שלום 2.0

To mark the 40th anniversary of the Middle East's 6-Day War of 1967, Camille Otrakji, a highly-skilled designer and "cyber-diplomat", has launched a companion to his incredible Creative Syria site, which boasts one of the most amazing collections of historic photographs one might ever see from the Middle East.

It is called the Creative Forum, designed to promote person-to-person public diplomacy (like the thing that Karen Hughes is utterly failing to do with the Islamic world, despite the help she had from her trusty deputy, Dina Mloukhia Powell). The idea is to encourage Syrians and Israelis to discuss directly the status of the Golan Heights, which Israel seized during the 6-Day War, along with the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai Peninsula.

Accordingly, Otrakji proposed the following question:

"If you could write a one page letter to an Israeli citizen who does not believe his country should give back the Golan Heights to Syria, what would you tell him/her?"

He nominated myself, as well as another American very familiar with the region - Bridget Palmer, to moderate the discussion. I gladly accepted, as I have always believed that geo-political issues could be solved with more first-hand information and less propaganda.

My own experience validates that belief. I will never forget leaving London and having and one of my dear Israeli friends, who later hosted me in Tel Aviv that summer, write me that until he met me, the only image he had of Syrian people was an army propaganda video that showed 12-year-old Syrian girls sent to military camps and trained to kill snakes with their teeth. (continued...)

As for Creative Forum, the opinions expressed thus far by various Syrians have been diverse and thought-provoking, and already the site is attracting interest from Israelis curious to learn more about what it will take to make peace with their northern neighbors.

In fact, I am delighted to report that today, Haaretz, Israel's third largest newspaper, had an article about these online efforts to communicate, written by Yoav Stern. For now, it is only available in Hebrew, with the clever title "Shalom 2.0". Stern communicates to the Israeli public the essence of Creative Forum by quoting the final line from Otrakji's letter:

"'painful concessions' will be quickly forgotten the first time you have lunch in Damascus."

Of course I wrote for the site as well (my piece was also published on the Arab American Institute's commemoration of the 6 Day War), from a peace-oriented American perspective, since I am not a citizen of the Syrian Arab Republic. My essay on the Golan Heights reads as follows:

Often times, colleagues will invite me, as an American citizen of Syrian origin, to expatiate my views of the Middle East Peace Process, particularly as it pertains to land disputes between Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic. Of course I reply that nothing could bring me greater pleasure than to bear witness to a resolution of that conflict on the basis of land for peace, and that I consider the role of the United States to be that of a facilitator, which steers those negotiations in good faith.

I have never felt it appropriate, however, for the United States to tell leaders of either Israel or the Syrian Arab Republic how to run their countries. That is the sort of arrogance that gives my country its unfortunate ill repute in such circles. We can guide the process and we can responsibly exert our influence to affect a positive outcome, but America cannot and should not bark orders to other sovereign nations.

Thus, the terms of the final arrangement are not for me, or even my President, to decide or mandate. Peace must evolve organically, through a comprehensive negotiation between the conflicting parties that respects each other's sovereignty, security, and – most of all – dignity.

I suppose my position appears one crafted with the meticulous care of an aspiring diplomat, bereft of passionate judgment. Nevertheless, seemingly for the pleasure of Cruel Fate, I have been blessed, or perhaps cursed, with an inextricable attachment to all matters Levantine.

Few have had the opportunity, as have I, to view the Golan Heights, captured by Israel on June 4, 1967, from both sides of the armistice line of 1974. Like a handful of adventurous visitors to the Syrian Arab Republic, I sought permission from its government to journey to the deserted Quneitra, where, like Pope John Paul II, I observed the ruins of homes, a hospital and even a church desecrated by the departing Israeli forces.

Similarly, like many a tourist to Israel, I have accompanied friends from Tel Aviv – secular liberals who care nothing for the religious overtones of that southerly seized territory – the biblical Judea and Samaria – on excursions to "the most beautiful part of the country", as they refer to the land captured from the Syrian Arab Republic by the Israeli Defense Force during the 6-day war of 40 years ago. There as well, I recall seeing demolished mosques and homes – "these places were destroyed to avoid a refugee problem," a friend glibly told me.

The wide gulf between these 2 experiences demonstrates the differing attitudes toward a quest for national normalcy. Judging by their carefree picnics, camping trips, and ski excursions to the Golan Heights, Israelis seem to have achieved it – at least until the next Katuysha rocket rains down – while their northern neighbors poetically mourn its unattainability with their every breath.

But the greater truth has been obfuscated by minutiae: national normalcy derives from regional normalcy. Until citizens of the Syrian Arab Republic have restored their collective national sense of dignity, so bound to the reintegration of the Golan Heights, they will remain restive. History has shown us that, sooner or later, like it or not, that discomfort will adversely impact their Israeli neighbors. Hence the formula: land for peace.

Perhaps it will take several more decades of mistrust, enmity, and even bloodshed on both sides for this realization to take root. Or perhaps the region will emerge from its leadership crisis with a mandate from all its people to make lasting peace. Whichever the case, this American will be the first to cheer when Syrian children wade in Lake Tiberias, and Israeli parents once again say "may they never go to the army" upon the birth of their sons.

George Ajjan is a Republican Party activist and a member of the Arab American Institute's National Policy council.

continue reading "שלום 2.0..."

Dry run, wet music

Almost 3 years after it occurred, the so-called "dry run" for a terrorist attack, supposedly staged by the band backing Syrian singer Nour Mehanna, has been discussed in a detailed report mostly declassified by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The incident made waves when a web journalist named Annie Jacobsen shared a flight from Detroit to Los Angeles in June of 2004 with 12 musicians from Syria, and their manager, Lebanese-American Elie Harfouche, as well as several air marshals. The DHS report, which comprises information from Ms. Jacobsen as well as 5 other passengers, says:

"Six of the men arrived at the gate together after boarding began, then split up and acted as if they were not acquainted. According to air marshals, the men also appeared sweaty and nervous. An air marshal assigned to Flight 327 observed their behavior and characterized it as 'unusual,' but made no further reports at the time.

During the flight, the men again acted suspiciously. Several of the men changed seats, congregated in the aisles, and arose when the fasten seat belt sign was turned on; one passenger moved quickly up the aisle toward the cockpit and, at the last moment, entered the first class lavatory. The passenger remained in the lavatory for about 20 minutes. Several of the men spent excessive time in the lavatories. Another man carried a large McDonald's restaurant bag into a lavatory and made a thumbs-up signal to another man upon returning to his seat."

In addition to that, there were administrative errors that compounded suspicion because the Syrian visitors appeared to have expired visas, when in fact they had visas approved through July 15 and the last of them left the US in compliance with the terms of his visa on July 14.

Those facts, and the rest of the report form which they were excerpted, led the Washington Times to title's its article on the subject "Report confirms terror dry run". In reality, the report mostly uses the incident as a case study to test intra-agency communication and preparedness to deal with future attacks of this nature. There seems to be quite a lot of finger-pointing within the government, some obviously cya in nature. For example, the Transportation Safety Administration report says:

"Federal Air Marhsals Service and FBI leadership jointly determined that the subjects could be cleared. The reported suspicious activity was determined to be unfounded, and not a terrorist threat and therefore did not merit an Homeland Security Operations Center referral."

On the other hand, a former Federal Air Marshal named Robert MacLean, fired last year for revealing cost-saving cutbacks on protection for long-distance flights, says:

"This report is evidence of Homeland Security executives attempting to downplay and cover up an unmistakable dry run that forced flight attendants to reveal the air marshals and compel the pilots to open the flight deck door."

I always found this case to be particularly interesting, because I attended a hafla at The Nile restaurant just off Route 3 at which Mehanna and his band played. In fact, it was during the summer of 2004, contemporaneous with the case in question, when my congressional campaign was in full swing. I was invited to swing by, and even passed out bi-lingual campaign literature.

There may not have been any terrorists on the stage that night, but for a tarab purist, the musical arrangements were downright criminal. A full drum kit? Bass guitar? إش هذه؟.

Of course, as far as Arabic music goes, I was raised listening to my grandparents' records of the old-school Arab and Arab-American performers who continued the early 20th century small-ensemble musical tradition: mutrab (singer - literally "enchanter"), oud (fretless lute), qanun (zither), kamanja (violin), and darbaka (percussion) - perhaps mijwiz (reed instrument) also.

The liner notes for a great CD, The Music of Arab Americans, point out that the slim availability of qualified musicians in the US perpetuated this small ensemble style long after it had died out in the Arab world - note the huge orchestra that used to back Um Kalthoum, complete with electric guitar and saxophone.
continue reading "Dry run, wet music..."

Muslims by the numbers

On Tuesday, May 22, Pew Research released a comprehensive survey of American Muslims, that covered cultural, social, religious, political, and other domains. I will leave the mundane out-of-context analysis to the fearmongers and apologists, but I would like to discuss some specific observations. See each quote from the survey below followed by my analysis.

"Interviews were conducted in English, Arabic, Urdu and Farsi."

This is not unimportant. I do believe, even over the phone, that conducting the discussion in one's native language, versus English, changes the dynamic and can have an effect on one's replies. It's a question of the mental state one adopts in given circumstances. I would be interested to see a re-sorted survey that took into account the language in which the survey was administered - my guess is that responses collected in Arabic, Urdu, or Farsi would indicate more tolerance of terrorism in the name of Islam as well as more negative attitudes toward the US.

"Muslim Americans hold liberal political views on questions about the size and scope of government. At the same time, however, they are socially conservative and supportive of a strong role for government in protecting morality."

This finding has somewhat disappointing implications for those of us forcefully arguing for a Republican outreach to American Muslims. The survey's finding that 70% of American Muslims favor a bigger government rebuts the conventional wisdom that the entrepreneurial nature of immigrant populations makes them a natural fit for the fiscally conservative approach that characterized the GOP (pre-W).

While the survey indicated that a position of discouraging homosexuality predominates, that was the only specific social issue explored. I find it disappointing that the survey did not seek detailed information on American Muslim disposition toward abortion, right-to-die, or stem-cell issues. So the data doesn't give Republicans of the "big-tent" persuasion much to work with. (continued...)

"23% say they converted to Islam. Nine-in-10 converts to Islam were born in the United States."

The survey further indicates that 40% of Muslim converts (or reverts, as Islam refers to them) are non-black. That means that more than 10% of Muslims in the United States are white Americans who converted. I found that very interesting.

"23% live in a household with at least one non-Muslim."

When we take African-American Muslims out of the equation, we find that 12% of Muslims in the US live with non-Muslims. Another interesting statistic that challenges conventional views about American followers of Islam.

"64% of Muslims from the Arab region say they are white, while 20% say they are some other or mixed race."

In my view, inhabitants of the Mediterranean zone and the Arabian Peninsula are members of the same race as Europeans. The anthropological record will back me up on that.

Given that "Arab" is a classification that encompasses a span of countries including Mauritania, Sudan, Somalia, and others, it seems that the Arab-American Muslims interviewed in this survey from nations like Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, etc. agree with me. The desire to push for minority non-white status is an ongoing debate in the Arab-American community.

"Just 40% of Muslim Americans say groups of Arabs carried out those attacks."

God protect us from stupid conspiracy theories. It would be nice to see this broken out by country of birth - I would bet that those from Arab countries registered even lower than 40%. I regret the intellectual laziness that dominates the Arab World and boils everything down to a ridiculous conspiracy theory. If Arabs took even half the extraordinary energy they waste dreaming up imaginary plots against them and channeled that creativity into more noble pursuits, imagine the possibilities...

I also would like to know why this question was phrased as "groups of Arabs" and not "groups of Muslims".

"39% have come to the U.S. since 1990."

I must admit, I found this a bit alarming. Even adjusting for new births, this means that the population of American Muslims has increased by more than half in only 2 decades. Granted, in raw numbers it's not a big jump, considering that Pew determined the total number of Muslims in the US to be only about 1.5 million, but immigration of any kind needs to be conducted in measured and sensible ways.

Naturally, I am not of the belief that America should be open only to white Europeans, but any incoming population with customs (or in this case, religion) that differs from the majority of Americans needs to be integrated smoothly. This is not without precedent. For perspective, Arab immigration accounted for less than 1% of the flood of people who entered the US in the early 2oth century (and 90%+ at that time were Christian) and the immigration quotas instituted in 1921 and 1924 were largely aimed to curtail the massive inflow of Italians.

"The poll reveals that Muslims in the United States reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries."

Frankly, I do not care whether American Muslims paint a prettier picture than the mess that is the Muslim Community in Europe. What is important to me is that any immigrant or any citizen of the United States rejects violent ideology of any kind - and right now we have a minority that does not feel that way. Let's face it.

Just because the United States has not experienced the riots that engulfed France, started by disenchanted Muslim inhabitants there, does not mean that everything is honky-dory. We do have a problem and it is up to the American Muslim and Arab-American community to clean its/our own house, which is not made any easier when the rhetoric of fearmongers creates a reflexively defensive posture within the community.

On the topic of Muslims in Europe however, stay tuned to what commentator Mona el-Tahawy, who opines frequently on efforts to reform Islam, has to say. She recently told me:

"I'm writing about the formation of a new Centrist political party by Naser Khader, the Syrian born member of the Danish parliament. He was also the first Muslim parliamentarian in Denmark. Muslims might be better socially integrated in the U.S. but they're doing better politically in Europe. Khader is the head of a new political party that could very form a coalition with the government should early elections be called; there are two Muslim junior ministers in the Dutch government, etc."

"Nearly half of Muslims in the U.S. say they think of themselves first as Muslims, rather than as Americans."

This may seem shocking, but 42% of American Christians identify with their religion more than the US. The trend continues amongst the very religious - 70% of devout Muslims and 60% of devout Christians identify with their faith before their nation.

The shocking part though was the desire for many, particularly those of Arab background, to have it both ways. Only 15% of Arab-American Muslims identified themselves as Americans first, but double that number volunteered the answer "both" when presented the choice. Only 7% of American Christians offered that response.

"Very few Muslim Americans – just 1% – say that suicide bombings against civilian targets are often justified to defend Islam; an additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified in these circumstances."

Another 5% said "rarely justified" plus 9% who didn't know how to answer or refused to answer. Quite disappointing to say the least that only 78% of American Muslims think that suicide bombings against civilian targets are never justified, which of course is the only acceptable and - I would argue - the only proper Islamic response.

However, I would like to know how the answers might have differed if the question specified the location of the suicide bombings: in the US, in Europe, or in Israel - not because I view any life as less valuable than any other, I most certainly do not. But I have seen all too often that people living afar from conflicts to which they have emotional attachment tend to project their own visions of glory onto those who actually suffer.

Thus, war becomes like a biblical video game. Arabs will make absurd justifications for suicide bombing - "we don't have tanks and planes, so we must strap the bombs to our bodies". umm, who is we? A friend in Syria made this argument once, defending Palestinian suicide bombers. I pointed out to him how easy it was for him to glorify the Arab cause while his son spent his days at basketball practice and C++ programming classes. The IDF doesn't come through and shut down Mezzeh when a suicide bomber strikes in the West Bank, I told him, so how convenient for him to excuse repugnant tactics.

And I would bet that the same phenomenon likely applies in this country - I would like to hear honest answers from the survey's respondents: Is suicide bombing acceptable to defend Islam at a local shopping mall in Anytown, USA, or only on buses in West Jerusalem?

But this trend is not unique to Arabs and Muslims. Israeli citizens, who are by-and-large required to serve in their country's army, express disdain for the hawkishness of Jewish individuals in the US and elsewhere that have never lived in Israel nor done any military service on behalf of the Jewish state, but who advocate very harsh action against Palestinians. "It's easy to talk tough when you're not the one who has to do the dirty work," I have been told by Israeli colleagues. Checkpoints, curfews, home demolitions, as well as other brute and humiliating aspects of occupation sound just dandy when someone else is going door-to-door implementing them. The view is pretty good from Alan Dershowitz's podium.

"5% of Muslim Americans express even somewhat favorable opinions of al Qaeda."

1% said "very favorable" while the other 4% said "somewhat favorable". Based upon my own observations and interactions, it seems that there exists a certain admiration for Osama bin Laden amongst some Muslims because he is perceived to have stood up for Islam against American hegemony - even if there is obvious recognition that the tactics are unacceptable.

In the age of YouTube and satellite TV, the appeal to Muslims - particularly young ones - of Bin Laden's style of speaking and presentation needs to be taken into account and understood. Technology has enabled his self-assured yet soft-spoken manner to project a much-undeserved aura of righteousness that has clearly poisoned minds, even here in the US. There needs to be a counterweight.

"Younger Muslim Americans are both much more religiously observant and more accepting of Islamic extremism than are older Muslim Americans."

The survey further reveals that 60% of American Muslims under 30 tend to think of themselves first as Muslims, not Americans - and 15% of them say that suicide bombings can be often or sometimes justified in the defense of Islam - only 69% say never. That is a disturbing trend that conjures up images of the disgruntled London subway bombers - middle class kids who expressed their discontentment with society in a deadly way.

These are malleable minds looking for answers and they need to be reached with a message that will steer them away from those who advocate murder or terrorizing others. The survey also notes that the American-born generation, unlike their parents who are largely sick of the integration of religion and politics in their home countries, "express overwhelming support for the notion that mosques should express their views on social and political matters."

Thus, the survey indicates the need for massive outreach with a positive Islamic message of devotion yet integration - through internet and satellite means, as well as face-to-face interactions in mosques.

"By nearly two-to-one (63%-32%), Muslim Americans do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society."

Again, that mean still seem too low for comfort, but it actually matched the corresponding question of devout Christians almost exactly: 62%-29%.

"43% say that Muslim immigrants arriving in the U.S. should mostly adopt American customs and ways of life, though a significant minority (26%) thinks that new immigrants should try to remain distinct."

I was not able to find an exactly comparable question on a corresponding survey, but I would be curious to know what Latino immigrants would have to say about the assimilation process.

In conclusion, I am reminded of the remarks of Malek Akkad, the son of the late, great Mustapha Akkad, when his father was honored at the Arab American Institute's Kahlil Gibran Awards gala in 2006. The elder Akkad, killed with his daughter during a suicide bombing of a wedding in Jordan in 2005, was a noted Hollywood director and Syrian-American, who created the film "The Message" about the events of early Islam.

Malek quoted his father as saying, "I am more free to practice Islam in America than anywhere else." After reading through this informative (if imperfect) Pew survey, I would not be surprised if most American Muslims agreed.

continue reading "Muslims by the numbers..."

Fare thee well, 'President of Europe'

I moved to London almost 6 years ago, in August of 2001 - a 2 year stint during which I earned my MBA at the London Business School. It was quite a tumultuous time to live outside the US for the first time in my life. Case and point: while most North Jersey natives looked across the Hudson on September 11, 2001 and saw the Twin Towers come tumbling down, I was across the Atlantic, zipping up and down the Finchley Road, as the lease of my first flat had started on that fateful day.

I recall buying a calling card at a vendor in the O2 center, which would enable me to call back to the US for 2p per minute (since £1~$1.40 at the time - now that I am an exporter I curse the day the dollar will strengthen to that level again, although it served me well at the time given London's high cost of living). I got home at about 2:30 pm (5 hours ahead of East Coast time) and decided to give my family a ring and tell them I was settled in, especially so that they might ship over some warmer clothes.

Try as I might, again and again and again, no connection. What a scam, I thought - no wonder they charge only 3 cents a minute, you can never get through! So I called my sister Valerie, who was still at Boston College at the time. Same thing, no connection. (continued...)

Annoyed, I ran into my flatmate, coincidentally another New Jersey native, Andrew Kotliar, who had a bizarre text message saying, "umm, America is under attack right now." Huh? So we headed upstairs to begin setting up the flat, but before we could do so, Liam, the porter of Grove Hall Court, told us that something was going on in New York, and knowing that we were both from the area, advised us to turn on the TV and get up to speed.

We didn't have a TV set up yet, so we went down to the London Business School and watched the whole thing unfold on CNN. It was like a movie. Although, it was then clear to me why I wasn't able to make a phone connection to either New Jersey or Boston!

Anyway, in the aftermath of that day, Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair became a very close ally of President Bush - in a primetime address before a joint session of Congress just a few days afterward, which Blair attended, Bush singled him out and stated:

"America has no truer friend than Great Britain. Once again, we are joined together in a great cause -- so honored the British Prime Minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity of purpose with America. Thank you for coming, friend."

Our porter Liam mocked Blair, saying that his country's head of state was acting like Bush's lapdog and that Britain was just riding America's coattails. Now, despite my opposition to the Iraq War and his slightly more eloquent rephrasing of neoconservative delusions, there was always something about Blair that appealed to me, probably because of a shared taste in music, as explained by this article about Blair's 50th Birthday in 2003.

And yet it is one of King Crimson's songs that still weighs heavily on the prime minster. "I saw him not long ago and we spent about 20 minutes talking about the music we listened to at college," said [Blair's bandmate from ages past]. "We were talking about 21st Century Schizoid Man, which had an incredible guitar solo in the middle of it."

...it's the guitar solo in the song that is more important to Blair. It is howling, angular, eerie, and lots of other words that one wouldn't have thought applied to the prime minister.

(neocon promoter or not, you gotta love him rocking out on a Telecaster)

On Blair's international image, I am reminded of the visit of my high school friend Chris Hunter in late 2001, as we sat in Cafe Rouge on St. John's Wood High Street, and stumbled into a hilarious discussion with a rather obnoxious English young lady. She recounted for us her impressions of our countrymen from a recent trip stateside, and we got quite a laugh out of her mocking Americans for referring to Blair as the "President of Europe".

Also in late 2001, my parents came to visit London, and their visit overlapped with Blair's trip to Damascus to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad. I was reminded of that recently after reading a piece by Syrian analyst Sami Moubayed, who was also in London at the time:

"Assad shattered the prime minister's imagination when he said, 'We cannot accept what we see every day on our television screens, the killing of innocent civilians. There are hundreds dying every day.'

...He linked the Palestinian groups, both those residing in Syria and the occupied territories, to European resistance fighters in World War II seeking to liberate their lands from Nazi occupation. Assad argued that in Europe the great symbol of resistance had been Charles de Gaulle. 'Can anyone accuse de Gaulle of being a terrorist? No way.'

Blair came to Syria with all the arrogance that Churchill once had, yet seemed to forget that he was not Churchill and that this was not the Great Britain of 1945."

I, too, recall the newsstand headlines: "Syria Scorns Blair Appeal", and thinking oh, no, what did he say??? But my colleagues at the London Business School were intrigued, as it received front page coverage in the Financial Times. "Wow, he's really letting him have it!" said one friend. "Well, he (Assad) is quite handsome!" said another.

Actually, Blair showed character by willingly submitting himself to somewhat of an ambush in Damascus, and being cordial enough to host Assad in London for a "rematch" the following year (at which he was far more polite to his guest). I cited the confidence exemplified by Assad's approach to Blair's visit during a discussion with Syrian dissident Ammar Abdulhamid last year in Washington about the importance of image in Syria, recalling Assad's swagger as he approached the podium preparing for the ambush.

Anyway, Blair steps down on June 27, and President Bush does not seem too thrilled about it. During a Rose Garden Press Conference last week, he was pressed by a British reporter (since American reporters are all but incapable of asking tough questions) about whether he felt he was to blame for Blair's departure:

"The question is, am I to blame for his leaving? I don't know...You know, it's interesting, like trying to do a tap dance on his political grave, aren't you? I mean, this -- you don't understand how effective Blair is, I guess, because when we're in a room with world leaders and he speaks, people listen. And they -- they view his opinion as considered and his judgment as sound.

And I find it interesting the first two questions are, is this the right guy? Well, he happens to be your Prime Minister, but more importantly, he is a respected man in the international arena. People admire him. Even if they may not agree with him a hundred percent, they admire him a lot. And it's not just the American President who admires him; a lot of people admire him. And so he's effective. He's effective because he is -- his recommendations to solve problems are sound. He's also effective because he is the kind of person who follows through.

There's a lot of blowhards in the political process, you know, a lot of hot-air artists, people who have got something fancy to say. Tony Blair is somebody who actually follows through with his convictions, and therefore, is admired in the international community.

So I guess this is an appropriate question to ask -- right guy, is he still standing -- yes. This guy is a very strong, respected leader, and he's absolutely the right guy for me to be dealing with."

I guess "confusion" will be his epitaph. In any case, fare thee well, 'President of Europe'.

But one has to wonder what Bush would do if the Conservative Party, aka the Tories, in Britain (Blair is from the Labour Party, analagous to the Democrats) were not so hopelessly inept and used their linguistic elegance to pick apart the neoconservative slogans that pass for global strategy in Bush's circles.

Blair managed to steal the Tories' thunder on major issues like the Iraq War (if it was totally unconnected to America's interest, what does that say for the UK?) and Conservative MPs were obliged to play along - thus, they have no meaningful opposition positions to take.

A true conservative party in the UK has gone extinct, says British conservative writer Peter Hitchens. "Because of the cultural, educational, and moral changes they failed to resist in the 1960s and 1970s, Tories stopped passing on their values to their own children." He continues in his appraisal of new conservative leader David Cameron:

"A recent speech on foreign policy, in which he appeared to distance himself from the neoconservative stance embraced by his party some time ago, was cunningly nuanced—like much that Cameron does—to give a false impression of his true position. He knows that the neocon association is a liability. But the speech did not alter the party's ongoing support for the Iraq War or the increasingly questionable British intervention in Afghanistan...Instead it was endorsing neoconservatism and then trying to distance it from the conduct of foreign policy by George Bush and Tony Blair."

So much for Britain. Now, what about a true conservative party in the USA?
continue reading "Fare thee well, 'President of Europe'..."

Put a Holt on that Stinz

This week marked the unveiling of Passaic County's 2 Freeholder candidates Jerry Holt and Joseph Stinziano, as well as other running mates, at a fundraiser at (where else?) the Brownstone House in Paterson. A crowd of nearly 80 turned out to cheer on the candidates and open their wallets to support the Republicans quest to get a dissenting voice on the Freeholder Board and stop the 7 Democrats from running roughshod over Passaic County taxpayers.

Wayne Attorney Mark Semeraro, a close ally of Passaic County GOP Chairman Scott Rumana, served as the M.C., and did a terrific job. He blasted the spending increases of the Freeholder Board as well as the sale of the Passaic County Golf Course, and with a polite apology for alarmism, he hinted at the possible sale of 401 Grand Street, warning that the selling off of assets is often a precursor to bankruptcy. In addition to thanking the guests for their financial contributions, Semeraro also made an appeal for the time and talents of everyone in the room, a critically important message to deliver, and much appreciated by those who shelled out $300 for a ticket. No donor likes to be viewed as a walking ATM, and Semeraro did the right thing for the Passaic County GOP by respecting the contributors.

Despite all of this good will, the Republicans will simply not raise enough money to win the countywide contests in the "air war" - our only hope is to instigate a "ground war", particularly amongst frustrated and overtaxed suburban homeowners. Our candidates are full of energy and ability - they are worthy of the task. (continued...)

First, we heard from County Surrogate candidate Jeremias Batista, an attorney admitted to the Bar in New York, New Jersey, and Florida. Batista has an impressive CV of community activism and discussed his ideas to improve the efficiency of the surrogate court.

Next came Freeholder candidate Jerry Holt, who hails from Ringwood, where he served on the council for several years, including a stint as Mayor. This guy really knows his stuff, and is going to take Pat Lepore and Terry Duffy to school over the next few months (see videos below, with apologies for poor quality).

I had the opportunity to discuss the budget with him before he spoke, and he actually pulled out of his pocket a spreadsheet printout of the past 10 fiscal years of Passaic County budgeting, broken down by department! I couldn't believe my eyes! The data rolls off Holt's tongue as he explains the Democrats' budget tricks with the confidence of a seasoned economist.

Holt was on a roll and his alter-ego, the ultra-personable Joe Stinziano, aka "Stinz" joined him at the podium, prompting Holt to joke that his running mate was going to pull him away with a hook. Stinziano then offered his remarks, which focused more on party building and community involvement. He particularly paid tribute to some of the "old timers" like former Paterson Mayor Pat Kramer and former Freeholder Dick DuHaime.

Following that came the big guns - Wayne Mayor, County Chairman, and District 40 Assembly Candidate Scott Rumana. He did not speak for long but made it a point to recognize, reinforcing some of Semeraro's earlier points, some of the key initiatives being pushed under his leadership. One key development was the formation of a Passaic County chapter of the New Jersey Federation of Republican Women, spearheaded by Wayne Councilwoman Ann Mary O'Rourke and fellow Wayne resident Susan Peracchio under the guidance of the 1st VP statewide, Clifton resident and Arab-American Republican activist extraordinaire, Sherine el-Abd. Membership has been growing and has been a catalyst for bringing together various factions of the Passaic County GOP.

Rumana and Semeraro also touched upon the creation of a countywide presidential convention later this year, which will allow County Committee members and club members to select who the County GOP will back in the presidential sweepstakes. More on that shortly, I presume.

The big bang of the night came from current District 40 Assemblyman and State Senate candidate Kevin O'Toole. He stood behind the podium for all of 90 seconds, just long enough to say:

"Three weeks from tonight, I can guarantee three things for you.

1. Mayor Scott Rumana will be elected to the Assembly;
2. Assemblyman Dave Russo will be re-elected; and
3. I will be the next State Senator from District 40.

People say, 'why are you spending so much money?' Well, yeah, we are spending a lot of money, but this race is bigger than just the 40th District. This is about a rebirth of the Republican Party in Bergen County, in Passaic County, and in Essex County."

As I said previously, I would NOT want to be Guy Talarico on June 6.

continue reading "Put a Holt on that Stinz..."

We report the taefa, you decide

Attending a fundraiser for local Republican candidates last night, I did not see Tuesday's GOP presidential primary debate live, and instead watched it online this morning. Overall, Fox News did a much better job than MSNBC in terms of the questions, although the candidates have yet to be challenged with any of my proposed questions.

I could not help but notice, however, one disturbing element to the coverage - the prominence placed upon the religious sect in the biographical data of each candidate presented on screen during their initial introductions by moderator Brit Hume. One of the greatest treasures of the political system of the United States is the focus on ideas and ideology that characterizes its selection of candidates. While it prominently manifests the Christian ethic that underlies American culture, ours is truly a secular political culture which does honor to the First Amendment.

This is particularly true for Republicans, unlike some Democrat masters of divide-and-conquer tactics in America's urban environments, which are dominated by racial and ethnic minorities. But by introducing religion so prominently, Fox News seems to be importing the one-dimensional sectarian taefi dynamics perfected by the likes of Saddam Hussein and unwittingly championed by our neoconservative think-tank heroes.

If Iraqis do not have a political system mature enough to withstand a non-sectarian debate that is not framed in terms of Shiite and Sunni, Americans most certainly do. Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jew, Muslim - in the United States, only the candidate's ideas should matter. Last night's debate intros, however, seemed reminiscent of politics in the Republic of Lebanon, whose constitution actually mandates the apportionment of Parliament and the presidency by religious sect and whose ballots actually organize candidates by those sects. Thank you Fox News - I suppose my pachyderm madrasa comparison was more accurate than I anticipated. (continued...)

As for our talibs, well, they appeared content to reiterate their remarks on Islam from the first debate. Fair enough, it does take a while to memorize those talking points provided by those "conservative" think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute or the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Too bad though, I was hoping that the candidates were going to explain to me the difference between Salafi and Sufi...

Mitt Romney once again showed he is a Karaoke superstar, doing his latest rendition Richard Perle's Greatest Hits:

"It is critical for us to remember that Iraq has to be considered in the context of what's happening in the Middle East and throughout the world. There is a global jihadist effort. Violent, radical jihadists want to replace all the governments of the moderate Islamic states, replace them with a caliphate. And to do that, they also want to bring down the West, in particular us.

And they've come together as Shi'a and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda with that intent. We have to recognize that what we're doing in Iraq has enormous impact on what's going to happen in this global struggle, and that's why it's important for us to understand that if we were to just walk out precipitously, we could conceivably see the border with Turkey be destabilized by virtue of the Kurdish effort, we could have the Iranians take over the Shi'a south, and perhaps most frightening, you could have al Qaeda play a dominant role among the Sunnis and then have a setting where you'd have something far worse than Afghanistan on their hands."

Again, I'd like to ask Romney what defines a "moderate" state. What about one in which membership in the Muslim Brotherhood is punishable by death - would that qualify as "moderate"? Here are my previous remarks on Romney's position:

"I'd like to hear Romney's view on the fact that democratic elections in the Middle East in the past few years have quite legally, and under US-sanctioned balloting, increased the political clout of Hezbollah (Lebanon), Hamas (Palestine), and the Muslim Brotherhood (Egypt).

As far as caliphates go, I think the use of this term is rather melodramatic on Romney's part - the average Republican voter is already convinced that "Islamofascists" want to take over the world and thus no display no emotional resistance to that concept. Putting his message in the historical context of the caliphs will therefore add little value to its appeal with the target audience, other than to obscure the impact with alien vocabulary."

Tom "take out their holy sites" Tancredo, the madrasa's star pupil in the first marking period with his explication of the 12th imam, rebuked Ron Paul (more on this in a bit) saying that:

"...whether Israel existed or didn't, whether or not we were in the Iraq war or not, they would be trying to kill us because it's a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it, and we have to defend ourselves."

It's difficult to render an analysis of Tancredo's statement without details on exactly he means by "they" and "us". He is smart enough to know that no authentic Islamic texts mention the United States of America, because they predate the founding of this country by well over a millennium.

Now, as for the infamous Rudy Giuliani/Ron Paul exchange, here is exactly what was said:

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention (note: I think he meant "intervention") was a major contributing factor. Have you ever r