BY Andrew Hansen/ Contributing Writer “I wish Saddam would return…” These chilling words display the sentiment that many Iraqis feel following the release of the Chilcot Report, a 2.6 million worded report condemning former British Prime Minister Tony Blair for entering the Iraq war on false pretenses. THE REPORT The inquiry, which took seven years … Continued
CBS News
Bassem Youssef is well known as the “Jon Stewart of Egypt” for his comedy show, “Al Bernameg,” nicknamed “The Daily Show” of the Middle East. It was actually Jon Stewart himself who inspired Youssef to ditch his career as a heart surgeon to host his own comedy show in Egypt during the 2011 Arab Spring.
“Al Bernameg” became one of the most-watched shows in the Middle East, garnering an estimated 30 million weekly viewers. But in 2014, Youssef left it all behind, citing political pressure and safety concerns for his family. He has since moved to California and in his latest project he takes a jab at American politics in a 10-part web series for Fusion called “The Democracy Handbook.” The timing couldn’t have been more perfect.
“When I went out in the field and I spoke, for example, to Trump supporters, it kind of resonated with me because I heard the exact same things back home with empty, fake patriotism, demagogic speeches, empty rhetoric,” Youssef told “CBS This Morning” Thursday. “It’s as if we are talking in an echo chamber. It doesn’t make sense… but it does for them.”
While the idea of a Donald Trump presidency is troubling to some — including some members of his own party — Youssef said it’s “not the worst thing.”
“I’m not worried about Trump, I’m worried about what’s behind Trump,” Youssef said. “I mean, Trump is one person, but the support he has massed, what he’s coming from — I mean if Trump is saying racist, stupid stuff out of making a show, there are other people… in the Republican party who said this out of conviction. I mean the stuff that Marco Rubio, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz said about Arabs are even worse.”
In addition to the presidential election, “The Democracy Handbook” — which debuts Thursday, July 14 — also looks at a range of other topics, from guns to free speech. As a Muslim and Arab, Youssef aspires to bring new perspective for the American audience.
“I think what I want to achieve with this new show, first of all, is to have people think about topics in depth in a different way from a different perspective,” Youssef said. “And second, I’m an outsider. I’m a Middle Eastern with a very obvious accent. I hope people accept me to talk about their issues.”
American Muslims describe fear of Brussels backlash
Attacks underscore fears that anti-Muslim violence on the rise
But this also comes at a time of heightened fears and anti-Muslim sentiments in the wake of recent terrorist attacks. For example, in one clip of the show, Youssef has a conversation with a gun shop employee, who makes several anti-Muslim remarks, oblivious to Youssef’s Muslim identity. But Youssef maintains his cool by letting “him hang himself with his own words.”
“He was saying all these horrible things about Arabs and Muslims,” Youssef said. ” I mean this is the thing that you do with hateful people — you just let them speak and expose themselves.”
“The Democracy Handbook” premieres Thursday July 14 on Fusion.net, followed by an hour-long television special Sunday, July 17 on Fusion’s cable network.
Source: www.cbsnews.com
By George S. Hishmeh, Special to Gulf News
Published: July 6, 2016
The American celebrations of Independence Day on July 4 included exciting and colorful two-hour evening events held at famous public parks with fireworks, professional dancers performing beautifully, as well as military units and thousands of spectators — all recorded on television nationwide. Many were wearing shirts or vests with American flags. The joyful event in Washington, held next to the United States Congress was recorded on television and beamed nationwide. But for a small group of Arab-Americans at the celebration, they all wondered when the Palestinians would have a similar opportunity to celebrate their independence, promised by the United Nations in 1948.
The disappointing view here, and most likely elsewhere, has been that the potential for a two-state solution to decades of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is “steadily eroding”, according to a Washington Post report the following day.
The report was highlighting a mild statement from the lackadaisical Middle East Quartet, the sponsor of a peace process that has yet to score any achievement in this respect. Members of the Quartet are the UN, the United States, Russia and the European Union. Although the Quartet mentioned several good points, it failed to advocate any follow up, since Israel’s appalling record this week.
More alarming has been a statement from the White House to Congress, which revealed an offer “to substantially sweeten a decade-long military aid package for Israel”, reported the New York Times, adding, it was “the latest turn in months of fitful negotiations that have proceeded despite deep divisions over the Iran nuclear deal”.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far refused to accept the deal and is counting on the next American president for a better one. Needless to say, both the Democratic and Republican presumptive nominees, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have been supportive of Israel in their ongoing election campaigns.
US President Barack Obama is willing to give more money to Israel despite, for example, Netanyahu and his ultra-right Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman approving construction plans last Sunday for some 800 new housing units in occupied East Jerusalem and the illegal West Bank colony Maale Adumim. For the record, Lieberman is also an illegal colonist in the West Bank.
The proposed new US military aid to Israel, which will begin in 2018, amounts to $40 billion (Dh147.12 billion), and is described as “the largest pledge to military assistance to any country in US history”.
What is noteworthy vis-a-vis US relations with Israel is the revelation that Trump’s son-in law, Jared Kushner, an American Jew, has been described as “a de facto campaign manager” who has lately helped in drafting a few of Trump’s policy speeches. More surprising has been Kushner’s silence about Trump after an image was posted on Twitter of Hillary with a six-pointed star and a pile of cash, which had previously appeared on a website known for anti-Semitism. A six-pointed star is called the Star of David, which is also used by Israel, but Trump claimed the star is also used by US sheriffs.
An unexpected gesture, meanwhile, emerged this week when members of the Chicago Faith Coalition on Middle East Policy urged people of all faiths to appeal to Israel to lift the blockade of Gaza, since in a few weeks, it will be the 10th anniversary of the commencement of the blockade.
This move came at a time when Aaron David Miller, a senior former US State Department official who had participated in Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, said in an article that “a new escalation is much more likely than any progress towards peace”. He noted Netanyahu saying that Israel will “forever live by the sword”.
George S. Hishmeh is a Washington-based columnist. He can be contacted at ghishmeh@gulfnews.com
Source: gulfnews.com
The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board
The Los Angeles Times
In recent months, a number of states have passed laws or taken other official actions to punish companies that participate in boycotts against Israel. California soon may do the same. But if it does, it will be making a mistake.
You don’t have to support the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement to be troubled when state governments in this country penalize American citizens for their political speech. As the Supreme Court has recognized, boycotts are a form of speech, protected under the Constitution.
The BDS movement has been the subject of much heated debate in recent years. It calls on people and companies to boycott Israel until that country ends its occupation of “all Arab lands,” ensures equal legal rights for its Arab citizens and accepts the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the former homes of their families in Israel. Some supporters of BDS accept the “two-state solution” in which Israel and an independent Palestine would exist side by side; others don’t.
Although BDS hasn’t inflicted significant economic damage on Israel, the movement’s increasing visibility — especially on some American college campuses — has alarmed Israelis and their supporters in the United States. Many supporters of Israel have sought to portray the BDS movement as anti-Semitic.
One result has been a flurry of actions in state capitals, from a law in Illinois divesting state pension funds from companies refusing to do business in Israel or the Palestinian territories to an executive order by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo providing for the disinvestment by state agencies under his control from companies engaged in “boycott, divestment, or sanctions activity targeting Israel.” Most recently, the New Jersey Legislature passed a bill barring the investment of state pension and annuity funds in companies that boycott Israel or Israeli businesses.
Do such laws violate the 1st Amendment? Although the Supreme Court has held that government may engage in its own “speech” and express its own opinions, it also has held that government may not deny a benefit to a person (or a company) because he holds the “wrong” opinion. In our view, denying state business to an otherwise qualified contractor simply based on its views about Israel — and its participation in a legal boycott — goes beyond “government speech” and raises serious constitutional concerns.
In California, the situation has grown even more complicated. Opponents of BDS in the Legislature previously proposed a bill that would have forbidden state contracts with companies engaged in a boycott of Israel. But after legal objections, the legislation was radically reconfigured.
The latest version, approved by a state Senate committee last week, no longer seeks to penalize boycotts directly. Rather, it targets violations of existing anti-discrimination laws that take place under the pretext of a boycott or other “policy” aimed at “any sovereign nation or people recognized by the government of the United States, including, but not limited to, the nation and people of Israel.” The bill would require any person who seeks to contract with the state to certify, under penalty of perjury, that it hasn’t engaged in discrimination as part of such a policy.
This shift to an emphasis on individual rights may solve some of the 1st Amendment problems in earlier versions, but it also raises the question of why this proposed law is necessary at all. The state’s Public Contract Code already says that contractors may not discriminate “on the basis of age, sex, pregnancy, maternity leave status, marital status, race, nationality, country of origin, ethnic origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or political opinion.” Why is it necessary to reiterate what already is the law — and to throw in a specific mention of boycotts and Israel?
Also, it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which a company boycott aimed at a “sovereign nation” would result in discrimination against an individual employee or customer. And if it were to happen, there already are laws on the books to address racial and religious harassment. One theory is that the law, if passed, might lead to a lawsuit claiming that a boycott created a “hostile workplace environment” for a Jewish employee. But that strikes us as a far-fetched claim.
The proponents of this bill are desperately eager to single out and punish companies that engage in boycotts against Israel. Realizing that their initial proposal ran contrary to the free speech protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, they have now come back with a convoluted, redundant and most likely ineffectual bill that allows them to say they’ve passed an anti-BDS bill.
In California, as elsewhere in this country, support for Israel is strong — which is why laws aimed at boycotts of the Jewish state are a solution in search of a problem.
Politicians are free to denounce BDS if they choose. But they must do so without infringing on the rights of their constituents.
Source: www.latimes.com
Arab Americans are facing one of the toughest decisions this election cycle. With both presumptive party nominees attacking the interests of Arab Americans through proposed legislation (banning Arab refugees, banning Muslims, passing anti-BDS legislation, increasing financial support to Israel, etc.), the decision is that much more difficult to make. While many Arab Americans are considering … Continued
BY: Andrew Hansen/Contributing Writer On July 23, America’s Muslim communities will come together to rally against extremism, gun violence, and bigotry on the National Mall in Washington, DC. Organized by the Islamic Society of Central Florida and the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), the march is intended to combat recent spikes of anti-Muslim hate … Continued
BY: Kristina Perry/Contributing Writer WASHINGTON, DC: On Tuesday, the Arab American Institute held a congressional briefing discussing the blatant discriminatory policies of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and its plan to seek redress or government oversight. The panelists cited recent spikes in incidents of ethnic, religious, and racial profiling that resulted in minorities, or persons perceived … Continued
BY: Fred Shwaery/Contributing Writer Barring a surprise move when the Democrats and the Republicans convene later this month, the presidential candidates have been selected. Now, it’s on to the VeepStakes – the selection of vice presidential candidates. Donald Trump’s campaign has been keeping things under wraps but the Hillary Clinton campaign has been … Continued
James Zogby
The Huffington Post
[At last week’s Democratic Party platform drafting meeting, I introduced Bernie Sanders’ amendment to the Israel/Palestine section calling for an end to the occupation and settlements. What follows are my comments, speaking for the amendment:]
During her opening comments, DNC Chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, spoke about “putting ourselves in others’ shoes.” That’s what we’ve tried to do with our amendment. We do not often see the Arab Israeli conflict through Palestinian eyes. As Senator Sanders has made clear, there are two peoples in this conflict—who need to be understood and whose pain needs to be recognized.
(While the platform calls for a “two state solution”) just using language about two states doesn’t acknowledge the reality that the Palestinians are living under occupation. Palestinian land is being taken by settlements. Palestinians are enduring check points that daily brings horrific humiliation—denying them freedom of movement, employment, and the opportunity to give their children free space in which to live. That’s the situation in West Bank and Jerusalem.
Gaza is another story entirely with 60% unemployment and even higher youth unemployment. You must understand that in Gaza, if you’re a young man under 30, you most likely have never had a job, have no prospect of a job, and therefore no opportunity to have a family or build a decent future. And so death becomes a more desirable option for some. Suicide rates are up, mental illness is up, drug addiction is up. The situation is unsustainable and it must change.
If you review our party’s past platforms, they have lagged way behind reality. I remember being in this same debate in 1988, when we called for our party’s platform to include “mutual recognition, territorial compromise, and self-determination for both peoples.” Back then, people reacted as if the sky were going to fall. It didn’t, we survived. We did not recognize a Palestinian state in our platform until 2004 after George W. Bush said it.
Now we have an opportunity to send a message to the world, to the Arabs, the Israelis, the Palestinians, and to all Americans that we hear the cries of both sides. That America wants to move toward a real peace because it understands that there’s suffering here. Suffering that is unsustainable.
The term occupation shouldn’t be controversial. George W. Bush said that there was an occupation. Ariel Sharon said that there was an occupation. Barack Obama has said there was an occupation. There is an occupation. It denies people freedom. Our President has said that. We have to be able to say in our politics what we say in our policy. We can’t think with two brains. If our policy says it’s an occupation and settlements are wrong and they inhibit peace, why can’t our politics say it? It doesn’t make sense.
The next administration will behave just as the last one, but our politics won’t change. And so I urge you to consider passing this amendment because of the message it will send forcefully and clearly. A message of hope to Palestinians, a message of hope to peace forces in Israel, and a message to the American people—that this time we’re going to make a difference. And we are actually going to help the parties move toward peace.
[The Clinton campaign spokespersons presented their rebuttal. Attempting to make the point that Israel was a tolerant democracy, one Clintonite said that she was proud as a Jewish, lesbian woman that Israel was the only country in the ME where she could walk down the streets of Tel Aviv holding hands with her wife. In my closing argument, I responded:]
Now you can walk down the street in Tel Aviv holding the hand of your wife, but I can’t get into the airport in Israel without hours of harassment because I’m of Arab descent. And I’m not even Palestinian, but because my father was born in Lebanon, I get stopped. When I was working with vice-president Gore, I almost missed a dinner at the Knesset to which he had invited me because I sat in the airport for hours being grilled by people about why I was there and what I was doing.
That was bad enough. But the treatment meted out to the people who live there is so much worse. They suffer horrific discrimination. We have to be able to call it what it is. It is an occupation that humiliates people; that breeds contempt; that breeds anger, and despair and hopelessness that leads to violence.
All that we are asking you to do is accept the reality of the situation. There’s an Israel; the US accepts it, supports it, wants to do everything for it. But there’s also a Palestinian people living under occupation, being drowned by settlements. And recognize what is happening to the people in Gaza.
There is a dynamic going that we must understand. The Israelis may be insecure about the Palestinians but they are very secure about America. Palestinians are not secure vis-à-vis Israel, and they are not secure vis-à-vis America either. We have never treated them fairly. In 1988 when we tried to call for mutual recognition; we could not get that done. We couldn’t even get the word Palestinians in the platform.
Reality has moved way beyond just recognizing Palestinians are there. We need to hear their voices, understand their pain, and say that our Democratic Party understands that this is conflict that must be resolved by respecting the rights of both peoples.
[When the vote was taken, our amendment lost—8 to 5. The debate will continue when the full platform committee meets in July.]
Source: www.huffingtonpost.com
Barak Ravid
Haaretz
The foreign ministers of the Quartet on the Middle East – the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations – asserted in a report released on Friday afternoon that the current track taken by the Israelis and Palestinians has distanced the possibility of a two-state solution, creating a situation in which a one-state reality has taken root.
The report calls on the Palestinian Authority to stop incitement, step up efforts to stop terrorism and condemn attacks against Israelis. It calls on Israel to stop settlement construction and put a stop to the gradual takeover of Area C in the West Bank.
Members of the Quartet decided to compile the report during a foreign ministers’ meeting in February. The decision was taken against the backdrop of the French peace bid, with the Quartet seeking to stop France from taking over the Israeli-Palestinian issue in the international arena. However, the two parallel initiatives grew more coordinated and complementary in recent weeks.
The report was written by senior diplomats representing the members of the Quartet – the American special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Frank Lowenstein, European envoy Fernando Gentilini, United Nations envoy Nikolai Mladenov and Russian envoy Sergey Vershinin.
Dozens of drafts were drawn up during the writing process, with changes being made to the report until only a few days before its release. Eventually it was approved unanimously by the four envoys and the four foreign ministers.
Over the course of the past few months, Israel and the Palestinians both attempted to influence the contents of the report, transferring documents to the Quartet envoys and holding meetings with them. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself held active contacts with the Quartet’s foreign ministers in an effort to soften the report’s criticism of Israeli policy.
Senior Israeli officials and western diplomats stressed that despite the report’s strong criticism of Israel and its policies in the occupied territories, the final version of the report was more balanced and its wording milder than the drafts that had been discussed until a few weeks ago.
Part one
The first part of the report deals with violence and incitement, levelling sharp criticism at the Palestinian Authority and its head, Mahmoud Abbas, for not doing enough to fight terror, stop incitement and condemn attacks.
“Continuing violence, recent acts of terrorism against Israelis, and incitement to violence are fundamentally incompatible with advancing a peaceful two-state solution and are greatly exacerbating mistrust between the communities,” the report says.
“Upholding the commitment to act effectively against violence, terrorism, and incitement is critical to rebuilding confidence and to avoiding escalation that will further undermine the prospects for peace.”
The members of the Quartet state in the report that Palestinians who carry out terror attacks are too often depicted as heroes in the Palestinian media and on social media. The influence of such incitement against Israel, which has increased since 2015, is seen mainly on Palestinian youth, according to the report.
It determines that Hamas and other radical Palestinian movements are mainly responsible for the incitement, though it doesn’t let Abbas’ Fatah movement off the hook.
“Some members of Fatah have publicly supported attacks and their perpetrators, as well as encouraged violent confrontation,” the report says. “The Palestinian Authority leadership has repeatedly made statements expressing opposition to violence against civilians and senior officials have publicly maintained a commitment to non-violent resistance.”
Regrettably, however, Palestinian leaders have not consistently and clearly condemned specific terrorist attacks. And streets, squares and schools have been named after Palestinians who have committed acts of terrorism.”
The report goes on to state that there is also incitement on the Israeli side, mentioning the “price tag” attacks of Israeli extremists, the calls of “death to Arabs” and the justifications for attacks on Arabs that appear on social media.
The report notes the decline in terror attacks in 2016 from their peak in 2015, attributing it to more effective action by the Palestinian security apparatus in preventing attacks.
The foreign ministers call on both Israel and the Palestinians to continue their security coordination, because it plays a significant role in reducing attacks.
The report goes on to say that Israel’s severe responses to attacks could increase the tension. “Some senior Israeli security officials have expressed concern about cases, including several captured on video, in which excessive force appeared to be used when there was no immediate threat,” it says. “One soldier has been indicted for manslaughter.”
Despite the decline in settler violence against the Palestinians in 2016, the issue is still cause for concern, the report continues. Despite the increased vigilance of the Israeli government concerning settler violence against Palestinians, the number of Israeli extremists indicted is substantially lower than that of Palestinians, in relative terms.
The Quartet’s report recommends a variety of steps that both sides need to take, the first of which is to reduce tension, maintain restraint and avoid provocative actions and statements.
“Both sides should take all necessary steps to prevent violence and protect the lives and property of all civilians, including through continuing security coordination and strengthening the capacity, capability and authority of the Palestinian Authority Security Forces,” the report says.
“The Palestinian Authority should act decisively and take all steps within its capacity to cease incitement to violence and strengthen ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including by clearly condemning all acts of terrorism.”
Part Two
The second part of the report deals with the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
It says that continued construction of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the rise in the number of Palestinian homes that are demolished and the prevention of all Palestinian development in Area C are “steadily eroding the viability of the two-state solution.”
“This raises legitimate questions about Israel’s long-term intentions,” the report states.
Those question marks are buttressed, it says, by the statements of some government ministers to the effect that the establishment of a Palestinian state will never be allowed.
Despite previous agreements, the Quartet members state, the transfer of civilian authority to the Palestinians in Area C has ceased completely and in some cases even retrogressed.
They warn that if the transfer of civilian authority to the Palestinians in Area C is not restarted, a reality of one state for two people is likely to be created on the ground.
The report says that Area C, in which Israel has full military and civilian control, comprises 60 percent of the West Bank and is meant to be the central land reserve for the future Palestinian state.
Today, the report states, Israel has unilaterally seized over 70 percent of Area C and defined it as area solely for Israeli use.
“Nearly all of the remaining 30 percent of Area C, much of which is private Palestinian property, is effectively off limits for Palestinian development because it requires permits from the Israeli military authorities that are almost never granted,” it says.
The report estimates that the number of settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has doubled since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993. There are currently 370,000 Israelis living in West Bank settlements, 85,000 of them in isolated settlements deep inside the territory.
Some 200,000 additional Israelis live in Jerusalem residential areas across the Green Line, bringing the total number of settlers to some 570,000.
According to the report, the approval of plans for new construction in the settlements and the implementation of already-approved plans have slowed since mid-2014. However, the pace of construction remains unchanged, based on the many plans that were approved in the past and not fully implemented.
Data presented in the report indicates that Israel does not allow any Palestinian development in Area C. For example, Israel granted approval for only one Palestinian building initiative in 2014 and none in 2015. Between 2009 and 2013, 34 construction permits were issued to Palestinians in Area C, out of 200 applications.
“As Palestinians are consistently denied permits to build legally, they are left with few options but to build without permits,” the report states.
Recommendations
In the report’s recommendations, the Quartet’s foreign ministers call on Israel to implement a drastic change in policy regarding construction in settlements and in Area C.
“Israel should cease the policy of settlement construction and expansion, designating land for exclusive Israeli use, and denying Palestinian development,” the report states.
“Israel should implement positive and significant policy shifts, including transferring powers and responsibilities in Area C, consistent with the transition to greater Palestinian civil authority contemplated by prior agreements.
”Progress in the areas of housing, water, energy, communications, agriculture, and natural resources, along with significantly easing Palestinian movement restrictions, can be made while respecting Israel’s legitimate security needs.”
It will only be possible to achieve a two-state solution if steps are taken to change the direction in which both sides are moving, according to the Quartet. Only thus will it be possible “to prevent entrenching a one-state reality of perpetual occupation and conflict.”
The report also states that a permanent settlement can only be achieved in direct, bilateral negotiations between the two sides. The international community, it adds, will not recognize unilateral steps designed to determine the final outcome.
That said, the report encourages the two sides to take steps on the ground that would make it easier to reach an agreement in the future and create an atmosphere that would make it possible to renew negotiations between the sides.
“The Quartet calls on each side to independently demonstrate, through policies and actions, a genuine commitment to the two-state solution,” the report says.
The foreign ministers do not call on the sides to immediately resume negotiations. Instead, they refer favorably to a number of diplomatic initiatives that are currently on the table – the Arab Peace Initiative, the French initiative and the call by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi for a regional peace initiative.
“The Quartet stresses the significance of the Arab Peace Initiative (API)…in that context, the opportunity for building a regional security framework, and encourages further dialogue on that basis. In this regard, the Quartet welcomes the call by the Egyptian President to Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab leaders to follow the historic path towards peace taken by Israel and Egypt 37 years ago.
“Another part of the report dealt with the situation in the Gaza Strip. The Quartet warned that the humanitarian situation in the strip, the delay in rehabilitating Gazam the continued acquisition of weapons by Hamas and other organizations and the absence of any Palestinian Authority presence all endanger the continuation of the ceasefire and are liable to lead to a new war.”
Source: www.haaretz.com
By Cnaan Liphshiz
Forward
James Zogby, one of Bernie Sanders’ appointees to the the Democratic Party’s platform committee, said he had been unfairly typecast as an anti-Israel activist.
“I’ve just been cast as the anti-Israel guy,” Zogby, the founder and president of the Arab American Institute, said in an interview published Friday in The Jerusalem Post. “People will type you.”
This view, which Zogby said does not reflect his views toward the Jewish state, “bothers me more than anything else that it fuels a simplistic, combative narrative,” he said.
As a member of the Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee, Zogby has played a key role in attempt to include in the party’s platform language that recognizes Palestinian “dignity,” and against Israel’s “occupation” and “settlement activity” in what the proposed inclusions refer to as Palestinian lands, according to The Jerusalem Post.
The latest draft of the platform, which is set to be finalized in July, declares that achieving Palestinian statehood would provide “the Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity,” whereas previous formulations referred to a two-state solution as benefitting only Israel. A proposed phrase calling on Israel to end “Israeli military occupation and illegal settlements” in the West Bank was defeated last week in an executive committee meeting in St. Louis.
Zogby supports the rights of Americans to boycott products produced in the settlements. He also told The Jerusalem Post that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “does more to delegitimize the State of Israel than the BDS movement ever has.”
But, “On the issue of delegitimizing Israel, I object to language that ultimately crosses the line into anti-Semitism,” he said. “That language is offensive, its anti-Semitic and its hurtful.”
The son of Maronite Catholic immigrants from Lebanon, Zogby has become one of the most prominent voices for the Arab-American community. He has a son who is married to a Muslim and a daughter married to a Jew, he said.
“When you type me and reduce me to one thing– which is some ‘hater of’ or ‘threat to’ or ‘danger to’ Israel – then there are crazy people out there who will decide to do things,” he complained. He said he has received death threats. The Post article did not specify as to the nature of these threats.
In the 1990s, then vice president Al Gore tapped Zogby to help promote business investment in the Palestinian territories, in a project known as Builders for Peace. President Barack Obama has twice appointed him to serve on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, in 2013 and 2015.
According to the Post, Zogby’s views are aligned with those of J Street, the Jewish organization which supports increasing international pressure on Israel to speed negotiations toward a two-state solution, which J Street says will benefit both peoples. J Street defines itself as a pro-Israel organization.
Zogby said his attempt to include language that speaks of Israel occupation reflects mainstream views. “There isn’t a president in the last 30 or 40 years who doesn’t call it an occupation,” he said, noting that consecutive Republican and Democratic administrations have also condemned Israel’s continued settlement activity in the West Bank.
Sanders, the first Jewish candidate to win major party nominating contests, named five of the platform committee’s members, including Zogby and two other frequent critics of Israeli policy, Cornel West, a philosopher and African-American social activist, and Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to Congress.
Source: forward.com
The Jerusalem Post
Not long after September 11, 2001, James Zogby addressed Adas Israel Congregation, the largest Conservative synagogue in Washington, DC, under strict instructions from its nervous leadership.
As founder and president of the Arab American Institute, Zogby was invited to speak to the temple on post-9/11 backlash against the US Muslim community. But he was asked repeatedly not to navigate his remarks into the hazardous waters of Middle East politics – a topic Zogby had become known for over several decades, to the exclusion of much of the rest of his work.
He performed before Adas as directed until the question and answer session, at which point every query fielded was related to Israel and the Palestinians.
“My views and those of people in the audience were quite compatible, and it was a great conversation,” Zogby recalled in an interview with The Jerusalem Post this week. “Everyone under 35 thought it was just great.”
A frustrated Zogby wants more of these conversations. But he’s convinced he is denied them because he was, long ago, reductively typecast. Zogby cannot seem to escape a congealed reputation among those who believe he is, in the words of a Republican Jewish Coalition advertisement released this month, “radically” and “stridently” fighting against Israel’s national interests.
“I’ve just been cast as the anti-Israel guy,” Zogby said. “People will type you. And I can’t tell you how many times I hear: ‘Getting to meet you, you’re totally different than what I thought.’ “Sometimes it gets a little old,” he added. “And when people do that stuff, it bothers me more than anything else that it fuels a simplistic, combative narrative.”
Zogby has been involved in shaping the Democratic Party’s election year platforms since 1988, and was tapped by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont this year to help shape the political document. The appointment of Zogby by Sanders – the first Jewish candidate to seriously contend for a presidential nomination – caused a stir in the Jewish and American press, as well as among those in the Israeli and American Jewish communities who know of Zogby only for his opposition to Israel’s presence and activities in the West Bank.
Indeed, Zogby is the main figure on the Democratic Platform Committee who has and will continue to vocally lobby for language that recognizes Palestinian “dignity,” and against Israel’s “occupation” and “settlement activity” in “their” lands. He broadly supports the rights of Americans to boycott settlement projects. And when asked if he considers Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to be “malevolent”– an accusation leveled against him in the Republican Jewish Coalition ad – he doubled down: “I believe that Netanyahu does more to delegitimize the State of Israel than the BDS movement ever has,” he asserted.
And yet Zogby rejects the assertion that he is “stridently anti-Israel” because of these positions: Productive and honest debate over Netanyahu and settlement policy is easier found in the Knesset, Zogby quipped, than in contemporary American politics.
Zogby believes in a final-status resolution to the conflict that involves mutual recognition of two states for two peoples.
He does not support boycotts that target Israel’s basic right to exist. And he says he actively fights to curb anti-Semitism within his own community, including where anti-Zionism and hatred of Jews conspicuously overlap.
“On the issue of delegitimizing Israel, I object to language that ultimately crosses the line into anti-Semitism,” he said.
“That language is offensive, its anti-Semitic and its hurtful.”
The son of Maronite Catholic immigrants from Lebanon, Zogby has become one of the most prominent voices for the Arab-American community. He laughed that the one point of tension during his visit to Adas Israel was over his embrace of intermarriage: “I have a son married to a Muslim, and a daughter married to a Jew,” he noted.
“When you type me and reduce me to one thing– which is some ‘hater of’ or ‘threat to’ or ‘danger to’ Israel – then there are crazy people out there who will decide to do things.
And I’ve had that – I’ve had death threats, I’ve had my office firebombed, so I know what that’s like,” he said. “But talking things out can actually make things better. Even if you don’t agree, just talking about something clears the air.”
As he works on the Democratic platform this year on Sanders’s behalf, Zogby has several priorities. On the Israel front, he has failed to achieve what he sought: inclusion of the phrases “occupation” and “settlement” activity in the Middle East section.
But “nobody’s going to remember me as the one who mentioned the Medicare-for-all plank, or the abolish the death-penalty plank”– language that he successfully secured, he said.
“We’re also fitting in policy that addresses respecting broader ethnic communities, into immigration language,” in contrast with the seemingly illiberal positions of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, he added.
There is a difference between being typecast and misunderstood, and for the most part, Zogby’s positions on Israel and the Palestinians are well known and well aired. He was a founding member of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign in the 1970s, and lobbied on behalf of Lebanese victims of the First Lebanon War (1982) before founding the Arab American Institute in 1985.
In the 1990s, US vice president Al Gore tapped Zogby to help promote business investment in the Palestinian territories, in a project known as Builders for Peace. And US President Barack Obama has twice appointed him to serve on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, in 2013 and 2015.
If Zogby is anywhere near to being aligned with a single Jewish American organization that characterizes itself as “pro-Israel,” that group would likely be J Street, a Washington-based group that primarily lobbies for a two-state solution. He is harshly critical of Israeli government leadership and of its overall posture toward negotiations with the Palestinians.
He welcomes efforts to pressure the Jewish state, including through the United Nations and other international bodies.
He, like J Street, stands far afield from mainstream Jewish American organizations which claim to speak for a large, politically active US community invested in Israel’s interests.
Those organizations – such as the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – fundamentally reject Zogby’s narrative constructs that feed a larger storyline of Israel as occupier and oppressor, not as the realization of Jewish self-determination in its ancestral homeland.
He uses the general vocabulary these groups typically characterize as “anti-Israel”– phrases they believe serve to vilify the state and undercut the basic justice of the Zionist movement.
But Zogby believes he is simply describing the realities on the ground – a practice required to initiate change. “There isn’t a president in the last 30 or 40 years who doesn’t call it an occupation,” he said, noting that consecutive Republican and Democratic administrations have also condemned Israel’s continued settlement activity in the West Bank.
“He’s the leading advocate for his community, and the Palestinian cause is certainly among their top issues,” said Steve Rabinowitz, a prominent and veteran Jewish Democratic activist. Rabinowitz has known Zogby for 25 years, and earlier this month helped to lead the fight against his effort to change language in the Democratic platform. “So of course we don’t agree – we are sometimes in very different places on this. But we’re often in the same place: He’s a two-stater.
He supports direct negotiations between the parties and a final-status agreement that is not unlike what lots of us support.”
Zogby sits on this year’s Democratic Platform Committee alongside fellow Sanders appointees Cornel West, a prominent democratic socialist, and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota), the first Muslim elected to Congress.
“I think he’s gotten a bad rap in this deal, particularly from the right wing in my community,” Rabinowitz added, calling him an “honest, good guy” and a “loyal” Democrat. “It should be no disrespect to him personally that I’m pleased to say I’m glad he’s not prevailing.”
Source: www.jpost.com
1,480 Results (Page 86 of 124)
Loading ...