Wednesday, August 18, 2010

A Rabbi Speaks the Truth










    The latest score:  Blago 23, Fitzgerald 1 (sort of)

(Obviously, not the Rabbi)



But first, a few words about reader's comments.  The posting on Robert Gibbs and drug testing stirred up quite a few of these.

One of the best was in response to his use of the figure "professional leftists" and one wondered if we were going to start to get paid a salary.  My response was to suggest we for a union, but then I am not ready to go out on strike yet.

Typical of another group were statements to the fact that I must wish that Bush was still President.  People who come to conclusions such as this based on what I said are clearly incapable of reason.

A bit of background might help with following the Rabbi's remarks.  A "trope" is a word I haven't heard used since my days in working with Renaissance Logic and Rhetoric.  It is a general term for any sort of rhetorical practice such a irony or metaphor.  When he says "I know, facts don't matter, I know Postmodernism," it is helpful to know that Postmodernism is a movement that rejects the modernist assertion of the importance of the cognitive orientation started in the 17th Century.  He is having fun with the right-wing commentator who had just been quoted.  He is a very engaging talker.

Here, in its entirety, is Amy Goodman's program on the Mosque controversy that started in New York and spread to infect the absurd throughout the country, strongly motivated to promoted Republican candidates in the next election.






ANJALI KAMAT: Today we spend the hour on the controversy around the proposed construction of an Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan, an issue that has dominated the news over the past few days. Opposition to the center first started among fringe right-wing blogs, who labeled it the "Ground Zero mosque." Over the past few weeks, the issue has been swept into the mainstream, with President Obama ultimately weighing in last week.

The proposed facility, called Park51, is actually two blocks from Ground Zero and is described by the Cordoba Initiative, which is spearheading it, as a community center which will house, quote, "a gym, [...] pool, restaurant, [a] 500-person auditorium, [a] 9/11 memorial, [a] multi-faith chapel, office and [a] conference space, and [a] prayer space."

The project is headed by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a Muslim cleric who’s been labeled by right-wing critics as an extremist. In fact, Imam Feisal traveled overseas in 2006 with one of President Bush’s closest aides, Karen Hughes. He also helped the FBI with counterterrorism efforts after 9/11.

The proposed community center has nevertheless sparked national headlines, with Republicans vowing to make the controversy a campaign issue in the fall. President Obama addressed the issue on Friday during an iftar dinner celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan in the White House State Dining Room.

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country, and the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders, and Ground Zero is indeed hallowed ground. But let me be clear, as a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion, as everyone else in this country. And that includes—that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are.

ANJALI KAMAT: Less than twenty-four hours later, President Obama was asked about the Islamic community center by a reporter and appeared to backtrack from his statement of the night before.

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.

ANJALI KAMAT: Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this week became the most prominent Democrat to oppose the construction of the facility when he said it should be built in another location.

    SEN. HARRY REID: My statement, I think, is pretty simple. Constitution gives us freedom of religion. I think that it’s very obvious that the mosque should be built someplace else, and that’s what I said.

ANJALI KAMAT: In New York, Governor David Paterson’s office said yesterday that they will meet with the developers of the Cordoba House project. Last week, Paterson offered the developers state-owned land to relocate the center far away from Ground Zero. The developers rejected the offer. They also denied that any meeting has been scheduled with Paterson. Project developer Sharif El-Gamal was interviewed on local news station NY1 on Tuesday. He criticized lawmakers who are opposing the center.

    SHARIF EL-GAMAL: It’s a really sad day for America when our politicians choose to look at a constitutional right and use that as basis for their elections. This is not a debate. This is not a debate. This is us as Muslim Americans giving back to our community.

AMY GOODMAN: Today we spend the hour on this issue. We’ll speak with the first Muslim elected to Congress, Minnesota Congress member Keith Ellison. Rabbi Irwin Kula is with us. He’s supporting the Cordoba House. Islamic scholar John Esposito will join us.

And we’re joined by Talat Hamdani. Her son Salman died on 9/11 in the attacks on the World Trade Center. Salman was twenty-three years old. He was a police cadet, an emergency medical technician. He had a degree in biochemistry and was headed to his job as a research assistant at Rockefeller University when the planes hit.

First we’re going to go back seven years. It was on the eve of September 11, 2003. It was there that I met Talat and her now late husband Mohammad Saleem Hamdani as they walked to Ground Zero honoring the dead and talking about their son.

    MOHAMMAD SALEEM HAMDANI: Actually, I was sleeping at that time, you know, and my sister-in-law, she called me, and she said, "Did you heard something?" I said, "No." And she said that one tower already fall down. And the first word from my mouth was that, "Oh, my god! My son is there!" TALAT HAMDANI: We tried to contact him on his cell, Salman, but he wasn’t answering. And then I remembered, the day before, when he came home, he had forgotten his cell phone on the job. He worked at Rockefeller, which is 65 Street and York Avenue. So, being the type of person that he was, an EMT and a police cadet and—apart from being an EMT and police cadet, he was a very, you know, kind person, very generous, very helpful. He would—we knew he would go down to help over there, and if he saw such a disaster, he would respond to it. There was a call given out for all the EMTs to come forward for the rescue help. And finally, his brother, my husband’s brother, went to his office, and they told him he never reported to work. And we waited for him to call home that night. The first night, we were—I wasn’t worried. My husband was. I wasn’t worried. But then—so, the next—that’s how the day went by, you know, just waiting for him to call and—the call that never came. And the third day, we went down to the center that they had made for the families to come and write their—give their names of their loved ones. Armory, it was. Yes, it was the Armory. We went down there, and we registered his name, and we gave our swab samples for the DNA. And we made a flier, searching for him. We put down his name as Sal Hamdani. My brother did not put down his name, the first name, Mohammad, for certain reasons. And we searched for him. Nobody had seen him. We went down the following weeks. We went down to the Ground Zero itself, asking the firemen, showing them his picture. Maybe they saw him. But nobody saw him at all.

AMY GOODMAN: Talat and Saleem Hamdani talking about their son Salman, who died at Ground Zero on September, 11th, 2001. Talat Hamdani is with us now.

Thank you so much for being with us. I know that’s hard for you to see, because you’re both not only talking about your son, but after that, a year later, you lost your husband Saleem.

TALAT HAMDANI: Thank you for having me. Yes, it’s traumatic. Yes, definitely.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, the story of your son is a remarkable one, because he was like many first responders who went down and died, but the story got more complicated. Talk about what happened when you went first looking all over for him, going to the hospitals, to the morgues. Then you went to Mecca to pray to pray for him.

TALAT HAMDANI: A month later, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: And at that time, a New York Post headline appeared, that said, "Missing or Hiding? Mystery of the NYPD Cadet from Pakistan," screamed the Post headline. The sensational article noted that someone fitting your son’s description had been seen near the Midtown Tunnel—

TALAT HAMDANI: Midtown Tunnel.

AMY GOODMAN: —a full month after 9/11. You were interrogated. His internet use, his politics, were investigated. What happened then, how you came back to this chaos, when you thought you simply had lost your son at Ground Zero?

TALAT HAMDANI: Well, after 9/11 happened, and like a month later, you know, after we came back from Mecca, there was this voice message on my machine from Congressman Ackerman’s office to contact him, and maybe he’ll help me find my son. He has some news about him. So we contacted his office, and we were interrogated by Congressman Ackerman about his faith and about us and everything. And he led us to believe that maybe he was detained by the INS, by the ICE. And I said, "He’s an American citizen." But he said, "Well, he wasn’t born here." So we were—you know, there was hope, even though being detained, but that hope of being alive. I’ll take it even today. So, I kept, you know, speaking up, because I had to clear his name. If I had not done so, he might have—he definitely would have gone down in history as another, you know, terrorist linked with those attacks. So then, on March 20th, we were notified at 11:30 p.m that his remains—

AMY GOODMAN: This is about six months later.

TALAT HAMDANI: Six months later. And we had the funeral. You know, being a cadet, the NYPD honored him. He went under the American flag—

AMY GOODMAN: The New York Police Department.

TALAT HAMDANI: Yes. He went under the American flag, which he said, "That is honor, Mama." Three years ago, you know, we know someone who died who was a lieutenant, and he said, "Mama, that is honor, and that is how I want to go." And that is how he went.

AMY GOODMAN: And you had the funeral at the mosque on East 96th Street.

TALAT HAMDANI: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Mayor Bloomberg spoke. The Police Commissioner Ray Kelly spoke. Congressman Ackerman spoke.

TALAT HAMDANI: Ackerman came, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: And this was after newspapers were camped outside, and cameras, your house, looking for the so-called terrorist.

TALAT HAMDANI: Oh, it was horrible. It was like they descended like vultures upon my house.

AMY GOODMAN: President Bush talked about him as a hero. Salman is named in the USA PATRIOT Act as a hero.

TALAT HAMDANI: Yes, he is.

AMY GOODMAN: So it all turned around. But your son remains dead, as over—as, what, close to 3,000 people died on September 11th.

TALAT HAMDANI: He was one of them, yes, definitely.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, today, come, what, almost nine years later—

TALAT HAMDANI: Nine years.

AMY GOODMAN: —and a community center, an Islamic community center and mosque, is proposed being built a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. Your thoughts?

TALAT HAMDANI: The objection to this Islamic cultural center, I think they are illegal, because the zoning has been approved. There’s nothing wrong with it. People, though they object—some 9/11 families do object to it. They call it insensitivity. But it’s not about sensitivity or insensitivity, about emotions; it’s about the legality of the situation. It is about our rights as Americans. We are protected under the Constitution. There is freedom of religion. You know, if it’s one faith today, it’s going to be another faith tomorrow. That is scary. And to scapegoat the Muslims for the acts of a foreign terrorist, that is—that is hatred. That is wrong, because if we go by that argument, that we were attacked by a foreign terrorist group, who did this in the name of, you know, my faith, Islam, and hence all the Muslims are terrorists, as has been happening since 9/11, I say we have carried the cross. No more. No more. So, if that argument is valid, then, by that token, Timothy McVeigh’s actions also makes all Christians terrorists. So, that is wrong.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break and come back to this discussion. Again, we’ll be spending the hour on the controversy of the Islamic cultural center, the proposal for it to be built near Ground Zero. This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guests are Talat Hamdani—her son died at the World Trade Center in the 9/11 attacks. He was among scores of Muslims who died among the close to 3,000 people who died. We’re also joined by Rabbi Irwin Kula, who’s president of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership. John Esposito is with us, professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. And Congressman Keith Ellison, Democrat from Minnesota, the first Muslim elected to Congress. I’m Amy Goodman, with Anjali Kamat. Anjali?

ANJALI KAMAT: Congressman Ellison, I want to go to you. What is—why are you supporting the Park51 project? And what is your reaction to the opposition to the project from Democrats, most prominently Harry Reid?

REP. KEITH ELLISON: I have three basic reasons why I think that this is a project that has merit and should move forward.

First of all, by supporting this project, we directly undermine and counteract the narrative of the transnational terrorists who claim that America is at war with Islam. America is not at war with Islam. And all we have to do to demonstrate that is to stand on our Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of worship for all Americans. So, the fact is, is that while Anwar Awlaki and other people like that are trying to argue that the United States is against Islam, America has a Constitution, and hopefully a majority of its population which still believes in religious freedom and tolerance. And so, that is the first reason.

Second reason is that it’s the constitutional right of all Americans to worship as they see fit. And if this project is turned back, it will embolden elements not only in New York, but all over the country, that are trying to stop mosques literally all over the country. Now, of course, this is not a mosque. But the fact is, is that Muslims from New York and in Sheepshead Bay, including that, and other places in Kentucky, places in Michigan, places in Wisconsin, there are these local elements who are fearful about what Muslims represent in this country and are trying to stop them from freedom of worship.

And then, of course, the third reason is the reason that is the very founding of this country. I mean, every school kid knows that when the Pilgrims came to the United States—well, what is now the United States—and landed on Plymouth Rock, it was because they were being persecuted from freedom of practice of their religion. And so, the very root elements of this country are in freedom of faith. And I’m worried that, as we see in Europe, you know, minarets being banned, we see hijabs being banned, that this is a pernicious development, and we should hold fast to our heritage of religious tolerance in the United States.

Now, what do I think about fellow Democrats? Unfortunately, I think that some of them are in some tight races. Their opponents have made this into a divisive wedge issue. And they blinked on the Constitution, because they’re afraid of their prospects in November. But I just want to tell any Democrat that, look, you standing on religious tolerance and freedom is going to be a winning election issue, because this resonates with Americans.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me ask you about President Obama. He made a strong statement on Friday night at a dinner—

REP. KEITH ELLISON: Yes, he did.

AMY GOODMAN: —breaking the fast, the Ramadan—were you there, Congressman Ellison?

REP. KEITH ELLISON: The iftar.

AMY GOODMAN: At iftar. Were you there?

REP. KEITH ELLISON: No, I was on the opposite end of the country with Nancy Pelosi. I was not with the President. But I had been there every year except this one. But I had other obligations that night. But I was aware of the speech, and I was very proud of the President.

AMY GOODMAN: So I wanted to ask what you thought the next day, which surprised many, when this was his response to a follow-up question.

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.

AMY GOODMAN: Many people saw this as President Obama backtracking. Congressman Ellison, your response?

REP. KEITH ELLISON: Well, I don’t think those people are correct. I think no president, no congressman, should be urging or trying to advocate for the erection of a religious institution or the defeat of the building of that same institution. It’s our job to protect people’s rights. It’s not our job to tell people where to put a synagogue or where to put a Buddhist temple or where to put a church or a mosque. The President is correct. He should not be in the business of advocating the construction of a religious institution. What he should be doing is saying that everybody has a right to pursue their rights and that he is going to uphold and defend the Constitution, which means he’s going to guarantee their right to do it. And that includes not creating a hostile atmosphere so that people are afraid or inhibited or chilled from exercising their rights, as politicians like Peter King and many others have done. So I don’t think the President’s wrong.

ANJALI KAMAT: Rabbi Irwin Kula, you wanted to interject?

RABBI IRWIN KULA: Yeah. I understand what Keith is saying, and the President has to be careful, and the politics of this is—are so outlandish. But I actually think the distinction between the right to build and the wisdom to build is a very, very, very dangerous distinction. It actually is pernicious, in a way. And I would have liked the President to say something like this: "I reject the premises of the question, because I know where that question is coming from. That question is coming from already a premise that there are these terrorists and these American Muslims, and they’re equivalent. And therefore, you’re asking me about the wisdom of American Muslims, who have been in New York for a long time in a mosque that was twenty—that was within twelve blocks for the last twenty-seven years. And the very fact of the question of the wisdom is actually to presume suspicion. And so, I reject the question. There’s only two—there’s only one wisdom I care about: the wisdom of the Constitution, I care about, and the wisdom of distinguishing between our genuine enemies and American citizens."

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Rabbi Kula, let me ask you about the statement of the Anti-Defamation League. It pubished a statement opposing the Park51 project, saying, quote, "Ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment," they said, "building an Islamic center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain—unnecessarily—and that is not right." The ADL national director Abraham Foxman later defended this position on CNN.

    ABRAHAM FOXMAN: Our position basically was an appeal to the imam and his supporters. If you want to heal, if you want to reconcile, is this the best place to do it? Should you do it in face—in the face of those who are saying to you, most of the victims, families of the victims, the responders, are saying, "Please don’t do it here. Please don’t do it in our cemetery." I believe, on this issue, the voices, the feelings, the emotions of the families of the victims of the responders, I think take precedent maybe over even the Mayor’s.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League. Rabbi Kula, your response?

RABBI IRWIN KULA: I mean, I’m just deeply disappointed, and I was, you know, quoted as saying I think the ADL should be ashamed of itself. I think the sad thing here is that Abe Foxman, since 9/11, has been one of the most important advocates to ensure that there was not defamation and not prejudice for Muslims, and the shame here is that he actually knows Daisy and knows Imam Feisal for a long time. And so, what I think what we really have here is tremendous political pressure.

AMY GOODMAN: And Daisy is Daisy Khan, the wife of Imam Feisal—

RABBI IRWIN KULA: And Daisy Khan, I’m sorry, yeah, the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. And what we have here is tremendous political pressure. And I’m sure the stories are going to come out in the next months of the kinds of pressures that were put on somebody like Abe. And you can see the torturous kinds of statement that he had to make about the feelings, I mean, which—anguish, and I think we need to say something, that the anguish of people does not automatically translate into public policy. And sometimes anguish and really, really personal suffering needs to be disconnected from public policy, because anguish doesn’t allow us to abandon rationality. Anguish doesn’t allow us to abandon kind of first principles about what our country stands for.

And I had two friends who died in the World Trade Center. I was very involved in this for a long time. And to be able to use the sensitivities of people to really—to really stoke fear, there’s something very cynical about that. And there isn’t such a thing as the sensitivities of 9/11 families. There are a lot of different 9/11 families, and there are not only 9/11 families who lost directly people, but there are 9/11 families who were forced out of their homes for years in the neighborhood. So, what do we mean by the "the feelings of 9/11 families"? These are abstractions used to actually stoke fear in the country.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about Imam Rauf, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is headed, by the way, on a State Department mission for two weeks to the Middle East—

RABBI IRWIN KULA: Right. Exactly.

AMY GOODMAN: —who worked for President Bush’s State Department, worked with one of his closest aides, Karen Hughes—

RABBI IRWIN KULA: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: —when she was doing that public diplomacy to reach out to Muslims.

RABBI IRWIN KULA: Traveled with, half the world.

AMY GOODMAN: How do you know him?

RABBI IRWIN KULA: Well, kind of in the interfaith work that we’ve been doing over the last decade. I was one of the readers of his book, What’s Right with Islam: A New Vision of Muslims in America. We were in Australia recently, at the World Parliament of World Religions. You know, in the interfaith world, there aren’t that many people working at the cutting edge of interfaith. That is what’s so crazy about this story. Imam Feisal has been at the cutting edge of whatever we mean by "moderate Islam." I mean, those words weren’t even used until very, very recently. This is a guy who, well before 9/11, he had two books that are very, very important—Islam: A Search for Meaning and Islam: A Sacred Law. These are things that people need to read. And it’s so easy to take one comment out of context. Any of us who have been in the media, any one of us who have been interviewed, you can take a statement and turn someone into a radical and turn someone into a terrorist. This guy has been at the highest echelons—State Department, FBI. He has spoken in the Aspen Institute. He’s spoken in Washington Cathedral. This is—I mean, it’s really crazy.

And that’s another part of the story that’s very scary. I mean, the community board, before anything, voted this 15-0. There was an amazing conversation. In fact, there was a request from—of Daisy Khan: Could you put a 9/11 memorial inside of the—of what is now Park51? And he said, "Of course. We’re planning on doing that." And it was—this got stoked by a very small group of people, and then—what I would say is an irresponsible national leadership, whether it’s Gingrich and Palin, and then a certain element of the media. And what’s very scary is, what was a local issue that was—that was a non-issue. This is a group of people, led by Imam Feisal, that has been ten blocks from there for the last twenty-seven years. This is a complete non-issue. And so, what it really says is, what’s going on in America?

AMY GOODMAN: I mean, what’s very interesting, as Nate Silver points out, well-known pollster, a plurality of Manhattanites are actually for this.

RABBI IRWIN KULA: Even now.

AMY GOODMAN: Even now.

RABBI IRWIN KULA: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: When—with this swirl of negative publicity. You also have the issue of conservatives attacking, and yet you have—you know, who are very concerned about states’ rights. This went through this long process. Among them, the Landmarks Commission said they’re not going to make this a landmark, this building, that it could be rebuilt. Can you talk about what it means for conservatives to talk about Imam Feisal as a secret radical?

RABBI IRWIN KULA: Well, I think what happens for—in a hyper kind of twenty-four/seven media is, as soon as words like "radical," as soon as words like "extremist" come out, they have a life of their own. And because we’re on a tinderbox right now in the country altogether, when you have 20 percent of Americans unemployed, you know, or even off—they’re not even looking for employment anymore—you have so many Americans in very, very serious pain, when you have so much change happening in a country, sociological and cultural change, and religious change, and when you have so much going on, there’s a kind of tinderbox, and there’s a lot of fear and a lot of anger. And it calls for incredibly mature leadership—by the way, political leadership and religious leadership. And it’s so easy to stoke those fears for political capital. And that’s what we have. So, you put out the word "terrorism" and "extremist," and it’s attached to him forever. Forever.

ANJALI KAMAT: I want to bring in Professor John Esposito into the conversation. He’s the university professor of religion and international affairs at Georgetown University and is author of several books. Most recent is The Future of Islam. Professor Esposito, I want to play a clip for you. It’s the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero has generated a flood of absurd comparisons from the right, including Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.

    NEWT GINGRICH: Those folks don’t have any interest in reaching out to the community. They’re trying to make a case about supremacy. That’s why they won’t go anywhere else. That’s why they won’t accept any other offer. And I think we ought to be honest about the fact that we have a right—and this happens all the time in America. You know, Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center. RUSH LIMBAUGH: Let me ask you, what would happen, do you think, if the Ku Klux Klan wanted to establish a memorial at Gettysburg? CALLER: Well, you know, I don’t know. Nothing’s happening in Lower Manhattan. RUSH LIMBAUGH: What do you mean you don’t know? They wouldn’t get to first base. Nobody would put up with the Klan building a memorial anywhere, much less Gettysburg. CALLER: Well, you’re right there, but where is the—where is the public outrage? If we don’t have it for Lower Manhattan, do you think it’ll— RUSH LIMBAUGH: The public outrage is there! You’re just not seeing it march in the street.

ANJALI KAMAT: That was Rush Limbaugh talking to a caller. Professor Esposito, you’ve said that Islamophobia needs to be taken as seriously as anti-Semitism. Talk about these clips, what the right is saying and the hate it’s whipping up.

JOHN ESPOSITO: Well, I think it’s very clear what’s happening here. Note how Rush Limbaugh talks about the Ku Klux Klan. So he’s equating what? American Muslims and the vast majority of Muslims in the world with the Ku Klux Klan? What’s clear here is a notion of collective guilt and punishment. Let me begin with just a brief quote from an American Muslim who’s also a prominent professional on this issue: "It’s a matter of principle and not the personalities involved. They may be doing it for all the wrong reasons, but we’re being attacked simply and only for not knowing our place, not being sufficiently sorry for a crime we didn’t commit. It’s like we need to assume some collective guilt for 9/11 and act accordingly."

And I think that when you see people—for example, Newt Gingrich. Here’s somebody who’s old enough, from the South, can remember the problems of racism and civil rights. He also is reportedly a Christian. In fact, some reports say he’s a Catholic. He’s got to remember how a theology of anti-Semitism led to a history of pogroms that ultimately led to the Final Solution. And much of that was based on collective guilt, let alone what we did to the Japanese. The fact that folks can say the things that they’re saying now and that media will often publish them—they would use words that media would never allow if one were talking about Jews or African Americans today, and most probably Italian Americans—what we’re seeing is the tip of the iceberg of a social cancer that’s been growing in America for the last decade.

AMY GOODMAN: Rabbi Kula?

RABBI IRWIN KULA: Yeah, I actually agree. I think, very important, when you hear terms like "those folks"—in other words, forget about the tropes using Nazi, Ku Klux Klan, because that is so clear. The more subtle, very dangerous language is when a very important politician—we’re not talking about Newt Gingrich. We’re not talking about some low-level congressperson. We’re talking about someone who has a global stage and is considered an intellectual heavyweight within the Republican Party.

AMY GOODMAN: Who will possibly be running for president on the Republican ticket.

RABBI IRWIN KULA: And a possible—when he uses words like "those folks"—well, wait a second. Imam Feisal and his community aren’t "those folks." They had people who got killed in the World Trade Center, because actually "those folks" live in that neighborhood, which happens to be our neighborhood called Lower Manhattan, called New York, called the United States of America. And that is incredibly insidious, even more insidious than tropes of Nazi and Ku Klux Klan.

AMY GOODMAN: You lost family in the Holocaust.

RABBI IRWIN KULA: Yeah, my—I lost a lot of family—

REP. KEITH ELLISON: Amy? Amy, this is Keith. Can I dive in there?

AMY GOODMAN: Yes. Let me just hear Rabbi Kula talk about the Holocaust for one minute, and then we’re going to go to you, Congressman Elllison.

RABBI IRWIN KULA: Yeah, I just think my father came—my father came here in 1938 from Poland. He came here to escape the Holocaust. He came because of religious—for religious freedom. And here we are. You know, my father is eighty-one, and he’s watching this and can’t believe this, because if you—I mean, and this is where the professor was right. Just take out the word "Muslim" and put in the word "Jew," and you see that this strain, which has always been a part of America—and especially when things get tense, and especially when people are under tremendous stress—and we are—it’s very easy, right, to blame somebody. And now, it turns out, you know, Muslims are getting blamed.

TALAT HAMDANI: Since 9/11. Since 9/11, we’re carrying the cross.

RABBI IRWIN KULA: Since 9/11, right. Since 9/11.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to go to break and come back. Congressman Ellison, we’ll go first to you. This is Democracy Now! We’re talking about the controversy swirling around the Islamic cultural center that is planned to be built in Lower Manhattan. We’ll be back in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our subject for the hour, the controversy that is becoming—is increasingly raging, not only in this country, but around the world. Our guests are Talat Hamdani—she lost her son Salman on 9/11. He was one of the emergency responders. Rabbi Kula is with us. Rabbi Irwin Kula is president of the National Center for Learning and Leadership. John Esposito teaches Islamic studies at Georgetown University. And we’re joined by the first Muslim elected to Congress, Keith Ellison. He’s from Minnesota.

Congressman Ellison, you wanted to jump in here?

REP. KEITH ELLISON: Yeah. I wanted to allude to the point that you just made about the world audience. I mean, the world is watching this controversy. Everybody is sort of wondering what’s going to happen. And, you know, I guess my question to your guests—and I’d like to hear your views, as well, if you can share them—what does the rest of the world think about this? What do people who want to have a recruiting script for—to make war on the US think about this controversy? What use do they make of it, when you hear these—some of these outrageous statements that American politicians and cultural leaders are making?

AMY GOODMAN: Well, let’s go to—

REP. KEITH ELLISON: You know, so, for example, Bryan Fischer—

AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead. Bryan Fischer?

REP. KEITH ELLISON: Bryan Fischer says there should be no more mosques made—built in America. You know, some of the outrageous things that Limbaugh and Gingrich have said, Palin. What does the rest of the world think about this?

AMY GOODMAN: Last month, Tennessee Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey questioned whether Islam is a religion at all and suggested the Constitution’s protection of freedom of religion should not apply to Muslims. Ramsey made the comments while campaigning for the state’s Republican gubernatorial primary race.

    LT. GOV. RON RAMSEY: Now, you know, I’m all about freedom of religion. I’ll obey the First Amendment as much as I obey the Second Amendment, as much as I’ll obey the Tenth Amendment, and on and on and on. But then you cross the line when they start trying to bring Sharia law here to the States, into the United States. We’re already in law, and we live under our Constitution, and they probably live under our Constitution. But it’s scary. Now, you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life or cult, whatever you want to call it. But certainly we do protect our religions, but at the same time, this is something that we are going to have to face.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Tennessee Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey. He is running for the governorship of Tennessee. Your response—

JOHN ESPOSITO: Amy?

AMY GOODMAN: Congressman, let me go to Professor Esposito.

JOHN ESPOSITO: Let me just make a point here, following up on Keith’s comment. The way this plays out overseas is that, to our friends in the Muslim world, which are the vast majority of Muslims, people are stunned. And it feeds a concern about, as that has existed before, that there’s a double standard—that is, that, on the one hand, we’re admired for our principles and our values, but on the other hand, there’s always been a sense that we say we stand for democracy, we say we stand for pluralism, of freedom of religion—all of these things, as the Gallup World Poll shows, vast majorities of Muslims admire. But significant numbers of Muslims around the world believe that there’s a double standard when it comes to how Muslims themselves are actually treated.

On the other hand, it plays into the extremists. The extremists wind up saying, in effect, "See? At the end of the day, to be a Muslim is to be persecuted. There is a clash of civilizations." And I think that that’s what’s ironic. And it’s underscored by something that you and others said earlier. The problem here is not just that you have some rural rednecks who are making comments; it’s that you have people who hold responsible positions—I’m not even going to say that they are responsible people—but people who hold responsible positions in our society, whether it’s politicians, whether it’s so-called Christian ministers and others. And the fact that you could have, for example, the pastor of a church that only has eighty people, who calls for an event like burning Qur’ans, and that that could then become an international issue and get that kind of coverage, shows the depth of the problem that we face and the urgency about our need to face it.

ANJALI KAMAT: Professor Esposito, this Islamophobia is not a new phenomenon. Can you take us back, over the past decade, really, and talk about the sort of early waves of hate crimes that hit and the hate speech against Muslims?

JOHN ESPOSITO: Well, I think that when you look, for example, at particularly, you know, at post-9/11, you have a wave of hate crimes. But ironically, post-9/11, you have an America that, if you look at polling, responded a lot better than it did after the first couple of years. And I think part of that reason things got much more negative was that while President Bush made a very good distinction between terrorists and Islam, at times the Bush administration played the terrorism card so much that it fed into an American population feeling unduly under siege—not that we don’t have to be concerned about terrorism, but unduly under siege. Then what you see over the years are problems of attacks on mosques.

But more importantly, the fact that you have people like Representative King and others, you have politicians who, over the last decade, have played this card—Rick Lazio and others. You have Christian right ministers—John Hagee, Franklin Graham—these ministers saying that not that terrorists are evil, but Islam is evil. And remember that Hagee and Rod Parsley were two ministers whom McCain embraced. What people forget now when look at—as we lead up to the elections is that during the presidential elections, you could see the Islamophobia in the way in which people were trying to prove that Obama was somehow a Muslim, as if that should discredit him, and indeed Secretary Powell had to speak to that. And on the other hand, you had all the major Republican candidates playing the anti-Islam card. And that’s simply been picked up now by other political candidates now, primarily Republican, but also some Democrats.

So, Islamophobia runs very deep. But what we want to do is not acknowledge that it exists, so—or we even say, well, we shouldn’t use the term. And the reality of it is, it’s like any form of racism. We need to call a spade a spade and address it head-on. If we don’t, this will simply continue to spread.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to the comments of two New York politicians. You just mentioned, Professor Esposito, New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio. He was a longtime congressman. He’s now running against Andrew Cuomo for the governorship of New York. He vehemently opposes the cultural center project. He and many other conservatives have repeatedly questioned the positions taken by one of the project’s founders, Imam Feisal Rauf.

    RICK LAZIO: You know, the person who is spearheading this effort, Imam Rauf, has said, on the very month that we suffered this terrible surprise attack, that America was an accessory to the crime of 9/11 and that Osama bin Laden was, in a real sense, made in the USA. This is not the voice of a bridge builder. I know they’re trying to portray this now as a situation where we’ve got peacemakers and bridge builders. But the person who’s driving this is affiliated with some of the most radical organizations that we know. He refuses to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, and he’s affiliated very closely with the Perdana Global group that funded the flotilla that tried to run the blockade in the Middle East.

AMY GOODMAN: Rabbi Kula, you’re saying this isn’t true?

RABBI IRWIN KULA: I mean, some of this just isn’t true. I mean, I understand facts don’t matter. I get that. I really do understand that. I’m a multicultural—I’m a post-modern person who understands there’s multiple narratives. I get it. But that literally isn’t—read the last chapter of his most recent book, Imam Feisal’s last chapter. It’s about love. It’s about a rejection of terrorism. It’s a rejection of violence. And it turns out that a piece of the Muslim world is in crisis right now. We know that. And the question is, are we going to lump every single Muslim in the world together? And that’s what Rick Lazio is doing. And it’s very, very dangerous, because it’s splitting—it’s splitting American Muslims from Americans. That’s a very dangerous thing for the country.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Ellison, he is a fellow—he was a fellow congressman, Rick Lazio.

REP. KEITH ELLISON: Well, to me, you know, there is this deep tradition of right-wing populism and scapegoating. He reminds me of "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman. He reminds me of George Wallace, who swore he would never be out-raced again and said, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever," as he stood in front of that schoolhouse door. I mean, there is a tradition of pandering politicians, appealing to the worst impulses in the population. I don’t know if Rick Lazio believes what he says or not. I do know that he sees an opportunity, and he is seizing that opportunity. It’s disgusting and disgraceful. And my question is, how bad do you want to be governor? Are you really willing to throw a whole set of Americans under the bus just so you can be governor?

AMY GOODMAN: I want to also be clear, Congressman Lazio was not fringe. He ran a very close race against Hillary Clinton for the Senate. They were neck and neck. And—Rabbi Kula?

RABBI IRWIN KULA: See, I think what we have to, in a sense, pull back for a second and say there are two strains, both in America, but there are two strains in all human beings. There’s a strain in human being that is afraid of the other. There’s a strain in the human being that, when we get scared and we get insecure, we either, you know, fight—we’re either afraid and fight, we either freeze, you know, or we either run away. And so, that fear is really real. And then there’s this other strain in us as human beings, that wants to reach out, that wants to connect, that recognizes that we are in this together. And those two strains, which are in every single person, are now being played out in the larger political and cultural landscape. And we have to be really—really, those of us who, for whatever reasons, are lucky enough to not be afraid—because it’s really—there’s a certain amount of it that’s just luck—how we were raised and who we got to meet—that what we have to do is we have to mitigate the fear, not make the fear worse.

JOHN ESPOSITO: Amy?

AMY GOODMAN: Let me just bring in Talat Hamdani. You leave here, and you’re going to go to a news conference outside the—

TALAT HAMDANI: It’s a meeting to—right.

AMY GOODMAN: A meeting.

TALAT HAMDANI: A meeting to—how to deal with this issue, and many different organizations who are supporting this cause, fighting for the rights of all Americans, which now are being violated, because, from my perspective, Muslims are as equal members, citizens, as any other faith in this country. They died on 9/11. They were the first responders. They also died after helping. Their children are on the frontlines. So when it comes to—

AMY GOODMAN: When you say "on the frontlines," where?

TALAT HAMDANI: In Afghanistan and Iraq. Muslims are fighting, too. So when it comes for us to pay our duties, we do it. But when it comes to us demanding our rights, we are not getting it. We are being told, you know, "You are a terrorist," which is very wrong. What is mine is mine. I’m doing my duty, and I want my rights. And this stoking the fear that, you know, all these politicians are jumping in on the bandwagon and trying to make it exploit, the tragedy of all those 3,000 people killed for their own political expediency, it’s disgraceful.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask Congressman Ellison, the reports from Gainesville, Florida. A Florida church with "Islam is of the devil" signs in its front lawn plans to host an “International Burn a Qur’an Day” on the ninth anniversary of the September 11th attacks. It reminds me—

REP. KEITH ELLISON: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —back when you were first elected, the whole controversy around your swearing in, wanting to do it on a Qur’an.

REP. KEITH ELLISON: Well, you know, one of the things that I’d like to share with you is that when I met President Bush face to face, he shook my hand vigorously, and he said that he thought was a good thing and that he was happy that I was in the Congress. So, I mean, I think it’s true that, you know, a few years—

AMY GOODMAN: He thought it was a good thing that you were—you were swearing on—actually it was Abraham Lincoln’s Bible, is that right?

REP. KEITH ELLISON: No, no. It was Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean—I mean Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an.

REP. KEITH ELLISON: Yeah, and yeah, President Bush was supportive. And, you know, President Bush is well aware that, you know, I’m a liberal Democrat, and he’s a conservative, but that did not stop us from agreeing that America had a very important heritage of religious tolerance that we both needed to celebrate. But you know what? This is just one of those examples of what happens when politicians and cultural leaders sort of light the fuse. And it does end up in extremely tragic situations, and that’s why it’s so important that you’re doing this program. And I just want to say to the rabbi and to Ms. Talat, who—those of you who live in New York, that I am exceedingly proud of you, and I’m so glad that you’re doing what you’re doing, because, you know, we’ve got to offer that counter-narrative. Most New Yorkers, a plurality of New Yorkers, still believe in our First Amendment heritage. I’m so proud of Mayor Bloomberg.

ANJALI KAMAT: Congressman Ellison, we just have a few seconds left, and I just want to ask you, what political rights do Muslim Americans have now? What political price can they exact, with Democrats and Republicans using this as political capital?

REP. KEITH ELLISON: Well, what actual practical rights Muslims have in America today is in the balance. It’s being determined as we speak. The fact is, is that that—the question you asked me will be answered if this mosque goes forward. And if it doesn’t, I think it will also be answered. And so, the fact is, it’s time to get busy, to reach out in love, to reach out in brother and sisterhood, and to make sure that all Americans can claim the promises of the First Amendment.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you all for being with us, and this is certainly a conversation that will continue, Congressman Keith Ellison, joining us from Minneapolis, first Muslim congressman to be elected to Congress; Professor Esposito from Georgetown University; Rabbi Irwin Kula, who is president of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership; and Talat Hamdani, who lost her son on 9/11.

Creative Commons License The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Brilliant Speech on Gaza

One of you forwarded it to me and I hasten to reprint it here.

There is also a link to further information on Edward Said, something everyone can or should benefit from.

I will let it speak for itself:


This is one of the better speeches about the Palestinian/Israeli situation I’ve read in a long time, sent by a Jewish woman for peace.
From my experience over there – and in our own country - it speaks the truth, especially when and where it hurts.
It’s not what our government or media want us to know or feel.
Ernest+
 
Published on Monday, August 9, 2010 
The Tears of Gaza Must Be Our Tears
by Chris Hedges
Chris Hedges made these remarks Thursday night in New  York City at a fundraiser for sponsoring a U.S. boat to break the blockade of  Gaza. More information can be found at www.ustogaza.org  .
When I lived in Jerusalem I had a friend who confided in me  that as a college student in the United States she attended events like these,  wrote up reports and submitted them to the Israel consulate for money. It  would be naive to assume this Israeli practice has ended. So, I want first  tonight to address that person, or those persons, who may have come to this  event for the purpose of reporting on it to the Israeli  government. I would like to remind them that it is they who hide in  darkness. It is we who stand in the light. It is they who deceive. It is we  who openly proclaim our compassion and demand justice for those who suffer in  Gaza. We are not afraid to name our names. We are not afraid to name our  beliefs. And we know something you perhaps sense with a kind of dread. As  Martin Luther King said, the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends  toward justice, and that arc is descending with a righteous fury that is  thundering down upon the Israeli government.
You may have the bulldozers, planes and helicopters that  smash houses to rubble, the commandos who descend from ropes on ships and kill  unarmed civilians on the high seas as well as in Gaza, the vast power of the  state behind you. We have only our hands and our hearts and our voices. But  note this. Note this well. It is you who are afraid of us. We are not afraid  of you. We will keep working and praying, keep protesting and denouncing, keep  pushing up against your navy and your army, with nothing but our bodies, until  we prove that the force of morality and justice is greater than hate and  violence. And then, when there is freedom in Gaza, we will forgive ... you. We  will ask you to break bread with us. We will bless your children even if you  did not find it in your heart to bless the children of those you occupied. And  maybe it is this forgiveness, maybe it is the final, insurmountable power of  love, which unsettles you the most.


And so tonight, a night when some seek to name names and  others seek to hide names, let me do some naming. Let me call things by their  proper names. Let me cut through the jargon, the euphemisms we use to mask  human suffering and war crimes. “Closures” mean heavily armed soldiers who  ring Palestinian ghettos, deny those trapped inside food or basic  amenities—including toys, razors, chocolate, fishing rods and musical  instruments—and carry out a brutal policy of collective punishment, which is a  crime under international law. “Disputed land” means land stolen from the  Palestinians. “Clashes” mean, almost always, the killing or wounding of  unarmed Palestinians, including children. “Jewish neighborhoods in the West  Bank” mean fortress-like compounds that serve as military outposts in the  campaign of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. “Targeted assassinations”  mean extrajudicial murder. “Air strikes on militant bomb-making posts” mean  the dropping of huge iron fragmentation bombs from fighter jets on densely  crowded neighborhoods that always leaves scores of dead and wounded, whose  only contact with a bomb was the one manufactured in the United States and  given to the Israeli Air Force as part of our complicity in the occupation.  “The peace process” means the cynical, one-way route to the crushing of the  Palestinians as a people.
These are some names. There are others. Dr. Izzeldin  Abuelaish in the late afternoon of Jan. 16, 2009, had a pair of Israeli tank  shells rip through a bedroom in his Gaza apartment, killing three of his  daughters—Bessan, Mayar and Aya—along with a niece, Noor.
“I have the right to feel angry,” says Abuelaish. “But I  ask, ‘Is this the right way?’ So many people were expecting me to hate. My  answer to them is I shall not hate.”
“Whom to hate?” asks the 55-year-old gynecologist, who was  born a Palestinian refugee and raised in poverty. “My Israeli friends? My  Israeli colleagues? The Israeli babies I have delivered?”
The Palestinian poet Taha Muhammad Ali wrote this in his  poem “Revenge”:
At times ... I wish
I could meet in a duel
the man who killed my father
and razed our home,
expelling me
into
a narrow country.
And if he killed me,
I’d rest at last,
and if I were ready—
I would take my revenge!
*
But if it came to light,
when my rival appeared,
that he had a mother
waiting for him,
or a father who’d put
his right hand over
the heart’s place in his chest
whenever his son was late
even by just a quarter-hour
for a meeting they’d set—
then I would not kill him,
even if I could.
*
Likewise ... I
would not murder him
if it were soon made clear
that he had a brother or sisters
who loved him and constantly longed to see him.
Or if he had a wife to greet him
and children who
couldn’t bear his absence
and whom his gifts would thrill.
Or if he had
friends or companions,
neighbors he knew
or allies from prison
or a hospital room,
or classmates from his school …
asking about him
and sending him regards.
*
But if he turned
out to be on his own—
cut off like a branch from a tree—
without a mother or father,
with neither a brother nor sister,
wifeless, without a child,
and without kin or neighbors or friends,
colleagues or companions,
then I’d add not a thing to his pain
within that aloneness—
not the torment of death,
and not the sorrow of passing away.
Instead I’d be content
to ignore him when I passed him by
on the street—as I
convinced myself
that paying him no attention
in itself was a kind of revenge.


And if these words are what it means to be a Muslim, and I  believe it does, name me too a Muslim, a follower of the prophet, peace be upon him.
The boat to Gaza will be named “The Audacity of Hope.” But  these are not Barack Obama’s words. These are the words of my friend the Rev.  Jeremiah Wright. They are borrowed words. And Jerry Wright is not afraid to  speak the truth, not afraid to tell us to stop confusing God with America. “We  bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands  [killed] in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev.  Wright said. “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and  black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done  overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s  chickens are coming home to roost.”
Or the words of Edward  Said  :


Nothing in my view is more reprehensible than those habits  of mind in the intellectual that induce avoidance, that characteristic turning  away from a difficult and principled position which you know to be the right  one, but which you decide not to take. You do not want to appear too  political; you are afraid of seeming controversial; you want to keep a  reputation for being balanced, objective, moderate; your hope is to be asked  back, to consult, to be on a board or prestigious committee, and so to remain  within the responsible mainstream; someday you hope to get an honorary degree,  a big prize, perhaps even an ambassadorship.
For an intellectual these habits of mind are corrupting  par excellence. If anything can denature, neutralize, and finally kill  a passionate intellectual life it is the internalization of such habits.  Personally I have encountered them in one of the toughest of all contemporary  issues, Palestine, where fear of speaking out about one of the greatest  injustices in modern history has hobbled, blinkered, muzzled many who know the  truth and are in a position to serve it. For despite the abuse and  vilification that any outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights and  self-determination earns for him or herself, the truth deserves to be spoken,  represented by an unafraid and compassionate intellectual.
And some of the last words of Rachel Corrie  to her  parents:
I’m witnessing this chronic, insidious genocide and I’m  really scared, and questioning my fundamental belief in the goodness of human  nature. This has to stop. I think it is a good idea for us all to drop  everything and devote our lives to making this stop. I don’t think it’s an  extremist thing to do anymore. I still really want to dance around to Pat  Benatar and have boyfriends and make comics for my coworkers. But I also want  this to stop. Disbelief and horror is what I feel. Disappointment. I am  disappointed that this is the base reality of our world and that we, in fact,  participate in it. This is not at all what I asked for when I came into this  world. This is not at all what the people here asked for when they came into  this world. This is not the world you and Dad wanted me to come into when you  decided to have me. This is not what I meant when I looked at Capital Lake and  said: “This is the wide world and I’m coming to it.” I did not mean that I was  coming into a world where I could live a comfortable life and possibly, with  no effort at all, exist in complete unawareness of my participation in  genocide. More big explosions somewhere in the distance outside. When I come  back from Palestine, I probably will have nightmares and constantly feel  guilty for not being here, but I can channel that into more work. Coming here  is one of the better things I’ve ever done. So when I sound crazy, or if the  Israeli military should break with their racist tendency not to injure white  people, please pin the reason squarely on the fact that I am in the midst of a  genocide which I am also indirectly supporting, and for which my government is  largely responsible.


 
And if this is what it means to be a Christian, and I  believe it does, to speak in the voice of Jeremiah Wright, Edward Said or  Rachel Corrie, to remember and take upon us the pain and injustice of others,  then name me a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ.


And what of the long line of Jewish prophets that run from  Jeremiah, Isaiah and Amos to Hannah Arendt, who reminded the world when the  state of Israel was founded that the injustice meted out to the Jews could not  be rectified by an injustice meted out to the Palestinians, what of our own  prophets, Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein  ,  outcasts like all prophets, what of Uri  Avnery   or the Israeli poet Aharon Shabtai, who writes in his poem  “Rypin,” the Polish town his father escaped from during the Holocaust, these  words:


These creatures in helmets and khakis,
I say to myself, aren’t Jews,
In the truest sense of the word. A Jew
Doesn’t dress himself up with weapons like  jewelry,
Doesn’t believe in the barrel of a gun aimed at a  target,
But in the thumb of the child who was shot at—
In the house through which he comes and goes,
Not in the charge that blows it apart.
The coarse soul and iron first
He scorns by nature.
He lifts his eyes not to the officer, or the  soldier
With his finger on the trigger—but to justice,
And he cries out for compassion.
Therefore, he won’t steal land from its people
And will not starve them in camps.
The voice calling for expulsion
Is heard from the hoarse throat of the  oppressor—
A sure sign that the Jew has entered a foreign  country
And, like Umberto Saba  , gone into  hiding within his own city.
Because of voices like these, father
At age sixteen, with your family, you fled  Rypin;
Now here Rypin is your son.


And if to be Jew means this, and I believe it does, name me  a Jew. Name us all Muslims and Christians and Jews. Name us as human beings  who believe that when one of us suffers all of us suffer, that we never have  to ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for us all, that the tears of the  mother in Gaza are our tears, that the wails of the bloodied children in Al  Shifa Hospital are the wails of our own children.
Let me close tonight with one last name. Let me name those  who send these tanks and fighter jets to bomb the concrete hovels in Gaza with  families crouching, helpless, inside, let me name those who deny children the  right to a childhood and the sick a right to care, those who torture, those  who carry out assassinations in hotel rooms in Dubai and on the streets of  Gaza City, those who deny the hungry food, the oppressed justice and foul the  truth with official propaganda and state lies. Let me call them, not by their  honorific titles and positions of power, but by the name they have earned for  themselves by draining the blood of the innocent into the sands of Gaza. Let  me name them for who they are: terrorists.
Copyright © 2010 Truthdig, L.L.C.
Chris Hedges writes a regular column for Truthdig.com  . Hedges graduated from Harvard  Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The  New York Times. He is the author of many books, including: War Is A  Force That Gives Us Meaning  , What Every  Person Should Know About War , and American  Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.    His most recent book is Empire of  Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of  Spectacle  . 

__._,_.___

Friday, August 13, 2010

Robert Gibbs and Drug Testing




Hearing Evil
    When Robert Gibbs uttered words to the effect that anyone who thinks that Obama is continuing Bush should be drug tested, I snapped right into action. 

    “Yes, that’s it,” I thought.  Perhaps it was drugs that were needed.  Someone was on drugs, somewhere, and I was going to test for it.
    So, immediately, I tested all over.  I tested my cabinet drawers first, looking all over.   Nothing.

    Being a loyal American, I continued.  Under the mattress: nothing.  No weed, ludes, opiates, nothing.  Besides, this was something that called for uppers.

    Why?  Robert Gibbs is obviously projecting, a bit paranoid.  Crack, Powdered, Amphetemines, even Meth.  Ah ha!  I searched the bookcases, the slots behind the books.  Nothing.  The only thing available was at the bottom of the speed spectrum -- caffene.  Not sufficient to get into the right frame of mind, but I still drank some coffee.

    It did not help.  I still thought that Obama was going down the same path as Bush.  The major problem was that Obama was intelligent and knowledgable and Bush was not.  It turns out that this was not enough to mean an improvement.  Quite the contrary.

    Obama, as is developed in the transcript below, is actually normalizing or legalizing what Bush had done, only Bush was violating socially and internationally accepted norms.  With Obama, we have an example of what can most precisely be described as
die bindinde Kraft kritiserbarer Geltungansprüche or as, mentioned above, an institutionalization and legalization of deviant and internationally illegal activity. 

   
Many of Bush's violation of established 4th Amendment protections, for example, have been absorbed into the legal code.  Guantanamo remains open and tribunals are being executed and prisoners sentenced.  The most obvious example is the prosecution of the acts of a 15 year old who is now about 23, having spent eight years, or a third of his life, in a prison, subject to torture.  In violation of the 5th Ammendment, evidence obtained as a result of torture is admitted against him.  The fact that such 'confession' was made without the presence of a lawyer brings the 6th Amendment into play.  But then, a war's a war!

    Healthcare is another issue.  Obama never promised a Canadian style system, but he did promise the re-import of medicines from Canada and a public option.  If he had started with a single-payer proposal, perhaps something non-Bush would have been instituted.

    Well, as I freely confessed, I was unable to find the drugs needed to agree with Gibbs, so I am sure my reasoning is flawed somehow. 

    Furthermore, I can not agree that Gibbs should be fired.  That would be analogous to firing the mailman for bringing you a bill.  The key is finding out who was behind the bill being sent, and I would suspect Rahm Israel Emmanuel and perhaps David Axelrod, perhaps also Timothy Geithner, but primarilly Barack himself as guilty.

    In many ways, then, he is worse than Bush simply because he has a better facility with instrumental reasoning.

    Here is the transcript:



Rush Transcript

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...

Related Links

JUAN GONZALEZ: White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is coming under increasing pressure for his attack on progressive critics of President Obama. In a recent interview with the newspaper The Hill, Gibbs blasted what he called, quote, "the professional left" that has likened some of Obama’s policies to those of former President George W. Bush. Gibbs said, quote, "These people ought to be drug tested. They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and when we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality. They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president."

On Wednesday, Robert Gibbs was repeatedly questioned about the statement during the White House press briefing.

    REPORTER: Your esteemed substitute yesterday, that you answered—said that you answered honestly. Was this an honest, correct answer that you gave to those questions, when you— PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS: I would not contradict my able substitute. REPORTER: So this was an honest answer? You’re not backing away from it? PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS: I don’t think that—I think many of you all have heard frustration voiced in here and around, sure. I don’t—I doubt I said anything that you haven’t already heard. REPORTER: This wasn’t a mistake? It was not something you said in error? PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS: It was borne out of frustration, but I don’t think it was—again, I think it was borne out of frustration. REPORTER: But you stand by it? It’s private frustration that you expressed publicly and accurately? PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS: Well, public frustration that was written down publicly. REPORTER: Do you want to name any names? PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS: I left my membership list back in the office. REPORTER: Of the professional left? REPORTER: Well, who wants to eliminate the Pentagon? PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS: I think that was—wasn’t that a proposal during the presidential campaign? Didn’t Dennis Kucinich—or maybe it was adding the Department of Peace. REPORTER: Department of Peace. REPORTER: But do you feel like there’s still substance to what you said, not necessarily—maybe not in the way you said it, but that there is too much of a demand or too much pressure perhaps from the left of the party and that— PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS: I didn’t say there’s too much of a demand. I think—or too much pressure. I think that a lot of what—a lot of the issues that Democrats throughout the party have worked—have worked to see happen have come to fruition as part of what this President has accomplished in the first seventeen months. Healthcare was an issue that was worked on for a hundred years. President after president after president discussed the importance of passing something comprehensive and historic that cut how much we were paying for healthcare, that extended the life, as we saw last week, of the Medicare trust fund. I think those are accomplishments that we all should be proud of, regardless of whether it encompasses a hundred percent of what we had wanted in the beginning. REPORTER: And what about the rest that is outstanding? Gay rights, Guantánamo? PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS: I will say this: all things that the President made commitments on and is focused on doing.

AMY GOODMAN: White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs defending the Obama administration’s record and his comments on the so-called professional left.

One organization that’s been particularly critical of some of President Obama’s policies has been the American Civil Liberties Union. In a new report called "Establishing a New Normal," the ACLU writes, quote, "On a range of issues including accountability for torture, detention of terrorism suspects, and use of lethal force against civilians, there is a very real danger that the Obama administration will enshrine permanently within the law policies and practices that were widely considered extreme and unlawful during the Bush administration."

Well, Jameel Jaffer joins us here in New York. He is the deputy legal director at the ACLU and one of the authors of the report.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

JAMEEL JAFFER: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response to Robert Gibbs?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, you know, I think it’s disappointing when the Press Secretary responds to the thoughtful criticism in that way. I also think it—I think it debases political debate to respond in that way. And I think that the Press Secretary, as part of his job, is supposed to set a tone, and I don’t think that’s the right tone.

But our report is really—you know, it’s about the policies. We stand by the content of the report. And the same report that criticizes the President for—President Obama for adopting some of the Bush administration’s policies gives President Obama all kinds of credit for the things he’s done right. We tried to be fair in the report. We think the report is fair. And we think it’s important to give the administration credit when they get things right, and we did. And we think it’s important to hold the administration accountable when they get things wrong, and that’s what we’re trying to do.

JUAN GONZALEZ: What were some of those things that they did right that you’ve praised him for?

JAMEEL JAFFER: You know, in the very first days of the administration, the President announced that they would shut down the CIA’s black sites, that they would disavow torture. They committed to close Guantánamo. That hasn’t gone as everybody had hoped, but they committed to close Guantánamo, and I think everybody recognizes that they intended to do it. A few months into the administration, they released some of the torture memos that the Bush adminstration had kept secret on the basis of a national security pretext. And all of those decisions were the right decisions by the administration, and the administration deserves credit for having put the power and the prestige of the presidency behind those kinds of decisions.

Unfortunately, if you take a step back and you look more broadly at what the administration is doing on national security, in particular, what you see far too often is the administration endorsing policies that most of us recognize were extreme under the last administration. And, in fact, in some cases, you see this administration going even further than the last administration did. I don’t think it’s helpful to engage in this conversation of, is President Obama better or worse than President Bush? I think that you have to look at these things on a policy-by-policy basis, and that’s what we tried to do.

AMY GOODMAN: So, why don’t you list those areas where you are deeply concerned?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Sure, sure. So, some of the places we point to in the report include the endorsement of indefinite detention for some of the people who are now held at Guantánamo, the failure to hold accountable the people who endorsed torture. The last administration built a framework for torture, but this administration, we say in the report, is building a framework for impunity. Allowing those senior officials who endorsed torture to get away with it leaves torture on the table as a permissible policy option, if not for this president, then for the next president.

AMY GOODMAN: And who do you think should be held accountable?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, you know, these are decisions—the decision to endorse torture was a decision that was made at the highest levels of the Bush administration. We know that, for example, Secretary Rumsfeld signed interrogation orders for use at Guantánamo that included interrogation methods that violated the War Crimes Act. We know that lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel wrote legal memos that were meant to authorize torture. So the problem we have now is that there is—you know, as you know, the Obama administration has initiated a criminal investigation, but the criminal investigation is very narrow. It examines only a handful of incidents in which contractors or CIA interrogators went beyond the authority that was invested in them. And nobody, as far as we know, is looking into the responsibility and the criminal liability of the people who endorsed torture and authorized it. And that seems indefensible to us.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the administration’s repeated invoking of national security to maintain secrecy in terms of what happened with some of these torture cases?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Right, that’s—I mean, that’s happening in two different contexts. One is the Freedom of Information Act context. There are still a half a dozen lawsuits out there, including some that the ACLU has brought, that are an effort to create a complete public record of what took place under the last administration. Rather than cooperate with that effort, the administration, the Obama administration, is invoking national security to withhold, for example, allegations from prisoners who were held in CIA black sites about the treatment that they suffered in those black sites. And at this point, there is no legitimate national security justification for withholding that kind of material. So that’s one context.

And the other context is in the context of civil suits brought by survivors of the torture program. What you see is the administration invoking the same state secrets privilege that the last administration invoked to get those cases kicked out of court. So, on every front, you see the Obama administration, rather than providing the kind of accountability that it committed to provide, instead obstructing accountability.

JUAN GONZALEZ: What about the whole issue of the continued rise of the surveillance state and the government’s involvement in surveillance of civilians?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah, I mean, I think that that’s another front where we had hoped to see this administration depart from the policies of the last administration. And it hasn’t happened, or at least hasn’t happened to the extent we had hoped. Some of what was going on under the last administration was going on in spite of federal law that prohibited it. That was true, for example, with the warrantless wiretapping program. And then Congress authorized the warrantless wiretapping that President Bush had authorized in violation of statute. So now you have a statute that authorizes precisely what President Bush was doing illegally between 2001 and 2006. But what we had hoped was that that statute would be tested, the constitutionality of that statute would be tested in the courts.

Rather than defend the statute on the merits or, even better, concede the unconstitutionality of the statute, the Obama administration has invoked the state secrets privilege and the standing doctrine to try to protect that statue from judicial review. And the standing argument they’re making is that the only people who can challenge this kind of surveillance are people who can prove that their own communications were acquired. And nobody can prove that their own communications were acquired, because the administration doesn’t—often for good reason, doesn’t disclose the names of its surveillance targets. So, to say that the only people who can challenge the statute are people who can show their communications were acquired under it is to say that the statute is immune from judicial review. And that’s the problem with the argument that the administration is making right now.

AMY GOODMAN: Jameel Jaffer, the issue of US policy of assassination? ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights filed suit last week against the government around the government’s authorization of assassinating US citizens, al-Awlaki in Yemen.

JAMEEL JAFFER: That’s right. That’s right. So this is—you know, this targeted killing program, as it’s been called, is something that was introduced by the last administration, but expanded by this administration. And our concern is principally with the use of—with the carrying out of targeted killings outside the battlefield context. So it’s one thing to use drones, for example, in Afghanistan or Iraq, where the United States is actually at war. That’s subject to the laws of war, and there are limits, but that’s a different context than the use of drones to kill people who are located far from any battlefield. And a lot of us agree that the last administration’s argument for worldwide detention authority, the authority to detain people without charge or trial, was extreme and unlawful. This administration is claiming worldwide execution authority. Suspected terrorists are targeted for execution wherever they are in the world. And that’s—you know, there are many problems with that policy, but one of them is that inevitably we will get it wrong sometimes. And you only need to look to Guantánamo, for example, to see dozens and dozens of situations where we initially labeled somebody a terrorist and then, many years later, looked at the evidence and found that the evidence was nonexistent or just wrong. And it’s one thing to get it wrong in the context of detention. With detention, there’s always the possibility of appeal and the possibility eventually of release. But there is no appeal from a drone. And if you get it wrong with a drone, there is no recourse. So we have to be sure to get it right, and that’s part of the reason we’re so concerned about the use of these drones outside the battlefield context.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And you’re also critical of the Obama administration’s willingness to rely on military commissions, in terms of dealing with some of the suspected or alleged terrorists.

JAMEEL JAFFER: That’s right. I mean, with the military commissions, I mean, I’ll be honest with you, it’s not just a civil liberties objection. It’s also a very practical effectiveness objection. And it’s bewildering to us that the administration is going down this road. You have military commissions that have been totally unsuccessful in carrying out the tasks that they were told to carry out. Over the last few years, we’ve had four convictions. And in the same time period, you have had hundreds of convictions in the criminal courts here inside the United States. The courts here, the federal courts, are completely capable of handling complex terrorism cases. They’ve done it many, many times in the past. The prosecutors know the law. There is law. The judges know the law. Everybody knows the rules. And those rules have been tested over many, many years. In the military commissions, you have a system that’s been built essentially from scratch. And it’s no surprise that that system has, you know, to understate it, many, many kinks in it. And the result is that this system that the Obama administration is using has all kinds of human rights and civil liberties problems, but it also has a very basic effectiveness problem. And so, our objection to it is not just a civil liberties objection, but a kind of security objection, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: We only have twenty seconds, but opening arguments begin in Omar Khadr’s case today in Guantánamo. Picked up at fifteen?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah, this is, in some ways, the most troubling of all of the cases that have been brought before the military commission. He was, as you say, picked up as a juvenile. He’s been held for a third of his life at Guantánamo. He’s being held on the basis of, among other things, evidence that was tortured out of him when he was fifteen years old. It’s a surprise that the Obama administration is starting with this case.

AMY GOODMAN: Gibbs is concerned about you comparing Obama with Bush. What about Bush Senior? Do you think the comment about the professional left is equivalent to President George H.W. Bush talking about card-carrying members of the ACLU?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Oh, I don’t know. I mean, I’m not even sure that we consider ourselves part of the left at the ACLU. You know, we consider ourselves having the Bill of Rights as our—

AMY GOODMAN: I think it’s what they consider you.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Right, right. You know, again, I just think it’s disappointing that the administration uses this kind of language to respond to thoughtful and considered criticism. I think it debases political discourse in this country. And part of the Press Secretary’s job is to make sure that political discourse is civil and informed.

AMY GOODMAN: Jameel Jaffer, I want to thank you very much for being with us.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: His report on the new normal, "Establishing a New Normal: National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration," we’ll link to it at democracynow.org.

Creative Commons License The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

**************************************
Here is more on the Mosque controversy:

Rush Transcript

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...

Related Links

JUAN GONZALEZ: Last week the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission cleared the way for the construction of a proposed Muslim cultural center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg praised the vote, calling it a victory for religious freedom.

But the acrimony over the location of the proposed thirteen-story, $100 million project known as "Park 51," and often referred to as the Cordoba House, is far from over. One day after the commission gave the go-ahead to the project, the American Center for Law and Justice, a right-wing group founded by the evangelist Pat Robertson, filed suit to block its construction.

On Tuesday, New York Governor David Paterson entered the debate and offered developers of the project state-owned land to relocate the center far away from the site of the former World Trade Center. The developers rejected the offer late Wednesday.

AMY GOODMAN: The Cordoba House has become a national controversy, with everyone from Sarah Palin to the Anti-Defamation League weighing in. Last month Sarah Palin devoted two Twitter updates to oppose the mosque, calling it an "unnecessary provocation." Now, a leading social conservative, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, says no more mosques should be built anywhere in the country.

Here in New York, it’s also an electoral issue, with Republican candidate for governor, Rick Lazio, lambasting his Democratic opponent, Andrew Cuomo, for supporting the project. Here’s a sampling of Rick Lazio, Newt Gingrich and Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League publicly defending their opposition to the construction of the Park 51 project over the past week. It begins on Rick Lazio.

    RICK LAZIO: This site here is so close to Ground Zero that the building that they’re going to demolish, the historic building they’re going to demolish to build this mosque, was damaged by the landing gear of one of the planes that hit the Trade Center. We had over 3,000 Americans that were murdered in this location. It is sacred ground. And the fact that we have an insensitivity about moving forward and what that means for the families of those who lost loved ones in 9/11, the first responders, the people closest to the community, to me, it compounds the question, what are they hiding? Why doesn’t Andrew Cuomo step up as the Attorney General who has jurisdiction over this issue and do what people like me, Rudy Giuliani and the Anti-Defamation League have been calling on? Let’s have a clear accounting. Open the books. Let’s see who’s giving the money to construct this mosque. Is it foreign governments? Are they radical organizations? We deserve to know. NEWT GINGRICH: We’d be quite happy to have a mosque built near the World Trade Center, the morning that one church and one synagogue are opened in Mecca. But I don’t want—I don’t want anyone from the world of Islam to lecture me on sensitivity, as long as the Saudis lock up anybody who practices any religion other than Islam. ABRAHAM FOXMAN: I believe, on this issue, the voices, the feelings, the emotions of the families of the victims, of the responders, I think, take precedent, maybe over even the Mayor’s. If I had my way, I agreed with Tom Friedman’s column today in the New York Times. He said, if he had $100 million, he would build this mosque in Saudi Arabia or in Pakistan, where you cannot build a church or you cannot synagogue. That’s where you need to show tolerance and love and understanding.

AMY GOODMAN: Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League there.

Well, the Obama administration is refusing to weigh in on the controversy. Asked for the White House stance, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declined to offer an opinion, calling it a "local" issue.

    PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS: I think we have—I think you’ve heard this administration and the last administration talk about the fact that we are not at war with a religion, but with an idea that has corrupted a religion. But that having been said, I’m not, from here, going to get involved in local decision making like that.

AMY GOODMAN: Interestingly, recent polls suggest while a majority of Americans oppose the construction of the mosque near Ground Zero, a majority of those who live in Manhattan actually support its construction. A CNN poll reports 68 percent of the country opposes the project, and according to a Marist poll, 53 percent of New York City residents oppose it, as well. But the same Marist poll also reports 69 percent of Manhattan residents support the construction of the mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero.

For more on this, we’re joined by Daisy Khan. She’s the executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, one of the main organizations behind the mosque project, and she is the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Also with us, in Philadelphia, Stephan Salisbury, cultural writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer His most recent book is called Mohamed’s Ghosts: An American Story of Love and Fear in the Homeland. His latest article posted on TomDispatch.com is called "Mosque Mania: Anti-Muslim Fears and the Far Right."

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Daisy Khan, let’s begin with you. Explain what it is that you are attempting to do and where the cultural center and mosque is located.

DAISY KHAN: Well, thank you, Amy, for having me on the show. This idea goes back to 1999, when Imam Feisal, who is, you know, an Islamic scholar, an imam who’s been an imam in Tribeca for twenty-seven years, looked at how religions evolve in America over—you know, over its course, and has spoken to rabbis and Catholics and determined that the evolution or trajectory of Americanizing a religion happens primarily with institution building and that once you go from a place of worship to an institute that serves the general public is when that faith becomes Americanized. And so, establishing something like a YMCA or the equivalent of a JCC or a 92nd Street Y, which would be the Muslim equivalent, would be necessary for the Muslim community to do in order to integrate itself and call itself an American religion. So this idea has been on the books for a while.

And in 2000—prior to 2000, we actually tried to purchase another building called McBurney Y on 23rd Street, and we did not succeed. Somebody else came along with more money. And it’s only recently, because of the need for additional prayer space in lower Manhattan, because of the influx of so many immigrants, and our congregational prayers happen on Friday, there has been an increase in people that have been coming for prayers, that there was a desire to look for another site. And it was primarily to be in the same neighborhood, because our current mosque was only twelve blocks from Ground Zero. And so, one of our congregants, Soho Properties, Sharif Gamal, took it upon himself to look for a site that might be suitable. And it is that search that resulted in finding this property, which was—you know, which had been vacant for nine years.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And were you surprised by the sudden reaction in the final moments of your getting approval, in the final weeks of your getting approval of the project, the enormous reaction, not just in New York City, but across the country, by some of these political leaders?

DAISY KHAN: Well, we went in front of the community board primarily to gauge the receptivity of the community board, whether they would welcome a center that would be larger than just a prayer space. And, of course, the first community board meeting was—there was a unanimous vote, you know, 15-to-zero, and everybody was in favor, because they saw the benefit that it would bring to the community. In fact, they suggested that perhaps maybe we should consider a 9/11 memorial. And we did. We said we’ll be happy to include that. And then, many of our politicians, our borough president, welcomed it. And, you know, we are already in the neighborhood. And we, you know, are New Yorkers. We are Americans. We may be Muslim, but this tragedy was our tragedy as much as anybody else’s. So we didn’t see ourselves as the other. We saw ourselves as being part and parcel of this. So we knew that there might be some people that we might have to bring along, but we did not expect a coordinated national opposition against this project.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what are your plans right now? I mean, let’s be clear. Again, this is a mosque and cultural center two blocks away from Ground Zero. It’s the site of the old Burlington Coat Factory. It had been vacant for nine years. The Landmarks committee said this is fine for you to do. Do you plan simply to move forward?

DAISY KHAN: Currently, we are assessing everything. The first thing that we’ve done, just this past Tuesday, we met with a group of 9/11 families. Our organization, American Society for Muslim Advancement; my husband’s organization, Imam Feisal’s organization, Cordoba Initiative—in fact, that’s the organization that has taken this idea forward—you know, we have been in the bridge-building business for a long time, about a decade. And we have—our mandate has been to build bridges between Muslims and people of other religions and cultures. And we’ve just met with a 9/11 family group.

We want to have a dialogue. We have discovered that there really has not been a national dialogue since 9/11 and that what this project has done is sparked a lot of—a lot of, you know, discussion that should have been had after 9/11. We went to war. We never had a proper discussion. So when we met with the 9/11 families, you know, we were administering to their pain, but many of them came around. So I think that we need to have a bigger conversation about religion in America, about Islam in America, about 9/11 and its impact on America, and also its impact on history in general, because I think this is a historical moment. And we have to seize on it, and we have to be open about it. So our focus right now is going to be to talk to as many people as we can.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to bring in Stephan Salisbury, a cultural writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer who has been covering this lack of conversation in America, and also that this is not an isolated incident, what has occurred here in New York in relationship to this cultural center. Could you talk about what some of you’ve been writing about?

STEPHAN SALISBURY: Thanks for having me.

Yeah, the New York controversy—of course, there are two other mosque projects in New York City that are also attracting serious opposition. One was—has been stalled in Staten Island, and another in Sheepshead Bay in Brooklyn is very controversial, very far away from Ground Zero. But around the country, outside of New York City, similar controversies are popping up all over the place. They’re from Georgia to Tennessee, Wisconsin, Illinois, California. And you see the same kinds of complaints that are—and fears, really, that are exemplified at the Cordoba House initiative in other areas, I think most prominently in Tennessee, in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where there’s a very nasty fight over a mosque, which became the subject of attacks from Republican congressional primary candidates and a gubernatorial candidate, who were essentially saying that this mosque that was proposed in Murfreesboro was being proposed by radicals. It was the candidate for governor, said that—went so far as to say that Islam is not a religion, it’s a cult, it shouldn’t be afforded First Amendment rights, it’s an ideology. So these are the kinds of ideas that are framing debates around the country.

In California, which—there’s a small controversy in a town, rural town near San Diego, Temecula, where there’s opposition to a mosque that’s needed by an expanding or growing population of Muslim residents in that area, and one Baptist preacher, who’s a leader of the opposition, has cited it as a—mosques as hotbeds for radical activity, that there are cells embedded in them, there are cells embedded in mosques all over the country. So these are the kinds of ideas that are resonating at the grassroots level, not just a New York, but really coast to coast.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me go back to Daisy Khan for a minute. A very interesting response from the state, from Governor Paterson. They apparently are saying they would give you free state land if you’d simply move away from where you want to build this. And this is Governor Paterson’s quote. He said, "Frankly, if the sponsors were looking for property anywhere at a distance that would be such that it would accommodate a better feeling among the people who are frustrated, I would look into trying to provide them with the state property they would need." What is your response to that?

DAISY KHAN: Well, we were—you know, we had just begun our dialogue with the 9/11 families. And what we—and I’d like to go back to what the earlier discussion was before I answer this question—is that there is a very strong link that people have, those people who oppose this project, and they cannot delink the religion of Islam from the actions of the extremists. And so, an entire Muslim community is being labeled as if they belong to the extremist ideologies. And this is deeply troubling to us, because this is why I think that, you know, in small pockets of the country we see these kinds of resistances, because people just can’t delink the religion of Islam. So I think that even if we relocated, we still need to have a conversation, because I don’t think that, just by us relocating, that that mindset, that stereotyping, is going to go away.

AMY GOODMAN: I agree with that, but are you taking him up on his offer? Are you considering leaving?

DAISY KHAN: Well, we will meet with anybody to discuss any option. But right now, that is not our first option. First we want to talk to people, who matter, people who are in the neighborhood, people who have a stake in what we’re doing. And we keep all our options open. However, right now, we’re not prepared to immediately, you know, change our plans.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’m wondering also, I mean, whether the opponents of this—of your center do not realize the impact that this must be having in the Muslim world, in terms of feeding into the perspective and the viewpoints of the extremists that the United States is hostile to Islam, in general, and whether this is not actually making matters worse, in terms of developing conflicts between the Muslim world and the United States.

DAISY KHAN: This project is also meant to be a counter to extremist ideologies, because it will be led by people who are from the mainstream Muslim community, and the center will be a platform to amplify their voices. And our voices get drowned out by the voices of the extremists. And I would say, if this project was defeated, then it would be really a win for the extremists, and it would be a loss for all of us who are trying to counter the extremists and, you know, who stand for peace, and peace where it matters the most. There’s too much at stake. And that is what happened when we spoke to the 9/11 families, and we explained to them there’s too much at stake. Many of them came around after we explained how this, you know, would have a significant impact on not only how, you know, America is perceived abroad, but really all it would be doing is strengthening the hand of the extremists, who are the very people that we’re all trying to stand against.

AMY GOODMAN: Daisy Khan, are you afraid for yourself, for your family, for Muslims here in New York?

DAISY KHAN: I’m afraid for my country.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Stephan Salisbury, I’d like to ask you about the willingness of so many Republican politicians to jump on this bandwagon—Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and others—and their use of this issue and what you’re seeing around the country?

STEPHAN SALISBURY: Well, I think that it’s an election year, and many Republicans see themselves threatened, in some ways, by the kind of maturing grassroots activism that the tea party movement has evolved into. And within that movement, a lot of these controversies around the country involve tea party activists, including the mosque. The Cordoba House initiative in Manhattan was initially inflamed by some folks who were leaders within the tea party movement. And you see that—you see that in California. You see it in Tennessee, where opposition to a mosque in Murfreesboro is being actively promoted by the Wilson County tea party.

So, here in Philadelphia, there have been a number of tea party rallies, and I’ve talked to people who have turned out. They’ve been actually small. This is not a hotbed of tea party activism here in the city. But I’ve talked to many people at these rallies, and one theme that runs through them is a belief that Muslims cannot be American. You see that—and they cite these weird notions of Islamic law, that Muslims hold allegiance to Islamic law and that somehow this Islamic law is different from, you know, Jewish law or the canonical law. And in Oklahoma, for instance, the Oklahoma legislature has passed a measure that will place on the ballot for voters of Oklahoma to decide the question of whether or not Oklahoma should ban the application of Sharia law, Islamic law, in Oklahoma. This is kind of weird, in my view.

So, yeah, it’s a pressure from this very, very far-right grassroots movement, which is, I think, particularly threatening to certain elements of the Republican Party, that has led to people like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich to try to siphon off some of the political energy and to perhaps stoke their own political ambitions.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you both very much for joining us. It’s interesting. In New York, in the heated race for governor between Andrew Cuomo and Rick Lazio, a former congressman, it is the home page of the former Congressman Rick Lazio’s website. It is his major issue, is opposing this mosque. Stephan Salisbury with the Philadelphia Inquirer, and Daisy Khan, I want to thank you very much for being with us, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement.

Creative Commons License The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Monday, August 09, 2010

ADL Blows it Big Time

 This is about as mainstream a character as our media can imagine.  Now he does have a few problems such as he is intelligent (strike one), knowledgable (strike two), and fairly honest (strike three)! However, when such organizations as the ADL start loosing support like that, they are really showing their problems.

I must say that I thought that building a community-center/Mosque at that location was not worth the effort as a religious place should be a place for peace and reflection and the morons in a place like New York would never let it in peace, but since they did decide to go ahead with it, let them.






Newsweek

Build the Ground Zero Mosque

I believe we should promote Muslim moderates right here in America. And why I'm returning an award to the ADL.

Stephen Chernin / Getty Images
Muslims pray at an Islamic center in Queens, N.Y.
Ever since 9/11, liberals and conservatives have agreed that the lasting solution to the problem of Islamic terror is to prevail in the battle of ideas and to discredit radical Islam, the ideology that motivates young men to kill and be killed. Victory in the war on terror will be won when a moderate, mainstream version of Islam—one that is compatible with modernity—fully triumphs over the world view of Osama bin Laden.
As the conservative Middle Eastern expert Daniel Pipes put it, “The U.S. role [in this struggle] is less to offer its own views than to help those Muslims with compatible views, especially on such issues as relations with non-Muslims, modernization, and the rights of women and minorities.” To that end, early in its tenure the Bush administration began a serious effort to seek out and support moderate Islam. Since then, Washington has funded mosques, schools, institutes, and community centers that are trying to modernize Islam around the world. Except, apparently, in New York City.
The debate over whether an Islamic center should be built a few blocks from the World Trade Center has ignored a fundamental point. If there is going to be a reformist movement in Islam, it is going to emerge from places like the proposed institute. We should be encouraging groups like the one behind this project, not demonizing them. Were this mosque being built in a foreign city, chances are that the U.S. government would be funding it.
Timothy A. Clary / AFP-Getty Images
Mosques in America: Faith and Anger
Mosques in America: Faith and Anger
The man spearheading the center, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a moderate Muslim clergyman. He has said one or two things about American foreign policy that strike me as overly critical —but it’s stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day. On Islam, his main subject, Rauf’s views are clear: he routinely denounces all terrorism—as he did again last week, publicly. He speaks of the need for Muslims to live peacefully with all other religions. He emphasizes the commonalities among all faiths. He advocates equal rights for women, and argues against laws that in any way punish non-Muslims. His last book, What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America, argues that the United States is actually the ideal Islamic society because it encourages diversity and promotes freedom for individuals and for all religions. His vision of Islam is bin Laden’s nightmare.
Rauf often makes his arguments using interpretations of the Quran and other texts. Now, I am not a religious person, and this method strikes me as convoluted and Jesuitical. But for the vast majority of believing Muslims, only an argument that is compatible with their faith is going to sway them. The Somali-born “ex-Muslim” writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s advice to Muslims is to convert to Christianity. That may create buzz, but it is unlikely to have any effect on the 1.2 billion devout Muslims in the world.
The much larger issue that this center raises is, of course, of freedom of religion in America. Much has been written about this, and I would only urge people to read Michael Bloomberg’s speech on the subject last week. Bloomberg’s eloquent, brave, and carefully reasoned address should become required reading in every civics classroom in America. It probably will.
Bloomberg’s speech stands in stark contrast to the bizarre decision of the Anti-Defamation League to publicly side with those urging that the center be moved. The ADL’s mission statement says it seeks “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.” But Abraham Foxman, the head of the ADL, explained that we must all respect the feelings of the 9/11 families, even if they are prejudiced feelings. “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted,” he said. First, the 9/11 families have mixed views on this mosque. There were, after all, dozens of Muslims killed at the World Trade Center. Do their feelings count? But more important, does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they’re victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?
Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was thrilled to get the award from an organization that I had long admired. But I cannot in good conscience keep it anymore. I have returned both the handsome plaque and the $10,000 honorarium that came with it. I urge the ADL to reverse its decision. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain a reputation.






**********************************************

NewsweekFareed Zakaria's Letter to the ADL

Dear Mr. Foxman,
Five years ago, the ADL honored me with its Hubert Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. I was delighted and moved to have been chosen for it in good measure because of the high esteem in which I hold the ADL. I have always been impressed by the fact that your mission is broad – “to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens” – and you have interpreted it broadly over the decades. You have fought discrimination against all religions, races, and creeds and have built a well-deserved reputation.
That is why I was stunned at your decision to publicly side with those urging the relocation of the planned Islamic center in lower Manhattan. You are choosing to use your immense prestige to take a side that is utterly opposed to the animating purpose of your organization. Your own statements subsequently, asserting that we must honor the feelings of victims even if irrational or bigoted, made matters worse.
This is not the place to debate the press release or your statements. Many have done this and I have written about it in Newsweek and on my television show – both of which will be out over the weekend. The purpose of this letter is more straightforward. I cannot in good conscience hold onto the award or the honorarium that came with it and am returning both. I hope that it might add to the many voices that have urged you to reconsider and reverse your position on this issue.  This decision will haunt the ADL for years if not decades to come. Whether or not the center is built, what is at stake here is the integrity of the ADL and its fidelity to its mission. Admitting an error is a small price to pay to regain your reputation.