I was not intending to post about this, as I though the entire incident was blown out of proportion. However, since I am apparently the only one in the blogosphere that thought so, here is an open thread for any in the commentariat who want to weigh in.

A couple of thoughtful posts on the subject:

Glenn Greenwald:

“I’m not someone who believes that journalists should lose their jobs over controversial remarks, especially isolated, one-time comments. But if that’s going to be the prevailing standard, then I want to see it applied equally. Those who cheered on the firing of Octavia Nasr, Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez — and that will include many, probably most, of the right-wing polemicists predictably rushing to transform Juan Williams into some sort of free speech martyr sacrificed on the altar of sharia censorship — have no ground for complaining here. Those who endorse speech-based punishments invariably end up watching as the list of Prohibited Ideas expands far beyond the initial or desired scope, often subsuming their own beliefs. That’s a good reason to oppose all forms of speech-based punishment in the first place. There’s obviously a fundamental difference between (a) being punished by the state for expressing Prohibited Ideas (which is isn’t what happened here) and (b) losing a job for doing so, but the dynamic is similar: those who endorse this framework almost always lose control over how it is applied. And that’s how it should be.”

Conor Friedersdorf:

“Contrary to what Mr. Williams implies, it is irrational to fear for one’s safety upon seeing someone on a plane dressed in “Muslim garb.” The vast majority of people who dress in the way he alludes to aren’t terrorists, the odds of a plane carrying people in Muslim dress being hijacked is minuscule, and actual Islamist terrorists don’t advertise their faith. Nor is there anything inherently scary about identifying oneself “first and foremost” as a Muslim. The equivalent sentiment among Christians is quite common.

But I don’t think that Mr. Williams should be fired by NPR, or that it’s good practice in general to fire people based on a single remark, however offensive. (There are exceptions. This isn’t one of them.) I say this as someone who is glad that there is a strong social stigma against bigotry. There is an upside to this stigma that is under-appreciated: it signals to some people that bigotry is wrong, even if they don’t quite understand why.”

My take – Juan Williams comments betrayed irrational bigotry toward Muslims, but not maliciously so. He should have had an opportunity to acknowledge the mistake and keep his job. That said, I understand and appreciate that any media outlet or broadcast entertainment organization, whether public or private, are well within their purview to dismiss on-air talent who make public statements that alienates their audience, subscribers, and advertisers.

I refuse to call it the Ground Zero mosque because, well, it’s not at Ground Zero. It’s close, but it’s not at the site…which I think most people who opposed it think it is.

But here’s the thing…looks like it’s moving to another part of the city.

From Haaretz:

After weeks of heated debate over plans for an Islamic community center near Ground Zero – the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York – it seems Muslim leaders will soon back down, agreeing to move to a new site.

The decision follows a high-profile campaign against the project that included advertisements on New York buses showing images of the burning Twin Towers, an iconic landmark razed when al-Qaida terrorists flew packed passenger planes into them in 2001. The New York Republican party is also said to be planning a hostile television campaign.

Every hack politician who has actively pushed this should be ashamed of themselves. This is a completely worthless debate, driven, might I add, by the same folks who cry every single day about their constitutional rights being violated.

And lest they forget another important point about why a mosque would be appropriate near Ground Zero…a reminder from the Village Voice…

Muslims were victims of 9/11, too. Sorry, but it’s true. And one was an NYPD cadet.

Heads up Republicans…politicizing this might drive some of the base to the polls this year, but it’ll drive nobody else. And as you continue to ostracize groups that are expanding, instead of having an open tent, you’re marginalizing your party in the long run. Because for every voter you keep with nonsense issue like this (and revising the 14th amendment), you lose 2 new voters in the future. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

UPDATED:
Looks like the report was false. The mosque is going forward.

The official Twitter account of Park51, the developer constructing the center, has now stepped in to deny the story. “Reports by Haaretz are completely false,” tweeted @Park51. “We are committed to plans of building Park 51 to serve the community of Lower Manhattan.

Score one for American media. And cross Haaretz off your list of sources for news on this story.

Good.

UPDATED UPDATE:
However, David Patterson is trying to get the mosque to move…

New York Gov. David Paterson (D) will meet with the imam and developer of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero “later this week” to discuss the possibility of removing the mosque to an “alternate location”, according to Rep. Peter King.

King, an outspoken opponent of placing the mosque and Islamic cultural center so close to where terrorists attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, received a call from Paterson this morning.

“We are working with the developers on a staff level but there have not been any formal discussions between the Governor and Imam or developer,” said Morgan Hook, a spokesman for Paterson. “However, we expect to have a meeting scheduled in the near future.”

Something tells me this will keep on going and going and going…

When has a President this early on in his first term made such an ambitious speech?

As I said before, I thought it was historic. Because finally an American president has said publicly (and forcefully) that Israel needs to modify their behavior too. That’s huge. And regardless of what the right wing will say, that’s the only way to peace. We all know it deep down, it’s just some of us are unwilling to admit it.

What did you think?

Jeffrey Goldberg’s words, my thoughts…

An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers.

Incredible, just incredible.

But is this unexpected in any way? Did people think the right wing wouldn’t bash Obama for finally telling Israel that they’re in the wrong with the settlements?

“So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.”
- Obama in his speech to the Muslim world today

I’ve read the speech, and it’s outstanding. Not only because there’s a lot of bridge building in it, but also a hell of a lot of tough love.

And that’s tough love for the Muslim world AND Israel…

Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

This will not sit well with Olmert and the hard liners, but I think everybody knows that the settlements are THE sticking point and Obama is apparently betting that this will start to pressure Israel towards compromise. Whether that will bear fruit remains to be seen, but I’m glad a US President is finally saying this in a very public, direct way. It has been a long time coming.

And then this message for Palestinians…

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Indeed.

The whole thing is after the jump…

The following is a text of President Obama’s prepared remarks to the Muslim world, delivered on June 4, 2009, as released by the White House.

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: “Out of many, one.”

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That’s why we’re partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America’s commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq’s democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel’s legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah’s Interfaith dialogue and Turkey’s leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God’s children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn’t worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn’t new; that isn’t black or white or brown; that isn’t Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It’s a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It’s a faith in other people, and it’s what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”

The Holy Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you.

Obama has arrived in Cairo to give a major speech that is expected to focus on improving ties with the Islamic world. One speech alone is obviously not going to be enough. The Islamic world is angry enough with the West that they are unlikely to suddenly forgive us just because the US has a black president who has spent some time in an Islamic country. Although commentators say that the speech will focus on improving relations and not focus on specifics it is unlikely that Obama will be able to avoid for long the main issue that poisons relations with the Arab people; Israel.

Finding a way through the tangle of thorns that is the Arab-Israeli dispute will not be easy. Obama will find it very difficult to improve ties with the Islamic world while not causing too much outrage among the Israel lobby. The US can’t abandon its staunchest ally in the region yet needs to gently push it into some kind of acceptable solution. The situation is complicated by many other issues; the war of words between the US and Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the split in control in Palestine between Fatah and Hamas as well as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the fight against terrorism. These issues have all become intertwined in the Islamic consciousness making any solution much harder to find.

Debate the issue more at: can Obama’s visit to the Middle East change Arab perceptions of the US

“Whatever titles we give these murderers, both deserve our attention. Violence like that is no way to solve a political dispute nor a religious one. And the fanatics on all sides do great disservice when they confuse dissention with rage and death.”
- Sarah Palin on the similarities between the Tiller and Long shootings

Credit where credit is due. Palin calls this one right.

Thoughts?

Awful news out of Little Rock, Arkansas…

A man with “political and religious motives” killed a soldier just out of basic training and wounded another Monday in a targeted attack on a military recruiting center, police said. The shootings were not believed to be part of a broader scheme. [...]

William Long, 24, of Conway, died, and Quinton Ezeagwula, 18, of Jacksonville, was wounded and in stable condition, Police Chief Stuart Thomas said. [...]

Police arrested Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, along a crosstown interstate moments after the shootings at the Army-Navy Career Center in a shopping center in west Little Rock.

So in the last two days it appears as if we’ve had two acts of domestic terrorism because of horribly misguided religious beliefs. And nothing much to more to say than that until we find out more.

Given that his first call as President was to the President of the Palestinian Authority and his first official sit down interview with any news outlet as President is with an Arab station, it sends a pretty powerful message right off the bat that this administration is ready to reengage in the peace process in a fundamentally different way.

And note how he pivots off the words he talked about in his inauguration speech when contrasting America with al Qaeda.

What strikes me is how many times Obama talked about “respect” in the video. I’m not sure that’s something the Arab world has heard in recent years, and I think these small gestures are actually pretty important.

Also, I don’t think it’s trivial that Obama spent time during his youth traveling through he Muslim world and even lived in the biggest Muslim country on the planet when he was young. That is unique among ANY leader of any first world country. Like it or not, Presidents are also symbols and I can’t imagine McCain sitting in that chair and having anywhere close to the credibility that Obama has.

I can only imagine that al Qaeda is scrambling to come up with a response.

Yesterday afternoon, a Muslim family with nine members including three children was ordered off an AirTran flight from Reagan National to Orlando. Passengers claimed members of the family had made suspicious remarks. The family claims they were just discussing the safest place to sit on the plane.

The FBI cleared the family and helped them secure another flight after AirTran declined to rebook them. AirTran claims they acted in accordance with federal safety guidelines.

Here are some questions: was this a case of blatant prejudice or an unfortunate misunderstanding? And did AirTran overact or, once they received reports of suspicious comments, did they have little choice but take the necessary precautions?

Then there’s the big question: do the advantages of racial profiling outweigh the negative consequences of holding different Americans to separate standards?

Discuss.

Jihadists appear unsure how to handle the election of Barack Obama. Their messages since Obama’s election stress their uncertainty and confusion. Some Jihadists want to ignore Obama, others praise the American people, some threaten Obama to change Bush policies and still others want to convert him to Islam.

In sum, radical Muslims are divided on whether to take a more conciliatory role or use Obama’s election as an opportunity to exploit.

In a message to Obama, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, head of an Iraqi jihadist group, stated the United States must “return to your former state of neutrality, withdraw your troops, and return to your homelands.”  Yet Al-Baghdadi also asked the members of the new administration to become Muslims. He promised to instruct them as needed.

He probably would not have asked that of John McCain.

The jihadists do not know what to expect from Obama. While giving threats, they also sound unsure. They are particularly unclear how to address Obama’s race. They do not know whether to exploit Obama’s African-American heritage or appeal to it.

The Political Council of the Iraqi Resistance warned Obama to hold to his promises of change or they will continue to fight. They told Obama that he won not because Americans were no longer racists but “because of the many mistakes the Bush administration fell under.” Yet they tell Obama that if he makes the right choices he will go down in history as “the courageous one.”

The jihadists know that Obama’s election improves America’s image in the world. This sudden improvement in the world community is what leaves the jihadists pondering if a hard line or conciliatory position serves their recruiting needs best.

Some, like the Taliban, ignore Obama’s commitment to reinvigorate American involvement in Afghanistan. That may be combination of propaganda, hopefulness and not understanding what Obama promises.

“The overwhelming victory of Barrack Obama …and his assumption of US presidency reveals the collective willingness of American people not to continue the current despicable and anti-human wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — wars that have been launched by W. Bush,” stated the Taliban in a November 11 press release.

Other jihadists, like Abu Yahya al-Libi, do not even try to appeal to Obama or American sentiment. After a 13-page religious rant, loaded with quotes from the Koran, one line mercifully sums up the purpose with a plea for God to “humiliate Bush and his party.” There is no mention of Obama or much of anything since the seventh century.

Another jihadist, Hamid al-Ali, barely mentions Obama, but takes his race and campaign slogan for change and twists it into a something ordained by God upon the American people.

“The American nation asked for change and got it, after it saw with its own eyes how a group of authoritarian leaders driven by blind discrimination, ignorance, and stupidity transformed everything they had into rubble…

“God, however, sent them a person they deeply despise and hate because of his color and his African roots and placed all of them under his command…  

“We say this while we confess to the accomplishment of the American nation in creating this change, knowing that we do not expect much from it, except ridding the world of the gang that controlled the White House and owned the most powerful military force in history that filled the world with injustice and oppression. Bush and his gang are finished.”

That is what all the jihadists agree. They despise Bush and know change is coming. They just have not figured out exactly what it means. More importantly, all are uneasy with Obama and the new image he presents of the United States to the world.

(from Foolocracy.com)

I am an Obama supporter, but I have to step back and be critical when it merits so. 

This Monday, at the Obama rally in Detroit, two muslim women were denied prime seats because they refused to remove their head scarfs. 

Now, the Obama campaign apologized, but was it enough? Is the Obama campaign paranoid of the Republican hate machine to deny an opportunity to embrace other cultures? Change must not just be a poster sign to get you elected, Obama must find a way not to cower to the Republican propaganda hate machine and demonstrate more integrity.

The blogosphere can cough up a lot of interesting controversies. This week’s revolved around a Dunkin Donuts’ online ad featuring Rachel Ray in a scarf similar to the Arab keffiyeh which has come to symbolize Palestinian militantism. The company pulled the spot after conservative commentators, most notably Michelle Malkin, harshly criticized Ray’s clothing choice, claiming the scarf was a symbolic support of terrorism.

Well, Malkin and others are correct that the keffiyeh has become a radicalized symbol and it wouldn’t be going too far to say it is at least as offensive a symbol as, say, the Confederate battle flag. But unlike the Confederate flag, the keffiyeh is not so easily identified. I, for one, did not recognize Rachel Ray’s scarf as anything other than a black-and-white scarf. And not even Malkin is accusing Ray or Dunkin Donuts of supporting radical Palestinian causes. Malkin assumes the parties involved were ignorant of the scarf’s symbolism.

Thing is, keffiyeh-chic has already invaded the mainstream. To me, commercializing this symbol does more to strip it of its meaning than does any offended protest by the likes of Michelle Malkin. Then again, I probably wouldn’t say the same thing about swastikas used as fashion accessories. The difference, I think, is that the keffiyeh is simply not a well-known or well-understood symbol.

Does a symbol lose its power when its wearer is ignorant of its meaning? And are people like Malkin overreacting for political reasons? My first thought was that Malkin is an idiot. But looking into the matter, the symbol is offensive, particularly to Jews. And while some can say the keffiyeh is just a symbol of Palestinian pride, some also say the Confederate flag is nothing more than a symbol of Southern pride.

Symbols are a difficult business because they only mean what people say they mean. Wearing a keffiyeh-like scarf in an ad for an American donut company in no way aids or even gives comforts to Palestinian militantism. Then again, if the keffiyeh is going to be a fashion accessory, people should at least be aware of its meaning and not unwittingly show support for a cause in which they don’t believe. In that sense, Malkin was not wrong for speaking up, even if it seems like a rather shrill complaint about a rather small matter. What do you think?

The NYTimes op-ed pages, via CSIS’s Edward Luttwack, promoted a new type of Obama Islam smear: that because Obama was once a Muslim he is going to get killed by Muslims for being an apostate.

I have a response to this at Huffington Post.

Just one part:

First of all, under orthodox Islamic law, the punishment for apostasy can only be carried out by the state. Luttwack, with his facile understanding of Sharia, clearly doesn’t understand this. The clerics Luttwack is talking about can’t just stroll up to Obama and stick him in the sand. They have to go through the established procedural norms of Islamic criminal law which is inherently tied to the functioning of a state apparatus. This means that a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran or Pakistan would have to indict Obama on apostasy charges in their courts. Obviously this is not going to happen, because none of these countries have jurisdiction over Obama. Not only is it asinine for any of these countries to make such an indictment, it doesn’t make sense under international law — which, in case Mr. Luttwack has forgotten, is what the world is suppose to abide by. Luttwack’s affirmation of Islamic law over and above international law should raise concerns, not only about his expertise, but also his allegiances.

Read the whole thing.

Looks the the Iraqi Army has taken the city back from the militia, and that’s got Muqtada al-Sadr really angry. The only problem for Sadr? Iran seems to be backing Iraq’s moves, and Sadr has always been under the thumb of Iran.

From NY Times:

Mr. Sadr’s stock has recently fallen in Iranian eyes, the Iranian ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, on Saturday expressed his government’s strong support for the Iraqi assault on Basra. He even called the militias in Basra “outlaws,” the same term that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has used to describe them.

“The idea of the government in Basra was to fight outlaws,” Mr. Qumi said. “This was the right of the government and the responsibility of the government. And in my opinion the government was able to achieve a positive result in Basra.”

Does this signal that a strong relationship between Iraq and Iran is inevitable? Or is it simply a rebuke of Sadr to make sure he doesn’t get too big for his britches?

Whatever the case may be, Sadr’s threatening to end the cease fire…

Despite the apparent concession of Basra, Mr. Sadr issued defiant words on Saturday night. In a long statement read from the loudspeakers of his Sadr City Mosque, he threatened to declare “war until liberation” against the government if fighting against his militia forces continued.

But it was difficult to tell whether his words posed a real threat or were a desperate effort to prove that his group was still a feared force, especially given that his militia’s actions in Basra followed a pattern seen again and again: the Mahdi militia battles Iraqi government troops to a standstill and then retreats.

Here’s the thing…I don’t think an isolated Sadr is necessarily a good thing. After all, he probably has political aspirations and if the current Iraqi government doesn’t deliver real change in the country, he could fill a void…”democratically.” Why is this not necessarily a good thing? Well, this guy is studying to be an Ayatollah in Iran…so it’s unlikely he’d be interested in a secular Iraqi government.

And to that point…

The events in Basra, in contrast with the Mahdi Army’s continued fighting in Sadr City, renewed questions about where the Sadrist movement stands in Iraq’s unstable political landscape. While his faction has often played the spoiler in Baghdad’s Shiite political structure, his followers also represent the poor and disenfranchised, who were battered under Saddam Hussein, making it difficult for the government to write them off.

So Sadr is seen by many as a “man of the people,” and if history has taught us anything, never discount the power of the underdog in a democracy…especially a fledgling democracy.

More as it develops…

If you haven’t seen Frontline’s documentary about how we got into Iraq and how it all went wrong, you need to. It’s probably the most well researched piece I’ve seen so far, and the interviews with insiders are simply stunning. Many saw this train wreck coming, but Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld just didn’t listen.

In particular, this doc details how much influence Cheney and Rumsfeld had over our foreign policy. They actually wanted to go into Iraq FIRST! Amazing.

Go here and watch.

All 70+ pages of it.

Here’s the gist…

In the March 14, 2003 memo, Yoo says the Constitution was not in play with regard to the interrogations because the Fifth Amendment (which provides for due process of law) and the Eighth Amendment (which prevents the government from employing cruel and usual punishment) does “not extend to alien enemy combatants held abroad.”:

The memo goes on to explain that federal criminal statutes regarding assault and other crimes against the body don’t apply to authorized military interrogations overseas and that statutes that do apply to the conduct of U.S. officials abroad pertaining to war crimes and torture establish a limited obligation on the part of interrogators to refrain from bodily harm.

It also defines the United States’ obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other international treaties prohibiting torture to be confined to ensuring that interrogators do not apply “cruel and unusual punishment” as defined by American constitutional law, regardless of differing international standards.

And it restates the oft-repeated view held by administration officals that the Geneva Conventions, which governs the treatment of prisoners of war, does not apply to members of al Qaeda and the Taliban.

This policy was abandoned about a year later.

Here are the pdfs. Remember, you can enlarge the print by clicking over and going to SlideShare.

Part One:

| View | Upload your own

Part Two:

| View | Upload your own

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, recently stated that he believes the eventual adoption of some aspects of sharia law into British law is unavoidable. This has caused quite an outcry.

As an Episcopalian and thus part of the Anglican Communion, I’m familiar with Archbishop Rowan. He’s a very thoughtful man and a wonderful writer. He has had the misfortune of inheriting a church that is greatly divided over social issues, particularly whether to accept or condemn homosexuality. He also has the misfortune of being a poor politician. This is not the first time he’s made less-than-wise political statements. But it is the largest denunciation of his words.

Taken at face value, his comments on sharia law are quite condemnable. There is little reason to think Britain could maintain its equal rights or even its democracy under a plural legal system, one of which strictly limits certain freedoms held dear in Western culture. However, in the greater context of British thought and law, Dr. Williams’ comments make a little more sense, even though they remain worthy of rebuke.

Sharia courts already operate in Great Britain. Although their status is unofficial, British authorities have generally allowed them to continue and Dr. Williams is hardly the first to argue that a plural legal system could be acceptable.

In fact, Dr. Williams’ mistake was not so much the suggestion that there’s room for sharia courts in Britain, but that the adoption of some sharia law into British law is unavoidable. To that point, John O’Sullivan of The New York Post says:

The archbishop’s use of the word “unavoidable” was significant: It reflects not just his mindset but that of British ministers and the country’s wider multicultural establishment – who would like to protect rights such as gender equality in law but positively shrink from any conflict with ethno-cultural groups that oppose and threaten them.

If that mindset prevails, then sharia – women’s second-class status and all – will indeed be unavoidable.

That, I think, is the crux of the problem. Dr. Williams sees the creep of sharia law into the British system and, rather than voicing concern about the trend, has decided acquiescence is the more appropriate reaction. It’s not. But for a religious scholar of a denomination known for accommodating new ideas and permitting dissent, I’m not too surprised by Dr. Williams’ remarks.

Clearly, the Archbishop was wrong and all of us who condemn his statement are right to do so. But we must remember that this man is not a legal scholar or a politician. He’s a religious man whose concerns are more with divine grace than contemporary concepts of freedom. Yes, I would prefer an Archbishop with a more worldly sense of human rights (particularly women’s rights), but I can understand why a religious leader might choose conciliation rather than confrontation with another religion. Rowan Williams is no radical and shouldn’t be treated as such. He’s a religious man who should leave politics to the political realm.