By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
Like many people who trade in the world of political commentary, I was prepared to write a response to President Obama's speech from the perspective of content analysis and criticism of not only what he communicated, but what, from my perspective, he left unsaid.
And I will still do that because there are areas of concern that many, including Muslim Americans have about the status of the relationship between the broader Islamic world, the Muslim American community and the policies and practices of the United States government.
That said, I believe all of us must acknowledge President Obama's remarks at Cairo University today as not only incisive and hopeful, but even prophetic.
A new paradigm for official US-Muslim world relations may well emerge as a result of President Obama's message. There is critical work (on all sides) to be done, and the task in front of us remains a daunting one.
But in at least three areas, President Obama's words signal a momentous and hopeful shift in the understanding that the new American government may have regarding its present and future relationship with Muslims and the Islamic world.
What are the things that make me hopeful? Here are four of them:
1. President Obama's speech advanced the understanding that Islam is not only a part of the heritage of global civilization, but part of the American historical and cultural mosaic as well. He mentioned, quite accurately, a number of important contributions that Muslims have made, and continue to make, for the advancement of American civil society, including that the fact that the Muslim American community numbers in excess of seven million, with 1,300 mosques nationwide and communities in every state. This fact alone refutes the characterization, by some that Islam is essentially alien to the American landscape, and that Muslim values and practices are incompatible with "American" culture.
Moreover, by further emphasizing the Muslim scientific, literary, and cultural underpinnings of Western and global civilization, President Obama's remarks served to advance a more enlightened understanding of Islamic and Qur'anic ethics and values as an integral part of the larger Abrahamic faith context.
2. There is recognition, for once, of both the oppression and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people. It is true that President Obama spoke, quite accurately, of the continued U.S. commitment to the safety and security of the Jewish state, the acknowledgement of the historical suffering of the Jewish people, and the legitimate aspiration for a Jewish homeland. But his recognition of Palestinian displacement and the "intolerable" conditions that afflict the West Bank and Gaza civilian population represented a major shift in American understanding of human conditions rooted in historical Palestinian displacement since 1948. Also – and this was a major pronouncement – President Obama clearly stated the opposition, by his administration, to the continuation and expansion of (illegal) Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
3. President Obama spoke of support for a genuinely universal democratic ideal. There should be no doubt about the significance of a strong statement in support of real democracy articulated by a U.S. president standing on Egyptian soil. No doubt, the Egyptian people listening today, particularly the younger generation sitting in the Cairo University audience, understood that the anti-democratic and authoritarian character of the Mubarak regime, although not named, was one of the political systems in the majority Muslim world that President Obama had in mind when he spoke these words. True social progressives and supporters of popular democracy here in the United States should be encouraged by this implied criticism of past U.S. support for anti-democratic Muslim regimes, past and present, throughout the world.
4. President Obama spoke to the centrality of building economic opportunity in the Islamic world, and especially the linkage between broad societal advancement and the elevation of the human and civil rights of Muslim women. One major (and quite legitimate) criticism of majority-Muslim nations is the fact that they have not pushed strongly for the broad social (and economic) equality of women. The President challenged those nations – in a way that was neither hostile nor disrespectful – to see the education and advancement of women as central to the need for broader economic evolution within the Muslim world. And there was also his announcement of a new cooperative venture between the United States and the Organization of Islamic Conference (O.I.C.) to work for the eradication of Polio.
Of course, pundits and critics (from both the Left and Right) will undoubtedly focus on the things that were missing from the speech, and especially the lack of details related to the architecture of new American policy related to Muslim nations.
For example, would the U.S. government choose to deal with right-wing Israeli intransigence on the issue of West Bank settlements, and for that matter, the idea of a shared Jerusalem with equal human rights and access for Palestinians? How should the U.S. engage Israel on the issue of Israeli nuclear weapons? Should the huge American military policy-stick be transformed into something qualitatively different – say, a genuine Middle East 'Marshall Plan" constructed along the lines of the vision of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Closer to home, though, there's the question of how the new Obama vision will translate to a shift in the reality of U.S. government assaults on Muslim charities, the continued reliance on arrest and torture rendition, and as we have witnessed in the legal issues related to Dr. Sami Al-Arian and so many others, the outrageous twisting of the American judicial system by prosecutors who have clearly evident prejudice against Muslims brought before the bar of justice.
We must also harbor our illusions about the ferocious, and still significant, political opposition aligned against President Obama and any progressive vision he may have for constructive engagement with Muslims, abroad or at home. He will face challenges from the pro-Israel lobby, Conservatives of all stripes, reactionaries and racists who are committed to American hegemony and the maintenance of old imperial relationships.
This speech was historically significant and deeply moving for many of the millions, and perhaps hundreds of millions of people in the global Muslim community who saw and heard it. And there is much that all of us must do to address unanswered questions and translate good intentions into tangible results.
We do live in the world of realpolitik, but we also live in a world of imagination, hope, and commitment to a common humanity.
I am thankful that, on the morning of June 4, 2009 at Egypt's Cairo University, Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th President of the United States of America, reminded us of the enduring reality of not only an American dream, but also a transformative one – clearly shared by many in the broader global community as well.
RELATED:
Transcript of President Barack Obama's June 4, 2009 Speech at Cairo University
VIDEO: Obama Calls for New Start Between U.S. and Muslims (AP)
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Friday, March 7, 2008
In Palestine, Murder Will Bring Neither Freedom Nor Justice
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) March 7, 2008 — On March 6, 2008, the world received news of yet another tragedy in the ongoing conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. In an apparent act of revenge, armed Palestinians infiltrated a Rabbinical school in Jerusalem and attacked a group of teenage Jewish students, leaving eight of them dead. They were not combatants, and the act did not take place in self-defense or in the heat of combat.
Most of the world, especially in Israel, was stunned and horrified by the killings. But in Gaza, at least according to news reports, people were jubilant in their celebration of the deaths.
Should Muslims in the United States also feel a sense of joy and vindication? No. We must recognize the attack for what it was: an act of murder. And we must now ask ourselves the difficult question of how we, as activists in support of the people of Gaza and Palestine, can go forward in the wake of an act of senseless brutality that could threaten to derail some significant support for the cause of ending the occupation and respecting the human rights of the people in Gaza and the West Bank.
Sadly, acts of deliberate murder are hardly rare in the context of this part of the world. I remember, a few years ago, the act of murder in a mosque in the West Bank that left nearly 30 Muslim worshippers murdered by a fanatic named Baruch Goldstein. The Muslim world, and most people of conscience, were enraged. Yet some extremists in Israel not only celebrated the killings, but actually made Goldstein (who was killed after the attack), a cult hero among some ultra-Zionists.
But murder, by whomever, is simply a crime against humanity and against the Almighty. And the killing of Jewish students in Jerusalem was exactly that kind of abomination.
The pursuit of liberation is a human response to oppression, and one that is common to all oppressed people, in all periods of history. But there is a moral and practical, distinction between legitimate political struggle on one hand, and acts of criminal revenge on the other.
As Muslims, we believe that struggle against oppression, and self-defense, are not only legitimate, but also required. The killing of innocent people, on the other hand, is morally repugnant—and Haram.
I hope that the Palestinian leadership, and especially Hamas, will recognize that the celebration of these murders will only serve to further isolate them, and make it more difficult for them to claim some moral high-ground in the eyes of world opinion. I also hope that they will consider that activists throughout the world, who support the rights of the people of Gaza, must now labor under yet another burden of suspicion, and even outright rejection, by opponents who are all too anxious to equate the Palestinian cause with savagery and terrorism. Further, it obliterates, in the consciousness of many, the nonviolent responses to the occupation that would ultimately be more effective as instruments of liberation vs. sensational and counter-productive acts of killing and mayhem.
As I have said in a previous essay, it's long past time to end the violence, and the killing, in Israel and Palestine. We mourn the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians, especially in Gaza.
But now, we should also mourn the killing of the Jewish students in Jerusalem, and call for the respect for human life as a core value for both sides of this conflict. I, as a Muslim in America, offer my condolences to the families and communities of the young people who were killed in this act of violence.
The struggle for freedom has no room for the murder of innocent people. It is not acceptable in the modern world.
An eye-for-an-eye, as Dr. King reminded us, will simply make both Palestinians and Israelis blind.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) March 7, 2008 — On March 6, 2008, the world received news of yet another tragedy in the ongoing conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis. In an apparent act of revenge, armed Palestinians infiltrated a Rabbinical school in Jerusalem and attacked a group of teenage Jewish students, leaving eight of them dead. They were not combatants, and the act did not take place in self-defense or in the heat of combat.
Most of the world, especially in Israel, was stunned and horrified by the killings. But in Gaza, at least according to news reports, people were jubilant in their celebration of the deaths.
Should Muslims in the United States also feel a sense of joy and vindication? No. We must recognize the attack for what it was: an act of murder. And we must now ask ourselves the difficult question of how we, as activists in support of the people of Gaza and Palestine, can go forward in the wake of an act of senseless brutality that could threaten to derail some significant support for the cause of ending the occupation and respecting the human rights of the people in Gaza and the West Bank.
Sadly, acts of deliberate murder are hardly rare in the context of this part of the world. I remember, a few years ago, the act of murder in a mosque in the West Bank that left nearly 30 Muslim worshippers murdered by a fanatic named Baruch Goldstein. The Muslim world, and most people of conscience, were enraged. Yet some extremists in Israel not only celebrated the killings, but actually made Goldstein (who was killed after the attack), a cult hero among some ultra-Zionists.
But murder, by whomever, is simply a crime against humanity and against the Almighty. And the killing of Jewish students in Jerusalem was exactly that kind of abomination.
The pursuit of liberation is a human response to oppression, and one that is common to all oppressed people, in all periods of history. But there is a moral and practical, distinction between legitimate political struggle on one hand, and acts of criminal revenge on the other.
As Muslims, we believe that struggle against oppression, and self-defense, are not only legitimate, but also required. The killing of innocent people, on the other hand, is morally repugnant—and Haram.
I hope that the Palestinian leadership, and especially Hamas, will recognize that the celebration of these murders will only serve to further isolate them, and make it more difficult for them to claim some moral high-ground in the eyes of world opinion. I also hope that they will consider that activists throughout the world, who support the rights of the people of Gaza, must now labor under yet another burden of suspicion, and even outright rejection, by opponents who are all too anxious to equate the Palestinian cause with savagery and terrorism. Further, it obliterates, in the consciousness of many, the nonviolent responses to the occupation that would ultimately be more effective as instruments of liberation vs. sensational and counter-productive acts of killing and mayhem.
As I have said in a previous essay, it's long past time to end the violence, and the killing, in Israel and Palestine. We mourn the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians, especially in Gaza.
But now, we should also mourn the killing of the Jewish students in Jerusalem, and call for the respect for human life as a core value for both sides of this conflict. I, as a Muslim in America, offer my condolences to the families and communities of the young people who were killed in this act of violence.
The struggle for freedom has no room for the murder of innocent people. It is not acceptable in the modern world.
An eye-for-an-eye, as Dr. King reminded us, will simply make both Palestinians and Israelis blind.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
On Gaza, The Presidential Candidates Are Silent. Why?
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Feb. 7, 2008 - This urgent bulletin goes out to our esteemed presidential candidates in the Democratic and Republican party primary elections: There is a Palestine. There is a Gaza.
And innocent people in Gaza are dying because of an economic blockade imposed on them by Israel.
Of course, each of the candidates, Senators Clinton and Obama of the Democratic party, and Senator McCain, former Governor Huckabee, and former Governor Romney, from the Republican party, are all aware that there is a place called Israel - being that they are open and enthusiastic backers of the export of U.S. tax dollars to America's premier ally in the Middle East.
U.S. Dollars - more than three billion of them each year - that are used, in part, to buy the American military hardware that enables their ally to occupy huge chunks of the West Bank, while keeping the 1.4 million Palestinians in Gaza on permanent economic life support.
The world, or at least the part of the planet not dominated by the U.S. State Department and the Israel lobby, is very aware of the conditions in Gaza.
The economic strangulation of the Gaza territory by Israel is a source of deep condemnation and outrage expressed by virtually every respected human rights organization world-wide, including one of Israel's leading human rights groups, B'Teshelem.
Lets also not forget those little documents otherwise referred to as the "Geneva Convention" and the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", which say, in essence, that it's illegal and immoral to punish an entire civilian population in the course of waging war against a relatively small group of insurgents.
In this case, the "war" is an embargo of fuel and other necessities that has resulted in the virtual collapse of health care and sanitation in the most densely crowded piece of real estate on planet earth.
Senators Obama and Clinton are both attorneys who, presumably, know that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal under the terms of the international covenants that the United States has signed.
And all of the presidential contenders, I would imagine, have seen at least some of the video footage showing the hordes of Palestinians who recently broke through the barrier separating Gaza from Egypt, in search of food, fuel and other life sustaining necessities, otherwise unavailable to them due to the blockade.
Two weeks ago, eleven intrepid members of the House of Representatives, led by former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), wrote to our Secretary of State imploring that she use her office to help end the deadly embargo of Gaza.
The letter honorably pled for the right of the Palestinian people of Gaza to survive, and called for the U.S. government's respect for the rule of international law in assuring that the illegal economic embargo threatening that survival must end. However, sadly, the letter failed to challenge the U.S. political alliance with Israel, or call for an end to the massive material and military assistance sent by America to the Jewish state.
The failure to question our government's political alliance with Israel, or to demand an end to the massive material and military support it receives - which directly contributes to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza on a daily basis - is exacerbated by the fact that our current line-up of Presidential hopefuls remain silent on the issue of Gaza.
And their silence is deafening.
And their silence is more than politics as usual.
It is a silence that is morally reprehensible.
Gaza militants allied with Hamas have engaged in periodic rocket attacks on Jewish settlements in southern Israel. For the record, I want to state again my opinion that Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilian populations are militarily ineffective, and morally unjustified. They should end. Period.
But these attacks should not, and must not, justify the blanket economic retaliation from Israel that characterizes the Gaza shut-down. Ordinary Palestinians who are not involved in armed attacks against the settlements should not be punished for the actions of others.
In this case, as in virtually all cases, two wrongs certainly don't make a right.
And the voices of the men (and the woman) seeking the highest office of the land should be sending this message to the world.
From my perspective, this is not a call for some shift in current U.S. policy vis-à-vis Israel, certainly, in the real political world, that is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future (although that, for some of us, would be a welcomed change).
But this is a call for the 2008 presidential candidates to demand that the blockade of Gaza be lifted, in a demonstration of respect for the rule of international law.
Only the United States can exert the necessary leverage on Israeli leadership that could possibly bring an end to the blockade against Gaza and the subsequent humanitarian crisis it has created.
The people of Gaza have clearly heard from the world, its condemnation of the suffering inflicted on 1.4 million human beings living in the territory.
Now, it's time for the people of Gaza to hear from the American politicians who claim to respect the rule of law, and who proclaim respect for human rights - not only for some people, but for all people.
Including, in this sad case, the people of Gaza and all of Palestine.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Feb. 7, 2008 - This urgent bulletin goes out to our esteemed presidential candidates in the Democratic and Republican party primary elections: There is a Palestine. There is a Gaza.
And innocent people in Gaza are dying because of an economic blockade imposed on them by Israel.
Of course, each of the candidates, Senators Clinton and Obama of the Democratic party, and Senator McCain, former Governor Huckabee, and former Governor Romney, from the Republican party, are all aware that there is a place called Israel - being that they are open and enthusiastic backers of the export of U.S. tax dollars to America's premier ally in the Middle East.
U.S. Dollars - more than three billion of them each year - that are used, in part, to buy the American military hardware that enables their ally to occupy huge chunks of the West Bank, while keeping the 1.4 million Palestinians in Gaza on permanent economic life support.
The world, or at least the part of the planet not dominated by the U.S. State Department and the Israel lobby, is very aware of the conditions in Gaza.
The economic strangulation of the Gaza territory by Israel is a source of deep condemnation and outrage expressed by virtually every respected human rights organization world-wide, including one of Israel's leading human rights groups, B'Teshelem.
Lets also not forget those little documents otherwise referred to as the "Geneva Convention" and the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", which say, in essence, that it's illegal and immoral to punish an entire civilian population in the course of waging war against a relatively small group of insurgents.
In this case, the "war" is an embargo of fuel and other necessities that has resulted in the virtual collapse of health care and sanitation in the most densely crowded piece of real estate on planet earth.
Senators Obama and Clinton are both attorneys who, presumably, know that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal under the terms of the international covenants that the United States has signed.
And all of the presidential contenders, I would imagine, have seen at least some of the video footage showing the hordes of Palestinians who recently broke through the barrier separating Gaza from Egypt, in search of food, fuel and other life sustaining necessities, otherwise unavailable to them due to the blockade.
Two weeks ago, eleven intrepid members of the House of Representatives, led by former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), wrote to our Secretary of State imploring that she use her office to help end the deadly embargo of Gaza.
The letter honorably pled for the right of the Palestinian people of Gaza to survive, and called for the U.S. government's respect for the rule of international law in assuring that the illegal economic embargo threatening that survival must end. However, sadly, the letter failed to challenge the U.S. political alliance with Israel, or call for an end to the massive material and military assistance sent by America to the Jewish state.
The failure to question our government's political alliance with Israel, or to demand an end to the massive material and military support it receives - which directly contributes to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza on a daily basis - is exacerbated by the fact that our current line-up of Presidential hopefuls remain silent on the issue of Gaza.
And their silence is deafening.
And their silence is more than politics as usual.
It is a silence that is morally reprehensible.
Gaza militants allied with Hamas have engaged in periodic rocket attacks on Jewish settlements in southern Israel. For the record, I want to state again my opinion that Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilian populations are militarily ineffective, and morally unjustified. They should end. Period.
But these attacks should not, and must not, justify the blanket economic retaliation from Israel that characterizes the Gaza shut-down. Ordinary Palestinians who are not involved in armed attacks against the settlements should not be punished for the actions of others.
In this case, as in virtually all cases, two wrongs certainly don't make a right.
And the voices of the men (and the woman) seeking the highest office of the land should be sending this message to the world.
From my perspective, this is not a call for some shift in current U.S. policy vis-à-vis Israel, certainly, in the real political world, that is not likely to happen in the foreseeable future (although that, for some of us, would be a welcomed change).
But this is a call for the 2008 presidential candidates to demand that the blockade of Gaza be lifted, in a demonstration of respect for the rule of international law.
Only the United States can exert the necessary leverage on Israeli leadership that could possibly bring an end to the blockade against Gaza and the subsequent humanitarian crisis it has created.
The people of Gaza have clearly heard from the world, its condemnation of the suffering inflicted on 1.4 million human beings living in the territory.
Now, it's time for the people of Gaza to hear from the American politicians who claim to respect the rule of law, and who proclaim respect for human rights - not only for some people, but for all people.
Including, in this sad case, the people of Gaza and all of Palestine.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Time for a New Resistance Tactic in Gaza?
From the Desk of Ibrahim Abdil-Mu’id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Jan. 16, 2008 - As I write this essay, a new round of bloody warfare has engulfed the Palestinian territory in Gaza. This time, the culprit is not internecine fighting, it is the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). Reports are that the IDF mounted an armored attack against Gaza's resistance fighters Tuesday, resulting in the deaths of some 19 Palestinians (including Hussam Zahar, 24, a son Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar), and wounding 52 others, mostly non-combatants.
The Hamas fighters, in return, reportedly fired a rocket into an Israeli border settlement that killed a young South American worker.
The scenario is depressingly familiar: Hamas fighters (and their comrades in struggle) attack a Jewish settlement, or an occasional Israeli military outpost, inflicting minimal damage, or no damage at all. Israeli military forces then retaliate with helicopter gunship and/or tank attacks on both civilian and armed targets deep inside Gaza, killing both civilians and combatants; succeeding, in any event, in inflicting even more devastating misery on an occupied people, and making them even more isolated - and desperate - in the world of power politics.
Few people, and certainly few Muslims, can deny the brutality of the occupation of Palestine, nor the illegality of the occupation under international law. Much of the world has demonstrated sympathy for the plight of Palestinians under occupation, and those millions more in the diaspora that are denied the right of return. Moreover, it is clearly evident that lasting peace and justice for Palestinians and Israelis alike cannot possibly happen when the elected political leadership of Gaza is excluded from the negotiation process.
But I continue to wonder: what tactical, military textbook does Hamas refer to when they formulate an operational plan to resist the occupation?
Recently, at the national MAS convention in Chicago, I spoke on a panel discussion on the recent round of peace "negotiations" in Annapolis, MD between the Palestinian Authority (minus Hamas) and the Israeli government. There was an almost unanimous sentiment that these talks would go nowhere without, among other things, the eventual participation of the leadership in Gaza (not to mention the end of internecine Palestinian fighting and the abolition of Jewish settlements in the West Bank).
But I raised another question, namely this: is it possible to conceive of positive (and winning) Palestinian resistance using means other that the largely ineffective military force that we see today? And might these non-military - and as I prefer to call them, non-violent - potential tactics actually serve to better advance the Palestinian cause?
Now, I am certainly no military tactician, and neither do I pretend to have the right to speak for the people of Palestine. But I do know something about history, and the history of successful resistance movements. And I am convinced that any liberation struggle - whether violent or nonviolent - must nullify the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of an adversary.
In the case of the long Vietnamese war of national liberation, for example, the most successful tactic used by North Vietnamese General Giap, was to avoid conventional warfare and frontal attacks on the better-armed adversaries - first the French, and then the Americans - while relying upon guerilla tactics and popular resistance in the form of "People’s War". A variation of the theme is also evident in the tactics employed by Cuban revolution.
In both historical cases - and the objective conditions in Cuba and Vietnam were quite different, to be sure - the idea underpinning successful resistance was to tie up - not provoke - the violent retaliatory military power of the opponent.
An even more nonviolent resistance example is found in the history of the Indian independence movement led by Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi, which used the tactic of nonviolent mobilization and resistance to overcome the (then) mighty British Empire and secure political independence for India in 1948.
While it is important to continue our opposition to the occupation of Palestine and the Israeli armed attacks against Gaza - which harm more civilians than resistance fighters - I believe that new resistance tactics are worth considering on the part of Hamas; that is, if symbolic resistance, or "Martyrdom" are less important in the final analysis than actual victory in the form of ending the occupation and securing a viable nation-state. And any form of non-violent mass mobilization and resistance will present a new, and formidable set of challenges to Hamas - and for that matter, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
But I believe that the preponderance of world opinion and material solidarity would be, again, on the side of the people of Palestine if the rocket attacks against Israeli civilians - however infrequent or ineffective they might be - would stop.
This tactical shift would nullify the labeling of Hamas as a "terrorist" entity, and garner more support for the Palestinian struggle among Israelis (many of whom are also tired of the occupation).
International support, and the increased flow of material aid for Gaza would also be a likely result. And in this possible scenario, massive U.S. military support for Israel would be seen in a different, and perhaps more unfavorable, light.
Is this wishful, naïve thinking on my part? Hardly. All that is required is for the people of Gaza, and their leaders, to apply the resolution and courage of their resistance to better, and more successful, tactics.
After all, it is not likely that Hamas can defeat the IDF on a conventional battlefield. But nonviolent mobilization and resistance could nullify their ability to wage war in Palestine, or use their conventional military-might as the primary instrument of domination.
And that, as they say, would be a very good development for the people of Palestine, and the world.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Arabic Language Education is NOT a Crime
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, DC (MASNET) Aug. 14, 2007 − A few days ago, I was invited to be a guest on one of the more notoriously anti-Muslim and anti-progressive programs on the FOX cable television news network. The scheduled September opening of the Khalil Gibran Academy in Brooklyn, New York was the topic of the five-minute segment. The academy is a dual Arabic-English language facility for some 60 elementary school children in a community with a substantial Arabic-speaking population.
The academy was established to facilitate the learning of both the Arabic language and Middle Eastern culture, the school, however, is not intended to be a facility for religious training or indoctrination, and it will be fully certified by, and accountable to, the New York City Board of Education.
Of course, I support multi-cultural education (I worked for the New York City Board of Education in the 1980's), and as a person who is bilingual in both English and Spanish, I believe that when children learn about other cultures and languages, they grow both intellectually and as future global citizens. That said, I found it of interest to learn that the Gibran Academy is under ferocious attack by some elements of the New York City community who consider Arabic language and educating students regarding Middle Eastern culture to be an open invitation for Islamic "extremism" and the indoctrination of children.
As the program segment commenced, the first question thrown at me was not about the Gibran school or its proposed curriculum; it was whether I, as an individual, support the Palestinian Intifada. After I responded in the affirmative, the program host then inferred that supporting the Palestinian people meant that I also approved of the killing of "innocent Jews". (Interestingly, the television program host didn't ask me my opinion about the overwhelming number of innocent Palestinians who have been, and are being, killed by Israel occupation forces.)
So what does the Israel-Palestine conflict have to do with Arabic language instruction in an American elementary school?
On the surface, perhaps nothing. But this type interviewing on a televised program is typical of the way mainstream media combines global politics, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Middle East, and the fear of Islam, to fuel opposition to the legitimate rights of Muslims and Arabic-speaking citizens in the United States.
The designated principal of the academy, Debbie Almontaser, is a respected, veteran New York City school teacher with a history of community leadership and deep involvement in interfaith dialogue. The proposed conflict resolution program for the Khalil Gibran Academy will be created by the Tannenbaum Center, one of America's most highly regarded interfaith institutions.
But none of this matters for the haters of the Muslim/Arabic community who equate the Arabic language and Islam with terrorism.
Since the plans were announced to open the school, there has been a relentless campaign to close it. Numerous letters have been sent to the New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and public school Chancellor Joel Klein, demanding that the academy not be allowed to open. Ms. Almontaser and other Muslim organizations and leaders associated with her, have been excoriated and slandered as being associated with violence and terrorism - all without any particle of evidence that these assertions are true.
It is not necessary for the Academy's opponents to bring any credible arguments against the school in their resolve to see that it does not open. It is only necessary for them to trade in a climate of fear and hatred towards Muslims in order to have any chance of success.
Sadly, the naysayers are one step closer in their campaign to stop the Academy from opening. Last Friday, Debbie Almontaser resigned as the Academy's principal-designate.
I'm sure Ms. Almontaser - an honorable woman whom I have personally met and spoken with - left her position only because she did not want unwarranted personal attacks to be a distraction from the struggle to open the school and serve the kids in her community.
Speaking the Arabic language in America is not a crime. And receiving school instruction in this language, or exploring the rich and diverse cultures associated with it, are not acts of subversion.
I am sure that the Khalil Gibran Academy will indeed open this Fall. It will be one of the most highly scrutinized elementary schools in America, but then again, it has nothing to hide.
I believe that it will become a beacon of learning for the children of Brooklyn.
But the school will remain open only if we are prepared to organize for the defense of rights of our children, our communities, and the integrity and value of cultural and religious diversity in the institutions of a nation that is, indeed, our nation, too.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, DC (MASNET) Aug. 14, 2007 − A few days ago, I was invited to be a guest on one of the more notoriously anti-Muslim and anti-progressive programs on the FOX cable television news network. The scheduled September opening of the Khalil Gibran Academy in Brooklyn, New York was the topic of the five-minute segment. The academy is a dual Arabic-English language facility for some 60 elementary school children in a community with a substantial Arabic-speaking population.
The academy was established to facilitate the learning of both the Arabic language and Middle Eastern culture, the school, however, is not intended to be a facility for religious training or indoctrination, and it will be fully certified by, and accountable to, the New York City Board of Education.
Of course, I support multi-cultural education (I worked for the New York City Board of Education in the 1980's), and as a person who is bilingual in both English and Spanish, I believe that when children learn about other cultures and languages, they grow both intellectually and as future global citizens. That said, I found it of interest to learn that the Gibran Academy is under ferocious attack by some elements of the New York City community who consider Arabic language and educating students regarding Middle Eastern culture to be an open invitation for Islamic "extremism" and the indoctrination of children.
As the program segment commenced, the first question thrown at me was not about the Gibran school or its proposed curriculum; it was whether I, as an individual, support the Palestinian Intifada. After I responded in the affirmative, the program host then inferred that supporting the Palestinian people meant that I also approved of the killing of "innocent Jews". (Interestingly, the television program host didn't ask me my opinion about the overwhelming number of innocent Palestinians who have been, and are being, killed by Israel occupation forces.)
So what does the Israel-Palestine conflict have to do with Arabic language instruction in an American elementary school?
On the surface, perhaps nothing. But this type interviewing on a televised program is typical of the way mainstream media combines global politics, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Middle East, and the fear of Islam, to fuel opposition to the legitimate rights of Muslims and Arabic-speaking citizens in the United States.
The designated principal of the academy, Debbie Almontaser, is a respected, veteran New York City school teacher with a history of community leadership and deep involvement in interfaith dialogue. The proposed conflict resolution program for the Khalil Gibran Academy will be created by the Tannenbaum Center, one of America's most highly regarded interfaith institutions.
But none of this matters for the haters of the Muslim/Arabic community who equate the Arabic language and Islam with terrorism.
Since the plans were announced to open the school, there has been a relentless campaign to close it. Numerous letters have been sent to the New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and public school Chancellor Joel Klein, demanding that the academy not be allowed to open. Ms. Almontaser and other Muslim organizations and leaders associated with her, have been excoriated and slandered as being associated with violence and terrorism - all without any particle of evidence that these assertions are true.
It is not necessary for the Academy's opponents to bring any credible arguments against the school in their resolve to see that it does not open. It is only necessary for them to trade in a climate of fear and hatred towards Muslims in order to have any chance of success.
Sadly, the naysayers are one step closer in their campaign to stop the Academy from opening. Last Friday, Debbie Almontaser resigned as the Academy's principal-designate.
I'm sure Ms. Almontaser - an honorable woman whom I have personally met and spoken with - left her position only because she did not want unwarranted personal attacks to be a distraction from the struggle to open the school and serve the kids in her community.
Speaking the Arabic language in America is not a crime. And receiving school instruction in this language, or exploring the rich and diverse cultures associated with it, are not acts of subversion.
I am sure that the Khalil Gibran Academy will indeed open this Fall. It will be one of the most highly scrutinized elementary schools in America, but then again, it has nothing to hide.
I believe that it will become a beacon of learning for the children of Brooklyn.
But the school will remain open only if we are prepared to organize for the defense of rights of our children, our communities, and the integrity and value of cultural and religious diversity in the institutions of a nation that is, indeed, our nation, too.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Playing "Favorites" in the Palestinian Civil Conflict Will Not Resolve the Issue
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, DC (MASNET) June 19, 2007 - Over the last several weeks, the bloody internal struggle in the Palestinian Territory has resulted in a military victory for the forces of Hamas. In Gaza, security forces loyal to the Fatah-led government of President Mahmoud Abbas were overrun by Hamas fighters, with scores of Fatah security officers and government officials forced to flee to Egypt or the West Bank.
The Gaza offices of the Prime Minister and the private home of the late Yasser Arafat were also ransacked.
The fragile coalition government of Hamas and Fatah was also a casualty of the internal war: Mr. Abbas fired his former Hamas-affiliated Prime Minister and replaced him Salam Fayyad.
And, in a reversal of the 15 month U.S. and international boycott of the Palestinian government, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has communicated with Mr. Fayyad to offer both diplomatic support and material assistance to the newly-installed Palestinian government-one that has no official role for the most popular political faction in Gaza and the West Bank. The European Union has also followed suit in an attempt to both disempower, and isolate, Hamas as a political force in Palestine.
In the short run, the end of the diplomatic and foreign assistance boycott against Palestinians could provide some desperately needed humanitarian aid, and possibly, the release of millions of dollars in Palestinian customs revenue withheld by Israel, which constitutes some 60% of the necessary operating budget of the Palestinian Authority. But in the long run, the political-and military-situation in Palestine will only become worse.
Why? Consider that Hamas remains the political choice of a clear majority of Palestinians. This is not necessarily because Hamas is a militant "Islamic" front, but because, in fact, they are seen as an alternative to a Fatah movement widely criticized for both corruption and cronyism. The further isolation of Hamas by Western governments and aid agencies will not likely result in the moderation of the views of the Islamic resistance toward the state of Israel, or the use of armed violence as a tactic of resistance. And there is also a danger that the armed conflict in Gaza will spill over into a more violent civil war in the West Bank.
Moreover, the United States and its European allies may have inadvertently placed the "kiss of death" on the Fatah movement by recognizing and supporting one party in a violent civil conflict without providing assistance for the resolution of the underlying conflict itself.
Lobbing missiles at Israeli border settlements may not be a way to resolve the greater issue of the occupation of Palestinian land. But playing favorites in this war, and denying any legitimacy to the political entity elected to govern the people of Palestine will not advance the legitimate interests of the people either.
We believe that the only way out of this dilemma is for both Hamas and Fatah to declare an end to armed hostilities-both for the sake of political security, and for the sake of the lives of real people in Palestine being murdered in this conflict. Revenge killings and reprisals must also end if the hopes for an independent Palestinian state are to ever be realized.
The United States should also use economic and political power to strategically bring the conflicting parties together. Hamas will not simply fold up their tent and go quietly into the night simply because they are being denied U.S. diplomatic recognition and material support.
It would also behoove America to put more direct pressure on Israel to stop the expansion of settlements and the gross violations of Palestinian human rights that are at the core of the Palestinian resistance.
Hamas could, and should, use the power of its popular political mandate to truly serve the material interests of the Palestinian people through means that exclude internal or external warfare.
If all parties in this conflict would agree to advance an agenda of non-violent coexistence with each other, and a strategic use of nonviolent means to end the occupation of their homeland, they would probably, in the long run, be able to offer the people of Palestine the true gift of freedom-both political freedom, and freedom from fear.
It will, in all probability, be a difficult road ahead for both Fatah and Hamas. But it might very well be the only road that can ultimately lead to an end to the Israeli occupation and, in the final analysis, peace and security for the people of Palestine and the entire Middle East.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, DC (MASNET) June 19, 2007 - Over the last several weeks, the bloody internal struggle in the Palestinian Territory has resulted in a military victory for the forces of Hamas. In Gaza, security forces loyal to the Fatah-led government of President Mahmoud Abbas were overrun by Hamas fighters, with scores of Fatah security officers and government officials forced to flee to Egypt or the West Bank.
The Gaza offices of the Prime Minister and the private home of the late Yasser Arafat were also ransacked.
The fragile coalition government of Hamas and Fatah was also a casualty of the internal war: Mr. Abbas fired his former Hamas-affiliated Prime Minister and replaced him Salam Fayyad.
And, in a reversal of the 15 month U.S. and international boycott of the Palestinian government, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has communicated with Mr. Fayyad to offer both diplomatic support and material assistance to the newly-installed Palestinian government-one that has no official role for the most popular political faction in Gaza and the West Bank. The European Union has also followed suit in an attempt to both disempower, and isolate, Hamas as a political force in Palestine.
In the short run, the end of the diplomatic and foreign assistance boycott against Palestinians could provide some desperately needed humanitarian aid, and possibly, the release of millions of dollars in Palestinian customs revenue withheld by Israel, which constitutes some 60% of the necessary operating budget of the Palestinian Authority. But in the long run, the political-and military-situation in Palestine will only become worse.
Why? Consider that Hamas remains the political choice of a clear majority of Palestinians. This is not necessarily because Hamas is a militant "Islamic" front, but because, in fact, they are seen as an alternative to a Fatah movement widely criticized for both corruption and cronyism. The further isolation of Hamas by Western governments and aid agencies will not likely result in the moderation of the views of the Islamic resistance toward the state of Israel, or the use of armed violence as a tactic of resistance. And there is also a danger that the armed conflict in Gaza will spill over into a more violent civil war in the West Bank.
Moreover, the United States and its European allies may have inadvertently placed the "kiss of death" on the Fatah movement by recognizing and supporting one party in a violent civil conflict without providing assistance for the resolution of the underlying conflict itself.
Lobbing missiles at Israeli border settlements may not be a way to resolve the greater issue of the occupation of Palestinian land. But playing favorites in this war, and denying any legitimacy to the political entity elected to govern the people of Palestine will not advance the legitimate interests of the people either.
We believe that the only way out of this dilemma is for both Hamas and Fatah to declare an end to armed hostilities-both for the sake of political security, and for the sake of the lives of real people in Palestine being murdered in this conflict. Revenge killings and reprisals must also end if the hopes for an independent Palestinian state are to ever be realized.
The United States should also use economic and political power to strategically bring the conflicting parties together. Hamas will not simply fold up their tent and go quietly into the night simply because they are being denied U.S. diplomatic recognition and material support.
It would also behoove America to put more direct pressure on Israel to stop the expansion of settlements and the gross violations of Palestinian human rights that are at the core of the Palestinian resistance.
Hamas could, and should, use the power of its popular political mandate to truly serve the material interests of the Palestinian people through means that exclude internal or external warfare.
If all parties in this conflict would agree to advance an agenda of non-violent coexistence with each other, and a strategic use of nonviolent means to end the occupation of their homeland, they would probably, in the long run, be able to offer the people of Palestine the true gift of freedom-both political freedom, and freedom from fear.
It will, in all probability, be a difficult road ahead for both Fatah and Hamas. But it might very well be the only road that can ultimately lead to an end to the Israeli occupation and, in the final analysis, peace and security for the people of Palestine and the entire Middle East.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
