From: My friend, Mona, whose very serious essays on the middle East I sometimes post on my BLOG

Subject: FW: A beautiful story--Naomi Shihab Nye
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 14:29:58 -0400
this is so beautiful for it gives all of us hope that life can still
be beautiful and people still have trust in strangers.


Wandering Around an Albuquerque Airport Terminal

by Naomi Shihab Nye

After learning my flight was detained 4 hours, I heard the
announcement:

If anyone in the vicinity of gate 4-A understands any Arabic, please
come to >the gate immediately. Well -- one pauses these days. Gate 4-A was my own gate. I went there. An older woman in full traditional Palestinian dress, just like my grandma >wore, was crumpled to the floor, wailing loudly. Help, said the flight
service person. Talk to her. What is her problem? We told her the flight was going to be four hours late and she did this.

I put my arm around her and spoke to her haltingly. Shu dow-a,shu-biduck habibti, stani stani schway, min fadlick, sho bit se-wee? The minute she heard my words she knew -- however poorly used -- she >stopped crying. She thought our flight had been cancelled entirely. She needed to be in El Paso for some major medical treatment the following day. I said no, no, we're fine, you'll get there, just late, who is picking you up? Let's call him and tell him. We called her son and I spoke with
him in English.

I told him I would stay with his mother till we got on the plane and
would
ride next to her.

She talked to him. Then we called her other sons just for the fun of
it.

Then we called my dad and he and she spoke for a while in Arabic and
found out of course they had ten shared friends. Then I thought just for the
heck of it why not call some Palestinian poets I know and let them chat
with her. This all took up about 2 hours. She was laughing a lot by then.
Telling about her life. Answering questions.

She had pulled a sack of homemade mamool cookies -- little powdered
sugar
crumbly mounds stuffed with dates and nuts -- out of her bag and was
offering them to all the women at the gate. To my amazement, not a
single woman declined one. It was like a sacrament. The traveler from
Argentina,the traveler from California, the lovely woman from Laredo -- we were
all covered with the same powdered sugar. And smiling. There are no better
cookies.

And then the airline broke out the free beverages from huge coolers --
non-alcoholic -- and the two little girls for our flight, one
African-American, one Mexican-American -- ran around serving us all
apple juice and lemonade and they were covered with powdered sugar, too.

And I noticed my new best friend -- by now we were holding hands --
had a >potted plant poking out of her bag, some medicinal thing, with green
furry leaves. Such an old country traveling tradition. Always carry a plant.
Always stay rooted to somewhere.

And I looked around that gate of late and weary ones and thought, this
is >the world I want to live in. The shared world. Not a single person in
this gate -- once the crying of confusion stopped -- has seemed
apprehensive about any other person. They took the cookies. I wanted to hug all
those other women, too. This can still happen, anywhere. Not everything is lost.

Naomi Shihab Nye is an American poet of Palestinian background.

From: My Son
Subject: From Palestine to Virginia Tech
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:41:33 +0000
http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2007/04/25/from-palestine-to-virginia/
PNN: From Palestine to Virginia Tech
April 25th, 2007 | Posted in Press Releases, Journals, Video, Photos, Bethlehem Region
From Palestine to Virginia Tech: We are with you in this Time of Pain
by Sami Awad, 20 April 2007

Two days ago a tragic event took place in Virginia Tech in the US that shocked not only the people of the United States but people all across the globe. A violent massacre took place there that resulted in thirty two killed, individuals who presented different cultures, religions and nationalities. In a sign of solidarity the people of Palestine in general and those from the Southern villages surrounding the Holy city of Bethlehem dedicated their weekly nonviolent activity against the building of Apartheid wall to the families of the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre.



Every Friday, Palestinians, internationals, and Israeli nonviolent activists gather in the Southern villages of Bethlehem to protest against the building of the Apartheid Wall that will eventually destroy the livelihood of these villages. This Friday, the protest began with a silent procession by the group of about fifty participants. We carried banners and leaflets with the Virginia Tech logo and statements supporting them in this time of pain. Thirty two olive trees were also carried in the procession to remember each person killed in the massacre. The olive tree is a global symbol of peace and hope.



Once we reached the path created by the by the bulldozers for the building of the Apartheid Wall we dug the earth and plated the thirty two olive trees in a row – instead of building an ugly wall that divides people, let us plant trees that bring people together. Several of the participants made statements condemning the violence that we all, as the human family are witnessing and condemning the building of the Apartheid wall and the killing of innocents. Over 150 Israeli soldiers came to dismantle our protest. Our commitment to nonviolence and to achieve our goal completely paralyzed their weapons and their goals and eventually our power made them withdrawal. The planting of the trees was followed by reciting the names of all those who were killed in the Virginian massacre followed by a fifteen minute period of silence before the group moved back to the villages.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said “where there is an injustice somewhere … there is an injustice everywhere.” This also means that where there is violence somewhere there is violence everywhere… We need to work for peace somewhere so that peace can also spread every where.

From: My Son
Subject: Peace is blocked by the Three Nos of Jerusalem
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:15:26 +0000


Peace is blocked by the Three Nos of Jerusalem

By Henry Siegman

Published: April 18 2007 18:11 | Last updated: April 18 2007 18:11

The Arab League meeting in Cairo yesterday was unprecedented in its overture to Israel , offering to meet Israeli representatives to clarify the peace initiative that the League re-endorsed at its meeting in Riyadh on March 28. The two events underscore the complete reversal of the paradigm that for so long has defined the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the effort by armies of several Arab countries to abort its birth, until well past the war of 1967 which left Israel in control of all of Palestine, Israel was seen by much of the world as both victim and peace- seeker. Arab countries were seen as warmongers and rejectionists. The paradigm was reinforced by the “Three Nos of Khartoum” when, in 1967, Arab countries pledged there would be no peace, no negotiations and no recog­nition of the Jewish state.

This image of the Arab world’s total rejection of Israel persisted into the 1980s, even after it became clear that the prime minister, Golda Meir, had ignored peace initiatives by the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, for which Israel paid dearly in the October war of 1973. Nor did a change in Arab attitudes to the Jewish state implicit in the Saudi Fahd plan, adopted by the Arab League in 1981, prompt any rethinking of that image in Israel or in the west.

Since then – particularly in the aftermath of the Oslo accords in 1993 and the MENA Economic Summits hosted by various Arab countries – Arab rejection of Israel ’s legitimacy has largely dissipated. Well before the Saudi initiative of 2002 senior Arab officials sought to persuade Yasser Arafat, former Palestine Liberation Organisation leader, to accept peace terms offered by Ehud Barak, Israel ’s former prime minister, at Camp David in 2000.

Then came the Saudi initiative, in which the most conservative of Arab countries and the most conservative of Saudi princes, Crown Prince Abdullah, declared that Saudi Arabia would fully normalise its relations with Israel and welcome its embassy and flag in its capital as soon as Israel ended its conflict with the Palestinians, an offer endorsed by every Arab country.

The Israeli response to this tectonic change in Arab psychology and politics was worse than rejection: it was complete indifference, as if this 180-degree turnround in Arab thinking had no meaning for Israel and its future in the region.

Ehud Olmert, prime minister, and his government have reflexively rejected every Arab peace offer, whether from Saudi Arabia , Syria , the Arab League or Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president. Ariel Sharon and Mr Olmert's policies these past seven years have shaped a new paradigm in which Israel is the rejectionist party. The Three Nos of Khartoum have been replaced by the Three Nos of Jerusalem: no negotiations with Syria , no acceptance of the Arab initiative and, above all, no peace talks with the Palestinians.

Mr Olmert and his associates devote their diplomatic skills to finding ever more tortured pretexts for blocking every opportunity for peacemaking, while posturing as peace-lovers in search of reasonable Arabs who qualify as partners for peace. Their goal remains to prevent a peace process that would require them to halt Israel ’s expansion of its settlements and its effort to cut off East Jerusalem from its Palestinian hinterland.

This deception worked well for a while and perhaps still convinces president George W. Bush and those he relies on to understand the Middle East the folks who gave us the Iraq war – but has worn thin with much of the rest of the world, including many Americans. Several US columnists who bought into the old paradigm, or avoided the subject for fear of be­ing labelled anti-Israel, now reject it.

Israel has lost the high moral ground. It will not regain it until its citizens elect a government that understands that the price of peace – whose outline was agreed to by both sides in the Taba talks after the failed Camp David negotiations – is far less than the cost of its current rejectionism.

To be sure, the moral high ground does not necessarily provide security. But for a western country located in the heart of the Arab and Islamic world – that has been the beneficiary of vastly disproportionate US and western support because it has been seen as a moral avatar, the loss of that high ground could not be more devastating to its long-term security.

The writer is director of the US/Middle East Project and research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

From: My Son
Subject: Peace is blocked by the Three Nos of Jerusalem
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:15:26 +0000


Peace is blocked by the Three Nos of Jerusalem

By Henry Siegman

Published: April 18 2007 18:11 | Last updated: April 18 2007 18:11

The Arab League meeting in Cairo yesterday was unprecedented in its overture to Israel , offering to meet Israeli representatives to clarify the peace initiative that the League re-endorsed at its meeting in Riyadh on March 28. The two events underscore the complete reversal of the paradigm that for so long has defined the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the effort by armies of several Arab countries to abort its birth, until well past the war of 1967 which left Israel in control of all of Palestine, Israel was seen by much of the world as both victim and peace- seeker. Arab countries were seen as warmongers and rejectionists. The paradigm was reinforced by the “Three Nos of Khartoum” when, in 1967, Arab countries pledged there would be no peace, no negotiations and no recog­nition of the Jewish state.

This image of the Arab world’s total rejection of Israel persisted into the 1980s, even after it became clear that the prime minister, Golda Meir, had ignored peace initiatives by the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, for which Israel paid dearly in the October war of 1973. Nor did a change in Arab attitudes to the Jewish state implicit in the Saudi Fahd plan, adopted by the Arab League in 1981, prompt any rethinking of that image in Israel or in the west.

Since then – particularly in the aftermath of the Oslo accords in 1993 and the MENA Economic Summits hosted by various Arab countries – Arab rejection of Israel ’s legitimacy has largely dissipated. Well before the Saudi initiative of 2002 senior Arab officials sought to persuade Yasser Arafat, former Palestine Liberation Organisation leader, to accept peace terms offered by Ehud Barak, Israel ’s former prime minister, at Camp David in 2000.

Then came the Saudi initiative, in which the most conservative of Arab countries and the most conservative of Saudi princes, Crown Prince Abdullah, declared that Saudi Arabia would fully normalise its relations with Israel and welcome its embassy and flag in its capital as soon as Israel ended its conflict with the Palestinians, an offer endorsed by every Arab country.

The Israeli response to this tectonic change in Arab psychology and politics was worse than rejection: it was complete indifference, as if this 180-degree turnround in Arab thinking had no meaning for Israel and its future in the region.

Ehud Olmert, prime minister, and his government have reflexively rejected every Arab peace offer, whether from Saudi Arabia , Syria , the Arab League or Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president. Ariel Sharon and Mr Olmert's policies these past seven years have shaped a new paradigm in which Israel is the rejectionist party. The Three Nos of Khartoum have been replaced by the Three Nos of Jerusalem: no negotiations with Syria , no acceptance of the Arab initiative and, above all, no peace talks with the Palestinians.

Mr Olmert and his associates devote their diplomatic skills to finding ever more tortured pretexts for blocking every opportunity for peacemaking, while posturing as peace-lovers in search of reasonable Arabs who qualify as partners for peace. Their goal remains to prevent a peace process that would require them to halt Israel ’s expansion of its settlements and its effort to cut off East Jerusalem from its Palestinian hinterland.

This deception worked well for a while and perhaps still convinces president George W. Bush and those he relies on to understand the Middle East the folks who gave us the Iraq war – but has worn thin with much of the rest of the world, including many Americans. Several US columnists who bought into the old paradigm, or avoided the subject for fear of be­ing labelled anti-Israel, now reject it.

Israel has lost the high moral ground. It will not regain it until its citizens elect a government that understands that the price of peace – whose outline was agreed to by both sides in the Taba talks after the failed Camp David negotiations – is far less than the cost of its current rejectionism.

To be sure, the moral high ground does not necessarily provide security. But for a western country located in the heart of the Arab and Islamic world – that has been the beneficiary of vastly disproportionate US and western support because it has been seen as a moral avatar, the loss of that high ground could not be more devastating to its long-term security.

The writer is director of the US/Middle East Project and research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

From: My Son
Subject: St George the Turkish Arab
-Not sure of the source of the article-Rashid
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:52:00 +0000

St George the Turkish Arab
Today is St George's Day, but many other countries and cities also have this early Christian as a patron saint.

All Jack Straw articles
About Webfeeds
April 23, 2007 12:15 PM | Printable version
He was born in Turkey; his mother was Palestinian. He's so multicultural we have to share him with Lithuania, Portugal, Germany, Greece, Georgia, Moscow, Istanbul, Beirut - and Palestine itself. If he ever came to England, it wasn't for long. Welcome to the world of Saint George, patron saint of England, whom we celebrate today, April 23 - the same day, by astonishing coincidence, that we celebrate the birth of the giant of English literature, William Shakespeare.
All nations need heroes. What we know of St George makes him a fine one - though very little of his story can be a certainty. But from fairly contemporary references, it looks as though he was born a Christian in Cappadocia, now in eastern Turkey and may have been of some "Darian" - Persian - blood too.
His mother came from what was then the larger area of Palestine (Israel and the Occupied Territories today). The Roman Empire had at the time spread all over this region. George joined the Roman army, becoming a fairly high-ranking officer. But he fell foul of the Emperor Diocletian, who, fearing a plot against his pagan second-in-command, embarked on a systematic terror against all Christian believers. George refused to bow to Diocletian and abandon his religion. Anticipating trouble, he gave his property to the poor and freed his slaves. He was imprisoned, tortured, and finally beheaded at Nicomedia, on April 23, 303AD.
His example, as a man of courage in defence of his religion and a helper of the poor, spread throughout the world. This - probably accurate - account of his life, then became embellished by the myth about the dragon - which some say originated in what is now Libya.
George was recognised as a saint some time after 900AD. A holy day in his honour was declared to be celebrated in England by a meeting of bishops in Oxford in 1222; he was acknowledged as England's patron saint by the 14th century. But such has been the power of his story that many other countries - and capital cities - also adopted him as their patron saint.
Saint George is a great example, which is why I'm delighted that we celebrate his special position in our national identity today. But his story is also the reason why I so resent the hijacking of St George, and his emblem - the red cross on a white background - by those on the far-right who have attempted - albeit unsuccessfully - to monopolise his name and flag for their partisan ends. I wonder if any of those who have wrapped themselves in a St George banner and chanted objectionable, racist slogans, ever realised that the man himself was a Turkish Arab?
Indeed part of the reason that the Emperor Diocletian was so viciously against the Christians was that the Christian message transcended national identities and challenged the authority and power of the state.
Saint George lived four centuries before the birth of Islam. But this wide appeal, beyond borders or races, was one of many common features shared by Christianity and Islam.
There's another, too. Saint George was a Palestinian Christian. There are still tens of thousands of his successors in Gaza and the West Bank - 100,000 at the last count. It's a story one rarely hears - of how Christian and Muslim Palestinians live and work - and suffer - side by side in the Occupied Territories. Some of the most prominent figures of the Palestinian national movement have been Christians, including George Habash, founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and today Hanan Ashrawi, a former Palestinian Authority Minister.
St George is an example of the kind of society I hope we all want - except those bigots who wear his flag but know nothing of what it means.

I met my husband, Sami, in the mid fifties where he was attending the college I attended. He was a foreign student with a Jordanian passport because he was born and grew up in the West Bank. After 1948 the West Bank was governed by Jordan. From the beginning of our relationship he explained to me how the truth of the creation of Israel was very different from how it appeared in the American media. Over the years I met many Palestians who were adults in 1948. They all told their stories of the Nakba, their expusion from their homes in Palestine. I began to realize early that they were all telling basically the same story. It differed dramatically from the story Americans were fed by the US media. How could so many people who didn't know each other, tell the same story if they were lying?

Please take the time to read this accounting of the Nakba by a scholar from the University of Toronto.
An Email From: My Son
Subject: Conflict between Israel and Palestine has a hidden history

Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:10:46 +0000

by Henry Makow, Ph.D. [Excerpted]



According to Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, 1948 was a pretext and cover for the pre-planned expulsion of a million mostly defenceless Palestinians from their ancestral homes, orchards, fields and businesses. (The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine," 2006)

The elites who prevailed over the Zionistic military expansionist agenda of Israeli knew the neighbouring Arab states did not constitute a threat. The Palestinians did not flee willingly as Jews are mischievously taught in a societal milieu of disinformation. Palestinians were mercilessly driven out.

The British and UN were accomplices. With 75,000 soldiers present, the British permitted the massacres and pillage in spite of their promise in the Balfour Declaration to uphold Palestinian rights.

The UN ceded to 600,000 Jews a territory containing one million Palestinians, leaving them at the mercy of David Ben Gurion who said, "Only a state with at least 80% Jews is a viable and stable state." (Pappe, p.48)

Eighty-nine percent of the cultivated land in the UN designated Jewish state belonged to Palestinians.

General Sir John Bagot Glubb, the British chief the (Jordanian) Arab Legion called 1948 "a phony war." Like most wars the outcome was determined in advance. The leader of Arab forces, King Abdullah of Jordan, had a secret deal with the Zionists to offer only token resistance in return for the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In addition, the English controlled the Arab armies and curtailed supplies.

Far from being "a rag tag group of defenders", Israel had 50,000 soldiers, half of whom had served in the British army. It had a small air force, navy, tanks, armoured cars and heavy artillery. Facing them were the real "rag tag defenders," perhaps 10,000 poorly trained and equipped Palestinian paramilitary outfits and volunteers from the Arab world.

Despite rhetoric from Arab capitals, there was never any chance of "driving the Jews into the sea". The Palestinians were passive and underestimated their danger from elites who used Judaism to perpetrate a fascistic Zionist agenda. Palestinians had lived under Ottoman and British rule, and somehow would manage under the Jewish regime. Many villages made "non-aggression pacts" with the Jews.

In March 1948 Ben Gurion told the Jewish Agency Executive: "I believe the majority of the Palestinian masses accept the partition as a fait accompli... [they] do not want to fight us."

The (British-controlled) Arab Legion was the only potential real opposition. It was used to repulse the Zionists when they reneged on their bargain and attacked the Old City of Jerusalem.

The other Arab nations were so feeble that the Zionists occupied Southern Lebanon and expelled Arabs from there. On May 24, 1948, David Ben Gurion did not sound like the leader of a beleaguered people when he confided in his diary: "We will establish a Christian state in Lebanon, the southern border of which will be the Litani river. We will break Transjordan, bomb Amman and destroy its army, and then Syria falls, and if Egypt will still continue to fight, we will bombard Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo."

Yes, the Palestinians did attack some convoys and isolated Jewish settlements at considerable loss of Jewish life. These attacks played into the hands of the Zionists who always portray acts of resistance as aggression and anti-Semitism.

The Nabka

Arabic speaking, Ilan Pappe interviewed survivors in Palestinian refugee camps. He compared their accounts to those in the IDF Archives.

Over 200 Arab villages were destroyed before a regular Arab soldier set foot in Palestine. Their ethnic cleansing program was called "Plan D". A detailed inventory of all Palestinian settlements and property had been made for it. (Often the unwary Palestinians extended hospitality to the takers of this macabre "census").

The fascistic Zionists (as opposed to those people who seek to peacefully practice Judaism) attacked Palestinian villages at night and dynamited houses while residents slept inside. Then they rounded up males between age 10 and 50 and shot them or sent them to prison camps. The women, children and elders were made to leave. Eventually about 750,000 ended up in refugee camps in Gaza, the West Bank or neighbouring countries. There were many instances of rape and plunder.

In the big cities like Jerusalem, Jaffa and Haifa, the Palestinian districts were shelled and people terrorized and killed. Altogether, 530 of about 1000 Palestinian villages were physically demolished. About a dozen cities and towns were also emptied. Some villages had forged economic or personal ties with the Jews and escaped this fate. Many of these "deals" were not honoured by the Zionists.

Dier Yassin was bad but the events that unfolded October 28 1948 in the village of Dawaymeh between Beersheba and Hebron were even worse. I cite Pappe:

"Venturing into the village the next day the Muktar (Hassan Mahmoud Ihdeib) beheld with horror the piles of dead bodies in the mosque — with many more strewn about in the street—men, women and children, among them his own father... 455 people were missing among them around 170 children and women. The Jewish soldiers who took part also reported horrific scenes, babies whose skulls were cracked open, women raped or burned alive in houses, and men stabbed to death. These were... eye-witness accounts sent to [Israeli] High Command within a few days of the event."

The Holocaust

The day before a Palestinian village was attacked, Israeli political officers (like Soviet commissars) would incite the troops with a talk about the Holocaust. The Zionists also used it to give themselves moral impunity. The whole world watched and said nothing.

But were fascistic Zionists themselves also partly responsible for the Holocaust? Did Zionists first do to Jews what they later did to Palestinians?

In 1943 Rabbi Dov Weissmandl of the Jewish Rescue Committee in Slovakia arranged for Nazi officials to stop transports to concentration camps in exchange for $50,000. They in fact stopped them while waiting for the money which had to come from abroad.

Weissmandl appealed to the Zionist Jewish Agency HQ in Switzerland and was told Zionists "must turn a deaf ear to the pleas and cries emanating from Eastern Europe" in order to establish the state of Israel.

"Remember this: all the allies have suffered many losses, and if we also do not offer human sacrifices, how can we gain the right to sit at the conference table when the territorial boundaries are reshaped? [Israel] Eretz Yisroel will be ours only by paying with blood, but as far as our immediate circle is concerned, ATEM TAJLU. The messenger bearing this letter will supply you with funds for this purpose".

Weismandl interpreted the letter as follows: "The price of Eretz Yisroel is the blood of the men and women, hoary sages, and babes in arms - but not YOUR [Zionist] blood! Let us not spoil this plan by giving the Axis [i.e. Nazis] powers to save Jewish lives. But for you, [Zionist] comrades, I have enclosed carfare for your escape. What a nightmare! The Zionist agent "diplomat" comes to Czechoslovakia and says "Shed your blood cheerfully, for your blood is cheap. But for your blood, the Land (of Israel) will be ours! (Min Hametzar, p. 92) by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl, ZT L Dean of Nitra Yeshiva).

If you don’t think this philosophy actuated the rise of Nazism, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, you are kidding yourself. Nazism was a fraud on the German people, just as Zionism is a fraud on Jews. Both turned good people into cold blooded killers, pawns of the "Prince of Lies".

The current fascistic instigation of violence and war against Palestinians and Arabs

Today the Nakba continues in Gaza Strip, the West Bank and along the partition wall. (One could argue it continues in Lebanon Afghanistan and Iraq). New settlements are being built to strengthen Israeli claims, as "fait accompli".

The majority of Israelis and their supporters are faced with an elite contrived "moral" "fait accompli." Having been deceived about the Holocaust and "War of Independence", they have been tainted by a moral abomination. Many have built their lives accordingly. What can they do now?

When you have travelled down the wrong road, there is no use pretending it is the right one. You have to make a U-turn and retrace your steps, the sooner the better.

I believe Zionists should acknowledge the truth and pursue a two-state solution providing apologies and generous restitution to the Palestinians. That would support a climate of reconciliation in the Middle East among Jews, Palestinians, and Arabs, being able to live together in a peaceful and creative context of working together toward the mutual affirmation of their quality-of-living. There should be a limited right of return. Indeed, this is what Jews demand of the Germans. In contrast with the fascistic Zionists, Jews who embrace peace in today's Israel, fully appreciate that Palestinians should not continue to be treated in any way resembling how Jews were treated by Nazi Germany. Palestinians should be treated spiritually like the brothers and sisters they are to Jews.

Ilan Pappe says Palestinians would accept this. Pappe is a rare historian: honest, courageous and moral in the true Jewish spirit. He says his research "fully vindicates" the Palestianian version of events denied for so many years (Yet "Nakba denial" is not a crime anywhere).

Israelis need to make a 180-degree turn before a cabal of international fascists linked to the Zionist expansionist agenda taken humanity into a course of nuclear self-destruction.

Pappe is not optimistic. The premeditated attack on Lebanon last July was the last straw. A professor at Haifa University, he watched his dovish colleagues accept the government rationale. They are prisoners of a satanic "fait accompli." If anything Israelis now are more fanatical. Pappe is leaving Israel to become Chair of History at Exeter University in England.

There is only one way the human race will flourish in peace: by acknowledging the truth no matter how incriminating or painful it is.

About the author:

Henry Makow is the author of A Long Way to go for a Date. He received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto. He welcomes your feedback and ideas, e-mail: henry@savethemales.ca.

To: partnersforpeace@yahoogroups.com
From: "partnersforpeace"
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 05:34:36 -0000
Subject: [partnersforpeace] Read and Listen:
Jerusalem Women Speak
13 Make Waves in the Midwest!


18 April 2007
Jerusalem Women Speak 13 Makes Waves in the Midwest:
Read and Listen!
The Thirteenth national Jerusalem Women Speak tour has
already made an impact on the midwest. Among many media
venues, an interview with Huda Abu Arqoub, Tal Dor and
Amal Nassar was published in the Chicago Tribune on
Sunday, April 15. The full text of the article follows.

Below you will also find links to radio interviews with
the women aired on Radio Islam (Chicago), Wisconsin
Public Radio, and Chicago Public Radio.


Message to Americans: Ask questions
Chicago Tribune
by Deborah Horan

April 15, 2007
Perspective Section, Page 3

Tal Dor, an Israeli Jew, Huda Abu Arqoub, a Palestinian
Muslim, and Amal Nassar, a Palestinian Christian, are
peace activists on tour in the Midwest to speak about
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

With sponsorship from Washington, D.C.-based Partners for
Peace, the three advocate an end to Israel's military
occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state in the
West Bank and Gaza. The Tribune spoke to them about their
efforts toward peace in the Mideast. An edited transcript
follows:

What motivated you to participate in the tour?

Dor: I see the U.S. playing a very important role in the
power dynamic back home, influencing and encouraging the
occupation. What I'm trying to do is to say to [the American]
people: Start asking questions. You have a responsibility
for the Israeli occupation and you need to start
acknowledging it, and start acting to change it.

Nassar: I'm here to raise awareness of what is happening
in Palestine. I see more confiscating of [Palestinian]
land, expanding of [Israeli] settlements [in the West
Bank], building a wall which [strangles] the Palestinians
economically and socially. What we are trying to do is
stand against the situation and not to give up.

What are the most common questions you get from audiences?

Dor: As a Jewish Israeli from South Africa, the most common
question I get is what do I think of [Jimmy] Carter's book
["Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"]. Most people are
commenting because of the title. It created a lot of anger
in Israel and among Jews around the world. [They] do not
like to make the comparison. It is something that makes us
feel bad. I say of course it's not the same; the narrative
is not the same. ... [But] you can say the roads going to the
[Jewish] settlements are apartheid. You can see the difference
in colors of [Palestinian] identity cards, like the different
colors that were given to black South Africans. These colors
define your freedom of movement. This is something we don't
like to look at. We have to look at it.

Do you think Americans have an accurate picture of the conflict
between Israelis and Palestinians?

Abu Arqoub: I know for sure they do not have a clue. They miss
the daily suffering of the Palestinians. They are not familiar
with the power dynamics. The American people think there is a
conflict between two equals. They don't know it's not true.

Dor: I think Americans have the same idea I got growing up in
Israel. For example, one of the things said to us is
"Palestinian terrorist" and "Israeli Defense Force." We use
these terms all the time, of course. But you'd think at least
the international [community] would say "Wait, who has more
weapons?" So it amazes me that one is considered terrorist and
one is considered defense.

The international community maintains that Hamas has not
explicitly recognized Israel or agreed to accept previous peace
agreements. Both Israel and America consider it a terrorist
organization. Why should Israel negotiate with a government that
includes Hamas?

Abu Arqoub: First of all, Hamas recognized Israel and wanted to
negotiate, but the door was slammed in their face. They offered
a truce more than once. [Think of] Hamas like the Sinn Fein.
Internally, Hamas is going through the same process as Sinn Fein.
But nobody is sponsoring the change. The international community
is saying, "No, you are a terrorist organization. " It's damaging
to their internal efforts to evolve into a political party. They
are not being given the chance.

Dor: I think that this whole discourse of Hamas not recognizing
Israel is a bit ironic when Israel is not recognizing the
Palestinians. They don't recognize them as a nation, as a people.
Some of the brightest minds in the diplomatic world have been
searching for a formula to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
for years.

Why is it so difficult to reach an agreement that both sides can
accept?

Abu Arqoub: I think the problem is in the definition of a viable
[Palestinian] state. What do we mean by a viable state? [Will]
the [border crossings] be in the hands of [the Israelis]? What
about the question of settlements? If every time the Israeli army
feels they need to get inside the West Bank because of the
settlements, then I have no country. I have no state.

Dor: I want to rephrase the question. This word peace negotiation
is an illusion. You cannot speak about peace when there is occupation.
Four weeks ago [Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas] and [Israeli
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert] met, shaking hands on television. It was
very -- wow -- amazing meeting. At the same time, for that whole week,
the Israeli army invaded the [Palestinian] city of Nablus.

Nassar: Israel mixes religion [into the conflict]. We have to go every
now and then to a [military] court in Ramallah [on the West Bank].
[Editor's note: The Nassar family is fighting confiscation of its land
near Bethlehem.] In one of the court sessions, the judge asked about our
documents and maps. We had everything from 1924. Then the other side
said, "We have a paper from God." They stood up with a small piece
of paper and said, "We have it from God."

Do Israelis and Palestinians have the same definition of a Palestinian
state?

Abu Arqoub: I don't think they have the same definition. To the
Palestinian, a state is viable. It has sovereignty. It has borders.
It has access to the outside world. It has structure, geographical
continuity. To the Israelis, a [Palestinian] state is one that they
can enter into every time they feel their security is threatened.Dor:
I believe if Israel really wanted a Palestinian state, it would have
happened already. But everything is going on not to let it happen. I
think this talk about two states is again a manipulative discourse.
What about the Israelis who say that if they relinquish the West
Bank the Palestinians will use it as a launching pad to liberate
the rest of historic Palestine, which is now Israel?

Dor: I would say, "I am not afraid." I would say, "Go speak to
Palestinians. " Most Palestinians don't speak about throwing the
Jews into the sea. We must not do to the Palestinians what we are
assuming maybe they will do to us. We have to acknowledge that
most of the Palestinians want to live in peace.

Isn't part of the problem that Palestinian refugees insist on
returning to land that is now in Israel?

Dor: I'm not sure all the refugees will want to come back anyway.
But we have to discuss how they can come back. We have to talk
about justice.

Abu Arqoub: They can go to the West Bank when the West Bank is
a viable state.There has been a lot of criticism of the barrier
that separates Israel from the West Bank. But suicide bombings
have gone down since it was built.

Do you think the wall makes Israel more secure?

Abu Arqoub: [Fewer bombs are] not because of the wall. It's
because the militant groups decided to play politics. I've managed
to get into Jerusalem [by circumventing Israeli checkpoints] .
I could have had a bomb on me. That's why I believe the sense of
security in Israel is twisted. It has nothing to do with [the wall].
If Hamas and Islamic Jihad have the intention of doing a suicide
bombing in Israel, they will do it. The wall is not going to stop
them.

Dor: I disagree. I think the wall did reduce the amount of suicide
bombings. [It] is reducing the bombing but it's increasing the
hatred. When you close people in ghettos, when people have nothing
to lose, they will find ways to resist. I believe it will get worse
because of the wall. Israel is creating a more dangerous place.

Deborah Horan is a Tribune staff reporter. She covered the Middle
East for eight years.dhoran@ tribune.com

(Copyright 2007 by the Chicago Tribune)


Jerusalem Women Speak 13 Radio Segments:

Radio Islam – WVON Chicago (April 13)

Here on Earth: Radio Without Borders - Wisconsin Public Radio (April 16).

WorldView - Chicago Public Radio (April 18).

From: My Son, whose interview for this PBS series ended on the cutting room floorSubject: "America at a Crossroads" veers to the right
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:24:45 +0000
Salon.com | "America at a Crossroads" veers to the right http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/04/17/crossroads/print...

1 of 7 4/17/07 3:34 AM

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/04/17/crossroads/print.html

To print this page, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser

"America at a Crossroads" veers to the right

The highly touted PBS series on Islam and terrorism casts a cold eye on Bush's Iraq disaster -- but fails to

examine Mideast history or America's failed policies in the region.

By Gary Kamiya

Apr. 17, 2007 | If anyone still believes that PBS has a left-wing bias, "America at a Crossroads," the $20

million, 12-hour series about Islam, terrorism and the post-9/11 world that kicked off Sunday night,

should shut them up once and for all. "Crossroads" proves yet again that five years after the 9/11 attacks,

the mainstream American media still can't bring itself to talk about the real causes of Arab and Muslim

rage at the West.

"Crossroads" has its virtues, but it is fundamentally flawed. Several of its 11 independently produced films

are excellent, one is positively brilliant, and most are worth watching. But few of the films break any new

ground or represent an advance over the many excellent documentaries on the same subject made by

Frontline, Wide Angle and P.O.V. That isn't the real problem, though. The real problem is "Crossroads'"

almost complete failure to explore the history of the Middle East, the effect of Western policies on its

people, and the political and historical grievances that are largely responsible for Muslim and Arab rage at

the West.

Intellectually, historically and journalistically, this is inexcusable. It's outrageous to devote this much time

and money to a subject and never deal directly with one of the central issues. It's as if someone made a

12-hour series about the Civil War and decided to omit slavery.

By ignoring the political issues that drive Muslim rage at the West, "Crossroads" by default supports the

neoconservative analysis of Islam and the causes of Islamist terrorism. And this is far more insidious, and

injurious to the full national debate that the series' producers claim they want. For "Crossroads" comes

anointed as a kind of quasi-official statement about how Americans should think about 9/11, Islamist

terrorism, and America's relations with the Arab/Muslim world. As a result, it has the potential to pass its

intellectual blind spots on to the American people.

One episode, a virtual infomercial for Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative theorist and architect of

the Iraq war, is so laughably biased -- and so unbalanced by any film giving equal time to a

corresponding perspective on the left -- that it taints the entire series. Suffice it to say the Perle episode,

which airs Tuesday night, is almost worth viewing just to see the opening, in which Perle pays specious

karmic penance as he is confronted by angry antiwar protesters. In fact, the setup, like the entire film, is

completely canned -- the filmmakers obviously made Perle do it to make him a more sympathetic figure.

(If you think that Perle chose to leave his house in France to confront an antiwar demonstration while the

cameras just happened to be rolling, I have one of his old Chalabi-for-President-of-Iraq stickers I'd like to sell you.)

The episode does fashion a fig leaf of journalistic integrity by showing Perle arguing with figures like Pat Buchanan and Richard Holbrooke. But this cannot overcome the fact that Perle gets to essentially narrate

the film and gets the last word. Nor does it make up for disingenuous statements that go unchallenged.

Perle tells a war protester that he never heard the administration saying that Saddam Hussein was linked to

9/11, when he knows full well that Dick Cheney, his soul mate on all things war-on-terror-related, has

constantly implied that very thing.

Perle takes the high road throughout, claiming that if JFK were alive he'd be fighting the same noble,

all-American fight to spread freedom and piously proclaiming that he's a Democrat and simply motivated

by the do-gooder desire to spread freedom. We see him driving through Afghanistan, smiling smarmily

and waxing poetic about how much he loves the Afghan people and how wonderful it is that Afghan

women have more freedom now.

You would never know, listening to this grandfatherly figure, that he is a radical ideologue who, in the

whack-job book he wrote with David Frum absurdly titled "An End to Evil," advocated attacking North

Korea, argued that the Palestinians should not get a state of their own, and maintained that we should be

ready to invade Iran and Syria. Nor would you know that he ardently subscribes to the beliefs of the

Israeli right wing. Along with other prominent neocons, Perle wrote a notorious 1996 policy paper for

incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that advocated, among other things, "rolling back"

Syria, smashing the Palestinians into submission and toppling Saddam Hussein's regime and replacing it

with (here the neocon drugs really kicked in) a Hashemite king. In their wisdom, the producers of

"Crossroads" decided that viewers did not need to know any of these minor details.

Why did this embarrassing film make the cut? In the eyes of our media gatekeepers, taking their cue from

Congress and their equally cowed or ignorant media brethren, even a discredited right-wing thinker like

Perle is ready for prime time, while a left-wing thinker like Robert Fisk is not. After all, Perle's ideas are

enshrined in the White House, while Fisk is a dangerous bomb-thrower whose opinions about the Middle

East are too uncomfortable to be given wide circulation. Forget the fact that Perle and Bush's lovely little

war has turned out to be an unmitigated disaster, or that Fisk, who actually knows something about the

Middle East, has been proven right time and again. The media bureaucracy plods dutifully on, playing by

the same old rules.

Series host Robert MacNeil, presumably trying to justify the Perle film, told Current magazine, "By the

time ["Crossroads"] gets to Perle, you have a very negative view of what's happening in Iraq." Never

mind that "Crossroads" might have presented a negative view of what's happening in Iraq because that's

the truth about what's happening in Iraq. If the series has been so unforgivably biased to the left as to

show Bush's Iraq adventure in a negative light, its creators must immediately run a love letter to some

neocon from the American Enterprise Institute. After all, we've had no opportunity to hear neocon ideas

except on every network, every cable channel, the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times, Fox News, all

the major newsweeklies, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, the New

Republic, Slate and just about every other media outlet. This intolerable censorship of failed right-wing

ideas must cease!

"Crossroads" came to the air as a result of right-wing pressure and intellectual timidity. The project began

during the tenures of Ken Tomlinson and Michael Pack, two conservatives who held top positions at the

Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the government-run nonprofit that oversees PBS and its more than

300 local affiliates. Tomlinson was a Bush hack whose mandate as CPB board chairman was to tilt PBS's

programming to the right. To do that, Tomlinson paid a consultant $14,000 to vet the Bill Moyers

program "Now" for liberal bias, and hired two ombudsmen to monitor PBS news programming. Outrage

over these practices and a damning internal report forced Tomlinson to resign in 2005. Pack, a

conservative documentarian -- his résumé includes a sympathetic doc about Newt Gingrich and a film

called "Hollywood vs. Religion" narrated by Michael Medved -- was brought in as CPB's executive vice

president to make PBS's programming more conservative.

Salon.com | "America at a Crossroads" veers to the right http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/04/17/crossroads/print...

3 of 7 4/17/07 3:34 AM

"Crossroads" was Pack's brainchild. In 2004, CPB put out a call for proposals about films dealing with

terrorism, Islam and the post-9/11 world. It received 440 proposals, awarding full production funding to

21. But the series immediately became engulfed in controversy. Critics charged that the Perle episode and

one called "Warriors," about U.S. troops in Iraq, were biased toward the Bush administration. These

charges grew even louder when it was revealed that the original producer of the Perle episode, British

filmmaker Brian Lapping, was a friend of Perle's. (Lapping eventually recused himself from the film.

Karl Zinsmeister, a co-producer of "Warriors," also left the project after he took a job as Bush's chief

domestic-policy advisor.)

Trying to overcome the perception that the series was biased, CPB turned the project over to WETA,

Washington's public television station, which hired former PBS NewsHour anchor MacNeil, and shot

down "Islam vs. Islamists," an episode co-produced by neocon pundit Frank Gaffney, alleging that

moderate Muslims are intimidated by radical Islamists. The final result isn't terrible (I give its 11 episodes

2 A's, 3 B's, 5 C's and one F), but its failure to delve deeply into the crucial political and historical issues

means that even the strongest films in the series end up being decontextualized and superficial.

This is particularly true of the solid two-hour film that kicked off the series Sunday night, "The Men

Behind Jihad." "The Men Behind Jihad" offers an excellent introduction to the ideological fathers of

Islamist terrorism -- and a withering critique of Bush's war on Iraq. It traces the origins of radical

Islamism from Sayyid Qutb through Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden. Its first-rate group of

commentators include Malise Ruthven, Michael Scheuer and Lawrence Wright, author of "The Looming

Tower" (which just won this year's Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction). The material on Qutb's surreal

sojourn in Greeley, Colo., where Americans' fixations with their lawns and Qutb's fateful observation of a

slow dance drove him into a pious frenzy of revulsion, is strikingly filmed. Scheuer, the former CIA

analyst responsible for the bin Laden file, makes the most arresting political point, pointing out that

Bush's war against Iraq greatly swelled the jihadists' cause. "The unexpected gift of the invasion of Iraq is

more than Osama bin Laden ever hoped for," Scheuer says.

The film is one of the only ones in the series to touch, however briefly, on the political grievances that

play a role in jihadist terror, and have led many Muslims to accept it. It notes in passing that Zawahiri

became radicalized after Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David peace treaty with Israel,

and acknowledges at the end that "many Muslims see events in Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq as oppression,

justifying more terrorism." But we are told nothing else about the Camp David treaty, or the events in

Gaza or Lebanon, or indeed almost anything about Middle Eastern history. The complex dialectic

between legitimate grievance and religious fanaticism as causes of jihadism is hinted at, but never

explored. And since no other film in the series ever returns to this subject except in even more passing

and superficial ways, the references remain almost meaningless.

There are two episodes of "Crossroads" that stand head and shoulders above the rest. The first and best,

which airs Monday night, is a truly extraordinary film called "Operation Homecoming: Writing the

Wartime Experience." Featuring unforgettable writing about Iraq, including the brilliant poetry of Brian

Turner and extraordinary pieces by ordinary soldiers, and searing appearances by older-generation

war-lit giants like Tim O'Brien and James Salter, this film brings the dreadful reality of Iraq home more

than anything else I've seen.

The second standout episode, which runs Friday, is titled "Security versus Liberty: The Other War." It's a

well-reported, chilling look at how Bush administration policies after 9/11 have eroded civil liberties and

led to hideous perversions of justice. The film's closing report, about an FBI sting "terrorist-catching"

operation that ruined an obviously harmless Arab-American pizza-shop owner's life, is searing. As the

man's wife sobs, recounting how her little boy asked her what his father had done and why he couldn't

see him anymore, many viewers will feel deeply ashamed of what Bush has done to America.

Not quite as outstanding, but also excellent, are three more episodes: "Struggle for the Soul of Islam:

Inside Indonesia," "Gangs of Iraq" and the aforementioned opener about the origins of jihad. "Inside

Indonesia," which airs Thursday, is an important and solidly reported look at the difficult balancing act

Salon.com | "America at a Crossroads" veers to the right http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/04/17/crossroads/print...

4 of 7 4/17/07 3:34 AM

the world's most populous Muslim nation must engage in as it contends with Islamists empowered by

Indonesia's newly born democracy. "Gangs of Iraq," which airs Tuesday night, examines the enormous

hurdles the U.S. faces as it tries to train Iraqi security forces.

Then there is "Faith Without Fear," airing Thursday, about Irshad Manji, an outspoken Canadian critic of

Islam. This film is riveting to watch, but it's about a figure too eccentric to speak for anyone except

herself, and its inclusion in the series is highly dubious. Manji is a peculiar figure. She makes some good

points about the need for Islam to once again embrace ijtihad, or intellectual openness -- a position also

espoused by the religious scholar Karen Armstrong. But Manji's attitude toward her religion seems so

perversely critical that it's hard to believe she really believes either in Islam or any institutional religion at

all.

Her attacks on Islam seem oddly gratuitous. As an atheist, I can't argue with what seems to be her

corrosive view of religion. But she shows no understanding of the historical reasons why Islam has not

yet had an Enlightenment and fully reconciled itself with the modern, secular world. I believe that it can

and will, and I believe when it does it will more closely resemble the kind of religion Manji says she

wants -- but the change is not going to be produced by someone as far out of the Arab and Muslim

mainstream as she is. (Just how far out is revealed not only by her views on Islam, but by a New York

Times Op-Ed piece she wrote about Israel's separation barrier, titled "How I Learned to Love the Wall.")

Her appearance in "Crossroads," unbalanced by a corresponding film about, say, Hanan Ashrawi or Sari

Nusseibeh or Tarik Ramadan or some Arab or Muslim whose views are actually representative, is all too

predictable: The American media just loves Muslims like her.

Three other episodes are workmanlike: "Warriors," "Europe's 9/11" and "The Muslim Americans."

"Warriors," which also airs Monday, about U.S. soldiers in Iraq, is vivid and at times touching but feels

pretty familiar. And it sheds no light at all on the larger issues: It seems to function in the series like that

traditional, patriotic statue placed next to the Vietnam Wall Memorial. "Europe's 9/11," which airs

Wednesday, spends too much time on cops-and-robbers tales of chasing down the jihadists who blew up

the train in Madrid and not enough examining the sociological roots of jihadist rage in Europe. "The

Muslim Americans," which also airs Wednesday, is standard feel-good multiculturalism, perfectly decent

but not offering much original insight.

"The Brotherhood," which airs Friday, is the show's second-weakest episode, and its problems highlight

the entire series' shortcomings. It investigates the founding Islamist group the Muslim Brotherhood,

asking ominously whether it is a covert radical organization that plans to secretly establish an Islamic

reign or is a moderate and trustworthy group. Focusing on a wealthy financier suspected of funding

al-Qaida, it has some decent reporting, but it's marred by an embarrassing narrative shtick in which

Newsweek reporters Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball are constantly shown asking each other canned

setup questions and being filmed in working-Joe-reporter poses. More substantively, its sensationalist,

breaking-news approach gets in the way of a substantive analysis of the ambiguous position of the

Muslim Brotherhood. There are indeed many questions about the multifaceted and evolving nature of this

organization, but the film's either-or approach does not illuminate them.

Worse, the episode indulges in traditional, misleading U.S. media clichés that tacitly echo problematic

neoconservative claims about Muslim terrorism. One of its segments deals with a prominent American

Muslim, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who in 2004 was sentenced to 23 years for plotting to kill Saudi Crown

Prince Abdullah. Alamoudi is a favorite subject of neocon pundits because he was highly connected (he

met with Presidents Clinton and Bush), made moderate statements -- and turned out to be plotting an

outlandish murder.

Obviously, the film is justified in condemning him. But in the course of doing that, it shows a clip of him

praising the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, and ominously implies that this is grounds for

suspecting that he may be linked to al-Qaida. The episode does show an academic, Peter Mandaville, who

says, "For him, Hamas is primarily a national liberation struggle of the Palestinian people against the

foreign occupation of the state of Israel. It isn't terrorism for him." But as always with "Crossroads," this

Salon.com | "America at a Crossroads" veers to the right http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/04/17/crossroads/print...

5 of 7 4/17/07 3:34 AM

statement is never placed in any larger context, leaving the average viewer to come away with the

impression that Mandaville is probably just a pointy-headed apologist for terrorists. The producers do not

point out the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in the Middle East, while they may

disapprove of terrorism as a tactic and of the austere version of Islam preached by Hamas and Hezbollah,

support them as resistance fighters. (Not nearly as many support al-Qaida or its ilk, although the Iraq war

increased the popular support for these international terrorist organizations.)

Americans may not like to admit it, but ignoring the truth about what people in the Middle East actually

think is a big part of the reason we're bogged down in Iraq. Collapsing distinctions between groups like

Hamas and Hezbollah, on the one hand, and ones like al-Qaida, on the other, is a key part of the neocon

agenda. It underlies Bush's whole approach to the Middle East in general and the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict in particular. It allowed Bush to paint Israel's war against Lebanon, which further eroded

America's already dismal standing in the region, as part of his "war on terror." And it has gone

unchallenged in Congress and the American media, in large part because to challenge it is to venture into

the political minefield surrounding anything having to do with Israel. But it simply does not jibe with the

realities or beliefs of the Middle East. Documentary films that uncritically repeat these conventional

pieties reveal themselves to be either ignorant or biased. They shed no light on their subjects and tacitly

support the neoconservative approach to the "war on terror" -- the very issue that they are supposedly

examining.

"Crossroads" fails not because it doesn't adopt critics' views of neoconservative ideas, but because it

doesn't even present them. It fails because it lacks intellectual honesty and journalistic rigor. Anyone who

has studied the war of ideas over the causes of 9/11, Bush's response to it, and his "war on terror" knows

that there are essentially two opposed sides in the debate. On the one hand, there are the "essentialists,"

who argue that Arab/Muslim rage against the West is pathological and peculiar to Islam. It is driven not

by real political grievances, which they see as trumped up, but by humiliation at the failure of Islam to

keep up with the West, the sickness of Arab civil society, a festering hatred of Western liberalism,

democracy and secularism, and the desire to establish a universal Muslim state throughout the world, one

that would surpass the glorious days of the Caliphate. Islamist terrorism is simply evil, full stop, and must

be destroyed. Any attempts to ameliorate it by political or economic moves are naive at best and

appeasement at worst.

The intellectual father of this position is the eminent Princeton Arabist Bernard Lewis, and some of its

prominent advocates include Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol and (with some differences) Thomas

Friedman. Usually combined with Wilsonian rhetoric about bringing freedom and democracy to

benighted Arab states, this is the neoconservative view of Islam and the "war on terror." It dominated the

Bush administration and was shared by virtually every public intellectual who supported Bush's war on

Iraq. Many of those who hold it are strongly pro-Israel.

The opposing side could be called the "historical analysts." Those who hold it -- virtually all of whom

opposed Bush's war against Iraq -- argue that Arab/Muslim rage against the West is in large part driven by

specific historic injustices, most of which originated in the Western colonialist carving-up of the former

Ottoman Empire after World War I. The West, in particular England, France and the United States, raised

and then betrayed Arab hopes for independence, undermined fledgling democratic movements, and

mouthed hypocritical pieties about "freedom," while it installed or supported dictators to protect Western

political, military and economic interests. The overriding grievance, not just for Arabs but for Muslims

throughout the world, remains Palestine. Arabs and Muslims throughout the world view the settling of

Palestinian land by European Jews, the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians after Israel's 1948 war of

independence and Israel's subsequent refusal to allow the refugees to return to their native land, as the

West's ur-sin against the Arab and Muslim people. The U.S.'s one-sided support for Israel has poisoned

the attitudes of the Arab/Muslim world against it.

Those who hold this position do not claim that Osama bin Laden was justified in launching his jihad

against the West, or even that the Palestinian issue was his foremost grievance. (The presence of infidel

Americans on holy Saudi soil was.) And they are prepared to agree with the essentialists that the Arab and

Salon.com | "America at a Crossroads" veers to the right http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/04/17/crossroads/print...

6 of 7 4/17/07 3:34 AM

Muslim world is plagued by corruption, despotism, stasis and desperately needs to reform to move into

the modern world. However, they insist that jihadist rage must be understood in a broad historical

context, and that Bush's "war on terror" is simplistic and counterproductive. Above all, they argue that

until we drain the swamp by addressing root causes, terrorism will continue to bubble upward like a

poison gas. To fight Islamist terror, it is necessary for the West in general and America in particular to win

Arab hearts and minds by resolving historical grievances, of which the most pressing is the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is nothing particularly radical about this position -- it is held by virtually

every country in the world, and was recently espoused by the ultra-establishment Iraq Study Group.

My point here is not to argue for one position or the other, although I obviously subscribe to the latter.

My point is that these two positions are the two inescapable poles of the debate, and that any serious

attempt to deal with the post-9/11 world must directly engage with them. By failing to do so, "Crossroads"

doomed itself to intellectual mediocrity and a quick ticket to oblivion.

Here's what "Crossroads" should have included. First, it should have devoted one film to this war of ideas,

giving each side its due. Then it should have commissioned another film offering a historical survey of

the Middle East starting in 1798, when Napoleon invaded Egypt, and ending today. This film would have

looked at French and British colonialism and its effects on the development of Arab democracies. It

would have talked about the Sykes-Picot Agreement that betrayed Arab nationalist hopes after WWI, and

Great Britain's imperialist misadventures in Iraq, which so closely resemble our own. The Palestinian

naqba, or catastrophe, would be covered. The film would examine the U.S.-backed coup in 1953 that

removed Iranian leader Muhammad Mossadegh. The Suez crisis, the failure of Arab nationalism,

America's long proxy war with the USSR in the Middle East, the Six-Day War and 1973 October war, and

U.S. hypocrisy in dealing with Saddam Hussein would all be discussed. The Algerian government's

fateful decision in 1991 to suspend elections when it became clear Islamists were going to win -- a

decision followed by an appalling civil war that killed 200,000 people -- would be covered. And it would

have looked at Israel's 2006 war against Lebanon.

In a perfect world, "Crossroads" would then have devoted a third film dealing with the Arab media and

Arab/Muslim public opinion about the U.S. The fact is that few Americans know anything about what

ordinary Arabs and Muslims think of our foreign policy. Yet this information is vital as America wages a

war of ideas with radical Islam.

In an even more perfect world, there would have been a fourth film devoted exclusively to the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And a fifth about Iran.

Finally, "Crossroads" should have included a sixth film examining why the Bush administration went to

war against Iraq, and assessing whether it was wise to do so. (The Perle perspective could have been

included here, balanced not by Newsweek reporters but by figures like Fisk, Edward Said, Noam

Chomsky or Juan Cole.) The war on Iraq is the overriding issue of our time, and a national debate on it is

necessary.

These new films would have been challenging, controversial, uncomfortable and inevitably critical both

of Bush administration policies and of America's Middle East policies in general. Sacred cows like

America's own dirty hands in the Middle East, and Israel, would have been put on the table.

Conservatives would have screamed that the series blamed the U.S., endangered Israel and appeased

terrorists. It would have taken guts to take these subjects on -- but the result would have been far more

useful and stimulating to national debate than the ho-hum product CPB came up with.

PBS honchos are making a lot of noise about how this series proves that public TV is relevant again.

Unfortunately, all it proves is that even five years after 9/11, the mainstream media in this country are still

unwilling or unable to talk frankly about the Middle East. And until that changes, we'll be fighting the

"war on terror" in the dark.

-- By Gary Kamiya

Salon.com | "America at a Crossroads" veers to the right http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/04/17/crossroads/print...

7 of 7 4/17/07 3:34 AM

From: My Son, Rashid
Subject: "America at a Crossroads" revisited
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:35:29 +0000

I went to the same event that Alison Weir writes about in the following article. Based on what I saw Thursday night, I couldn't agree with her more. Still I'm torn, because the last two nights of programs have been very good, especially last night. The two documentaries, “Warriors” and “Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience” should be shown to as many Americans as possible, amazing films.

There is a scene in "Warriors" where a lovely young American woman soldier talks about how excited she is to be learning Arabic while stationed in Iraq and when asked what has she learned, she answers, “Why do you continue to lie to me, you coward!” Afterwards she giggles and all I could do is wonder what kind of world are we handing the future generation?

In "Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience,” a young American male soldier tells of an accident between the military vehicle he was in and a civilian passenger car driven by an Iraqi man. The man is flatten and as he lies on the ground dead his father, who was unhurt in the accident, falls to the ground screaming and beating his head as hard as he can with his two hands. The American soldier is confused and asks the military Iraqi interpreter what the old man is saying. The interpreter tells him the man is repeatedly saying, “Just kill me, please just kill me now.” No good will come of this war.

After the presentation on Thursday night, I approached the producer of the program, “America’s Muslim”, in which my small son and I were to be a part and told her I was very disappointed by what I had seen of the series. I said I couldn’t tell if I was watching a special presentation from PBS or Fox News. She listened and then told me she had some bad news. It seemed mine and my son's interview didn’t fit with the overall theme of the documentary and our footage ended up on the cutting room floor. I was so relieved I almost yelled out “Thank you, Jesus!” and wanted to hug her. I have a feeling we were not radical or exotic enough for the show.

Rashid



April 17, 2007

Some Muslims Are Not Bad
The Message of PBS's "Crossroads" Series
By ALISON WEIR

I attended an extremely disturbing event Thursday night. It was hosted by WETA, the PBS station in Washington DC, and was part of the national launch of an 11-part PBS series, "America at a Crossroads," to begin airing April 15. It featured clips from the series followed by a panel discussion with some of those involved in the films, moderated by Robert MacNeil. The panel discussion represented a "wide" spectrum of opinions: all the way from, at one end, suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists to, at the other end, suggesting that some Muslims are not terrorists.

In other words, from what we were shown on Friday, it appears that much of the series contains subtle, intellectually "acceptable" Muslim-bashing. While the title of the series claims that it is focusing on America, many of the clips seemed to be focusing, over and over again, on Islam, largely examining "bad Muslims" (the majority) with a few "good Muslims" thrown in (often consisting of those who bash bad Muslims).

One entire program in the series, funded with federal money dispensed by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), is dedicated to Richard Perle, the neoconservative strategist who pushed for "regime-change" in Iraq and is now promoting it once more in Iran. While his opponents are also included in the segment, Perle is given the opportunity to rebut each one; the film was produced by his associate Brian Lapping. The title of the program, "The Case for War: In Defense of Freedom," seems to indicate a perspective that few facts would support. While only short clips were shown on Friday, Perle's approving, and welcomed, presence at the screening seems to indicate a happy CPB-PBS-Perle relationship. Happy for Perle that is; not for those of us who are less than pleased at manipulations that destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives, at least, and whose agenda appears to be an Israeli American empire based on a mutilating sword, and whose deathly swath cuts many ways.

At the other end of Friday night's "A" through "C" gamut of views was Michael Isikoff, whose rebuttal of Perle's claims about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was deservedly applauded by the audience. Isikoff's own clip portrayed him as a crusading investigative reporter, a la Dustin Hoffman in "All the President's Men." However, it turned out that Isikoff's form of crusading reporting was not to uncover presidential malfeasance but to expose "dangerous Muslims," i.e. those who oppose tyrannical regimes or who dare to suggest that Hamas and Hezbollah are resistance movements opposing brutal Israeli aggression.

Practicing the reverse of A.J. Liebling's dictum that the duty of journalism is "to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," Isikoff's offering in this series appears to be to go after arguably the most attacked community in the US today. A few miles away from where Isikoff was being feted by PBS for his work in exposing "Muslim terrorists," Sami Al-Arian (who has never been convicted of any crime, but who has spoken out passionately in favor of Palestinian rights) is spending his fourth year in prison, largely in solitary confinement. Perhaps Isikoff will now turn his investigative skills to examining the role of Israel and its partisans in Al-Arian's persecution and in the Crossroads series itself. He may wish to begin with CPB's head, Cheryl Halpern, a former chairwoman for the Republican Jewish Coalition, who, according to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, currently sits on the board of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (a spin-off of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), whose husband is a member of AIPAC, and whose family has business interests in Israel. Her predecessor at CPB was similarly solicitous of Israel, as are so many of the neocons now associated with the organization.which brings me to my next point:


Missing

It is interesting that in an 11-program series focused largely on the Middle East, no mention is made of the core issue of the region: the enormous injustice perpetrated in 1948 when Israel ethnically cleansed most of the indigenous population, and its ongoing and ruthless efforts in this direction today. While the series focuses on the activities of people who are opposing past and present dispossession, it appears that no mention is made of the oppression they are resisting. It is a little like describing the actions of someone being attacked by wolves without mentioning the wolves.

The issues in the Middle East and 9/11 have far more to do with the usual causes of war, competition over territory and resources, than with religion. Nevertheless, there are religious dimensions to the conflict, and it would certainly be valuable to explicate these. Yet PBS ignores the fact that there are three major religions centered in the Middle East, not just one, and that the major ethnic-cleansing at the region's core was done in the name of one of the two religions ignored in the series. If one of the religions is going to be examined, with much of the focus on its alleged warts, it seems to me that the other two should be exposed to equal scrutiny. Why was this not done?

Fundamentalist Jewish settlers are among the most fanatic and violent populations in the Middle East, and they proclaim that their violence is endorsed, even required, by their religion. Growing numbers of Christians endorse and fund this violent dispossession of the world's original Christians and others, and also claim to base their activities on their religion. Similarly, violent Jewish and Christian extremists operate in the United States, some cells defined, even by the US government, as "terrorist." While at least six out of PBS's eleven programs focus on Muslims and their connections to violence, not a single program focuses on Jewish extremists who torture farmers, attack children regularly, and whose core beliefs include the proposition that a non-Jew is "not worth the fingernail of a Jew." Similarly, there is not a single program examining American Christians who advocate violence at home and abroad, and who eagerly anticipate mass slaughter, in the name, they say, of their religion.

Moreover, with all this attention on Islam, one would at least expect some depth from a $20 million, publicly funded series that spends so much time on this subject. Sadly, however, despite a surface appearance of balance, there is much to suggest that PBS has actually provided little more than tokenism. In Washington DC there are numerous scholars on Islam, many of them living and working within a short distance of Friday's event. Yet, PBS gave us a panel in which two Jews and one Christian informed us about Muslims. While I suspect that no one would accuse the panelists of undue humility, I sincerely doubt that even one would claim to be an Islamic scholar. In addition, for the only program of the series in which a Muslim is the main "expert" on Muslims, PBS has chosen to utilize a woman whose new-found media fame, and resultant fortune, have come from attacking Muslims.


Soft Core

Let me emphasize that I am not accusing PBS of hate speech. I fully anticipate that the 11-part series will contain many uplifting and accurate statements about Islam and Muslims. My expectation is that the series will be skillfully produced, its approach will be intelligent, and its tone will be tolerant. (One of the shows that received Public Broadcasting Corporation funding for the series, by neoconservative Frank Gaffney, a member of the Project for a New American Century who previously worked under Perle, was deemed too openly "alarmist" and has been postponed for further editing. A second program, by yet another neoconservative, Robert Kaplan, is also being held for broadcast later.)

Overall, I expect that the series will provide what appear to the general public to be nuanced and thoughtful answers. My concern is simple: that it will so rarely, if ever, ask the right questions. Most of all, I am worried that in its many hours of programming, the wolves, and these are many and diverse, will be missing.

In some ways, the title of the series is quite correct; America is indeed at a crossroads, but of a very different nature than the series discusses. Either we will continue to let our mainstream media, from the "public" to the commercial, from the liberal to the conservative, manipulate Americans into fear and hatred of Muslims, thereby enabling Israeli and American aggression; or we will stand up and oppose this media manipulation, and refuse to allow the resultant policies of barbarism.

During the question and answer period following the screening, I briefly raised a few of the points mentioned above. (Robert MacNeil responded that PBS probably should have included something about Israel-Palestine; Isikoff misconstrued what I said and then disagreed.) Afterwards, several people came up to tell me they agreed with my comments. One man who expressed deep concern at the targeting of a minority population explained his own experience with such activities: he had fled Nazi Germany at the age of seven.

Instead of undertaking a thinly veiled prosecution of Muslims in which it found some of the accused "not guilty," it would have been valuable for PBS to do what it claimed: examine ourselves and the divergent paths from which we must choose. Either we will continue in the direction promoted by Perle, Gaffney and others, and continue destroying more and more of the globe, and quite possibly ourselves; or we will turn back to efforts to build a nation and a world in which ethnic agendas and outmoded tribalisms give way to universal principles of justice, equality, and coexistence.

In my opinion the second path is not only the direction that morality decrees, it is also the only path that will ever provide the safety from violence and cruelty that we all seek for ourselves and our children.

If you agree, I hope you will let PBS ombudsman Michael Getler (http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/) know: 703-739-5290. He's never returned any of my phone calls (even in his previous incarnation as ombudsman at the Washington Post); maybe he'll return yours.

Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew (www.ifamericansknew.org). Her blog is alisonweir.org. She can be reached through either website

Subject: What the persecution of Azmi Bishara means for Palestine
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:21:34 +0000
Opinion/Editorial
What the persecution of Azmi Bishara means for Palestine
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 16 April 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Israeli state and the Zionist movement have begun their latest assault in their century-long struggle to rid Palestine of its indigenous people and transform their country into a Jewish supremacist enclave: the persecution of Azmi Bishara, one of the most important Palestinian national leaders and thinkers working today. This case has enormous significance for the Palestinian solidarity movement.

Bishara is a Palestinian citizen of Israel, one of more than one million who live inside the Jewish state, who are survivors or their descendants of the Zionist ethnic cleansing that forced most Palestinians to leave in 1947-48. Elected to the Knesset in 1996, Bishara is a founder of the National Democratic Assembly, a party which calls for Israel to be transformed from a sectarian ethnocracy into a democratic state of all its citizens.

On Sunday, Bishara appeared on Al-Jazeera, after weeks of press speculation that he had gone into exile and would resign from the Knesset. He revealed that in fact he is the target of a very high level probe by Israeli state security services who apparently plan to bring serious "security" related charges against him. Censorship on this matter is so tight in "democratic" Israel that until a few days ago Israeli newspapers were prohibited from even mentioning the existence of the probe. They are still forbidden from reporting anything about the substance of the investigation, and Ha'aretz admitted that due to official censorship it could not even reprint much of what Bishara said to millions of viewers on television.

Bishara himself was vague about the allegations. If he even knows all the details, he could place himself in greater jeopardy by talking about them. He said he is still thinking about his options, including when to return to Israel. While he questioned the value of spending years proving his innocence of things he does not consider illegal, such as maintaining broad contacts with the Arab world of which he feels a part, he poignantly reflected that ultimately he faced a choice between prison, exile or martyrdom. These indeed are the only choices Israel has ever placed before Palestinians who refuse to submit to the racist rule of Zionism.

What he was clear about was that he is the target of a campaign, coordinated at the highest levels of the Israeli state to destroy him and his movement politically. He is undoubtedly right about this and there is long precedent. In 2001, Israel's attorney general Elyakim Rubinstein charged Bishara with "endangering the state" because of comments he made during a visit to Syria, and the Knesset voted for the first time in its history to lift the immunity of one of its members so Bishara could be prosecuted. In 2003, the Israeli Central Elections Committee attempted to disqualify Bishara and his party from standing in national elections, on the grounds that the party did not adhere to the dogma that Israel must remain a "Jewish state." Under Israeli law all parties are required to espouse the dogma that Israel must always grant special and better rights to Jews, meaning truly democratic parties are always flirting with illegality. That decision was eventually overturned by the courts. (Though it should be noted that the ban was supported by former attorney general Rubinstein, who is now a Supreme Court judge!). Such persecution against Palestinians in Israel has been the norm since the state was founded. Until 1966, they lived under "military government," a form of internal military occupation similar to that experienced by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza today. Laws, practices and policies that continue to deny their fundamental human rights are well described in Jonathan Cook's recent book Blood and Religion: Unmasking the Jewish and Democratic State. In recent years opinion polls show that a majority of Israeli Jews consistently support government efforts to force Palestinian citizens out of the country. (In recent weeks, former Israeli prime minister and current Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu declared that it would be best if Bishara never returned).

Bishara sees Israel's latest gambit as signalling a change in the "rules of the game." If he, an elected official, a well-known public figure can face such tactics, what will the rest of the community face? Indeed, the recent publication by leading Palestinians in Israel of a report calling for mild reforms to the Israeli state prompted Israel's secret police, the Shin Bet (which operates torture and death squads in the occupied territories) to warn that it would "disrupt the activities of any groups that seek to change the Jewish or democratic character of Israel, even if they use democratic means" ("Arab leaders air public relations campaign against Shin Bet," Ha'aretz, 6 April 2007). (There is precedent for such disruption not only against Palestinians, but even against Israel's Mizrahi Jews whose attempts to organize against Ashkenazi discrimination were destroyed by the Shin Bet -- see Joseph Massad's book The Persistence of the Palestinian Question.)

Palestinian solidarity activists must understand and act on the signal Israel is sending by persecuting Bishara. For years, the mainstream Palestinian movement and its allies have buried their heads in the slogan "end the occupation." If it ever was, this vision is no longer broad enough. We must recognize that Israel's war against Palestinians does not discriminate among Palestinians, sparing some and condemning others. It does however take different forms, depending on where Palestinians are. Those in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip live under an extreme form of military tyranny now often called "apartheid," though it is increasingly apparent that it is something even worse. Palestinians inside Israel's 1948 borders live under a system of laws, policies and practices that exclude them politically and oppress them economically and socially. Millions of Palestinians outside the country are victimized by racist laws that forbid their return for the sole reason that they are not Jews.

In practice this means that the Palestinian solidarity movement needs to fashion a new message that breaks with the failed fantasy of hermetic separation in nationalist states. It means we have to focus on fighting Israeli racism and colonialism in all its forms against those under occupation, against those inside, and against those in exile. We need to educate ourselves about what is happening all over Palestine, not just in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. We need to stand and act in solidarity with Azmi Bishara and all Palestinians inside the 1948 lines who have for too long been marginalized and abandoned by mainstream Palestinian politics. Support for the Palestinian civil society call for boycott, divestment and sanctions is particularly urgent (see http://www.pacbi.org/). In practice we need to start building a vision of life after Israeli apartheid, an inclusive life in which Israelis and Palestinians can live in equality sharing the whole country. If Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams and hardline Northern Ireland Unionist leader Ian Paisley can sit down to form a government together, as they are, and if Nelson Mandela and apartheid's National Party could do the same, nothing is beyond the realm of possibility in Palestine if we imagine it and work for it.

Azmi Bishara is the only Palestinian leader of international stature expressing a vision and strategy that is relevant to all Palestinians and can effectively challenge Zionism. That is why he is in fear for his life, safety and future while the quisling "president" Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah receives money and weapons from the United States and tea and cakes from Ehud Olmert.

Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse (Metropolitan Books, 2006)

Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:02:16 -0500
From: A Friend
Subject: Join Us In DC on June 10-11 to Support a Just Peace for Israel/Palestine
To: Bronwin Peel


Washington Interfaith Alliance for Middle East Peace
WIAMEP * 2708 Ontario Road * Washington, DC 20009-2154
www.wiamep.org

April 16, 2007

Dear Friend,

On June 10-11, the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and United for Peace and Justice are sponsoring a two-day mobilization in Washington, DC to protest US support for 40 years of Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip. A rally on the Mall on June 10 will be followed by a lobbying day on June 11.

The Washington Interfaith Alliance for Middle East Peace has endorsed this mobilization and its political demands, along with nearly 200 other organizations so far. We hope that you will plan now to attend this landmark event – we look to a turnout of thousands to send a clear message: The World Says NO to Israeli Occupation. Please save the dates and spread the word.

We are hoping that your organization will consider endorsement as well. The political demands of the protest are:

* An end to US military, economic, diplomatic, and corporate support for Israel’s illegal military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.

* A change in US policy to one that supports a just peace between Palestinians and Israelis based on equality, human rights and international law, and the full implementation of all relevant UN resolutions.

To sign on as an endorsing organization, go to www.endtheoccupation.org.

Leading up to the mobilization, supporters are conducting an organizing drive, the goal of which is to collect 100,000 signatures from around the country supporting the political demands of the protest. The signatures will be presented to Members of Congress during the grassroots lobbying day on June 11.

Endorsing organizations will receive a packet of postcards and petition pages that you and your group can use to organize in your community. The postcards and petitions can be sent back one at a time or all at once to: The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, P.O. Box 21539, Washington, DC, 20009. Individuals can also sign the petition at www.endtheoccupation.org.

If you or members of your organization would also like to include a donation to the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation that would be most appreciated although not a requirement for endorsement.

Thank you for spreading the word and helping us organize for this mobilization.

In solidarity,
Dr. John Salzberg and Rev. Susan P. Wilder
Co-Chairs, Washington Interfaith Alliance for Middle East Peace
On behalf of the Outreach Committee, US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation

To My Readers:

Many of you will be watching America at the Crossroads featured on PBS this week. It started last night. My son was invited to be interviewed and was filmed for 45 minutes. His enterview ended up on the cutting room floor. Why? Because he spoke about how he wanted to raise his child to be proud of being an American and of Palestinian descent. PBS preferred to present a wacko Islamist who was shouting, "Death to America" and the neo con extremist ideas of Richard Perle.

From: MJ Rosenberg

Washington DC, April 13, 2007
Issue # 318

Try A Little Empathy

Last week New York Times columnist David Brooks published an intriguing piece called "Dueling Narratives" about a conference he attended in Jordan with people he described as "moderate Arab reformers."

The "Dueling Narratives" to which he referred were not those of Israelis and Palestinians, or Jews and Arabs, but Americans (specifically pro-Israel Americans) and Arabs. According to Brooks, the Arabs mainly wanted to focus on Israel which they view as "at the root" of Middle Eastern problems while the Americans wanted to discuss "the Sunni-Shiite split, the Iraqi civil war and the rise of Iran."

Brooks was seemingly taken aback by the fact that the Arabs wanted to talk about Israel while he saw no need to (he did not include Israel as one of the issues he was interested in discussing).

For me, the startling thing about Brooks' column is that he was surprised that Arabs want to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian issue with Americans. Of course, they do. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the only issue about which all Arabs (and, in fact, Muslims) are in general agreement. Sunnis and Shiites may not agree about much but they all want the post-’67 occupation to end. Arabs want to talk to Americans about it because the United States is Israel's number one backer in the world. Arabs understand that without US involvement in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it will simply not end.

I imagine that the reason Brooks was surprised is that, like so many Americans, he does not take Arab and Muslim concern for the Palestinians seriously. People like Brooks believe that Palestine is a pretext. For Brooks, it is not, it cannot be, the main reason so many Arabs and Muslims have such strong antipathy to the US government.

And the fact is that the Palestinians have often been used as a pretext for incitement against Israel and Jews by the same forces that have done virtually nothing to ease the Palestinians’ plight. And also, of course, as a pretext for war. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah professed love for the Palestinians while he was attacking Israel last summer and killing Palestinians along with their Israeli neighbors.

But, for the most part, Arab anger about (and sympathy for) Palestinians is utterly genuine. Why wouldn’t it be?

The other day I had a conversation with a young woman from the Washington suburbs. She was born in the United States, as were her parents and grandparents. She told me that if "another war breaks out in Israel this summer, I'll just die. Last year, I just sat in front of my television and cried when I saw Israelis fleeing their homes in Haifa."

There was nothing remarkable about that statement. Many, if not most, Jewish Americans felt that way.

A few decades ago, the Jewish community here actually got a million people to come to Washington to protest the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union. I was there. There were angry speeches and there were tears. All this about Jews in a country thousands of miles away who were from being prevented from immigrating to Israel.

So why would anyone assume that Arabs are faking their anguish over the suffering of Palestinians. Palestinians have, if anything, a greater connection to their fellow Arabs than Jewish Americans have to Israeli or Russian Jews. They live in the same region. They speak the same language. Only a third of Jewish Americans have even visited Israel and I doubt 2% can speak Hebrew. For Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, Saudis and Iraqis, Palestinians are either the people next door or a few hundred miles away.

They are also a people who suffered a terrible tragedy. If the establishment of Israel was, as I believe it was, one of the best things that ever happened to Jews, it was the worst thing that ever happened to Palestinians. No matter that they could have accepted the Partition Plan or any of the other plans that would have shared the land with the Jews. They were the overwhelming majority of the country for 1900 years and had no interest in sharing it with anybody which, of course, turned out to be a colossal blunder.

As a result, a culture and way of life disappeared. As General Moshe Dayan put it in 1969, "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I don't blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahalal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

That is a tragedy, by any definition, just as the disappearance of the once flourishing Jewish communities of the Arab world is a tragedy.

The good news, and it is very good, is that we can put an end to the historical epoch that included so much Palestinian and Jewish suffering. Unlike the legendary baby in the King Solomon story, this "baby" called Palestine or Israel can be divided and still survive. Not only survive, both parts will do better if separated into two secure states. Negotiations based on the Saudi Plan (still on the table and generally being ignored by both Americans and Israelis) could accomplish that goal.

Until that happens, David Brooks can expect to hear "moderate Arabs," not to mention those not so moderate, fixating on Israel. If he really cared about Israel, he might also start fixating on a way to end a status quo that is so deadly to both Israelis and Palestinians. I understand that a tenet of the neoconservative philosophy holds that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not central to the region's problems or to America's declining fortunes in that region. But that is hogwash and everyone not blinded by ideology knows it. It is not the only problem we have in that region, but it is a huge one and, 40 years after the occupation began, it looms larger and larger.

For Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims worldwide, the situation in the West Bank and Gaza is a hole in the heart. And whether some people like it or not, America's standing in the world – and Israel's security – will continue to decline until we help end the conflict that spawned it.

MJ Rosenberg is the Director of Israel Policy Forum's Washington Policy Center. If you would appreciate receiving this weekly letter via e-mail, send an e-mail, with the subject "subcribe" to: ipfdc@ipforumdc.org