Thursday 31 December 2015

Fear-mongering Hurts Us All


Fear-mongering Hurts Us All


Representative Loretta Sanchez’s bogus claims about Muslims reflect the kind of prejudice that holds America back.

olivia-alperstein
Representative Loretta Sanchez voiced the fears of a growing number of Americans when she spoke recently with Larry King as details about the San Bernardino shooters emerged.
“We know that there is a small group” of Muslims, the California Democrat said — “anywhere between 5 and 20 percent” of them, by her estimate — who “have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in any way possible.” According to the California Democrat and Senate candidate, they “use terrorism” to “go after what they consider western norms” and “our way of life.”
Twenty percent of Muslims support terrorism? That’s certainly a scary number.
It’s also bogus. Muslims make up 1.6 billion people worldwide, and less than 1 percentare considered by western nations to be at risk of becoming radicalized, according to the RAND Corporation. More than 90 percent of recent terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe, law enforcement agencies calculate, were perpetrated by non-Muslims.
Sanchez later tried to walk back her comments, claiming she’d “never attacked Muslims” while simultaneously insisting she was only referring to foreign Muslims in her previous remarks.
That’s no better. This kind of fear-mongering hurts us all. It limits our ability to respond creatively to challenges, curbs our innovation, and restricts our progress.
Ever since this country’s founding, Americans have singled out people by ethnicity, religion, or heritage to persecute mercilessly. Yet those persecuted people have always proved themselves to be integral parts of American society.
If the fear-mongers had gotten their way, Albert Einstein would never have traveled to Princeton, New Jersey and escaped the Holocaust. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover wanted to treat Einstein — a Jewish German immigrant — like a spy. Instead, we gave him refuge. Today, the entire town of Princeton celebrates Einstein as one of their most famous residents.
Imagine where we’d be if the majority of Americans still thought Irish people were thugs, wife-beaters, or lazy drunkards. Imagine if the United States had continued to ban intermarriage between people of different races. Imagine if we still interned Japanese Americans in camps. Imagine if American children were taught that all Jews have horns and are money-grabbers. Fear only sets us back.
Muslims are the latest group of people to face hatred and discrimination in this country. But we can break the cycle.
We have a choice: We can say nothing as folks continue to stereotype millions of people based on the actions of a handful of extremists, or we can boldly extend our hands and welcome the Ahmed Mohameds and Malala Yousafzais of the world, leaders and change makers who also happen to be Muslim — and whose hearts are no fuller of hate than are ours.
Olivia Alperstein is the Communications and Policy Associate at Progressive Congress. ProgressiveCongress.org
Distributed by OtherWords.org

Sorry Bro, Maybe Next Week: Keep Calm and Troll ISIS

by


 
Reminding us the Revolution may well be tweeted if not televised, ISIS again used its much-vaunted social media savvy this weekend to broadcast the first new online rallying cry since May. In the 24-minute address delivered throughISIS-aligned media accounts, leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi told his audience, "Be confident that God will grant victory to those who worship him, and hear the good news that our state is doing well. We urgently call upon every Muslim to join the fight, especially those in the land of the two shrines (Saudi Arabia)." The message was re-tweeted in English by Iyad El-Baghdadi, a prominent human rights activist and ISIS foe initially confused by many online with al-Baghdadi himself. Soon after posting the ISIS message, he started getting mock replies from folks who preferred to join a  growing, deft flurry of online anti-ISIS activityaimed at proving that "making fun of the enemy is the best way of defeating them."

Incongruously to many, terror - both pro and con - already has a huge social media presence. As Facebook and other companies struggle to come up withrules limiting ISIS' influence and outreach ideas to combat it, a would-be suicide bomber in London was just convicted after seeking target advice - "Westfield shopping centre or London underground?” - on Twitter. Meanwhile, onlineparodies and other kill-'em-with-humor approaches to ISIS are everywhere. In the Middle East, there are Muslims, including Syrians, making mock videos and TV shows. There are Israeli blooper videos. There was an ISIS Trolling Dayproclaimed by Anonymous that produced a flood of often profane, sometimes juvenile - cue an obsession with goat-fucking - posts, many featuring photos of ISIS fighters with rubber duckie heads, which did wonders for them.

This week's trollling festival, inadvertently launched by El-Baghdadi, continued the trend. Responding to the call for action, hundreds wrote to say sorry dude but no can do, being kinda busy watching Star Wars/making couscous/ washing the dishes/ bingewatching Netflix/ checking out Boxing Day sales/being an infidel/"acting like real Muslims and doing charity work," and besides flights are booked and prices are high, and also they wonder if they'd get any extra virgins for the occasion, and oh yeah they're not so crazy about ISIS' health plan and funeral benefits and what's up with no dental. Also: "My dad said I have to be home by 8pm. Will we be done by then??"


Charlie Chaplin knew what he was doing: "Laughter is the tonic, the relief, the surcease for pain."




http://www.commondreams.org/further/2015/12/30/sorry-bro-maybe-next-week-keep-calm-and-troll-isi
s

An Open Letter to Young Muslims Everywhere: The Seed of Triumph in Every Adversity

by


When I was a little boy, I used to dream of being reborn outside the hardship of the Refugee Camp in Gaza, in some other time and place where there were no soldiers, no military occupation, no concentration camps and no daily grind - where my father fought for our very survival, and my mother toiled to balance out the humiliation of life with her enduring love.  

When I grew older, and revisited my childhood fantasies, I came to quite a different conclusion: if I had to, I would do it all over again, I would not alter my past, however trying, in any way. I would embrace every moment, relive every tear, every loss, and cherish every triumph, however small.  

When we are young, they often fail to tell us that we should not fear pain and dread hardship; that nothing can be as rewarding to the growth of one’s identity, sense of purpose in life and the liberation of the human spirit than the struggle against injustice. True, one should never internalize servitude or wear victimhood as if a badge; for the mere act of resisting poverty, war and injustice of any kind is the first and most essential criterion to prepare one for a more meaningful existence, and a better life.  

I say this because I understand what many of you must be going through. My generation of refugee camp dwellers experienced this in the most violent manifestation you can ever imagine. These are difficult and challenging years for most of humanity, but all the more for you, young Muslims, in particular. Between the racism of American and European politicians and parties, the anti-Muslim sentiment sweeping much of the world, propagated by selfish individuals with sinister agendas, playing on people fears and ignorance, and the violence and counter-violence meted out by groups that refer to themselves as ‘Muslims’, you find yourself trapped, confined in a prison of stereotypes, media hate speech and violence; targeted, labeled and, undeservedly, feared.  

Most of you were born into, or grew up in, that social and political confinement and remember no particular time in your past when life was relatively normal, when you were not the convenient scapegoat to much of what has gone wrong in the world. In fact, wittingly or otherwise, your characters were shaped by this prejudiced reality, where you subsist between bouts of anger at your mistreatment, and desperate attempts at defending yourself, fending for your family, and standing up for your community, for your culture and for your religion.  

Most importantly, you continue to struggle, on a daily basis, to develop a sense of belonging, citizenship in societies where you often find yourself rejected and excluded. They demand your ‘assimilation’, yet push away whenever you draw nearer. It is seemingly an impossible task, I know. 

And, it seems that, no matter what you do, you are yet to make a dent in the unfair misrepresentation of who you are and the noble values for which your religion stands. 

Their racism seems to be growing, and all the arrows of their hatred persistently point 
at Islam, despite your passionate attempts to convince them otherwise.  

In fact, you hardly understand why Islam is, indeed, part of this discussion in the first place. Islam never invited the US to go to war in the Middle East, to tamper with your civilizations and to torment fellow Muslims in other parts of the globe.  

Islam was never consulted when Guantanamo was erected to serve as a gulag outside the norms of human rights and international law.  

Islam is hardly a topic of discussion as warring parties, with entirely self-interested political agendas, are fighting over the future of Syria or Iraq or Libya or Yemen or Afghanistan, and so on.  

Islam was not the problem when Palestine was overrun by Zionist militias, with the 
help of the British and, later, the Americans, turning the Holy Land into a battlefield for most of the last century. The repercussions of that act has sealed the region’s fate from relative peace into a repugnant and perpetual war and conflict.  

The same logic can be applied to everything else that went awry, and you have often wondered that yourself. Islam did not invent colonialism and imperialism, but inspired Asians, Africans and Arabs to fight this crushing evil. Islam did not usher in the age of mass slavery, although millions of American and European slaves were, themselves, Muslim.   

You try to tell them all of this, and you insist that the likes of vicious groups like ISIS are not a product of Islam but a by-product of violence, greed and foreign interventions. But they do not listen, countering with selective verses from your Holy 

Book that were meant for specific historical contexts and circumstances. You even share such verses from the Quran with all of your social media followers: “…if any one killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind…” (Chapter 5; Verse 32), hoping to elicit some understanding of the sanctity of human life according to your religion, but a fundamental change in attitude is yet to come. 

So you despair, at least some of you do. Some of those who live in western countries cease to share with others the fact that they are Muslim, avoiding any discussion that may result in their being ostracized from increasingly intolerant societies. Some of those who live in Muslim majority countries, sadly, counter hate with hate of their own. Either way, they teeter between hate and self-hate, fear and self-pity, imposed apathy, rage and self-loathing. With time, a sense of belonging has been impossible to achieve and, like me when I was younger, perhaps you wonder what it would have been like if you lived in some other time, in some other place.  

But, amid all of this, it is vital that we remember that the burdens of life can offer the best lessons in personal and collective growth.  

You must understand that there is yet to exist a group of people that was spared the collective trials of history: that did not suffer persecution, racism, seemingly perpetual war, ethnic cleansing and all the evils that Muslims are contending with right now, from Syria to Palestine to Donald Trump’s America. This does not make it ‘okay’ but it is an important reminder that your hardship is not unique among nations. It just so happens that this could be the time for you to learn some of life’s most valuable lessons.

To surmount this hardship, you must first be decidedly clear on who you are; you must take pride in your values; in your identity; you must never cease to fight hate with love, to reach out, to educate, to belong. Because if you don’t, then racism wins, and you lose this unparalleled opportunity at individual and collective growth.  

Sometimes I pity those who are born into privilege: although they have access to money and material opportunities, they can rarely appreciate the kind of experiences that only want and suffering can offer. Nothing even comes close to wisdom born out of pain.  

And if you ever weaken, try to remember: God “does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear.” (Chapter 2; Verse 286). 
Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor ofPalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His is the author of The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London). His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London).
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/12/30/open-letter-young-muslims-everywhere-seed-triumph-every-adversity

The Ongoing Tension Between Power and Morality

The Ongoing Tension Between Power and Morality


(AP Photo/LM Otero)
American Exceptionalism is the belief that, even when the US is flawed in its policies, those politics are justifiable because there is something innately morally superior about being an American. This alleged moral high ground comes from our international commitment to promote and enforce democracy and free-market capitalism--even when it boils down to supporting dictatorships and economic exploitation.

This view has deep historical roots. We can go back 2400 years to Plato’s dialogues to find the belief that it is better to act unjustly than to suffer unjustly.  In the dialogue, Gorgias, Callicles challenges Socrates (Plato’s stalking-horse) by asserting that there is no good in being a victim, so it is morally better to be the victimizer. In my memory, there was an interesting contemporary parallel to this view when I saw a female gang member being interviewed to explain how she was tired of being a victim, that it was time to be the victimizer.             

Even though Socrates appears to defeat Callicles’ argument, we find ourselves ensnared on Callicles’ belief today. American Exceptionalism is the legacy of Callicles, where the victimizer can create and maintain power, security, and riches (aided by lawyers, accountants, and publicists, who are conveniently for sale).             

Key to the success of the modern Callicles is the use of dishonesty to make the politics of ruthless power appear to be moral. One of the most crazy-making victimizations is the ability to lie with impunity. We were lied to about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, about the alleged Vietnamese attack on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin, about the RMS Lusitania off Britain, about the USS Maine in Cuba, and on and on, to make wars appear to be the moral mission of self-defense, when they have too often been instruments for the maintenance of world dominance, justified by American Exceptionalism.             

The dilemma created by Callicles is brought into bold relief when we think about Socrates counterargument, that people should work together, honestly, with justice and moderation: honesty, not lies, nor corruption; justice, not oppression; moderation, not inequality and exploitation. This dilemma finds its parallel today in the proclamations of Donald Trump, in the Callicles role, and Bernie Sanders, in the Socrates role. How the election turns out will speak volumes about how Plato’s dilemma plays out in the drama of American Exceptionalism going forward.
Robert J. Gould, Ph.D., is an ethicist, writes for PeaceVoice, and co-founded the Conflict Resolution Program at Portland State University.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/12/30/ongoing-tension-between-power-and-morality

Accused of Gatekeeping India's Internet, Facebook CEO Lashes Out


Mark Zuckerberg dismissed widespread concerns that social networking giant's 'Free Basics' program violates net neutrality and internet freedom
"Surprisingly, over the last year there's been a big debate about this in India," Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote. (Photo: Getty)
"Surprisingly, over the last year there's been a big debate about this in India," Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote. (Photo: Getty)


People across India are crying foul at Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's scheme to bring internet "Free Basics" to the South Asian country, and the multi-billionaire is not happy about it.

In an op-ed published Monday in the Times of India, Zuckerberg lashed out at those raising the alarm over an initiative they say violates the principles of net neutrality and allows the social networking giant to capture India's internet.

Striking a sanctimonious tone, Zuckerberg compared critics of Free Basics to opponents of "free, basic health care," libraries, and public education. "The data is clear. Free Basics is a bridge to the full internet and digital equality," Zuckerberg wrote. "If we accept that everyone deserves access to the internet, then we must surely support free basic internet services."

"In the ultimate Orwellian doublespeak, 'free' for Zuckerberg means 'privatized,' a far cry from privacy — a word Zuckerberg does not believe in."
—Vandana Shiva, philosopher, environmental activist, eco-feminist
"Surprisingly, over the last year there's been a big debate about this in India," the Facebook CEO continued. "What reason is there for denying people free access to vital services for communication, education, healthcare, employment, farming and women’s rights?"

But activists, regulators, and ordinary people across India say there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the program—which partners with mobile service providers to allow access to some websites without payment for data, but only through the Facebook system.

Nikhil Pahwa, an organizer with Save the Internet-India, raised the questionearlier this week in the Times of India: "Why has Facebook chosen the current model for Free Basics, which gives users a selection of around a hundred sites (including a personal blog and a real estate company homepage), while rejecting the option of giving the poor free access to the open, plural and diverse web?"

According to Save the Internet, the program simply allows Facebook to capture India's market—already Facebook's second largest in the world. "Facebook doesn't pay for Free Basics, telecom operators do," the advocacy group wroteearlier this week. "Where do they make money from? From users who pay."

But according to Vandana Shiva—a philosopher, environmental activist, and eco-feminist—the reality is even more sinister. Reliance Communications, the Indian company partnering with Facebook on the program, "obtained land for its rural cell phone towers from the government of India and grabbed land from farmers for [special economic zones] through violence and deceit," Shiva wrote earlier this week. "As a result and at no cost, Reliance has a huge rural, semi-urban and suburban user base — especially farmers."

"In the ultimate Orwellian doublespeak, 'free' for Zuckerberg means 'privatized,' a far cry from privacy — a word Zuckerberg does not believe in," Shiva continued. "And like corporate-written 'free' trade agreements, Free Basics is anything but free for citizens. It is an enclosure of the commons, which are 'commons' because they guarantee access to the commoner, whether it be seed, water, information or internet."

According to Save the Internet, "Free Basics isn't about bringing people online. It’s about keeping Facebook and its partners free, while everything else remains paid. Users who pay for Internet access can still access Free Basics for free, giving Facebook and its partners an advantage. Free Basics is a violation of net neutrality."

In a country that has seen hundreds of thousands of people mobilize to protect net neutrality, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) recentlyordered Reliance to halt services while the body investigates potential net neutrality violations. The regulator is nearing the end of a public consultation period which commenced in March.

"Why has Facebook chosen the current model for Free Basics, which gives users a selection of around a hundred sites (including a personal blog and a real estate company homepage), while rejecting the option of giving the poor free access to the open, plural and diverse web?"
—Nikhil Pahwa, Save the Internet-India
In his op-ed, Zuckerberg directly appealed to Indians to pressure the TRAI to abandon its concerns.
Criticism, however, will not be easy to quell, as it spans the globe. As Jeremy Gillula of the U.S.-based group Electronic Frontier Foundation recently pointed out, this set-up puts Facebook "in a privileged position to monitor its users' traffic, and allows it to act as gatekeeper (or, depending on the situation, censor)."

While Facebook has taken small steps to address concerns over privacy and application criteria for websites to participate, Gillula argues that, effectively, Free Basics is "still a walled garden."

 Zuckerberg, who has visited India twice and was recently photographedembracing Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, appears poised to continue his fight to promote—and spread—Free Basics.

The outcome of the coming battle has global implications, as the Facebook moves to spread the program—initially dubbed Internet.org—across the globe despite widespread concerns. According to Zuckerberg, Facebook has already partnered on the program with over 35 mobile operators in more than 30 countries.

"India is expected to have 500 million Internet users by the end of 2017, and what kind of an Internet they get access to is important for our country," wrote Pahwa of Save the Internet. "This is why the battle for Net Neutrality, with the last and current TRAI consultations included, is the battle for our internet freedom."


In Dark Times, Poetry Can Enlighten Us


Artists are coming together to commemorate victims of violence and create bridges between America and the Middle East.
Shatha-Almutawa
Following the Paris terrorist attacks, the colors of the French flag appeared on American computer screens, in the icons of apps and the faces of friends on Facebook.
As this solidarity with the people of France surged, Americans with connections to the Middle East lamented the absence of sympathy for the people of Lebanon, who were targeted only one day earlier, and the people of Syria, Palestine, and Iraq, who suffer every day. The disparity is stark, undeniable, and expressive.
For many Muslims and Arabs, this disparity means what many other western actions have meant: Arab and Muslim lives are cheaper than white, Christian lives. And when politicians immediately called it terrorism when Muslims perpetrated a mass shooting in San Bernardino — but not when a Christian did in Colorado Springs — people of my background were reminded again that we’re often seen as terrorists.
At moments like this I’m grateful to have found the Al Mutanabbi Street Starts Here project.
Started by Beau Beausoleil after the 2007 bombing of the booksellers’ street in Baghdad, this effort brought together artists and poets to stand in solidarity with the people of Iraq, celebrating and remembering Iraq’s history with the written word — from the cuneiform epic of Gilgamesh to the beautiful poetry of Fadhil Al Azzawi and Amal Al Jubouri.
Al-Mutanabbi-Street-Starts-Here-poetry
Miriam Schaer, Artist Blog: https://miriamschaerblog.wordpress.com/
Since that bombing, artists and poets in the United States and abroad have been creating original work that connects audiences to the vibrant literary traditions of Iraq and the Middle East. Because if there’s anything that can heal hate, it’s art and poetry.
This year, I’ll be coordinating the festival. From January through March, creators will gather in Washington for the ninth time to commemorate the bombing and celebrate Arab sounds, voices, imagery, and thought.
Galleries, universities, and libraries in and around the nation’s capital will display prints made by people from around the world — Arab and non-Arab, Muslim and non-Muslim, young and not so young, intimately familiar and new to the traditions of Al Mutanabbi.
Americans have much to distract them from the violent realities happening elsewhere, so these artists are working tirelessly to show the connections between the bombing of a street in Baghdad and the injustices in America’s own cities and streets.
And yet this project isn’t about the politics of injustice. It’s about the women and men who prevail — who think, dream, listen, and create despite the blood and bombs. It’s about life, whether in war or in peace, in everyday moments and extraordinary moments.
It’s about a world of imagination, playful and serious at once. When poet Dunya Mikhail writes:
He watches TV
while she holds a novel.
On the novel’s cover
there’s a man watching TV
and a woman holding a novel.
We recognize the scene, whether we’re Arab or American or both. And that’s the point of the project.
It shows that the people of Iraq are familiar to people in America: They love and write and read and sing, even when the circumstances of their lives may be unfamiliar. Ours is one of many projects that seek to create bridges.
If many people around the world have forgotten or ignored the humanity of the people in the Middle East, others still are refusing to forget.
Shatha Almutawa is an Emirati working with Split This Rock, a non-profit in Washington, DC that calls poets to a greater role in public life and fosters a network of socially engaged poets. An earlier version of this op-ed appeared in The National. SplitThisRock.org.
Distributed by OtherWords.org.

War Criminal? Not Me Boss!


What's a war crime and what's not depends on who wins, who controls the International Criminal Court, and who controls the press.
William A. Collins
John Demjanjuk? Now there’s a war criminal for you, and we finally got him. Though he had long lived in the United States, Germany just sentenced him to life in prison. Well, at home actually, since he’s too sick for jail and only has a couple months left. There’s no evidence he ever killed anyone, but as a death camp prison guard he saw plenty of folks gassed.
That was 1941, 70 years ago. Somehow war crimes seemed clearer then. We knew when soldiers of one nation massacred civilians of another, or maybe even their own. In the fallout of a war, the winners got to decide who the criminals were. That part hasn’t really changed. Whether it’s Poland compared to Dresden, Chongqing compared to Hiroshima, Baghdad compared to New York, or Misrata compared to Tripoli, what’s a crime and what isn’t depends largely on who wins, who controls the International Criminal Court, and who controls the press. Luckily for us, the West has steady control of them all.
Otherwise this Libya thing could get awkward. An objective tribunal might become quizzical about the world’s most powerful countries assassinating members of another nation’s first family and giving a good go at killing Muammar Gaddafi himself. This at the same time they are already bombing his country to smithereens and setting up their own local government to take over the oil and gold — not to mention seeding the soil with depleted uranium, guaranteed to cause cancer and deformity for generations to come.
Why are we mutilating Libya? Maybe because it has all that oil, gold, and water, a decent standard of living, free college, free health care, an independent banking system, and a penchant for not attending to the desires of London, Paris, Rome, Brussels, or New York. Apparently, Washington can’t let that sort of rogue independence go on, rule of law or not.
Gaddafi
Creative Commons image by openDemocracy.
Of course Gaddafi, very much like the rulers of Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain, has indeed been brutal toward the citizens who have protested his autocratic ways. But Syria and Yemen have no oil, and Bahrain harbors the U.S. Fifth Fleet, so they will all probably remain safe from Western “assistance.”
Typically, our nation has never been infected with guilt over any of our own dark acts. But we do rightly take umbrage at many of the grisly activities perpetrated by Sudan’s Arab militiamen, Congolese rebels, the Taliban, militant Serbs, genocidal Hutus, al-Qaeda extremists, Cambodian Communists, and others. 
Meanwhile a few benighted nations do bridle at our apparently unrepentant use of torture, kidnapping, bombing, regime-change, assassination, invasion, indefinite detention, and other diplomatic unpleasantries.
Conveniently, our domestic laws are as flexible on such matters as the international variety. The Constitution grants only Congress the power to declare war. But, if the president overlooks that nicety, it’s no big deal. To give him a little more breathing room Congress passed the War Powers Act, basically letting him do whatever he wants for 60 days. Well, as it happens we’ve now been whomping Libya for more than three months, with no permission sought by President Barack Obama and only now a growing whimper from Congress.
Further, some House Republicans now want to remove any war restrictions on the White House whatsoever. They’d like to let the president attack whomever he pleases for as long as he wants. The Democrats don’t seem deeply troubled by this easier slide into war crimes either. Neither does the public. Is this a great nation or what?
OtherWords columnist William A. Collins is a former state representative and a former mayor of Norwalk, Connecticut. http://otherwords.org