Iranian-American protesters debate Obama’s stance

Obama ends Mideast weekend with visit to German concentration camp

The day after President Obama spoke to the Muslim world from Cairo, Egypt, he visited the World War II German concentration camp in Buchenwald. It is believed that 56,000 people were killed at the hands of the German war machine at Buchenwald.

Buchenwald is a grim reminder of the costs of hatred and intolerance, the president said after touring the grounds where a crematorium silently haunts visitors with the reality of the bodies disposed. The clocks there are permanently frozen at the time the US Military liberated the camp at 3:15 on the afternoon of April 11, 1945.

“More than half a century later, our grief and our outrage over what happened have not diminished,” the president told the press after touring the camp.

It appears that the timing of the speech in Egypt was set to coincide with the annual remembrances in Europe surrounding the D-Day invasion of occupied France. The timing allowed Mr. Obama to make a huge overture to the Muslim and Arab region, while also truly ending the speech with the visit to Germany and embracing the pain of the Jewish people who lost over 6 million in the many concentration camps.

The recognition by President Obama may be a very crucial step in creating the honest broker image he is trying to create for the U.S. in both the Arab and Israeli public minds.

He also publicly chided holocaust deniers, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while at the camps.

“To this day, there are those who insist the Holocaust never happened,” the president said. “This place is the ultimate rebuke to such thoughts, a reminder of our duty to confront those who would tell lies about our history.”

The president also challenged Ahmadinejad to visit the camps.

It is possible that many pro-Palestinians will chide the president for the visit. Some will claim it is an obvious bow to the “Zionist lobby.” But the trip ended with the striking of a more humanistic tone.

“The president,” reported the New York Times, “said he saw — reflected in the Nazi brutality against Jews and the other impounded outcasts — Israel’s capacity to empathize with the suffering of others.” The president felt “that gave him more hope Israel and the Palestinians can achieve an equitable and lasting peace.”

It is also important that the president toured the facility with Jewish and Israeli author Elie Weisel. Wiesel was imprisoned at the Buchenwald camp with his father - who died in the bunk above Wiesel. The camp displays a picture of the imprisoned - which includes the 16 year old prisoner Wiesel. Wiesel saw the photo for the first time with President Obama.

Wiesel has been applauded many times for his humanistic and spiritual messages he has conveyed through the 57 books he has authored.

In his comments to the president and the press, he politely disagreed with Obama’s speech in which the president said that we had learned our lesson from the Holocaust.

“…The world has learned? I am not so sure. Had the world learned, there would have been no Cambodia, and no Rwanda, and no Darfur, and no Bosnia. The world hasn’t learned. I think that is why Buchenwald is so important.”

President Obama’s speech combines rhetoric with hope

There had never been an American president who gave a speech like President Obama did this morning to the shared world of America and Islam.

It was brave in its vulnerability.

The president of the United States stood alone at the podium of Cairo University, looked the world in the eye, and then hoped to speak something new into existence.

The president unraveled there a masterpiece of political art that I believe our children will study in history, political science and communications classes in years to come.

President Obama redefined the War on Terror as a war that brings the Middle East and America together.

He redefined it as a shared struggle. A jihad, not between the Muslim World and the West, but against those who dehumanize any of us.

The War on Terror, President Obama seemed to be saying, now recognizes the Arabs who have been killed by violent political extremists as much as any New Yorker on 9/11, any Israeli killed when a bomb is detonated or any Palestinian refused their identity and suffering as the Israeli settlements expand.

He spoke of a hope to see the same shared desires connecting Washington, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

But first we must stop being “defined by our differences,” he said. Because when we do, we “empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.”

I could see Dick Cheney and Osama Bin Laden cringing at their dislike for this attempted new reality.

But Obama went even further.

“America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition,” Obama said as he tried to convince us that we are actually not just facing the same threats but also sharing each others achievements.

“Instead, Islam and America overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings,” Obama said.

No longer did I feel like it was us versus them, but just us.

Islam, President Obama proclaimed, has been part of America from the beginning. Islam has benefited the most honored areas of our society and its achievements.

Mosques are found in every state and “when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Quran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.”

It is true that, “It’s easier to start wars than to end them. It’s easier to blame others than to look inward,” as the president said.

But if we can recognize that we are all living our lives based on the same principles of treating each other as we would wish to be treated, maybe we can reject notions those who have divided us try to force down our throats.

Maybe we can start by creating a better understanding of Islam and America and do it for each other.

Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli screenplay: How Bibi and Obama pose as actors, not directors

Behind every meeting, there are the untold stories. I like to think of these symbolic gestures as a theater setup to include actors. Sometimes, if you know enough about what’s happening, you can even figure out who the marionettes are. From this, it becomes evident that the key players are simply moving in accordance to pre-emptive deals made by these marionettes. The manipulators of these marionettes being the Israel lobby, the fundamentalist ideologies of both Zionist and Palestinian extremist groups, as well as the compromised foreign policy of the United States.  It is extremely important to understand first the behind-the-scenes developments of the conflict as well as the past of both Netanyahu and Obama before attempting to analyze the meeting itself.

Benjamin Netanyahu is a staunch military Zionist. What does this mean? To start, let’s define Zionism. It is a religious-nationalist movement aimed towards establishing and maintaining the religious homeland of the Jews. This religious homeland, defined in the Judeo-Christian faiths, has been established as the area formerly known as Palestine. The religious significance of this movement is extremely important, because it rules out the establishment of a Jewish homeland in any other region of the world.

For Netanyahu, this includes retaining rights to the Occupied Territories and all of Jerusalem. To do this, he continues to be an adamant supporter of illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories. During his previous term as prime minister, Netanyahu went so far as to issue an apology to illegal settlers in the Occupied Territories regarding cuts to their federal welfare checks while simultaneously celebrating the drop of Palestinian birth rates in these areas.

To make matters worse, Netanyahu believes that U.S.-backed peace talks are “a waste of time.” Combined with his previous statement on Palestinians, how can one trust that the future of Palestinian statehood and well being are even part of Bibi’s everyday conversation?

Obama enters the current conflict well-intentioned and diplomatically hopeful. But much like his predecessors, I believe that he will share the same political frustrations as Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, to name a few. For Truman, his anger at the persistence of the Zionist lobby during his time pushed him to allow his own ambassadors to ensure the implementation of UN Resolution 181 through whatever means it would take, including bribery of other member states and political manipulation of the rest. Kennedy was faced with lack of Israeli cooperation in his attempts to monitor their nuclear weapons programs. Not only did this lead to the development of Israel’s nuclear stockpile, but contributed to the much-feared proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the Middle East. Jimmy Carter expressed much of his frustrations post-presidency, particularly evident in his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. And Bill Clinton was left with the wreckage of the Camp David talks, an event that top Israeli officials would later come to admit that they themselves would not have accepted had they been Palestinian.

Obama is facing the immense power of the Israel lobby (particularly AIPAC) domestically, and he is also confronting a man like Netanyahu abroad. Since his inauguration, AIPAC has successfully managed to campaign and release some of its top officials from criminal charges of treason - charges that arose from their decision to pass sensitive information regarding the US onto Israeli intelligence. And since his inauguration, Netanyahu has already come out and proclaimed US involvement in the conflict as a “waste of time”.

The recent meeting between Netanyahu and Obama, it seems, was nothing but a façade.

For peace negotiations to truly move forward, I believe a three-party system is inevitably doomed for failure. Just as Israel uses the United States as its personal proxy, I believe another power will need to become involved to promote the Palestinian interests in a non-violent and productive way. So far, it is evident that potential and legitimate candidates have failed to assume this role, notably the Arab League and the Arab-American communities within the United States. And as a result, we have militant and violent actors such as Hezbollah and Hamas that are attempting to assume the face of Palestine.

This new distribution of power could also very well include the European Union, who has had a history of sympathizing with the Palestinians. After all, Israel did just threaten the EU to “tone down its criticism” of her. But given the immense socio-economic leverage that the EU holds, it may just be enough to offset the Israeli-stronghold on the United States. Obama will not be able to turn his speeches into action alone. Netanyahu has made this clear with his statements and previous political behavior as prime minister of Israel.

And thus the cycle continues of glossed-over talks and political meetings that ultimately equate to no real progress.

But if the marionettes on both sides of the conflict (including the militant organizations among Palestinians as well as Zionists within the Israeli government) are faced with new, key players that will not participate in pre-emptive deals like the United States, we may be seeing the release of a newer, much more peaceful play set on the world stage.

Immigration Reform to Help Economic Recovery?

The White House reaffirmed President Obama’s commitment to working on immigration reform during his first year as president. While Obama has made clear that fixing the economy is his number one priority, a summary of recent research released by the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) shows that fixing the broken immigration system could bring us one step closer to economic recovery.

As right-wing pundits falsely claim that immigration reform would cost the American public “billions,” available research suggests that — had the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 passed — it would have generated a much needed $66 billion in new revenue during 2007 to 2016 from income and payroll taxes, as well as various administrative fees. According to Dan Siciliano, associate dean at Stanford University, “We know, from experience and analysis, that a legalization program helps grow the economy. Being undocumented causes immigrants not to invest in themselves, in their community, or their skills. Enfranchised consumers who are part of the above ground economy are more invested consumers. They are more likely to invest extra time, money, and effort into their children and themselves.”

In fact, according to Giovanni Peri, associate professor of economics at the University of California, Davis, immigrants don’t even compete with the majority of natives for the same jobs because they tend to have different levels of education and to work in different occupations. In contrast to what Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs might be telling their audiences, immigrants usually “complement” the native-born workforce — which increases the productivity, and therefore the wages, of the native-born.

Comprehensive immigration reform would also eliminate the “trap door” that artificially suppresses wages and would allow workers to compete fairly for the first time. Cristina Jiménez, an immigration policy consultant at the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy has pointed out that “consigning undocumented workers to a precarious existence undermines all who aspire to a middle-class standard of living.” In a recent post on the Hill’s Congress Blog, Jeanne Butterfield, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, explained:

“Moving forward with comprehensive immigration reform will ensure that all workers are here legally, will punish unscrupulous employers who undercut their honest competitors, and will restore integrity to the labor market. Labor leader Esther Lopez (United Food and Commercial Workers Union) confirmed: ‘Comprehensive immigration reform is the only way we can level the playing field for all workers. By bringing people out of the shadows and by having legalization be part of a broader immigration reform, we can create an immigration system that works for the American worker. We can’t, in this economy, leave 12 million undocumented workers out in the shadows.’”

David Dyssegaard Kallick, senior fellow at the Fiscal Policy Institute, added, “People don’t just vanish and imagine what would be involved in driving out 12 million undocumented immigrants. Mass deportation isn’t realistic. What is realistic is making sure immigrants work in the above-ground economy. Immigration reform isn’t about being pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant — it’s about having an immigration system that functions and addresses what I think everyone recognizes as a broken system.”

While a policy designed to deport approximately 10 million undocumented immigrants would cost at least $206 billion over five years, or $41.2 billion annually; immigration reform would pay for itself in the form of increased wages, buying-power, and tax contributions that would benefit all working men and women.

(This post originally appeared on New America Media on April 23.)

–

Credit: Andrea Nill is communications and research associate at the Immigration Policy Center, a division of American Immigration Law Foundation. This post appeared in IMMIGRATION MATTERS, which regularly features the views of immigration experts and advocates.

Obama, Chavez gesture shakes leftist beliefs

It had become so easy to be an angry leftist during the past 8 years.

But then President Barack Obama came along and shook hands with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

It was so mature of the president of the United States to shake hands with someone with whom there was a history of tension. It confused me. I mean even JFK acted like a boy when he tried to kill Fidel Castro with explosive cigars.

And George Bush Jr. Well….

I had grown so secure being able to recognize America with it’s swagger. I didn’t recognize
America however, as its leader gracefully and maturely smiled while shaking hands with the communist leader, who was not accepting money as he pretended to not disagree with the U.S.

And yet as I smoked my Shisha and watched Al Jazerra, I turned to my friend and said, “I am so proud of my president.”

For a second, I turned my eyes to the floor and thought of something negative to say. Luckily, I found Pakistan in my file of useful unresolved complaints.

But it wasn’t like before. Something had changed.

In shock, I sat there as a libral Muslim now inspired by the American president. I then began to speak again.

I do not entirely agree with capitalism. But Barack Obama has caused me to believe that we can all contribute to our society.

President Obama, with that handshake, has allowed me to believe that as a Muslim socialist democrat, I am, too, worth a handshake. It also makes me think that the U.S. deserves the same.

With that gesture, I now think I should advocate my beliefs because it will serve the U.S., not because I hate the U.S.

I do not want to become an angry ideologue. I want to become a clear thinker who treats a capitalist as I would like to be treated.

There are many angry leftists who are still having a hard time balancing their beliefs with the new opportunities we are witnessing. They feel comfortable with their anger. It’s their identity.

But Barack Obama has inspired me to transform.

God willing, we as a nation will transform together.

–
Watch CNN’s coverage of Obama and Chavez here.

Interested in checking out Chavez’s recommended reading to Obama? Check it out on Amazon.

–
Credit: Abrahim Appel, 30, a freelance journalist residing in Fullerton, California. He recently acquired his B.A in Afro-Ethnic and American Indian Studies from Cal State Fullerton. He works as a live-in caregiver and is researching masters and PhD programs in Arab-Diaspora Studies or International Relations with an emphasis on ethnic relations while considering a career with the Peace Corps. Contact him at Abrahim AT minoritydreams DOT com.

Obama changes strategy on Cuba, not philosophy

No, Barack Obama does not want to wear your Che Guevara T-shirt.

The recent policy changes toward Cuba are changes in strategy, not philosophy. America still seeks to destabilize the Communist thinking government.

But the Administration is switching ideological sides. It is admitting that decades of American policies toward Cuba began to make Uncle Sam look mean, old and out of touch. And maybe, isolation even helped the Communist government keep control of Cuba.

Remember, Obama is calm and flexible guy who likes to at least try to talk. He aims to make things more positive and see what happens.

And it looks like he was right about America being okay with that.

CNN recently said that its own polls showed that 64 percent of Americans were okay with lifting travel restrictions to Cuba. Another 71 percent were even okay with diplomatic relations between the two countries.