Doc's Talk: MPAC Denounces Hamas…In Words Only

Monday, June 28, 2010

MPAC Denounces Hamas…In Words Only

IPT News
June 28, 2010
http://www.investigativeproject.org/2033/mpac-denounces-hamasin-words-only

The hypocrisy of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) has been on display in full force since last month's flotilla incident off the Gaza coast. In Washington, D.C., the organization's government relations liaison denounced Hamas as a terrorist organization, while in California two days later, a senior advisor omitted any mention of Hamas' complicity in the ongoing crisis in the Gaza Strip. We at the Investigative Project have repeatedly called upon MPAC to condemn Hamas and Hizballah as the terrorist organizations that the United States and the international community have recognized them to be. Typically, MPAC has skirted the issue by condemning "terrorism and any act of violence against civilians, including suicide bombings," while refusing to associate Hamas or Hizballah with those actions. Surprisingly, at a June 17 event on Capitol Hill titled, Perspectives on Countering Violent Extremism & Radicalization, Alejandro J. Beutel went the extra mile.

During the question and answer session, Beutel was asked whether MPAC considers Hamas and Hizballah to be terrorist organizations. At first he gave his organization's stock condemnation of "attacks against civilians," but then he was pressed further.

Audience Member: But in terms of their organization, not individual acts?

Beutel: Again, like I said, you can go to our website. It's been very clear what our stance is and we have condemned them as terrorist organizations.

There are two immediate take-aways from this exchange. The first is clear: Beutel should be commended for condemning the deliberate targeting of civilians by Hamas and Hizballah, and for calling them out as terrorist organizations. This one exchange, however, appears inconsistent with the public comments and actions of MPAC leading up to, and since, the event in Washington.

Beutel's comments cannot be viewed in a vacuum. He claimed:

"Our stance has been very clear for a number of years. You can go check out our website…you can just go through it and do a simple search on it and you will be able to find that."

While there are a number of instances in which the organization broadly condemned acts of violence against civilians, there is not a single instance of the group explicitly identifying Hamas and Hizbollah as terrorist organizations. On the contrary, a review of MPAC's printed and spoken material reveal comments such as:

* "The whole country keeps condemning Hizballah. I disagree with them on other issues, but on the issue of fighting to liberate their land and attacking only armed forces, this is legitimate, that is an American value—freedom and liberty." Maher Hathout at the National Press Club (June 18, 1998).

* "[The Israeli withdrawal] is a clear sign that determination and will can lead to the liberation of an occupied homeland. Hezbullah, the Lebanese freedom fighter group that led the effort to drive Israel out, is being widely praised throughout the world." "World Celebrates Israeli Retreat," The Minaret (June 2000).

* "The Palestinians have the moral and legal right to resist the Israeli occupation and MPAC supports that right." Salam Al-Marayati (April 2006).

Like the Council on American Islamic Relations, MPAC often is quick to denounce "violence against civilians," and even acts of terrorism carried out by al Qaida, but when it comes to Hamas and Hizballah, MPAC's rhetoric is more reserved. It readily acknowledges that al Qaida is a terrorist organization, but MPAC hems and haws over whether Hamas and Hizballah are terrorist organizations or freedom fighters.

At an ironically titled event, Set the Truth Free: The Freedom Flotilla & the Future of Palestine, held in California days after Beutel's comments were made, speakers gathered to discuss the situation in the Gaza Strip and the fallout from the flotilla. Rather than a balanced report of what occurred on May 31, MPAC's message was clear: all the blame rests with Israel.

Even before a single person took to the stage to speak, a "talking points" memo distributed at the event provided some initial insight into the mindset of the organizers. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (see here and here), MPAC described those aboard the Mavi Marmara as "aid workers," "humanitarian workers," and "peace activists." Despite reports that Hamas refused to allow in aid after the ship was searched by Israeli authorities, MPAC claimed that "Israel is willing to use deadly force to prevent much-needed humanitarian supplies from reaching the population of Gaza."

This assertion isn't surprising, considering MPAC's long-standing double standard of castigating Israel while remaining silent in the face of similar Hamas actions. And while Beutel's comments just two days earlier seemed to indicate that America would see a more moderate MPAC, Maher Hathout's subsequent remarks hammered the message home that it was Israel, and Israel alone, that is responsible for the plight of the Palestinian people.

Hathout began his address by attempting to justify acts of terrorism carried out by Hamas or Hizballah, even if indirectly:

"When occupied people breathe, they breathe resistance. This is natural, this is survival, this is honorable, this is accepted by all international bodies and international laws. Occupied people should resist occupation."

At no point did Hathout or anyone else in MPAC call on Hamas to renounce terror, revoke its anti-Semitic, blood-lusting covenant and agree to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the conflict. Rather, the talking points memo urged people to call their members of Congress and the White House and tell them:

"Israel is the occupier and aggressor in this conflict, and it has inflicted tremendous pain and desperation upon the Palestinian people. There is no moral symmetry between the violence that the occupier (Israel) commits and the violence that the oppressed (the Palestinians) commit. Palestinian acts of violence must be judged in the context of Israel's decades of aggression, dispossession, and oppression of the entire Palestinian people."

While Beutel's comments were a welcome statement of condemnation of Hamas and Hizballah, they remain anomalies for the organization that would rather blame Israel for everything while giving terrorist groups a pass. Last October, MPAC's Executive Director Salam al-Marayati spoke at a J Street panel on How Jews, Christians and Muslims Can Work Together for Peace. During the discussion he explained that while he is a proponent of interreligious dialogue, there are limits to what participants should expect of the other side. As he wouldn't expect Jews to promote Muslim unity or advocacy, "you shouldn't expect me to promote Zionism."

Nobody expects al-Marayati or MPAC to promote Zionism. And the organization and its leadership are entitled to their own opinions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. But they are not entitled to their own facts, and continuing to denounce Israel while ignoring Hamas' responsibilitiy is not only unhelpful, but counterproductive.

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