Syria: Popular Uprising or Another Victim of Western Interventionism?

While the world is rightfully decrying the continued slaughter of Syrian protesters by their own government, it is tempting to dismiss that troubled nation as just another stubborn domino in the “Arab Spring.” It is tempting to boldly join the chorus calling for the removal of President Bashar al-Assad and his regime from power. It is tempting to describe the whole bloody situation as a tragic but necessary popular rebellion against an oppressive dictatorship. Yet the circumstances surrounding the Syrian uprising differ starkly from coups which have taken place in Tunisia and Egypt, as well as the unrest in Bahrain and Yemen.

Bashar al-Assad is not considered by most to be a western puppet, at least not in the same league as Ben Ali of Tunisia, Egypt’s Mubarak or the still ensconced King Abdallah II of Jordan. Assad never signed a peace treaty with Israel and remains an open critic of both the Jewish State and the United States. However, his predictability served western and Israeli interests for a time. Ayman al-Zawahri, al-Qaeda’s new leader, alluded to this in a warning to Syrian protesters: “America, which cooperated with Bashar al-Assad during his whole regime, claims today it stands with you…Washington today seeks to replace Assad, who sincerely protected the borders of the Zionist Entity, with another regime…that follows America.” Al-Zawahri’s statement is right on both counts.

Since the Israeli military captured Syria’s Golan Heights in 1967, there was only one attempt in 1973 to take back the land. The Israeli government has been building settlements in Golan since the 1970’s and officially annexed the territory in 1981. On May 15, 2011 the Israeli military opened fire on protesters marching towards the village of Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights, killing four and wounding an additional 20. There was no retaliation from Syria, save for some typically blow-hard rhetoric. Syrian bullets were saved for use on their own people.

There is also plenty of evidence to prove the second part of Al-Zawahri’s statement. Western powers have played a big role in the bloodshed that Syria has experienced, the most recent upheaval being no exception. A March 2011 column by Haaretz writer Zvi Bar'el referred to a report appearing on a Syrian pro-government website:

"According to the report....the plan was formulated in 2008 by the Saudi national security advisor, Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Jeffrey Feltman, a veteran US diplomat in the Middle East who was formerly ambassador to Lebanon and is currently the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs. Dividing Syria into large cities, towns and villages, the plan involved establishing five recruitment networks: ‘unemployed youths, criminals, other young people, and media efforts funded by European countries but not America,’ as well as a ‘capital network of businesspeople from the large cities.’”

Retired Army General and former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark has made numerous public addresses relating his conversation with a Pentagon officer in the weeks following the September 11th attacks. The unnamed officer informed him of a plan to “take out” seven countries in five years: Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Iran. However, it is no secret that U.S. involvement in the region goes back much farther.

In 1976, Syria saw a rebellion by Sunni militant groups including the Muslim Brotherhood against the regime of Hafez al-Assad. Rifaat al-Assad, brother of the late Syrian President and uncle to Bashar, personally oversaw the Hama massacre in 1982 during which an estimated 15,000-20,000 people were killed, effectively ending the uprising. While catastrophic in terms of human loss, the tragic consequences of the Hama massacre did not end in 1982. The father of a family friend “disappeared” at that time, along with thousands of others: victims of mass detentions and indefinite imprisonments. His whereabouts was not known until 2003, when it was discovered that after 15 years of torture, he had died in prison in 1997.
Rifaat served as Vice President of Syria before going into exile after an internal succession dispute. Despite committing war crimes, he currently lives in Mayfair, England where he enjoys the support of the Saudi royal family.

It is Rifaat al-Assad’s son, Ribal, who confirms U.S. meddling in Syria both then and now. In a September 2010 interview with Robert Fisk, he stated that "Saddam Hussein funded the Muslim Brotherhood; they were trained in Iraq and Sudan. So the Baath party decided that those in the Muslim Brotherhood were traitors." Partially declassified documents regarding then presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld’s December 1983 meeting with Saddam Hussein confirm the US and Iraq’s common enmity towards Iran and Syria and the need to contain them. Apparently destabilizing Syria had been in both nations’ interests; the Muslim Brotherhood largely responsible for the coup attempt within Syria was trained by Saddam who in turn was receiving funding from the USA for the Iran-Iraq War in that same time period.

Ribal founded the Organization for Democracy and Freedom in Syria (ODFS) and directs Arab News Network based in London, broadcasting via satellite from Morocco to Iran. In the same Fisk interview, he stated "My father left Syria because he didn't want bloodshed. A 'coup' means dictatorship and dictatorship breeds corruption and corruption breeds terrorism. We are campaigning internationally for a new Syria.” Such rhetoric and use of foreign media is a manifestation of the destabilization plan quoted in Haaretz.

Ribal’s pet causes are promoting interfaith dialogue, a two-state solution for Palestine and vilifying Iran. In a speech to London’s Rotary Club, he accused Iran of aiming to “create instability in the region by fueling conflict in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Egypt and Afghanistan.” Such jargon has undoubtedly made him the darling of the West—who is perhaps grooming him to head “the replacement regime” to which Al-Zawahri referred in his speech. Other anti-Bashar figures are equally shady.

Christian Science Monitor Correspondent Nicholas Blanford sums it up well in his May 2011 article “Syrian Leaders Want to Talk to Opposition Leaders, But There Aren’t Any:”

“Opposition leaders consist mainly of aging secular intellectuals, exiled former members of the Assad regime and Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood, and young, technologically savvy activists who are using social networking sites to mobilize and publicize the protest movement.”

Blanford quotes Rami Nakhle, a leading Syrian opposition activist in Beirut is as saying “There is no one in Syria who can speak on behalf of the opposition and this is better for us. There is no point in negotiating with these people.”

Clearly, the opposition—at least the safely foreign-based contingent—has no more interest in stopping the bloodshed than the regime they so despise. While supporting the current Syrian regime is incomprehensible, still more irresponsible is demanding the ouster of Bashar al-Assad when the only likely replacement is a war criminal, another western puppet or both.

Another Attack on Gaza: Retaliation or Genocide?

The latest round of atrocities unleashed upon Palestinians proves yet again that the Israeli government is a homicidal opportunist. Instantly, the problem of mass demonstrations deploring increased cost of living and other economic issues plaguing the Jewish State was solved by rallying Israelis behind the one issue they all seem to have in common: the singular desire to annihilate Palestinians.

If that assessment seems harsh, or unfair to Israeli peace activists, it certainly rings true of broader Israeli society. Joseph Dana, a Tel Aviv-based writer and journalist spoke with Aljazeera regarding the protests, which according to him, were mute regarding the Israeli occupation of Palestine. “The sad reality is that if Israelis discuss Palestinian rights and specifically the rights of Palestinians under Israeli occupation, they very quickly lose public support,” he stated.

Of course the Israeli spin machine claims the bombardment of Gaza was in response to the Eilat operation, although there is no evidence that Hamas or the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) perpetrated the attack. Dana also wrote in a recent article, “Israel maintains that the PRC is responsible for the attacks but has yet to release any verifiable proof connecting the Gaza based group to the attack which has so far claimed eight lives.”

It is rather sinister that 81 members of our Congress just spent a week in the Jewish State, meeting with Israeli officials at taxpayers’ expense; days later, Gaza is attacked. It is quite probable that the strikes were carefully coordinated while conveniently, world focus is on Libya and Syria.

However, even if armed groups from within Gaza were responsible for the Eilat attacks, retaliation of this sort for a blockade that has led to the deaths of untold thousands is certainly understandable. The siege of Gaza, subsequent incursions and almost daily shootings of civilians for straying too close to the “buffer zone” are acts of war in themselves, thus warrant reaction.

Israel’s 63-year campaign of mass murder and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people is neatly packaged as “retaliation” or “self-defense” against “mortars fired by Palestinian militants” or the hackneyed “homemade rockets.” Mysteriously, the media never reports on these mortars or rockets until Israeli forces “retaliate” for them; then it serves as an excuse for continued genocide.

Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 as “…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

If Israeli strikes are “retaliation,” we are left to wonder just what the Israeli military was “retaliating” for during the first four months of 2011, when 49 Palestinians in Gaza were murdered during Israeli raids, including a missile strike that killed three children in the same family, all under age 16. A fourth family member also died in that strike and 13 others, mostly children, were wounded. The blog Occupied Palestine published a list of 160 names representing all those murdered this year alone by the Israeli military, including those in Lebanon and those in Golan, shot for the heinous crime of attempting to go home on the anniversary of Al-Nakba, May 15. Sadly, in mainstream American media, these victims remain nameless, referred to as simply “militants” or “jihadists.”

Maybe it would not do any good to list their names and ages, anyway. After all, Mahmoud Abu Samra is just another Arabic name which the majority of news anchors could not pronounce correctly. At 13 years of age, his bright eyes and infectious smile were memorialized momentarily on a few social network pages, then joined the sea of images of dead Palestinian children: all victims of a 63-year genocide endorsed by most of the world’s nations.

Yet if his name wasn’t Mahmoud Abu Samra—if it was Tommy Smith or Billy Jones who was mutilated by an enemy missile, if he was one of our children—how many of us would be content to limit our resistance to whining for the United Nations to recognize a fragmented state cobbled together from 13 percent of our original land? Who among us wouldn’t at least consider taking matters into our own hands, thereby granting the enemy more excuses for “retaliation?”

While the Israelis have seemed to scale back their plans for an all-out assault on Gaza for the moment, perhaps waiting for a more politically opportune time, it is important to remember the word “retaliation” can only be applied to the reactions of Palestinians—whatever form they may take—to the death, destruction and humiliation visited upon them daily. If the word “retaliation” is used to describe military operations or draconian economic embargoes carried out by the Jewish State, it must be understood that this is a euphemism for genocide.

Arab and Muslim Advocacy Groups: Whose Side Are They On?

The celebration following President Obama’s announcement that Osama Bin Laden was killed by a team of Navy Seals and his body dumped in the ocean was predictably raucous: the mentality of the celebrants identifying them as the same people who still believe 19 hijackers brought down the Twin Towers in the first place. From drunken college kids to old biddies, the simple-minded euphoria spread with no questions asked as to why the story of the operation into Pakistan changes with every passing minute, the real reason as to why no photos were released, the un-Islamic disposal of the body—or bodies—the lack of dialysis equipment in the compound (Bin Laden allegedly suffered from kidney disease) and most importantly, why an unarmed man was shot in front of his family without benefit of an arrest or trial. Over one-third of Americans do not believe that Bin Laden was the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks, well beyond the “shadow of a doubt” necessitating acquittal in a court of law.

Unfortunately, groupthink spread to the very organizations which are supposed to be advocating for the Arab and Muslim communities here in America. The Greater Los Angeles Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-LA) issued this statement:

"We join our fellow citizens in welcoming the announcement that Osama bin Laden has been eliminated as a threat to our nation and the world through the actions of American military personnel. As we have stated repeatedly since the 9/11 terror attacks, bin Laden never represented Muslims or Islam. In fact, in addition to the killing of thousands of Americans, he and Al Qaeda caused the deaths of countless Muslims worldwide. We also reiterate President Obama's clear statement tonight that the United States is not at war with Islam."

If the United States is not at war with Islam, someone needs to explain why over 1 million Iraqis are dead, in a country known to have had nothing to do with 9/11. If there is no war on Islam, why—after Bin Laden’s alleged demise—do we now have the capability of flying 54 Predator drone missions at a time, with a goal to increase that number to 65 round-the-clock missions by 2013? In fact, drones have not abated in their slaughter of innocent civilians in Waziristan since Bin Laden’s death. Drone attacks have expanded into Yemen, as seen in a recent botched attempt to murder Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki, whose only apparent crime is to have e-mailed Army Major Nidal Hassan, the Ft. Hood shooter. The strike resulted in the deaths of two Yemenis.

Not to be outdone, Salam Al-Marayati, President of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) stated:

"We hope this is a turning point away from the dark period of the last decade, in which bin Laden symbolized the evil face of global terrorism. His actions and those of Al-Qaeda have violated the sacred Islamic teachings upholding the sanctity of all human life. His acts of senseless terror have been met with moral outrage by Muslims worldwide at every turn in the past decade."

It does indeed appear to be a turning point; however it is turning from a “dark period” to an even darker one, both in the United States and abroad. Hate crimes against Muslims have spiked in the wake of Bin Laden’s alleged demise. A mosque in Portland, Maine was spray painted with the words “Go Home,” among other things; the Islamic Center of Minnesota received no less than five hate mails immediately following reports of Bin Laden’s death. A schoolteacher in Texas is currently under suspension for making insensitive remarks to a Muslim student, telling her “I bet you’re grieving.”

Perhaps the most repugnant of sentiments came from the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC). The Michigan chapter issued a wordy diatribe, abbreviated here in the interest of space:

“ADC Michigan joins fellow Americans and all peace seeking people across the globe in rejoicing over the execution of Osama Bin Laden, head of the Al Qaeda terrorist group responsible for the national tragedy of September 11th as well as mass killings of innocent civilians in various parts of the world…While the death of Bin Laden ends one phase of our war on terror, the execution of the most recognized symbol of terrorism does not eradicate the ideology that Bin Laden represented. Despite this great victory…the threat of terror is still sound and strong. This mandates us to stay on alert and continue to be vigilant in a world that may be safer without Bin Laden. Additionally, the beginning of this new chapter requires our US Administration to re-examine policies and actions in regards to the war on terror… Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist group hijacked the noble faith of Islam and, in its name, committed heinous crimes against us in America, and the rest of humanity, including Muslims. His malevolent actions have unfortunately and unjustly cast a shadow of suspicion over the heads of the Arab and Muslim American communities in the US and abroad. Now is the time to remove this ignorance and doubt and stand united once more as we celebrate our country’s triumph. ADC Michigan salutes President Obama, his administration, and the American heroes who risked their lives for this mission on behalf of peace and humanity.”

Cast a shadow of suspicion? Who are they kidding? Muslims and Arabs have always been portrayed as terrorists in movies and television, years before 9/11. I recall watching then CBS anchor Dan Rather as those nightmarish events unfolded and he advised us “caution” when placing blame. Why did he say that? Because the first thing that came to everyone’s mind was Muslim hijackers. And “heroes?” We’re talking about a group of guys who, by the government’s own convoluted admission—threw grenades into a house full of women and children and shot unarmed people.

It is imperative that Arab and Muslim advocacy organizations start fulfilling their purpose instead of being lockstep with the U.S. administration. It is their responsibility to speak out, condemning in the strongest terms the aggression with which the U.S. has attacked Muslim countries since 9/11, and to hold the government and media accountable for the false statements, half-truths and blatant lies which allow such aggression to continue.

A "Kinder, Gentler" Zionism

Goldstone’s waffling diatribe in the Washington Post—although hardly the “retraction” of his report so heralded by the pro-Israel camp—should not have come as a surprise. Given the amount of Zionist pressure put on Goldstone, it is a wonder that his backpedaling took so long. He was blackballed throughout the international Jewish community, even prohibited from attending his own grandson’s bar mitzvah. It would be difficult for anyone to bear the extraordinary pressure wielded by such a powerful concerted effort and Goldstone must have been particularly susceptible because he was—and is—a self-described Zionist. Granted, in light of his initial report alleging Israeli war crimes, he could be labeled a “soft Zionist,” but a Zionist nonetheless.

The Jewish Virtual Library defines Zionism as “the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel…” In other words, Goldstone, along with every other Zionist, believes Jews have an unalienable right to come from the four corners of the world to take over Palestine. So, Goldstone’s betrayal of Operation Cast Lead’s victims, particularly the al-Simouni family, who lost 29 members in a single Israeli attack, was to be expected:

“The shelling of the (al-Simouni) home was apparently the consequence of an Israeli commander’s erroneous interpretation of a drone image, and an Israeli officer is under investigation for having ordered the attack. While the length of this investigation is frustrating, it appears that an appropriate process is underway, and I am confident that if the officer is found to have been negligent, Israel will respond accordingly.” –“Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel War Crimes”

Of course Goldstone’s more recent conclusions are self-contradictory; they ignore the fact that, according to paragraph 1756 in his original report, “The Mission found major structural flaws that in its view make the (Israeli investigatory) system inconsistent with international standards….there is the absence of any effective and impartial investigation mechanism and victims of such alleged violations are deprived of any effective or prompt remedy.” We are all too familiar with the criminal cover-ups inherent to IDF internal investigations, dubbing the attack on the Mavi Marmara an act of “self-defense” and Rachel Corrie’s murder an “accident.”

But Goldstone most blatantly reveals his true Zionist colors with the statement, “I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.”

Come again? A history of bias? Israel’s proxy, the USA, has a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council; hence the vast majority of resolutions critical of the Jewish State are vetoed. In fact, a mere 79 resolutions condemning various forms of Israeli aggression managed to slip through since 1948.

It is this type of victimhood on which Israelis and their apologists rely; sadly we Palestinian activists have fallen prey to this phenomenon and feel the need to appease this victimization at every turn. We now spend far too much of our time qualifying all our statements with “…now I don’t have a problem with Jews or Judaism, but rather Zionism…” If you are a Jew who is against Zionism, you know who you are and don’t need the constant caveats from pro-Palestinian groups living in constant fear of being labeled “anti-Semitic.”

Moreover, many of the organizations supposedly advocating for Palestinian rights support the defunct “Two-State Solution,” which is inherently Zionist. Israeli settlements are ensconced in what is left of the West Bank, Palestinian communities are isolated by Jewish-only roads and the non-contiguous Gaza Strip is under siege. A Palestinian state under such circumstances is not viable and to declare statehood under these conditions only legitimizes the Israeli occupation of more than 85% of historic Palestine.

Some Arab-American and Muslim organizations have even praised J Street, the “kinder, gentler” face of Zionism to “counter” AIPAC in our halls of Congress. .” According to the Jerusalem Post, one of J Street’s finance committee members - with a $10,000 contribution threshold – is none other than Lebanese-American businessman Richard Abdoo, a current board member of Amideast and former board member of the Arab American Institute. If there was any doubt about J Street’s motives, New Israel Fund CEO Daniel Sokatch removed all doubt when addressing their conference thusly: “And we believe that working for justice and equality in Israel is the best way to re-ignite a commitment to Israel in our own American community.”

Somehow another recipient of the “balanced and moderate” label is New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. His condescending tripe entitled “US Must Step In to Pull Israel and Turkey Back to the Middle” in the aftermath of the Mavi Marmara massacre included a quote from one of his Israeli friends “…and the Palestinians are beginning to act rationally.” I wonder how rational Friedman would act if he was denied the opportunity to work, travel, go to the hospital, or have access to little more than 6 hours of electricity a day for years and then watch close family members be blown apart?

Come on, people. We should know the “good cop-bad cop” routine by now. The reality of so called “moderate” voices such as Goldstone, Friedman, and J Street is that they represent the most insidious and virulent form of Zionism: the idea that this poisonous ideology can peacefully co-exist with the rest of humanity.

Letter to Smithsonian Magazine

I submitted the following to Smithsonian Magazine in response to the misleading information contained in "Sifting Sacred Ground."

In his article, “Sifting Sacred Ground,” Joshua Hammer focuses on the culpability of the Islamic Waqf in removing soil containing potential archeological discoveries during a pre-approved construction project at Jerusalem’s Nobel Sanctuary/Temple Mount. He twice mentions early Christians allegedly using the site as a garbage dump. However, Hammer fails to acknowledge the numerous harmful excavations Israeli authorities have conducted adjacent to Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third holiest site.

From 1970-1979, digging was done directly beneath Al-Aqsa, resulting in the opening of a tunnel under the women’s prayer area. In a separate incident, Israeli engineers measured a slight movement in part of the southern wall, as reported by Abraham Rabinovich in the Jerusalem Post (1996).

Contrary to a 1929 document in which Waqf historian Aref al Aref confirmed his belief in the existence of Solomon’s Temple, Muslims have historically referred to it as al-haikal al-mazaoum (the alleged structure). Readers would have benefited from a more accurate and balanced picture of the history and controversy surrounding the Nobel Sanctuary/Temple Mount had Hammer talked with as many Muslim academics as he did Jewish scholars.

I found Hammer’s usage of “warren,” to describe an Arab housing area particularly offensive, connoting Palestinians are akin to wild rabbits and that Israelis performed a service by demolishing the homes to create a plaza. In actuality, this is a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 147).

The quote "A toothbrush would be too large for brushing that soil, and they did it with bulldozers," attributed to Israeli historian Eyal Meiron must have been paraphrased from an earlier quotation by Gabriel Barkai of the Committee Against the Destruction of Antiquities on the Temple Mount, who was originally cited in a 2007 BBC article.

Finally, the idea that the Waqf has ultimate jurisdiction over the Nobel Sanctuary/Temple Mount is misleading. During a visit to Jerusalem in 2001, I was prohibited from entering the area by Israeli soldiers who informed me it was "closed to tourists." It was not on a Friday or Islamic holy day; they were merely arbitrarily refusing to let in visitors.

"Radicalization": It's Not A Muslim Thing

New York Congressman Pete King served as ringmaster at the latest congressional circus looking into Muslim “radicalization” and its perceived threat to the Homeland. Unfortunately, I was not invited to testify at this hearing, else I would have been happy to share my insights with Congressman King as to what “radicalization” means and how I became “radicalized.”

Granted, I am not a Muslim; therefore I will not pretend to speak for Muslims, “radicalized” or not. I will, however, hazard a guess I could do a better job than Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, who tearfully recounted the story of Mohammad Salman Hamdani during the recent hearings. Hamdani was the Pakistani Muslim firefighter killed on 9/11 who was accused posthumously of being a co-conspirator in the attacks, allegations which were later proven false. The poignant theatrics by Ellison would have been an appropriate show of sympathy, was it not for the fact that a large portion of his congressional career to date has been devoted to serving as poster boy for the State Department. Engaging in such “image-building” abroad illustrates what a tolerant and diverse country the U.S. truly is and that Muslims are accepted and even elected to prominent positions in government—when they’re not being waterboarding or spied upon while praying. Ellison also proudly served as the token Muslim on a trip to the Jewish State sponsored by the America Israel Education Federation and visited Iraq in order to personally bestow praise on occupiers.

Not to be outdone was Imam Rauf, whose exchange with erstwhile john and now co-host of yet another talking head show on CNN Elliot Spitzer, was posted on the aptly named blog “Ikhras,” (Arabic for “shut up”). Rauf’s only complaint about the Peter King hearings was that more law enforcement agencies had not been invited to testify just how many Muslims are quislings for the FBI, spying in mosques and informing on their neighbors. Such gross displays of allegiance to an organization hell-bent on oppressing not only Muslims, but peace activists as well—23 of whom have been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury— pushes those of us who believe in civil disobedience rather than collaboration a little closer to “radicalization.”

According to Wikipedia, “radicalization” is defined as “the process in which an individual changes from passiveness or activism to become more revolutionary, militant or extremist. Radicalization is often associated with youth, adversity, alienation, social exclusion, poverty or the perception of injustice to self or others.” By the same token, a “radical” is “a person who holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles, extremist” or “a person who advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.” While the word “militant” has a violent connotation, the definition does not specifically include the word “violence” or the word “religion.” In fact, tens of thousands of non-Muslims in Wisconsin have been “radicalized” by a Hitleresque attack on labor unions, yet they have been pretty peaceful thus far.

Being a Christian, my “radicalization” did not involve indoctrination by Islamic militants; it began with my own observations during a trip to Palestine in 2001. One of the first things I witnessed was an Orthodox Jew riding his bike through a crowd of Muslim women in the narrow streets of Jerusalem’s Old City, his legs outstretched nonchalantly as they scrambled to get out of his way. After a few days, I traveled to Khan Younis refugee camp in Gaza and met 14 year-old Muhammad, who told me he was beaten by Israeli soldiers for playing on the beach.

The process continued months later when I went to the Jordan Hospital in Amman and visited a child who had been blinded in an Israeli attack. In the same place, I saw the life ebbing away from Taha Abu Snineneh, a young man who was also a victim of Israeli fire, enduring weeks of machines working his vital organs for him before finally passing away.

I felt still more marginalized, when, like so many others in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, I was the victim of harassing phone calls and requests for a meeting with unidentified government officials from “the Defense Department” and later in 2007 when two FBI agents showed up at my door to ask me about my “connections” with Hamas.

During a protest in New York City against the 2008-09 Israeli assault on Gaza, a Jewish man was allowed to cross over from the pro-Israeli counter-demonstration and berate two Arab men while shoving his finger in their faces, all done under the watchful eye of numerous police. At the same event, I was grabbed by an officer and practically shoved down when I attempted to confront three Israeli demonstrators who were heckling me as I walked by. To add insult to injury, a letter to my Congressman resulted in a reply shamelessly promoting “our Israel.”

These incidents which led to my “radicalization” are nothing when compared to the humiliation and suffering Palestinians experience every day of their lives, whether they are forced to endure Israeli attacks, checkpoints, home demolitions and unwarranted searches, or the endless limbo of refugee camps in Lebanon and other Arab nations where they live in varying degrees of second-class citizenship.

Was it not for the grotesquely bloated handouts to the Jewish State enabling the violent persecution of Palestinians—Muslim and Christian alike—we Americans would not be faced with such drastic cuts to medical care, children’s hospitals and education, the brunt of which is being borne by the poorest among us. Ultimately “injustice to others” and “injustice to self” are intertwined.

So there you have it, Mr. King. Radicalization has nothing to do with Islam. It is a reaction: a testimony to the human spirit that we will only take so much adversity, alienation, social exclusion and injustice before demanding fundamental political, economic and social reforms by direct and uncompromising methods.

Onward Revolution: Ridding the Region of U.S. and Israeli Influence

Two dictators gone in less than a month. Mass protests from Yemen and Bahrain to Algeria and Libya. In Lebanon, Hezbollah—due to a broad coalition of Muslim, Christian and now Druze support—named the country’s new Prime Minister. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad hailed these recent developments as the start of “a new Middle East free from U.S. and Israeli interference.” Somehow I doubt this “new Middle East” is what then Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice envisioned when she was having her infamous “birth pangs” in 2006.

The predictable hypocrisy contrasting US reactions to the demonstrations in Egypt which toppled Mubarak as opposed to those that transpired in Iran after Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s re-election illustrates that “democracy” is only to be lauded when the movement is pro-Western. In a Muslim society, that means it has to be “moderate” and friendly to Israel.

Rather than focusing on the reforms that will hopefully benefit the beleaguered citizens of these erstwhile U.S.-backed dictatorships, Western discussions of the various revolts are dominated by fears of “Islamic fundamentalist takeovers,” propagated by Israeli paranoia. Precious time and resources are spent attempting to placate the Jewish State. In fact, it was this very desire to protect Israeli interests that led to the establishment of Western puppet despots throughout the Arab World in the first place.

Of course the Israeli military juggernaut has nothing to fear, but everything to gain from playing the victim, which they have done so well for almost sixty-three years. These quintessential opportunists are indeed capitalizing on this unprecedented upheaval. Israeli reactions have ranged from trepidation to outright panic that the new Egyptian government may not uphold the peace treaty with the Jewish State after “radical Islamists” like the Muslim Brotherhood take over.

Islamic scholar Imran Hosein predicted in 2003 that one day Arab dictatorships would be swept away, leaving the people to think they were going to have a legitimate representative government. He stated, “It is in this scenario that Israel will say ‘we have to do something; if we just sit here and do nothing, the State of Israel will be destroyed and the Jews will all be slaughtered,’” precipitating a “pre-emptive strike” of unprecedented proportions.

If this seems like a doomsday scenario or a little too far-fetched, one has only to look as far as Jerusalem University Online.com, which has posted ads on Facebook warning that “Israel could be gone tomorrow: join our ‘Without Israel’ campaign to ensure it doesn’t happen.”

On the contrary, Egyptian officials have been a little too quick to assert the peace treaty between that nation and the Jewish State will remain intact. Press TV reported that according to an Israeli spokeswoman, Defense Minister Ehud Barak talked with Head of Egypt's Higher Military Council Mohamed Hussein Tantawi by telephone two days after Hosni Mubarak was ousted from power. The Egyptian military leadership said it would respect all the country's international treaties, including the peace pact with Israel.

Former US Ambassador to Iraq Edward Peck was quoted on Press TV: “The Egyptian government now seems to intend to continue the same path of cooperating with the blockade of the people in Gaza. This has always been one of the things that the Egyptian people and the other people in the area did not like … and perceive as the Egyptian government's acquiescence in supporting what Israel is doing with the Palestinian people.”

As we have seen this past month, it is ultimately the people who will effect positive change in the reason. Corrupt governments must be brought down and bodies such as the United Nations must be discredited as counterproductive wastes. Where else could some 120 nations co-sponsor a resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank, only to have their voices canceled out by one nation, the very one funding the illegal occupation of Palestine? Such travesties of international law will no longer be tolerated as momentum gains for demonstrations against these settlements and the boycott and divestment campaign of the Zionist State itself.

It is encouraging to see the preliminary reports that Egypt will allow two Iranian ships to transit the Suez Canal and open the Rafah border crossing with Gaza, at least for humanitarian purposes. These are hopeful indications of, as President Ahmedinejad said, “a new Middle East, free from U.S. and Israeli interference.” Only after that interference disappears for good can there be hope for justice and peace in the region.

How "The Middle East's Only Democracy" Crushes Dissent

Ever since becoming an activist on behalf of Palestine some ten years ago, I have found ironic humor in the label, “The Middle East’s Only Democracy” used by American policymakers and media in describing the Jewish State. This statement is erroneous on two counts. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of a democracy knows that Israelis overwhelmingly shun the values associated with such a system; furthermore quite a few countries in the Middle East hold elections regularly. Most recently, Jordan elected a new parliament.

Of course there are those who argue that a democracy simply means “majority rule,” or that government leaders are elected, so technically Israel would qualify. “Democracy” is defined by www.thefreedictionary.com, “government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.” So in the purely political sense, as Israeli leaders are elected, they have democracy. However, the fifth definition of democracy reads “the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community,” a concept diametrically opposed to Israel’s inherently racist establishment.

Not only is Israel content merely to expand settlements on stolen land and deny Arab citizens the basic rights of religious freedom, education, health care and mobility, any form of dissent is quashed. Arab Israeli Knesset member Haneen Zoabi was stripped of her parliamentary privileges for participating in the Gaza freedom flotilla. In addition to receiving numerous death threats, Zoabi was recently shot in the back and neck with rubber bullets during a protest against a march by militant settlers in the town of Umm al-Fahm. Under Zionism, there is no such thing as freedom of assembly or free speech.

Take for instance a recent haiku contest on Facebook sponsored by El Al Airlines. Haiku is a Japanese form of poetry requiring three non-rhyming lines: the first and third line consisting of five syllables, the second line containing seven. I swallowed my pride and became a fan of the page; the possible temporary damage to my reputation seemed well worth it when considering the unwitting audience I would have. However, shortly after I began posting the haiku, a chorus of “she has to be banned” ensued.
I found out that indeed, I had been blocked from posting comments on the site after an hour or so. The El Al fan page administrator deleted all my haiku. I should not have been surprised.

This is the modus operandi of the Zionist machine. Dissent is not tolerated and must be completely obliterated, as in the case of Congressmen and women who dare try and stand up to it: Paul Findley (re-districted out), Cynthia McKinney (trumped up charge assaulting a guard who was harassing her; victim of a smear campaign and voted out), Dennis Kucinich (marginalized and belittled), Jim Traficant (jailed). Prominent figures in the media are silenced, most recently the legendary Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez, formerly of CNN. Numerous Israeli youth sit in jails for refusing to military duty in the West Bank. The most sinister, however is the way activists Rachel Corrie, Tristan Anderson,Tom Hurndall, Furkan Dogan and 8 other flotilla participants were silenced, along with the untold thousands of Palestinians who have been murdered since 1948 for the “crime” of resisting occupation or while merely trying to live out their daily lives in their homeland.

Yet the legacies of these brave individuals continue, and to honor them, I put forth the haiku again in a place where the hasbara machine cannot penetrate.

Ignorant tourists
Celebrate sixty-plus years
Of ethnic cleansing.

Bustling Tel Aviv
Welcoming occupiers
Atop Lydda's graves.

Stealing Holy Land
As amid scorched olive trees
More settlements rise.

Arrogant squatters
Frolic on stolen beaches
Kids in Gaza die.

El Al transporting
Still more and more invaders
to dear Palestine.

Flight attendants' thobes
Food service is falafel
Theft of a culture.

Big jet engines scream
Not unlike those that have rained
Hell upon Gaza.

And then there was my daughter’s contribution:
El Al carrying
"Israeli" stowaways to
Steal from Palestine

El Al's jet engines
Cannot drown out the screams of
White phosphorus wounds.

Airline of the blind
You see touristy mudbaths
Not Gaza's bloodbath.

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui: Why She Was Targeted and Why She Matters to All of Us

In the final scene of the 2002 remake of “Dr. Zhivago,” Lara observes the inevitable black car following her and has just enough time to make up a game with her young son, challenging him to a race. She knows full well she will never see him again.

“I’ll let you have a head start,” she smiles at her little boy. He begins running as she is escorted to the car, offering no resistance as she continues watching him from the backseat; the first leg of a journey to an unnamed Siberian gulag.

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui had no such warning, no time to distance herself from her three young children during the mayhem of their 2003 kidnapping in Karachi, Pakistan. Neither U.S. nor Pakistani officials admitted knowledge of the family’s whereabouts from 2003 to 2008. It was later learned that Dr. Siddiqui was detained and subjected to brutal interrogations at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan before resurfacing in New York in 2008, answering to charges of the attempted murder of two U.S. soldiers.

For years, Dr. Siddiqui did not know whether her children were alive or dead until her oldest son, Ahmed, was released in 2008. Daughter Maryam was dropped off at the family’s residence in Karachi in April 2010, speaking only English and Farsi. The fate of baby Suleman, six months old at the time of the kidnapping, remains unknown.

Former prisoners in Bagram tell of the tortured screams of Prisoner 650, commonly known as “the Gray Lady of Bagram.” By all their accounts, Prisoner 650 was Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and she herself later testified that she endured both physical and psychological torture, including being forced to look at a photograph of her baby Suleman lying in a pool of his own blood.

It is no surprise that anyone under such unspeakable conditions would seek every opportunity to exact revenge on their tormenters. Yet discrepancies in testimony describing the “crime” for which Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was sentenced to 86 years in prison—the attempted shooting of two US soldiers—raise serious doubts as to whether it actually occurred. Furthermore, Dr. Siddiqui was detained and tortured for allegedly plotting terrorist acts and links to Al-Qaeda. Why wasn’t she brought up on terrorism charges?

The overriding question remains: Why was a brilliant American-educated neuroscientist singled out for such heinous abuses?

Zaid Hamid, Pakistani political analyst and host of the program “Brasstacks,” stated that Dr. Siddiqui’s novel and unique research in neuroscience included groundbreaking work relating to biology, psychology, perception management and mind control: the latest weapons coveted by governments, militaries and media. Dr. Siddiqui later revealed that an Indian interrogator at Bagram had asked her about her research at MIT, his familiarity with her work leading her to believe he was a former colleague.

In addition to her research at MIT, Dr. Siddiqui completed her Ph.D. in Cognitive Neuroscience from Brandeis early in 2001. Her PhD dissertation abstract discussed how people perceive, remember, and enact observations. One of her experiments required volunteers to view and then recreate the movement of a disk across a computer screen in order to study the components of visual perception and memory. She observed that they saw only the momentary positions of the disc and had to interconnect those positions. She concluded that in a sequence of movements without a visible trail, it became difficult for the subject to form a picture or a story.

A May 2010 Greg Miller appearing in Smithsonian Magazine entitled “How Our Brains Make Memories,” unwittingly ties into Dr. Siddiqui’s research. In the article, Montreal neuroscientist Karim Nader discusses the “flashbulb memory” effect surrounding such occasions as 9/11 and his theory that the very act of remembering can alter a memory.

Such a suggestion would indicate that if our own memories are altered by repeated remembering, how much easier would it be for some other entity—the government or the media for instance— to alter our memories by repeated playback of 9/11 footage, peppering scenes of the attacks with commentaries from their own “experts” and “eyewitnesses?”

Could it be that Dr. Siddiqui, because of her groundbreaking research in the field, was tapped by the government to potentially help develop a weapon of mass psychosis which would cause a nation to believe that airplanes brought down the World Trade Center and the aerial maneuvering of a novice pilot landed another smack-dab into the Pentagon? Her refusal to cooperate would have been motive enough to discredit her and lock her away, let alone if she had actually been briefed on such a plan.

Why, some will ask, was she not killed outright? Why risk the possibility of this information coming to light? One explanation is that she is being used as an example, to frighten and intimidate others who dare to defy the powerbrokers in the “War on Terror.” Furthermore, the initial injection of an unknown substance followed by years of torture rendered Dr. Siddiqui nearly incompetent to stand at her own trial. Even if connections with 9/11 plots and mind control weapons had surfaced, they would be dismissed as the ranting of an insane woman and her crackpot-conspiracy-theorist supporters.

It is imperative that we discover the truth, not just to save an innocent mother of three, but for the sake of our whole society. I have often been told that my western appearance has saved me from the horrors of interrogation, but I wonder, for how much longer? My children and I were harassed by immigration officials upon our return to the United States from Ecuador this summer and recent days have seen the homes of peace activists in Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan raided by FBI agents who confiscated laptops, cell phones and bank records.

Do we hold our elected officials and media responsible? Do we organize mass civil disobedience in support of those harassed and detained for speaking out against U.S. policy? Or do we wait for the black cars, wondering if we will have time to give our children a head start?

Ramadan Reflections From A Christian

As of this writing, the Islamic holy month of Ramadan is coming to a close. The past month has been a time of unprecedented turbulence for Muslims around the world. While both natural and man-made disasters plague our brothers and sisters overseas, media-fed controversy strains Muslim/non-Muslim relations here in the United States.

The unimaginable humanitarian catastrophe in the aftermath of the flooding in Pakistan has been compounded by evidence revealing India’s role in opening major dams along shared rivers. Such tactics are reminiscent of Israel’s opening of the al-Wadi dam which flooded parts of Gaza earlier this year; however due to the size and volume of the rivers, the suffering in Pakistan is much more widespread. After rainfall subsided on July 29, the Baghliar Dam located in Indian-occupied Kashmir and the Sarobi Dam near Kabul and maintained by India, were opened, causing the rivers to overflow. To make matters worse, vitriolic comments began appearing on Western news websites covering the disaster. One example, forwarded to me by a colleague in Lahore:

“lets hope more rains and floods kill more pakis soon!! pray to god for this that he brings more rain to kill more pakis!! lets hope the rain washed these samosa smelling bastards before they are sent to hells gates! a good paki is a dead paki!!”

Kashmir, long a prisoner of the Indian army, has been under curfew for a good portion of the month; praying at mosque has been a sporadic privilege for most Kashmiris. Funerals on the other hand, have been quite commonplace as youths protesting the injustices are gunned down. Images from Indian-occupied Kashmir mirror those of Israeli-occupied Palestine, where, despite the latest round of direct “peace talks,” it is business as usual.

While Abbas and Netanyahu posed for their American-orchestrated photo op, two Israeli soldiers who committed separate atrocities walked free: one who emptied his magazine into a Palestinian schoolgirl was acquitted and peace activist Tom Hurndall’s murderer was released from prison. The monotony of the siege on Gaza is broken only by periodic missile attacks from the Israeli Air Force as tunnels—Gaza’s precarious lifelines to the outside world—are destroyed. Yet the American news media has pursued only two stories for the sole purpose of stoking controversy and pitting non-Muslim against Muslim.

The “Ground Zero Mosque” as it has been inappropriately dubbed in the press, actually sits two blocks away and cannot be seen from the former site of the World Trade Center. What should have been an issue of a man’s right to do what he likes with his private property (within zoning constraints) has transformed into a clash of civilizations-style debate on religious freedom—or lack thereof—in the United States. In all fairness, since September 11, 2001 was the manufactured catalyst for the deaths, injuries, displacement and detainment of untold millions of Muslims worldwide, the “Ground Zero Mosque,” moreover, Ground Zero itself, should become home to a Muslim Holocaust Museum.

Due to Eid al-Fitr coinciding with the ninth anniversary of 9/11, many Muslim organizations are choosing to “tone down” or cancel their Eid celebrations altogether. I daresay this falls into one of two categories: fear of retaliation from those who listened to talk radio fascists circulating the myth that Muslims are celebrating 9/11 this year, or a sheepish appeal to the American population at large that says “we respect your sensitivities, please like us.”

Either way, I want to ask those organizations if Eid festivities were ever toned down to honor the Palestinian victims of the Black September massacres in 1970. Or to honor the one million Iraqis killed during and after the U.S. invasion? Were Eid festivities ever canceled when the holiday coincided with any one of the numerous massacres in Palestine? I would point out to them that Americans aren’t canceling any celebrations for 9/11. Here in Dayton, the Hispanic Heritage Festival will pause for a “September 11 Commemoration,” but the salsa music is set to resume shortly afterwards.

This is all well and good, as commemorating the anniversary of 9/11 should not be tied ceremonies at the pieces of ground in Lower Manhattan, Washington, D.C. or a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. It should not be about playing Taps or waving flags; citizens would do the greatest honor to the victims by pursuing the truth as to what really happened that day, demanding answers to the discrepancies, omissions and falsehoods put forth by the 9/11 Commission. Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel held a press conference regarding evidence of explosive material in Buildings 1, 2 and 7 of the WTC, although mainstream media was massed in Gainesville, Florida and missed it.

Although I hate to contribute to a publicity-hungry pastor’s fifteen minutes of fame, the irony of General Petraeus’ condemnation of “International Burn the Qur’an Day” merits a mention. This is the same guy who orders drone attacks destroying mosques, schools and homes in which Muslim men, women and children are incinerated, let alone copies of the Qur’an which they undoubtedly kept.

In the midst of anger and frustration at the ignorance festering within my own country, fasting throughout the month of Ramadan has increased my patience, self-discipline and inner peace. Friends and family wondered why a Christian would elect to partake in such a difficult fast, one that is not mandated by our religion. Some thought I had converted.

My reasons for fasting are simple: Jesus fasted; he also advised that some forms of healing only come with prayer and fasting (Mark 9:29). I also wanted to be in solidarity with those facing hard times in Gaza, Pakistan and so many other places who may not get to break their fasts at sunset. I fasted to support my Muslim brothers and sisters here at home in a sometimes hostile society rife with hatred and misunderstanding. It is my sincere desire to reflect this newfound patience and peace to my community and to the rest of the world.

What Christian Zionists Don't Know About the New Testament

In previous articles, I have discussed how Christian Zionists have manipulated Old Testament history and prophecy to justify their unconditional support for modern-day Israel; support that includes aiding and abetting the occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians—Muslim and Christian alike. Sadly, the New Testament has not been immune to abuse by Christian Zionists, either. Certain passages have been taken out of context to perpetuate the myth that the Jews, as “God’s Chosen” should be allowed to get away with murder.

Romans 1:16 is one of the most notable passages co-opted by Christian Zionists: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”

There are many Christian Zionists who believe this verse instructs them to proselytize Jews exclusively before sharing their faith—such that it is—with the neighbor down the street. It is also used to emphasize the supposed Jewish “chosen-ness” as if there is some sort of divine pecking order. While logic dictates that when originally spreading Christ's message, the early apostles would have gone to the synagogues first because they were in possession of the Old Testament history and prophecy that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. More simply, it made sense to go to the people who knew about Moses, Jonah and Isaiah before tackling the people who worshipped Zeus. Moreover, it is evident throughout the whole body of scripture, beginning with the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ to his apostles’ inspired letters to the churches, that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Galatians 3: 28-29.

Jesus, foretelling signs of end times, states in Luke 21:24:
“And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

This warning is significant, considering the ethnic make-up of modern-day Israeli society. By law, any person born of a Jewish mother has the right to Israeli citizenship. However, the connection between modern Jewry and the biblical Hebrews is virtually nonexistent. After Rome razed Jerusalem in 70AD, Palestinian Jews who fled to Europe, Africa and other parts of the Middle East introduced the local populations to Judaism, drawing a significant number of converts. Thus, modern-day Jews are mostly descended from non-Semitic peoples who have no physical connection to Palestine. Israeli immigration laws have become more liberal to include recent converts to Judaism. Therefore, that the Gentiles to whom Jesus referred are not Arabs, but rather the Israelis themselves.

Furthermore, “Israel” in the Bible does not refer to a future political nation-state. Peter, a disciple of Jesus, uses the same language in reiterating God’s promise to the early Church that was originally made to Moses and the Children of Israel (Jacob) in Exodus 19:5-6: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people…” (I Peter 2:9) This text, taken almost verbatim from the Old Testament, is proof positive that the “holy nation” no longer refers to Israel as a kingdom or earthly nation, but a spiritual body of believers in Jesus Christ, regardless of race, ethnicity or nationality.

Jesus gives us a final warning in Revelation 2:9: “I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” All Christians must heed this divine warning by separating themselves from those engaged to a heretical theology of racial superiority that supports ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Christians have a sacred duty to study God’s word so as not to be deceived by false doctrines, including Zionism. Christian Zionists are hindering the fulfillment of Christ’s Great Commission to preach his love to the world by throwing all their time, money and resources into aiding and abetting the ethnic cleansing of indigenous people by those who categorically deny Jesus Christ and everything he represents. Once Christians understand Zionism’s opposition to scripture and incongruence with Biblical prophecy, the withdrawal of all forms of support—financial, material, political and spiritual—from the lie that is Israel will surely follow.

What Christian Zionists Don't Know About Old Testament Prophecy

Old Testament prophecy and history are interconnected because the ancient prophecies were fulfilled while the books that eventually became the Bible were still being written: fulfillment became history. However, Christian Zionists believe Old Testament prophets foretold the establishment of modern-day Israel and the rebuilding of a Third Jewish Temple, discarding all semblance of historical context.

It may be argued that Zionism, as a political and secular movement, never relied on scriptural land grants as the basis for a Jewish homeland. However, the symbiotic relationship between Christian and political Zionism has already been explored and proven beginning with William Hechler’s unholy alliance with Theodor Herzl. http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16204

Israel’s wars of expansion illustrate a sense of divine entitlement rather than a mere desire to create a refuge for the world’s Jewry: the annexation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, seizure of Syria’s Golan Heights, Lebanon’s Chebaa Farms and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula (later returned under duress) and for the past two decades, the United States serving as a proxy to destroy and occupy Iraq. In all the madness, one can sense a certain religious fanaticism reminiscent of the doctrine of Manifest Destiny that led early settlers in the United States to perpetuate atrocities against Native Americans in order to fulfill an imaginary divine decree that the fledgling nation would stretch from sea to sea.

While the Bible outlined boundaries for the ancient Israelites, found in Joshua 1:4: “From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun (Mediterranean), shall be your coast,” Zionists use these parameters as a present-day ordinance for the creation of a “Greater Israel,” including not only Palestine, but parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq. This was evidenced in a 1952 speech by then Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan:

“…our task consists of preparing the Israeli army for the new war approaching in order to achieve our ultimate goal, the creation of an Israeli empire.”

To Christian Zionists, the establishment and expansion of such an Israeli empire is imperative in order to precipitate the return of Jesus Christ to earth, or the Second Coming. They believe that all Jews must be gathered in Palestine in order to fulfill prophecy; furthermore that a “Third Temple” must be constructed where Al-Aqsa Mosque—Islam’s third holiest shrine—now stands.

Chronologically, Joel’s writings are the oldest, dating back to the 9th Century BC. The book bearing his name foretells the manifestation of the Holy Spirit at the Jewish feast of Pentecost in Acts 2. The next set of prophecies was written in the 8th century BC: the Books of Isaiah, Hosea, Amos and Micah all contain warnings of Israel’s destruction, which occurred when the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom in 722 BC. Babylonians defeated the Southern Kingdom (Judah) in 597 BC, marking the beginning of the exile. Amos 9:11 states:

“In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up thee breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old.”

At the time Amos prophesied, Babylonian captivity was well over 100 years away, as well as Jerusalem’s subsequent restoration. Amos 9:11 is quoted by James in Acts 15:16-17 when he addresses the church council, indicating the fulfillment of Amos’ prophecy in the person of Jesus Christ, not a literal “Third Temple.”

Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Zephaniah all wrote during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BC. When they foretell the return to Jerusalem, they are referring to the end of the Babylonian captivity, not the eventual creation of a modern political Israel.

In his essay, “Zionists and the Bible,” Christian theologian Alfred Guillaume sums it up:

“These prophecies were fulfilled. The Jews returned to Judea, rebuilt Jerusalem’s walls and rebuilt the Temple. After fluctuating fortunes, they secured a brief period of political independence and expansion under the Maccabees. Thus, the prophecies of the Return have been fulfilled already and cannot be fulfilled again. The Old Testament’s canonical literature contains no prophecy of a second return after the return from the Babylonian Exile, because after the Exile, all Jews who wished to do so returned to the Holy Land, though a great many more preferred to remain where they were….”

Those still insisting that there will be another Temple need only read John 2:19: “Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’” Here Christ is clearly referring to himself as the temple which will be “raised up,” or resurrected. During his ministry, Christ also points to various stories found in the Old Testament in order to refute the “Chosen Race” doctrine:

“And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country. But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias (Elijah), when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus (Elisha) the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.” (Luke 4: 24-27)

Jesus gives us many more such teachings and parables throughout the New Testament, which will be examined in an upcoming article.

What Christian Zionists Don't Know about Old Testament History

I have been comforted by the divine wisdom and promise found in the Bible countless times throughout my life, yet it troubles me how this sacred book has been manipulated by so many into a how-to manual of theft and destruction. Often I have been questioned by non-Christian friends regarding biblical passages commonly abused by Christian Zionists—those who believe that Jews are God’s Chosen and must be implanted in Palestine in order to precipitate the Second Coming of Jesus Christ—“Does the Bible really say that?”

My answer is always a resounding “no.” While it is possible to take certain passages out of context and ignore the historical perspective in which they were written in order to manufacture a case for a modern-day nation called Israel, it is neither accurate nor theologically sound. Yet as many as 70 million people in the United States espouse the doctrine of Christian Zionism which endorses racism, ethnic cleansing and wholesale slaughter as manifested in the Israeli occupation of Palestine. This heresy is twofold: Zionist Christians have manipulated both biblical prophecy and the Bible’s historical content to support their murderous agenda.

It is imperative that true followers of Christ actively fight back against this lethal false doctrine that has caused far more death and destruction than any so-called Islamic extremism by first examining history from a biblical perspective. It is very important not to confuse the term Biblical Literalist with Christian Zionist. I probably take the Bible more literally than anyone I know and in fact, the most effective way to rescue otherwise benign individuals from the dangerous heresy of Christian Zionism is through a strict literal interpretation of the Bible.

Beginning with the Book of Genesis, God establishes a covenant with Abram (Abraham) whom modern-day Jews, Christians and Muslims all revere as a patriarch and a prophet. In the Covenant, God promised Canaan (Palestine) to Abram and his descendants (Genesis 17:8).

Later, in Genesis 17:19-21, God specifically establishes His covenant with Abraham’s son Isaac. Unfortunately this is an early point of contention between Christianity and Islam, as Muslims believe it was Ishmael (Ismail PBUH) whom Abraham was ordered to sacrifice in a test by God while Christians believe it was Isaac. Yet even in the Bible, God does not exclude Ishmael and his descendants from the original promise to Abraham of all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates Rivers. Christian theologian Alfred Guillaume (1888-1965) addresses this point:

“It is generally supposed that these promises were made to the Jews alone. However, this is not what the Bible says. The words ‘to thy seed’ inevitably include Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, who can claim descent from Abraham through his first son Ishmael. Ishmael was the reputed father of many Arab tribes…”

The name Israel is first heard in Genesis 32 when God renames Jacob, the son of Isaac. From this name are derived the terms “Children of Israel,” “Israelites,” and “Twelve Tribes of Israel.” Christian Zionists base Jewish claims to Palestine on the ridiculous notion that they are directly and purely descended from the biblical Israelites, as members of a Jewish “race” rather than adherents to the religion of Judaism. Ironically, anyone who converts to Judaism has legal rights to immigrate to the Jewish State regardless of heritage.

Intermarriage was prevalent early on, beginning with Isaac’s marriage to Rebekah, whose father was Syrian. Hence Arab blood was already present in the Israelites’ lineage. There are numerous other instances of intermarriage throughout the Old Testament, including Moses, whose father-in-law is identified as a Midianite, of an Arab tribe. Ruth, whose story is told in the Old Testament book bearing her name, was not Jewish but Moabite. In the first chapter of Matthew, Ruth is listed as a direct ancestor of Jesus Christ. Jacob’s youngest son, Joseph, married Asenath, daughter of Potipherah who was an Egyptian priest. She bore him two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. 41: 50). Jacob (Israel) later adopted Manasseh and Ephraim hence the two of the Twelve Tribes of Israel bear their names.

The Twelve Tribes of Israel were to divide the aforementioned land. The Levites, to whom Moses and Aaron belonged, were chosen as a caste of priests, thus not entitled to any land. Ironically, those with the surname Cohen claim to be descended from the Levites, not knowing if this were indeed true, they would have to relinquish rights to any land in Palestine! Likewise, the tribes of Gad, Reuben and half of Manasseh elected to settle east of the Jordan River.

When Israel split in the 6th Century B.C., the Northern Kingdom (which retained the name Israel) was comprised of ten tribes. The remaining two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, formed the Southern Kingdom (Judah). From 734-732 B.C. the kingdoms were at war with each other; the Assyrians routed the Northern Kingdom ten years later. The Babylonians conquered Judah in 597 B.C., the beginning of a seventy-year exile. The majority of those who eventually returned from the Babylonian captivity were from the tribe of Judah, from where the term “Jew” is derived, first appearing in the Second Book of Kings 16:6.

Another name found in the Bible is Ashkenaz, a son of Gomer. From this word comes Ashkenazim, referring to Jews of European heritage. However, Gomer was descended from Japheth (I Chronicles 1:6) and not Shem; therefore the name itself defines them as non-Semitic people.

Biblical origins of names become very important when confronting Zionist Christians, as evidenced in this inane statement from Craig Winn, author of such inflammatory titles as Prophet of Doom:

“The name ‘Palestinian’ was derived from the Roman Latinized name of the Philistines. The Assyrians murdered the last of the Philistines in 585 B.C. There are therefore, no Palestinians alive today. There haven’t been for over 2,500 years.”

In reality, the Philistines were only one of seven Canaanite nations and inhabited the area immediately around Gaza. Canaanites were descended from Ham, not Shem (Genesis 10), thus were not Semitic and cannot be related to modern day Palestinian Arabs who are true Semites. One of the many biblical prophecies warped by Zionist Christians is found in Zechariah 14:21b “…and in that day there shall be no more Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts.” They use this passage to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, when in fact Palestinians are not Canaanites.

An upcoming article will be devoted entirely to other biblical prophecies that Zionist Christians have taken out of context and twisted to fit their homicidal master plan.

The Roots of Christian Zionism

It is common knowledge that many so-called Christians throw unconditional, unyielding support behind the Jewish state. Known as Christian Zionists, or more recently “Israel-firsters”—indicating their degree of loyalty over and above the interests of their own country—it is estimated they are over 50 million strong in the United States alone. By stripping biblical passages out of their proper context and ignoring historical perspective, Christian Zionist leaders have convinced the masses that Jesus Christ will return when all Jews are gathered in Palestine, even if it means the systemic destruction of the Palestinian people.

Questions remain how such a blatantly un-biblical doctrine hijacked an entire segment of the Christian community; moreover, how the doctrine came to be so widely accepted not only in churches but in the halls of political power.

It has been argued that Christian Zionism originated as a spin-off of secular Zionism; that Christians were co-opted by political Zionists in order to gain support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Ironically, Palestine was sixth on the list for such a homeland at Theodor Herzl’s First Zionist Congress in 1897, behind locales including Argentina, Uganda and Turkey. It was in fact the Christian Zionists who were orchestrating the takeover of Palestine from the beginning.

The Politics of Christian Zionism 1891-1948 by Paul C. Merkley provides startling evidence that the poisoned theology of Christian Zionism predates Herzl, long considered the father of Zionism. In fact, Herzl received a tremendous amount of support from William Hechler, the son of Anglican missionaries and author of an 1893 pamphlet entitled “The Restoration of the Jews to Palestine According to Prophecy.” It was Hechler who arranged meetings between Herzl and Kaiser Wilhelm II, promoting the Zionist ambition to usurp Palestine among world leaders.

Early support for Zionism among United States policymakers was manifested through a handful of misguided religious nuts who manipulated leaders by flattering their sordid egotistical fantasies. According to Merkley, President Harry S. Truman compared himself to Cyrus, the Persian king who allowed Jews to return to Palestine in ancient times after the Babylonian captivity, although Zionist sympathies have run deep in America since its foundation.

The Puritans drew a parallel between themselves and the Children of Israel, escaping religious persecution in Europe just as the ancient Hebrews were led out of Egypt. America was their “Promised Land,” making way for the doctrine of Manifest Destiny (that it was God’s divine will for the new country to stretch from sea to sea) that justified the abhorrent treatment of Native Americans. By the same token, Christian Zionism justifies the killing and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to this day. Plymouth Brethren minister John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) popularized the doctrine under the name “dispensationalism,” which was further spread by the Scofield Reference Bible published in 1909. That edition contained copious footnotes instructing readers how to interpret Bible verses and prophecy centered around the re-establishment of Israel as a modern nation-state.

Thus the Zionist heresy was mass marketed to a largely ignorant populace who are convinced they do not have enough sense to read the Bible for themselves. Today, support for Israel has gained momentum through apocalyptic preaching by televangelists who make large profits for supporting Israel. They have co-opted Christian laypeople into thinking they can bring about Christ’s return, ending suffering on earth.

It would be scary enough if such ideas were confined to churches, but Zionist Christians have organized political lobbies such as Christians United for Israel (CUFI). Arguably, they have considerable influence over US foreign policy, particularly effective with neo-conservatives as witnessed during the George W. Bush administration. Numerous Christian groups encourage Jewish immigration to what is now called Israel through financial contributions while assisting ultra-orthodox Jewish groups to promote settlement expansion on Palestinian land.

Not only do Zionists distort biblical history, they spread lies about more modern events as well. Proponents of Israel will often pander the tired Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini obfuscation in an attempt to connect all Palestinians to Adolph Hitler. Husseini was imposed upon the Palestinians in 1921 by the British Mandate's first high commissioner, a British Jew named Herbert Samuel. Husseini was selected over the rival Nashashibi candidate and favored by the Zionist Commission. Husseini allied with Hitler to oppose the British, falling into the trap as so many others who have believed “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

In this manner Christian Zionists have the ability to reach outside their own cult and snag more secular (although nonetheless misguided) individuals by linking Arabs—particularly exploiting the blood connection between Husseini and late President Yasser Arafat—with the epitome of “anti-Semitic” evil. These same “Christians” are poised to use the anniversary of the September 11 tragedy to accuse Muslims of celebrating the attacks. In reality, the end of Ramadan, Eid Al-Fitr, coincides with that date this year. Meanwhile, Florida pastor Terry Jones, leader of the innocuous-sounding Dove World Outreach Center, is encouraging Christians to burn a Qur’an on September 11.

Although emboldened by all the media attention, proponents of these views are fortunately far from mainstream Christianity. The problem is that Christians who do take seriously Christ’s message of love are reluctant to gently—or not so gently—correct those hate-mongers masquerading as Christians. We must be willing to take back our faith by outspokenly refuting the heresy of Christian Zionism and its hateful manifestations both at home and abroad.

Fear or Apathy, We Are All To Blame

Over the years, I have lambasted the U.S. government, particularly in the area of foreign policy. Wars, copious amounts of taxpayer dollars in aid to an apartheid state, inherent racism and hypocrisy have provided endless fodder for constant criticism.

Has that criticism been aimed at the right place? The motivations behind the aforementioned institutionalized evils are elementary: money, power and greed; however the real problem is much deeper. A government that—at least in principle—is supposed to be “for the people, by the people” must relinquish some of the responsibility for erroneous policy to the people. Whether we feel the need to acquiesce out of fear or out of apathy, we are equally culpable.

The first great enemy to humanity is fear. It is fear that ultimately leads to racism, bigotry, hatred and any number of social ills. Those in power are well aware of this, and will use any means to instill fear in their citizenry in order to manipulate them. Recently, Israeli schoolchildren underwent numerous air raid drills, supposedly in the event of an attack by Hezbollah, or maybe Iran, or just in case the resistance groups in Gaza finally develop a rocket that can hit the broadside of a barn.

Of course, a country which touts itself as a premier tourist destination cannot be under the threat of imminent attacks from Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and Gaza, yet these brainwashed youngsters will—like us—be taught not to question, only to fear and to support their government’s attacks on Palestinian civilians and humanitarian activists under the guise of self-defense.

The tragic absurdity was compounded when Israeli commandos stormed a Gaza-bound humanitarian cargo ship, murdering unarmed activists, only to make outlandish claims that they were ambushed and attacked with knives, pipes and clubs. According to the increasingly preposterous hasbara machine, the Free Gaza movement is tied to Al-Qaeda and hate-filled passengers had prepared themselves for a violent confrontation. Logic dictates that if a group of activists plans a violent confrontation against one of the most advanced and trigger-happy armies in the world, they will carry at least a couple of AK-47s rather than knives and pipes.

However, fear leaves us with the inability to reason, thus it is the most important weapon in the propagandists’ arsenal. Common sense becomes an early casualty. Traveling on internal flights within Ecuador during a recent trip served as a blissful reminder that in other places in the world, travelers do not have to dump their water and liquids in larger-than-three-ounce containers at the door, nor remove their shoes. Yet fear-mongering has convinced us that there is a bomb in every bottle of baby oil and we are poised to submit to even more indignities after the infamous alleged “underwear bomber.” It is truly amazing what people will tolerate.

The Obama administration is poised to give Israel an additional $205 million for a missile defense shield, while the state of California has announced budget cuts eliminating programs such as welfare-to-work and home health care. The vicious cycle continues: give money to Israel, cut program funding for poor and destitute Americans to keep them busy with basic survival so there is no concern for what is going on overseas.

Such apathy, like fear, is equally debilitating. Whether it is the amount of gratuitous violence in news and entertainment, or simply that we are too busy trying to find employment, pay mortgages, maintain health coverage, gas the car and put food on the table, we are losing our uniquely human ability to empathize. Our government’s endless quest for global hegemony has created these conditions—instead of focusing on our own job creation, inner cities, education and health care, foreign wars and entanglements have drained our resources, leaving our citizens to die at hospital doors and our desperate youth to gun down each other in the streets.

I ran into a former coworker at a wedding recently. Sitting together at the reception, three year-old grandson on her lap in his crisp white tuxedo, I showed her pictures of my children while listing the major life changes that had taken place in the eleven years since I had seen her. She spoke of retirement with an air of sadness not usually associated with a comfortable pension after a lifetime of hard work and then informed me quietly that her youngest son—the father of the little boy seated so solemnly in her lap—had been shot and killed in 2007.

After heartfelt yet inadequate and clichéd expressions of sympathy, I realized that I had most likely seen reports of his murder on the news, but had given it little attention: it wasn’t in my part of town and I would not have recognized the name. In other words, it didn’t affect me.

Only then did I come to the disturbing realization that I am not immune to the sickness that has infected us all to one degree or another: the apathetic tolerance that we afford such untimely loss of human life. The people in neighborhoods and situations who have to worry about getting gunned down in front of their own homes cannot be bothered with the gross oppression going on in Palestine. More ignorance and apathy allows the government to continue unabated the flow of economic and military aid to the apartheid state of Israel.

To combat these dual forces of fear and apathy, we must remember the words of the 17th Century English poet John Donne: “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less…any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind…” We must afford each priceless human life the reverence it commands and refuse to succumb to the irrational scare tactics used by our government to justify mass murder.

Al-Nakba Denial: Concealing the Catastrophe

On May 15, 1948, one day after the British mandate over Palestine ended, the Jewish state of Israel was officially created. That date marked the beginning of a 62-year exile for 750,000 Palestinians, who along with their descendants now comprise the world’s largest refugee population at nearly five million people. Palestinians and people of conscience all around the world commemorate al-Nakba, meaning catastrophe in Arabic. The Palestinian population within what is now Israel—one quarter of which are internally displaced from villages decimated by the Israeli army and Zionist militias—mark al-Nakba by marching through the places where their villages once stood.

The protest marches do not sit well with the establishment in the “Middle East’s Only Democracy.” In 2008 World Likud Chairman Danny Danon called for a ban on the annual Nakba Day procession. He demanded authorities arrest any Arab leader speaking against Israel and its institutions, as well as anyone seen carrying the flag of an enemy state or “terrorist organization.” Danon stated in a press release that the march is “…a deliberate and subversive challenge of the Arab Israeli leadership against the existence of the State of Israel,” elaborating that its purpose was “to oppose and incite against the state.”

The following year, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's ultranationalist party, Yisrael Beitenu, proposed legislation to ban Nakba commemorations, calling for jail terms of up to three years for any event expressing sorrow for the Palestinian tragedy.

Party spokesman Tal Nahum explained, "The draft law is intended to strengthen unity in the state of Israel and to ban marking Independence Day as a day of mourning," Ironically, Israeli Independence Day celebrations rarely coincide with Nakba demonstrations, as the former is marked in accordance with the Hebrew calendar and can fall in April or May.

Recently, the Israeli parliamentary Law Committee approved a draft law proposal that, if passed by the Knesset, would impose economic sanctions on the organizers of Nakba commemorations. Although the language was softened, discarding the jail term provision, the bill forbids government-supported organizations from spending money on Nakba activities and will levy fines as much as ten times the amount of money spent on such activities.

The mere suggestion of forbidding peaceful memorials to honor Palestinians who were killed or driven out in 1948 is a criminal attempt by the Israeli government to conceal atrocities committed while establishing the Jewish “homeland.” Thankfully, there are eyewitnesses to the slaughter that make such rewriting of history impossible.

In 2002, Dr. Anthony McRoy, lecturer at the Evangelical Theological college of Wales, published an article detailing the Ramleh and Lydda massacres perpetrated by the Haganah and Irgun militia. Beginning on July 13, 1948, the entire population of 70,000 men, women and children were forced to flee their homes. Two American journalists, Keith Wheeler and Kenneth Bilby, reported the carnage. Wheeler of the Chicago Sun Times wrote “practically everything in their way died. Riddled corpses lay by the roadside.” Bilby, writing for the the New York Herald Tribune reported seeing “…the corpses of Arab men, women and even children strewn about in the wake of the ruthlessly brilliant charge.”

Israeli historian Benny Morris wrote of the brutal treatment that Palestinians suffered during their forced exodus, relating the testimony of soldiers who partook in the torment. Looting on a massive scale was commonplace, as were rapes. After the population was gone, soldiers who were planning on joining kibbutzim stole mechanical and agricultural equipment. Palestinians were stripped of their valuables and forced to march 20 miles in searing heat to Ramallah; at one point a child fell into a well and drowned. An estimated 350 people died from heat exhaustion and dehydration during trek, although British Arab Legion Commander John Glubb later stated “nobody will ever know how many children died.”

Some Palestinian civilians stayed in Lydda, only to be massacred by Israeli forces. Out of the 426 men, women and children that were murdered, 176 were sheltered in the Dahmash mosque where they had been promised safe haven by the Israelis.It was a matter of Israeli policy to circulate news of what transpired in Ramleh and Lydda, as well as the massacre in the village of Deir Yassin three months prior, in order to demoralize and frighten neighboring Palestinians into fleeing as well.

Today, the people of Lydda and Ramleh and their descendants number around half a million, living mainly in refugee camps around Amman, Jordan and Ramallah; the airport built on the site of the devastation was named after the man who ordered the ethnic cleansing, Ben Gurion. These continuing gross injustices are part of the “ongoing Nakba” as stated by The Badil Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights. The organization defines the situation as “…caused by Israel's system of institutionalized racial discrimination which is composed of laws, policies and practices that have resulted in second-class citizen status of Palestinians, more land confiscation, discriminatory development planning, segregation of Palestinian communities, home demolitions and forced evictions, in order to ensure Jewish privilege and domination.”

Indeed the catastrophe does not merely lie in the human tragedy and devastation wielded by depraved bands of terrorists—and condoned by the international community—for the establishment of a Jewish state 62 years ago. The catastrophe is the desperation of life under siege in Gaza, the degradation of life under occupation in the West Bank, the discrimination of life as a Palestinian in what is now Israel and the humiliation of refugee status for those suffering a six-decade exile.

The catastrophe is exacerbated not only by those who celebrate the original crime, but by denying Palestinians the right to mourn the loss of loved ones and homeland. This is by far the most damning evidence that not only is Israel is an oppressive state that routinely violates international humanitarian law, but also an Orwellian state not content to simply eradicate Palestinians from the map, but to obliterate the memory of their existence.

Questioning Holocaust Curricula: The 21st-Century Scopes Monkey

It is hard to imagine more of a mockery being made of America’s public education system than occurred in the 1925 case Tennessee vs. John Scopes. The “Scopes Monkey Trial,” as it came to be known, found substitute biology teacher John Scopes guilty of violating a state law banning the theory of evolution from being taught in public schools. The Butler law, which passed overwhelmingly in the Tennessee state legislature earlier that year, made it illegal to present "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.”

The American Civil Liberties Union persuaded John Scopes to challenge the Butler law as a test case to determine its constitutionality. The guilty verdict was later thrown out by Tennessee’s Supreme Court on a technicality; hence the statute was never fully tested. It did, however, set a precedent as to the degree which government can intervene in the academic freedom of public education.

Fast forward to today. Five states: California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey and New York have enacted laws requiring teaching of the Holocaust in public classrooms, while an additional ten states have issued executive regulations recommending Holocaust studies be included in their respective curricula. The Simon Wiesenthal Center—ironically, same organization poised to build a “Museum of Tolerance” on top of the historic Muslim Mamilla cemetery in Jerusalem—defines the Holocaust as "the destruction of some 6 million Jews by the Nazis and their followers in Europe between the years 1933-1945. Other individuals and groups were persecuted and suffered grievously during this period, but only the Jews were marked for complete and utter annihilation."

It is not necessary to parse words; the Holocaust refers to singular Jewish suffering, while giving a patronizing nod to other groups persecuted by the Nazis. Singular study of the Holocaust comes at the omission of any other World War II-era genocide or mass persecution: the Japanese occupation of China and other countries in the region, the releasing of the atomic demon upon millions of Japanese civilians, the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, or the millions who died at the hand of Soviet president Josef Stalin, then a US ally.

Stalin waged a campaign to erase Chechnya and Ingushetia from existence, deporting 1.4 million people from these regions in the western Soviet Union between 1941 and 1944. Most were accused of being Nazi collaborators, although evidence shows they were targeted due to a series of anti-collectivization rebellions against Soviet rule. On February 23, 1944 alone, approximately 387,000 Chechens and 91,000 Ingush were forced from their homes.

The BBC reported in 2004, that young Chechen men were taken from the front lines and sent to forced labor in Siberian gulags, their medals, decorations and papers confiscated. Civilians were rounded up and taken to Kazakhstan and other central Asian republics. According to Mohmad Musaev, head of the Chechen National Archive, Russian soldiers massacred many villagers rather than going to the expense of deporting them. Seven hundred people were burned alive and others were drowned in mountain lakes. A 2002 PBS series reported that an estimated 30 percent of Chechen deportees died en route to resettlement or within their first year of exile.
In 1957, Nikita Krushchev re-established Chechnya and Ingushetia as an autonomous republic, allowing survivors to return, only to find their homes taken over by neighboring Russians.

Most people are unaware of the Chechen genocide, while the Holocaust has two internationally recognized days: Yom Hashoah, falling in April or May in accordance with the Hebrew calendar and International Holocaust Remembrance Day, designated as January 27 by the United Nations General Assembly, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. The same U.N. resolution rejects denial of the Holocaust and condemns discrimination and violence based on religion or ethnicity.

If “discrimination and violence based on religion or ethnicity,” is to be condemned, then why such silence regarding the Chechen genocide, or al-Nakba, the catastrophe during which 750,000 Palestinians were driven out of their land to establish the modern Jewish State?

Aside from the fact that the victims in these cases were predominantly Muslim, the answer lies in the proximity of Holocaust Remembrance Day to Israeli “Independence Day.” Any mention of the Palestinians killed or displaced in 1948 runs contrary to the month-long media blitz of pro-Israeli propaganda using the shield of the Holocaust to silence those critical of Israel’s policies.

Holocaust studies are only serving to mask the ongoing 62-year ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinians by generating unconditional sympathy for Israel. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, “Every member nation of the U.N. has an obligation to honor the memory of Holocaust victims and develop educational programs as part of an international resolve to help prevent future acts of genocide.” If that is the goal, Holocaust curricula are failing miserably.

Instead of condemning oppression, Israel apologists routinely use the Holocaust to defend the cruel treatment of Palestine’s original inhabitants. Paula E. Hyman, a professor of modern Jewish history at Yale Uni¬versity, has accurately observed:

“…it (the Holocaust) reinforces the sense of Jews as an eternally beleaguered people who can rely for their defense only upon themselves. The invocation of the suffering endured by the Jews under the Nazis often takes the place of rational argument, and is expected to convince doubters of the legitimacy of current Israeli government policy.”

While it may not be illegal yet, questioning the agenda behind Holocaust education in the United States earns the dreaded label “Holocaust Revisionist,” akin to the even more feared “Holocaust Denier,” first cousin to the infamous “Anti-Semite.” The climate in which the Holocaust is being shoved down the throats of our nation’s school children is comparable with 1925 Tennessee and introducing ideas contrary to the approved curriculum of Holocaust studies is the 21st Century’s Scopes Monkey. The sole purpose of this teaching is for our youth to accept Israel’s legitimacy without question, a non sequitur based on sympathy for Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. Zionist indoctrination is never logical, but thanks to our complacency, it is effective.