By Edgar Hopida
[This letter to the editor was published in the January 27, 2009 issue of San Diego Daily Transcript. For background on Larry Stirling's opinion editorial,go to http://www.sddt.com/Commentary/article.cfm?Commentary_ID=141&SourceCode=20090107tza]
*NOTE: My response is also found on the official San Diego Daily Transcript website http://www.sddt.com/Search/article.cfm?SourceCode=20090126tza
Larry Stirling seems to have an obsession with the whole thesis of perpetual war between Islam and the “West.” He continues his repeated factual errors on Islam by stating, “They have been conquering nations for Islam for the last 1,600 years.” Muslims around the world last month celebrated the Islamic new year of 1430.
In his January 7th editorial, he mistakenly placed the recent crisis in Gaza as some sort of cosmic religious war between Islam and the rest of the world with Israel being its current target. While it sounds good for the next summer block buster movie, his analysis is way off the mark.
It has been proven in the documentary record that the whole issue of the Israel-Palestine conflict has always been that of occupation and injustice. It had never to do with anti-Semitism or tensions between the religious traditions. Moreover, while Stirling has absolved Israel of its actions in the recent conflict, the rest of the international community is calling upon charges of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law.
Mainstream human rights organizations like B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, have accused Israel of its unlawful use of white phosphorous and depleted uranium on the civilian population of Gaza in addition to UN buildings. Nine Israeli human rights organizations are calling for the investigation of possible war crimes against Prime Minister Olmert, Foreign Minister Livni, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The UN Human Rights Council also passed a motion condemning Israel of “grave violations of human rights.”
Muslims around the world including locally contrary to Stirling’s assertions, were speaking out against the violence in Gaza and were calling for a ceasefire between both parties. This was echoed by the UN Security Council that passed Resolution 1860 with a vote of 14-0 with our government abstaining. Out of defiance and contempt for international law and its institutions, Israel ignored the resolution opting to make its own unilateral ceasefire over a week later. Meanwhile according to B’Tselem more innocent Palestinians in Gaza were killed and injured with the total count being over 1300 killed, almost half of them women and children, and over 5,000 thousand injured. On the Israeli side there were a total of 13 killed, 3 of them were civilian and over 84 civilians injured.
Stirling focused his opinion editorial on the Israeli town of Sderot which had been plagued by rockets fired by militants in Gaza. This action is equally condemnable according to international law and has been documented by mainstream human rights organizations. He recounts his visit to Sderot a year ago seeing “first-hand” what the “locals were enduring.” Larry Stirling however, seems oblivious to the situation in Gaza.
Dr. Sara Roy a Harvard Senior Research Scholar and expert on Gaza, studied the socio-economic and political decline of the Palestinians in Gaza for over three decades. Roy concluded that the Israeli occupation of Gaza had caused a “de-development” of Gaza’s economy. “De-development” as coined by Roy, “precludes, over a long term, the possibility of any kind of development process, even a disarticulated one, by destroying the economy’s capacity to produce.” The so-called Israeli “disengagement” of Gaza in 2005 according to Roy, made the situation even worse by its continuance of control over the airspace, borders, and sea surrounding Gaza. The late prominent Hebrew University sociologist Baruch Kimmerling had described Gaza as "the largest concentration camp ever to exist."
This analysis is further corroborated by B’Tselem’s over 80 page report on Gaza called, “One Big Prison,” which concluded, “Israel has severely restricted freedom of movement to and from the Gaza Strip. These restrictions strangled Gaza, essentially turning the area into one big prison.” B’Tselem’s report also stated, “The restrictions on the movement of goods and laborers has created a deep recession, the loss of work, and a dramatic deterioration in living conditions.”
While Larry Stirling has dismissed CAIR San Diego who has been advocating on behalf of the people of Gaza as a “propaganda arm,” our conclusions are based on what mainstream human rights organizations, Dr Sara Roy’s research on Gaza, the United Nations, as well as what Israeli media have reported on the crisis. When the factual record goes against his view, the only thing he can resort to is call it propaganda.
Edgar D. Hopida is the Director of Public Relations for the San Diego Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-San Diego).
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
CAIR Action Alert #566 Thank CBS 60 Minutes for 'Powerful' Report on Mistreatment of Palestinians Segment
CAIR Action Alert #566
Thank CBS for ‘Powerful’ Report on Mistreatment of Palestinians Segment shows expanding settlements, evictions, humiliating checkpoints, ‘Apartheid’ roads and wall, families imprisoned in their own homes
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 1/26/2009) - CAIR today asked American Muslims and other people who seek peace with justice in the Middle East to thank CBS for last night’s “60 Minutes” program that outlined in detail the injustices suffered by the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israelis.
The 13-minute report by journalist Bob Simon showed the damage to the cause of peace caused by the ever-expanding and illegal Israeli settlements, the evictions of Palestinians from their homes, the humiliation they experience at Israeli checkpoints, the “Apartheid” roads and wall built by Israel, and the bizarre experience of Palestinian families imprisoned in their own homes by Israeli soldiers.
You can watch the video of the report here http://crm.cair.com/site/R?i=2hYqkDArbSZ1zCUrmW_p8A
or read the transcript here http://crm.cair.com/site/R?i=XPDvJcSxwFD2_HLZlzahGg
“We thank CBS and the producers of ’60 Minutes’ for having the courage to show the American people the truth about the injustices that are at the core of the Middle East conflict,” said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. “This powerful report shows clearly that the only way to resolve the conflict and bring peace and stability to the region is to address the fundamental issues of justice that have been ignored by the world community for far too long.”
Awad said Muslims should thank CBS because the media are often criticized for not showing the full picture of the suffering of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israelis.
IMMEDIATE ACTIONS REQUESTED:
1. CONTACT “60 Minutes” - They are getting a lot of “heat” from the vocal minority who support Israel’s brutal and counterproductive actions. It is important that those who value peace with justice in the region make the effort to support balanced media coverage.
Tel: 212-975-2006
Fax: 212-975-2019
E-Mail: 60m@cbsnews.com, kev@cbsnews.com
Copy to: info@cair.com
Mail:
60 Minutes
555 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019
2. COMMENT ONLINE about the segment. (Always be polite and respectful.) Hundreds of people have already made their views known. Add your comments here or here.
3. SHARE this important alert with your colleagues, friends and family. Post to personal blogs.
4. CONTACT YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES to ask that they view the CBS report.
Contact Your Congressional Representatives: U.S. Senators and House of Representatives
- PLEASE ANNOUNCE, POST AND DISTRIBUTE -
Thank CBS for ‘Powerful’ Report on Mistreatment of Palestinians Segment shows expanding settlements, evictions, humiliating checkpoints, ‘Apartheid’ roads and wall, families imprisoned in their own homes
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 1/26/2009) - CAIR today asked American Muslims and other people who seek peace with justice in the Middle East to thank CBS for last night’s “60 Minutes” program that outlined in detail the injustices suffered by the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israelis.
The 13-minute report by journalist Bob Simon showed the damage to the cause of peace caused by the ever-expanding and illegal Israeli settlements, the evictions of Palestinians from their homes, the humiliation they experience at Israeli checkpoints, the “Apartheid” roads and wall built by Israel, and the bizarre experience of Palestinian families imprisoned in their own homes by Israeli soldiers.
You can watch the video of the report here http://crm.cair.com/site/R?i=2hYqkDArbSZ1zCUrmW_p8A
or read the transcript here http://crm.cair.com/site/R?i=XPDvJcSxwFD2_HLZlzahGg
“We thank CBS and the producers of ’60 Minutes’ for having the courage to show the American people the truth about the injustices that are at the core of the Middle East conflict,” said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. “This powerful report shows clearly that the only way to resolve the conflict and bring peace and stability to the region is to address the fundamental issues of justice that have been ignored by the world community for far too long.”
Awad said Muslims should thank CBS because the media are often criticized for not showing the full picture of the suffering of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israelis.
IMMEDIATE ACTIONS REQUESTED:
1. CONTACT “60 Minutes” - They are getting a lot of “heat” from the vocal minority who support Israel’s brutal and counterproductive actions. It is important that those who value peace with justice in the region make the effort to support balanced media coverage.
Tel: 212-975-2006
Fax: 212-975-2019
E-Mail: 60m@cbsnews.com, kev@cbsnews.com
Copy to: info@cair.com
Mail:
60 Minutes
555 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019
2. COMMENT ONLINE about the segment. (Always be polite and respectful.) Hundreds of people have already made their views known. Add your comments here or here.
3. SHARE this important alert with your colleagues, friends and family. Post to personal blogs.
4. CONTACT YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES to ask that they view the CBS report.
Contact Your Congressional Representatives: U.S. Senators and House of Representatives
- PLEASE ANNOUNCE, POST AND DISTRIBUTE -
CBS 60 Minutes segment " Is Peace Out of Reach?"
60 Minutes: Growing Number Of Israelis, Palestinians Say Two-State Solution Is No Longer Possible
Watch CBS Videos Online
Time Running Out For A Two-State Solution?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/60minutes/main4749723.shtml
Full Transcript Below
Jan. 25, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) Getting a peace deal in the Middle East is such a priority to President Obama that his first foreign calls on his first day in office were to Arab and Israeli leaders. And on day two, the president made former Senator George Mitchell his special envoy for Middle East peace. Mr. Obama wants to shore up the ceasefire in Gaza, but a lasting peace really depends on the West Bank where Palestinians had hoped to create their state. The problem is, even before Israel invaded Gaza, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians had concluded that peace between them was no longer possible, that history had passed it by. For peace to have a chance, Israel would have to withdraw from the West Bank, which would then become the Palestinian state.
It’s known as the "two-state" solution. But, while negotiations have been going on for 15 years, hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers have moved in to occupy the West Bank. Palestinians say they can't have a state with Israeli settlers all over it, which the settlers say is precisely the idea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniella Weiss moved from Israel to the West Bank 33 years ago. She has been the mayor of a large settlement.
"I think that settlements prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel. This is the goal. And this is the reality," Weiss told 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon.
Though settlers and Palestinians don't agree on anything, most do agree now that a peace deal has been overtaken by events.
"While my heart still wants to believe that the two-state solution is possible, my brain keeps telling me the opposite because of what I see in terms of the building of settlements. So, these settlers are destroying the potential peace for both people that would have been created if we had a two-state solution," Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, once a former candidate for Palestinian president, told Simon.
And he told 60 Minutes Israel's invasion of Gaza - all the death and destruction - convinces him that Israel does not want a two-state solution. "My heart is deeply broken, and I am very worried that what Israel has done has furthered us much further from the possibility of [a] two-state solution."
Palestinians had hoped to establish their state on the West Bank, an area the size of Delaware. But Israelis have split it up with scores of settlements, and hundreds of miles of new highways that only settlers can use. Palestinians have to drive - or ride - on the older roads.
When they want to travel from one town to another, they have to submit to humiliating delays at checkpoints and roadblocks. There are more than 600 of them on the West Bank.
Asked why there are so many checkpoints, Dr. Barghouti said, "I think the main goal is to fragment the West Bank. Maybe a little bit of them can be justified because they say it's for security. But I think the vast majority of them are basically to block the movement of people from one place to another."
Here's how they block Barghouti: he was born in Jerusalem, grew up in Jerusalem and worked in a hospital there for 14 years. Four years ago he moved to a town just 10 miles away, but now, because he no longer lives in Jerusalem, he can't get back in - ever.
He says he can't get a permit to go. "I asked for a permit to go to Jerusalem during the last year, the last years about 16 times. And 16 times they were rejected. Like most Palestinians, I don't have a permit to go to the city I was born in, to the city I used to work in, to the city where my sister lives."
What he's up against are scores of Israeli settlements dominating the lowlands like crusader fortresses. Many are little cities, and none of them existed 40 years ago. The Israelis always take the high ground, sometimes the hills, and sometimes the homes. And sometimes Arabs are occupied inside their own homes.
One house for example is the highest house on the highest hill overlooking the town of Nablus. 60 Minutes learned that Israeli soldiers often corral the four families who live there and take over the house to monitor movement down below.
Simon and the 60 Minutes team went to an apartment owned by a Mr. Nassif. That morning, Israeli soldiers had apparently entered the apartment, without notice, and remained there when Simon knocked on the door.
"We cannot speak with you, there are soldiers," Nassif told Simon. "We are in prison here."
Asked what was happening, Nassif says, "They are keeping us here and the soldiers are upstairs, we cannot move. We cannot speak with you."
Nassif said he couldn't leave the house and didn't know how long he'd have to stay in place. Asked if they were paying him any money, he told Simon, "You are kidding?"
Abdul Nassif, a bank manager said he had to get to his bank to open the safe, but one of the soldiers wouldn't let him go. He told 60 Minutes whenever the soldiers come they wake everybody up, and herd them into a kitchen for hours while soldiers sleep in their beds. They can't leave or use the phone, or let 60 Minutes in.
He sent 60 Minutes downstairs to see if his brother would open the door so we could ask the soldiers why they keep taking over this house. But the brother told Simon, "The soldiers close the door from the key. They take the key."
So Simon and the crew left, and that night, so did the soldiers. But when 60 Minutes returned two days later, the soldiers were back for more surveillance. This time they kept the women under house arrest, but let the men go to work and the children go to school. When the children returned, we caught a glimpse of two armed soldiers at the top of the stairs.
Then more children came home, but the soldiers wouldn't open the door again.
A commander told Simon that he and the crew would have to go back behind a wall in order for the children to be let in.
The commander declined to talk to 60 Minutes. "But we are talking to you now," Simon pointed out, standing outside. "Why don't you tell us what you are doing here? Have you lost your voice? Well they've closed the door now, they've closed the window so I guess if the children are going to get home now we have to leave, so that is what we will do."
An army spokesperson told us the army uses the Nassifs' house for important surveillance operations. The Nassifs told 60 Minutes that soldiers usually stay for a day or two, always coming and going in the middle of the night. When they do go, the Nassifs never know when they will be occupied again. It could be tomorrow, next week, or next month. The only certainty, they say, is that the soldiers will be back.
Another crippling reality on the West Bank is high unemployment, now about 20 percent. So some Palestinians can only find jobs building Israeli settlements. They're so ashamed to work on the construction sites that they asked 60 Minutes not to show their faces.
The settlers now number 280,000, and as they keep moving in, their population keeps growing about five percent every year. But the 2.5 million Arabs have their strategy too: they're growing bigger families.
Demographers predict that within ten years Arabs will outnumber Jews in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Without a separate Palestinian state the Israelis would have three options, none of them good. They could try ethnic cleansing, drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank, or they could give the Palestinians the vote. That would be the democratic option but it would mean the end of the Jewish state. Or they could try apartheid - have the minority Israelis rule the majority Palestinians, but apartheid regimes don't have a very long life.
"Unfortunately, and I have to say to you that apartheid is already in place," Dr. Barghouti argued.
Apartheid? Israel is building what it calls a security wall between the West Bank and Israel. The Palestinians are furious because it appropriates eight percent of the West Bank. Not only that. It weaves its way through Palestinian farms, separating farmers from their land. They have to wait at gates for soldiers to let them in. Settlers get a lot more water than Palestinians, which is why settlements are green and Arab areas are not.
Moderate Israelis who deplore the occupation used to believe passionately in a two-state solution. That is no longer the case.
Meron Benvenisti used to be deputy mayor of Jerusalem. He told Simon the prospects of the two-state solution becoming a reality are "nil."
"The geopolitical condition that’s been created in '67 is irreversible. Cannot be changed. You cannot unscramble that egg," he explained.
Asked if this means the settlers have won, Benvenisti told Simon, "Yes."
"And the settlers will remain forever and ever?" Simon asked.
"I don't know forever and ever, but they will remain and will flourish," Benvenisti said.
"The settlers, the attitude that I present here, this is the heart. This is the pulse. This is the past, present, and future of the Jewish state," Daniella Weiss told Simon.
She says the she and the settlers are immovable. "We will stay here forever."
But one very important Israeli says she intends to move them out. She's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, a candidate to become prime minister in elections next month. She's also Israel’s chief negotiator with the Palestinians, and she told 60 Minutes peace is unthinkable with the settlers where they are.
"Can you really imagine evacuating the tens of thousands of settlers who say they will not leave?" Simon asked.
"It's not going to be easy. But this is the only solution," she replied.
"But you know that there are settlers who say, 'We will fight. We will not leave. We will fight,'" Simon asked.
"So this is the responsibility of the government and police to stop them. As simple as that. Israel is a state of law and order," Livni said.
It's also a state of law and disorder. When the army evicted just nine families from a West Bank settlement called Amona three years ago, it was chaos. It was the first time since the creation of the state that Jews were in pitched battles against Jews. To Israelis of all stripes, it was not a pretty picture. And it made the government loath to try again.
Officials fear that more battles to empty settlements could rip Israel apart. They're afraid that religious officers in the army - and there are an increasing number of them - would disobey any order to evict settlers.
The army is evicting Arabs from their homes in East Jerusalem, which Palestinians hoped to make their capital. Outraged, Arabs tried to save their homes, but the Israelis have the guns. Israel demolished more than 100 Arab homes in the past year, ruling they had been illegally built. Arabs say this is just another tactic to drive them out. But officials say they also knock down unauthorized Jewish buildings on the West Bank. They're put up by youngsters, the next generation’s campaign to populate the land.
Daniella Weiss told 60 Minutes they will not be stopped.
Despite the army tearing down a structure, the settlers began rebuilding it on the same day. "We will have the upper hand," Weiss vowed.
"But the army will tear it down again," Simon pointed out.
"And we will rebuild it," Weiss said. "The experience shows that the world belongs to those who are stubborn, and we are very stubborn."
Stubborn, she says, because they were ordered to populate this land by no less an authority than God. "This is the mission of our generation and I want to emphasis the most important point is to this," Weiss said, picking up some soil, "to hold strong to the soil of the Holy Land."
Watch CBS Videos Online
Time Running Out For A Two-State Solution?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/60minutes/main4749723.shtml
Full Transcript Below
Jan. 25, 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) Getting a peace deal in the Middle East is such a priority to President Obama that his first foreign calls on his first day in office were to Arab and Israeli leaders. And on day two, the president made former Senator George Mitchell his special envoy for Middle East peace. Mr. Obama wants to shore up the ceasefire in Gaza, but a lasting peace really depends on the West Bank where Palestinians had hoped to create their state. The problem is, even before Israel invaded Gaza, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians had concluded that peace between them was no longer possible, that history had passed it by. For peace to have a chance, Israel would have to withdraw from the West Bank, which would then become the Palestinian state.
It’s known as the "two-state" solution. But, while negotiations have been going on for 15 years, hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers have moved in to occupy the West Bank. Palestinians say they can't have a state with Israeli settlers all over it, which the settlers say is precisely the idea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniella Weiss moved from Israel to the West Bank 33 years ago. She has been the mayor of a large settlement.
"I think that settlements prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel. This is the goal. And this is the reality," Weiss told 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon.
Though settlers and Palestinians don't agree on anything, most do agree now that a peace deal has been overtaken by events.
"While my heart still wants to believe that the two-state solution is possible, my brain keeps telling me the opposite because of what I see in terms of the building of settlements. So, these settlers are destroying the potential peace for both people that would have been created if we had a two-state solution," Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, once a former candidate for Palestinian president, told Simon.
And he told 60 Minutes Israel's invasion of Gaza - all the death and destruction - convinces him that Israel does not want a two-state solution. "My heart is deeply broken, and I am very worried that what Israel has done has furthered us much further from the possibility of [a] two-state solution."
Palestinians had hoped to establish their state on the West Bank, an area the size of Delaware. But Israelis have split it up with scores of settlements, and hundreds of miles of new highways that only settlers can use. Palestinians have to drive - or ride - on the older roads.
When they want to travel from one town to another, they have to submit to humiliating delays at checkpoints and roadblocks. There are more than 600 of them on the West Bank.
Asked why there are so many checkpoints, Dr. Barghouti said, "I think the main goal is to fragment the West Bank. Maybe a little bit of them can be justified because they say it's for security. But I think the vast majority of them are basically to block the movement of people from one place to another."
Here's how they block Barghouti: he was born in Jerusalem, grew up in Jerusalem and worked in a hospital there for 14 years. Four years ago he moved to a town just 10 miles away, but now, because he no longer lives in Jerusalem, he can't get back in - ever.
He says he can't get a permit to go. "I asked for a permit to go to Jerusalem during the last year, the last years about 16 times. And 16 times they were rejected. Like most Palestinians, I don't have a permit to go to the city I was born in, to the city I used to work in, to the city where my sister lives."
What he's up against are scores of Israeli settlements dominating the lowlands like crusader fortresses. Many are little cities, and none of them existed 40 years ago. The Israelis always take the high ground, sometimes the hills, and sometimes the homes. And sometimes Arabs are occupied inside their own homes.
One house for example is the highest house on the highest hill overlooking the town of Nablus. 60 Minutes learned that Israeli soldiers often corral the four families who live there and take over the house to monitor movement down below.
Simon and the 60 Minutes team went to an apartment owned by a Mr. Nassif. That morning, Israeli soldiers had apparently entered the apartment, without notice, and remained there when Simon knocked on the door.
"We cannot speak with you, there are soldiers," Nassif told Simon. "We are in prison here."
Asked what was happening, Nassif says, "They are keeping us here and the soldiers are upstairs, we cannot move. We cannot speak with you."
Nassif said he couldn't leave the house and didn't know how long he'd have to stay in place. Asked if they were paying him any money, he told Simon, "You are kidding?"
Abdul Nassif, a bank manager said he had to get to his bank to open the safe, but one of the soldiers wouldn't let him go. He told 60 Minutes whenever the soldiers come they wake everybody up, and herd them into a kitchen for hours while soldiers sleep in their beds. They can't leave or use the phone, or let 60 Minutes in.
He sent 60 Minutes downstairs to see if his brother would open the door so we could ask the soldiers why they keep taking over this house. But the brother told Simon, "The soldiers close the door from the key. They take the key."
So Simon and the crew left, and that night, so did the soldiers. But when 60 Minutes returned two days later, the soldiers were back for more surveillance. This time they kept the women under house arrest, but let the men go to work and the children go to school. When the children returned, we caught a glimpse of two armed soldiers at the top of the stairs.
Then more children came home, but the soldiers wouldn't open the door again.
A commander told Simon that he and the crew would have to go back behind a wall in order for the children to be let in.
The commander declined to talk to 60 Minutes. "But we are talking to you now," Simon pointed out, standing outside. "Why don't you tell us what you are doing here? Have you lost your voice? Well they've closed the door now, they've closed the window so I guess if the children are going to get home now we have to leave, so that is what we will do."
An army spokesperson told us the army uses the Nassifs' house for important surveillance operations. The Nassifs told 60 Minutes that soldiers usually stay for a day or two, always coming and going in the middle of the night. When they do go, the Nassifs never know when they will be occupied again. It could be tomorrow, next week, or next month. The only certainty, they say, is that the soldiers will be back.
Another crippling reality on the West Bank is high unemployment, now about 20 percent. So some Palestinians can only find jobs building Israeli settlements. They're so ashamed to work on the construction sites that they asked 60 Minutes not to show their faces.
The settlers now number 280,000, and as they keep moving in, their population keeps growing about five percent every year. But the 2.5 million Arabs have their strategy too: they're growing bigger families.
Demographers predict that within ten years Arabs will outnumber Jews in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Without a separate Palestinian state the Israelis would have three options, none of them good. They could try ethnic cleansing, drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank, or they could give the Palestinians the vote. That would be the democratic option but it would mean the end of the Jewish state. Or they could try apartheid - have the minority Israelis rule the majority Palestinians, but apartheid regimes don't have a very long life.
"Unfortunately, and I have to say to you that apartheid is already in place," Dr. Barghouti argued.
Apartheid? Israel is building what it calls a security wall between the West Bank and Israel. The Palestinians are furious because it appropriates eight percent of the West Bank. Not only that. It weaves its way through Palestinian farms, separating farmers from their land. They have to wait at gates for soldiers to let them in. Settlers get a lot more water than Palestinians, which is why settlements are green and Arab areas are not.
Moderate Israelis who deplore the occupation used to believe passionately in a two-state solution. That is no longer the case.
Meron Benvenisti used to be deputy mayor of Jerusalem. He told Simon the prospects of the two-state solution becoming a reality are "nil."
"The geopolitical condition that’s been created in '67 is irreversible. Cannot be changed. You cannot unscramble that egg," he explained.
Asked if this means the settlers have won, Benvenisti told Simon, "Yes."
"And the settlers will remain forever and ever?" Simon asked.
"I don't know forever and ever, but they will remain and will flourish," Benvenisti said.
"The settlers, the attitude that I present here, this is the heart. This is the pulse. This is the past, present, and future of the Jewish state," Daniella Weiss told Simon.
She says the she and the settlers are immovable. "We will stay here forever."
But one very important Israeli says she intends to move them out. She's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, a candidate to become prime minister in elections next month. She's also Israel’s chief negotiator with the Palestinians, and she told 60 Minutes peace is unthinkable with the settlers where they are.
"Can you really imagine evacuating the tens of thousands of settlers who say they will not leave?" Simon asked.
"It's not going to be easy. But this is the only solution," she replied.
"But you know that there are settlers who say, 'We will fight. We will not leave. We will fight,'" Simon asked.
"So this is the responsibility of the government and police to stop them. As simple as that. Israel is a state of law and order," Livni said.
It's also a state of law and disorder. When the army evicted just nine families from a West Bank settlement called Amona three years ago, it was chaos. It was the first time since the creation of the state that Jews were in pitched battles against Jews. To Israelis of all stripes, it was not a pretty picture. And it made the government loath to try again.
Officials fear that more battles to empty settlements could rip Israel apart. They're afraid that religious officers in the army - and there are an increasing number of them - would disobey any order to evict settlers.
The army is evicting Arabs from their homes in East Jerusalem, which Palestinians hoped to make their capital. Outraged, Arabs tried to save their homes, but the Israelis have the guns. Israel demolished more than 100 Arab homes in the past year, ruling they had been illegally built. Arabs say this is just another tactic to drive them out. But officials say they also knock down unauthorized Jewish buildings on the West Bank. They're put up by youngsters, the next generation’s campaign to populate the land.
Daniella Weiss told 60 Minutes they will not be stopped.
Despite the army tearing down a structure, the settlers began rebuilding it on the same day. "We will have the upper hand," Weiss vowed.
"But the army will tear it down again," Simon pointed out.
"And we will rebuild it," Weiss said. "The experience shows that the world belongs to those who are stubborn, and we are very stubborn."
Stubborn, she says, because they were ordered to populate this land by no less an authority than God. "This is the mission of our generation and I want to emphasis the most important point is to this," Weiss said, picking up some soil, "to hold strong to the soil of the Holy Land."
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Obsession with Hate - A Decisive Response to the Anti-Muslim Documentary "Obsession"
Propagandists of Islamophobia amaze me sometimes. Since 9/11 all these "former" Muslims, "former" terrorists, and what not have come out of the woodwork to publish a vast array of books and publications with the intent of educating the American public about the "Muslim threat." While few will deny that (like in any other religion or ideology for that matter) within the Muslim community there are people who are at the fringe, some even to the point that they are willing to inflict physical harm and death on innocent people, the propagandists fail to distinguish the mainstream from the fringe.
Many of these propagandists have an agenda usually tied to some political ideology (in this case the far right wing of the political spectrum. Some of them are also motivated by the dollar sign. One of my teachers in Islam once told us that " If you want a New York Times Bestseller and be invited to the media shows and be regarded as an expert, leave Islam, or better yet if your a woman, make an outrageous claim that you have been oppressed."
Recently, a shadowy group called the Clarion Fund (which after research originates from a fringe group located in Israel) sent several million copies of the Anti-Muslim propaganda documentary "Obsession" to local media newspapers in election swing states.
One can draw many conclusions from this action. Nonetheless, as a response from the mainstream American interfaith community along with ironically a local college professor who was dupped into being interviewed in the documentary, issued a definitive response and rebuttal to this documentary.
The website that Hate Hurts America created is called www.obsessionwithhate.com
Not only does this website go after the factual errors in the film but also exposes the propagandists that are featured in this film. Each propaganist has a track record of dirt and shady connections that cannot be ignored.
The following is the introduction page to this website which I recommend all of you to visit and read:
What is 'Obsession'?
Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West is a 2005 anti-Muslim propaganda film put together by controversial anti-Muslim figures to further the perceived divide between Western and Muslim audiences. 28 million copies of the DVD were recently distributed by a mysteriously-funded entity by the name of the Clarion Fund with the help of 70 US newspapers in a curious and unprecedented campaign. This large distribution, particularly given it was targeted to swing states in the current elections cycle, piqued the interest of many, especially civil rights watchdogs.
Why is 'Obsession' a hate film, can we deny that radical violent Muslims exist?
Of course, there is no denying that there are those who have misused Islam to promote an anti-Western militant ideology that is responsible for the tragic 9/11 attacks and other deplorable terrorist acts around the globe. Few would disagree that Al Qaeda and its imitators are ruthless enemies that the United States must deal with forcefully.
But “Obsession” is not an honest critique of violent radicalism. Instead, it is a propaganda piece that seeks to cast a wide net of suspicion against Muslims by blurring the line between violent radicalism and mainstream Islam. As such, it does not call on credible experts and reputable scholars but resorts to shady characters like “former-terrorist” Walid Shoebat, who has made such outlandish statements as: “Islam is not the religion of God Islam is the devil.”
In a recent commentary responding to the distribution of “Obsession,” Jeff VanDenBerg, director of Middle East Studies at Drury University, called the film “a blatant piece of anti-Muslim propaganda.” He also wrote: “The film ‘Obsession’ plays to the crudest stereotypes and promotes the simplest solutions. In the end, this kind of thinking will do far more to harm American security than it will to help it.” (News-Leader, 9/17/08)
What about the film's declaration that it is not about moderate Muslims, just radical ones?
“Obsession” begins with a brief disclaimer that states: “It is important to remember that most Muslims are peaceful and do not support terror.” However, the remainder of the film distorts facts and events in an attempt to convince its audience of the exact opposite.
What is the film's main goal?
The film’s ultimate goal is to lay the grounds for a larger religious war that goes beyond our national security interests and has only two beneficiaries: radical evangelicals who hold an apocalyptic worldview, and war profiteers who gamble at the expense of thousands of American lives and trillions of tax-payer dollars.
What are the film's main tactics?
“Obsession” employs two main tactics.
First, it exploits Americans’ unfamiliarity with Islam and Muslims to suggest that deviant groups are somehow representative of most, if not all, Muslims. It scours the Muslim world for bizarre incidents and falsely projects them as the accepted norm. It then concludes that the Muslim world is an overall radical hotbed that wishes death and destruction upon the West.
In fact, while the Muslim world has its share of fanatics, they comprise a tiny fraction of the population and are highly at odds with a mainstream society that aspires to peace and prosperity.
Second, “Obsession” exploits the legitimate apprehension that many feel in this country as a result of 9/11 and attempts to instigate a state of full-blown hysteria. Only widespread hysteria could make questionable military excursions such as the Iraq occupation a possible sell yet again.
In fact, America faces no imminent threat from Muslim nations, who are themselves wary of the minority radicals in their midst. No Muslim nation has ever attacked our homeland, and none is likely to ever initiate such an attack.
If 'Obsession' is a sub-par work of propaganda, why should we waste our time talking about it?
Sensational content aside, “Obsession” ought to peak our interest for two reasons:
The first is the gargantuan size of the operation: 28 million free copies distributed via 70 major daily newspapers. That could cost tens of millions of dollars if we assume even conservative advertising rates.
The second reason is how surprisingly little we know about the operation itself.
All we know is that the film’s distribution is paid for by a shadowy organization called the Clarion Fund. For an entity so well-endowed, the Clarion Fund’s website offers no relevant information about its identity or its source of funding. Its 990 forms are not yet public.
What needs to be done moving forward?
Three important questions have to be answered:
First, who exactly is this Clarion Fund and what is its source of funding? The public has a right to know and reporters have a responsibility to investigate.
Second, the film is being distributed only in swing states with the obvious strategic goal of swaying the elections. That should automatically put the burden on both candidates to speak out and clearly communicate their positions on this film and its distribution tactics. Voters have a right to know where the candidates stand and journalists have a responsibility to ask.
Third, given the sheer size of this operation and its self-described political nature, it is baffling to note the apathy with which it has been met on our primetime network election coverage. It does not just affect Muslims, but all Americans, when sensationalism threatens to hijack honest and informed debate on the key issues in the biggest decision of our generation.
Be sure to read the full rebuttal to the false arguments made by Obsession.
After reading through the point by point rebuttal, it just shows how these people who are behind this Anti-Muslim hysteria lack a moral compass.
To my surprise however, (as mentioned earlier) one of the interviewees in that documentary came out and condemned the film for what it is. For me to sumarize his comments won't do it justice. Despite the face that I sharply disagree with his views on Israel and his views on the mainstream Islamic Tradition, I do respect him for his integrity in this whole matter.
Below is his statement taken from the www.obsessionwithhate.com website:
In an exclusive statement for obsessionwithhate.com, Dr. Khaleel Mohammed, the only Obsession interviewee who is an Islamic Studies Professor, delivers a new lethal blow to the film's credibility, exposing what many already knew:
“Sadly, it would seem that I have allowed myself to be used. I gave an interview to the makers of “obsession” wherein I explained the meaning of Jihad, and its misuse by extremists. I understood that the film would be used objectively, focusing on fanatics who seek to spread violence. I am aware that there is a disclaimer at the beginning of the film that says it is not about Islam in general, but only about extremist interpretations.
"But the material from some of the speakers gives the lie to the disclaimer: many of them are not experts, or have used the mantle of academic qualifications to purvey hate. That their alarmist drivel should be mixed with my whittled down interview proves that the intent of the film is not to educate, but to mislead. The free distribution of the film to voters in particular districts shows the political chicanery that is the motive, and the secrecy about the financing of the distribution only underlines the evil intent in circulating this vile piece of propaganda.
"Evidence seems to indicate the involvement of Aish ha-Torah in this dishonest enterprise. I find that particularly distressing, because any Jewish organization ought to realize what the film seeks to do: they demonize an entire community to the point where a government takes action to further beleaguer its citizens and resident aliens simply because of their religious identity. This bigotry over religion and identity is precisely what caused the Shoah — and it is sad that those who ought to have learned what hate can engender should seek to imitate Nazi propagandism.
"Yet — for all the nefarious intent of the distributors of the film — I must also accept culpability for allowing myself to be so used. I still oppose many of the traditional interpretations of Islam—but that has nothing to do with the film Obsession. I cannot stand by silently and allow my participation in such satanic demonization of innocents. I apologize to my fellow Muslims for appearing in such a film. I apologize to my Jewish teachers and friends-- who have warned me time and again about falling into such a situation—for not heeding their counsel. And I expect now that those who support the film will make me their target. But again: I am no diplomat, and I love a good fight. I am obsessed with the truth. Let’s get it on. “
Go to WWW.OBSESSIONWITHHATE.COM
Much props to the Hate Hurts America Coalition for challenging hate and bigotry
Many of these propagandists have an agenda usually tied to some political ideology (in this case the far right wing of the political spectrum. Some of them are also motivated by the dollar sign. One of my teachers in Islam once told us that " If you want a New York Times Bestseller and be invited to the media shows and be regarded as an expert, leave Islam, or better yet if your a woman, make an outrageous claim that you have been oppressed."
Recently, a shadowy group called the Clarion Fund (which after research originates from a fringe group located in Israel) sent several million copies of the Anti-Muslim propaganda documentary "Obsession" to local media newspapers in election swing states.
One can draw many conclusions from this action. Nonetheless, as a response from the mainstream American interfaith community along with ironically a local college professor who was dupped into being interviewed in the documentary, issued a definitive response and rebuttal to this documentary.
The website that Hate Hurts America created is called www.obsessionwithhate.com
Not only does this website go after the factual errors in the film but also exposes the propagandists that are featured in this film. Each propaganist has a track record of dirt and shady connections that cannot be ignored.
The following is the introduction page to this website which I recommend all of you to visit and read:
What is 'Obsession'?
Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West is a 2005 anti-Muslim propaganda film put together by controversial anti-Muslim figures to further the perceived divide between Western and Muslim audiences. 28 million copies of the DVD were recently distributed by a mysteriously-funded entity by the name of the Clarion Fund with the help of 70 US newspapers in a curious and unprecedented campaign. This large distribution, particularly given it was targeted to swing states in the current elections cycle, piqued the interest of many, especially civil rights watchdogs.
Why is 'Obsession' a hate film, can we deny that radical violent Muslims exist?
Of course, there is no denying that there are those who have misused Islam to promote an anti-Western militant ideology that is responsible for the tragic 9/11 attacks and other deplorable terrorist acts around the globe. Few would disagree that Al Qaeda and its imitators are ruthless enemies that the United States must deal with forcefully.
But “Obsession” is not an honest critique of violent radicalism. Instead, it is a propaganda piece that seeks to cast a wide net of suspicion against Muslims by blurring the line between violent radicalism and mainstream Islam. As such, it does not call on credible experts and reputable scholars but resorts to shady characters like “former-terrorist” Walid Shoebat, who has made such outlandish statements as: “Islam is not the religion of God Islam is the devil.”
In a recent commentary responding to the distribution of “Obsession,” Jeff VanDenBerg, director of Middle East Studies at Drury University, called the film “a blatant piece of anti-Muslim propaganda.” He also wrote: “The film ‘Obsession’ plays to the crudest stereotypes and promotes the simplest solutions. In the end, this kind of thinking will do far more to harm American security than it will to help it.” (News-Leader, 9/17/08)
What about the film's declaration that it is not about moderate Muslims, just radical ones?
“Obsession” begins with a brief disclaimer that states: “It is important to remember that most Muslims are peaceful and do not support terror.” However, the remainder of the film distorts facts and events in an attempt to convince its audience of the exact opposite.
What is the film's main goal?
The film’s ultimate goal is to lay the grounds for a larger religious war that goes beyond our national security interests and has only two beneficiaries: radical evangelicals who hold an apocalyptic worldview, and war profiteers who gamble at the expense of thousands of American lives and trillions of tax-payer dollars.
What are the film's main tactics?
“Obsession” employs two main tactics.
First, it exploits Americans’ unfamiliarity with Islam and Muslims to suggest that deviant groups are somehow representative of most, if not all, Muslims. It scours the Muslim world for bizarre incidents and falsely projects them as the accepted norm. It then concludes that the Muslim world is an overall radical hotbed that wishes death and destruction upon the West.
In fact, while the Muslim world has its share of fanatics, they comprise a tiny fraction of the population and are highly at odds with a mainstream society that aspires to peace and prosperity.
Second, “Obsession” exploits the legitimate apprehension that many feel in this country as a result of 9/11 and attempts to instigate a state of full-blown hysteria. Only widespread hysteria could make questionable military excursions such as the Iraq occupation a possible sell yet again.
In fact, America faces no imminent threat from Muslim nations, who are themselves wary of the minority radicals in their midst. No Muslim nation has ever attacked our homeland, and none is likely to ever initiate such an attack.
If 'Obsession' is a sub-par work of propaganda, why should we waste our time talking about it?
Sensational content aside, “Obsession” ought to peak our interest for two reasons:
The first is the gargantuan size of the operation: 28 million free copies distributed via 70 major daily newspapers. That could cost tens of millions of dollars if we assume even conservative advertising rates.
The second reason is how surprisingly little we know about the operation itself.
All we know is that the film’s distribution is paid for by a shadowy organization called the Clarion Fund. For an entity so well-endowed, the Clarion Fund’s website offers no relevant information about its identity or its source of funding. Its 990 forms are not yet public.
What needs to be done moving forward?
Three important questions have to be answered:
First, who exactly is this Clarion Fund and what is its source of funding? The public has a right to know and reporters have a responsibility to investigate.
Second, the film is being distributed only in swing states with the obvious strategic goal of swaying the elections. That should automatically put the burden on both candidates to speak out and clearly communicate their positions on this film and its distribution tactics. Voters have a right to know where the candidates stand and journalists have a responsibility to ask.
Third, given the sheer size of this operation and its self-described political nature, it is baffling to note the apathy with which it has been met on our primetime network election coverage. It does not just affect Muslims, but all Americans, when sensationalism threatens to hijack honest and informed debate on the key issues in the biggest decision of our generation.
Be sure to read the full rebuttal to the false arguments made by Obsession.
After reading through the point by point rebuttal, it just shows how these people who are behind this Anti-Muslim hysteria lack a moral compass.
To my surprise however, (as mentioned earlier) one of the interviewees in that documentary came out and condemned the film for what it is. For me to sumarize his comments won't do it justice. Despite the face that I sharply disagree with his views on Israel and his views on the mainstream Islamic Tradition, I do respect him for his integrity in this whole matter.
Below is his statement taken from the www.obsessionwithhate.com website:
In an exclusive statement for obsessionwithhate.com, Dr. Khaleel Mohammed, the only Obsession interviewee who is an Islamic Studies Professor, delivers a new lethal blow to the film's credibility, exposing what many already knew:
“Sadly, it would seem that I have allowed myself to be used. I gave an interview to the makers of “obsession” wherein I explained the meaning of Jihad, and its misuse by extremists. I understood that the film would be used objectively, focusing on fanatics who seek to spread violence. I am aware that there is a disclaimer at the beginning of the film that says it is not about Islam in general, but only about extremist interpretations.
"But the material from some of the speakers gives the lie to the disclaimer: many of them are not experts, or have used the mantle of academic qualifications to purvey hate. That their alarmist drivel should be mixed with my whittled down interview proves that the intent of the film is not to educate, but to mislead. The free distribution of the film to voters in particular districts shows the political chicanery that is the motive, and the secrecy about the financing of the distribution only underlines the evil intent in circulating this vile piece of propaganda.
"Evidence seems to indicate the involvement of Aish ha-Torah in this dishonest enterprise. I find that particularly distressing, because any Jewish organization ought to realize what the film seeks to do: they demonize an entire community to the point where a government takes action to further beleaguer its citizens and resident aliens simply because of their religious identity. This bigotry over religion and identity is precisely what caused the Shoah — and it is sad that those who ought to have learned what hate can engender should seek to imitate Nazi propagandism.
"Yet — for all the nefarious intent of the distributors of the film — I must also accept culpability for allowing myself to be so used. I still oppose many of the traditional interpretations of Islam—but that has nothing to do with the film Obsession. I cannot stand by silently and allow my participation in such satanic demonization of innocents. I apologize to my fellow Muslims for appearing in such a film. I apologize to my Jewish teachers and friends-- who have warned me time and again about falling into such a situation—for not heeding their counsel. And I expect now that those who support the film will make me their target. But again: I am no diplomat, and I love a good fight. I am obsessed with the truth. Let’s get it on. “
Go to WWW.OBSESSIONWITHHATE.COM
Much props to the Hate Hurts America Coalition for challenging hate and bigotry
Friday, April 11, 2008
Book Review of Who Speaks for Islam
Book Review - Who Speaks for Islam: What a Billion Muslims Really Think by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed
I'm an avid book reader especially on the topic of the religion that I belong to which is Islam. Sure, the majority of the books out there on the topic that are available at your local bookstores whether it be Barnes and Noble, Borders, or even the online bookstores like Amazon and what not, are written by what I like to call band wagon Islamophobes and opportunists who suddently become scholars and experts overnight simply for writing a terrible book on Islam.
Out of the cloud of misinformation on the topic, Professor John Esposito who is the founding director of Georgetown University's Prince Al Walid Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, and Dalia Mogahed who is the senior analyst and Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies as well as Executive Director of the Muslim West Facts Iniative, wrote an excellent work based on Gallup's World Poll findings on what exactly do everyday Muslims around the world think on various issues?
As most people in the West will be surprised to learn when reading this book is that the majority of Muslims in the world want the same basic rights, freedoms, and aspirations as they do.
In the introduction, the study revealed things that people who are not familiar with Muslims or Islam will find surprising:
* Muslims around the world do not see the West as a monolithic entity. They praise or criticize nations based on their politics not their culture or religion
* Despite the popular myth, the dream job for most Muslims is not fighting jihad but rather getting a better job!
* Muslims and Amnericans are equally likely to reject attacks on civilians as morally unjustified
* Those who condone terrorism are a very small minority and are no more likely to be religious than the rest of the population.
* Muslims around the world when asked what they liked about the West is its technology and democracy. Ironically, those are the two top responses that the Americans gave when asked the same question
* Muslims around the world when asked what they liked least about the West is its perceived moral decay and breakdown of traditional values, which is the same responses that Americans gave when asked the same question.
* Muslim women around the world want equal rights and religion in their societies.
* Muslims around the world suggest that if the West wants to improve relations with their societies is to moderate their views toward Muslims and respect the religious tradition of Islam.
* Majority of Muslims around the world DO NOT want their religious leaders to draft constitutions or rule the country BUT they do favor religious law as a source of legislation.
This book is a must for those who really want to know what the majority of Muslims around the world think. I recommend this especially for all those Americans out there who still think that Muslims around the world hate America for its freedom and democracy. I recommend them especially to read the chapter on "What Makes a Radical?"
I'm an avid book reader especially on the topic of the religion that I belong to which is Islam. Sure, the majority of the books out there on the topic that are available at your local bookstores whether it be Barnes and Noble, Borders, or even the online bookstores like Amazon and what not, are written by what I like to call band wagon Islamophobes and opportunists who suddently become scholars and experts overnight simply for writing a terrible book on Islam.
Out of the cloud of misinformation on the topic, Professor John Esposito who is the founding director of Georgetown University's Prince Al Walid Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, and Dalia Mogahed who is the senior analyst and Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies as well as Executive Director of the Muslim West Facts Iniative, wrote an excellent work based on Gallup's World Poll findings on what exactly do everyday Muslims around the world think on various issues?
As most people in the West will be surprised to learn when reading this book is that the majority of Muslims in the world want the same basic rights, freedoms, and aspirations as they do.
In the introduction, the study revealed things that people who are not familiar with Muslims or Islam will find surprising:
* Muslims around the world do not see the West as a monolithic entity. They praise or criticize nations based on their politics not their culture or religion
* Despite the popular myth, the dream job for most Muslims is not fighting jihad but rather getting a better job!
* Muslims and Amnericans are equally likely to reject attacks on civilians as morally unjustified
* Those who condone terrorism are a very small minority and are no more likely to be religious than the rest of the population.
* Muslims around the world when asked what they liked about the West is its technology and democracy. Ironically, those are the two top responses that the Americans gave when asked the same question
* Muslims around the world when asked what they liked least about the West is its perceived moral decay and breakdown of traditional values, which is the same responses that Americans gave when asked the same question.
* Muslim women around the world want equal rights and religion in their societies.
* Muslims around the world suggest that if the West wants to improve relations with their societies is to moderate their views toward Muslims and respect the religious tradition of Islam.
* Majority of Muslims around the world DO NOT want their religious leaders to draft constitutions or rule the country BUT they do favor religious law as a source of legislation.
This book is a must for those who really want to know what the majority of Muslims around the world think. I recommend this especially for all those Americans out there who still think that Muslims around the world hate America for its freedom and democracy. I recommend them especially to read the chapter on "What Makes a Radical?"
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Christopher Hitchens New Book and the San Diego Humanist Society
Last month, there was a lot of publicity surrounding Christopher Hitchens' new book called god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. There was even a special book tv event that had him and other authors showcase their arguments in their book and talk more about religion and culture. Being media savy as always, Hitchens won the crowd over with his wit but his arguments weren't impressive.
I decided to purchase a copy of the book and read it indepthly while looking over his over 50 footnotes. He basically creates the religion straw man in which he blames religion based on the human manifestations and errors of its adherents rather than the teachings and core beliefs themselves while at the same time arrogantly show the "superiority" of secular humanism and science.
Well it happened that one of the community events being held was by the San Diego Humanist Society to discuss the Book TV event that I just watched.
I came to the event thinking that the members of the San Diego Humanist Society probably already read Hitchens' book and had a strong grasp of its argument. Apparently they haven't even seen the book and they were totally clueless of what was going to be shown on Book TV.
After the meeting, as expected, the humanists praised Hitchens' tirade on religion and reiterated the atheist's argument against religion in general. When it was my turn to give some feedback, I told them I read Hitchens' book very carefully, went through its footnotes and found his argument flimsy at best.
Of course this stirred the hornet's nest and many outbursts resulted from it with a good discussion on atheism, Islam, and religion. The point I made was that one cannot put all religions into one basket. The typical arguments put out by atheists and secular humanists against religion don't really hold any weight with Islam.
Take for instance the argument that religion is anthetical to science. Islamic civilization has had a rich history of science and arts. I mentioned examples of algebra and other advanced mathematics. I also mentioned the first social theorist was Ibn Khaldun not August Comte.
After the whole discourse, I actually won the respect of many of its senior members and they wanted me to come back to future meetings. Some of them also admitted that they had a lot to learn about Islam.
I decided to purchase a copy of the book and read it indepthly while looking over his over 50 footnotes. He basically creates the religion straw man in which he blames religion based on the human manifestations and errors of its adherents rather than the teachings and core beliefs themselves while at the same time arrogantly show the "superiority" of secular humanism and science.
Well it happened that one of the community events being held was by the San Diego Humanist Society to discuss the Book TV event that I just watched.
I came to the event thinking that the members of the San Diego Humanist Society probably already read Hitchens' book and had a strong grasp of its argument. Apparently they haven't even seen the book and they were totally clueless of what was going to be shown on Book TV.
After the meeting, as expected, the humanists praised Hitchens' tirade on religion and reiterated the atheist's argument against religion in general. When it was my turn to give some feedback, I told them I read Hitchens' book very carefully, went through its footnotes and found his argument flimsy at best.
Of course this stirred the hornet's nest and many outbursts resulted from it with a good discussion on atheism, Islam, and religion. The point I made was that one cannot put all religions into one basket. The typical arguments put out by atheists and secular humanists against religion don't really hold any weight with Islam.
Take for instance the argument that religion is anthetical to science. Islamic civilization has had a rich history of science and arts. I mentioned examples of algebra and other advanced mathematics. I also mentioned the first social theorist was Ibn Khaldun not August Comte.
After the whole discourse, I actually won the respect of many of its senior members and they wanted me to come back to future meetings. Some of them also admitted that they had a lot to learn about Islam.
Friday, June 8, 2007
CAIR San Diego Joins Immigrant Rights Consortium of San Diego County
New immigration reform group forms
reform group forms
By: EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer
North County Times June 8, 2007
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/06/08/news/top_stories/21_54_286_7_07.txt
SAN DIEGO ---- A diverse group of religious leaders, labor unions, legal advocates and community leaders joined Thursday to call on Congress to pass immigration reform that would help legalize illegal immigrants, keep migrant families together and protect immigrants' rights.
The group, called the Immigrant Rights Consortium of San Diego County, is made up of 25 organizations. They include the American Immigration Lawyers Association of San Diego, the American Jewish Committee of San Diego, the Council on American-Islamic Relations of San Diego, the Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice and several others.
More than a dozen members of the group gathered for a press conference in San Diego on the same day the U.S. Senate debated a controversial bill to overhaul the nation's immigration system.
Rabbi Laurie Coskey of Poway said immigration reform is needed because there are large numbers of workers who are critical to the local economy but live in fear of deportation. She said they often fail to report abuses at work because they are in the country illegally.
"So often, what we find is wonderful people doing the jobs that make up the backbone of our San Diego economy, yet they are fearful. They live in the shadows together with their families," said Coskey, who serves as the director of the Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice, a grass-roots group focusing on labor rights.
Consortium members said the group has objectives beyond immigration reform, such as opposing local policies that discriminate against immigrants, educating immigrants about their rights and showing the public the contributions immigrants make.
Some local anti-illegal immigration activists said the new group does not represent the views of most Americans on reform.
"As evidenced by the millions of angry phone calls, faxes and e-mails to their government 'representatives,' loyal Americans are fed up to the point of snapping with law-breaking illegal aliens," said Mike Spencer, who heads the Vista Citizens Brigade, a group of anti-illegal immigration activists in Vista.
Members of the consortium said at the press conference that they disagree with the assertion that most Americans don't want immigration reform. They said most Americans want fair immigration laws that protect the nation's borders and safeguard immigrant rights.
Andrea Guerrero, the chairwoman of the group, said the consortium hired a polling company to survey county residents and ask their views on immigration reform. She said the group will announce the poll's results next week.
Several members of the group said a compromise immigration reform bill being debated in the Senate this week is not perfect, but it could be improved as it moves to the House and later in negotiations.
The bill would help legalize millions of illegal immigrants, but would change the rules for future legal immigrants.
Republicans and Democrats have offered dozens of amendments to the bill in recent weeks, including proposals to eliminate its guest worker program and narrow the number of illegal immigrants who would be eligible to legalize their status.
That's why some members of the consortium said they can't say whether they support the bill until they see its final form.
"We've had millions of people march for humane immigration reform, but we've not seen that humane immigration reform bill out there, yet. That's what we're asking for," said Enrique Morones, who heads the immigrant rights group Border Angels, which is part of the consortium.
North County anti-illegal immigration activists said they believe the majority of the public does not want a bill that would legalize illegal immigrants.
"Americans and San Diegans want our borders secured first and enforcement of our immigration laws before we offer full rights and services to people who have broken our laws," said Jeff Schwilk, founder of the Oceanside-based San Diego Minutemen, a group of anti-illegal immigration activists.
"This new group does not appear to acknowledge these realities," Schwilk said referring to the consortium. "They should focus on helping legal immigrants assimilate into American society, and on protecting legal workers."
Edgar Hopida, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in San Diego, said the immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. He said Muslims and other immigrants often face years of waiting while the government conducts background checks to immigrate legally and become citizens.
Hopida said the Senate bill offers hope to those waiting because it has provisions to help reduce the immigration backlogs.
"A lot of people in our community are 'backlogged' three to five years and they've been legitimate green card holders who are trying to get their citizenship," Hopida said. "If you have an Arab-sounding name, more than likely, you're going to be delayed in security."
Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.
reform group forms
By: EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer
North County Times June 8, 2007
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/06/08/news/top_stories/21_54_286_7_07.txt
SAN DIEGO ---- A diverse group of religious leaders, labor unions, legal advocates and community leaders joined Thursday to call on Congress to pass immigration reform that would help legalize illegal immigrants, keep migrant families together and protect immigrants' rights.
The group, called the Immigrant Rights Consortium of San Diego County, is made up of 25 organizations. They include the American Immigration Lawyers Association of San Diego, the American Jewish Committee of San Diego, the Council on American-Islamic Relations of San Diego, the Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice and several others.
More than a dozen members of the group gathered for a press conference in San Diego on the same day the U.S. Senate debated a controversial bill to overhaul the nation's immigration system.
Rabbi Laurie Coskey of Poway said immigration reform is needed because there are large numbers of workers who are critical to the local economy but live in fear of deportation. She said they often fail to report abuses at work because they are in the country illegally.
"So often, what we find is wonderful people doing the jobs that make up the backbone of our San Diego economy, yet they are fearful. They live in the shadows together with their families," said Coskey, who serves as the director of the Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice, a grass-roots group focusing on labor rights.
Consortium members said the group has objectives beyond immigration reform, such as opposing local policies that discriminate against immigrants, educating immigrants about their rights and showing the public the contributions immigrants make.
Some local anti-illegal immigration activists said the new group does not represent the views of most Americans on reform.
"As evidenced by the millions of angry phone calls, faxes and e-mails to their government 'representatives,' loyal Americans are fed up to the point of snapping with law-breaking illegal aliens," said Mike Spencer, who heads the Vista Citizens Brigade, a group of anti-illegal immigration activists in Vista.
Members of the consortium said at the press conference that they disagree with the assertion that most Americans don't want immigration reform. They said most Americans want fair immigration laws that protect the nation's borders and safeguard immigrant rights.
Andrea Guerrero, the chairwoman of the group, said the consortium hired a polling company to survey county residents and ask their views on immigration reform. She said the group will announce the poll's results next week.
Several members of the group said a compromise immigration reform bill being debated in the Senate this week is not perfect, but it could be improved as it moves to the House and later in negotiations.
The bill would help legalize millions of illegal immigrants, but would change the rules for future legal immigrants.
Republicans and Democrats have offered dozens of amendments to the bill in recent weeks, including proposals to eliminate its guest worker program and narrow the number of illegal immigrants who would be eligible to legalize their status.
That's why some members of the consortium said they can't say whether they support the bill until they see its final form.
"We've had millions of people march for humane immigration reform, but we've not seen that humane immigration reform bill out there, yet. That's what we're asking for," said Enrique Morones, who heads the immigrant rights group Border Angels, which is part of the consortium.
North County anti-illegal immigration activists said they believe the majority of the public does not want a bill that would legalize illegal immigrants.
"Americans and San Diegans want our borders secured first and enforcement of our immigration laws before we offer full rights and services to people who have broken our laws," said Jeff Schwilk, founder of the Oceanside-based San Diego Minutemen, a group of anti-illegal immigration activists.
"This new group does not appear to acknowledge these realities," Schwilk said referring to the consortium. "They should focus on helping legal immigrants assimilate into American society, and on protecting legal workers."
Edgar Hopida, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in San Diego, said the immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. He said Muslims and other immigrants often face years of waiting while the government conducts background checks to immigrate legally and become citizens.
Hopida said the Senate bill offers hope to those waiting because it has provisions to help reduce the immigration backlogs.
"A lot of people in our community are 'backlogged' three to five years and they've been legitimate green card holders who are trying to get their citizenship," Hopida said. "If you have an Arab-sounding name, more than likely, you're going to be delayed in security."
Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
