Sunday, February 11, 2007

Glenn Beck: Catalyst for Anti Semitism

Last year, Keith Ellison became the first American Muslim to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. It is an historic, noteworthy accomplishment, reflective of the diversity in America and the effective integration of Muslims into our nation. But when CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck interviewed Ellison on his show, he didn't congratulate him. Rather he challenged him to prove his loyalty to America, because being a Muslim, Beck didn't trust him and didn't think the rest of America should either.

The Beck CNN Headline News show is a daily dose of prejudice against a wide range of issues. He chastises critics of the U.S. war in Iraq, discourages immigration and eschews action against global warming. But Islam, Muslims and Arabs are his obsessions. He daily features some aspect of 9/11-related fear and alerts Americans to be suspiciously watchful of Arabs or Muslims they come into contact with in their daily lives. His distorted gaze does not distinguish between Islam and Muslims, or between Arabs and Muslims. If he were to make those distinctions, he would see wide diversity in the practice of Islam and the role culture and the political environment play in religion. But the finer points of journalism escape Beck.

On February 5, he interviewed the author of “Londonistan.” This book is an alarmist work on ghetto-living in the UK. The author, Melanie Phillips, argues that Muslims are corrupting the fabric of British society. She concludes that conscientious enforcement of the rule of law has allowed “Islamofascism” to prosper there. Beck praised Phillips’ thesis and referred to a similar "danger" in Dearborn, Michigan, a community wherein 30 percent of the population is Muslim.

There are five to six million American Muslims, the overwhelming majority of whom are employed, educated and integrated into our society. This is not the case with Muslims in Europe, where poor labor and immigration policies have kept many Muslims isolated and marginalized in overcrowded city suburbs. Alas, the average viewer does not have the background to know that and are thus intentionally misled.

On his August 10 radio show, distributed by Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks, Beck told listeners, "The world is on the brink of World War III," then issued this warning:
"All you Muslims who have sat on your frikin' hands the whole time and have not been marching in the streets and have not been saying, 'Hey, you know what? There are good Muslims and bad Muslims. We need to be the first ones in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head.' I'm telling you, with God as my witness... human beings are not strong enough, unfortunately, to restrain themselves from putting up razor wire and putting you on one side of it. When things — when people become hungry, when people see that their way of life is on the edge of being over, they will put razor wire up and just based on the way you look or just based on your religion, they will round you up. Is that wrong? Oh my gosh, is Nazi, World War II wrong?, but society has proved it time and time again: It will happen."

On September 5, Beck took the same message to his CNN Headline News audience, declaring, "In 10 years, Muslims and Arabs will be looking through a razor wire fence at the West." He explained:
"Since 9/11, Americans have gotten so fed up with the 'yes, but' Muslims. The 'yes, but' Muslims are the ones who show up on talk shows and in the media and say, 'Yes, terrorism is bad, but' — and then they go through a list of reasons on why we should try and sympathize with people who fly planes into buildings.... If, God forbid, there's another attack, we won't have anymore patience for the 'yes, buts.' The Muslim community better find a spokesman who isn't a 'yes, but' Muslim. They shouldn't even understand the word 'but,' because when things heat up, the profiling will only get worse, and the razor wire will be coming."

Beck looks for support to back up his ethnic assaults. With a passion to prove his thesis, he hunts for spurious evidence. He tends to select “expert” interviewees with exaggerated claims. These guests are prompted to predictably articulate their views. The guest experts, often in need of public recognition, eagerly comply. When he is interviewing an “ally” he props him/her up to deliver a message about Islam that is usually negative. He programs the guest’s testimony to fit the theory that Muslim danger to American society is being ignored.

In striking contrast, when Beck interviews an “opponent” such as a Muslim leader, he goes on the attack. His body language and his questions visibly unnerve the speaker and put him on the defensive.

Why in the world has CNN adopted Glenn Beck, an extreme conservative with a passion for shock programming? Competition for viewers is cutthroat. Beck is popular, and CNN may be losing viewers to other networks. On radio and on TV he has established himself as a powerful persona whose style integrates sarcastic humor, biased news and bitter social commentary.

But this energetic talk show host has taken the art of shaming Muslims to new heights. Beck demonstrates remarkable audacity in bashing Muslims, one of several Semitic groups; he is, in effect, practicing unabashed and unchallenged anti-Semitism. Instead of being condemned, his program is astonishingly popular. It airs nightly for an hour at seven and is replayed at 9 and at midnight.

Any communicator who practiced the same mobilization against any other minority, whether Latino, Black or Jewish, would be immediately silenced by public outrage. But the license to attack Muslims and Islam is still valid in the US. Some in the Jewish community have responded to former President Jimmy Carter’s recent book about apartheid in Palestine with an accusation of anti-Semitism. In contrast, Beck dishes out three hours of Islamophobia every night and the response in America is “encore”!
The Anti-Defamation League has championed the cause of non-Jewish groups that have been threatened, and their mission statement includes these words: "To secure justice and fair treatment for all." If the ADL joined together with Arab and Muslim anti-discrimination groups in condemning this Islamophobia, it would help heal some of the rifts between the Jewish and Arab/Muslim communities and serve America by giving the lie to Beck's diatribes.

Beck’s success comes partly from his acting talent. But his popularity is a function of a growing need of Americans for conflict catharsis in a chaotic world where the war in Iraq and the tension in the entire Middle East continue to escalate. Since 9/11 we Americans have not been assured that terrorism is being handled successfully. We are worried and anxious. Regrettably, we need a scapegoat. Americans need to express anger at Muslims who are guilty by association. Today Muslims are made to feel that they are collectively responsible for being accomplices in the 9/11 tragedy and all the subsequent international acts of terror.

Beck is a good “soldier” for a war-mongering foreign policy that is in perpetual search of public legitimacy. He is an actor with a taste for preaching, a passion for fame and an ego that allows him to dream that he is a social reformer. The Glenn Beck show is about Glenn Beck first. He is not a conduit but a maker of news.

Saturday, February 03, 2007

Will the Lebanese come to a compromise?

Last week in Lebanon street battles between the opposition and government groups left six people dead and many more injured. Two months ago the opposition started an open-ended strike in the capital and the suburbs. The strikers ask for increased representation in the Cabinet and call for improved national defense, reduction of poverty and political reform. These events remind the Lebanese of the start of the 15-year civil war that ended 17 years ago.

The current crisis emerges from a cumulative record of events. A long civil war that ended in 1990, an Israeli occupation of the South that ended in 2000, a four-decade Syrian domination and exploitation that ended in 2005, an intermittent series of battles with Israel that culminated in summer 2006, a 40-year militia culture that was started by Palestinian refugees, copied by Christian politicians and perfected by marginalized Shi'a, all the above and more have made Lebanon a web of domestic, regional and international conflicts.

The street action is led by Hizbullah and Michel Aoun's (secular Christian) party. Hizbullah is a political party (known locally as a resistance movement) with a private army; its popular social service program is for the Shi'a, the largest community in the country. While Hizbullah leaders are most concerned about military defense against Israel, Aoun's party is focused on political reform. Aoun is a charismatic reformer with a militant and a military past. The opposition, Aoun's party and Hizbullah, have found common ground in their campaign to defend and reform Lebanon. The opposition is keen on leading a peaceful campaign. But civil resistance easily turns uncivil. In times of crisis, unresolved issues, open wounds and past grudges re-emerge from the previous civil war.

In a sense, the current revolt is a continuation of the summer war. Last summer Hizbullah surprised Israel with what it hoped to be a daring act that would lead to "negotiation." This risk-prone militia carried out a border raid that involved the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. To Hizbullah's dismay, the hostage swap with the Jewish state turned into a war of disproportionate retaliation. The result of the July/August battle of 2006 was the death of a thousand Lebanese civilians, destruction of South Lebanon's infrastructure, displacement of a million people, spread of a million unexploded cluster bombs and pollution of the sea coast. Hizbullah's war machine survived the Israeli assault but the militia's leaders had to confront a new strategic reality in South Lebanon. Through a rushed, U.S. led resolution, United Nations forces and the Lebanese Army took over control of the southern border region. Hizbullah lost its stronghold in the South, the principle domain of the Shi'a community.

Since Lebanon was pieced together by French generals in 1920, it has been almost a "no-sovereignty zone," conducting politics with international remote control. The current Lebanese government receives orders from Washington, Paris and Saudi Arabia; the opposition receives support from Syria and Iran.

Domestic disunity invites regional and international intervention. Government leaders and their allies lack credibility and the leaders of the "Reform and Change" opposition exercise almost tribal control over their constituencies.

But while Lebanon is starting to unravel again as a state it still remains a country with a rich intellectual potential and a phenomenon that is unique in the region. This country is blessed with personal freedoms but cursed with insecurity of governance. In contrast, the rest of the Arab world suffers from restriction of personal freedoms but enjoys security of the ruling regimes.
Lebanon, like its Arab and non-Arab neighbors, is experimenting with modern state building. But this republic falters every decade or so. Power sharing among its communities is what makes Lebanon a "democracy" of some sort. A relatively sophisticated middle class, an open economy and a culture of personal freedoms contribute positively to the special character of this country. But the sectarian nature of power sharing makes Lebanon an insecure and weak democracy. Moreover, a feeble national army, poor leadership and corruption make Lebanon volatile.

It is difficult to know if the worsening conflict in Lebanon will escalate into a civil war. An optimistic assessment would point out that the Lebanese have learned a few lessons from the past civil war. Sectarianism is not as fierce as in the past. Political alliances extend across the religious divide. Despite disguised sectarian tensions within the Muslim and Christian communities, no single politician dares in public to voice his platform in religious terms. Ironically, all the Lebanese see the danger of sectarian politics but they hold on to the system for not knowing how to get out of it. Moreover, no political side is sufficiently comfortable with its external partners of support. The government's attachment to the U.S. and France is driven by money and insecurity. Similarly, Hizbullah and Aounism are not blindly attached to Iran and Syria.

Alternatively, some observers see a political "tsunami" coming to the Lebanese shores in the near future. Those observers argue that the conflict seems to have established a momentum of its own. They state that the opposition is too comfortable with an open ended sit-in strike: unemployed protesters enjoy group living in the center of the capital with music, story telling, water pipe smoking and public rhetoric filling the air. Critics of the opposition wonder if the contagious, communal and "interfaith" strike has turned into an extended but senseless carnival for too many young people who are dislocated or alienated in the wake of the Israeli summer war and a worsening economy.

Regardless of their internal differences, the Lebanese feel that their country's future morally impacts the entire region. For in Lebanon Islam meets Christianity on equal terms, tradition is matched by modernity and the open market ideology is challenged by populist ideals. Lebanon is a vital laboratory of social change.

Lebanon has only a short period to find a solution to this standoff between the opposition groups and the government. The economy alone cannot stand delay, not to mention explosive pent-up emotions. It is likely that the leaders will soon reach a face-saving compromise. The recent street fighting and the public's reaction have sobered the opposition. The government in turn has been under pressure to restore normality since the outbreak of civil disorder. Recent Saudi-Iranian contacts which sounded positive may bring a breakthrough. Soon, the General Secretary of the Arab League will make his third visit of conflict resolution to Beirut. A plan of compromises has already been drawn up. What is expected is a face-saving and short term solution. Regrettably, long term solutions for Lebanon do not have a chance today.

Email the author for commentary at grubeiz@adelphia.net

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Peaceful Resistance, Only Way to Palestinian State

Peaceful Resistance, The only Way to a Palestinian State By Ghassan Rubeiz January 31, 2007

Palestinians have failed to appreciate the inherent power they have once they put away the gun. They are fighting among themselves about how to deal with Israeli oppression: with bullets or with brains? In a Palestinian Fatah-Hamas summit meeting last week in Damascus, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal made some progress on future strategy. But the pathetic disunity in Palestinian leadership persists, and we can see that from the bitter fighting between Palestinian factions in recent days.
With inspiring creativity and sacrifice over the past six decades, the Palestinian people have built a strong case for their independence. They have organized politically, empowered their people, articulated their cause, generated external solidarity and excelled in every human endeavor. They have made every Arab a proud spokesman for Palestine.
Yet, in experimenting with questionable tactics of resistance, a minority of Palestinians has played the role of spoiler. This minority has used nonsanctioned methods of resistance out of desperation to rush their case for liberation. In the past, Palestinian hijacking of planes and suicide bombings actually served Israel's case. Likewise today, launching rockets from Gaza into Israel is a political "contribution" to the colonizer. Israel ingeniously manages and nurses its corrosive occupation. Why do some Palestinians continue to "aid" the Israelis through misguided fighting?

The chances for the creation of a viable Palestinian state are slimmer today than they were yesterday. Palestinians face an Israeli separation wall that dismembers their communities, continued annexation of land and a widening of Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories. To withdraw from the territories in exchange for peace Israel would have to experience a drastic change in political leadership and face a 180 degree shift in American orientation in the Middle East. That is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

Israel has managed to rationalize its occupation of Palestinian territories as a "security measure." Palestinians have lost land, life, status and friends by fighting against an asymmetrical adversary. Israel continues to escape international sanctions and maintain the upper hand against the Palestinians for at least three reasons: it can deploy superior technology, it has unconditional US support, and it can engage in superb public relations. Despite a growing international appreciation for their cause, Palestinians have failed to make their best case for independent statehood because they are divided and inconsistent in their strategy of struggle.

Palestinians should stop pleading for a state whose perimeters have been strongly compromised. While it is to their advantage to keep open the option of a two-state solution, they should cease to cry for any form of statehood and be prepared for the forced option of a one-state solution. They should unite in civic resistance and coax Israel to do the pleading for a real two-state solution.

Palestinians should realize that as long as Israel is in the mode of powerful colonizer, militant resistance actually serves its best interests. When will Palestinian leaders unanimously discover that the threat of organized nonviolent resistance would make a formidable match for the occupier's tyranny? If Palestinians believed in civic resistance, they would eventually occupy the driver's seat in the conflict.

Ironically, Palestinians' ineffective use of the gun makes Israel's response look like a quest for security. Palestinians have fallen into a pattern in which they appear to be on the attack while Israel appears to be on the defensive. Extremists on both sides exploit war as a strategy of "problem solving." Israelis who dream of usurping all the land they occupy now need war conditions to do expel the Palestinians. Similarly, extreme Palestinians find war a medium of self-preservation.

To create hopeful conditions for their liberation Palestinians should further develop their human capital, their moral cause and their political organization. They should deepen the peace orientation in their struggle and anticipate a two-track solution: either a single binational state or two parallel states for the two rival nations. If the Jewish state is liquidating the chances for a viable Palestinian state, Palestinians can take the Israelis where they would not wish to be by organizing and by seeking citizenship and full rights in a single state. The single state plan is a nightmare for the Israel.

It would not take much time for Israel to feel the heat of predictable Palestinian demography. Separation from Palestinians at the earliest opportunity would be a preferable Israeli alternative to living in what would become a binational state where Palestinians would live under the double-standards of Israeli rule. In a single state without war, walls of exclusion would lose their rationale, any thoughts of ethnic cleansing would be imponderable and settlements would become irrelevant.

Regardless of the nature of governance, when Palestinians adopt a strategy of building their own economy, organizing civil society, unifying leadership, articulating national aspirations, building international solidarity and investing in human development, they will put Israel on the moral defensive. When Palestinians find unity around peaceful resistance, international pressure would automatically mount against the occupation. As Palestinian moral empowerment develops, US sponsorship of Israel's rule would erode in face of international and domestic pressure.

As Palestinians stop fighting they will make it clear to Israelis that they are eternally rooted in the land, assimilating and molding the future to their liking. Palestinians have refused to disappear from a land they have owned for centuries. Being the weaker side in military terms, Palestinians cannot afford to mix violence with negotiation. Their strength will flow only through a unified and inspiring strategy of civic resistance.

Ghassan Rubeiz is an Arab-American commentator. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary by permission.
http://www.miftah.org