledo, and Cordoba whose body of work helped jumpstart Europe out of its dark age and into its renaissance. They surrounded and still surround the students of the oldest surviving university in the world, Al-Azhar of Cairo. They dot the skylines of cities from Casablanca to Brunei, and Istanbul to the Zanzibar, calling their peaceful residents only to God-consciousness. They adorn the four corners of what is widely considered to be the most beautiful man-made structure on earth, the Taj Mahal of India.
The shortsightedness of the anti-minaret campaign is fueled by more than fear. It is fueled by hate.
For as long as most people living today have been around, Europe has enjoyed a stint as a tolerant, liberal hub of multiculturalism, personal freedoms, and all-around prosperity. But suffer from historical amnesia at your own risk, for history has a ruthless tendency to repeat itself. Before we get too comfortable and fully let our guard down, we may do well to remember that it was not so long ago that the tame territory of delectable delights, chocolate, wine, and cheese was engulfed by fascist ideologies that were anything but. Indeed, it was only as recent as two generations ago that those nations, who today fancy themselves as the defenders of freedoms around the world, were the purveyors of extreme brands of racism, uber-nationalism, and imperialism that launched the world into two destructive global wars and history's most egregious genocide.
Given the burden of Europe's recent past, it is astonishing to note how readily Switzerland, itself a long-time haven of neutrality even during World War II (not exactly a great thing when you consider that human beings were being huddled into gas chambers North, West, and East), could teeter at the precipice of an eerily familiar abyss wherein citizens of a hapless religious minority are demonized and their rights freely limited.
Sadly Switzerland's minaret vote is not the only troubling omen facing Europeans today.
While the winds of fascism are not exactly sweeping over Europe as I write, a few unwelcome breezes seem to be intensifying and cannot be ignored. The other Semites, Muslims, are in the eye of the storm this time around -- Jews having borne the brunt of the last tempest. For Europe, "Never Again" seems to be a slogan for one religious minority at a time.
Let me be clear, the situation of Muslims in Europe today cannot be analogized to that of Jews 70 years ago. But those familiar with European history know that the zenith of 20th Century anti-Semitism was not born overnight. It evolved over time eventually reaching grotesque proportions. At first, a vanguard of voices claiming unique insight and expertise on Jewish affairs sought to "wake society up" to "know" and "confront" the nature of the threat festering in their midst. This involved columnists, preachers, politicians, and yes cartoonists. Jews were caste as the other, foreign implants who can never be fully European regardless of whether or not they were citizens working and living side by side with everyone else. Their religion was judged as too exotic, too sinister, an anti-European ideology that could not be trusted. Their history was recast into a carefully crafted narrative of perpetual anti-Christian mischief. At first, their religious rights were curbed, and then they were rendered second class citizens. Things quickly dwindled thereafter.
Today, I cannot help but wonder: had it not been for Germany's tolerance of the demonization of Jews in the early decades when it then seemed mundane and uneventful, would a crime as outlandish as the "final solution" ever have found the mass acceptance that it did further down the line?
Worth mentioning is that despite the lessons learned from the Holocaust, Europe's only indigenous Muslim minority could not itself escape genocide a few decades later -- the first and only genocide to occur on European soil since World War II.
So what about today's breezes of intolerance whisking through the continent?
In the United Kingdom, the far-right British Nationalist Party (BNP), a splinter group of the Whites-only British National Front (BNF) is experiencing a new surge. The far-right Dutch Party for Freedom, whose leader Geert Wilders advocates banning the Quran and curbing Muslim religious freedom, placed second in a recent election in the Netherlands. In France and Austria, far-right political groups spouting anti-Muslim rhetoric are also gaining ground. The SVP, the group behind the minaret ban and a poster campaign depicting white sheep kicking black sheep out of Switzerland, is now Switzerland's biggest political party. Reports show that racism is on the rise in Switzerland and elsewhere in Europe. Astroturf groups that openly call for the demonization for Muslims such as ACT! for America, SANE, SIOA, and SIOE are becoming a dime a dozen. Vandalism of Muslim cemeteries and mosques and hate crimes are happening more frequently. In Germany, a Hijab-wearing woman was stabbed to death in front of her three-year-old child while seeking justice in a German court against the perpetrator who had hurled racist slurs at her in a public playground a few days earlier. Stephan Kramer, General Secretary of the Central Council of Jews in Germany subsequently deplored the "largely unchecked hate propaganda against Muslims." Throughout Europe, anti-Muslim rhetoric expressed in editorials, columns, campaign ads, hate blogs, and political cartoons is on the rise.
European leaders and intellectuals are rightly concerned about Muslim extremism and radicalization, but what are they doing to fight anti-Muslim extremism and radicalization? Is it even duly acknowledged?
Cynics often deflect attention by pointing out human rights abuses in the Middle East or Asia. The West is right to call out abuses of freedoms in the Muslim-majority world, but it is wrong to pursue a campaign of reciprocity that betrays its own principles as a response. Western Intellectuals are wrong to turn a blind eye to such a farce when it occurs.
The Swiss referendum raises an important question about the great conundrum of democracy: if a majority of voters opt for dictatorship, is the result a democracy or a dictatorship?
The answer lies in a simple concept: the constitution. The constitutions of democratic nations enshrine the principles of freedom and democracy and act as the final say on what future action can and cannot be done. A vote that betrays those principles is a vote that ought not to take place. In other words, a referendum that seeks to curb religious freedoms presumably protected by Swiss high law is itself unconstitutional and should not have been allowed in the first place.
Should the West choose to remain reactionary in how it deals with Muslim extremism -- real or perceived -- then it unwisely relinquishes its fate to the hands of terrorists who know that it would only then take a few more attacks to sink Western societies into self-defeating frenzy. Make no mistake about it, merely inflicting explosions that tear down towers of steel and glass is not terrorism's ultimate goal or greatest threat, being a catalyst for Western self-implosion is. While the West needs to remain vigilant against physical threats, it needs to know that its greatest weapon against ultimate defeat is holding steadfastly unto its principles of democracy, freedoms and equal citizenship.
Protecting and strengthening those traditions, integrating minorities as equals in society, and working academically to fight extremism, both Muslim and anti-Muslim, is our best assurance for future security and prosperity. Failing to do so spells the beginning of the end.]]>
Imagine if a major American advertiser were to pull its ads off of Jersey Shore because they received objections that the show while portraying a group of Italian-Americans, made the glaring error of excluding Mafiosi.
]]>
If that's not fishy enough, what the ADL's list really showcases are the top ten most influential groups that have taken a principled anti-occupation and anti-displacement position and who call for a just peace. Why does that bother the ADL?
This is a particularly disingenuous line.
The"Ground Zero Mosque" fiasco is a fabricated controversy that traces its origins to a couple of long-time anti-Muslim goons from the annals of the hate blogosphere by the names of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller as a flagship campaign of their newly founded organization, Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA). SIOA is part of an emerging phenomenon of astroturf anti-Muslim organizations that seek to project any public expression of Muslim life in this country as tantamount to a stealth "Islamization of America." (Except it's not so stealth since everyone and their mother is talking about it).
This is about selling a new product, isn't it? Well, I am all for marketing campaigns, but could it not come at the expense of my World Cup viewing experience? In truth, the Jabulani was introduced during the Confederations Cup last year, not the World Cup, but player feedback was not entirely positive then either.
Helen Thomas epitomized the role of the people's reporter, a woman who was not afraid to ask tough questions that other reporters were too meek or politically correct to ask, the sort of questions that sought to hold the nation's highest elected official accountable to the people who put him there. 
And yet just one day after Rima Fakih, an Arab-American Lebanese Muslim from Michigan, won the Miss USA pageant, her faith took center stage, and sure enough, some found a way to "link" her to terrorism.
Faisal may have been motivated by any one or all four of the above; investigations are still pending. But whatever his motive, one thing seems fairly clear: he planted a bomb with the intention of inflicting physical harm against a civilian population. Eric Holder is correct; this is an act of terrorism.
With that in mind, the question must be asked: where is the national media buzz, the expert analysis, the condemnations? Where is the statement from the White House and Eric Holder? Where is the outrage from our national security, terrorism, and civil rights watchdogs?
Do we dare ponder the "otherization" of Muslims even from the least probable sources including progressives such as Bill Maher and neutrals such as Anderson Cooper whose recent smirk-filled, generalization-laden exchange contrasting "Muslims" with "Americans" (broadcast on "the most trusted name in news" that seeks "to keep them honest") came down to a comparison between "over there" and "over here," and a bewailing of "that desert stuff"? Do we dare consider that what was even more alarming than the exchange itself was that few people found it alarming?
Can someone explain to me how he managed to purchase a one way ticket, pay for it in cash, board the plane with no luggage, have his own father report him as a radicalized threat to a CIA base in Nigeria, be denied a visa to the UK where he previously lived and worked, and on top of that be on an active US terror watch list for two years, yet still not be flagged by the system as a security threat?
The SVP flooded the tiny landlocked Alpine state with posters in which minarets appeared as missiles rising from the Swiss flag. They told voters that "the minaret is a sign of political power and demand, comparable with whole-body covering by the burqa, tolerance of forced marriage and genital mutilation of girls." This is not true of course.
