Re: [eFreePalestine] Fwd: [GNAA] €  ฯ. €  ใีุ์ €  วแ€  ศัๆหํ €  ํอ

Posted by: “Stephen Mashney” trust@mashneylaw.com   statelesspal

Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:00 am (PDT)

Since its establishment in 2008 this racist, Zionist organization dedicated to the destruction of Palestine has sought to present itself as the pro-peace faction of the pro-Israel lobby hoping to distinguish itself from its only slightly more obnoxious colleagues at AIPAC.  To advance the pernicious notion that the two are not mutually exclusive, J Street describes itself as both “Pro-Israel and pro-Peace.”  To the uninitiated political simpletons J Street may come across as a more humane version of Zionism, but upon closer examination of its substantive policy positions it is virtually indistinguishable from other elements of the pro-Israel lobby.

J Street makes clear its goal is to defend Israel, preserve the racist, colonial project in Palestine, and lobby the US government to maintain unlimited military, economic, and political support for an exclusivist Jewish state. It advocates for maintaining Israel’s technological and military superiority over all states in the region and calls on others to recognize the “right” of members of the Jewish faith from all over the world to colonize Palestine while opposing the inalienable right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, land, and property. To that end it has adopted a deceptively moderate tone and paid lip service to the “two-state solution” canard.  J Street is not driven by any moral considerations, a search for a just peace, liberalism, or universal human values. Instead, it remains dedicated to the same racist, colonial enterprise all other pro-Israel groups are committed to.  As far as J Street is concerned support for a non-contiguous, demilitarized, and defenseless mini-state-in-name-only in occupied Palestine 67 is the best policy to ensure the long-term survival of the Zionist project. It differs from AIPAC in that it believes Israel can survive in the 78% of Palestine occupied in 1948 only if it accepts the repositioning of the Israeli occupation army around the 22% of occupied Palestine 67 and allows the Palestinians to refer to it as a state. The  differences between J Street and AIPAC amount to a minor disagreement over the extent of the repositioning of the Israeli occupation army around occupied Palestine 67 and the tone and propaganda strategy that best serves the mutually agreed upon and expressly stated objectives of both lobbying groups.  The differences are not unlike what distinguishes the Likud from Kadima or the Labor party.

Although J Street does not offer a vision for a just peace – which any rational, unbiased, and moral observer recognizes would require Israel’s withdrawal from all occupied Arab land followed by the dismantlement of the colonial Zionist state, the return of the Palestinian refugees, and the establishment of a single unified Palestine – it does offer liberal Jewish-American Zionists an opportunity to feel better about their commitment to Israel while promoting an agenda that is identical to the one supported by the ostensibly more extreme, right-wing members of the pro-Israel lobby.

J Street appearance on the scene has also offered a small contingent of establishment Arab-Americans the opportunity to play the role of the “reasonable” and “peace-loving” Arab eager to distinguish him/herself from the stereotypical anti-Semitic, violent, extremist Arab that wants to “drive the Jews into the sea.”  Self-appointed Arab-American spokespersons like James Zogby or Ray Hanania have relished every opportunity to appear with members of J Street, interview any of its leaders, or attend their events and galas.  Zogby actively promotes J Street and Jeremy Ben Ami is a regular on his vapid weekly talk show on Abu-Dhabi (or as Jim says “Abew-Dobby”) TV.  Hanania attended last year’s J Street conference spending his entire time there tweeting praise for the racist gathering hoping to be invited back as a speaker this year.  Colonial feminist and a proud normalizer with Israel, Egyptian-American corporate media darling Mona Eltahawy also attended last year’s J Street gathering and received a thunderous ovation. For these establishment Arab-Americans attending a J Street event or being seen with a Jewish supporter of Israel is an affirmation of their humanity and provides evidence that despite belonging to a suspect group they’re really one of “the good ones.”

We expect the likes of Zogby, Hanania, and Eltahawy to clamor for a photo-op with a “pro-peace” J Streeter or an appearance at a J Street event, and while their participation is disgraceful, we can readily (should we choose to do so) disregard that unrepresentative, tiny minority of establishment Arab-Americans, most of whom have no connection to the Arab world, and their American-style buffoonery. However, when a well-known, Palestinian public figure residing in occupied Ramallah travels to Washington to participate in an event for the pro-Israel lobby, it becomes entirely something else that can’t be so easily dismissed. This is not the first time Barghouti has visited the US to engage in a series of misguided public relations stunts. During a previous visit in 2009, Barghouti traveled around in the company of a Jewish-American, female “peace activist” which included an awkward appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It was a strange performance for Barghouti who was visibly strained to send the message that a Palestinian can sit side by side with a Jewish person from which the audience was supposed to extrapolate that Palestinians are indeed human beings who can exist with other human beings of a different religious persuasion.  He’s also written editorials in mainstream US print media which almost always sound apologetic and desperate to prove the humanity and peaceful nature of the Palestinians to an American audience. Here is the most recent one in the NY Times in which Barghouti preaches non-violence, as if the Palestinians, the victims of massive violence for over six decades, have an obligation to prove to a Western audience that they are a peaceful people.

In addition to the false notion that J Street is any different than AIPAC, Barghouti’s amateurish public relations efforts proceed from a couple of other false assumptions and misunderstandings of American politics. Barghouti travels to Washington with the belief the US government remains the key to “peace” between Israel and the Palestinians.  After decades of unlimited, unconditional support for Israel, and the sacred status Israel continues to hold within the American political and electoral system, any entertainment of the idea the US can play a constructive role in reaching a “peaceful settlement” between Israel and the Palestinians and the Arab world is completely detached from reality and utterly preposterous.  The US government is part of the conflict, and not part of any “solution” and remains the sponsor and protector of Israel’s colonial occupation, an accomplice in all of its crimes, and the single greatest obstacle to peace in the region. It is time to dispense with the obvious lie that the US government is an honest peace broker or interested in anything other than preserving Israel’s occupation of Palestine and its role as a garrison state in the service of imperialism and American domination of the Arab world.

Barghouti’s decision to come to Washington and attend a J Street event is part of a strategy based on several layers of misunderstanding and confusion. Barghouti’s approach betrays a simplistic understanding of US foreign policy that focuses solely on the pro-Israel lobby while ignoring other critical determinants beyond the scope of this piece.  Furthermore, Barghouti’s confusion regarding J Street’s alleged support for a just peace is further compounded by his seeming exaggeration of that potentially “positive” influence on US foreign policy towards Arab-Israeli conflict. The naiveté shown in Barghouti’s approach becomes even more glaring when he presumes any Palestinian support of the “moderate” member of the pro-Israel lobby will help strengthen its influence at the expense of AIPAC. In reality this discussion is between two groups within the pro-Israel lobby about the best way to preserve the Zionist project and ensure the survival of Israel. Palestinian support for either faction in the discussion will have no impact and is ultimately irrelevant.  Finally, and most importantly, it is not the role or responsibility of any member of a colonized and occupied people to offer his imprimatur to the ostensibly more moderate faction of the colonizers and occupiers, and if Barghouthi insists on a strategy of reaching out to the mythical pro-peace Zionists, he’s better off saving his air fare and participating in the conferences and conventions of Kadima or the Labor party in occupied Palestine which is what J Street represents here in the US.

Barghouti’s political pilgrimage to J Street was an example of unprincipled, misguided, and foolish antics and an amateurish experiment in public relations that will not serve or help the Palestinian people. His participation in this event, which featured war criminal and butcher Ehud Olmert as an honored guest, was also unconscionable. Olmert was the Prime Minister of the Zionist entity during the winter 2008-2009 slaughter in Gaza, and was responsible for the planning and execution of that massacre. That alone should merit Barghouti’s refusal to be involved in such an event.

Barghouti’s appearance at J Street did not and cannot achieve anything of value for the Palestinian people, but his latest trip to Washington was not entirely without any personal achievement. For his participation in the J Street gala, his strategy of empowering a racist, Zionist group in America so it may, at some point in the future, impact and change US foreign policy to the benefit of the Palestinians, and his willingness to appear at an event that honored the latest Israeli butcher of Gaza ikhras is pleased to present Dr. Mustafa Barghouti with the March 2012 Ikhras Shoe Of The Month.

***

Every month Ikhras awards the Muntadhar Zaidi “Shoe of the month” to the House Arab or Muslim individual or organization whose behavior that month best exemplifies the behavior of what Malcolm X described, in the language of his own time, as the “house negro” (see video). The award is named in honor of the brave Iraqi journalist Muntadhar Zaidi who threw his shoes at the war criminal George W. Bush at a time House Arabs and Muslims were dining with him at the White House and inviting him to their mosques.  Arab dictators and puppets of the empire are also qualified to enter the shoe of the month competition based on their own subservience to U.S.-led global imperialism.  Contest guidelines prohibit any one individual or organization from winning the award more than 3 times a year. 

House Arab, Hussein Ibish (Senior Research Fellow at the American Task Force on Palestine) insists he is neither a collaborator nor a Zionist, in his piece: “No, Of Course I’m Not” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/11/still-not-a-zionist.html : 

“Since the emergence of the one-state movement, I’ve been routinely described by the pro-Palestinian far right and ultra-left as a “Zionist,” and even a “traitor” and “collaborator,” because I remain committed to ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel.”

But then he proceeds to prove exact opposite by:

disparaging the one-state solution

“For some, the term “Zionist” is simply a useful pejorative to attack the reputation of Arabs who seek peace, or who deviate from the increasingly intolerant one-state dogma.”

insinuating that non-Jews can’t be Zionists:

“So, of course I’m not a “Zionist.” Whether or not to define oneself as a Zionist is really an issue for those who identify themselves as Jewish.”

arguing that Zionism does not equal racism and injustice

“However, as many Jews of varying backgrounds and perspectives have demonstrated, one can be staunchly pro-Israel, and in that sense “Zionist,” without supporting occupation, settlements or racism against Palestinians.”

calling for our “understanding” and “respect” for Zionism as an ideology and political  identity

“Zionism remains the dominant Jewish national narrative, and this narrative can and should be understood, by others, especially in the interests of peace. All present-day national narratives and identities are ultimately based on fantasies about the past, present and future. From a historical, intellectual and philosophical perspective they are as firm and fixed as children’s sandcastles. But they serve the immediate needs, aspirations and yearnings of their constituencies and, as political realities, they must be respected, despite their well-concealed hollowness.”

These and other excerpts from his article (not to mention his other utterances and work in general) expose Ibish’s attempts to not merely normalize Israel as a state, but Zionism as an ideology. If we are to take the standard definition of Zionism, or the “lowest common denominator” of most definitions of Zionism as Gideon Shimoni terms it—the Jewish right to national self-determination in Eretz Israel—then Ibish at very minimum represents a Zionist-enabler, if not an outright Zionised [and not merely colonized] intellectual, in light of his above rationalization of Zionism. 

"We Will Not Recognize Israel", Photo by Ashraf Shakah

[Ikhras Note: The following article, reproduced below, was first published in The Palestine Telegraph this past January and forwarded to us by one of our readers with a note saying he felt it precisely expresses the opinions, objectives, and spirit of the ikhras website. We are living during a time when “normalization” and “peace” with the Zionist entity is openly advocated as a moral and pragmatic option and when the liberation of Palestine is dismissed as an unattainable goal and empty slogan of a moribund ideology.  In reality, the Zionist project is quickly heading towards its inevitable collapse.

In the meantime ikhras will continue to express the views which any informed, objective observer of the Arab world will recognize represents 99.9% of Arab public opinion.  Aside from a small clique of Arab-Americans in Washington with no connection to the Arab world, and the paid mouthpieces of authoritarian, illegitimate Arab regimes reliant on the imperialist powers to maintain their rule, the Arab people continue to reject the existence of Israel just as strongly as they did in 1948. There is near unanimous agreement and continued support for the three “No’s” of Khartoum: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.”  Arabs should have no qualms about openly saying they do not recognize Israel or that Israel has no right to exist. Our struggle is not against an occupation of a part of Palestine, the struggle is against the very existence of the Zionist colonial project on even one square kilometer of Palestine.

This article offers a reminder of what the struggle for Palestine is really all about, and reflects the views of the overwhelming majority of Arabs both within the Arab world and among Arab communities abroad including in the United States.  One important point the article makes which we, for obvious reasons, found delightful was the call to not ignore those within our own community that advocate for “peace” and “normalization” with Israel. Although these defeatist and colonized minds remain no more than a handful of outcasts making it tempting to simply dismiss them, it is imperative, given the disproportionate attention they receive, as this article points out, to not ignore them. We at ikhras were thrilled to read this article as it goes directly to the ikhras mission which has always been to confront these debased, unrepresentative voices.]

Anti-Zionism in the 21st Century: the struggle continues.

London, (Pal Telegraph) – The essence of the Palestinian struggle is the battle against Zionism. It is a battle against its racism, against its murderous war crimes, against its insatiable territorial hunger, against its disdain for non-Jewish human rights, and against its devoted attempts to destroy Palestinian national identity. As voices of normalization are on the rise, and social media is invaded by paid pro-Zionist bloggers, there is an increased need for anti-Zionists to draw attention to the crimes committed by ‘Israel’, and to speak up against the ongoing media silence and the apologist activities of those misleadingly portraying themselves as ‘peace doves’. Let us first look briefly at the history of the anti-Zionist struggle, and then see where we stand today.

The battle against the ideology of Zionism
Years before the creation of the state of ‘Israel’, there was already a full-blown battle going on against Zionism. On one side, the Palestinians were resisting against the usurpation of their land, having grown aware of the far-stretching implications of the Balfour declaration of 1917, which laid the foundation for the mass-immigration of European Jews into Palestine. In those same decades, there was also an ongoing struggle within the Jewish communities in Europe, where many were opposed to the tenets of Zionism either on a religious basis, or on the realization that colonizing an inhabited land would inevitably cause an injustice that would continue to reverberate for many years to come. A famous example of this in that period of time was the famous genius Albert Einstein, who in 1938 already expressed his opposition to the creation of a ‘Jewish state’, and in a letter to the New York Times that he wrote together with a number of prominent Jews in 1948, strongly denounced the horrendous Deir Yassin massacre.

The ongoing struggle of the Palestinians against Zionism and the continuing expropriation of their land is well-known, but not everyone is aware that within Jewish ranks, true ideological opposition against Zionism still exists. The most well-known group among these is Neturei Karta (‘Guardians of the City’), an organization of international Jews united against Zionism. On another note, within the current framework of the Zionist state, a coalition of groups that call themselves ‘Campus Watchdogs’ recently went as far as labeling 10 % of Israeli academics as ‘anti-Zionist’. It is likely that this number is highly overrated, since this McCarthyism-like approach can be expected to have lumped together a wide variety of people who expressed criticism at their government’s actions. In a similar way that outside criticism of ‘Israel’ quickly gets labeled as ‘anti-Semitism’, many of the one thousand mentioned academics, publicists and journalists are likely to have received the label of ‘anti-Zionist’ despite adhering to many of Zionism’s principles.

Tribal, religious, or ideological struggle?

For some, the ongoing misery is a war between two peoples, basically a ‘tribal war’. Others prefer seeing it as a war between religions, with Judaism on one side and Muslims on the other side. Those who adopt this view are ignoring the pluralistic ethnic and religious composition of the Palestinian people, and are for instance ignoring the fact that many Palestinians are Christians, who have not been spared the gruesome fate of their Muslim compatriots. Thirdly, there are those who view the struggle as a battle between ideologies: Zionism on one side, and anti-Zionism on the other.

As the original PLO manifesto (28 May 1964) stated, the organization declared that “Palestine with its boundaries that existed at the time of the British mandate is an integral regional unit”  and that it sought to “prohibit the existence and activity of Zionism”. It also contained statements calling for a right of return and self-determination for the Palestinians. When reading the manifesto, it becomes clear that the PLO, the first more officially organized Palestinian movement against the land theft and expulsion committed by the Zionist terrorist organizations that later declared the Zionist state, was an explicitly anti-Zionist movement. The PLO incorporated the various existing political movements in one body, and was declared to be the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. This was widely accepted by an overwhelming majority of Palestinians.

The Oslo disaster

As illustrated above, the foundations of the Palestinian struggle were based on the territorial integrity of Palestine (i.e. the one state solution) and the right of return of all expelled Palestinians. These original foundations became embedded in an entire generation of Palestinians worldwide. In 1993, the leadership under Yaser Arafat adopted the two-state solution instead, which largely happened in a top-down manner and led to the Oslo accords, However, it soon became clear to all that the Oslo accords were only accepted by ‘Israel’ as a deceptive method to hypnotize the Palestinians as well as the masses of the world into an illusion of Israeli willingness for territorial concessions, while in truth confiscating huge swathes of land, building a separation wall and almost tripling the settler population (from 250,000 to 700,000). It should be no surprise that even early on, as the scam became blatantly clear to all except seemingly to the leadership of the newly created Palestinian Authority, the original tenets of the struggle were yet again embraced by many Palestinians inside of Palestine as well as in the diaspora.

Return to the struggle

As the state of confusion created by the Oslo accords lingered on, some defeatist voices however also turned to normalization, instead of returning to the basics of the struggle. It is not to be wondered at that disillusion and opportunism play their role in such a complex situation, wherein many lose hope when faced with the overwhelming military, economical and strategic dominance of the Zionist state. Nevertheless, youth movements that are currently active in keeping the struggle for Palestinian rights alive, predominantly see anti-normalization as one of their main strategic goals. They adhere to the above-mentioned basic tenets of the struggle, and reject the failed formula of negotiations that is still pursued by the Palestinian Authority, despite its lack of popular mandate for it. For most Palestinians it is blatantly clear, that the so-called ‘Peace Process’ has only caused damage to their cause and has not brought even the slightest prospects of a better future, let alone of self-determination or independence.

Internationally, pro-Palestinian activists also largely adhere to the basic tenets of the Palestinian struggle, namely the one-state solution and the right of return of the Palestinian refugees.  There are other issues as well that are deemed non-negotiable to the majority of Palestinians, such as strong opposition against the Judaization of Jerusalem (Al Quds) which is projected as the future capital of liberated Palestine, and the release of all thousands of Palestinian political prisoners.

There is definitely also a group of ‘two-staters’, but their numbers are dwindling fast, and they rarely engage in activism since their views are largely represented by the Palestinian Authority. The strongest cure for the fallacy of the two-state solution was seeing the Palestinian side of that solution being gobbled up by the Zionist state over the years, faster than one could issue statements of protest against them.

New shape of the struggle: back to anti-Zionism

It is clear nowadays that the Palestinian Authority is not a useful apparatus for waging any form of struggle, but an administrative body that functions mainly as an extension of the Israeli security apparatus, in a framework inherited directly from the Oslo agreements. This does not mean that the people have stopped struggling. The modern Palestinian struggle has moved towards preferring popular resistance over armed struggle, and employing BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) as a main strategy of generating pressure against the Zionist state. What has also changed, is that this struggle has gained large numbers of international supporters all over the world, who support the Palestinians in their pursuit of freedom from Zionist oppression.

These changes have also brought anti-Zionism back to the forefront, and this has far-reaching implications. Whereas a two-state solution almost automatically implies the undertaking of steps towards normalization, since it implies an acceptance of Zionism and relinquishing the claim of 78 % of Palestinian territory to it, a one-state solution which aims to create a state for all of its inhabitants that does not discriminate on the basis of race of religion, requires a strong and uncompromising return to anti-Zionism as a unifying strategy.

Anti-Zionism versus normalization

In a struggle that aims to achieve this, normalization is an extremely damaging concession that can never be combined with the dismantling of Zionism, which is the ultimate goal of its strategy. After all, a struggle against racism cannot be successful if the inherently racist tenets of Zionism are accepted. The ‘Oslo-period’ has however sown its sorrowful seeds in more places than may directly become apparent. The vast majority of the Arab masses have not accepted Zionism in their midst, but there are stubborn strands of normalization that seem to be enjoying an increasing momentum within ‘progressive’ ranks of various Arab communities.

Two Egyptian examples can be mentioned in this context. One is Mona Eltahawy, who seems to consider ‘Israel’ to be a civilized state and refused to condemn the genocidal massacre in Gaza that claimed the lives of 1,400 Palestinians (including at least 300 children) by massive attacks from drones, tanks, Apaches and F-16′s – on a population that possesses no bombing shelters or anti-aircraft artillery. Another even more mind-blowing example is Maikel Nabil, an Egyptian blogger who enjoyed wide campaigns for his release when he was arrested for criticizing the SCAF military junta of post-Mubarak Egypt. He expressed his love for Israel on his blog and in Israeli media with an enthusiasm rarely ever seen before in the Arab world. There are other examples too, such as Arab-American comedian Ray Hanania of Palestinian origin, who proclaimed himself a candidate for Palestinian presidency in a video that he posted on Youtube, wherein he called for an acceptance of Israeli settlements, and an end to the Right of Return.

Sucking up to the only Ziocracy in the Middle East

It is true that these examples do not represent the sentiments of the majority of Palestinians and other Arabs, whether in the Arab world or outside of it, but these voices cannot be ignored either. The main reason for this is that voices of normalization like the ones mentioned above often receive disproportionate attention in Western-dominated mass-media, and thereby have a number of insidious destructive effects upon the struggle.

First of all, they make those who are true to the anti-racist struggle against Zionism seem extremist, by offering alternatives that at first sight strike the general public as being more inspired by peaceful motives. This is a distortion of reality: support for ‘Israel’, the most belligerent state in the Middle East, the only state in the region in possession of (over 300) nuclear arms, and the only ‘Ziocracy’ where ones ethnic background automatically categorizes one as having less rights than others, can never be truthfully designated as ‘peace-loving’.

Secondly, the apparently human inclination of the masses to flock around the famous without delving deeply into their philosophies, brings multitudes of people close to positive truth-distorting evaluations of the Zionist state. For example, progressive Arabs who embrace Mona Eltahawy’s feminist activities, are inclined to also automatically defend their idol’s views on ‘Israel’, simply because they are already in a state of adoration of her person. Another example involves Maikel Nabil: when progressive activists rallied for him due to his unjust incarceration by SCAF, his shocking pro-Israel views seemed to be lumped together with his anti-SCAF views under the label of ‘freedom of speech’, effectively paving the way for the perceived ‘right’ of Egyptians to view ‘Israel’ in an undeservingly positive and gruesomely distorted loving manner.

Continued efforts: the struggle goes on

The true and original struggle of the Palestinians is a struggle against Zionism, and this is entirely incompatible with the views mentioned above. Normalization must therefore be opposed, vocally, directly, loudly and clearly. There is definitely a need for increased activity on this front, since anti-normalization and BDS do not enjoy the support of mass media, unlike the voices of normalization.

If this means that these voices need to be confronted even on a personal level, then so be it. It may not be a pleasant thing to do, and some might argue that it distracts from calling attention to the continuing atrocities that the Zionist state is inflicting on a daily basis upon the defenseless Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. However, as has been argued in the article “Anti-normalization: an necessary part of BDS campaigning”, calling attention to these injustices will remain highly ineffective if the public is simultaneously exposed by mass media to Arab voices that aim to paint a misleading image of ‘Israel’ as if it were a beacon of civilization, and a saviour for mankind.

In other words: if you value BDS and wish it to be effective, and if you believe in opposing the racist ideology of Zionism, one of your tasks is also to confront those who suck up to power for their own personal gain. And since their number is increasing, it looks like you have work to do.

Knowing a token Muslim would be beneficial to a Republican Party that includes most, if not all, mainstream racists, Imad began his career as a Republican Party booster by identifying himself as a Muslim. For his enthusiastic chanting and generous donations he was later assigned and proudly carried the convenient (and silly) designation of “vice-chairman of the party’s outreach work to the Arab and Muslim communities in Virginia.”  During the Park 51 controversy Imad even signed a letter to Republican leaders as a self-appointed representative of “conservative Muslims.”

After declaring his candidacy for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates, Imad pursued an election strategy based on continuing his generous contributions,  amounting to  over $40,000 to the local Republican establishment, and a campaign of deliberate deception and disassociation from his ethnic and religious heritage. After engaging in some very strange behavior, including making it a point to be seen eating ham sandwiches and drinking beer during Ramadan daylight hours and telling people he’s the “kind of Muslim who eats pork” (presumably his lack of adherence to Islamic dietary law makes him less dangerous), and spending an exorbitant amount of money on a local election in a heavily Republican district, Imad won by only 50 votes out of more than 10,000 cast.  But even before he ran for public office Imad exhibited all the symptoms of an inferiority complex and was constantly overcompensating for his minority status.  When these personal issues manifested themselves in his campaign they did not pass unnoticed.

Imad’s public posturing grew increasingly bizarre during his campaign. He became convinced that despite all the embarrassing episodes intended to make himself less repugnant to racists within the Republican Party he still needed to do more. It was during this time that his religious identification began to change. He no longer referred to himself as a Muslim and opted, instead, for the phrase “born to a Muslim family.” He also made it a point to immediately and always follow up this interesting phraseology by pointing  out his father was “baptized as a kid by Christian family friends”, and that he attended a “Christian evangelical church school.”  In the later stages of a close campaign, and desperate to win at any cost, Imad began parroting some of the most vile anti-Muslim rhetoric we have heard come out of the Republican Party. In response to a question about how he, as a Lebanese and Muslim was able to overcome “anti-American sentiment” in “the area” he answered by saying “It was my upbringing. I had an excellent father.  He practiced law and refused to participate in the lawlessness and the religious divide. He sent us to Christian schools and we grew up on Christian values. We did not fall into that stupidity.”  According to Imad the “lawlessness…, religious divide” and “stupidity” had to be a product of non-Christian, Muslim values.  With such disgraceful comments, it’s no wonder Imad became the only “Muslim” that ever earned the endorsement and approval of Eric Cantor.

Since the election Imad’s public buffoonery, which can best be described as a series of poorly performed parodies of various American voter blocs and stereotypes, has continued. The deliriously happy immigrant chasing the American dream continues to peddle the story about a young boy in Lebanon whose political awakening began with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut and later fell in love with America after being handed a copy of the US Constitution.

Imad’s religious identification also continues to evolve. He no longer calls himself a Muslim, nor does he claim he was born into a Muslim family. The story has changed again, and he now says he was born into a mixed Christian-Muslim family and has become a Baptist.  In all likelihood the ambitious fraudster has already decided to make a run for Congress sometime in the near future. Of course, Imad could have converted to some form of evangelical Christianity without adopting the extremism, racism and bigotry of American political Christianity, but that would not help the Arab-American’s token representative to the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party.

Not content with changing his name and religion or supporting the most violent, militaristic version of American patriotism (which included supporting the destruction of his own childhood neighborhood), Imad has now openly allied himself with the most extreme, anti-Muslim bigots in the country. After starting out as a self-identified Muslim whose role in the party was reaching out to Muslim Americans, he has now embraced the anti-Sharia movement. This development is a natural evolution for the despicable charlatan who in defending the law offered that stale Republican talking point: he wants to “make sure this is not a bill against anybody in particular” but rather is about “protecting U.S. laws, first and foremost.”

With his non-stop, transparent bellowing of love for America and appeals to a chauvinistic and violent American patriotism, the immigrant from the Southern suburb of Beirut, Lebanon has become a bit of a local neighborhood spectacle in South Riding, Virginia.  In just a couple of short years he has gone from being the token Muslim Republican and vice-chairman of the party’s outreach work to the Arab and Muslim communities in Virginia” to a Baptist fighting to protect the US Constitution from the dangers of creeping Sharia.  So in recognition of his continuing effort to disassociate from his religious heritage, his support for anti-Sharia legislation, and his role in spreading anti-Muslim bigotry, fear and hysteria, Ikhras is pleased to present the Ikhras shoe of the month for this February, 2012 to David “Go GOP” Ramadan.

To learn more about David Ramadan visit ikhras: http://ikhras.com/tag/david-ramadan/

Every month Ikhras awards the Muntadhar Zaidi “Shoe of the month” to the House Arab or Muslim individual or organization whose behavior that month best exemplifies the behavior of what Malcolm X described, in the language of his own time, as the “house negro” (see video). The award is named in honor of the brave Iraqi journalist Muntadhar Zaidi who threw his shoes at the war criminal George W. Bush at a time House Arabs and Muslims were dining with him at the White House and inviting him to their mosques.  Arab dictators and puppets of the empire are also qualified to enter the shoe of the month competition based on their own subservience to U.S.-led global imperialism.  Contest guidelines prohibit any one individual or organization from winning the award more than 3 times a year. 

By Carlos Latuff

Nothing new under the sun – More lies spread by the #Israel lobby Inc.

In recent days, pro-Israel blogs have been published articles accusing me (guess what) of being a Holocaust denier. This happened because in 2006 I participated in the Holocaust Cartoon Contest that had been set up by the House of Cartoon in Tehran. This contest was a response to the Prophet Mohammed cartoons that had been published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and was intended to test the Western limits of the freedom of speech. This new smear campaign was launched by Zionist bloggers due to some cartoons I had made for the activist group Code Pink for use in theOccupy AIPAC protests. It was intended to pressure the group into not using the artworks which were made by me, a so-called “Holocaust denier”.

They say, among other things, that I am a Holocaust denier, but fail to prove their point. In the article, reproduced ad nauseam by them, there is not one article, opinion or cartoon made by me where I deny the existence of the Nazi Holocaust. It’s because I have never made such cartoons. These bloggers are trying to apply the old “a lie repeated many times over becomes a truth” tactic.

In the first two cartoons, I deal with the red lines of Western freedom of speech. Drawing derogative cartoons about Islam or the Prophet Mohammed is seen as freedom of speech, the same can’t be appplied when dealing with the Holocaust.

The third cartoon shows a Palestinian wearing a Nazi concentration camp uniform, surrounded by an Israeli “security fence”. Actually it has nothing to do with denial. On the contrary, this cartoon affirms the existence of the Holocaust and compares the treatment given to Palestinians by Israel with the treatment given to the Jews by Nazi Germany. I challenge anyone anywhere to show me a single cartoon, article or opinion by me that denies the Holocaust.

This incident is, in fact, another chapter in a long term campaign against me by the same groups and individuals siding with Israel and its criminal policies. They know the effectiveness of political cartooning in exposing Israel’s human rights violations against Palestinians. Since they can’t censor all the progressive blogs, websites, and social platforms, which reproduce my artworks freely, they try hard to attach labels such as “anti-Semite” and “Holocaust denier” in order to discredit and attempt to criminalize my views in the public eye.

Such campaigns won’t intimidate me. I will continue to stand up for the rights of Palestinians and I will continue to put my art at their service.

[Ikhras Note: After publishing our list of 10 alternative names our readers and tweeps have sent us their suggestions. We're happy to add to the list]

The following are ten alternatives for the sarcastically named “Friends of Syria” conference which would be a more honest and accurate description of the American organized, Arab oil-Sheiks funded spectacle in Tunisia.

1. Friends of Israel Conference

2. Balkanization of Syria Conference

3. Colonial Nostalgia Conference

4. Enemies of Syria Conference

5. Iraq: The Sequel Conference

6. Puppets of the Empire Conference

7. Destroy Hizballah Pre-Conference-Conference

8. We All Got Screwed By Russia Conference

9. Join-Us-For-Free- America’s-Barking-Arab Sheiks-Will-Pay-Conference

10. Kofi Annan’s Cameo Comeback Conference.

11. America Al-Qaeda Reconciliation Conference

12. Libya Chaos 2.0 Conference

It’s always a dilemma. What to do, when people you admire are being attacked by the jealous and hateful? If you respond to it, it sometimes gives them the undeserved attention that they desperately seek. If you stay silent about it, you let baseless smears linger as if they contain some element of truth.

In the case of Ray Hanania attacking Palestinian surgeon and musician Doc Jazz, and Palestinian activist and publicist Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada, I have decided to respond. Hanania, an Arab-American comedian of Palestinian origin, wrote down his vile accusations in the Jerusalem Post, a Zionist outlet that he apparently regularly contributes to as a columnist. Although he didn’t mention their names specifically, the descriptions he gave of them leave no doubt that Doc Jazz and Ali Abunimah are the two people his poisonous claims are aimed at.

Here is the excerpt from Hanania’s article:

“The Arabs, though some may be talented, have a lot of loud-mouthed activists who scream and spew hatred. There’s the great jazz musician whose hatred of Israel borders on anti-Semitism. There’s the talented writer at the Electronic Intifada whose words are driven by hatred of Jews.

These hate-driven activists have compromised mainstream Arabs, putting them in a headlock of oppression. Moderate Arabs are discouraged from expressing their views or espousing moderation in the face of the bullying and threats from the fanatics who spend more time and energy beating up their own people than turning legal claims against Israel into meaningful reality.”

In comparison to the obscene and abusive language that Hanania recently used when attacking Doc Jazz on his own Facebook page, this accusation seems fairly civilized in terms of the expressions used, but not so in terms of the poisonous accusation itself. It is outrageous to claim that these activists, who put so much energy into their fight against racism, have anything to do with bigotry. Usually, such baseless accusations of anti-Jewish hatred are flung at Palestinians from Zionist circles. In the case of both Doc Jazz and Ali Abunimah, who both call for a one state solution without discrimination on the basis of ethnic or religious background, the smears are entirely undeserved and nauseatingly transparent.

If you have the stomach to read the rest of the piece, you will even find Hanania defending Newt Gingrich, the presidential candidate from the USA who called Palestinians an ‘invented people’. While Hanania’s main point is a lamentation that the main mistake of Palestinians is that they allegedly spend too much time bashing their own people, his article does exactly that: bash his ‘own people’. His defense of the presidential candidate just adds to the ridiculousness of his column: Hanania not only bashes his own people, but defends the very same Gingrich who bashed Palestinians on a world-scale level.

As is typical of authors whose objective simply is to smear others, Hanania does not provide any evidence whatsoever for his accusations. He provides no anti-Semitic quotes from these activists, and does not even have the guts to call them by name, apparently fearing that those who might wish to investigate his accusations would find out that no anti-Semitism can be found with these people, neither on the Electronic Intifada nor on Doc Jazz’s Musical Intifada.

It is true that Doc Jazz has criticized Hanania a few times on his website. However, it takes only little investigation into the writings and acts of Hanania to understand where this criticism is coming from. Since Doc Jazz is declaredly anti-Zionist, it makes sense that he would criticize those who defend Zionism, regardless of the background of these defenders.

When I confronted Ray Hanania on his Facebook page about his hateful rant against Doc Jazz that was larded with obscenities, where he did name him by name and went as far as calling him an “anti-Jewish, anti-Christian bigot”, he immediately showed his true colors. This accusation is also a complete absurdity: do your own research, and you will only find Doc Jazz being respectful towards both these Abrahamic religions. Hanania went on in the thread to accuse Doc Jazz of attacking him merely in response to his criticism of the Syrian government’s crackdown on protesters. I was quite surprised by this, since I had never read anything from Doc Jazz that portrayed him as favoring the Bashar government. His website does not contain any reference to the Syrian situation, let alone in combination with any mention of Hanania. I scrolled down all of Doc Jazz’s tweets on Twitter as well, and found only a few tweets in which he expressed his solidarity with the people of Syria, which contradicts Hanania’s obviously invented claim.

I have copied and saved the entire Facebook thread, since I believe in documenting evidence when making a point. Contrastingly, when I asked Hanania to produce any evidence of this claim about the Syrian issue, he immediately blocked me. This is why I decided that responding to hateful smears, even if they come from irrelevant people, can sometimes be necessary. Once haters prove themselves to be prepared to resort to outright lying just in order to make their hateful points, it becomes important to expose their lies, and to respond to them with the truth.

The only truths in Hanania’s entire piece are: Doc Jazz is indeed a great musician, and Ali Abunimah is indeed a talented writer. Apart from this, the entire article is a pile of hateful garbage that deserves to be dismissed, ignored, and never given a second thought. Both Doc Jazz and Ali Abunimah are prominent diaspora Palestinians who contribute in an admirable way to the struggle for Palestinian rights. For a Zionist sympathizer like Ray Hanania, this apparently is too much to swallow.

*To learn more about the Palestinian-American Zionist Ray Hanania visit Ikhras: http://ikhras.com/tag/ray-hanania/