One law for them - another one for us!

By now, everyone has heard about the American scientist Stewart David Nozette caught tryng to sell classified information to what he believed was an Israeli spy, but was in fact an FBI agent.

Nozette's case brought to mind the issue of profiling and the double standards involved when it comes to Muslims.

Since the eighties, and especially since 9/11, racial profiling has been brought to the forefront as government officials, elected officials, "analysts" and far right activists have routinely argued that Muslims should be scrutinized at airports, border crossings and specific jobs more than others because of Islamist terrorism in the West.

This followed public opinion polls that found large numbers of Americans in support of such policies.

The logic goes - since "most Muslims are not Islamists and most Islamists are not terrorists, all Islamist terrorists are Muslims."

That's what Daniel Pipes wrote in an op-ed in the New York Post on Jan. 24, 2003. As anyone who is familiar with Pipes, he's a huge advocate for increasing American colonization of the Muslim world (and Israel's colonization of Palestinian territories) and massive repression of the unruly natives inevitable rebellion, as he spelled out in an Orwellian July 18, 2001 op-ed in the Jerusalem Post called "Preventing War: Israel's Options" and reiterated in a Sept. 6, 2007 post on his website www.danielpipes.org called Cut Gaza's power?

So naturally, he supports racial profiling to protect Americans from the fallout of such policies as the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and support for Israel - to name a few, a position he reiterates here and here. (Except for supporters of certain groups that market themselves as pro-American, like the MeK.)

So what about the issue of Israeli espionage? In case you've been living under a rock (or in the case of Pipes, as a parasite in someone's colon) Israel has been engaged in spying on its closest ally for a number of years, as documented in Sam Husseini's article A Long History and there's the more recent case of the AIPAC spy scandal, which adds up to Israel espionage "as a threat second only to China."

According to the indictment, Nozette is Jewish, so according to Daniel Pipes' Harvard-educated brain, rampant Jewish espionage for Israel demands the same racial profiling as for Muslims and Islamist terrorism, right?

Well, apparently not. Even though anyone with the IQ of a sandwich can obviously see that preventing espionage is as much of a "compelling governmental interest" - to use the words of Dov Hikind as quoted by Pipes - as preventing terrorism, the only item I could find about his views on Israeli espionage was this post which was tried to justify Israeli spying because the U.S. does it to Israel.

They can do, so can we - sounds like the same rationalizing terrorists use, eh Danny boy?

It gets better. Apparently, Pipes hired Steven J. Rosen, former AIPAC Policy Development Head and one of the key players at the center of the Franklin-AIPAC spying scandal - he was the one who passed on information to Israel - to work at Pipes' think tank, the Middle East Forum.

Rosen is credited with transforming AIPAC into the lobbying juggernaut that's it known for today, and he once summed up his philosophy:

"A lobby is like a night flower. It thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.”

Like espionage. Ironically, - but not surprisingly - in commenting on his latest acquisition, Pipes wrote that Rosen's acquittal on May 1, "confirms the limits on arbitrary and prejudicial government actions."

Prejudicial? As in, profiling? So Pipes supports Muslim profiling, but not Jewish profiling? As an imperialist and orientalist that defines his work as supporting "American interests in the Middle East," it doesn't come as a surprise.

Pipes' hypocrisy aside, the question of racial profiling is an important one because it isn't people like Pipes that enact it, but the government instead. The government victimizes Muslims becuase the views of people like Pipes are, to a certain extent, institutionalized - even in the current administration.

Reports like "Unreasonable Intrusions: Investigating the Politics, Faith & Finances of Americans Returning Home" and the ACLU report "The Persistence of Racial and ethnic Profiling in the United States" show that such policies will continue. That Pipes has a major Washington Player working for him - Rosen - his previous work as a foreign policy advisor to Rudy Giulani's primary campaign is proof that he's no marginal figure.

The only hope we'll have is by combating both institutionalized anti-Muslim prejudice and the work of people like Daniel Pipes who seek to reinforce that prejudice in a Muslim/non-Muslim movement, independent of the two-party system and the ridiculous schemes of groups like CAIR.

Detroit Muslims still don't get it

A more appropriate title for the below Detroit News article would've been: Detroit-area Muslims eager to delude themselves

Every single quotation indicates complacency, spinelessness and misplaced hope in a US administration that has given us no reason to believe it will depart from centuries-old US empire. Even the Jewish Community Relations Council doesn't differ from the Muslim interviewees' remarks. Not one goddamn word of condemnation from these "leaders" against Obama's crimes against Muslims, a matter some non-Muslims seem to be more keen to document"

"In the mere 2 months after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, non-violent excess deaths of America’s “slaves” in the Occupied Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories have totalled about 100,000." http://mwcnews.net/content/view/29360/42/

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090604/METRO/906040413/1409/METRO/Detroit-area-Muslims-eagerly-await-president-s-speech

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Obama reaches out to Islam

Detroit-area Muslims eagerly await president's speech

Gregg Krupa / The Detroit News

President Barack Obama this week said his long-anticipated speech to the Islamic world, to be delivered in Egypt today, is part of an initiative to "change the conversation" between the United States and Muslims around the globe.

But many local Muslims wonder whether the new president's actions will be enough.
Many said they are hoping the president will offer such specifics as plans for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, his intentions in neighboring Afghanistan and Pakistan, and details for a path toward resolving conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians. Other observers, however, question whether Muslim countries -- many of which have authoritarian regimes -- are prepared to formally expand relationships with the United States.

"We know that he is walking a very tight rope," said Victor Ghalib Begg of the Council of Islamic Organizations of Michigan. "He doesn't have a magic wand, and there are so many competing interests. So, I would say I am hoping he will perform a miracle. But I'm not prepared to be either disappointed or really elated at this time, because it is a very complicated situation."

Since taking office, Obama has made overtures to Muslims -- in his inaugural speech, an interview with the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television network, a major speech in April in Ankara, Turkey, and this week's call for Israel to end the building of settlements in the West Bank.

But many of Metro Detroit's Muslims -- estimated at 125,000 to 200,000, the most in the United States -- as well as observers of other faiths, say today's speech provides an opportunity for Obama to signal a transition from words to actions.

Juan Cole, a professor at the University of Michigan and author of "Engaging the Muslim World," said that Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah initially suggested that the president's speech would set forward a very wide-ranging peace plan. But "the White House has denied this," Cole said. "And his staff is telling the press his speech will not put forward a specific plan but that he will probably emphasize values."

American foreign policy, many critics argue, is an object of scrutiny in the Muslim world. They cite the presence of combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan; pressures on Pakistan to root out the Taliban, who have forced 3 million Pakistanis into homelessness; and the United States' continued support of Israel. They say those issues are viewed by Muslims worldwide as vestiges of American imperialism.

"So, unless Obama can give them concrete specifics about his policies that address these burning issues for them, there's a little bit of a danger of the speech being a P.R. exercise -- and we've seen that happen before," Cole said.

It is implausible, some Muslims contend, that Obama can settle all scores today in his speech at Cairo University, noting previous efforts by other American presidents. "It seems to me that some want to shoot the moon," said Saeed Khan, a fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding in Clinton Township. "They want very concrete measures put in place, with some almost-certain deadlines. Obama himself has set the bar pretty high.

"President Obama has established 'bona fides.' But there is a sense of urgency among people to say, 'If not now, when?' and a fear that if any problems are going to take several years to resolve, what will happen if there is only one term? Or what happens if it takes longer than two terms? Will the situation revert to the 'status quo ante'? This is playing on Muslim minds throughout the world."

A.S. Nakadar, publisher and editor of The Muslim Observer, a 10-year-old newspaper in Farmington, suggested that Obama can improve relations between the United States and Muslim countries by speaking to simple virtues and connecting with the youth and heads of state in the Muslim countries.

"If he can instill in the youths the confidence that we can work together for the betterment of the world and humanity at large, that can contribute a lot," Nakadar said.

"And, to the heads of state, he should say to them that it is their responsibility to weed out the extremists that advocate violence, and that it is their responsibility also to address the human rights issues and the principles that we espouse as Americans."

The selection of Egypt as the venue for the speech also was criticized. Although it's officially a democracy, local Muslims question that status, noting that the country's president, Hosni Mubarak, has served for nearly three decades while candidates they considered as worthy opponents had been kept off the ballots.

Amid that culture, the question remains: How much can Obama accomplish in a speech?
"It is a good thing that he is addressing the Muslim world," said Todd Mendel, president of the Jewish Community Relations Council.

"Whether he will accomplish much, I have doubts. I would like to be optimistic. But, pragmatically, I am not sure it would do much, other than the beginning of a long process."

Why name a blog "After The Massacre"?

"there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre. Everybody is supposed to be dead, to never say anything or want anything ever again. Everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds. And what do the birds say? All there is to say about a massacre, things like "Poo-tee-weet?"
Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five