International Political Will

The strategy behind Israel embarrassing the United States with their recent announcement on building new settlements in East Jerusalem doesn’t require much dissection or analysis. The Israel right wing has seen the Obama Administration as an enemy from day one – an administration, they believe, that is inimical to the Israeli state. It’s no wonder that they have taken the second opportunity in a year to publicly humiliate the US – and this time they did so when Vice President Biden had just arrived to initiate the peace process.

So Obama, after trying (albeit meekly and ineffectively) for the second time to interject some sanity into the Israel-Palestinian conflict, now faces yet another assault. Domestic reaction in the U.S. – from both Republicans and Democrats – has simply repeated the conventional line and (subtly) accused anyone who is not 100% pro-Israel as being some kind of closet anti-Semite.

And, once again, the news media is doing their part to frame the issue for the public, constructing slants, inserting Orwellian language, omitting key facts, over-representing opinions and inflating arguments.

The New York Times:

Israel Feeling Rising Anger From the U.S.

By Mark Landler and Ethan Bronner
March 15, 2010

WASHINGTON — An ill-timed municipal housing announcement in Jerusalem has mutated into one of the most serious conflicts between the United States and Israel  in two decades, leaving a politically embarrassed Israeli government scrambling to respond to a tough list of demands by the Obama administration.

Because it’s not illegal settlements in land that was taken from Palestinians. It’s not an effort to create “facts on the ground” that would make withdrawal geographically impossible. It’s not a system of apartheid that uses the state’s military to enforce colonial settlement.

It’s just a “municipal housing announcement.”

And shame on Obama for giving those poor Israelis a “tough list of demands.” How dare he ask the Israeli state to adhere to international human rights conventions?

An AP story, also used by FOX News, conveniently never even used the word “settlements”:

U.S. Criticism of Israel Ignites Firestorm

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s fierce denunciation of Israel last week has ignited a firestorm in Congress and among powerful pro-Israel interest groups who say the criticism of America’s top Mideast ally was misplaced.

Since the controversy erupted, a bipartisan parade of influential lawmakers and interest groups has taken aim at the administration’s decision to publicly condemn Israel for its announcement of new Jewish housing in east Jerusalem while Vice President Joe Biden was visiting on Tuesday…

How nice that we finally have some “bipartisanship” in Washington.

And there was a money quote from Senator Sam Brownback:

“It’s hard to see how spending a weekend condemning Israel for a zoning decision in its capital city amounts to a positive step towards peace,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. He complained that the administration was attacking a “staunch ally and friend” when it should be focusing on the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear problem.

“Zoning decision.” That’s even better than “municipal housing announcement.” And way to redirect the public away from any notion of “peace” and back onto the fear-mongering, nuclear-annihilation threats and pending wars.

Americans have a false sense of innocence when it comes to their relationship with Israel. I believe, in part, this is a result of a larger sense of guilt over allowing 6+ million Jews to be murdered in the Holocaust. But there are also the political implications of having a toehold in the Arab (oil-rich) world. And, of course, there is a religious connection and the shared Jewish-Christian history in the region (which is all the more confusing, considering Muslims have a similar historical connection to the region – but no one likes the newcomers…just ask the Mormons).

This skewed version of reality affects American foreign policy. Pro-Israeli interest groups influence politicians (Democrats take far more money from Pro-Israel groups than Republicans do). Because American voters are convinced of the righteousness of Israel, anything critical of Israeli policy is rejected out-of-hand.

Jingoistic Israelophiles can’t defend the state without resorting to racist and ignorant arguments – “there is no such thing as Palestinians,” “Islam is going to take over the world,” “you’re anti-Semite,” or “Israel is merely defending itself,” etc. So if you’re going to leave those kinds of comments here – fuck off. Intelligent people aren’t interested in your bullshit. Human rights and respect for life is non-negotiable – no matter what your religion or ethnicity.

The only reason such asinine arguments are even used is because too many people have become reliant for information on a pathetic excuse for news media. They actually believe they are making a rational argument.

But a truly rational argument accepts that an illegal settlement is an illegal settlement. Not a “municipal housing announcement.” Not a “zoning decision.” But an illegal encroachment onto land that violates the Geneva Convention.

There is no doubt Israel announced new settlements to coincide with Biden’s visit on purpose. The only question is how the Obama Administration will react.

Will we continue to fund an apartheid state, without demanding that human rights, justice and freedom are respected?

Or will we take a stand and show that respect for religion and culture is possible?

Because when Tom Freidman’s opinion on Israel/Palestine is making sense…you know the pro-Israeli groups must have really gone off the deep end:

[T]he vice president missed a chance to send a powerful public signal: He should have snapped his notebook shut, gotten right back on Air Force Two, flown home and left the following scribbled note behind: “Message from America to the Israeli government:…You think you can embarrass your only true ally in the world, to satisfy some domestic political need, with no consequences? You have lost total contact with reality. Call us when you’re serious.”

If only key actors in the debate over Israel and Palestine were so logical.

When tragedy or disease strikes someone wealthy – or one of their children – the family often uses their financial advantage to draw attention to the cause or to prevent similar tragedies.

After Christopher Reeve was paralyzed, he and his wife started a foundation to fund and research possible cures for spinal cord injuries. Michael J. Fox started his own group to fund research into Parkinson’s. Lance Armstrong has help fund cancer research. Former NFL star Boomer Esiason has a foundation trying to cure cystic fibrosis, an ailment that affects his son.

But you don’t have to be a millionaire. After all, part of the advantage of being (semi) wealthy is the connections that come with it.

Candice Lightner probably was never all that rich, but the posh Fair Oaks neighborhood where her 13-year-old daughter was killed in 1981 by a drunk driver certainly isn’t the ghetto. She used her advantages and connections in the community to start Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

James Brady was permanently disabled and nearly killed during the assassination attempt on President Regan. His money, exposure and political connections afforded him the opportunity to fight for gun control laws.

Cindy Sheehan became an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq after her son died while serving in the country – she made political connections and became the face of the anti-war movement.

All of these efforts are admirable – in each case, someone with some amount of wealth and/or power used it to try and create a better world.

And in each case, that motivation came when personally faced with tragedy – paralysis, Parkinson’s, cancer, drunk driving, war, etc.

Often we see a celebrity, athlete, or person with money use their advantages to try to deal with grief or mortality. They set up foundations, charities, and centers to try and avoid death – for themselves, their children, and others in similar situations.

Which is what made the event I attended last Saturday night so different.

One of my partner’s co-workers (I’ll call her “Rani”) invited us to the launching of a foundation in memory of her daughter. Three years earlier, Rani’s daughter – who was probably in her 20s – died. No one I know has asked Rani how it happened, but a few people alluded to some kind of long-term illness.

The event was well-attended. It started with live music (traditional Hindu songs about Krishna) and was followed with a talk by some kind of guru (it was in Gujarati, and I have no idea what he said – but I caught “humans’ ascending effort meets God’s descending grace” and “be who you are”).

Still, there was no mention of what had killed Rani’s daughter.

I kept wondering what goal the foundation would have – surely it would be to eradicate, cure, or fight the disease or tragedy that had taken their daughter so early in life.

Then a woman from an eye bank in Mumbai got up and made a presentation on how to donate your eyes after death. (Apparently, Rani and her husband had donated their daughter’s eyes for transplant so that a blind person can now see.) The talk was informative – going over the details, dispelling the myths, and convincing people that they could easily donate their eyes or the eyes of loved ones.

And that was it. That was the point of the foundation. No stories about how whatever killed Rani’s daughter can be stopped. No attempt to raise money to research a cure. No “awareness campaign” to prevent future tragedies.

Just a group of people spreading the word about how easy it was to donate your eyes after death.  About how you could give the gift of sight to the blind. That was the point of the foundation – that in death, it was possible to share your own life with others.

Instead of trying to prevent death, Rani and her husband were celebrating the life of their daughter. They were celebrating the vision that their daughter, in her passing, had given to another person.

Rani’s family – wealthy by even Western living standards – afforded them the connections with people to make this foundation work. Their goal was to simply let people know about organ donation so that when the inevitable happens to us all, we might leave something behind.

I still don’t know what ended the life of Rani’s daughter. Her family could have tried to cure the disease (if that’s what it was). They could have done a lot of things to prevent the same from happening to someone else in the future.

But they seemed reconciled to the inevitability of death. They seemed accepting that such things happen, and that if they really wanted to remember and honor their daughter, they should celebrate life.

Some things in life are tragic, and the efforts people make to find cures for disease, prevent drunk driving, and limit firearms will truly make the world a better place.

But it was refreshing to see that, sometimes, we can just celebrate what was left behind. Sometimes, accepting death is okay.

Going by FOX News and their cadre of extremist Judeo-Christian ideologues that pose as “journalists” (Bill Kristol, Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, et. al.), one might believe certain myths are true:

• Islam is a violent religion.
• Muslims are terrorists (but not Joe Stack).

Isolated in the U.S., where contact with Muslims is rare (or non-existent), it’s difficult to find evidence of anything different. Americans rely on the media to provide information that will create an educated public. But our media (and FOX News is only a part) is too often concerned only with selling more of the same fear instead of actually digging for truth.

Only stories that fit the narrative of “the righteous ‘us’ against the evil ‘them’” – or that frame “them” as victims, in need of our divine munificence – are reported. The rest are ignored.

But if you look closely, some real journalists are uncovering the truth. Apparently not all Muslims are misogynistic men who want to turn back the clock to the 10th century. There are actually religious Muslims who (gasp!) are not Taliban.

And as Fareed Zakaria reports in Newsweek, moderate Islam is winning the war of ideas:

Since 9/11, Western commentators have been calling on moderate Muslim leaders to condemn jihadist ideology, issue fatwas against suicide bombing, and denounce Al Qaeda. Since about 2006, they’ve begun to do so in significant numbers. In 2007…Abdulaziz al ash-Sheikh, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa prohibiting Saudis from engaging in jihad…One of Al Qaeda’s own top theorists [and the original author of Al Qaeda’s guide to jihad], Abdul-Aziz el-Sherif, renounced its extremism, including the killing of civilians and the choosing of targets based on religion and nationality…[he] has called on militants to desist from terrorism, and authored a rebuttal of his former cohorts.

Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the oldest and most prestigious school of Islamic learning, now routinely condemns jihadism. The Darul Uloom Deoband movement in India, home to the original radicalism that influenced Al Qaeda, has inveighed against suicide bombing since 2008…

The data on public opinion in the Muslim world are now overwhelming…polls from dozens of Muslim countries over the past few years…Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Lebanon, and Bangladesh…[have seen] substantial declines in the number of people who say suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets can be justified to defend Islam…

[O]nly 12 percent of Jordanians view suicide attacks as “often or sometimes justified” (down from 57 percent in 2005)…In Pakistan, 90 percent agree that terrorist attacks are “rarely/never justified”…by comparison, only 46 percent of Americans say that “bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” are “never justified…”

Got that? More Pakistanis are against terrorism than Americans.

Yesterday, the Muslim scholar Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri, a Pakistani living in London, issued a 600-page fatwa condemning terrorism.

This isn’t just some yahoo saying “suicide bombing is wrong” – it’s a 600-page treatise by a scholar using the Quran and Islamic learning to prove that Al Qaeda is “evil” (ul-Qadri’s own adjective). It’s not George Bush, Obama, or some other westerner spouting anti-terrorist rhetoric - it’s an argument in a language that extremists like bin Laden and Zawahiri understand.

This story at least was reported by almost all the major media outlets – BBC, ABC News, NY Times, etc. Of course, it didn’t make the headlines. And idiots from the far-right will continue to lump all Muslims together with the 2 percent that are violent, or dishonestly inflate the proportion of extremists.

But shamefully, FOX News DID NOT REPORT THE STORY. They didn’t even link to an AP version. They just ignored it. Go ahead – Google it for yourself. FOX News decided it wasn’t even worth a few words on their website.

Funny, because in 2005, FOX News ran a column entitled “Where’s the outrage?” wanting to know where the Muslim moderates speaking out against terrorism are.

They’re out there, FOX. You just don’t want to hear it.

So instead of real news, what does FOX News deem newsworthy?

Police: Criminals in Haiti Raping Quake Survivors

Friday, January 29, 2010

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti —  Bandits in Haiti are preying on vulnerable earthquake survivors, even raping women, in makeshift camps which were set up in the capital of Port-au-Prince after the disaster.

“With the blackout that’s befallen the Haitian capital, bandits are taking advantage to harass and rape women and young girls under the tents,” Haiti’s national police chief Mario Andresol said yesterday…

Rachelle Dolce, who is living at a large makeshift camp on the Petionville Club Golf Course, said she thought a rape had occurred outside her tent the previous night. She said she heard men making noise and a woman struggling.

“I heard a fight outside, and I saw panties on the ground,” she said. “I started to shout a lot, and they left.”

Only problem is that this story didn’t turn up anywhere else. So either FOX News found the one story no one else did - or they reported rumor as fact (and given the “evidence” of panties on the ground…I’m inclined to believe they printed rumor).

Because if you can heap scorn on black people amidst a tragedy based only on hearsay and rumor – go for it.

Just like how the media was all over those “rapes” that were occurring in the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina, or the (black) New Orleans residents that were shooting at helicopters. You remember – all those things that turned out to be untrue (oops…it’s too late – the attention-deficit public lost focus and didn’t catch the 20-second correction story…).

What a news organization chooses to cover – and what they choose to ignore – determines our national focus, our perspective on the world, and for a country and rich and powerful as America – how we interact with 6 billion other people.

So we can choose to act based on facts and information. Or just feed our ignorance, seeking only that which confirms our stereotypes and fears.

We can continue believing that Islam is really some world threat and that every Muslim is a jihadi.

We can continue to look for ways to find fault with non-white victims of natural and human catastrophes to prove our own white Judeo-Christian superiority.

We can continue to rely on biased, hateful ideologues posing as “journalists” for our information.

Or we can think for ourselves, seek the truth, and realize that human rights and compassion don’t apply only to those with fair skin and a King James Bible under their arm.

The choice is up to us.

Last week, I was saddened to learn that Brother Tim passed away. His “Blog of Revelation” was a collection of religious and political writings that always looked to help our world progress and grow.

I never met Brother Tim - I only knew him through his writing and the occasional e-mail. But I know he was a compassionate human being - and a strong Christian. His writings reflected the tolerant, inclusive Christianity that was preached by Jesus - and Brother Tim was always keen to look at similarities between religions instead of differences. The world needs more people with the kind of religious wisdom of Brother Tim.

In his memory, here’s one of my favorite of Brother Tim’s posts from March 2007…

Tempering Turmoil

by Brother Tim - March 17, 2007

Turmoil lusts against peace; and peace, against turmoil. They are contrary, one to another. They cannot co-exist. It is like heat and cold, or light and darkness; one must overcome the other to have a viable existence.

Trying to tackle turmoil in it’s maturity is like putting the cart before the horse; you’ll get nowhere, fast. Turmoil has to be dealt with at it’s birthing or infancy, at it’s reasonings and causes. Fighting fire with fire, only works with forest fires or wildfires. It won’t be of much use in a house or car fire. You will not obtain peace by employing turmoil. Peace is a universal human desire, everyone proclaims peace as their ultimate goal. Bush, Olmert, bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, al Sadr, etc., etc., all claim peace is their final goal. But the use of the ‘fight fire with fire’ strategy, is like grasping at a vapor; success will never be totally attained, only delayed and frustrated. It is absurd, farcical, and down-right ludicrous, to say, “We want peace, and we want it so badly, we’ll kill you to get it”.

You say, “So, where do you propose we start, Brother Tim?”

With understanding, humility, love, and above all, charity.

Understanding - exactly what the boundaries of our country are. Countries that experience relative peace, are countries that protect their own borders and respect the sovereignty of other’s borders. America is NOT entitled to every square inch of the planet, nor all the resources it possesses. The road to peace is not paved with greed, corruption, and an insatiable lust for power and control. I agree with the globalists and corporatists; they should have the right to do business anywhere. However, when dealing with sovereign nations, one has to respect their sovereignty. If terms can’t be agreed upon, then it’s no deal. To put it on a smaller scale: I really like your big screen plasma TV and would like to buy it. You say, “$1,000″. I say, “$500″. You say, “No deal”. I say, “You either sell it to me for $500 or I’ll go spend $450 on a 9mm, kill you and just take it”. Although this example may seem barbaric, illegal, and immoral, this is exactly the mindset that America, corporate America in particular, has towards the world. We have a misguided sense of entitlement. Also, our military was Constitutionally established as a means of defense for our borders, not for the protection of corporate interests abroad. If you want to take the risk to make money in a foreign land, go for it. However, remember the qualifying word here, is risk. If you expect to have the US Military to protect you, why do resist paying taxes on all that wealth you’re accumulating there?

Humility - to realize that we are a ‘Johnny-come-lately’ as far as societal civilizations are concerned. Our 230 year experiment is but a ‘drop in the bucket’ when compared to other countries and their cultures. History shows, that Imperialism is not viable, but, in fact, self-destructive.

Love - has been championed by all great thinkers. Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, et al, and more recently, Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela, M L King, et al. Love is one of the basic tenets of virtually every religion; and is universally understood and desired by every human being. And most importantly………….

Charity - The giving to, and helping of, the less-fortunate of our brethren. Not just locally, or nationally, but globally. We must grasp and embrace the ideology, that: When all prosper, society advances; when greed and elitism take hold, societies slide into degradation. Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) said at the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Awards, “The erasion, or eradication, of poverty, definitely……..is the way to Peace”.

Peace - Personal Peace - National Peace - World Peace - TRUE PEACE - is not a vapor. It is attainable, and it can be grasped. It must start within each and every one of us; in our thoughts, as well as our actions.

True Love is contagious, and seldom rejected.

With the Love of Jesus,
Brother Tim

Once again, Mumbai proved that letting a few voices in the media frame our values and fears is not the way to live peaceably with 20 million neighbors. It’s a lesson that, in a globalized world, the rest of us would do well to learn.

Shahrukh Khan, or SRK as he is often referred to for brevity’s sake, is a dancing, acting and commercialized celebrity in India on a level unparalleled in the West. He also is owner of the Kolkata Knights cricket team.

A couple of weeks ago, when the Indian cricket league drafted new players, teams purposefully passed on Pakistani nationals. SRK said what everyone was thinking – that it didn’t make sense to leave out good cricketers just because they were Pakistani.

The Shiv Sena (“Army of Shivaji”), India’s version of the KKK, the Tea-Baggers, and the Taliban all rolled into one, saw an opening. The militant Hindu group, which has a political arm powerful enough that it controls the Mumbai city government, is anti-Muslim and also aims to exclude Indians from the north or south – preserving Mumbai and the state of Maharashtra for Marathis only.

Last week, they questioned the loyalty and patriotism of SRK for making the remark about Pakistani cricketers (because, you know, Muslims that didn’t emigrate to Pakistan in 1947 surely can’t be good Indian citizens…).

The Shiv Sena called for protests against SRK’s upcoming film, “My Name is Khan,” which was set for release on February 12th. Except Shiv Sena “protests” are always more than just a picket line and slogans. Violence is an inherent part of their demonstrations, and people are often killed, either from flying rocks or a mob of angry Shiv Sainiks with sticks.

It’s happened plenty before. Either at the behest of Shiv Sena, or their off-shoot, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS), a mob of misguided Marathi men go on a rampage.

If the protest is about North Indians taking jobs as taxi drivers, then taxis are destroyed and north Indians are beaten (occasionally to death).

If the protest is about rising electricity prices, than a mob of Sainiks rampage the local municipal offices, burning vehicles, throwing rocks, and generally causing property damage (which, ironically, probably just adds to the rising costs of services…).

The Shiv Sena and/or the MNS have, over the past two years:

• Forced shopkeepers to change their signs from Hindi to Marathi.
• Publicly slapped a politician while he took the oath of office in Hindi (instead of Marathi).
• Imposed a law demanding that all taxi drivers in Mumbai speak and read Marathi (this in a city where a large proportion of people are illiterate in any language).
• Attacked north Indians taking a exam in Mumbai to apply for jobs with the Indian railway.
• The leader of the MNS, Raj Thackeray, threatened that “the entire Maharashtra will be set on fire” if he was to be arrested for inciting violence (the irony of his defense was lost on him…).
• The Shiv Sena have said they will not let the Australian cricket team play in Mumbai until the recent spate of attacks on Indian immigrants in Australia stops (because committing physical violence against Indian immigrants in Australia is wrong…but beating and/or killing immigrants in Mumbai…well, that’s different).

And now, the Shiv Sena threatened violence if SRK’s film were to be released: “Wait and see what happens on Friday despite huge security” one of their leaders said.

Except a funny thing happened on the way to the protest last Friday.

No one cared.

The build-up to Friday looked grim. Mumbai police were stationed at every major theater after scattered protests started even days before the film opened. The media (oh, how the Indian media loves yellow journalism) were all over it, and several theaters stopped selling tickets.

But come Friday, the best the Shiv Sena could manage was a few minor scrapes, which in turn, were inflated by the media. At one multiplex in the neighborhood of Chembur, dozens of police were present. Except the crowd was only 7 Shiv Sainiks who tried to attack the theater.

Seven.

In a city of 20 million, they managed a whole 7 people. Seven who were then promptly beaten back with lathis (bamboo sticks) and arrested.

Fans of SRK turned out in droves, and the movie enjoyed a big opening weekend. Three young men outside a theater in the borough of Sion passed through the cordon of police guards, bought their tickets, and headed inside with smiles. Were they concerned about any protests or violence?

“No, not at all,” said one young man in his early twenties. “We’re excited to see SRK in a new role; it’s something new for him.”

For these young men (all Hindu, by the way), the story wasn’t the Shiv Sena’s protest – it was that SRK was playing a “new role” (as it were, a rather serious role about an American Muslim with Asperger’s Syndrome who marries a Hindu woman and then faces Islamophobia after the 9/11 attacks…try making that plot line up).

Despite the widespread support for Shiv Sena that appears in the Indian media, and even though the political arm of Shiv Sena runs the Mumbai government, the movement’s extremist views represent a very small minority. One might look at the violence – the protests, the beatings, the forced closing of shops – and think that the Shiv Sena represents a threat to India’s secularism.

But they don’t. And every time their demagogue leaders try to expand their reach and use fear and hate to rally support, they are proved wrong by the millions of people that call Mumbai home.

There are striking parallels between the Shiv Sena and other hate groups in the world – the KKK, the Tea-Baggers, the Taliban. Each group claims to represent the sole voice of the people. Each group thinks it has a monopoly on power and is defending their divinely-bestowed rights. And each group, in some way, uses violence (or the threat of violence) to bully their way into political life and try to force the hand of the general public.

But what we see in reality, once we pull away from the 24-hour cable media hype and the sensational reporting, is that people that use hate and violence are a minority.

These small groups of extremists are, however, a particularly loud and media-savvy minority. It’s up to us recognize this, and to refuse to generalize, stereotype, and selectively choose “facts” that suit our own narrow interests.

Most conservatives do not believe that Obama is going to turn the U.S. into the next Soviet Union. Just a couple of ignorant southerners are Knights of the KKK. Only a tiny fraction of Muslims sympathize with the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

And in Mumbai, a city of 20 million, apparently very few people believe that India is a country exclusively for Hindus.

Perhaps only seven.