Advertisement Close

Politics

Bernie Sanders Platform Guru Insists: ‘I’m Not Anti-Israel’

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

Zogby answers his critics: ‘I’ve just been cast as the anti-Israel guy’

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

Politicization of Learning Arabic

By Anna Ellison

Chicago Monitor

When people find out that I am an Arabic major, the conversation quickly dips into possible career tracks in the FBI, the CIA, and the Foreign Service. I did not start my degree with the intention of working for the government or involving myself in politics. Three years later, I still hold this to be true. But when I reflect on my interactions with people and my own experiences as an Arabic student in higher education, I feel that my language experience has been highly politicized.

So then why do I feel constantly corralled into working in politics or with the US government? Why don’t those who study French or Spanish receive the same line of questioning? The short and easy answer is because the relationship between the US and most Arabic-speaking countries is highly political.

My experience learning Arabic has been a beautiful, yet highly politicized one.

The vocabulary found in the first chapter of Al-Kitaab, one of the most widely used Arabic textbooks; the terms “Palestinian” and “The United Nations” are nestled amongst the verbs to “study” and to “work.” In the second chapter , we encounter the words for “army,” “officer,” “international relations,” and “religion.” Chapter three includes how to say “The Rightly-Guided Caliphs” among other vocabulary words. If I had to guess, no Italian, French, or Spanish textbooks would consider it appropriate to confront students with the word “The United Nations” in the first lesson. While “Palestinian” is not an outwardly political term, it does feel that way considering the chapter does not cover how to say Jordanian, Lebanese, or Algerian.

I do not think that learning these words early on is a bad thing , but it is unusual because other languages are not taught this way. Show me a textbook in which such politically charged terms are introduced so early on. If Jane Doe decides Arabic is too difficult after the first semester, at least she can still discuss military strategy and international intervention policies. Contrastingly, Jon Doe who dropped French after a semester can only discuss what he wants to do over the weekend.

I was not made aware of the political undertones of my textbooks and my experience with the Arabic language until I was studying abroad in Amman, Jordan. My host mother often put on a news channel that displayed what appeared to be a newspaper page with several articles. Every few moments the page would “flip” and show a new grouping of articles. Considering the political climate surrounding Jordan at the time (Fall, 2015) it is unsurprising that the majority of the news stories were politically related. And the fantastic thing was that I could understand a fair amount of what the articles were saying. Moments later, when my host sister would make a joke in Arabic and I would awkwardly laugh just because I didn’t want to be left out of a joke, she would nod at me to say “you understood that?” To which I would admit that I had no idea what they were talking about. More often than not it was not a political joke. It was just small talk. But it was lost on me.

Several months into my time in Amman, a fellow Arabic major from my university was telling me about the course she was taking called “Arabic in the Media.” She told me she was learning a lot of  vocabulary such as “suicide belt” and “bomb.”  I distinctly remember how useful those words must be. But why? I found myself interested in seeking out vocabulary that would elevate my language when discussing politics or foreign affairs, but would do little to help me connect with the members of my host family. I was becoming increasingly comfortable interacting with the Jordanian media, but increasingly nervous about interacting with Jordanians themselves.

This was not a total loss, however, because if you have been to Jordan, you will know that Jordanians love to talk politics. And so that’s precisely what I did. In taxis I would announce that I was indeed from America (it was usually the topic of discussion) and wait to see if the taxi driver was in the mood to discuss American intervention into the Middle East. One of the reasons I loved these discussions was because Jordanians never saw me as my government. I was never an object of their anger or hurt or betrayal. And so that’s how I interacted with Jordanians. It was rarely through conversations about my favorite Jordanian dishes or where I had travelled, but rather about the war in Syria or how Donald Trump could never possibly become president.

But reflecting upon my time in Jordan, I truly regret not pushing myself. I regret staying in what, at that moment in time, felt like a comfort zone. I could discuss food, religion, and politics. And that’s mostly what I discussed for four months. But I found that these discussions left me on the outskirts of Jordanian culture.

The politicization of Arabic in higher education is not surprising considering the political atmosphere of the times. The vast majority of people who are enrolled in Arabic courses intend to pursue a career in politics. This is evident in the sharp spike in enrollment in Arabic courses following the 9/11 attacks. A report done by the Modern Language Association found that American student enrollment in Arabic language courses grew by 126.5% from 2002 to 2006. Chances are, the spike in students studying Arabic was not caused because there was a sudden interest in the study of Arab culture.

As I am writing this I can’t help but feel hypocritical because the chances of me using Arabic in political settings or with political motives in the future is not unlikely. But, at the same time, my intention in writing this article is not to condemn the politicization of the language but rather ask: What are we losing in doing so?

Arabic is a rich language that allows those who learn the language to communicate with people in the Arabic-speaking world. But if the only motive for learning the language is to go into politics, I believe that is a disservice to ourselves and a disservice to the Arab world.

More than all of the political debates I immersed myself in, more than the news blurbs I was able to read, what I miss most about speaking Arabic in Jordan is the small yet beautiful details of the language. I miss greeting my program managers with a common phrase that roughly translates to “morning of roses” and receiving in response a hope for a “morning of light”.

Source: chicagomonitor.com

Benghazi: The Final Report and What It Means

Video from New York Times BY: Kristina Perry/Contributing Writer WASHINGTON, DC: The House Select Committee on Benghazi released its final report on Tuesday, finding no wrongdoing by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The costly and highly controversial committee’s report is more than 800 pages, ending in an inconclusive and indictment free conclusion. While the report … Continued

Alarmed Muslim Voters Mobilize To Stop Trump

Sipa USA / Monica Jorge By LAUREN FOX Talking Points Memo MANASSAS, Va. – Friday prayer service was winding down at a mosque in northern Virginia when the group’s president made his way to the front of the room and made an announcement he typically reserves for the final weeks before Election Day. “The beauty of … Continued

10 Reasons Why Trump Could Never be an Arab

Trump could never be an Arab because of his ongoing and past behaviors. He could learn a few lessons from us on how to be a little more Arab-like. It might be better for his health, improve his manners, and make him a better person overall. Here’s a list of ten reasons why Trump doesn’t … Continued

Rep. Mo Brooks Rudely Rejects Iftar Invitation #HummusHaters

With all the anti-Arab bashing we see in the news every week, Arab America is determined to expose those who discriminate against our community. We will recognize those who vilify the positive influence and contributions Arabs have made to the fabric of American society. And we will use hummus as our weapon. By naming those … Continued

Funding fear of Muslims: $206m went to promoting ‘hatred’, report finds

Halima Kazem
The Guardian 

Inciting hate toward American Muslims and Islam has become a multimillion-dollar business, according to a report released on Monday.

Released by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) and University of California Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender, the report names 74 groups it says contribute in some way to Islamophobia in the US. Of those groups, it says, the primary purpose of 33 “is to promote prejudice against, or hatred of, Islam and Muslims”.

The core group, which includes the Abstraction Fund, Clarion Project, David Horowitz Freedom Center, Middle East Forum, American Freedom Law Center, Center for Security Policy, Investigative Project on Terrorism, Jihad Watch and Act! for America, had access to almost $206m of funding between 2008 and 2013, the report said.

Corey Saylor, author of the report and director of Cair’s department to monitor and combat Islamophobia, said: “The hate that these groups are funding and inciting is having real consequences like attacks on mosques all over the country and new laws discriminating against Muslims in America.”

Saylor added that the Washington-based Center for Security Policy and Act! for America have the most impact, because they are trying to push their anti-Muslim rhetoric beyond their formerly fringe following.

Two groups on the list, the Center for Security Policy and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, have given awards of recognition to Jeff Sessions, a US senator from Alabama who chairs Trump’s national security advisory committee and is a possible vice-presidential pick.

On Monday, the headline on the David Horowitz Freedom Center website was “Muslim privilege killed 49 people in Orlando”, a reference to the mass shooting on 12 June in an Orlando LGBT nightclub by Omar Mateen, a Muslim American from Port St Lucie, Florida.

Two other Trump foreign policy advisers have ties to groups named in the Cair-UCB report. The Center for Security Policy lists Joseph Schmitz as a senior fellow; Walid Phares reportedly served on the board of Act! for America.

The Guardian contacted Brigitte Gabriel, the founder of Act! for America, and the Center for Security Policy, which is led by Frank Gaffney, who advised Ted Cruz on national security during the Texas senator’s presidential campaign. Neither group responded immediately.

The Trump campaign and Sessions’ Senate office also did not respond to requests for comment.

Act! for America Education runs the Thin Blue Line Project, a password-protected database of information about Muslim communities in the US. According to the group’s website, the project “provides educational and informational content about issues relating to national security and terrorism and how the call to Jihad is accelerating homegrown terrorism”.
In a 2 June article, Stephen Piggott of the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that the Thin Blue Line Project’s key component is a “Radicalization Map Locator … which lists the addresses of every Muslim Student Association (MSA) in the country as well as a number of mosques and Islamic institutions – all listed as suspected national security concerns”.

The Cair-UCB report also tracks anti-Islam bills, which it says have become law in 10 states, and 78 recorded incidents in 2015 in which mosques were targeted. Saylor said this was the highest yearly number of attacks on mosques since Cair started tracking in 2009.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Clinton Wins: Language Criticizing Israel taken out of DNC Platform

BY: Nisreen Eadeh/Staff Writer On Saturday, Democrats finally approved the much-anticipated draft of the party platform, which affirms the party’s support for Israel. The platform writing committee debated late into the night about what conditions regarding Israel were to be included in the platform. James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, and one of … Continued

Hishmeh: Who will twist Israel’s arm?

By: George Hishmeh

 

Israel’s continued expansionist policies are about to torpedo all intentions, international or local, to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians and other Arab states. As long as the Israeli occupation of Palestine, now in its 50th year, continues, peace will remain a far-fetched possibility, thanks to the failure of Western powers, especially the United States, to twist Israel’s arm. A crucial step that Washington needs to take is cutting its financial and military support that has disappointingly increased lately.

This time around, Israel’s expansionist objectives are loud and clear. In one recent case, it followed the Palestinian announcement earlier this month about its negotiations with the Egyptian government over the Israeli-besieged Gaza Strip, which has a 25-mile (40.2km) coastline.

The Palestinian status had been upgraded in November 2002 by the United Nations General Assembly, awarding that Israeli-occupied region, where 1.8 Palestinians live, the status of a non-member observer. Accordingly, the Palestinian ambassador at the United Nations, Riyad H. Mansour, explained that the Palestinians were now entitled to declare an undersea “exclusive economic zone” in the Mediterranean.

In other words, the Palestinians will be negotiating with the Egyptians, who control the southern border of the Gaza Strip, over developing this portion of Palestine. Their plans include building an airport and a seaport among other much-needed projects to improve life in that region. 

But a few days later, Israel’s intelligence minister, Israel Katz, revealed that he, too, is pushing for the construction of an “artificial island” off the besieged coast of Gaza, saying it will give the Palestinians their one and only seaport — and maybe a hotel and an international airport.

The Palestinians have greeted the plan with skepticism, voicing concern that Israel’s real aim is to further cut off Gaza from the Palestinian West Bank. Katz said his plan calls for an 8-square-kilometre island linked to Gaza by a 5km-bridge. The cost of these projected Israeli developments is estimated at $5 billion.
Adding oil to the fire, Israel is reportedly now constructing a deep underground wall around the Gaza Strip, in an attempt, according to The Washington Post, to counter the threat of assault tunnels built by Hamas, the Palestinian movement that rules the strategic coastal enclave.

The wall will extend around the length of the Palestinian territory’s roughly 40-mile (around 64km) border with Israel and cost an estimated $570 million. The “only move” that will make Israelis feel more secure, The Washington Post quoted an Israeli settler as saying, “is to reach a point of interaction and normalization between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza, the way it once was”. 

Obviously this is not the view of the ultra-rightwing Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. His government has now allocated about $20 million in additional financing for Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, a step which The New York Times interpreted as “underlining its strengthened rightwing orientation and raising the ire of political opponents and the Palestinians”.

“Most countries,” the paper’s Jerusalem-based correspondent, Isabel Kershner, underlined, “view settlement construction as a violation of international law and an impediment to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the Obama administration has described the settlements as ‘illegitimate’.” 

But, she added, “Israel considers the West Bank territory that it conquered from Jordan in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 to be disputed, not occupied, and says the fate of the settlements should be determined in negotiations”.

Saeb Erekat, the secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organization, highlighted the Palestinians’ position, saying: “It is time for the international community to assume its responsibilities towards this extremist government that openly supports apartheid and stands against the two-state solution.”

But whether US Secretary of State John Kerry will take up this position when he is scheduled to meet with the Israeli prime minister next week is most likely far-fetched despite the growing international pressure for the resumption of peace talks.

 

Netanyahu is on record as opposing the French initiative in this respect in contrast to the fact that the Palestinians had welcomed the French move.

Coincidentally, the European Council announced this week that it stands ready to provide the Israelis and the Palestinians with massive, economic and security support as part of any peace agreement.  

A statement to this effect was issued by European Council President Donald Tusk, who had just met with Israeli President Reuven Rivlin in Brussels. He stressed that “a lasting peace in the region remains a top priority for the EU”.

The EU foreign ministers had expressed in a statement released on Monday after their meeting in Brussels that they hope to hold an international conference before the end of the year to focus on Mideast peace.

Much as these gestures are welcome, nothing may happen before the twisting of Israel’s arm and curtailing continued financial and military support by the United States.

Source: www.jordantimes.com

1,482 Results (Page 87 of 124)