The Need to Respond to BDS (Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel)

People often ask why even respond to BDS. Some say that since past BDS attempts to get colleges and universities to divest from Israel don't work and since they don't have many actual followers on campus, then why bother. Some would even say that Israel supporters give BDS conferences too much attention with any response at all. But as has been said many times, the appropriate response to BDS is a balancing act between making a strong statement and not shedding too much light on them. It is not about refusing to shine light on them at all. That would be a mistake. Here is why.

If we, as a community did nothing, a few things would still happen. BDS conferences would still succeed in coming on to the major college campuses around the country. They would still succeed in getting opinion pieces printed opposite real academics and statesman like James Woolsey, as just happened in the Philadelphia Inquirer. This is the travesty of BDS and that "ship" so to speak, has sailed.

What some may not understand is that the problem with the BDS is not so much the "movement" itself, but the image of BDS as something more than it is and the false weight they are then given by the press and others in the community - whether the pro-Israel community responds or not.

It really comes down to this. "BDS" brings with it ALL the elements in any community that are amassed against Israel. When BDS comes to town, every reporter, every activist, every left leaning person who ever had a problem with Israel thinks "Oh, this is a group I can latch on to and say to the world - this is what I think of Israel." BDS is the cheese, and when they come to town the mice come running out of the woodwork. When BDS comes to town, any person with an Apartheid charge to make, or a claim that Israel is a genocidal state comes out of the woodwork to make their case.

THIS is what the Jewish community and supporters of Israel need to respond to when BDS comes to town, not just BDS itself. Yes, they don't accomplish anything tangible, but they do spread vile comments about Israel, the United States, and all those who support Israel. And they spread these ideas in all of the arenas where people are the least informed about the full picture of Israel and the full complexity of the conflict - on college campuses and in the local media.

Without a full understanding of either BDS or the Israeli Palestinian conflict, it is easy to believe that someone just wants to talk about non-violent resistance. And boycotts, divestment and sanctions certainly come across as non-violent. But BDS is not really about BDS. It is a loose amalgamation of speakers and writers who spread misinformation on a multitude of other topics. Just look at the program and listen to what the main speakers say. Their agenda and their words reveal the truth about the wider scope of the BDS ideology. They really are the sum of their parts and this is both the strength and the weakness of BDS. It is a strength because they can deny that any speaker is actually speaking on behalf of BDS. And it is a weakness because it allows critics to see the true nature of their rhetoric.

Let's take Remi Kanazi as a perfect example of how this sometimes works. Remi Kanazi is exactly the kind of speaker who we generally see at these conferences. That is why he was featured in their promotional video on YouTube. But after that video took some heat for some of Remi's more candid remarks, they are able to pull the video and distance themselves from those remarks. Nonetheless, he is typical of BDS speakers. BDS speakers often say they are not vilifying or demonizing anyone. Then someone like Remi Kanazi's "poetry" seems to say otherwise. And at that point some locals (who were somehow surprised by the remarks) decided to drop off the program.

It is puzzling how BDS supporters, even professors, never really research what speakers connected to these BDS conferences actually say. On the one hand it may be admirable for a professor to drop off the program when they hear Remi say that Israeli soldiers "snipe our children’s' shoulders, knees and stomachs." But on the other hand, who joins a group - in the context of this conflict especially - without seeing whether the attacks against them have any merit. And in this case they do.

Remi also says things like "Buying a 2 yr (Motorola) contract stacks up (collectively) to 63 years of ethnic cleansing." He claims that anyone who "supports Israel serves an agenda which rebrands colonialism as English Liberalism for pink washers."

Some would say 'this is only one person.' But don't be fooled by that argument. The whole point is that BDS is entirely made up of these 'one persons.' Ilan Pappe is the prototype for the shoddy academic. Ali Amunibah and Remi Kanazi are the prototypes for the people who aren't just talking about the complications in the West Bank, but who are talking about how the "settlements are just the branches of the Zionist agenda." They are talking about "Israel beyond Apartheid" or the Israel that becomes a single state with an Arab majority.

This is BDS. And BDS is all the people who come out to write Op Ed's to defend the speakers. The "BDS Phenomenon" is the editors who given them valuable media space and air time so that they appear to merit the same credibility that they also get from just using the halls of a school like the University of Pennsylvania.

They do not have standing yet they appear to have some because they can get into the pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer alongside James Woolsey. Based on this "respect" one would never know that the actual organizers and speakers of BDS are a mishmash of relatively unknown characters and shoddy academics.

So to say that one, two, three, or four, or five or six speakers don't "represent" the BDS ideology is ludicrous. They ARE the BDS ideology. And once they are given the spotlight, and we know they always are, staying completely silent is impossible for our community. We must respond in some way - or their message - and their unwarranted appearance of credibility will have an impact on public opinion.

Jon Haber, a good friend to the cause and creator of the "Divest This" website often claims that as long as we let people know that BDS fails at getting organizations to divest, that is all we need to do. The problem with that argument is that "fail" is a relative term. As long as they "succeed" at convincing people that their ideology is credible and as long as they get into the Op Ed pages, they matter. The pro-Israel community, like it or not, did not put them there. Just like they didn't put delegitimization on the agenda of every meeting at the UN. They are here to stay - just like the delegitimzation of Israel is here to stay. It is the job of the Jewish and pro-Israel community to respond to the farce of BDS and call it what it is - a group of speakers and writers who lack integrity and who are academically dishonest. Alan Dershowitz said it best when he said "As soon as you stop lying about me, I'll stop telling the truth about you."

To do anything less would be irresponsible and to do anything more would be forgetting the goal - to have the superiority of our message win the day rather than the volume of our rancor.

Put plainly, BDS conferences assemble academics and activists whose sole purpose is to delegitimize Israel. It is true that the BDS campaign has had virtually no success in its calls for divestment from Israel but it is also true that the BDS calls for unilateral action against Israel go against decades of US and international support for a negotiated two state solution.

BDS conferences do not explore different approaches to the two state solution, but only provide a one sided polemic. BDS organizers claim that their conference is “inclusive” but there will never be panelists joining them to talk about the millions of Israeli Arabs who have voting rights and legal protections. The more accurate depiction of an Israel where an Arab can go to the Supreme Court - and win - hardly sounds like South African apartheid – a charge routinely made at BDS conferences. That false claim is as insulting to South African’s who lived through apartheid as it is to Israeli’s.

Despite the challenges that face any democratic society, Israel is a vibrant center of modernity, in sea of repressive Middle East regimes. No mention will be made of the abuses of Syria or Iran at a BDS conference, much less the actions of Hamas or Hezbollah.

The local response to its BDS conference has been civil, clear, and consistent. The student body let the world to know that the vast majority of students at Penn do not support the global BDS campaign. The University of Pennsylvania let their community to know that they fully reject calls for boycotting or divesting from Israel. And the local Jewish community has rightfully expressed serious concern about the distortions routinely made by BDS speakers.

The fact is that the shortsighted BDS campaign is counterproductive to the goals of peace. The only productive path toward peace and a two state solution is through bi-lateral, internationally supported negotiations. Listening to BDS speakers, you would never know that Israel stands ready, with outstretched hand, to get back to the negotiating table and resolve this conflict. Encouraging students to support that process, rather than condemning it, would be the best way for any activist to help achieve the ultimate goal we all should support, which is peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

(These views are my own and do not, in their entirety, represent the views of my employer.)

Responding to the Atlantic Monthly Article on Israeli Views Toward American Jews

There have been so many people talking about this article in the Atlantic monthly that I thought I would post a response from a private Facebook group of Jewish educators.

I also wanted to include a photo of a recent cover article from the Atlantic called "Is Israel Finished". It may or may not be important in understanding whether there is an agenda to show the uglier side of Israel (the complicated side of Israel I might call it) but I thought you should see it.

The link to the main article is below and the revised post is below that. It should be noted that these views are personal and do not reflect the views of any agency or synagogue I have or currently work for.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/netanyahu-government-suggests-israelis-avoid-marrying-american-jews/249166/#.TteLTIny5qg.facebook

While there are no easy answers here, I will tackle the ad's and the article on three levels. Also, having had direct experience working with Israeli's on just these issues, I think there is great understanding to be had. This is NOT just another example of Israel being bad. There are real, heartfelt issues going on here that Israeli's care deeply about. And when they care that much, we have to take it for what it is and understand that they do not express themselves - especially to each other - worrying about how we feel about the very self evident facts they are pointing out. Its called brutal honesty and instead of looking for the insult, maybe we should be looking at the kernels of truth.

In response to my progressive Jewish educator friends who asked how to frame this for their students, I asked them to think about three things:

1) How, in general do progressive Jews promote Israel while knowing the whole time more progressive rabbis are not considered Rabbi's in Israel? Do we bring it up as the first thing we mention about Israel on Yom Haatzmaut ? No. It is one of those very difficult and nuanced conversations we have to handle very delicately. Yet, we do go on, every day, supporting Israel and teaching Israel to our kids.

There is gender discrimination at the holiest place in Judaism, yet we all do careful programming around inter-denominational Judaism to help our kids understand and respect the differences between orthodox Judaism and progressive Judaism. We also tell all our girls to wear long skirts or pants and cover their shoulders at the Kotel. We disagree, respect, and educate. This should be no different - despite the fact hat we don't get the same understanding in Israel. This is also despite the fact that we are most likely looked down upon by many religious Israelis, would get yelled at for not following protocol at the Kotel and probably arrested if women went to the men's section there. If we have avoided all these issues with our kids then we have made our own bed. If we have confronted them somehow - we would use the same approach on this issue.

2) The issue of Yom Hazicharon and Yom Hashoah are different issues altogether. Americans are held in wide contempt in Israel in MANY segments of society for our lack of widespread awareness of, or observance of Yom Hazicharon and Yom Hashoah. As many of you know, on both days Israel comes to a complete halt - literally. The programs I was working on for the past two years showed me how much Israeli's really are angry with us for such a lame recognition of both days of remembrance. In fact, the main reason the government ministry I worked with contributed so much money to the project was precisely because our Israeli partners felt so strongly about the idea of educating Americans about Yom Hashoah and Yom Hazicharon. There is no question that despite our wonderful Yom Hashoah commemorations - we do not come together as a Jewish community around that day like they do in Israel and certainly not around Yom Hazicharon. And they just cannot understand it. In fact, one of my lay leaders broke down in tears at our final reception having finally gotten it - that these young, beautiful soldiers risk their lives every day for ALL of us and we don't do nearly enough to recognize them. One cannot deny that if you leave Israel - you leave that widespread appreciation for those who risk their lives for Israel. That is what I see this particular video saying. It is a cold hard truth. But it is the truth. As for the Channukah video - again - a lotof things to unpack here, but I know I knew about Christmas before I knew about Channukah simply because it was everywhere. Again - it is a cold hard truth that they video creators are playing upon for their own purposes of retaining Israel's population.

3) Also keep in mind that the ministries OFTEN do things on their own. There is no real accountable hierarchy over there and they OFTEN embarrass the prime minister's office and the image of Israel (in our minds) with poor timing, poor tact (a western concept not an Israeli one) and a hard hand. Just remember the building demolitions that took place when Biden was in Israel. In our minds it was embarrassing and rude. But it was not done by Netanyahu's office and that ministry might actually have been trying to show Bibi and the US that they don't take orders from the US - no matter who is in town.

There are clearly many issues lying beneath the surface of all of this. I just wanted to respond with these three initial ideas.

- - -

Obama, Israel, and Land Swaps - Nothing New Here.

Is Obama's statement on Israel anything new? No. This commentary and speech by G.W. Bush in 2008 is clear evidence that there may be a bit of an over-reaction here.

Click this link to view (I wish I could embed the video here - but since MSNBC's embed codes are always the wrong video, I can't)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43115123#43115123

(original post 5/11)

Reagan on Unions, Collective Bargaining, and Freedom.

Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck's "Nazi" Problem: Jon Stewart and Chris Matthews Call Them Out!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Bill O'Reilly Defends His Nazi Analogies
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

Jon Stewart slams O'Reilly for defending the claim that Fox does not use the anlaogy, while Chris Matthews calls out Glenn Beck for his outrageous rants that blatantly foments violence with his "shoot them in the head" comments. (Also Google Byron Williams to read about someone who acted on these exhoratations)

(Click Photo for Video Link)

Really Glenn, Karl Marx is our Washington and Nancy Pelosi is a "revolutionary?" Readers, please understand how many people really believe all this. And readers who think Glenn is the gospel, watch the interviews where Glenn admits this is more entertainment than news. What a confluence of idiocy!

---

Using Holocaust Analogies Appropriately - Yes it CAN be done!

The Holocaust remains one of History's greatest lessons about propaganda and the manipulation of people for political goals. It CAN be used without calling someone a Nazi and without people always thinking they are being called Nazi's.

This past week, Representative Steve Cohen (D-Tenn) has been blasted all over the bloggosphere and the cable news networks. From both the right and the left, there is a strange consensus that his comparison of Republican distortions about Health Care Reform to the technique used by Nazi's called "The Big Lie." This technique of course, is that if one repeats a lie or distortion over and over again, with full conviction, it may eventually be believed and become "truth." It is a similar theme to what you may remember in George Orwell's book 1984 where history books were changed routinely according to the political leanings of the state. Truth was what they wanted you to believe - not actual truth.

Even Jon Stewart in this episode of the Daily Show (click HERE) takes Cohen to task. Stewart has been extremely articulate in calling people out for playing the "Nazi Card" in inappropriate situations. Rachel Maddow went even further in stating that the Holocaust should never be used as a comparison. She took Stewart's "Only Nazi's are Nazi's" comment a step further and expressed that it is actually morally wrong to compare anyone to what the Nazi's did.

In this situation, and in this over-reaching by Maddow, I must reject this version of the argument. Stewart and Maddow are basically right. Far too many analogies to Nazi's are thrown around these days - and mostly by the right in describing liberal figures they think will lead us down a path toward totalitarianism or communism. In this case however, Steve Cohen was doing the opposite. He was using the APPROPRIATE lessons of the Holocaust to try to prevent a very similar repeating of its style, approach, and goals. He may not have done it as articulately as he could have. (He could have for example said explicitly that he was not calling anyone a Nazi, but that he was using the Holocaust as a lens to view an important lesson - something History classes do every year.)

Yes - the "Big Lie" as he presented it, is the way Nazi's and numerous political movements have tried to shape the political debate their way. There have been few political issues in our lifetimes that have been as warped as the Health Reform movement has been. And this particular effort has a few too many similarities to more nefarious efforts (rather than just politicians making arguments in the press). This effort was driven be calculated businessmen, lobbyists, politicians, and pundits and has changed what should be an important debate to a South Park like temper tantrum where people get all the facts wrong, get their opinion from the repetitious pounding of talking heads, and do the bidding of others who have interests clearly opposite from theirs. If this does not deserve at least a quick mention of how the most stark example in History also used, demonization, disinformation, and eventually violence to get its way - then I don't know what does.

The Holocaust remains one of History's greatest lessons about propaganda and the manipulation of people for political goals. It CAN be used without calling someone a Nazi and without people always thinking they are being called Nazi's.

Let's not run too far away from the the use of the Holocaust as a lesson for fear that we forget its lessons entirely. Lets not dismiss its use for fear that those using similar propaganda tools prevail in turning our eyes from their damning connection to the same demonization and fear mongering central to the success that most vial of political movements.

---

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. "