Freedom for Palestine - A great song and video

The lyrics and the images are fabulous.  I need say no more.




Khaled

Moderate Muslims: I know they exist. Why don't we feel they do?

Muslims realize that moderate forces in Islam are alive.  But to non-Muslims, that does not seem believable, except a small minority that is highly educated about the Middle East, usually for academic purposes.  The majority, by far, and no matter what their intentions are, seems to be unaware of the moderates in Islam and how much effort they are exercising to battle the vocal tide of ignorance and extremism among their coreligionists.

My last posting was about an agnostic Jewish writer/journalist talking about the Quran in a genuine, kind, and in my opinion accurate, way – a rarity in these days.  The video triggered a series of comments back and forth between me and Michael W.  My comments on Michael's comments tend to get long, and this post  started as one of those comments.

• Michael said: "A lot of reactionary commentators have sprung up since 9/11. I'm sure most of them have never read a word from the Quran before 9/11. "

The reactionary response after September 11 is evident. But for many commentators, September 11 just made it easier to express the hate they had for Arabs and Muslims.  Such hateful sentiments became more accepted in the Muslim-bashing culture that prevailed since then, usually under the guise of patriotism and the defense of 'Judeo-Christian' civilization etc.  The hate has always been there, but expressing it just became more popular and usually meant more business, book sales, talk show interviews, even think-tank appointments, etc.

Most of the commentators have not read much of the Quran before September 11.  But they have not read much since then either, except the 5 or 6 word-quotations from selected verses.  That material is not just out of context, it is simply wrong because in most cases it is not even the complete sentences, leaving behind phrases that qualify, constrain, and sometimes reverse the meaning of the 'amputated' quote they use.  This is done intentionally to mislead the reader.  The context is usually totally evident within 2-3 lines before and after the selected text.  Ill-intent is obvious, but it resonates with current angry sentiments, the sentiments that sees evil in anything Islamic. 

Another major factor that is undeniable is the 'Israel factor'.  Israeli propaganda machinery had a feast with what happened in September 11.  The vast majority of the hateful anti-Arab and anti-Muslim newspapers, websites, so-called think tanks, politicians and pseudo-academics are openly in bed with the pro-Israel groups - be those Christian, Jewish and secular.  The political utility of September 11 to Israel has been very well used by the Israeli hasbara in the US and to some extent in Europe.  That machinery is deeply intertwined with American institutions.   The American Enterprise Institute ( and its collection of ex-Muslims and so-called 'Muslim modernizers'), the Clarion fund and it series of malicious docu-propaganda movies, and  even main stream media outlets like Fox, Wall Street Journal and Op-Ed pages of the New York Times, are just a few obvious examples. 

So, the question would be: "Why Arabs and Muslim thinkers are not reaching to the West?"

That is a complicated question, but a major reason is that Arabs and Muslims are still "local people" for the most.  They are "local" in the sense that what they do in their homelands (Middle East, Indian subcontinent, etc) is primarily targeting their local audience.  They do not care much about translating their work, or reaching out to the more powerful West.  So the portrayal of their intellectual products in the West and in the international media is subject to what Westerners and Western Media SELECTS to portray.

Your statement that there is "an appearance of not much debate" is worded VERY accurately.  It is just "an appearance".  For those who make the effort to find out what really is happening in the Arab and Muslim worlds, they end up finding the truth.  The debate over there is more prevalent and intense that most of us want to believe in the West.

Arab and Muslim thinkers and debaters know that their real 'intellectual battle' is where they live , i.e., in the Islamic world, and they do not have the means, the connections, networking skill or the money to engage the Western powers of the worlds and their public to enlighten them.  I can testify that the amount of Arabic books, papers, article and blogs that are being published and circulated with revolutionary thoughts on Islamic history, religious thought, interpretation of the Quran, critiques of early Islamic States and political Islam is beyond what I personally can keep up with. 

NONE of that is ever going to make it to the world stage; because it is not useful for the kind of fake public debate (or lack of debate) we are having in the US for example, about political/radical Islam, terrorism, American foreign policy, Israeli Palestinian conflict or the 'inevitable' clash of civilizations. 

And with organizations like MEMRI (and I assume you know, or can find out, about MEMRI and who founded it), only the 'useful selected parts' of what goes on in the Arab media will be accessible to our media pundits (or clowns as I like to call them)  from the comfort of their armchairs.

The pressure is intense to keep the appearance of Arabs and Muslims in such a way to make it easy to maintain our current foreign and military Policy from being changed.  un-American or simply labeled as 'self-hating Muslim-lovers'.  We can recall people who lost careers and jobs for not toeing the 'Islam is scary' line.

• "The basic culture of how things are run, the Arab autocrats, prevents alternatives to fundamentalist interpretations from joining the market place of ideas.", Michael wrote.

You are absolutely correct again, and these autocrats are the one we are supporting against their own people, because they are useful collaborators in maintaining things the way we want it.  They are OUR useful idiots.  And then we wonder why their oppressed people (secular and religious) do not like us!

• "In Israel, when rabbis say racist things, the Israeli media goes full throttle, and the PM and President denounce the rabbis. But even this raises the concern of many (in Israel and abroad, especially among Jews) about the state of Israeli society. "

I agree with you on the media coverage part (and, by the way, that also happens in the Arab and Muslim world but we do not read it in English).  Unfortunately, the bottom line does not change: the occupation, the racism, the land confiscation,  the funding of Jewish extremists, the land grab, the settlements, the loyalty oath, the ever strengthening calls not to rent or deal with Arabs, the spewing of hate, the inequality in the justice system against Arabs, the minimal and sometimes no consequences for injuring or killing Palestinians, the glorification of fanatics and terrorists like Meir Kahane, Baruch Goldstein and Igal Amir and the likes; all that still goes on unabated. I am not going to provide examples because you and anyone that followed Israeli Media and even British media (and sites like MondoWeiss, Tikun Olams and others) know they are littered with examples.

The ever increasing political clout in Israel of the clowns of the Jewish Religious extreme, and the Russian Israeli supremacists and Nazi-like ideologue, as well as the near death of the Israeli Left and liberal movements should be worrying to Israelis and Jews with level heads, and it is.  But their worries are not slowing the process, and soon the moderate democratic Jews will be crushed by their own extremists as much as those Jewish extremist are crushing the unlucky Arabs and Palestinians under their control.

And the ever increasing clout in the US and Western Europe of Messianic Christians, Zionist Christians, and Neoconservatives and Ultra right-wing politicians should be equally scary to us in the West as well.  Unfortunately the majority seems not to care and many actually do not mind it at all.  It seems to them patriotic and - deluded as it may be - the fulfillment of 'manifest destiny' dreams, and as a step towards establishing what they see as the rule of the exceptional empire.

Our media can say what it wants here, but the ongoing practices are not changing.  This is what seems like a design flaw in democracy and free societies for which there is no solution.

To conclude this 'comment on a comment' is lengthy.  But I think the issue at hand is not simple.  In the past, liberal and progressive forces could develop gradually over decades in relative protection of distant places, and frequently they even got help from other world forces and super powers infrequently love for freedom and progress, or – more often than not – just to spite another superpower. 

That 'freedom to evolve' is NOT the case anymore.  Liberal and progressive Arabs and Muslims, religious or secular, are facing almost insurmountable odds.  With only one superpower that has full monopoly over banking, media, the Internet, communication lines  and that is colluding with the local dictators, religious and secular, because it is suits its domestic, foreign and economic policies.  How could anyone evolve in such climate unless they totally submit to the one and only superpower?  And that would treason to their own causes, and a lethal blow to their 'local' credibility.

How can a new liberal or progressive culture ever emerge in that environment?

Khaled

Jewish Anti-Defamation League (ADL) put their dirty foot in their mouth.

Abraham Foxman

I never liked the ADL.  Somehow they send a vibe of sneaky, dishonest and unprincipled opportunism.  No matter what subject they meddle in, their stance reeks of pure cheeky pro-Israel propaganda (i.e., Hasbara) coated with an ultra-thin layer of civil rights defense.

The only demonstration I organized was against their ugly head, Abraham Foxman who was invited - by some people who like pushing the envelope - to speak as a keynote speaker before St Louis Interfaith Partnership.
It was a joke to invite the head of a so-called civil right advocacy group who - was a week earlier in Israel to support their bloody deliberate assault on Lebanon civilians and infrastructure - to be the key note speaker in an annual meeting of INTERFAITH organization.  It was a slap in the faith to St. Louis Muslim community.

The logic of pro-Israel apologists is usually that anything a loud-mouth pro-Israel lobbyist does is an example of sublime morality, innocence and thoughtfulness.  And if you do not like... Well, that is because you are an anti-Semite - or a self-hating Jew, depending of the circumstances.

I am very happy that the shameful Anti Defamation League has recently opened its out only to put its dirty foot in it.

• Anti-Defamation League Comes Out Against Ground Zero Mosque

Their stance is deliberate, and 'well argued' -so it will be very difficult for them to spin it into something like: 'it was taken of of context'  or 'it was an impulsive low-level and unauthorised person who did it, and we fire him'.   This one is sticking - and it shows the real ADL: bigoted and hypocritical, just as I always suspected.
The statement contains a sentence that will go done their history as a landmark of their hypocrisy:

"But ultimately this is not a question of [civil] rights, but a question of what is right."

Coming for this 'pretend' civil rights group, it is a statement that makes you want to vomit.  Of course, from their perspective 'what is right' is usually what they deem it to be so.

What they did is not sitting  well with many progressive Jewish voices and they are outspoken against it.  Jeffrey Blankfort has an excellent post on the wonderful MondoWeiss blog about the ADL and thier dirty history.

•  The back-of-the-envelope history of the Anti-Defamation League

Other postings on the same great blog cover other aspects of the issue.

‘ADL’ statement rationalizing bigotry draws wide scorn - Philip Weiss - MondoWeiss

Foxman plays Holocaust card - Philip Weiss -MondoWeiss

And by Paul Crugman in the New York Times Blog

Bad for the Jews - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

It is nice to see an ugly face finally lose the half-pound of make-up it is hiding behind.

Khaled

Post-script

• ZAKARIA TAKES A STAND: CNN Host Returns Award From Jewish Group [ADL] Over Ground Zero Mosque

Zakaria poses thr question:"Does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they're victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?"

And I, Khaled, may add: Does the Jewish suffering during the holocaust justify the racism and bigotry that Palestinian face on daily basis in there own occupied historic Homeland?

Going gaga over Mousavi: when words of truth are meant for deceit

The events in Iran give me a great deal of heartache. That is not because I think Ahmadinejad had the elections rigged. Western reporters, including many from the BBC and American media who have been there and are familiar with Iran, seem to agree that there could have been voting irregularities but that the outcome of the election was unlikely changed.

Mousavi has won the hearts of the educated and the middle class, but those are not the only people that vote in Iran. Rural and poor Iranians as well as the millions of the Iran-Iraq war veterans and their families still remember what Ahmadinejad had done for them and he has their loyalty. And as someone who lived in a poor third world country for many decades I know that freedom of expression and democracy is more important than the air we breath for many of us, but for many others it take a back seat to having bread on the table for the children.

My heartache comes from that deep yearning to see Ahmadinejad vanish. He may be the poor man’s hero in rural Iran, but the growing stature of Iran in the world and the potential of the Iranian people is not only an Iranian matter. It is a matter of importance for all the Middle East, Arabs, and Muslims and for the whole world. Iran’s role in the world needs someone better that Ahmadinejad to be the face of Iran.

Another cause of the heartache is how the opposition protests were handled. It is one thing for the Iranian supreme leaders to state that there was no significant fraud, but it is another thing to behave as if the protestors are inherently evil and that protest in itself is an act against the nation.

The recent idiotic calls by an arrogant member of the supreme clergy to ‘harshly and cruelly’ punish protestors, and threatening their leader with execution go only to show how morally corrupt and bankrupt people in power can be. That is true even when their ideology is religion-based. People like those in power in Tehran today are further proof why clergy and religion fail to be the basis for governance of political entities.

Perceiving dissent as wrong and unpatriotic delegitimizes any government and any society no matter how ‘honest’ the election process is. Respecting dissent is the hallmark of a democracy. It supersedes - in my mind - fair elections. It tells of the health of the conscience of the nation. And it is a predictor of future trends. When it is present, the society is heading towards democracy sooner or later. Losing respect for dissidents is a prelude to full-fledged dictatorship: military, theocratic, or plutocratic no matter how fair the election that brought that government is.

How the current events will eventually play out in Iran is a matter for Iranians to resolve. But my hope and prayers are for those who seek freedom; not only for themselves (and only until they grab power) but for those who are willing to shed their blood to guarantee freedom and justice for all - even their own ideological opponents.

But Iran is not the only source of my heartache. For those who follow world media it is clear that most of the world is emotionally behind Iranian opposition symbolized by Mousavi. But it is amusing seeing how the Israeli and right wing American media outlets are going gaga over Iranian opposition. For the first two weeks after the elections, Haaretz, the Israeli daily newspaper, looked like it was a local Iranian news paper. There were days when nearly two thirds of the main webpage items were about Iran. Similar coverage could be seen on Fox news and some right wing web sites.

And it is not only the amount of coverage that worthy of notice. It is the tone: loving, caring, deeply concerned about the ‘people’. Even our congress had an urgent vote in support of the opposition by the kind majority (over 99%) that is only granted for unconditional pro-Israel support bills.

But, wait. Was that a pro Iranian dissidents vote or a hidden vote for pro-Israel interests? Its sponsors were Howard Berman and Mike Pence, some of the ‘most stalwart pro-Israel members’ according to the progressive Jewish blogger and journalist Richard Silverstein. Soon to follow was the screechy noise of Paul Wolfowitz, Krauthammer and other neocons trying to move the Iranian ‘regime change’ to the front burner. That is the kind of regime change that we, Americans, have been trying in the Middle East just to generate more income for our weapons industry, and to make Israel’s life more enjoyable by creating a cozy neighborhood for it at the expense of American life style, the blood of American youth and the health of the American economy.

Three days ago, a member of the war-mongering and neocons hornet-nest called American Enterprise Institute was on NPR’s Talk of the Nation informing us that if we do not go all the way behind Iranian opposition ‘we’ [i.e., Obama’s administration] ‘will be giving Democracy a bad name’!!!!!! Even McCain (remember that guy?) is rearing his head again trying to revive the long lost dream expressed in his famous ‘Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran’ with an attempt to coerce Obama into a more aggressive stance against Iran.

The ‘love fest’ that Israeli and right wing American media and institutions suddenly have for the ‘people of Iran’ is not surprising. It is predictable and along the same line of the former Darfour love fest, Kurdish people love fest, and even the early Iraq wartime Shi’a love fest. While undeniable legitimate causes existed in those situations, the intention of the love fests was far from altruistic as it claimed to be.

Israel and its representatives in the US used the Darfur atrocities very well for their public relations campaign and we all still remember the media theme of ‘Arab Muslim Sudanese versus the African blacks’. At present some of the Darfur leaders are in and out of Israel using Jerusalem as a stage to launch some of their PR campaigns.

The Israeli sympathy for the ‘aspiration of independence of the Kurds’ is even more pervasive that what they did in Darfur with military expertise and weapon deals between Kurds and Israel. A couple of months ago on Al-Jazeera, an Iraqi Kurdish leader looked like a mumbling incoherent idiot when he was asked to explain the nature of the ‘cooperation’ between Iraqi Kurds and Israel – enough said. For Israel, a foothold in the murky waters of Kurdistan could be a triple strike with a planted destabilizing element in Iraq, Iran and Turkey simultaneously. I do not think this will play out the way Israel wants, but they will not stop trying.

I believe the Iranian opposition is not opportunistic, and not as easy to manipulate or fool as some of the Darfur rebel leaders or even some of the Iraqi Kurdish leadership. One exception could be the few Iranians who still yearn for the days of aristocracy rule of the former Shah Reza Pahlavi, a ruthless dictator and a staunch supporter of Israel. Other than that, I doubt any Iranian opposition leaders would be sending thank you notes to Israel, McCain or Wolfowitz.

But for Israel and the US neocons, the chance to stir the pot and murk the waters with some public relations gains against the generic Islamic threat seem too good to let go.

I know where I stand, and where true democracy lovers stand on the fight in Iran. I know how valuable are the lives lost and the blood shed. I can feel in heartache and see tears in the eyes of the friends of the Iranian people.

But the crocodile tears in the eyes of Israel and the neocons, and their fake sympathy are unlikely to fool many in Iran. They know as much as I know that the words these fake friends utter are lip service to ulterior goals.

As we say in Arabic about such words "كلمة حق يراد بها باطل" or my rendition of that in English “the words may be righteous, but the intentions are not”.

Khaled

"What are the origins of Jewish hate for Muslims and Arabs?"

Does that title sound antisemitic to you as it does to me? Do titles like that get on your nerves? I hope it does. Why then do I choose a title that annoys me personally, and can even get me in trouble?
Well, I chose it to make a point.

This morning I came across an article in Haaretz that had the title “What are the origins of Muslim antisemitism?” That title got on my nerves. For whatever reason, generalizing against Jews in a negative way raises the concern of antisemitism, and the rabid voices of the likes of the ADL screech through our ears scaring the heck of those who are charged with the heinous crime. Yet, generalizations against Muslims and, in many circles, Christians as well, seem so benign and do not raise the eye brows of the morality police.

Sometimes I am not sure about a generalization I read - or about a statement I intend to make - that favors one group over another or seems to criticize one group more than the other. In such a case I try a quick test: I substitute the ‘hot words’ (e.g., Jews-Muslim, Sunni-Shia, or White-Black, etc) with a word that refers to the group on the other side of the argument in the statement I am testing. If it sounds morally wrong or over-the-top, then the statement needs to be revised.

That rule of the thumb I use is the equivalent to the Golden Rule: “Do unto other what you want them do unto you”. And if you apply my rule to that article title in Haaretz, the title does not sound right.

It is intertesting why generalizing a bad claim about Muslims, and even Christians, seems a lot more acceptable than generalizing about Jews. That seems very counter intuitive considering that there is about 70 times more Muslims in the world than there are Jews, and that near 60 countries claim a Muslim majority while only one country claims a Jewish Majority. The burden of proving a generalization should apparently be heavier in the case of generalizing against Muslims (or Christians).

What is even more baffling is that most of the newspapers, visual media and literature produced by Muslims are in languages that is scarcely translated into English or French (i.e., culturally invisible from the Western point of view), the exception being ‘well-selected representative samples’ to help the popular generalizations against Muslims. On the other hand, most of the Jewish intellectual literary, media and political production is in English, or is quickly translated into English.

So, if you combine the larger number of Muslims, with the tremendous diversity in cultural, national, ethnic and political backgrounds among them, and multiply that by numerous languages in which they express their thoughts, it may be reasonable to assume intellectual dishonesty (or utter ignorance) in someone who believes that you can generalize about Muslims.

How come then that those generalizations against Muslims are prevalent and acceptable? If we follow the Golden Rule (see above), then we should either accept generalizations against all, or refuse generalizations against all. Anti-Muslim statements should be as unacceptable as anti-Christian sentiments or as the mother of all crimes, antisemitism.

So, if anyone felt offended by my factitious title, they should also feel offended by the term ‘Muslim antisemitism’ in Haaretz article title (and in the thousands of publications in paper and in cyberspace published by the people who scream antisemitism ad nauseam).

If they are not consistent in the way they feel, then I hope that next time they here an unfair generalization about their own ethnic, religious, or racial group, they should think twice before bursting in righteous indignation.

As for the article in Haaretz: it is actually a very interesting article and present very interesting bits of information from the author's point of view.

In a simplistic nutshell: It is Christians that incited modern Muslim antisemitism. Of course that is if you believe that such a generalization against Muslims is valid. And if you do, please re-read this posting after a good night's sleep. May be you will get my point next time.

Read Haaretz article for yourself here.

Khaled

Jewish and Christian extremists must vigorously be exposed

A bit over 2 weeks ago I posted about about a fundamentalist Rabi inciting hate against Arabs in Palestine (see Jewish 'Mullah' Issues a racist 'Fatwa'). As usual, Becky Zoole contributed a very informative comment with useful links that I hope some of you followed. Part of her comment stated that

"... proper response is to refuse him the attention he desires, but to keep a close eye on his supporters. What's wrong is that whenever an equally lunatic fundamentalistic cleric who happens to be Muslim acts according to his nature, the Western world over-reacts."

I am completely in agreement with the spirit of her statements, but unfortunately, from a Muslim point of view, Extremist Jewish (and Christian) individuals and organizations need to be continually exposed as much as possible. They need to be held in the faces of the media and public as strongly as possible. Otherwise, the world view of the reality and the nature of extremism will continue to be what it is right now: unequivocally one-sided, and told only from an anti-Muslim point of view. And as I was contemplating how to approach a posting on the subject, I came a across an article in the New York times that 'broke the camel's back'.

The whole premise of the relentless anti-Muslim campaign is that Muslims are evil because they do things other humans (especially Christians and Jews) would not do. Moral supremacy of 'Judeo-Christian' culture is not, therefore, a racist concept; it is simply the fact of life.

The proof is out there for all to see: look at the 'news' every day: angry Screaming Mullahs, Evil Palestinians kidnapping innocent IDF soldiers, brain-washed Muslim children hurling stones at peaceful settlers. Muslims do all the bad things. The other side is civilized, well-versed in the rules of conduct, share the 'Judeo' part of out Judeo-Christian heritage, and more or less are, well ... like us.

Well, what do you think? Don't we need a balancing point of view?

• Rabbi Eliyahu: Life of one yeshiva boy worth more than 1,000 Arabs
• Rabbi endorses Jewish revenge attack
• In the newsletter, which was distributed to synagogues around the country, Eliyahu proposes "hanging the children of the terrorist who carried out the attack in the Mercaz Harav yeshiva from a tree."
• Safed's chief rabbi: State should have hanged 10 sons of terrorist
• Dichter to police: Demolish home of Jerusalem yeshiva terrorist
  

Some of you may think the bold red text color is 'too loud'. Of course it is loud, and loud we should be when be bring up Jewish and Christian fundamentalist to the spot light. So far, that have a free ride. They could get away with murder, but they never get the blame.
That pile of violent, uncivilized, racist statements did not catch the attention of many people. To most Americans, Israeli Jews have the right to get extremely angry at Arabs when 8 students are killed by a lone man. The call for revenge in the most horrible ways, inflicted on Arabs other than the murderer, is understandable even from a Rabbi; a man with official training and accreditation to interpret and advise the Jewish people. And that brings me to the New York times article that got me worked up.

What caught the attention of the NYT reporter was not what the fundamentalistic Jewish clerics have been saying and teaching in the occupied Palestinian lands and in Israel. what got the NYT attention was how Gaza people reacted to the massacre of 120 of their own in February 2008, over half of them civilians and children.
The title of the NYT article published on April 1, 2008 was to put it simply: obnoxiously annoying.

In Gaza, Hamas's Insults to Jews complicate Peace.

It is as if Palestinians do not even have the right to feel angry. Talking bad about Israel will not be tolerated by the civilized NYT journalist. To the NYT reader, this is yet another proof how Arabs and Muslims are 'so not cool'. No one, of course is claiming that the journalist is racist, bigoted or has blind and unconditional love for anything Israeli. And, because he is not an Arab nor a Muslim, no one will ever accuse him of having a hidden agenda. To most readers, he is just seeking the truth, and is just worried about prospects of peace.

The esteemed NYT journalist is worried because a Hamas guy is calling Israeli Jews “They have been traitors to all agreements ". The journalist states that "Incitement against Israel and Jews was supposed to be banned under the 1993 Oslo accords and the 2003 'road map' peace plan". He does not mention though that the worlds, including the US government complain repeatedly - but do not do anything more- about Israel not fulfilling term of these same agreements he is citing. He does not seem concerned that killing hundreds in Gaza over the last few months could be worse than 'incitement'. The media professional in the most influential newspaper in the world is concerned that Hamas may have "control over propaganda and education there, breeding longer-term problems for Israel, and for peace".

And I thought it could be that the occupation of the West bank is what complicates peace.
Or could it be that the siege of Gaza, and the lack of food and electricity is what complicates peace?
I even thought, in my little simple mind, that it may be the low flying fighter jets breaking sound barrier over small Arab towns by night, and the ongoing abuse of Palestinians at useless checkpoints in the west bank, or the on-going settlement expansion promised to the religious fundamentalist Shas party, or the thousands of the new houses advertised (for Jews only) in Arab East Jerusalem - I thought, all this may complicate peace. Stupid me!
But now that the wise man of the NYT has spoken, I can see the light.

With this kind of perception problems, putting one side's sins under the microscope, and sweeping the other side's sins under the carpet, do you think Muslims should stop paying attention to the other side's extremists?
As far as I am concerned, we should make every effort to show that our 'terrorist' extremists are not much worse than their government-tolerated, IDF-protected extremists.

Khaled

The tough life of a 'terrorist' turned 'Zionist'

The phenomenon of jokers and clowns like Waleed shoebat, Kamal Saleem and Zachariah Anani and the recently famous new-born ex-Muslim Magdi Allam, is very amusing. And and time goes by, more and more is becoming known about the intricacies governing the metamorphosis from being an ex-terrorist, or more frequently ex-nothing, to being a symbol of courage and hope for the enlightened world.

Once you announce your intent on becoming an 'ex-Muslim' , the world opens its arms to welcome you as if you were a long lost child. Past sins are instantaneously forgotten and you become the darling of freedom-loving, democracy-promoting defenders of the Western Civilization. And, on the spot, you are pronounced a world expert on something that confuses the heck out of the civilized world: Islam, and the 'Islamist Terrorist' mind set.

Of course, there are some provisos:

• First: you need to have been born a Muslim (ex-converts need not apply - see second proviso for explanation).
• Second: You must be able to claim that you were raised by evil people that fed you hate for the Jew from the moment you took your first breath (converts to Islam are usually lacking this important qualifier, hence, they need not apply - see first proviso).
• Third: you must be able to show your undying love for the State of Israel, and your conviction that there is nothing called 'legitimate resistance to Israel'. The evil Arabs should surrender to the will of God. Being righteous means not resisting what Israel wants.
• Forth proviso is sort of optional. You get bonus points if you convert to Christianity. It makes you more appealing to the Christian Zionist folks. Note: Conversion to Judaism is a demanding process, and is a move that has not been tried in the arena of ex-terrorists before. Play it safe, and stick with Christianity if you are in the market for a new uniform - I mean faith.
  

A lot of practical tips can be learned from the lives of the great ones. A nice collection of facts about that unique 'life form' known as Waleed Shoebat was published yesterday in the Jerusalem Post. Excerpts (in italics) are presented below, with my added headings.

Poor baby - He lost his innocence early:

When he was 16, says Walid Shoebat, he was recruited by a PLO operative by the name of Mahmoud al-Mughrabi to carry out an attack on a branch of Bank Leumi in Bethlehem.

But fear not for him. He now make a lot of money and for a good cause.

Shoebat is sometimes paid for his appearances, and he also solicits donations to a Walid Shoebat Foundation to help fund this work and to "fight for the Jewish people."

He also made some political connections:

Now he and two other former extremists are set to appear along with US Senator Joe Lieberman, Ambassador to the US Sallai Meridor and other notables at an annual "Christians United For Israel" conference in Washington in July.
Last year, Shoebat spoke to the BattleCry Christian gathering in San Francisco, which drew a reported 22,000 evangelical teenagers.

His ignorance and amnesia of what he did were not an impediment to his success

Asked whether word of the bombing made the news at the time, he said, "I don't know. I didn't read the papers because I was in hiding for the next three days." (In 2004, he had told Britain's Sunday Telegraph: "I was terribly relieved when I heard on the news later that evening that no one had been hurt or killed by my bomb.")

Shoebat could not immediately recall the year, or even the time of year, of the purported bombing when talking to the Post by phone from the US. After wavering, he finally settled for the summer of 1977.

His uncle and wife do not even know what he is talking about, but that is not an impediment either.

The uncle and his wife both said firmly that there was no attack on Bank Leumi [as he claims].

Incidentally, half his blood is American blood.

The uncle, interviewed at his home, said he remembered little about his nephew, because Walid left for America at the age of 16, and because his American mother always kept a distance from the rest of the family.

And he cares a lot about the Jews.

He argued that Israel should retake the Gaza Strip and rehouse Jews there, regarding Gaza as Jewish by right. "If a Jew has no right to Gaza, then he has no right to Jaffa or Haifa either," he said.

He also knows what is good for the Jews better than the Jews themselves.

"The Jews are not aware of the true threat," Shoebat said. "They are still fighting dead Nazis. It is easy to fight dead people. But they don't have the will to fight the living Nazis, the Islamic radicals."

He is a multi-tasker: He can enlighten Americans while defending the Jews.

He told the Post he had set up his Walid Shoebat Foundation to educate Americans as to why the US should support Israel. Shoebat said the foundation had reached out to over 450 million people.

Despite all his efforts to make the world a better place, there are those who simply find faults with him. Every prophet has their doubting Tom, I guess.

A New York Times report last month on the Air Force Academy event, headlined "Speakers at Academy Said to Make False Claims," noted that "Academic professors and others who have heard the three men speak in the United States and Canada said some of their stories border on the fantastic, like Mr. Saleem's account of how, as a child, he infiltrated Israel to plant bombs via a network of tunnels underneath the Golan Heights. No such incidents have been reported, the academic experts said. They also question how three middle-aged men who claim they were recruited as teenagers or younger could have been steeped in the violent religious ideology that only became prevalent in the late 1980s.

Yet, there are those who want to tell him how much they really value his effort to save humanity, and they let their wallets do the talking.

The Times said the three men were to be paid $13,000 for the Air Force Academy event.

And they do not let minor details get in the way of great charitable work

Asked by the Post whether the Walid Shoebat Foundation is a registered charity, Shoebat replied that it is registered in Pennsylvania. [But] The Pennsylvania State Attorney's office said it had no record of a charity registered under this name.

Oops! another lapse of memory. I guess it is not easy being an ex-terrorist superhero trying to save the world.

Questioned further, Shoebat said it was registered under a different name, but that he was not aware of the details, which are handled by his manager.

And if the whole ex-terrorist life story was a fantasy, it was for a good cause.

If the Bank Leumi bombing claim is unfounded, it is unclear why Shoebat would have wanted to manufacture a terrorist past. True or not, however, it has plainly brought him some prominence and provided him with a means to speak in favor of Israel and be paid for doing so.

So, I was wrong, not just one cause, but three good causes :

1. 'Some prominence': qualifying his prominence as 'some' is the under-statement of the year. He is more popular the Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak with American Jewish right wing nuts, and more than John McCain among the Zionist Christians.
2. Speaks for his favorite country, Israel: although it has been troubling me that many of those nut cases of ex-terrorists and ex-Muslims, despite of their great love for Fundamentalist Jews and Israel and their unlimited desire to "fight for the Jewish people", they convert to Christianity instead of Judaism. Yet fundamentalist Jews are their most ardent supporters! Interesting, but see note on forth proviso.
3. "be paid for doing so": Well, we all have to earn a living some how. And $13,ooo for a few hours of ranting nonsense in front of the Air Force cadets is not bad money at all.
   

Prominence, money, and a chance to fight for God's chosen people from the comfort of his own charity organization. He does not even have to give up pork, or to honor the Sabbath.
Boy, some people do have it all.

Khaled

Excerpts are from an article in the Jerusalem Post. There is a lot more interesting facts their, so click below to read the full article.

The Palestinian 'terrorist' turned 'Zionist'- Jerusalem Post

Fitna: Duch for 'Garbage': by Richard Silverstein

By now the whole world knows about about the stupid propaganda production 'Fitna'. It is to some extent heart warming that the responses so far from non-Muslims have been predominantly non-supporting of the fear-mongering message of that piece of trash (see many reports on my Khaled's Online Finds).

I liked the nice sentiment and a brief comment I found on Tikun Olam web site by Richard Silverstein. His description of the author's face as 'smug' it exactly what goes on in my mind every time I see the face of that person. He look full of him self, happy to be in your face, and in the spotlight (although a less glamorous shot of him can be found here). But forget about the smug face, I wanted to share some of Richard's comments with you (Click here for the full posting).

Fitna: Duch for 'Garbage' - by Richard Silverstein

"Yes, I know Geert Wilders’ anti-Muslim diatribe, Fitna, has been watched by 400 zillion YouTube viewers. That must make it right, right? Wrong. I watched the first minute or so at the behest of a very nice fellow who’s been helping me upgrade my Wordpress installation. As soon as the first panel from the Koran was displayed on screen quoting a verse that threatens death to all and sundry and was followed by the 9/11 plane flying into the World Trade Center, I knew what I was in for. That was enough for me. Do I hear Islamophobia, anyone?"

"... Every religion contains messages of hate, intolerance and violence. Every religion contains message of love, hope and grace. If we condemn Islam and say it is all bad then let’s condemn every religion and say they’re all bad every one of them. I don’t believe this proposition. I make it just for the sake of argument."

And, as any educated person knows, hand picking verses and sentences out of context from any book, holy or not, and super-imposing them on images that has a lot of negative emotional associations is the oldest trick in the textbook of brain-washing methods. It has always surprised me that Muslims have been getting the this kind of nonsense about Islam thrown in their face all the time without responding in kind. Putting together a 15-20 minute 'movie' that has images of what has been happening in Occupied Palestinian Territories, in Lebanon, in Iraq, in Abu Ghraib, etc, then impose on them some of the abundant Biblical verses promoting violence and harsh measures against whole towns and communities, could be a small weekend project for a high-schooler with any of the simple and free video editors. But, Muslims 9as countries and larger communities) have not resorted to these dirty techniques so far mostly because our respect for the Old and New Testament, out of respect for the People of the Book, is a religious obligation for us.
Of course, if any of us would make such movie, 'hate-monger', and 'anti-Semite' will be tattooed on their face forever. Certainly, the movie maker will NOT be on CNN, Fox, BBC, FrontPage Magazine, or Jerusalem Post as experts on Christianity or Jewish radicalism. And it is also unlikely for them to be invited to the Air Force Academy in Colorado, and get paid to enlighten our military personnel (see below).

Too bad the fundamentalist and propagandists on the other side do not have that kind of restraint. For a couple of years now, Muslims had to endure the fallout of the movie Obsession, promoted by the Ex-Muslim Ex-Terrorist current-propagandist/Christian/Zionist opportunist by the name of Shoebat . The stupid, and immoral, 'movie' has been paraded as The proof of what Islam is about. It has been routinely and repeatedly shown in synagogues and churches all over the country, and the idiot behind it has been the darling of right wing media and bloggers, and fundamentalist Jews and Christians for a while. He is paid thousands of dollars just to show up. Few months ago he was actually paid to 'lecture' about radical Islam in the Air force Academy in Colorado. The air force men and women of the world's only superpower are getting their indoctrination fix from and ex-terrorist who was raising money for the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) after his movie showing in a St. Louis synagogue two summers ago.
If that is not stupid, then what it?
Khaled

Links:
Fitna: Duch for 'Garbage' - by Richard Silverstein

[For those interested in the Ex-terrorist story, do you own Google search. I do not feel like linking to his stupid web site from here. If you search Google using Shoebat and Air force Academy you will hundreds of link of the event I mentioned in the last paragraph. The link below is one of them]
Paid Bigot's Including Walid Shoebat Teaching Religious War At U.S. Air Force Academy