Doc's Talk: Spinning the Asbahi Resignation

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Spinning the Asbahi Resignation

IPT News
August 7, 2008

The resignation of presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama's Muslim outreach coordinator is triggering a new wave of harrumphing that Muslim Americans are being shut out of the 2008 campaign. Mazen Asbahi resigned less than two weeks after joining the Obama campaign. It happened after the Wall Street Journal asked about his past involvement with the "Allied Assets Advisors Fund, a Delaware-registered trust. Other fund board members at the time included Jamal Said, the imam at a fundamentalist-controlled mosque in Illinois," the Journal reported.

Charging to cast the move as part of a broader campaign of bigotry against Muslims was Ahmed Rehab, the Council on American-Islamic Relations' (CAIR) Chicago executive director. On Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," Rehab dismissed the resignation as a practical political move that reflects bigotry against Muslims:

"I think that Mazen Asbahi is a victim of what I would call the anti-Muslim smear and fear campaign that we have seen in this election cycle time and time again. In this case, like many, the allegations started on a web site that did not corroborate what they are allegating (sic) with any evidence. They stated that he had certain links with fundamentalists, in this case the allegation was against imam Jamal Said, who I know personally to be a great American faith leader and not a radical imam as the Wall Street Journal falsely stated."

Some of Asbahi's associations with Muslim Brotherhood goups have raised legitimate questions about whether he holds radical views. There is plenty, however, to show that Said does. Asbahi's association with Said and the fund raised legitimate issues for journalistic pursuit. Start with the fact that Allied Assets is a subsidiary of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States and holds title to dozens of American mosques. NAIT is an unindicted coconspirator in the terrorism financing trial against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), which ended is a mistrial in 2007, and is set for a retrial next month. It is listed eighth among "A list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends" in a 1991 US Muslim Brotherhood memorandum entitled "On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America." This document calls for a "grand Jihad" geared towards "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within…"

There's more linking NAIT to extremists, including payments to Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook and his family during the 1990s.

Imam Jamal Said also is an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF case. Like NAIT, he is listed among "members of the US Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee and/or its organizations." Evidence in that trial shows the Brotherhood created the Palestine Committee to advance Hamas' agenda in the United States.

Said is a Palestinian from the West Bank who acknowledges being inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood. He brought a conservative school of Islamic thought to Chicago's Bridgeview mosque, telling his congregants that America was a land of disbelievers and that non-Islamic holidays like Valentine's Day and Thanksgiving should not be celebrated. Said drove out moderate Muslims from the mosque and divided the community with his political activities that has turned the mosque's focus away from local projects and toward Palestinian causes, according to critics. In December 2003, Said praised Muslim Brotherhood luminary Sayyid Qutb and discouraged women from traveling without chaperones.[1]

Presidential candidates don't like distractions and they don't like giving their opponents an easy target. Sometime those targets are old, sometimes they're recent. That explains why Republican John McCain has accepted resignations from at least five advisors due to their roles as lobbyists. Why would anyone expect Obama, who has been fighting pernicious rumors about his own faith, to embrace scrutiny of his newly-appointed outreach director?

To some extent, even Rehab seemed to get that, telling O'Reilly that accepting Asbahi's resignation was a smart move for the Obama campaign. But he wouldn't have done it himself.

"I think the Obama campaign is out to get votes," Rehab said. "I think it was their judgment that to allow this to continue as a controversy would hurt their chances of getting votes. I think it was a decision made based on that." But Rehab's minor flirtation with rational assessment began and ended with that sentence. Anyone who states on national television that Jamal Said is not radical and is a "great American faith leader" demonstrates either complete dishonesty or ignorance. And considering Rehab's own admission that his fellow Chicagoan Said is someone he knows personally (click here to see a photograph of the two together), it's safe to say he isn't ignorant of the man's disturbing record.

But dishonesty isn't anything new for Rehab or the organization he represents, CAIR. And Rehab's defense of Said is just the latest attempt by a CAIR official to define the term "moderate" in a way that strips any meaning from the word. For CAIR, support for Hamas – the stance of CAIR's executive director - is "moderate."

Remember that CAIR also is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial on the same court filing as Said. In several court filings, prosecutors have said CAIR is affiliated with Hamas. CAIR was created in the summer of 1994, less than a year after Hamas members and supporters gathered in Philadelphia to discuss ways to derail the nascent Oslo Peace Accords. Their concerns, captured on audiotape by FBI surveillance teams, were not about the plans details. Rather, they opposed any two-state solution between Palestinians and Israelis - because that would mean an acknowledgment that Israel exists as a legitimate state – and feared the deal could empower the secular Fatah movement and marginalize the Islamist Hamas.

CAIR founders Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad were in the middle of those talks, with Ahmad going into detail about misleading Americans about their political agenda.

And yet the organization they lead is at the forefront decrying the Asbahi departure:

* The Associated Press cited Daud Walid, executive director for the CAIR Michigan chapter, lamenting that the resignation "just shows how Islamophobic the political climate is right now. Baseless smears about a Muslim with a very good reputation was used to marginalize not only him but the community from the political process. ...If someone like Mr. Asbahi can't be vetted to work for the Obama campaign, then who can?"

* Al Jazeera turned to CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, who sounded a strikingly similar tone:

‘"They use smear tactics to attack Muslims who want to take part in the political process," he said.

* In a release, CAIR's national office said Asbahi's resignation was "symptomatic of a nationwide effort by Islamophobes who seek to deny Muslims access to the political process."

Rehab told the Chicago Tribune that the resignation illustrated "the difficulty of charting the waters of Islamophobia in this election cycle."

Asbahi himself was more clear-eyed in his resignation letter about what his stint on the Allied board meant:

"I served on that board for only a few weeks before resigning as soon as I became aware of public allegations against another member of the board. Since concerns have been raised about that brief time, I am stepping down...to avoid distracting from Barack Obama's message of change."

No one is suggesting that the Obama and McCain campaigns shun Muslim voters. But given the increasing, legitimate questions about the Muslim Brotherhood ties of the self-anointed national organizations, perhaps it is best to get off the beaten path and work on a more micro, individual level.

[1] Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah, Kim Barker, Laurie Cohen, Stephen Franklin and Sam Roe. "Hard-liners won battle for Bridgeview mosque." The Chicago Tribune. February 8, 2004.

Comment: Please, no one forced him to resign-this was his choice-a freedom allowed in our society.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk