Foreign Policy magazine's new feature, "The Ultimate Ally" by Michael Oren, is a hardly slick, and hardly new, piece of propaganda aimed at prolonging the US's blindly dangerous support of the state of Israel. Not the least bit surprising since Oren is Israel's ambassador to the US, but still, it is particularly offensive to those who have the courage to question this dangerous relationship between the USA and Israel, especially when considering the context of recent events in the Middle East.
The Arab world is in the middle of a great wave of change fueled by popular uprising in opposition to the authoritarian, in most cases, American-backed, regimes. It will not be long before Israel can no longer hold on to its claim of being the only democracy in the Middle East. In the eyes of the honest, this claim has never been substantiated in any case when taking into account of Israel's current Apartheid-like policies toward its Arab citizens and its obvious record of human rights violations in the occupied territories. Regardless, its obvious why Israeli government is in a state of complete and utter refusal to launch a new round of peace negotiations with the Palestinians. The wave of popular movement has made its way into the Palestinian territories, and with the recent unification of Hamas and Fatah, Obama's recent articulation of support for a resolution based upon the pre-1967 borders, and an upcoming UN general assembly vote for Palestinian statehood (backed by nearly all members of the international community except for the US), the Palestinian cause seems to be stronger than ever today. That is Israel's ultimate fear of course: a negotiating partner in a position of strength.
Not just because Israel is afraid of not having an upper hand in the negotiations particularly, but because any negotiations that would happen now are bound to actually bear some sort of fruit in general. It is against Israeli interest to end this conflict, plain and simple; any resolution is a bad resolution for the Israeli state and that is precisely why the conflict continues today. The continuation of the conflict allows an undefined amount of land grabbing for Israel, thus it is in the ultimate interest of the expansionists in Israel to block any peace process from ever resolving. With the continuation of the conflict, water resources, East Jerusalem, and much more are up for grabs and annexation for the Israeli government and elite, as well as a vast cheap, exploitable and indeed already greatly exploited, Palestinian labor force which is the fuel of Israeli prosperity.
The facts have always been clear in this conflict, and although much of the press has always made an effort to fog it all up with its claims that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex issue, the facts convey that this is and has always been a very simple problem with a very simple solution. Israel took and occupied land illegally and it must give it back. Israel expelled, whether directly or indirectly, many people illegally and it must allow them to return.
And let's not ever forget that this is not merely an Israeli occupation of the West bank and Gaza Strip, but a US-Israel occupation considering that the US has blocked all efforts towards peace and has funded Israeli expansion and atrocities since '67 and beyond. It was encouraging to hear Obama clearly articulate a policy in favor of pre-1967 borders, however, it is more disheartening that he expressed, not too long after that, to an AIPAC audience that the US will never support a UN resolution creating Palestinian statehood. Why Obama would make such a policy is clearly political, but he must know he is playing domestic politics at the expense of the suffering.
All the same sentiment goes for the US's current attitude towards the unification of Hamas and Fatah, which is obviously progress but cannot be admitted as such; indeed it is interesting enough that Israel's old excuse for not participating in previous peace talks was that they claimed it was impossible to make peace when the negotiation partner was so divided, and now that they aren't the excuse is that it is impossible because the negotiation partner is united. Obviously they are backed into a corner, and considering that, who can blame them for being so rejectionist...right? uhhh...
Still, times are changing, and that is why Micheal Oren's propaganda piece is particularly offensive, as it is insulting to any one's intellect who has been keeping informed with recent developments in the Middle East. Now's not the time to be beating that dead horse; for the propagandist its time to find a new horse to kill.
On a side note, when looking at the comments on Oren's piece, it seems that the Israel supporters who call anyone who criticizes Israel state policies anti-Semitic (which is a ridiculous claim obviously, but has been very effective at silencing dissent in this country) are just as quick to make sweeping negative generalizations about the Arab peoples. On that website, anyhow.
Below are some stats for all of you, just a taste of how many people have died in the overall Arab-Israeli conflict. Most of these are complete estimates because many Arab governments used to or still don't separate civilian casualties from combatant casualties, and because organizations such as the Palestinian Authority don't have adequate resources to count all casualties. Also, missing are the overall casualties of the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon besides the two wars. Indeed, the Israeli death toll is far less than the Arab toll, which begs the question of who's a threat to who, especially when you consider how many of these conflicts came about. But that's not the point, because every Israeli human life is just as important as every Arab life and we should be very worried about this situation: people are dying. It's unacceptable, and especially for us here in the USA, we are not immune from blame since our tax dollars contribute to these deaths.
Casualties since 1987 in Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
Palestinian: 7,978 (including 1,620 minors)
Israeli: 1,503 (including 142 minors)
2006 Lebanese War:
Foreign Civilians: 51
Lebanese Civilians: 1,191
Lebanese military: 46
Israeli Civilians: 43
Israeli Military: 117
Amal Movement: 17
Hizbollah: up to 700
Lebanese Communist Party: 12
PFLP-GC: 2
United Nations Civilians: 1
United Nations Military: 4
Casualties of 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon:
Lebanese: 17,825
Syrian: 1,200
PLO: 1,500
Israeli: 368
Casualties of 1973 Israeli raid on Lebanon:
Palestinian and Lebanese: up to 100
Israeli: 2
Casualties of 1973 Yom Kippur War:
Egyptian: 8,000-15,000
Syria: 3,000-3,500
Israeli: 2,520-2,800
Casualties of 1967 Six Day War:
Egyptian: 9,800-15,000
Jordanian: 700-6,000
Syrian: 1,000
Israelis: 776-983
Casualties of 1948 War:
Arab: 8,000-15,000
Israeli: 6,373
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Monday, May 23, 2011
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Thoughts on the "Ground Zero Mosque" "debate"
Not in a long time has the social climate in the United States climaxed into something so disgusting and embarrassing; it is impossible to turn on the news on the TV and not see images of people holding up anti-Muslim signs, or turn on the radio and hear the bantering of Islamophobes.
Sure, stereotyping of Muslims and general Islamophobia is nothing new, but never has it been flaunted so openly and with so much rage, especially by our public officials and mainstream public and cultural leaders: people with positions of responsibility. Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Harry Reid, Rick Lazio, and more have all been willing to throw a whole population of Muslim American under the bridge, whether it's for votes in the upcoming elections or some other unworthy cause. In some cases, some of these individuals may appear to actually believe what they are saying; indeed a rarity for the class of people who I am referring to. And this seems to be one of the only cases I wish that they didn't.
The whole issue really boils down to a basic question: Should we, as a society, have to be sensitive to the feelings of the ignorant whenever we make decisions?
Because the only reason why this is even an issue is because of the ignorant, and frankly bigoted, perception of many that all Muslims are anti-American terrorists, and more importantly, that Islam is a religion that has terrorism, violence, and anti-American sentiment at its core; that the hijackers who brought down the twin towers were following exactly what Islam teaches, and thus having a Islamic community center or house of worship near ground zero is like having a Nazi memorial center near Auschwitz.
Indeed, without these perceptions, this would not even be an issue. And these perceptions are, without doubt, based on ignorance and escalated by propaganda. Nevermind all the communities of peaceful American Muslims citizens in this country, or even those who serve in our military. Nevermind that there are just as many, if not more, promotions and depictions of violence (and misogyny) in the Bible, which is the religious text of choice of the majority of those who hold the perception that Islam is a religion of violence, as there is in the Koran. These are factors and facts that do not matter and are not exposed; thus someone like Pamela Geller can say such things as the type of Islam the 9/11 terrorists practiced is "pure Islam" without any resistance.
To be fair, there are, in the press, some defense of Muslim Americans. But not of Islam. It seems that questioning the validity of statements such as the one Pamela Geller made are excluded in the narrow spectrum of mainstream American discourse. Indeed, if it is acceptable to assume that Islam is a religion of terrorism and violence, then the same has to be said of mostly of all of the world's religions, with Christianity not only included but separated apart from the others as one of the biggest offenders. That is, if we are to be honest and truly contemplative.
The "Ground Zero Mosque" is not like Nazi Memorial near a concentration camp; in fact, if we want to make analogies and comparisons to Nazi Germany, than the more sensible comparisons would be between the propaganda against Muslims and Islam we are hearing now by the likes of Fox News gang and the propaganda and indoctrination that was being heard in Germany regarding the Jews right before the holocaust. That is a real comparison, and it is frightening.
It is telling that there are protests now, not only against the "Ground Zero Mosque", but against many mosques in many completely unrelated communities. It shows that this has nothing to do with historical landmarks or controversial Imams: it has to do with hate and fear, and of course, ignorance.
So the questions stands: Should we have to be sensitive to the ignorant?
Sure, stereotyping of Muslims and general Islamophobia is nothing new, but never has it been flaunted so openly and with so much rage, especially by our public officials and mainstream public and cultural leaders: people with positions of responsibility. Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Harry Reid, Rick Lazio, and more have all been willing to throw a whole population of Muslim American under the bridge, whether it's for votes in the upcoming elections or some other unworthy cause. In some cases, some of these individuals may appear to actually believe what they are saying; indeed a rarity for the class of people who I am referring to. And this seems to be one of the only cases I wish that they didn't.
The whole issue really boils down to a basic question: Should we, as a society, have to be sensitive to the feelings of the ignorant whenever we make decisions?
Because the only reason why this is even an issue is because of the ignorant, and frankly bigoted, perception of many that all Muslims are anti-American terrorists, and more importantly, that Islam is a religion that has terrorism, violence, and anti-American sentiment at its core; that the hijackers who brought down the twin towers were following exactly what Islam teaches, and thus having a Islamic community center or house of worship near ground zero is like having a Nazi memorial center near Auschwitz.
Indeed, without these perceptions, this would not even be an issue. And these perceptions are, without doubt, based on ignorance and escalated by propaganda. Nevermind all the communities of peaceful American Muslims citizens in this country, or even those who serve in our military. Nevermind that there are just as many, if not more, promotions and depictions of violence (and misogyny) in the Bible, which is the religious text of choice of the majority of those who hold the perception that Islam is a religion of violence, as there is in the Koran. These are factors and facts that do not matter and are not exposed; thus someone like Pamela Geller can say such things as the type of Islam the 9/11 terrorists practiced is "pure Islam" without any resistance.
To be fair, there are, in the press, some defense of Muslim Americans. But not of Islam. It seems that questioning the validity of statements such as the one Pamela Geller made are excluded in the narrow spectrum of mainstream American discourse. Indeed, if it is acceptable to assume that Islam is a religion of terrorism and violence, then the same has to be said of mostly of all of the world's religions, with Christianity not only included but separated apart from the others as one of the biggest offenders. That is, if we are to be honest and truly contemplative.
The "Ground Zero Mosque" is not like Nazi Memorial near a concentration camp; in fact, if we want to make analogies and comparisons to Nazi Germany, than the more sensible comparisons would be between the propaganda against Muslims and Islam we are hearing now by the likes of Fox News gang and the propaganda and indoctrination that was being heard in Germany regarding the Jews right before the holocaust. That is a real comparison, and it is frightening.
It is telling that there are protests now, not only against the "Ground Zero Mosque", but against many mosques in many completely unrelated communities. It shows that this has nothing to do with historical landmarks or controversial Imams: it has to do with hate and fear, and of course, ignorance.
So the questions stands: Should we have to be sensitive to the ignorant?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)