Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts

Thursday, June 4, 2009

President Obama, Palestine, and Hamas: It Could be Worse

It could be worse.

President Barack Obama, speaking at Cairo University, seems to have recognized Hamas as a legitimate part of Palestinian society, politics, and military.

On the other hand, he said that Hamas ought to give up its position that Israel should be stamped out. I agree with the president, in a way: that would be nice.

Being very careful to say "Israelis," rather than "Israel," Obama said that 'settlements' should not be built in territory that Palestinians think is theirs.

And, I think significantly, President Obama said that Arab nations should stop using Israel as a convenient scapegoat, a distraction from their own inadequacies.

The president put it much more nicely than that, of course.

I excerpted five paragraphs from President Obama's address, emphasizing what I think are important points.
"...Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

"At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

"And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

"And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

"America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true...." (President Barack Obama June 4, 2009) [emphasis mine]
President Obama's distinction between "Israeli" and "Israel" was important. Although it's possible that the Israeli government is covertly encouraging settlement, the settlements are not officially sanctioned. And, from time to time, Israeli law enforcement removes the settlers (GlobalSecurity.org (March 27, 2009)) I think it's possible that the continued existence of the Israeli settlements is due not so much to Israeli government policy, as to Israel's failure to impose the lockstep conformity that proper Arab nations like Saudi Arabia expect of their subjects. (Banning Valentine's Day - and the color red?! (February 10, 2009))

I doubt, very much, that Hamas will give up its position that Israel must be destroyed.

I also doubt that Arab nations will stop using 'The Jews' as a distraction. I suspect that anti-Semitism is simply too convenient, and too deeply ingrained in Middle Eastern culture, for that change to take place.

But, I could be wrong. I rather hope that I am. That would be nice.

Related posts:
Text of President Barack Obama's address at Cairo University June 4, 2009, from the White House website.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
(Cairo,Egypt)

________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 4, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON A NEW BEGINNING

Cairo University
Cairo, Egypt

1:10 P.M. (Local)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores -- and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared. (Applause.)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations -- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them -- and all of us -- to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra -- (applause) -- as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)

I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action -- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. (Applause.) I know –- I know -- and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations -- including America -- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities -- those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- (applause) -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -- that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Applause.)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Monday, May 11, 2009

'Pope Turns Back on Peace Dialog' - Sort of

I see in the news that the Pope is spreading distension in the Middle East. My guess is that, at least for a while, anything unpleasant that happens in the general vicinity of Israel will be the fault of the Jews - and the Pope. For 'sophisticated' people, at least.

A sample of what's been going on, during the Papal visit to Israel:

"Pope Benedict XVI urged the Israelis and Palestinians to find a 'just resolution' to their long-running conflict as he arrived in Israel Monday.

" 'I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue,' the pope said, 'So that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders.'..." (CNN)

Interreligious Dialog: 'Unite, Muslims and Christians, Against the Murderous Jews'

While in Israel, the Pope attended a meeting for interreligious dialog. Christians, Jews, and Muslims were there.

The Palestinian Authority's Chief Islamic Judge Sheik Tayseer Rajab Tamimi wasn't on the program, but he took the microphone right after the Pope. According to the sheik, Israel kills women and children.

Same old, same old.

I don't doubt that women who weren't putting suicide vests on their children at the moment have been killed by Israeli troops. When terrorists use occupied 'civilian' residences as shields, sooner or later they'll get the sort of publicity they want.

I'll give Sheik Tayseer Rajab Tamimi credit for trying an interesting variation on the tired old "death to the Jews/death to the great Satan America" line.

He said that Muslims and Christians have to work together against Israel.

" 'We struggle together and we suffer together from the injustice of the Israeli occupation and its oppressive practices, and we look forward to freedom and independence,' he said."

Before Germany's efforts to cleanse Europe's gene pool, back in WWII, that might have worked. Anti-Semitism isn't all that popular right now, as public policy. Not in America, anyway: I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem all that widely popular in Europe, either.

About the Pope's call for an independent Palestinian state, that sounds like a nice idea. I think it might work, provided that Arab leaders make good on their pledges of welfare for Palestinians, and that whoever runs the Palestinian state isn't the lot that regards killing Jews as a religious and/or patriotic duty.

The Pope left before the meeting was officially over, and so did a number of the Jews attending. I don't know what sort of significance that has: One news outlet said that the Pope shook Tamimi's hand before leaving. (Jerusalem Post)

In the news: Related posts: Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.

Related posts, on Islam, Christianity, Religion, Culture and the War on Terror.
Posted by at 4 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Palestinian Plays Bocce Ball With Bulldozer and Police Car: Blast from the Past

Meanwhile, in Jerusalem, it's the same old thing: Palestinian
  • Wacks out
  • Attacks Jews
  • Gets stopped
The Palestinian died on the way to the hospital. The bus he attacked was empty.

This 'lion of Islam' doesn't get points for originality. Using heavy machinery instead of the traditional suicide belt or Katyusha rocket is old-hat by now.

In a touching tribute to the late Palestinian's faith in Islam, an open copy of the Quran seems to have been in the bulldozer. The news hasn't reported what pages it was open to: that might have been interesting. (Before someone has a fit: there's reason to think that this inefficient assassin, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and the House of Saud aren't what Islam is all about.)

Palestinian Attacks Jews with Bulldozer, Backhoe, Tractor, or Something Like That

BBC called the construction machine a front-end loader. I don't think this shows confusion so much as the bewildering diversity of the English language.

The yellow fuzzmobile-whacker has been called a
  • Bulldozer
    • Guardian
    • CNN
    • Reuters
    • Welt Online
  • Backhoe
    • CNN
  • Tractor
    • Xinhua
  • Front-end loader
    • BBC

(from AFP, via Welt Online, used w/o permission)

I'll settle for showing a photo, and letting you sort out what to call it.

And it's the Fault of the Jews

"...Hamas described the attack as a 'natural response' to the demolition of Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and to the recent offensive in the Gaza Strip...." (guardian.co.uk)

'Nuf said.

Meanwhile, Hamas Calls for End of Violence: Sort of

"Report: Hamas demands Islamic Jihad stop launching

"Sources in Gaza say group wants to show control in region, not escalate situation while negotiations ongoing...." (ynet.com)

Not so much a call for peace, as a turf dispute, and a very real desire to re-arm before pushing Israel too far, again, I'd say.

Attack on Fuzzmobile: A Trip Down Memory Lane

I grew up in the sixties, was in college in the seventies, and remember the 'good old days.'

It was a period of groovy art, cool music, daft ideas, and rock-throwing peaceniks. To be fair, there were non-violent peace-lovers, too: some acting out of a sincerely-held set of beliefs; some too stoned to do much of anything.

Those glory days of anti-war activism were also when all right-thinking people (left-thinking, actually - another oddity of English) hated authority and the police. And, generally called law enforcement personnel 'the fuzz.'

So, reading that a Palestinian (no doubt driven to social awareness and action by The Man) had played bocce ball with a fuzzmobile was a sort of trip down memory lane for this survivor of the sixties.

I've wondered if one reason that some of the better sort in America support the Palestinian Cause is a sort of nostalgia: a yearning for the good old days, when "My Lai" was on everyone's lips, the military was hated, and the fuzz despised.

Just a thought.

Related posts: In the news:
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Arab Leaders Pledge Billions to Gaza: But Not Quite Yet

It's more of the same in the Middle East:
  • Palestinians are suffering
    • And it's the fault of the Jews
  • Arab leaders pledge billions in aid to Gaza
    • Which suffers at the hands of the Jews
  • Arab leaders haven't actually given any money to Gaza
You may not have read that last part. It's not getting much press in America right now. That may change soon: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is in Egypt. If she brings back good news, I'm pretty sure that we'll hear about it, here in America.

Palestinian Plight, in the News

Headlines and lead paragraphs, from a quick Google News search. Three of them, actually:
  • [Gaza aid Arab]
  • [Arab Countries Delivered Pledged Rebuild Gaza "Associated Press"]
  • [Clinton Gaza]
I highlighted some particularly interesting phrases:
  • January 19, 2009
    • "Arab leaders set to agree Gaza aid and economic accord"
      • "KUWAIT (Reuters) - Arab leaders, meeting for the third time in five days Monday, were expected to agree a $2 billion (1.4 billion pounds) aid package to rebuild Gaza after a three-week Israeli onslaught...." (Reuters)
    • "Arab leaders mend fences, pledge Gaza aid
      • "Saudi and Egyptian leaders met their Syrian and Qatari counterparts in Kuwait on Monday to heal a rift exposed by Israel's deadly war on Gaza, the Qatari prime minister said...." (AFP)
    • "Saudi Arabia to donate $1B to rebuild Gaza"
      • "KUWAIT CITY (AP) — The Saudi king said Monday his country will donate $1 billion to help rebuild the Gaza Strip after the devastating Israeli offensive and told Israel that an Arab initiative offering peace will not remain on the table forever...." (AP, via USA Today)
  • February 24, 2009
    • "US to give '$900m in Gaza aid' "
      • "The US is set to offer more than $900m to help rebuild Gaza following Israel's military assault on the Palestinian territory, officials say...." (Al Jazeera)
  • February 28, 2009
    • "Official: Arab countries not delivered money pledged for Gaza reconstruction"
      • " A senior Arab League official says Arab countries have not delivered any of the more than US$1 billion they pledged to rebuild Gaza after Israel's devastating offensive...." (MSN (UK))
  • March 1, 2009
    • "Gaza aid troubled by logistics, closures, disunity"
      • "SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt (Reuters) - Palestinians hoping to raise $2.8 billion to rebuild Gaza at a conference in Egypt on Monday will find the path to reconstruction blocked by political and logistical factors, relief agencies say...." (Reuters)
    • "Clinton on first diplomatic trip to Middle East"
      • "SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday opened her first trip to the Middle East as America's top diplomat, bearing an Obama administration pledge of up to $900 million to help rebuild the Gaza Strip...." (AP)

Palestinians, Gaza Strip: Yes, They Could Use Help

I don't dislike Palestinians, although the way their situation is used in propaganda makes it hard for me to work up feelings of warm, fuzzy, sympathy for them.

And, I think it's possible that Arab governments will, in time, give some assistance to Palestinians living on and near the shores of the Mediterranean. The holdup right now seems to be that Fatah and Hamas each want the money. (MSN)

Fair enough. Since I think that throwing money at a program, without knowing who gets it or how it will be used, isn't prudent: I can hardly complain about Arab governments making sure that these details are worked out before delivering the dough.

Besides, the Fatah-Hamas squabble over who gets the money isn't being blamed on the Jews. Not yet, anyway.

'It is the Fault of the Jews' - That Old, Familiar, Refrain

American journalists, for quite a few decades, have prided themselves on not being biased. And, taken steps to ensure that they do not appear biased.

This can lead to very odd situations. Readers of the The New York Times, for instance, in the years leading up to America's unilateral action against German ethnic activists, wouldn't have known how Jews were being treated in Europe. My guess is that the NYT's publisher didn't want to seem biased.

Looking over the news coverage of Arab leaders, Gaza, and Israel, a few words and phrases stood out:
  • "three-week Israeli onslaught" (Reuters)
  • "Israel's deadly war on Gaza" (AFP)
  • "devastating Israeli offensive" (The Associated Press)
  • "Israel's military assault" (Al Jazeera)
  • "Israel's devastating offensive" (MSN)
    • Which seems to be an unattributed AP article
Boiled down, Reuters, AFP, and MSN/AP made sure that their readers knew that Palestinians were suffering an Israeli assault (or offensive) on Gaza: a deadly, devastating, onslaught.

Nothing 'biased' there, by conventional standards in Western journalism. I really don't know if the editors are over-correcting to avoid an appearance of bias, or if something else is going.

Al Jazeera, on the other hand, simply described what happened in Gaza as "Israel's military assault" - which seems to be factual and relatively non-committal. That could be something introduced in translation, of course.

It took incidents like the 1972 Munich Olympics' 11 dead athletes to shake many American journalists out of their habit of reading terrorists' press releases without comment. But decades of attacks on Israel and Jews by rockets, suicide bombers, and the occasional machine gun (remember the Achille Lauro?), don't seem to made all that much of a difference.

It seems to me that Western news media is equally critical of all sides in the Middle East mess: but that their criticism of Israel is somewhat more equal.

Me? Unbiased?! No Way!

I'm biased, myself. I think that some Palestinians might have a legitimate grievance in what seems to be a dispute of who owns what property, and how much was paid. But, I don't like the way that Palestinian leaders and their associates are trying to settle the disagreement.

Property disputes happen quite often in America. Over here, that sort of thing gets thrashed out in courts. We don't strap explosives on our kids, and send them over to blow up on the neighbor's patio.

It's not that we don't care about property, we're just not that committed. It's a cultural thing.

Related posts: In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Hamas, UNRWA, Stolen Food, and the United Nations

Hamas may be in for a rude awakening.

The United Nations stopped shipping food into Gaza - at least partly because Hamas stole what they'd sent before. The U.N. wants Hamas to release the food, and give it to the people it was intended for.

It gets worse. Or better, depending on where you stand:

"...On Tuesday, the U.N.'s Office for Humanitarian Affairs issued a report on the Jan. 6 incident that claimed the lives of 43 Palestinians, stating that 'the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school.'..."

The U.N.'s failure to blame Israel for stealing the food and acknowledgment that the deaths at that UNRWA school were outside the school, not inside, are more Zionist lies: or a rather serious crack in the United Nations' traditional stance on the poor Palestinians and Oppressor Israel.

I like to think that blaming the Jews is becoming unfashionable at the United Nations, but it's early days yet. If UNRWA, other agencies, and quite a number of member states move into the universe the rest of us live in, it's good news.

If not, it's business as usual.

Related posts: In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, January 15, 2009

U.N. Condemns (What Else?) Israel: This Time it's Over an "Aid Complex"

The Jews are at it again. The United Nations condemned Israel's shelling of a completely harmless, innocent, aid complex run by the United Nations for the benefit of the poor, suffering Palestinians in Gaza. And they use white phosphorus! (More about that in another post.)

I'm pretty sure that's the version of what happened that will be talked about around the world, and for years to come.


(Yasser Qdeah/Reuters, via International Herald Tribune, used without permission)
A moving photograph, with the U.N.'s own UNRWA emblem standing amidst the wreckage of Israeli atrocity. In the middle of a big mess, anyway.

There's some truth to it. A warehouse and surrounding complex run by the United Nations was shelled. It's the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) headquarters complex in Gaza City, located (where else?) in a densely populated neighborhood.

UNRWA? That Sounds Familiar

That's the same UNRWA whose schools hired terrorists to teach Palestinian children what Jews are like. It's okay, by the way: UNRWA doesn't believe in unfairly excluding anyone, based on their persuasions. You wouldn't want their hiring practices to be discriminatory, now, would you?

The United Nations: High Ideals; Noble Aspirations; A Little Shaky on Details

Here's what United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, in a news conference today: " '[Israeli] Defense Minister Barak said to me it was a grave mistake and he took it very seriously,' " which would seem to prove that the Jews did it, but now see the error of their ways.
Reality Check Number One
That's not quite the whole picture. Israel's spokesman, Mark Regev, said that the matter is still being investigated. Which is quite plausible, considering that the attack happened less than 24 hours ago. Regev also said "Defense Minister Ehud Barak actually told the U.N. chief that 'if it was Israel's fire, it was a grave mistake.' "

That's a very subtle distinction, it seems, for international diplomats and the reporters who cover them to grasp, so Regev tried to clarify his remark, saying:

"...it was 'not clear whose shells, whose fire hit the U.N. facility.'

" 'It could have been ours, it could have been Hamas', ' Regev said. 'This is being investigated.' "
Reality Check Number Two
We're nowhere close to knowing the whole picture. At this point, less than a day after the attack, I doubt that anyone does. "The fog of war" isn't just a literary phrase. Things aren't quite as clear to people in the middle of a battlefield as they are in a well-written documentary.

The Israeli Defense Minister probably doesn't know exactly what happened. The United Nations Secretary-General certainly doesn't. It takes time, even under ideal circumstances, to interview people, find and collect evidence, correlate testimony and physical evidence, and come up with an answer to 'what happened?' that is reasonably accurate and complete.

Related post: In the news:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, January 10, 2009

"Go Back to the Oven" Message to Jews: Not in the News

A woman in a hijab have practical advice to Jews last month in Fort Lauderdale, Florida:

"Go back to the ovens! You need a big oven, that's what you need!"

In a way, I appreciate her practicality. She was offering an achievable final solution to the presence of Jews who defiled the Fort Lauderdale sidewalks, right in view of the woman's right-thinking fellow-demonstrators.

The Final Solution to the Jewish Question - Here We Go Again?

That "You need a big oven, that's what you need" refers to the practical issues that Germany's national socialists had to face, while incinerating Jewish bodies some sixty years ago. Turns out, burning people to a crisp on that scale requires large facilities.

Later, the woman acknowledged that her remark might be interpreted as "insensitive," but would not condemn her comment.

She and several other proponents of a final solution to the Jewish question were part of the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition demonstration in Fort Lauderdale. ANSWER has sponsored many demonstrations like this across America.

An ANSWER state coordinator, Emmanuel Lopez, explained that there might be some anti-Semitism in his organization. But, hey: these high-minded ANSWER people were forced to share the air with "barbaric, racist" Zionist terrorists.

That would be the little group supporting Israel, across the street.

Mr Lopez explained that "Zionism in general is a barbaric, racist movement that really is the cause of the situation in the entire Middle East," a view clearly supported by his followers.

"Go Back to the Oven" is Not News

At least, I haven't found it in the traditional news media, or the more 'intelligent' cable and online news services.

Actually, I found it in two places: The Los Angeles Times (January 6), and FOXNews (January 8). This little "back to the oven" faux pas2 may have shown up in national news elsewhere, but certainly wasn't given much prominence.

I did, however, find a video of these supporters of peace, brotherhood, and Hamas, on YouTube:

Pro-Hamas Demonstration - Fort Lauderdale FL

watchobsessiondotorg
YouTube (December 30, 2008)
video (9:12)

Some Palestinians Might Have a Grievance: But is Genocide the Answer?

"Go steal other lands!"
"Go back to the ovens! You need a big oven, that's what you need!"

The young woman seems very sincere in her beliefs, and she offers a very practical solution to the Jewish question.

As I've said before, some Palestinians might have a dispute over land ownership which could be heard in a court of law.

However, practical as killing all those "barbaric, racist" Zionists (and all the other Jews, just to be thorough) might be, this approach to "the Jewish question" has been tried before. It didn't work out quite the way that German national socialists hoped it would.

In fact, what went on in places like Dachau and Auschwitz proved to be a bit of an embarrassment for Germany over the decades.

Third Reich Rhetoric Not Newsworthy?

Calling people you don't like "Nazis" is old hat, and has lost some of its power over the decades.

On the other hand, when a young woman, apparently speaking what's on the minds of many like-thinking people, publicly advocates a return to the failed policies of the Third Reich, I think that it might be reasonable to recall the last time that someone came up with a "final solution to the Jewish question."

"Back to the Oven" - Traditional News Media Just Doesn't Get It

As for the way that traditional news media has politely ignored this story, I think it's another example of how many reporters and editors just don't get it.

It's one thing to be open minded: but it looks like places like The New York Times and CBS News have let their brains fall out.

Fort Lauderdale, Zionists, and Being Insightful

An op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, "Who're the real Nazis?" suggests that a major reason for Israel's failure to exterminate all Palestinians is that Israel isn't trying to commit genocide.

I should warn you, the author's name is Jonah Goldberg. With a name like that, he might be Jewish. So, for those who agree with that young woman in the hijab, I suggest that you stop reading. You don't want to get your eyes dirty.
Excerpt from "Who're the real Nazis?"
"...The Fort Lauderdale outburst is just one window on the upside-down world of Israel hatred. Across the Islamic world, and in too many points West, it is still considered a penetrating and poignant insight to call Zionists the 'new Nazis.' For instance, in Sunday's Gulf News, Mohammad Abdullah al Mutawa, a sociology professor at United Arab Emirates University, penned an essay titled 'Zionists are the new Nazis.' He began: 'Today, the whole world stands as a witness to the fact that the Nazi Holocaust was a mere lie, which was devised by the Zionists to blackmail humanity.'... "
(Los Angeles Times)

Related post: News and views: Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.
Posted by at 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Israel Bombs School: United Nations Wants Impartial Investigation

Sounds good, doesn't it? The United Nations wants an impartial investigation.

Israel hit two schools recently. Quite a few people were killed. Including three men. The schools had great, big, United Nations flags on them: a detail that U.N. people seem to never tire of saying. And lots of people were in one of them: civilians, we're told. Taking shelter from the Jews.

The Israeli defense force says that the schools were being used by Hamas. People living nearby told The Associated Press that they saw a mortar crew firing near the school. (The Associated Press) They didn't want their names used, and I don't blame them.

One outfit looking for them is the U.N.

"Chris Gunness, a spokesman for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, disputed Israel's account of the bombardment of the northern Gaza school. But he said that if anyone could clear up the remaining uncertainty, 'We would like them to come forward and be part of an impartial investigation.' " (CNN)

"Impartial" Investigation?

The United Nations is on record, saying that they're "'99.9 percent certain' there were no Palestinian militants in or on the grounds of a school that was shelled by Israeli forces," (CNN) and they're looking for witnesses who can prove otherwise.

I may, perhaps, be forgiven if I'm a little dubious about just how "impartial" the United Nations would be, investigating whether or not it lied about Hamas using its schools.

Come on Out, Witnesses, We Only Want to Talk to You

There's nothing in the news about this, but I'd be a little surprised if Hamas isn't looking for the people who finked on them. The propaganda value of those schools goes down, if word gets around that they were associated with Hamas operations.

Dead Men Tell No Tales: Usually

One of the places hit by the Israeli Defense Force was a girls school. One of the bodies found in it belonged to Imad Abu Askar, and another to Hassan Abu Askar. There's a pretty good chance these are the same two men mentioned in the news yesterday.

If you haven't heard about the Askar duo, you're far from alone. It's a detail from a relatively obscure piece from The Associated Press:

"An Israeli military statement said it received intelligence that the dead at the girls school included Hamas operatives, among them members of a rocket-launching squad. It identified two of them as Imad Abu Askar and Hassan Abu Askar.

"Two residents who spoke to an AP reporter by phone said the two brothers were known to be low-level Hamas militants. They said a group of militants — one of them said four — were firing mortar shells from near the school." (The Associated Press)

Hamas, Gaza, Israel, the News, and Preferred Selections of Reality

Putting all the facts about an event into a news story isn't practical. Even if they could all be collected in a reasonable time, an account like that would make War and Peace look like flash fiction.1

Selecting what's important, and what's not, depends in large part on assumptions the reporter and editor make about how the world works. I think that's part of the reason we're used to seeing headlines like these: Political or ethnic preferences are only part of the story, of course. "If it bleeds, it leads" is a common newsroom philosophy. Still, the way a reader has to dig for something beyond the "Zionist regime's crimes against humanity in Gaza" approach to news from Gaza, it's hard to avoid thinking that there may be a little bias here.

Related Posts: In the news: Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
1 "Flash fiction" is a story that's really, really short. One person defined it as being fiction with less than 500 words, but the term seems to be rather flexible. A Hemingway story, six words long, is definitely 'flash fiction.'
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Look at the Poor, Pulverized, Palestinians!

What we're supposed to call the "continuing cycle of violence" in Gaza and the increasingly large parts of Israel within range of Palestinian weapons is in the news again. Or still.

Facts, Feelings, and Favoritism

So far, it's the old familiar refrain:
  • "...rising civilian death toll..."
  • "...international condemnations..."
  • "...looming humanitarian disaster..."
Quite a few people in Gaza and around the world are mad at the Jews. For what they think is good reason.

Hamas, after being voted into power in Palestine, continued it's patriotic and noble duty of dropping rockets into Israeli towns and cities. Jews died, which is what they were supposed to do. Then, the Jews got fed up, and are now attacking Hamas strongholds.

The global community reacted the way I've come to expect:
  • Jews getting killed?
    Chill out, man: these things happen
  • Jews fighting back?
    The horror! The humanity! How dare they?
Deeply buried in the Palestinian portion of the perennial Mideast Crisis is a land dispute. Some Palestinians may have a legitimate grievance.

But, and I realize that this sounds intolerant, I don't think that the question of who paid how much for what land should be settled by one side putting explosives on their kids and having them blow up on the neighbor's patio.

But, the Poor, Pathetic Palestinians!!

I've seen photos of Palestinians crying their eyes out. Some of them may have been genuinely upset about something during the photo op. And, I have no doubt that Palestinians who were not currently and directly engaged in killing Jews have gotten killed.

In a war, when fortifications are made of concrete, concrete gets hurt. When fortifications are made of people, people get hurt. Sometimes killed. Hamas has a long, and prudent, habit of putting its command centers, launching equipment, and other targets, behind, under, or among 'civilians.'
Human shields: Protection and Propaganda in One Package
"Prudent" in a Machiavellian sense: If the risk of killing 'civilians' prevents an attack, it's good news for Hamas; if 'civilians' get hurt or killed, it's the fault of the Jews - and a great photo op.

I think Israel recognizes a difference between shopkeepers with a business to run, and terrorists with Jews to kill, and picks its targets accordingly. But then, I'm biased. I tend to favor people who don't turn suicide bombing into a religious act.

The 'human shield' approach to fortification has worked quite well, so far, for Hamas. The global community, from the African Union's Peace and Security Council to the United Nations Security Council, is marching in step behind the 'disproportionate attack' bandwagon: condemning Israel and politely ignoring Hamas attacks on Jews.

With human shields, whatever happens, Hamas wins:
  • If Israeli forces attack, they're more likely to take losses, which Hamas can brag about.
  • If Jews aren't killed, Hamas wins, since they can show photos of poor, pulverized, Palestinians and get sympathy from the 'global community.'
Photos of Jews who got clobbered by the Lions of Islam? Not so much sympathy. After all, they had it coming. At least, that seems to be the conventional wisdom.

Jews Bombed a School!

Today, the United Nations is complaining that those Jews attacked two schools. In one of them, three people were killed. Members of the same family. Men.

Maybe the translation was wacky, but over here an "elementary school" is a place where pre-teens are taught. You'll find adults there, but they're not often related to each other.

There's an explanation: "...The schools were in use as shelters for civilians fleeing the military operation. The buildings were 'clearly marked' with U.N. flags, and the agency said it had given the global-positioning coordinates of all its schools to Israeli authorities...." (CNN) The article isn't clear on the point, but it looks like the Israeli forces were firing on a Hamas mortar position next to the school.

And Hamas wins: What people will remember, generally, is that those Jews bombed a school.

Why Aren't the Jews Bombing Orphanages?

'Unprovoked' Israeli attacks on schools, mosques, and other tear-jerker targets get publicized. Why don't we read about the Jews bombing orphanages? A story like that would practically write itself, and photos of crying kids would be a great marketing tool for Hamas and like-minded organizations.

I've come to the conclusion that, although Middle Eastern culture recognizes the existence of orphans, children without parents are not put in orphanages. I could be wrong about this: but during the entire "unilateral" invasion of Iraq, I didn't read or hear about a single orphanage being bombed.

Since Yankee imperialists (funny, that phrase seems to have gone out of fashion) were killing hundreds of people in hospitals all over Iraq at the time (Saddam's version of reality), I'd have expected a few burning orphanages, too.

I suppose even Middle Eastern propaganda draws the line somewhere, when it comes to making up stories.

Related posts: In the news: Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.

Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, January 3, 2009

Hamas, Palestine, Israel, and How to Seem Sophisticated

Or:

Don't be So Open Minded that Your Brains Fall Out

It's considered quite 'sophisticated,' or 'tolerant,' or 'intelligent,' to talk about the "continuing cycle of violence" between Israel and outfits like Hamas.

The idea behind 'open-minded' statements like that is called "moral equivalence." It's the notion that killing innocent people in a house or market is the same, morally, as destroying an ammunition dump and killing its guards in the process.

You probably won't run into that phrase, "moral equivalence," in discussions of international affairs, but it's behind a great deal of what passes for 'open-minded' and 'tolerant' discussions of "Israeli aggression" and "oppression."

" 'Moral equivalence' has been defined as 'defining distinct and conflicting moral behaviors in similar terms.' The principle of moral equivalence is behind statements like ' "all sins are equal in God's eyes," which effectively equates ethnic cleansing with stealing a pencil.' " ("Moral Equivalence, Prisoners, and Al Qaeda" (July 21, 2007))

Moral Equivalence: Your Ticket to a New, Sophisticated, Image

In Iraq, the best and brightest (their opinion) in America equated Abu Ghraib and "Saddam's torture chambers." Never mind that routine rapes, mutilations, and beatings, with the occasional mass murder, was a matter of policy under Saddam: and the Abu Ghraib scandal involved a few perverts with cameras, who got in trouble when their unsanctioned 'fun' was discovered.

My guess is that the self-styled sophisticates are already discussing the Israeli-Hamas conflict in terms of moral equivalence. And I won't be at all surprised if the United Nations Security Council, following Libya's sagacious lead, will do the same.

If you to want fit in with the 'right' sort, and display what passes for worldly wisdom, using moral equivalence as your guiding philosophy will help. I'd rather assume that taking photos of naked prisoners isn't quite the same as attempted genocide, and that bombing a market isn't equivalent to destroying a military facility, but you'll have to make up your own mind.

Related posts: Related posts, on tolerance, bigotry, racism, and hatred.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.