Rep. John Shimkus: God decides when the "earth will end"

This guy will likely be the chair of the Energy Commitee in the house. That's right the ENERGY Committee.

Our national energy policies will now be based on the Book of Noah. Unbelievable!




I don't know what's worse - this guy or the new chair who thinks our food supply needs LESS superviision from the FDA. Good job again Tea Party!

But listen to the whole thing. Not only is he bashing science by using scripture, but then he actually uses science again to claim there was more carbon in the air when dinosoars were around. Ok but there are only a million problems with that argument.

1) Maybe dinosoars could breath that stuff, we can't.
2) How the hell does he know how many parts per million of carbon were around during the dinosors if he doesn't believe in modern science and predictions about global warming.
3) How the hell could there have been dinosoars if the Bible is the "literal" word of god and the earth is only about 6000 years old.
4) When he says things like "God's word is perfect." how can ANYONE not see the eerie similarity to the radical fundamentalists we seem to be fighting wars against.

Again - an ode to SNL and Jon Lovitz - "I can't believe we're losing to these guys!"

"It's a Wonderful Life": Underneath the Warm Fuzzies, A Tale of Greed and a Troubled America

In this timely piece by Rich Cohen on Salon.com, '"It's a Wonderful Life": The most terrifying movie ever,' we are given an appropriate dose of reality this holiday season.

His subtitle hits the mark hard by saying, "Underneath the warm fuzzies, Frank Capra's holiday classic is a tale of hunger, greed and a troubled America."

It may be a bit hyperbolic to claim that "It's a Wonderful Life", one of my favorite movies of all time, is 'The most terrifying movie ever.' But it is by no means an exaggeration to say that the main story line in the movie - sans the Angel coming down from heaven - is a very stark "Grapes of Wrath" analysis of what's wrong with the American economic system. At its heart, the story is about a man who had some obstacles in his life, and despite doing an enviable job to raise a family and run a business on a modest income, saw fate step in to toss his "just getting by" success story into an all to common story of crisis, failure, and maddening powerlessness.

In the movie, George Bailey entrusts his weekly deposit to an absent minded employee (his uncle). Without any malice, the uncle misplaces the deposit. So on one level, George, through an amazingly harsh twist of fate (like a Tsunami, Hurricane, Tornado, or lets say a crash to the economic system) was now not only in severe debt, but at risk of going to jail and losing his family and his freedom.

And now we bring ourselves into the present to reflect on just HOW MANY people in this country find themselves in predicaments just like this - predicaments NOT OF THEIR OWN DOING. We throw around words these days like responsibility and phrases like "the jobs are there if people want them" - without ANY conception of what we are talking about. There but for the grace of god folks. Anyone who is judging others in this economy; anyone who claims they KNOW how many months of unemployment insurance is TOO much, well they can just go to hell. It's infuriating and revealing of how little people with money know about the world of people without much.

I'd like to think that when the Democrats took the House and Senate and Presidency in 2008 it was because of how many people voted who do have a clue about such things. I'd also like to think that the reason Democrats lost the House this time around is because most of the people who voted were people who have no clue about "how the other half lives." (Although Jacob Riis would probably have to change the title of his book today to how the other 3/4 live)

As we head back to the movie, we can also look at the Mr. Potter character in the story who had money from the start, and made even more in the "alternative reality" where George Bailey wasn't looking out for the poor and middling income folks giving them a "fair" deal on land and a future. According to the story, one could say, runaway capitalism gave people less and asked for more. A more fair capitalism, one where squeezing the most money out of an opportunity was not the goal, gave more people more, and yes got less profit for the "Savings and Loan" business that George ran.

The is an additional irony of course, in that had George Bailey gouged his tenants and gave them less for their money as Mr. Potter would have, the story would have been completely different. George's uncle would have misplaced the deposit, but George would have had PLENTY of money in the bank to cover it. So when people say to me that concepts like "fairness" are socialist or anti-capitalist and that "redistribution" of wealth is what you call a progressive tax system, I say HELL YEAH. If we know that on a daily basis we cannot entrust business to look out for the consumer as much as he does for the investor, we know there is a system in place that continually - and perpetually - rewards those who have money with more money. DO PEOPLE NOT GET THAT THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY IS ONLY ONE STEP REMOVED FROM BEING VEGAS IN MACROCOSM? The system is rigged and the HOUSE ALWAYS WINS!

Think about it. In this latest crisis (yes we're now back in the real world) it was the pure greed of those who knew the housing bubble was about to burst that sent our economy reeling. Lets be clear, it was NOT the natural downturn in the housing market that caused this. It was the accelerated selling of mortgages by those who KNEW the window was closing on the golden goose that caused this crash. For those who want to accuse the government and blame those who could not afford the mortgages for this crisis - tell them to go to hell too. When everyone has a TV or computer you have to come up with a new innovation right? Well everyone that could reasonably afford houses had houses and so when the bankers who had bet a ton on this housing market began to see returns and profits slow, they ORDERED new products to be rolled out. Those new products were the riskier mortgages to those who had less collateral.

Follow me here. The bankers NEEDED the continued infusion of cash that the down payments at least would give them. Bank A provides down payment (loan to buyer) to the property owner (bank B). Bank B has all it needs and sells rights to property/mortgage to unwitting rube bank C. New owner of the mortgage is thrilled to get in on the housing boom (that it doesn't know is about to end) but guess what, once ALL of these ill advised loans start struggling to be paid back (and there were a ton) the banking system, which was heavily invested in the returns on these loans starts to fail like dominoes. And as we all know, a ton of these mid level banks failed (or were bought at a premium by larger banks) but the big guys were bailed out by the government. And you know what, they HAD to be bailed out. They had it made in the shade. Had we let them fail, we go into MEGA DEPRESSION of the ages.

Did you see the picture I just painted. Large banks not impacted as much by the crisis (the George Bailey who had been gauging his tenants all along -or Mr. Potter) were not only in a position to by smaller banks at a premium, but the really large banks put a gun to the head of the government for loans and have since made out like bandits. The system folks - its a wonderful thing.

So all those people who had a personal business and didn't lose it, and all those with a good nest egg in the bank, how dare you claim you know what the real George Baileys are going through. The real George Bailey, the one with no Angel to step in, was driven mad by the prospect of his life being boiled down to his business ledger and a system he had tried to fight against but work within his whole life. Lets be clear, it is not often that allegations of wrongdoing and extramarital affairs (yes a real part of the story) get wiped away by a party fundraiser. Maybe it would have paid the legal bills. But there is no way in hell the police come in the room, have some egg nogg - and throw the arrest warrant away (yes another part of the story.)

SO as we focus on the positives on this Christmas day, lets remember what this Christmas classic was really about. It was about the little guy getting beaten down by big business and bad luck and how that doesn't actually have to be the end of the story. But of course that was the Hollywood message that makes us want to watch the movie. The Hollywood message that should make us think and watch the movie is that WE have to BE the CHANGE we want to see on the big screen. Angels do not come down to save us, parties don't make dept and arrest warrants disappear.

No man is alone who has friends, yes. But the community of "friends" in the story is the people. If you look deeper at that meaning - and then go ahead and actually watch "The Grapes of Wrath" afterward, you will see that government, society, and a kinder gentler capitalism are all what is really needed for George Bailey to spend Christmas with his family, not in debt, not in jail, and not the villain that unrestrained capitalism clearly is at the end.

---

GPS with Bill Maher on Obama and the Tea Party

Gotta love this. Bill Maher on Obama, Independents, When the Deficit all of a sudden seemed to matter, and the Tea Party's scary religious zealotry. A real keeper!!

Fareed Zakaria Exposes Glenn Beck's Downright Lies About Muslims

Thanks Fareed. We needed this.

ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN VIEWS on "Need to Know" (PBS)

An EXCELLENT segment from "Need to Know." One on Israeli perspectives and one on Palestinian views of conditions in the West Bank. In this interview - David Grossman says;

"Those on the right who don't realize the plight of Palestinians are denying reality - just as those on the left, who deny the threat to Israel's very existence, also deny reality."

This is an extemely rare and balanced veiw to take on this issue and one I respect deeply. Please watch the full interview. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/video/israeli-author-david-grossman-on-the-conflict-in-the-middle-east/5142/)


In Part 2, you will see BOTH the AMAZING development in Palestinian cities AND the less than amazing conditions for those in refugee communities. At the very least, this should convince anyone who thinks otherwise that the WEST BANK is NOT an open air prison. Complaints about rules and regulations that make life and business LESS CONVENIENT do not a humanitatian crisis make. Work for peace and improvde conditions - but do not demonize EITHER side. Palestinians deserve freedom, independence, and a future of their own. But don't promote the cause by claiming things that simply are not true. Conditions are improving in the West Bank and conditions in Gaza could improve in a similar way. Yes Israel is often obstinate in its quest for security, but whey does the international community not demand that Gaza be more like thier bretheren whose quality of life is improving because they have come to grips with the reality that is the Israel. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/security/growing-a-state-palestinians-build-a-homeland/5139/)

THE STUDENT BILL OF RIGHTS - BULLYING, HAZING, and the ABSENSE of SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Serendipitously, but sadly, our topic for this week was already going to be the still real plight of GLBT youth in schools and by extension really, all students of difference. Of course this past week saw a brand new incident of bullying and hazing in our public schools - in Needham, MA. But Needham does not really deserve the harsh spotlight. The cycle of bullying and hazing the rears its ugly head regularly in schools is our own fault.

Any society that pays lip-service to civility in its public discourse and gets enjoyment from highlighting difference deserves these episodes - especially ones that end in parents and students wanting to simply brush the events under the rug so we can learn from them at a more convenient time. The only convenient time people is the present.

Routinely, our culture puts an emphasis on standardized tests and not on character development. As a teacher of eight year, I can tell you from first hand experience, that message gets through loud and clear to students. As I always say, x+y=Z in math and culture. If you put in x amount of time on y issue, you will get z as a result. Not enough time spent on examining behavior and difference leads to fear of the other and turning a blind eye to its ramifications. How else can we explain, in the latest episode, the coach knowing about the practice of leading girls around by a leash and the fact that parents cared more about winning then focusing on having woman paid more respect in their town.

- - -

THE JOKE IS ON US ... 20 Days Since the GOP/FOX Duping of the Century

(posted from The COHEN SIDE show website http://www.cohenside.com/)

Never have so few (42% of the Elecorate) been so wrong, with such great impact. But what now? How do rational citizens who realize the world is not black white take back the dialgoue? How do those who know our society needs to both foster capitalism AND allow government intervention so that its abuses are limited? And how do we remind the country that trickle down ecomonics is no more a solution today than it was in the '80s.

The bottom line is that presidents and congresses are rarely to blame for economic catastrophes. It is generally a purely ecenomic trend (correction) or the abuse of fair practices (the mortgage crisis) that is to blame. And to think any policy will creat a quick recover is ludicrous. But we are the nation of the short term memory - so I am sure the electorate will be angry in a brand new way in 2012. And of course Washington will still be "broken" and "change" will still be what we need.

Of course "real change" would be the removal of big money and lobbyists from their undue influence on our lawmakers and a real removal of pork from the basic expectations of what we want from our representatives. If these real soutions were ever tackeled, social programs that do reall good in the world would not be the targets of misperception they currently are.

The party of antihistory - The Boston Globe

This is a bit long - but good (I also recommend the book). Finally the historians fight back to reclaim their craft. And I quote - regarding the Tea Party's mis-use of the founding fathers - “it’s a tool we can use — personalizing the ideas about the way government should be. I admit it’s a little contrived, but it’s... no different than campaigning for a candidate or marketing a movie star.”


The party of antihistory - The Boston Globe

The Cohen Side Election Week Missives + Download Guide

I hope you've all been enjoying "The Cohen Side" broadcasts on www.CyberstationUSA.com. Feedback has been great and we're having a blast in studio. With only a week to go before the elections, I'll be sending out daily missives, de-bunking conservative distortions about the economy and their own candidates. Whether you agree or disagree, and wherever you are in the country, I just hope they make you think very carefully about your vote in an election that could shape policy in our country for years to come.

And since there have been some questions about how to listen to the show or download later here's a quick guide .. To listen live, just click the red LISTEN LIVE box on the top left CyberStationUSA.com website. To download - either click on "The Cohen Side" banner that is currently rotating on the home page or go to the top and click "Show Schedule". Then click where you see the show in its Monday 12pm slot. Once you are on the show page click where it says "click here to download", click the show you wish to hear and follow the prompts to download the file. Let me know if any links are broken or if you have any questions. Feel free to like "The Cohen Side" on face book, follow us on Twitter @TheCohenSide or Blogger (TheCohenSide.blogspot.com) and please do visit our website and comment on the show if you'd like (www.cohenside.com)

See you next time - On The Cohen Side!

Posted via email from davidlcohen's posterous

Two halves leave a hole - The Boston Globe

Two halves leave a hole - The Boston Globe

A fairly balanced analysis of Patrick and Baker - both the good and the bad. Refreshing since each side has reduced the election to "higher taxes" vs. "lower taxes". Truth be told, Patrick has lost direction and Baker has shown no signs he is willing to take risks to protect those most vulnerable in our society. Kin...d of a "cliff notes" version for every election this November.

A candidate named Patrick Baker would run away with this governor’s race.

Please don’t get me wrong. It’s not that both candidates, Deval Patrick and Charlie Baker, are so good that it’s tough to pick between the two. It’s not that both are so bad, either. It’s that each candidate carries into this race roughly half the package to be a truly great governor during tumultuous economic times. In this unusual race, what one candidate lacks, the other has.

But together, there are endless possibilities. Patrick Baker would be both decisive and empathetic. Patrick Baker would be forceful but not angry. Patrick Baker would be as polite as he is firm.

Patrick Baker would try novel approaches while always understanding the plight of those in need.

I was considering this as Reilly, a retired state attorney general I happen to admire, was telling me why he was crossing party lines and supporting Baker.

He had just said his piece at the podium about Baker’s good work turning around Harvard Pilgrim when, in private, he added: “Do I believe in everything he does? No, I don’t. But if he tells you he’s going to do something, he will.’’

Which is what bothers me, given Baker’s proposals to axe 5,000 state workers in this miserable economy and roll the state income, corporate, and sales taxes back to 5 percent, creating a further $2.5 billion deficit in a budget held together with masking tape and paper clips.

Baker is bold. Baker is decisive. Baker is an innovator. He speaks often about the difficult decisions he pushed in the Weld and Cellucci administrations and made as the CEO of Harvard Pilgrim.

But there’s an essential truth that needs to be considered carefully: All those tough decisions never actually affect people like him. As for the people they do affect, Baker has shown no particular facility or desire to understand them.

In short, in Baker, we get someone steeped in action, but in need of more compassion.

Counter this with Patrick, possibly the most empathetic politician I’ve ever covered. He came up through the ghetto of Chicago, took every possible advantage of programs designed to give people a boost, and understands in his bones what it means to be someone in need.

His problem, though, is the relatively low metabolism of too much of his governorship. He floundered through a freshman year of controversy over office decorations and cars and an ill-advised call on behalf of a mortgage giant. Then he accepted a book deal. He pushed casinos, twice, with nothing to show for it. He muddied himself in a patronage play that made him look like the hacks he used to criticize.

In the last 18 months or so, he’s achieved an impressive roster of reforms — of state ethics, pensions, transportation agencies, and especially education. At the same time, he has surgically cut the state budget with an eye toward preserving services for the people who most need them. He has taken the politically untenable stance of pushing for tax hikes to pay for the things he believes in.

In short, in Patrick, we have gotten an uncommonly thoughtful leader, but not a bold, glass-breaking innovator.

In Patrick Baker, we would get both. Yes, I understand that the two will never become one. But the point is, it’s the candidate that ranges beyond his comfort zone in the final two weeks and learns from his opponent that will win this race.

Baker needs to be more empathetic and thoughtful rather than strident and clinical, to demonstrate an understanding that his actions will have real consequences on real people. And Patrick needs to raise the temperature and pound the podium not only on what he’s done, but the innovative things he wants to do.

Patrick Baker may be a myth, but it’s also a goal.

West Bank Progress / West Bank Realities

Improvements in basic services, security, and “daily life” (like people getting traffic tickets, going to movie theaters and enjoying public parks) reveals that the West Bank is not the war zone, prison, or bastion for round the clock misery some make it out to be. The West Bank is clearly not turning into a vacation resort, but the normalization of life there is a reality, checkpoints are coming down regularly and this is because of the work of well meaning people in both governments. It is my fear that unless we see more of the balanced view that life is not “impossible” in the West Bank, but hard and improving - myths and distortions about a “demonic” Israel will unfortunately continue.

------------------------------

This is a portion of an op-ed I recently crafted in response to an article by Ethan Bronner of the NY TImes. In a recent article of his, “West Bank shows hints of a Palestinian state” (Aug, 31 2010) I was pleased to see someone actually write about the best kept secret in the world, that the West Bank was seeing glimpses of a normalized daily life for its residents. As my quote above indicates, this does not mean things are not hard. Nor does it mean supporters of Israel shouldn't push Israel to work even harder toward a settlement so that conditions can improve even more. But I was furious when Bronner laid out a list of improvements and seemingly normal activities only to interject that Israeli troops, roadblocks and checkpoints “render life impossible."

Now which is it folks. Does life has a semblance of normalcy or is it "impossible?" It can't be both. It can be hard and improving. It can be "slightly improving but really on the whole, miserable on most days." But it can't be both improving AND impossible. My fear is that most people, as is usually the case, will give no consideration to the facts and simply see the phrase "life is impossible." The sad part in this case is that the facts are about two column inches away from the distortion. How can that be? How can a reporter not see both the contradiction and the problem it poses for real progress toward peace?

This also brings up a larger point about people who protest Israel and/or boycott Israel or Israeli goods. In a recent Newsweek article, Jacob Weisberg lays out a case countering the Israel Boycott movement. (Don't Boycott Israel - The Very Idea is Repellent) In it he mentions Meg Ryan, who cancelled an appearance in Israel, and Elvis Costello, who cancelled a concert. He also mentions his distaste for academic boycotts. Weisberg, however, takes the traditional route of promoting Israel's many attributes and asking the David Project and AIPAC question; "How can you boycott Israel when there are so many other really bad places." Personally, that is not my favorite approach. Do they really think that the "I'm not as bad as that guy" argument works on a visceral or intellectual level.

Most protesters of Israel do not see the shade of gray between Israel having military control of an area and them having anything to do with social services, jobs, and the actual plight of the population. They do not see it as the political no man's land that it is. The West Bank has been in a virtual purgatory for quite some time, and the idea that Israel leaving tomorrow will create prosperity is the main thing these protesters seem to not understand. The other critical issue they do not get is that both sides are actually doing a great deal to improve conditions as much as they can given the current situation. So I ask, what is the boycott for? If it is for Israel to leave, do they not get that Israel wants to leave and that agreements have already been proposed that will allow some settlements to stay and have some go? Do they not get that BOTH sides have already agreed that this is what will eventually happen? And if this is so, how can settlements, in principle, be so vilified.

This is not the same old, we've offered this much land before and they turned it down argument. Camp David was flawed and everyone who was there knows it. The point is that a structure exists to leave the West Bank and Israel has been supportive of it in principal. So I ask again, what is the point of the boycott? Is it to say Israel is bad? Is it to say Israel should leave tomorrow? Well, again, how naive is that? Leaving tomorrow gets you another Gaza, and saying Israel is the evil party here is as one sided a claim as you could make given the history of this conflict.

And just so we can be consistent here, I really hope Meg Ryan and Elvis Costello are also cancelling their appearances in the US and Europe because their rules of engagement and security in Afghanistan and Iraq are actually less protective of civilians than are Israel's.

Palestinians are trapped between hard liners on both sides and only by encouraging moderation on both sides - with positive measures - will anything productive come about. All the money and effort going toward boycotts could be going toward development in the West Bank and Gaza. All the celebrities who are boycotting could be going to both Israel and the West Bank and advocating for moderation, political activism and a spirit of compromise on both sides. As with Ethan Bronner's article, these celebrities are simplifying the situation, contributing to the global demonization and ostracizing of Israel, and not actually helping average Palestinians at all.

To be fair, there are figures protesters see that show how conditions for Palestinians are not good. But not only are most of those figures skewed by combining conditions in Gaza and the West Bank, but I state again, the idea that Israel leaving tomorrow will improve these conditions is preposterous. But the numbers are real. Lets just not kid ourselves that Gaza and the West Bank face the same severity of problems. And frankly, lets be honest about Gaza. No one knows what to do about Gaza. It may have to be the red state to the West Bank's blue state in some future Paletstinian confederation. But most boycotters are talking about the West Bank and envisioning Gaza. In fact, boycotters get louder after conflicts in Gaza escalate. Where is the rational there?

Here are some figures that should alarm us all:

Almost 58 percent of Palestinians live in poverty, and about half of this group lives in extreme poverty. About 50 percent of Palestinians experience or risk experiencing food insecurity. Food insecurity is particularly severe in Gaza, where the majority of the population relies on humanitarian assistance to survive. The rate of chronic malnutrition in children under the age of five has increased, reaching almost 10 percent, and the mortality figures for children under the age of one and under the age of five have each increased by about 30 percent. Anaemia is common, with 55 percent of children under the age of three affected by the condition. Among pregnant women, the rate is 36 percent―46 percent for nursing mothers.

Again, these conditions are not good, but they are not really reflective of actual conditions in the West Bank. If you think about it, the place that is the most moderate is the place Israel is giving the most support, and encouragment for growth. Isn't that exactly what they should be doing? Maybe they should be moving faster and with more determination, but is that a reason to boycott? Is that a reason to vilify and demonize?

At the end of the day, if we could all rally around ways to further improve these conditions - including urging both sides to compromise and reach a framework for a future Palestinian state - we could stop the demagoguery and make real progress toward peace.

I say let's stop the boycotts, discredit and dismantle the biased organizations who promote them, role up our sleeves, and be part of the solution, not the problem.

Sorting Through The Record Of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf

"Why is it that the very name, the Cordoba institute, HAS to take on the meaning of those vilifying him - that of the supercessionist element of Muslim history? Why can it not be the stated meaning of the organization which holds that Cordoba celebrates the "Golden Age " in Spain - a time when Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in relative peace - a time of great thinkers and great accomplishments? These are the kinds of counter arguments that no one is making effectively or sharing with the public."

“According to Imam Rauf; terrorism is usually defined by the acting party’s intent to harm innocent people. If a suicide bomber intentionally takes the lives of innocent people, he is obviously guilty of terrorism. By contrast, if the United States and its coalition forces drop bombs on the wrong buildings in Baghdad (or any other city) and the bombs kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people, including many women and children, we define this as collateral damage, not terrorism. We draw this distinction because we had no intent to kill civilians."

------------------------------------------

There has been much said and written about the political stances or statements of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. He has been accused of blaming the US for 9/11, for not speaking out against Hamas, for having "ties" and connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and for preaching an extreme version of Islam. I have been asking friends and colleagues on the right to provide more than just accusations, intimations, and tenuous connections. To this date, I have yet to see hard evidence. In this spirit I am posting portions of an excellent piece from the New York Times that sifts through some of the accusations and some of the facts.

I write this not to defend every thing the Imam has said. My first gaol is to set the record straight and end the demagoguery. My second goal is to paint a picture of someone who may be controversial, but who is by no means outside the pale of what mainstream Muslims and Americans are allowed to say about America, Israel, and the Middle East. Of course, the extension of this argument is to ask whether the statements he actually has made rise to such a level as to deny his organization the right to build their Islamic Center in lower Manhattan.

I believe some of his statements do contradict themselves and are wrong. For example, he wants to say, when speaking about Israel, that Palestinian terrorism targeted against civilians is morally equivalent to Israeli attacks where civilians are killed regrettably. However, he has also stated that when Americans bomb terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, civilian deaths are NOT the same because there was no intention to kill. I find that disingenuous because Americans do the same cost/benefit analysis as Israelis and that is something no one wants to talk about. Clearly there is an anti-Israel bias in some of his statements. But even with that, I do not think it makes him an extremist. I would disagree with him and argue against him, but not deny him the right to build his center.

While that may be one element of his philosophy that some may find problematic, I think there is much more that can be clarified that would counter what many are saying about him and his organization. Speaking of which, why is it that the very name, the Cordoba institute, HAS to take on the meaning of those vilifying him - that of the supersecionist element of Muslim history which holds that Mosques are built on top of or in place of churches and synagogues to make a bold statement about the supremacy of Islam? Why can it not be the stated meaning of the organization which holds that Cordoba celebrates the "Golden Age " - a time when Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in relative peace - a time of great thinkers and great accomplishments? These are the kinds of counter arguments that no one is making effectively or sharing with the public.

So please, read on and share some or all of this with your friends - or anyone really who you think may need to see the other side of this debate.

--------------------------------------------

The Internet is crowded with claims and counterclaims about Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the proposed Muslim community center and mosque two blocks from ground zero. The following is a sampling of some of the most often quoted complaints, combined with writings and statements from Mr. Abdul Rauf and his Cordoba Initiative, which has posted a frequently asked questions page on its Web site about the proposed project and the planners’ views. In his book “What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America,” Mr. Abdul Rauf writes:

“The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people, no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. ... Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’ ”

The book also includes a copy of the fatwa, a religious ruling, issued by senior Middle Eastern Muslim clerics that called the 9/11 attacks un-Islamic. The ruling, requested by the United States military’s top Muslim chaplain, gave permission to Muslims in the United States armed forces to fight in the war in Afghanistan. In the book, the imam also elaborates on an argument that may make some Americans uncomfortable but has been put forward by many mainstream American analysts: that terrorism is viewed differently by different populations and that understanding those various views, whether or not one agrees with them, is central to resolving disputes. In “In the West,” he writes:

“Terrorism is usually defined by the acting party’s intent to harm innocent people. If a suicide bomber intentionally takes the lives of innocent people, he is obviously guilty of terrorism. By contrast, if the United States and its coalition forces drop bombs on the wrong buildings in Baghdad (or any other city) and the bombs kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people, including many women and children, we define this as collateral damage, not terrorism. We draw this distinction because we had no intent to kill civilians. ..."

“By contrast, however, many Muslims in the Middle East look primarily at the result of our actions. ... The result is a common view in the Middle East that the U.S. is perfectly willing to kill innocent civilians when it suits America’s goals.”

The imam applies the same analysis to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

“Israel points to the intentional repeated killing of innocent civilians as obvious proof that the Palestinians are guilty of terrorism — and the horrible images of bomb victims cannot be denied. Palestinians, however, counter that the overall number of civilians killed is higher on their side, and they rage with equal passion against Israeli terrorism.’ ”

On United States Policies

Perhaps the most often quoted statement used to portray Mr. Abdul Rauf as a “terrorist sympathizer,” as the New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio calls him in a campaign advertisement, is this, from “60 Minutes” on Sept. 30, 2001:

“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”

Mr. Abdul Rauf’s supporters say he was expressing a view common among American policy advisers: that dissatisfaction with American policies is one, if not the only, driver of anti-American sentiment and attacks.

The Following are portions of a transcript dealing with this issue:

ED BRADLEY: How — how do you feel as a Muslim knowing that people of your faith committed this act that resulted in the loss of probably 6,000 lives?

MR. ABDUL RAUF: It’s painful. But when this thing first happened, everybody in the community said, “Oh, God, let this not be a person from our faith, tradition or from our background.”

MR. BRADLEY: What would you say to — to people in this country, who, looking at what happens in the Middle East, would associate Islam with fanaticism, with terrorism?

MR. ABDUL RAUF: Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. That’s — that’s just as absurd as associating Hitler with Christianity or — or David Koresh with Christianity. There are always people who will — who will do peculiar things and think that they are doing things in the name of their religion. But — but the Koran — you know, God says in the Koran that they think that they’re doing right, but they’re doing wrong. ...

MR. BRADLEY (voiceover): And throughout the Muslim world, there is also strong opposition to America’s foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, because of its support of Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq.

MR. ABDUL RAUF: It is a reaction against the policies of the U.S. government, politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.

MR. BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?

MR. ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.MR. BRADLEY: O.K. You say that we’re an accessory?

MR. ABDUL RAUF: Yes.

MR. BRADLEY: How?

MR. ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A. ...

The Cordoba Initiative elaborates: “The ‘60 Minutes’ piece was completely incorrect, as the statement was edited out of context. In the full interview, Imam Feisal describes the mistake the C.I.A. made in the 1980s by financing Osama bin Laden and strengthening the Taliban. This view is widely shared within the U.S. and the U.S. government today, and Imam Feisal underlines the importance of not supporting ‘friends of convenience’ who may in the future become our enemies.

“Imam Feisal is an American who takes his role as a citizen-ambassador very seriously. He is frequently requested by the U.S. State Department to tour Muslim majority and Western countries to speak about the merits of American ideals and Muslim integration into Western society. At the request of the F.B.I. after 9/11, he provided cultural training to hundreds of F.B.I. agents.”

On Hamas

Mr. Abdul Rauf is often described as having refused to call Hamas — the Palestinian group that pioneered suicide bombings in Israel, prevailed in Palestinian elections in 2006 and now controls the Gaza Strip — a terrorist organization. On 77 WABC radio on June 18, the talk radio host Aaron Klein asked him, “Do you believe that the State Department is correct in designating Hamas as a terrorist organization?”There ensued a long conversation with many interruptions, in which Mr. Abdul Rauf said:

“Well, I’m not a politician. ... The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. ... I am a bridge builder. My work is ... I do not want to be placed nor will I accept a position where I am the target of one side or another. My attempt is to see a peace in Israel. ... Targeting of civilians is wrong. It’s a sin in our religion, whoever does it. ... I am a supporter of the State of Israel."

The Cordoba Initiative’s Web site elaborates: “Imam Feisal has always condemned terrorism (see his ... hundreds of speeches). Hamas is both a political movement and a terrorist organization. Hamas commits atrocious acts of terror. Imam Feisal has forcefully and consistently condemned all forms of terrorism, including those committed by Hamas, as un-Islamic.”

On The Muslim Brotherhood

Opponents have claimed that Mr. Abdul Rauf or his father, Muhammad Abdul Rauf, had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group that pioneered religious militancy in Egypt starting in the 1930s, attacking government officials and influencing the founders of Hamas. In recent decades, the group has renounced violence. Some have claimed that the son’s book was published in Arabic by a publisher with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Cordoba Initiative’s list of frequently asked questions says, “The Arabic translation rights to his book were arranged by the Arabic book program at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, United States of America.”

In "Balancing Act for Imam in Muslim Center Furor" (August 22, 2010) - Alyssa Lappen posts on the Web site Pajamas Media, declares, “Feisal Rauf’s Muslim Brotherhood provenance, radical by definition, is as authentic as it gets.”

But the only evidence she offers is this:“Rauf’s father, Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf (1917-2004) — an Egyptian contemporary of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna — conveyed to Feisal his family’s long tradition of radicalism, which he acquired at Islam’s closest equivalent to the Vatican, Al-Azhar University.”

In other words, he was the same age as the Brotherhood’s founder and attended Al-Azhar University, a leading educational institution of mainstream Islam. Mr. Abdul Rauf’s father worked at the behest of the Egyptian government during decades in which the Muslim Brotherhood was a greater threat to Egyptian security than it is now, and Egypt’s secular government was working hard to root them out.

At Al-Azhar last week, Abdel Moety Bayoumi, the former dean of a department studying Islamic law, said of Muhammad Abdul Rauf: “He is well known in Azhar and he is known for his moderation. During his time, there wasn’t this battle between moderation and terrorism. ... The general picture of Islam and its scholars was one of moderation. The extremists at that time were a minority and they were in isolated pockets in the Muslim world. Extremism had not entered the mainstream.”

More on Terrorism and US Culpability

Some claim these statements incriminate Rauf about his support of terrorism. The question is whether he is merely explaining Muslim/Arab sentiment or appologizing for it. I think he may actually be blurring the line - and that is a problem. Hes is right to say the West does not think enough about the damage it does in the Muslim World, but to equivocate on terrorism and moral equivalency is not going to endear him to Americans who are paying attetion. But again, does this make him an extremist, or a terrorist. Fox News would say YES. I would say NO.

"The complexity arises, sir, from the fact that - from political problems and the history of the politics between the West and the Muslim world. We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US lead sanction against Iraq lead to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.

What complicates the discussion, intra-Islamically, is the fact that the West has not been cognisant and has not addressed the issues of its own contribution to much injustice in the Arab and Muslim world. It is a difficult subject to discuss with Western audiences but it is one that must be pointed out and must be raised.

How many of you have seen the documentary: Fahrenheit 911? The vast majority - at least half here. Do you remember the scene of the Iraqi woman whose house was bombed and she was just screaming, "What have they done." Now, I don't know, you don't know Arabic but in Arabic it was extremely powerful. Her house was gone. Her husband, I think, was killed. What wrong did he do? I found myself weeping when I watched that scene and I imagined myself if I were a 15-year old nephew of this deceased man, what would I have felt?

Collateral damage is a nice thing to put on a paper but when the collateral damage is your own uncle or cousin, what passions do these arouse? How do you negotiate? How do you tell people whose homes have been destroyed, whose lives have been destroyed, that this does not justify your actions of terrorism. It's hard. Yes, it is true that it does not justify the acts of bombing innocent civilians, that does not solve the problem, but after 50 years of, in many cases, oppression, of US support of authoritarian regimes that have violated human rights in the most heinous of ways, how else do people get attention?

So ... there's a sense in the Arab and Muslim world that the European world and Western world is just - does not care about our lives or human lives. There's a perception in much of the Arab world and the Muslim world that the issue is about race. That the Palestinian Israeli issue is less about religion than it is about race because about 25 per cent or more of the Palestinians or the Arabs are Christian. Many people in the West are unaware that Palestinians are not uniformally Muslim. "

The Tide is Turning Against Opponents of Islamic Center in Manhatten

In a stunning turn of events, intelligent and well meaning people of conscience everywhere are speaking out against bias, bigotry and narrow minded provincialism. Led by a coalition of liberals and moderate conservatives, people all over cyberspace and the blogosphere are speaking out and discrediting all those trying to smear American Muslims by condemning the building of a harmless Islamic center in lower Manhattan.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I have no data to back up this claim, but wouldn't it be great if that was the line we all went with for the next week and saw where it went.

To be truthful, I have had a number of people contact me recently and claim that a number of blogs and facebook posts they have seen, posted by me and others, had actually turned them around on the issue. And because of that, I think its perfectly reasonable to say that this IS happening all over the country. If we all tell as many people as we can that it most certainly is happening all over the country. It actually will be.

Lets get to it people. Start spreading the word. A change it is a commin'

And if you need any ammunition, I just had to provide come great excerpts from a recent article by Peter Skerry of the Brookings Institute and Boston University. While I don't completely agree with his focus on difference within the Muslim community as opposed to the general public's reaction tot he center, there were just too many good segments not to post:

----------------------------------------------

THE MOSQUE near ground zero should be built, but not merely on account of the lofty principles about religious freedom articulated by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. In fact, when it comes to Islam, Americans have good reason to be suspicious of high-minded pronouncements by their leaders. A more compelling argument for building the mosque is to get beyond the current controversy, because it empowers the most opportunistic elements in the Muslim community and fosters an us-versus-them mentality that stalls a much-needed debate among Muslims about their place in American society ...

Reasonable people have good grounds to be distrustful of Muslim leaders and of the proposed prayer space. US mosques have often been battlegrounds between contending Muslim factions. A typical scenario is for one group to go to the trouble and expense of building a mosque, only to have it taken over by some other group.

Although extremists have sometimes prevailed in this way, terrorists and would-be terrorists have typically operated outside mosques — either because they chose to or because they were forced out by fellow Muslims.

More disturbing is the lack of candor on the part of many Muslim leaders about their past associations. As federal prosecutors established in the recent Holy Land Foundation trial, many leaders have had ties to Hamas and to the Muslim Brotherhood. To be fair, the implications of such ties may not be as dire as anti-Muslim zealots suggest. The Muslim Brotherhood is, after all, an encompassing movement in the Arab world, with divergent tendencies responsive to the different contexts in which adherents operate ...

An overlooked irony about the proposed mosque is that as many as 80 percent of Muslims in the United States lack a regular relationship with any mosque. Of these, some probably reject Islam and organized religion altogether. A larger number likely continue to identify with Islam but do not seriously observe its tenets. In addition to the usual reasons why immigrants do not get involved in civic or political affairs, such “unmosqued’’ Muslims are particularly difficult for leaders to communicate with and mobilize.

Adding to the difficulty is the diversity of Muslims in the United States. Not only are they divided among Sunni, Shia, and Sufi, they are separated by language and ethnic ties to their homelands. There is also a gulf between immigrant Muslims and their African-American brothers and sisters, who are themselves riven into many different sects. Finally, there are differences among traditionalists, fundamentalists, and Islamists.

In light of such fault lines and obstacles, controversies and attacks from non-Muslims afford leaders a singular opportunity to unify and mobilize their people, as Muslims. But the more the frame becomes Muslims versus non-Muslims, the more responsible leaders get pushed aside by the most opportunistic purveyors of victim politics. This is the real tragedy of disputes like the present one. To facilitate this process, the rest of us should follow Bloomberg’s imperfect example;

Support the building of the mosque near ground zero, maintain our vigilance against our true enemies in the Muslim world, and encourage Muslims here to get on with the critical business of coming to terms not only with their rights but also with their responsibilities as citizens.

Helping Extremists Win 101

A Wall Comes Down in Israel ... Will Anyone Hear It? Will Anyone Listen?

"In a sign of a calming atmosphere, Israeli army cranes yesterday began removing a concrete barrier that shielded a Jewish neighborhood bordering the West Bank from gunfire."

In a sign that the apocalypse is upon us, or that pigs in hell are flying, Israel took down a portion of its system of defense barriers - walls and fences - that separate Israel from territories under Palestinian authority. This is something that many said could not - and would not ever happen. And yet, it did.

Will anyone make note of this, or see it as a sign of progress - or at least a sign of positive steps toward peace? Unfortunately, I think not. It will either be ignored or side-stepped as a half measure. This attitude, as much as any violence, is what hinders progress toward a long sought after two-state solution. This attitude, is what we can all help change.

According to a story published by the Associated Press, "The Israeli military erected the 600-yard concrete barrier nine years ago on the outskirts of the Gilo neighborhood in southern Jerusalem because of repeated Palestinian shootings from the West Bank town of Beit Jalla."

"The barrier is being taken down over the next two weeks ... because of a reduced security threat and improved coordination between Israeli and West Bank security forces."

As someone who's profession it is to communicate how Israel, the Israeli Government, and the Israeli people are not the demons everyone thinks they are, this is a particularly noteworthy event. Despite the hundreds of checkpoints removed over the past few years; despite the gradual but real improvements in relations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank; and despite the improvement in the daily lives of Palestinians living under the PA, one would think we would no longer have to put up with distortions and lies about Palestinians being subjected to atrocities and murders on a daily basis. Yet, that is the perception that many around the world and in the United States still have of the situation. Seaprating for a moment what happens in Gaza from the West Bank - since Hamas is a very real and hostile threat to Israel on a daily basis - these events should be cause for either celebration or at least serious acknowledgment. Yet, I fear, no news shows will be talking about this, and no global movement will think twice about releasing their latest press statement about the evil occupiers. Even if you did not want to separate Gaza events from events in the West Bank, on the whole, despite the many civilian deaths caused by the war in Gaza, why can't this event be seen in a clear context and contrast to those regrettable deaths? Why can we not accept the intractable nature of dealings with Gaza - and still, at the same time - understand that progress is being made in the West Bank.

I ask these questions rhetorically of course, because half the reason why no one thinks about Israel and Palestine in those rational terms is because most of the press and extremists all over the globe push the discussion toward the demonization of Israel. Yes Israel and her proponents on the right often try to demonize Palestinians, but my friends, cry all you want about "Jewish" control of the media - the sheer weight and volume of press space and political coverage around the globe tilts very far in the other direction. If, in fact, Jews do run the media, they are doing a horrible job "controlling" it. This is the myth and folly of the anti-Israel movement. How can Israel or "the Jews" control anything that is so tilted against them? Is this some diabolical plan maybe to win people over through reverse psychology? I think not.

Whatever it is, it is a shame. Again, you will not see much about this move from most media outlets. In fact, even in the piece this information is taken from, this was not the leading headline. What was the headline? It was that "Israel insists on talks without preconditions." Yes my friends, this is the world where even good press is bad press. Can you really doubt what I am saying with clear evidence like this?

I encourage bloggers and readers alike to spread the word about progress like this and help shift the dialogue. I don't know what the solution is for Gaza and Hamas, but today at least, can we begin to talk about what both sides are doing well? I spend a good deal of time reminding people that when it comes to the security barrier, a wall put up can also be a wall taken down. I remind people to review the statements associated with the inception of the project - that the barrier, the fence, the wall, was meant to be temporary. It was meant to come down when it was no longer needed. And lo and behold, it has come to pass. This is not just a checkpoint being taken down. This is the demanded action that no one believed Israel would ever take. Just like leaving Gaza. Whatever you think about the way Israel left, or its handling of the post Gaza situation, it did in fact leave. Being around Gaza is not being in Gaza. Going into Gaza to attack in response to attacks is not staying in Gaza. Israel sometimes does do what it says it will do, as do the Palestinians. In the same report - also not placed in the headline - we are told that ...

"In another sign that Abbas is trying to counter Hamas influence, his religious affairs minister told a news conference yesterday that the government has taken control of all the territory’s mosques, including content of the main weekly sermon, to ensure that houses of worship are not used for political recruiting."

Now this is significant, and is also something demanded of Abbas. Will this too get much press. Not likely I fear. Mosques were once a Hamas stronghold. Since 2007, Abbas has been cracking down on the militants to make sure they don’t attempt a West Bank takeover. And he too is making progress, but we don't focus nearly enough on it - and both sides are at fault.

None of this "doubting" of the other side should really surprise anyone though. There have been plenty of retreats from positions. There have also been numerous times when agreements have been satisfied and no one believed it - right up until the proof was delivered. A Palestinian friend of mine once told me that even the day before the final evacuation from Gaza, he and his moderate friends did not believe Israel would actually leave completely. And they did. So let this removal of a barrier, or a wall, be another sign that more is possible than we think.

But of course this is the culture of distrust that has arisen and this is the culture of distrust we must all help to defeat. It is one thing for people to distrust each other for good reason and be proven wrong. It is quite another for that distrust to be fomented in the face of numerous reasons to believe that trust is possible.

Trust is possible. Let events like these be the first steps toward commending a very real process of trust building and positive steps toward a two state solution - a solution that while imperfect, is the only thing that presents a positive future for each side.

The Flotilla Incident and Gaza - More Revealed Beneath the Surface

"There is no starvation or acute medical crisis there, [but] malnutrition is creeping up, water treatment and sewage are problematic and the economy has been almost entirely shut down by the blockade."

Before the the tragic events of the Turkish flotilla fade into the past, and before the next conflict or incident causes a similar international uproar, it may be useful to just ask just a few more questions and make just a few more points about the incident. For example, it may be extremely revealing to compare what happened with this Turkish flotilla to a very different encounter that took place just a short time after that debacle at sea.

Just days after this tragedy, another ship, also sponsored by the same "Free Gaza" organization, also set sail for Gaza. This ship, called the Rachel Corrie - out of Ireland - also attempted to break the blockade, but In this case, no tragic deaths occurred. Of course, this story, which would have illustrated the procedures Israel goes through to have the contents of all ships bound for Gaza, did not get widespread attention at all. But while the story got little press, it is illustrative of the complexity of what is going on in this cat and mouse game being played by the Israeli government, Hamas, and their international allies.

If you were wondering why the result was so different, the answers are quite simple. As this account by Ethan Bronner in the Boston Globe reveals (Israel thwarts new attempt to break Gaza blockade: Commandos seize vessel peacefully) the Israeli government handled the situation in a much more subtle manner AND the government responsible for the ship agreed to a reasonable compromise.

For weeks after the Turkish flotilla incident, all you heard from Israel was how this tragedy didn't have to happen; how the ship that was boarded could have docked in Ashdod - just like the other five in the flotilla did - and unloaded its goods for inspection and shipment to Gaza. This had been the routine for similar confrontations with ships bound for Gaza. Unfortunately, no one seemed to latch on to the reasonableness of this argument - mainly due to the deaths that took place, the fact that the boarding took place in international waters, and that the boarding took place at night. But the other problem was that Israel never did a good job publicizing how goods brought to Gaza by aid ships actually did get in to Gaza. That left a void in the basic story - only to be filled in by video of commandos going in at night, outside of Israeli national waters, swooping down from helicopters. There was no way for Israeli's to be seen as anything but aggressors who were trying to hide their "despicable" actions from the world.

This was a disaster for Israel in terms of public perception, international legitimacy, and their ability to have their decisions respected or trusted by, well, anyone. But in light of the better approach AND the better result from the Rachel Corrie encounter at sea - when the Israelis communicated their intent with the government of Ireland and the government of Ireland saw the reasonableness of their request to dock the ship and transport approved goods after inspection. Clearly, this was not something the Turkish government was willing to do - and reasonable people must ask what this says about their motives with the flotilla and their ongoing motives toward Israel. But also, one must ask why it took this initial tragedy to make them re-think their admittedly faulty approach to the Turkish vessel. And if they are re-thinking their strategy why do progressives not get more credit for asking Israel to re-think how they approach such dilemmas. Maybe they were doing what they always do. Maybe they were seeing the provocation in the Turkish actions and returning it in kind. I mean, isn't that what the game has devolved into - "You want to provoke us? Fine. We'll show you what you get."

What other explanation can there be - can there ever be - other than "Oops." The point being - for all the anger we should rightly have toward Turkey, let's make sure we examine the approach to the Rachel Corrie and remind people that things could have been handled just a bit differently by Israel when it came to the Turkish incident. And in that "bit" of difference in all their actions, that is where Israel might have found less international condemnation. I hear Israeli's say all the time that nothing they could have done - in almost any situation - would have made a difference in public opinion. Well I disagree. I know many friends and colleagues who would also disagree. And I will always use examples like the Rachel Corrie confrontation to counter that position. And the line would be - "If you, yourselves, modify and "improve" your tactics regularly so you can show the world how "just" you are, then you are admitting that you DO care about how your actions are perceived. And if that is the case, don't attack other for suggesting improvements you can make sooner than you may have thought of them."

And so similar questions can be asked about the blockade in general. As the header quote states, it is true that no humanitarian crisis is taking place in Gaza. Yet, Israel is continually accused of "starving' or 'strangling' Gaza. While those terms are demonizing and inaccurate, they will continue as long as incidents like this take place and as long as public perception against Israel's respect for the law and dignity does not change. Interestingly, after the reaction to the flotilla incident, Israel finally acted to eliminate certain restrictions that progressives had been criticizing for some time. Certain food restrictions, left over from a version of the Gaza blockade that really was meant to psychologically impact the population - like jelly and some other incidentals - were recently lifted from the restricted items list. Many reasonable critics of Israel had said on numerous occasions that these were un-necessary, punitive, and did nothing but increase distrust. Less reasonable critics said this was a prime example of Israel's evil. Many even said, everything else is ok, but those restrictions must go because they are inhumane. (And for the record, yes, restricting things like Jelly is petty, and spiteful, but is not inhumane.)

And in an amusing twist, now that the restrictions have been lifted, much of the reaction was that the gesture was meaningless. That, my friends, is certainly a perfect example of how Israel just can't win. But to be fair to the critics, taking this off the table as something people can demonize Israel with IS IMPORTANT. And to be fair to all those who DO posses something called 'forethought,' we should be able to ask why the restrictions were kept in place at all? Didn't Israel realize how much it was harming their ability to reasonably argue for the necessity of the blockade? And if their response would be again, that they can never do anything right in the eyes of the UN, then why remove the restrictions at all. The point being that Israel and her "Israel, right or wrong" supporters can't have it both ways. If Israel, from time to time changes policies, based either on their own time table or a reaction to international demands, critics of those policies MUST be given more credence and NOT be labeled as anti-Israel. Is Israel anti-Israel since they just advocated a policy change that a month ago a peace-nick would have been vilified for suggesting?

Today, one can read about the Israeli release of reports on the build-up in Lebanon of Hezbollah strongholds in population centers in southern Lebanon. And as so many are reporting, this can be looked at in two ways. On the one hand, maybe Israel has gotten the point about gaining at least some support from the international community - before it actually has to take action. On the other, maybe they are just trying to convince the world about the perils of their neighborhood so that, in general, public opinion can be nudged just a bit. Whichever the intent, one must still ask an important question. If it seems to take such large scale tactical errors - ones that Israel herself has eventually admitted - like the entire Gaza war and the tactics used to board the Turkish flotilla vessel, why could they not have listened to critics earlier. One can only hope this will loosen up the dialogue around how the Israeli government should conduct itself - even if only to help the world better understand her plight. But don't hold your breath on that one.

Israel and the Flotilla Incident - A Reality Check

Opinions on Israel and the recent flotilla incident range widely - and they should. They should because opinions should always range widely and Israel and her predicament should be no different. In fact, that is the angle I want to take in this analysis. It has taken a bit of reflection to decide where the best approach on this should come from and I think finally, that this incident is instructive, but that it is not a “lesson” in the traditional sense. I say that because so many are using their “opinion” to simply reinforce why they are right or why the other side is wrong. In short – more demonization - to all sides - seems to come from the “lessons” we are hearing about these days.

So instead of lessons, I will speak of common sense realizations, multiple truths, and reasons why things are the way they are. For those unfamiliar with the entire situation in the Middle East, I think this can be an incredibly important read. For those who are already entrenched in the debate, you will not find answers, but you may just find a reason to step back, count to ten, and shut up for a second.

While I first want to start with Israel’s basic approach in this situation, I want to also interject a tangent. Popping up at the tail end of all of this was the Helen Thomas incident. I am bringing this up right now, because before I even get into detail, please remember that underlying almost any FACT about Israel and the middle east are the underlying attitudes about Israel, Jews, and their place in the middle east. While many will say I am just a knee jerking, anti-Semitism crying loyalist, I can’t worry about that. Any understanding of global opinion of Israel, what motivates some to action against Israel, and what Israel and Jews do has to be seen in this light. It is real, palpable and instructive. While people were wondering if folks jumped on the Helen Thomas bandwagon in violation of some principle of her right to free speech, I was wondering why no one was using her as a larger example. If this liberal lion, this well educated senior White House correspondent, could be so biased toward Israel and so frankly anti-Semitic in its classical and modern sense, ANYONE can be and more people then you think are.

And why is that so important? Well, because everyone jumping on the trash Israel bandwagon, whatever there reasoning should be able to step back with thanks to Helen Thomas, and realize that not everyone trashing Israel is doing so because of their “correctness” about any facts, or any moral high ground.

But here we go with some truths (on all sides – so be patient, I’ll get to yours)

TRUTH:
This flotilla was dispatched with express intention of provoking Israel into confrontation.

TRUTH:
Most of the ships in the flotilla were escorted by the Israeli Navy without incident to Ashdod as is common practice so Israel can inspect the cargo and send through approved goods.

TRUTH:
The larger boat that had every intention of causing an incident did in fact include a group of more extreme activists intent on violence.

TRUTH:
Calling all the participants in the flotilla “terrorists” is inaccurate? Most were what most of the world would call well meaning activists seeking to provide goods and humanitarian aid to Gaza and in doing so challenging the legitimacy of the Israeli blockade.

TRUTHS:
Is challenging the blockade in this manner an acceptable form of protest? Sure why not? Does the fact that people disagree with the blockade make it automatically wrong or immoral? No, not automatically. Does the intent of violence make the protest invalid? Well maybe not. If you view the blockade as a form of violence, why can’t you protest with violence? Is that the best way to end the blockade? Well maybe yes, maybe no. Since I waited a bit to write this I can now say that it has achieved something if it stirred debate and actually caused Israel to let more goods through it should always have been letting through. How Israel and defenders of Israel deal with this little fact as dissent and protest are denounced will be very important.

TRUTHS:
Do the backers of the flotilla have troubling connections to extremists and terrorists groups? YES. Does that immediately discredit the entire venture. NO – and this important. This is reflective of the entire Gaza problem. The intermingling of people who had been or are still supportive of what we deem terrorist activities, with respectable people who have either no knowledge of those connections or don’t care is an ongoing complication of how everyone talks about these kinds of initiatives. Should we give these groups a pass? NO. Can we just continue to label any person or activity connected to these groups illegitimate? NO. There were priests, Americans, and legitimate aid workers on these ships, and as long as that will always be the case – Israel and the global Jewish community MUST find a different way to talk about them. By painting ALL of the participants with such a broad paint brush, when any bozo can show that MANY participants are what MANY people would call “legitimate” activists and NOT terrorists, such criticism of them can be PROVEN to be disingenuous at best and LYING at worst.

TRUTHS:
Is the blockade itself morally wrong, illegal, or inhumane? NO. For anyone to claim otherwise is naive, trying to gain political points, or not thinking things through. People will claim that the blockade of Gaza was initially established to deny certain goods to the general population to make things so difficult that they would turn away from Hamas and realize moderation and Fatah were the way to go. This is completely TRUE and the government of Israel has already admitted this. It had the opposite effect, brought on the Gaza war and the government has already admitted it was a mistake. Did that cause them to change things? NO. But that is not the critical point. The critical point is WHY they did not lift the blockade. For many, not reversing course is the point. For Israel, providing truckloads of humanitarian aid should end the discussion. For others, the limiting of harmless food items is the ultimate insult and proof if Israeli “inhumanity.” (Yet when those food stuffs were recently taken off the prohibited items list, all of a sudden its not really about those silly items is it.)

TRUTH:
In the view of Israel, getting out of Gaza was the ultimate sacrifice and they will be forever bitter that Palestinians did not see the magnanimity in that sacrifice. It can be shown how the unilateral turnover without a plan for economic integration was the mistake that bore the current situation. But Israelis do not focus on this. They focus on the rockets that came over and the militancy that has always existed in Gaza. And in this respect, one might say that the reason there was no plan for better integration of the border was that they could not find one. This is a critical point. The inability to find a solution – not that one could not be found - is at the heart of many of Israel’s decision making and MUST be understood as a reasonable motivation for acting certain ways.

TRUTH:
To be honest about Gaza, one can only talk about “ending the blockade” while at the same time asking how a Hamas controlled area could instill any confidence at all in any kind of “open border situation.” It is easy for people who do not live Israel, to say how smooth things would go if Israel just opened the border. It is easy to say things like “just give it a try,” when you are not confronted with a sworn enemy having easy access to your people. Would any sane country really do that? Just look at the US. Mexico is NOT a sworn enemy and look at the racism, hatred, bias, and rhetoric take place in regard to that open border. Is the situation in Israel really so different – except that they have good reason to be afraid.

TRUTH:
It is still the truth that the majority of the people of Gaza would be peaceful participants in the economy of Israel. In fact, that is the only thing peace advocates can hang their hat on. And it IS important. But in Israel, among the people and the government, security is the mindset. Does that need to change? Yes. But it will not change overnight and to ask Israeli’s to change that mindset so quickly is unreasonable, unrealistic, and insulting. In fact, distrust, on all sides, is the main issue behind why so much of this is a problem at all. Yes this distrust is more perception than reality, but perception becomes reality in politics (just look at Sarah Palin and Scott Brown).

TRUTH:
The truth is that too many Israelis distrust Arabs and that is why enough of them do not demand more out of their leaders. Is this wrong? Is this morally wrong? I do not think it is for us to judge. It is for us to realize and help the world understand that the best way to get to a two state solution is to have a plan that does NOT change things overnight. It is for us to realize and help Israel understand that we get it – BUT that change is essential and a roadmap with a definite END in place is the only way Palestinians will choose the way of moderation and peace..


There are many more “truths” to be discussed on these very important issues. But these are a good start. My friend Ehud Eiran recently published an excellent article in Newseek about the flotilla and the blockade itself. His premise is an important one – that the blockade is a contradiction in that it perpetuates the very situation Israel says it is trying to end – the militancy of Hamas in Gaza. While I agree with 99% of the article I will take issue with one point. But it is a big point. Who says the blockade is intended to moderate the people of Gaza any longer? If the government has already acknowledged that has failed, there has got to be another reason the blockade is still in place. My contention is that they cannot think of any other way. Listening to Ami Ayalon recently, I am convinced people need to know more about the different language Israel and the Palestinians are speaking to one another. To remove the blockade and open the borders would mean one of two things. Either a plan would have to be put in place to assure the Israeli public that the people of Gaze, who chose Hamas as their government could be trusted. Or the Israeli government would no longer have any real control over the situation and would simply have to hope for the best. In many ways, both of those situations are unthinkable and impractical TODAY. And this is what I think most people outside of Israel do not consider. I am not saying something can not be worked out someday and sold to the Israeli voting public. I am just saying that today, neither of those options is really a possibility given the mindset of the Israeli people and the reality of what Gaza is like right now. And it begs the question, why can’t the world get their act together to help Israel and the Palestinians in the way they really need it. They do not need condemnations and accusations. They need a plan, they need time to adjust to it, and they need honest brokers to help. Just look at what has just developed. The UN offered to participate in the inspection of some foreign aid shipments and Israel agreed because they really have nothing to hide in that respect. In this way the UN (some in the UN) are acknowledging the need for both security and for goods to get through.