International Leaders, U.N. Secretary General Condemn Latest Move Against Gaza, While U.S. Remains Silent
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Oct. 31, 2007 - World leaders and major international organizations have been issuing statements this week condemning the latest Israeli plan to cut off the supply of electricity to the population of Gaza.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations, the European Union (EU), and other major figures, condemn the planned action by Israel as a display of the collective punishment of a civilian population that would bring almost certain economic devastation and hardship to the 1.4 million isolated and economically-stressed people of the territory.
While the world condemns Israel's actions as violations of the basic human rights of Palestinians, the State of Israel and the United States, remain silent - a dichotomy that is, indeed, a dangerous one.
This is not a matter of calling for the "destruction" of a nation-state, or advocating for the persecution of the Jewish people.
It is not a demand, even, for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, or an expression of support for the Palestinian right of return to the lands and homes confiscated by Israel throughout the past 59 years.
It is not a claim for universal support of Hamas, or the particular forms of armed resistance that Hamas employs.
The world simply calls for an end to the actions of economic warfare that, if taken to their logical conclusion, will lead to no other result than the unnecessary and continued loss of life in the region - the 'world' – excluding Israel itself, and the United States.
It is worth noting here, that America's traditional European allies also want an end to the cycle of violence that embroils both the Palestinian and Israeli population.
Ending the cycle of violence is certainly a necessary pre-condition of a just and enduring peace in the region – a position shared by the majority of the worldwide population; including those living in Palestine and Israel.
Yet, if the Israeli's pull the power plug in Gaza - and they provide 60 percent of the electricity used in the territory - the consequential damage would be catastrophic. Food refrigeration would fail, agricultural irrigation would stop, and hospitals would be without the electricity required to sustain life-saving medical equipment.
In short, more Gazans would die – and, ironically, the armed Hamas resistance in Gaza would find new and more fertile ground for recruitment.
Regrettably, the role of the United States in this ongoing conflict remains that of the superpower that guarantees that Israel military and economic actions will be backed, at any cost - despite any world consensus of opposition to Israel's policy of collective punishment.
This myopic and amoral position will only encourage the pro-militarist forces in Israel (and Gaza), and make the possibility of peace and stability less and less likely. Moreover, both the United States and Israel will become even more isolated in the international community, and more at odds with their traditional allies.
Cutting off electricity to Gaza would be a tragedy for the people of Palestine. But supporting this Israeli action further isolates the United States, and creates a situation where, literally, the U.S. and Israel oppose the clear moral consensus of virtually the rest of the world.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
A Turkish Invasion of Iraq Would Only Bring More Tragedy to the Region
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Oct. 18, 2007 - Some of us who are old enough to remember this episode in American history will recall the decision by the Pentagon, in 1970, to invade Cambodia in the height of the war for national liberation in Vietnam. Ostensibly, the U.S. military invasion was carried out to dislodge North Vietnamese Army and National Liberation Front troops from their sanctuaries in Cambodia. However, the real effect of the American incursion was to bring more fervor to the U.S-and global-anti-war movement.
Three years later, in 1973, U.S. forces withdrew in defeat from Vietnam. A much more recent, but similar fate, befell the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006.
It's unfortunate that the war planners in Ankara are apparently not very astute students of recent military history, because the Turkish parliament is now apparently ready to approve an incursion by Turkey into Northern Iraq, with the purpose of routing Kurdish militants from the PPK from their Iraqi staging areas. The proposed invasion, much to the dismay of Iraq (but with the approval of Syria, which has its own problems with a Kurdish minority) would bring heightened war to the one region of Iraq that has avoided much of the carnage that grips the southern part of than nation. And it would likely result in untold deaths and casualties, not only among armed resistance fighters, but primarily among innocent civilians as well.
But an invasion of Iraq would hardly mean the end of the armed resistance by the Kurds, or the desire for an autonomous Kurdistan favored by the Kurdish minority in Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. Armed resistance movements are mobile, and resilient; many of them would simply withdraw from some areas and regroup in others. And widening the war could possibly increase the militancy and resistance of the Kurdish population in Iraq to Turkish military forces. Moreover, it could poison the already-strained relationship between Turkey and its southern neighbor.
For the sake of human lives and the hope of an end to bloodshed, we urge the government of Turkey to resist any pressure to invade Iraq. The centuries-old issue of the political status of the Kurdish people must be resolved in some other way.
In the final analysis, history has a way of demonstrating that these cross-border military incursions, for whatever reason they are executed, almost always come back to harm the invading nation more than those whom they attack.
RELATED:
Support Wanes in House for Genocide Vote
Turkish MPs Back Attacks in Iraq
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Oct. 18, 2007 - Some of us who are old enough to remember this episode in American history will recall the decision by the Pentagon, in 1970, to invade Cambodia in the height of the war for national liberation in Vietnam. Ostensibly, the U.S. military invasion was carried out to dislodge North Vietnamese Army and National Liberation Front troops from their sanctuaries in Cambodia. However, the real effect of the American incursion was to bring more fervor to the U.S-and global-anti-war movement.
Three years later, in 1973, U.S. forces withdrew in defeat from Vietnam. A much more recent, but similar fate, befell the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006.
It's unfortunate that the war planners in Ankara are apparently not very astute students of recent military history, because the Turkish parliament is now apparently ready to approve an incursion by Turkey into Northern Iraq, with the purpose of routing Kurdish militants from the PPK from their Iraqi staging areas. The proposed invasion, much to the dismay of Iraq (but with the approval of Syria, which has its own problems with a Kurdish minority) would bring heightened war to the one region of Iraq that has avoided much of the carnage that grips the southern part of than nation. And it would likely result in untold deaths and casualties, not only among armed resistance fighters, but primarily among innocent civilians as well.
But an invasion of Iraq would hardly mean the end of the armed resistance by the Kurds, or the desire for an autonomous Kurdistan favored by the Kurdish minority in Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. Armed resistance movements are mobile, and resilient; many of them would simply withdraw from some areas and regroup in others. And widening the war could possibly increase the militancy and resistance of the Kurdish population in Iraq to Turkish military forces. Moreover, it could poison the already-strained relationship between Turkey and its southern neighbor.
For the sake of human lives and the hope of an end to bloodshed, we urge the government of Turkey to resist any pressure to invade Iraq. The centuries-old issue of the political status of the Kurdish people must be resolved in some other way.
In the final analysis, history has a way of demonstrating that these cross-border military incursions, for whatever reason they are executed, almost always come back to harm the invading nation more than those whom they attack.
RELATED:
Support Wanes in House for Genocide Vote
Turkish MPs Back Attacks in Iraq
Friday, September 28, 2007
The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment Means a Green Light for War with Iran
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Sept. 28, 2007 - A bold and potentially dangerous amendment has been added to the U.S. Defense Authorization Bill of 2008 that could very well lead to a pre-emptive U.S. attack on Iran.
If you missed it, you're not alone. It's the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, named after its principle sponsors in the United States Senate (Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona and crypto-Republican Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who used to be, at least in name, a Democrat). The amendment, which expressed the sentiment of the Senate, was passed by an overwhelming majority of 77 to 23.
What the amendment actually means is this: The Senate urges the U.S. to formally regard the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and the Al Quds Force, as "terrorist" organizations, and to authorize the use of "military instruments" to confront Iran.
This amendment to the bloated Department of Defense (DOD) authorization bill was largely created as a response to recent congressional testimony from General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, who testified that Iran trains Iraqi insurgents and supplies them with munitions, including sophisticated bombs used against U.S. armored vehicles and convoys.
Senator Hillary Clinton, by the way, voted in favor of the amendment. Senator Barak Obama did not vote at all.
Senator Lieberman did, in fact, address the Senate to assert that the amendment calls for economic sanctions, rather than military attacks, against the Iranian military organizations. But while falling short of an all-out call for, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is widely believed to be a measure that opens the door for a pre-emptive military attack on Tehran.
It's certainly no secret that the Bush administration is moving in the direction of war with Iran. U.S. military assets are being positioned for air strikes against suspected Iranian military (and suspected nuclear) installations, while the U.S. is busy galvanizing international support for even more stringent sanctions against that nation.
Kyl-Lieberman now gives what amounts to a green light for the kind of aggression that could very well lead to a shooting war that would result in the catastrophic loss of untold human lives in the region - including, sadly, even more Americans in uniform.
I believe that any economic or military attack on Iran would only expand the tragedy, and folly, of a war in Iraq that should never have begun in the first place.
The Kyl-Lieberman amendment is regressive and dangerous, and we encourage you to contact the offices of your Senators to express your objections to a new U.S. war on the people of Iran.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Sept. 28, 2007 - A bold and potentially dangerous amendment has been added to the U.S. Defense Authorization Bill of 2008 that could very well lead to a pre-emptive U.S. attack on Iran.
If you missed it, you're not alone. It's the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, named after its principle sponsors in the United States Senate (Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona and crypto-Republican Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, who used to be, at least in name, a Democrat). The amendment, which expressed the sentiment of the Senate, was passed by an overwhelming majority of 77 to 23.
What the amendment actually means is this: The Senate urges the U.S. to formally regard the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, and the Al Quds Force, as "terrorist" organizations, and to authorize the use of "military instruments" to confront Iran.
This amendment to the bloated Department of Defense (DOD) authorization bill was largely created as a response to recent congressional testimony from General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, who testified that Iran trains Iraqi insurgents and supplies them with munitions, including sophisticated bombs used against U.S. armored vehicles and convoys.
Senator Hillary Clinton, by the way, voted in favor of the amendment. Senator Barak Obama did not vote at all.
Senator Lieberman did, in fact, address the Senate to assert that the amendment calls for economic sanctions, rather than military attacks, against the Iranian military organizations. But while falling short of an all-out call for, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is widely believed to be a measure that opens the door for a pre-emptive military attack on Tehran.
It's certainly no secret that the Bush administration is moving in the direction of war with Iran. U.S. military assets are being positioned for air strikes against suspected Iranian military (and suspected nuclear) installations, while the U.S. is busy galvanizing international support for even more stringent sanctions against that nation.
Kyl-Lieberman now gives what amounts to a green light for the kind of aggression that could very well lead to a shooting war that would result in the catastrophic loss of untold human lives in the region - including, sadly, even more Americans in uniform.
I believe that any economic or military attack on Iran would only expand the tragedy, and folly, of a war in Iraq that should never have begun in the first place.
The Kyl-Lieberman amendment is regressive and dangerous, and we encourage you to contact the offices of your Senators to express your objections to a new U.S. war on the people of Iran.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
A Presidency for Sale
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) September 10, 2007 - Think you'd like to be President of the United States? Great! Just be sure to bring your checkbook.
And make sure it's a very big checkbook.
That's the advice from Michael E. Toner, Chairperson of the Federal Election Commission, who commented recently that the "entry fee" for serious presidential candidates in the 2008 election will reach an estimated record figure of no less than $100 million dollars. And this amount only buys an admission ticket to the game!
For candidates seriously aspiring to win the general election, campaign expenses continue to skyrocket, that is to say, unless the candidate is other than a Democrat or Republican. History has repeatedly demonstrated that Libertarians, Greens, and other independents, seem to fall short of being given serious consideration in the electoral process when it comes to Presidential elections.
As we are well aware, the mad scramble for the Democratic and Republican party nominations is in full swing, and it has started earlier than in any previous election cycle in history.
The current Democratic Party front-runners, Senators Clinton and Obama, raised, at the end of the second quarter of 2007, $63 million and $58.9 million, respectively. Senator Clinton, who is also a millionaire, accepts money from Political Action Committees, while the less-affluent Senator Obama - at least for now - does not.
By contrast, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, the grassroots "peace" candidate in the field of Democratic contenders, has pulled in campaign contributions totaling approximately $1.17 million.
On the GOP side, Former Governor Mitt Romney, who has a personal fortune estimated at over $350 million, has successfully raised $44.4 million, and will "loan" a great deal more to his campaign from his own very deep pockets.
But if money is the primary fuel that propels the national electoral machinery, how important, really, are the values of integrity, wisdom, compassion, and competence?
Is access to money - and a lot of it - the best criterion for national leadership?
And how could a credible candidate without deep pockets possibly compete for a presidential nomination?
One idea - that of public financing for presidential campaigns - has been around for awhile. The trade-off, in this case, would be the guarantee of federal campaign funds while imposing a cap on overall campaign spending. However, faced with the possibility of limited spending, most of the announced candidates opt for no public money, and, therefore, no restrictions on the campaign money they raise, and spend, in pursuit of their presidential ambitions.
Many people in America are probably dissatisfied with this money-driven, and special interest driven, quadrennial political pageant.
The highest elected office in the land is now, unofficially, open only to individuals who are either themselves millionaires, or who primarily serve the economic and political interests of the rich and ultra-rich.
The common loss for the voting public is evidenced by a severely limited range of political options presented in the national debates.
Rich people have good ideas about government and national policies, to be sure. But the vast majority of us, who are neither rich nor politically connected to money, have important things to add to the national discourse as well. And a government "of, by, and for the people" must be, primarily, a government made up of, and responsible to, the rest of us.
This is why, as activists for democratic change (as in the small "d"), we should not only carefully weigh the decision of how to cast our primary election votes, but also on how we can, and must, participate in a broad, national initiative to demand radical changes in the way we finance presidential campaigns.
And ultimately, on how we can open the entire political selection and representation process up, to the vast majority of non-millionaires in America.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) September 10, 2007 - Think you'd like to be President of the United States? Great! Just be sure to bring your checkbook.
And make sure it's a very big checkbook.
That's the advice from Michael E. Toner, Chairperson of the Federal Election Commission, who commented recently that the "entry fee" for serious presidential candidates in the 2008 election will reach an estimated record figure of no less than $100 million dollars. And this amount only buys an admission ticket to the game!
For candidates seriously aspiring to win the general election, campaign expenses continue to skyrocket, that is to say, unless the candidate is other than a Democrat or Republican. History has repeatedly demonstrated that Libertarians, Greens, and other independents, seem to fall short of being given serious consideration in the electoral process when it comes to Presidential elections.
As we are well aware, the mad scramble for the Democratic and Republican party nominations is in full swing, and it has started earlier than in any previous election cycle in history.
The current Democratic Party front-runners, Senators Clinton and Obama, raised, at the end of the second quarter of 2007, $63 million and $58.9 million, respectively. Senator Clinton, who is also a millionaire, accepts money from Political Action Committees, while the less-affluent Senator Obama - at least for now - does not.
By contrast, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, the grassroots "peace" candidate in the field of Democratic contenders, has pulled in campaign contributions totaling approximately $1.17 million.
On the GOP side, Former Governor Mitt Romney, who has a personal fortune estimated at over $350 million, has successfully raised $44.4 million, and will "loan" a great deal more to his campaign from his own very deep pockets.
But if money is the primary fuel that propels the national electoral machinery, how important, really, are the values of integrity, wisdom, compassion, and competence?
Is access to money - and a lot of it - the best criterion for national leadership?
And how could a credible candidate without deep pockets possibly compete for a presidential nomination?
One idea - that of public financing for presidential campaigns - has been around for awhile. The trade-off, in this case, would be the guarantee of federal campaign funds while imposing a cap on overall campaign spending. However, faced with the possibility of limited spending, most of the announced candidates opt for no public money, and, therefore, no restrictions on the campaign money they raise, and spend, in pursuit of their presidential ambitions.
Many people in America are probably dissatisfied with this money-driven, and special interest driven, quadrennial political pageant.
The highest elected office in the land is now, unofficially, open only to individuals who are either themselves millionaires, or who primarily serve the economic and political interests of the rich and ultra-rich.
The common loss for the voting public is evidenced by a severely limited range of political options presented in the national debates.
Rich people have good ideas about government and national policies, to be sure. But the vast majority of us, who are neither rich nor politically connected to money, have important things to add to the national discourse as well. And a government "of, by, and for the people" must be, primarily, a government made up of, and responsible to, the rest of us.
This is why, as activists for democratic change (as in the small "d"), we should not only carefully weigh the decision of how to cast our primary election votes, but also on how we can, and must, participate in a broad, national initiative to demand radical changes in the way we finance presidential campaigns.
And ultimately, on how we can open the entire political selection and representation process up, to the vast majority of non-millionaires in America.
Monday, September 17, 2007
What the 'Jena Six' Says About the 'Two Americas'
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Sept. 17, 2007 - Much of the civil rights community, and a significant part of the global (as in, non-American) news media, is focused on the prosecution of six African-American secondary school students in the small town of Jena, Louisiana.
The accused, known collectively as the "Jena Six", were originally charged with the beating, and attempted murder of a 17-year old white student at a local high school currently in a cycle of escalating racially charged tensions amongst its student population.
The white participant in the altercation was not seriously injured. But the wounds inflicted on the entire community of Jena, Louisiana are profound.
All of this apparently started when, some months ago, a group of African-American students at the school attempted to sit under a tree that has traditionally been a meeting place for white students. The following day, nooses - symbolic of the ropes used to hang African-Americans in the era of racial segregation - were found hanging from the tree.
Three white students were determined to be the culprits behind the offensive act, however, instead of expulsion from the school, they were only given a three-day suspension.
In many ways, this sad episode is indicative of two deeply historical and persistent truths in America: the first is that racial separation, segregation, and animosity are alive and well, and the second, that African-Americans, all too frequently, must deal with a separate, and unequal, system of "justice".
None of this suggests that schoolyard fights are a suitable way to address the deep problem of racial injustice in America, and especially the deep racial divide in Jena, Louisiana, and many parts of the South. But African-American kids involved in a fight face criminal charges that could lead to long prison sentences, while their white schoolmates were given less than a slap on the wrist for instigating the conflict by displaying a crude, and ugly, symbol of racially-inspired murder.
There is something very wrong with this picture. And it's been wrong for centuries.
De jure (legal) segregation may have been abolished by the U.S. court system some time ago, but de facto (in the real world) racial apartheid still exists in much of the country.
The small town of Jena (population 2,971) is just an example of the larger problem that many Black folks take for granted; that equal justice before the law is a largely a myth in the still-segregated South, just as equality in education, housing, health care, employment, and access to municipal services are all separated by the racial fault line.
And as long as the mentality of white racial superiority exists, these institutional disparities and injustices will persist as well. The America of 2007 is, simply put, still held in the grip of institutional racism and racial inequality.
On September 20, MAS Freedom will join major civil rights organizations and leaders in making a pilgrimage to Jena, Louisiana, to stand in solidarity with the young men, and their families, who are caught up in this incident.
There is a growing demand from the international community that the criminal charges against the 'Jena Six' be dropped, or reduced to a more appropriate misdemeanor.
MAS Freedom also intends to continue to speak out about the 'Jena Six' and to educate the non-African American Muslim community about the realities of anti-black racism and racial inequality that persist in America.
This is clearly a time to mobilize against racism and inequality in courts, and the institutions, of the United States. Muslims, like the rest of the people in America, must learn from this sad incident and renew our efforts to work for equal justice.
RELATED
MAS Freedom Calls For Release of 'Jena Six' Suspect Mychal Bell
Civil Rights Leaders Urge Action in Racially Charged La. Beating Case
Al Sharpton Calls for Investigation of Prosecutor in Racially Charged School Fight
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Sept. 17, 2007 - Much of the civil rights community, and a significant part of the global (as in, non-American) news media, is focused on the prosecution of six African-American secondary school students in the small town of Jena, Louisiana.
The accused, known collectively as the "Jena Six", were originally charged with the beating, and attempted murder of a 17-year old white student at a local high school currently in a cycle of escalating racially charged tensions amongst its student population.
The white participant in the altercation was not seriously injured. But the wounds inflicted on the entire community of Jena, Louisiana are profound.
All of this apparently started when, some months ago, a group of African-American students at the school attempted to sit under a tree that has traditionally been a meeting place for white students. The following day, nooses - symbolic of the ropes used to hang African-Americans in the era of racial segregation - were found hanging from the tree.
Three white students were determined to be the culprits behind the offensive act, however, instead of expulsion from the school, they were only given a three-day suspension.
In many ways, this sad episode is indicative of two deeply historical and persistent truths in America: the first is that racial separation, segregation, and animosity are alive and well, and the second, that African-Americans, all too frequently, must deal with a separate, and unequal, system of "justice".
None of this suggests that schoolyard fights are a suitable way to address the deep problem of racial injustice in America, and especially the deep racial divide in Jena, Louisiana, and many parts of the South. But African-American kids involved in a fight face criminal charges that could lead to long prison sentences, while their white schoolmates were given less than a slap on the wrist for instigating the conflict by displaying a crude, and ugly, symbol of racially-inspired murder.
There is something very wrong with this picture. And it's been wrong for centuries.
De jure (legal) segregation may have been abolished by the U.S. court system some time ago, but de facto (in the real world) racial apartheid still exists in much of the country.
The small town of Jena (population 2,971) is just an example of the larger problem that many Black folks take for granted; that equal justice before the law is a largely a myth in the still-segregated South, just as equality in education, housing, health care, employment, and access to municipal services are all separated by the racial fault line.
And as long as the mentality of white racial superiority exists, these institutional disparities and injustices will persist as well. The America of 2007 is, simply put, still held in the grip of institutional racism and racial inequality.
On September 20, MAS Freedom will join major civil rights organizations and leaders in making a pilgrimage to Jena, Louisiana, to stand in solidarity with the young men, and their families, who are caught up in this incident.
There is a growing demand from the international community that the criminal charges against the 'Jena Six' be dropped, or reduced to a more appropriate misdemeanor.
MAS Freedom also intends to continue to speak out about the 'Jena Six' and to educate the non-African American Muslim community about the realities of anti-black racism and racial inequality that persist in America.
This is clearly a time to mobilize against racism and inequality in courts, and the institutions, of the United States. Muslims, like the rest of the people in America, must learn from this sad incident and renew our efforts to work for equal justice.
RELATED
MAS Freedom Calls For Release of 'Jena Six' Suspect Mychal Bell
Civil Rights Leaders Urge Action in Racially Charged La. Beating Case
Al Sharpton Calls for Investigation of Prosecutor in Racially Charged School Fight
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
