regularly disappointed by his following actions. Keith Olbermann,
on yesterday's Countdown, in that same mode, asked Colin Powell's
chief of staff, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson how Obama could get Israel
to stop settlements, take down the Gaza blockade, etc., and seriously
negotiate with Palestinian authorities, including Hamas. Wilkerson
immediately responded that he can hold up the $3 billion Israel and
Egypt get yearly. This morning, in Germany, Obama clarified those
remarks, saying that, of course, the U.S. cannot impose anything, but
act as a neutral broker for negotiations. He did it again, in a heart beat.
Ed
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/us/politics/05cooper.html?ref=us
On the White House
Muslims Will Judge Obama by Actions More Than Words
By Helel Cooper
NY Times: June 3, 2009
WASHINGTON - It is too soon to tell whether President Obama's 55-minute
speech to the Muslim world from Cairo will be the balm to America's broken
relationship with Islam that White House officials hope.
Some early signs are promising - and not just that several times someone in
Mr. Obama's audience in the domed hall yelled out, "I love you!"
Mr. Obama drew applause by promising that America will never be at war with
Islam. While maintaining that the United States will continue to fight
terrorism and will not shy away from its alliance with Israel, he also
invoked the name "Palestine" several times to refer to a Palestinian state.
He called publicly for an end to Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and
drew parallels between Islam, Christianity and Judaism, embracing all the
children of Abraham.
But one thing is already clear. While Mr. Obama's strong words may resonate
today, on the Arab street and in the madrassas and the tea shops and dining
tables where the world's 1.5 billion Muslims congregate, the future actions
of Mr. Obama will be far more important.
For all the talk right now about how much President Bush alienated the
Muslim world, Bush administration officials, from the president on down,
publicly said nice things about America and Islam as well. Remember Mr.
Bush's
stirring speech, in the early days after September 11? Speaking before a
joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, Mr. Bush sounded eerily similar
to Mr. Obama today.
"I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world," he
said. "We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of
Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends.
Its teachings are good and peaceful. And those who commit evil in the name
of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their
own faith, trying in effect to hijack Islam itself."
"The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends," Mr. Bush said, to
applause. "It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network
of terrorists and every government that supports them."
In the seven more years that he would govern the United States, Mr. Bush
would often repeat those words, or ones similar. So too would his advisers.
And yet, America's relationship with Muslims continued to deteriorate.
Ultimately, policies matter more than words, many Muslim scholars say. They
point to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush administration's
decision to delay calling for a ceasefire back in the summer of 2006 when
Israel was pounding Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, America's refusal to
support a Palestinian national unity government that included the militant
Islamist organization, Hamas, despite the fact that the United States had
initially pushed for those same elections, expecting Hamas to lose.
For Mr. Obama's words to mean anything, they say, American policy will have
to change. And as gifted an orator as the president is, changing the
behemoth of United States foreign policy is no easy task, particularly since
America's interests, in many ways, remain the same no matter who is in the
White House.
Mr. Obama, while calling for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq (a plus in the
minds of many Muslims) has increased the number of American troops in
Afghanistan (a minus for many Muslims). He was noticeably silent during the
Israeli siege of Gaza earlier this year, which many Muslims revile as
disproportionate. During the Cairo speech on Thursday, he repeated the Bush
era ban against official American dealings with Hamas, reiterating that his
government won't engage Hamas until it meets conditions imposed by the Bush
administration, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations.
Whether Mr. Obama can find a way to maneuver between America's entrenched
foreign policy and his own bold vision for trying to forge a peace between
America and Islam-and Israel and Palestine, for that matter-may well end up
becoming the benchmark against which his presidency will be judged in the
Muslim world.
" 'Show me the money' is the attitude of the Arab and the Muslim world,"
said Ziad Asali, president of the American Task Force on Palestine. But, he
added, that Mr. Obama has some credibility at the moment. He pointed to the
brewing fight between the Obama administration and Israel on settlements.
"This is going to be the litmus test."
***
http://www.watan.com/en/the-community/554-amy-goodman-.html
In US, giving Mideast charity could lead you to prison
Written by Amy Goodman
Democracy Now: May 29, 2009
Five founders of the Holy Land Foundation, once the nation's largest
Muslim charity, have received prison terms of up to sixty-five years on
charges of supporting the Palestinian group Hamas. The five were
never accused of supporting violence and were convicted for funding
charities that aided needy Palestinians.
The government's case relied on Israeli intelligence as well as
disputed documents and electronic surveillance gathered by the FBI over
a span of fifteen years. We speak to Noor Elashi, daughter of Ghassan
Elashi, the chair of the Holy Land Foundation who was sentenced to
sixty-five years; and Nancy Hollander, a defense attorney who
represented former Holy Land CEO Shukri Abu Baker. [includes rush
transcript]
JUAN GONZALEZ: Five founders of a Muslim charity have been sentenced
to lengthy prison terms in a controversial case that began nearly ten
years ago. The Holy Land Foundation, based in a Dallas suburb, was the
biggest Muslim charity in the United States before the Bush
administration shut it down in 2001. Its five founders were convicted
last November on charges of funneling money to the Palestinian group
Hamas. The US government declared Hamas a terrorist organization in
1995.
It was the second trial against the Holy Land Foundation's five
leaders after the first ended in a mistrial. The government's case
relied on Israeli intelligence as well as disputed documents and
electronic surveillance gathered by the FBI over a span of fifteen
years.
AMY GOODMAN: Defendants Ghassan Elashi and Shukri Abu Baker each
received sixty-five-year prison sentences. At his sentencing hearing,
Elashi said, "Nothing was more rewarding than.turning the charitable
contributions of American Muslims into life assistance for the
Palestinians. We gave the essentials of life: oil, rice, flour. The
occupation was providing them with death and destruction." Another
defendant, Mohammad El-Mezain, was sentenced to fifteen years in
prison. He was found guilty of supporting Hamas but acquitted on
thirty-one other charges. Volunteer fundraiser Mufid Abdulqader was
sentenced to twenty years in prison. And the fifth defendant,
Abdulrahman Odeh, was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. All five
defendants plan to file appeals.
We go now to Dallas, where we're joined by Noor Elashi. She's the
daughter of Ghassan Elashi, the chair of the Holy Land Foundation who
was sentenced to sixty-five years.
And joining us from her home in Albuquerque via Democracy Now! video
stream is Nancy Hollander, a defense attorney who represented former
Holy Land CEO Shukri Abu Baker.
We invited Jim Jacks, the lead prosecutor in the case, on the show, but his
office declined.
Noor, let's begin with you. When the sentencing happened, your dad got
sixty-five years in prison. Your response?
NOOR ELASHI: Well, thank you, first of all, Amy, for having me on the show.
My response to that is basically, to me, on Wednesday, the Holy Land
Five, my father and the Holy Land Five, became the Nelson Mandelas of
the twenty-first century. They're merely political prisoners caught in
this disillusioned web, widely known by the Bush administration as the
war on terror.
Sixty-five years seems like a big number, but it's really nothing
but a number to me. I do-I have faith that during the appeal process,
under a less politicized Justice Department under the new
administration, that truth will come out. And truth is a much stronger,
way more powerful-truth is basically way more powerful than the
prosecution's ongoing tactic of fear. And truth will come out under
this less politicized Justice Department.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Noor Elashi, tell us about your father. When did he
come to the United States, and why did he decide to found the Holy Land
Foundation?
NOOR ELASHI: My dad came to the US in the early '80s. He got his
master's degree from the University of Miami and thus started a family.
And, you know, in the late '80s, during the Intifada, the uprising, he
saw, like many Americans, images on television that just really went
straight to his heart. And he, being Palestinian, originally
Palestinian, took it to heart and felt like, you know, he had to do
something. And that is, after seeing thousands of-the images of
thousands of trees being uprooted, you know, many political prisoners
in Palestine, many homes being demolished, he said there's definitely a
need there, a humanitarian need. There's an economic crisis. And
therefore, he and a few-a couple other people founded the Holy Land
Foundation, which, like you mentioned earlier, became the largest
Muslim charity in this country until the Bush administration shut it
down.
AMY GOODMAN: Nancy Hollander, you're the attorney for the former
Holy Land CEO, Holy Land Foundation CEO Shukri Abu Baker. Just looking
at the time line for the whole Holy Land case: you have January '89,
the organization that was renamed Holy Land Foundation is founded by
Noor's father, Ghassan Elashi, and others to assist Palestinians
affected by the Intifada, '89; 1992, Holy Land moves its headquarters
to Richardson, Texas; '95, the US government declares Hamas a terrorist
organization; '99, the government says it's investigating alleged
financial ties between Holy Land and Hamas dating back to 1996. Explain
this and what evidence the government presented on the connection
between Holy Land and Hamas.
NANCY HOLLANDER: Well, the government's allegations-and this is
extremely important, Amy-the government's allegations all along and
what the jury found was that Holy Land provided charity. Every dime
went to charity. It went through sometimes directly to individuals and
sometimes through charity committees, which are called Zakat
committees. This is part of Islamic law that Muslims must tithe, and
they often do it through these committees. These committees are
throughout the Muslim world and in Palestine. And Holy Land gave money,
large sums of money, to these Zakat committees in all these local
communities, and then that was distributed to individuals, mostly
orphans or families in need.
There was never any allegation that any money went any where other
than to charity. The government's position was that these particular
charities were associated with or controlled by Hamas. And it's
important to understand that the United States government, through
USAID, continued to give money to the same charities for years after
Holy Land was closed. But that's what the allegation was all the way
along. Although the government spent a great deal of time in the trial
talking about and showing the jury horrific pictures of violent acts
that Hamas did, our clients were not accused of nor convicted of one
single act of violence.
AMY GOODMAN: So, explain what they were convicted of.
NANCY HOLLANDER: They were convicted of providing material support
to Hamas, which includes, under the US statutes, providing charity to
associations and organizations that are associated with or controlled
by Hamas. The issue of whether these particular charities were
controlled by Hamas, we believe to this day that they were not. And the
only evidence that they were came from a secret witness from Israel who
claimed to be a lawyer with the Israeli Shin Bet, but we were never
able to learn anything about him, because he was presented with a
pseudonym, and we weren't allowed to know anything about him.
AMY GOODMAN: The Shin Bet being the Israeli intelligence.
NANCY HOLLANDER: Yes, yes, correct. And that's where they got the
information.
The government also claimed that by providing charity, Holy Land was
assisting Hamas in winning the hearts and minds of the people. There
was no evidence of that, of course. And Holy Land was closed in 2001.
And although the government tried to make the leap to Hamas winning a
large number of seats in the election in 2006, that was five years
later. And the government never had an answer, during trial or at
sentencing when we brought this up, to explain that USAID gave money,
for example, $47,000 to the Qalqilya Zakat Committee in December of
2004, and why that didn't contribute to the hearts and minds theory, if
in fact that theory makes any sense, which historically and politically
it doesn't.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Nancy Hollander, the first trial in 2007 ended in a
mistrial, and there was the second one that ended in conviction. Any
sense on your part what swayed the jury in the second trial? And also,
were you surprised by the severity of the sentences?
NANCY HOLLANDER: Well, on your first question, the government always
benefits when it gets a second chance. It has seen the defense. It had
another year to gather more evidence, to look through the ten years of
FISA wiretaps that our clients were never allowed to look at, by the
way, even though they were their statements, to attempt to find more
evidence. All they really found, because there was no evidence of
anything other than charity, all they found was more violence, and they
put on more violence.
In terms of the sentence, no, I wasn't surprised at it, but I was
horrified by it, to the thought that somebody gets sixty-five years for
providing charity is really shameful, and I believe this case will go
down in history, as have others, like Korematsu, for example, as a
shameful day. We have all filed-all the defendants have filed their
notices of appeal, and all will be appealed. And we believe we will be
vindicated on appeal, because this was a grossly unfair trial.
AMY GOODMAN: Nancy Hollander, you used the argument-you compared-you
looked at the case of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri to persuade the judge
to go easy on your client, Shukri Abu Baker, saying that he pleaded
guilty in April to one count of conspiracy to provide material support
to al-Qaeda. You said, "This is a man who admits he came to the US as a
sleeper agent, and the government believes fifteen years is
sufficient." The judge retorted, "Raising millions of dollars to fund
terrorism, that's a different situation." He said, "Al-Marri is an
example of someone who wanted to commit an act of terrorism. As bad as
that is, this is support over the years." And he sentenced your client,
Abu Baker, to sixty-five years. Your response?
NANCY HOLLANDER: It's just beyond me. It's remarkable. My client was
convicted of providing charity. There was not, in ten years of
wiretapping his home, his office, looking at his faxes, listening to
everything he said, there was not one word out of his mouth about
violence to anyone or about support for Hamas. He provided charity.
That's what he was convicted of. And to say that someone or these
people who provide charity should get a sentence six, you know, four or
five times longer than someone who professes to come to the United
States with a purpose in mind that's clearly violence shows essentially
that these people were convicted because they were Palestinians.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I'd like to ask Noor Elashi-you, yourself, are a
journalist. Could you comment about the media's coverage, the
mainstream media coverage, of this trial and how that affected the
atmosphere around the trial?
NOOR ELASHI: Yeah. I'm actually highly disappointed, but I'm not
surprised. From the very beginning of the case, the media coverage has
been very biased, including many Israeli bloggers and people obviously
anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian in the news articles. For example, on
sentencing day, I went to the New York Times website, the LA Times, the
Washington Post, saw nothing. I mean, the Associated Press was there.
But overall, this definitely-this case, from the very beginning, the
arrests, the first trial, the second trial, I think deserves a lot more
attention.
And, Amy, you one time said in one of your-in your book tour, I
believe, that Americans are sympathetic people. And I do honestly
believe that. And I think that if this case were to be covered more
widely and received better coverage, I feel like Americans will
sympathize and there will be an outcry, not only from Americans, but
just an international outcry.
AMY GOODMAN: Are you able to see your father in jail?
NOOR ELASHI: Yes, I am. We are able to visit him once a week. And
actually, the way that's set up, and this was also set up on purpose,
the families are not allowed to see the defendants all at the same
time. They've set it up in different times. So, when I go see my dad,
I'm not really allowed to see anybody else, any of the other defendants
or their families. They set it up in a way where we can only see our
father that one time. But he's a very strong person. As I sat there on
Wednesday watching him-
AMY GOODMAN: We have five seconds.
NOOR ELASHI: OK, he's a very strong person, and I just really admire him.
And he's my hero.
No comments:
Post a Comment