In the conclusion of ten years of intense litigation, Dr. Sami Al-Arian and his wife Nahla boarded a plane last night and left the United States for Turkey. He arrived in Istanbul a couple hours ago. I was Dr. Al-Arian’s lead criminal defense counsel in Virginia until all charges were eventually dropped by the United States Department of Justice against him. I have received many calls from the media over the last couple of days and I have declined to respond because Dr. Al-Arian was represented by an immigration law team after the criminal proceedings concluded. I wanted to defer to those lawyers in any media comments, as I have since handed over the case last year. Dr. Al-Arian issued the statement below this morning.
Dr. Al-Arian’s case raised troubling due process, academic freedom, and free speech issues. He is a Palestinian-American civil rights activist who was also a computer engineering professor at University of South Florida (USF). He had a successful academic career at USF and held permanent resident status since March 1989. He applied for U.S. citizenship and even campaigned for George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election.
Dr. Al-Arian was indicted in February 2003 on 17 counts under the Patriot Act, but a jury acquitted him on 8 counts and deadlocked on the remaining 9 counts. The trial was handled by Dr. Al-Arian’s Florida trial attorneys, the late Bill Moffitt and Linda Moreno, who did an incredible job.
It was later revealed that jury overwhelmingly supported acquittal. The jurors 10-2 for acquittal on the remaining counts. Tapped out of money and wanting closure, Dr. Al-Arian agreed to a plea bargain that admitted to one of the charges in exchange for a promise that after a maximum of incarceration of 57 months, he would be allowed to leave the country by April 2007. (Amnesty International would later condemn his incarceration as “gratuitously punitive” and inhumane). He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to contribute services to or for the benefit of the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a Specially Designated Terrorist organization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. However, that contribution was described as hiring a lawyer for his brother-in-law during his immigration battle in the late 1990s; sponsoring a Palestinian historian in 1994 to conduct research in the U.S.; and withholding information from a U.S. journalist during a 1995 interview. Many noted at the time that none of those acts were clearly criminal.
Notably, many saw the deal as nothing more than the Justice Department seeking some face saving measure of punishment after its defeat in Tampa and many felt that Dr. Al-Arian should not have signed it. However, he wanted to continue with his academic career and be with his family, including young children. Yet, rather than fulfilling that commitment, the Justice Department called him to a grand jury for additional testimony in Northern Virginia. Dr. Al-Arian objected that he was assured that he would not be forced into any additional proceedings and many viewed the grand jury was a “perjury trap” where the prosecutors would charge on any statement that could be alleged to be inaccurate or untrue. He refused.
The Virginia litigation began in 2006 in Alexandria Virginia. The litigation would be intense for years as we sought to enforce his plea agreement but the federal court insisted that he would have to testify and the Justice Department secured a civil contempt order on November 16, 2006. This was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It was after the Fourth Circuit decision that I was brought on a lead criminal defense counsel. The Justice Department continued to call Dr. Al-Arian and effectively prolong his incarceration under civil contempt rules.
Dr. Al-Arian engaged in a series of hunger strikes, including a 60-day hunger strike on January 22, 2007 in protest to his treatment and there was an international movement in support of his release.
In addressing the proceedings in Virginia, we took the unusual step of hiring a former FBI polygraphed to ask Dr. Al-Arian every known question about the investigation into an organization called IIIT in Virginia, purportedly the reason for his being called before the grand jury (Notably, not a single indictment for IIIT would come out of the grand jury proceedings which lasted for years and was viewed by many defense lawyers as a runaway investigation and fishing expedition). We even solicited from the Justice Department. The polygraph showed that Dr. Al-Arian had little knowledge of the matters under investigation and he passed every question as answering truthfully. We submitted the results to the Justice Department. We also received additional questions from the Justice Department and submitted a sworn affidavit on those questions. It was clear that Dr. Al-Arian was not withholding information. Indeed, any information that he had was ridiculously out of date given his years of incarceration in solitary confinement and tight restrictions on communications.
Eventually, the civil contempt sanction was lifted, but the Justice Department then, on June 26, 2008, indicted him on two counts of criminal contempt, for unlawfully and willfully refusing court orders that he testify. On September 2, 2008, we were able to secure his release from jail and a court order for Dr. Al-Arian to be subject to house arrest. It was a major change in the case. We were able to later lift the restrictions of monitoring on the home confinement.
On March 9, 2010, Judge Leonie Brinkema postponed the criminal contempt trial, pending our motion to dismiss the charges in the case on the grounds of the plea agreement, flaws in the indictment, prosecutorial abuse, selective prosecution and other grounds. We also asked the Justice Department to investigate the professional misconduct in the case (which it declined to do). The litigation over the indictment continued until, on June 27, 2014, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon D. Kromberg moved to dismiss the indictment.
Dr. Al-Arian leaves behind five children and grandchildren. His children are highly successful in their own right, including multiple books and impressive academic work. The family has been a rock of support for Dr. Al-Arian throughout these incredibly trying years. Nahla and the family formed a tight, protective circle to get through these traumatic years. After the release in 2008, Dr. Al-Arian became a doting grandfather and stayed with his children in Virginia.
I met with Dr. Al-Arian and Nahla shortly before they left the country. They were already missing their children and grandchildren, but excited to start a new chapter in their life. It is not clear whether he will resume teaching in Turkey but he is likely to continue his writing and lecturing in some form. Despite being subjected to extremely cruel treatment and conditions, he is not bitter and remains committed to the principles of freedom that first drew him to the United States. Indeed, his family is an American success story with five children who have secured advanced degrees from leading universities and will remain in the United States in teaching, journalism and other fields. It has been a particular pleasure to get to know them and watch their professional advancement over the course of this litigation.
The Al-Arian case will remain a chilling chapter in our history. The treatment of Dr. Al-Arian after his acquittal on most of the charges was widely viewed as a shocking abuse of the system and a flagrant violation of agreement reached with the Justice Department. The Justice Department put unprecedented effort into the Florida prosecution and suffered one of its greatest trial defeats in an area where convictions were taken for granted. The later proceedings were viewed as retaliatory and abusive by prosecutors. It also showed how the civil and contempt laws can be used to abuse individuals and leave them with little recourse or rights. Justice ultimately prevailed but the cost to Dr. Al-Arian and his family was prohibitively high. The Virginia litigation was not about Dr. Al-Arian’s views or associations. It was about due process and how we handle criminal trials and plea agreements in this country. The United States reached a deal with this man that committed his country to allowing him to leave following his jail stint. No matter how one feels about Dr. Al-Arian’s writings or beliefs, we should honor our agreements as a nation. Instead, the Justice Department broke that deal and then daisy-chained contempt citations to prolong his incarceration. It was abusive and it was wrong. It is now over.
Dr. Al-Arian and his wife will start anew in Turkey. He told me in our final meeting how very grateful he was to his many friends and supporters for what they gave to him. He remained optimistic about the future and spoke of his continued faith in the fundamental civil liberties that define our country. We spoke of how long this process proved since we first met in a holding cell in Virginia. At the time, he was weak from his hunger strike and we knew little about each other. Over the years, our respective families grew and the world has changed in so many different ways. It felt like a 1000 years ago when Sami was brought in from solitary confinement for our first meeting. I wish him and Nahla all the best in the next chapter of their life together. They clearly leave these shores with a heavy heart despite the pain of the prosecution. This country took much but also gave much to their family. They are now again fully in control of their future together.
Here is Dr. Al-Arian’s final statement:
February 4, 2015
A Statement by Dr. Sami A. Al-Arian
To my dear friends and supporters,
After 40 years, my time in the U.S. has come to an end. Like many immigrants of my generation, I came to the U.S. in 1975 to seek a higher education and greater opportunities. But I also wanted to live in a free society where freedom of speech, association and religion are not only tolerated but guaranteed and protected under the law. That’s why I decided to stay and raise my family here, after earning my doctorate in 1986. Simply put, to me, freedom of speech and thought represented the cornerstone of a dignified life.
Today, freedom of expression has become a defining feature in the struggle to realize our humanity and liberty. The forces of intolerance, hegemony, and exclusionary politics tend to favor the stifling of free speech and the suppression of dissent. But nothing is more dangerous than when such suppression is perpetrated and sanctioned by government. As one early American once observed, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Because government has enormous power and authority over its people, such control must be checked, and people, especially those advocating unpopular opinions, must have absolute protections from governmental overreach and abuse of power. A case in point of course is the issue of Palestinian self-determination. In the United States, as well as in many other western countries, those who support the Palestinian struggle for justice, and criticize Israel’s occupation and brutal policies, have often experienced an assault on their freedom of speech in academia, media, politics and society at large. After the tragic events of September 11th, such actions by the government intensified, in the name of security. Far too many people have been targeted and punished because of their unpopular opinions or beliefs.
During their opening statement in my trial in June 2005, my lawyers showed the jury two poster-sized photographs of items that government agents took during searches of my home many years earlier. In one photo, there were several stacks of books taken from my home library. The other photo showed a small gun I owned at the time. The attorney looked the jury in the eyes and said: “This is what this case is about. When the government raided my client’s house, this is what they seized,” he said, pointing to the books, “and this is what they left,” he added, pointing to the gun in the other picture. “This case is not about terrorism but about my client’s right to freedom of speech,” he continued. Indeed, much of the evidence the government presented to the jury during the six-month trial were speeches I delivered, lectures I presented, articles I wrote, magazines I edited, books I owned, conferences I convened, rallies I attended, interviews I gave, news I heard, and websites I never even accessed. But the most disturbing part of the trial was not that the government offered my speeches, opinions, books, writings, and dreams into evidence, but that an intimidated judicial system allowed them to be admitted into evidence. That’s why we applauded the jury’s verdict. Our jurors represented the best society had to offer. Despite all of the fear-mongering and scare tactics used by the authorities, the jury acted as free people, people of conscience, able to see through Big Brother’s tactics. One hard lesson that must be learned from the trial is that political cases should have no place in a free and democratic society.
But despite the long and arduous ordeal and hardships suffered by my family, I leave with no bitterness or resentment in my heart whatsoever. In fact, I’m very grateful for the opportunities and experiences afforded to me and my family in this country, and for the friendships we’ve cultivated over the decades. These are lifelong connections that could never be affected by distance.
I would like to thank God for all the blessings in my life. My faith sustained me during my many months in solitary confinement and gave me comfort that justice would ultimately prevail.
Our deep thanks go to the friends and supporters across the U.S., from university professors to grassroots activists, individuals and organizations, who have stood alongside us in the struggle for justice.
My trial attorneys, Linda Moreno and the late Bill Moffitt, were the best advocates anyone could ask for, both inside and outside of the courtroom. Their spirit, intelligence, passion and principle were inspirational to so many.
I am also grateful to Jonathan Turley and his legal team, whose tireless efforts saw the case to its conclusion. Jonathan’s commitment to justice and brilliant legal representation resulted in the government finally dropping the case.
Our gratitude also goes to my immigration lawyers, Ira Kurzban and John Pratt, for the tremendous work they did in smoothing the way for this next phase of our lives.
Thanks also to my children for their patience, perseverance and support during the challenges of the last decade. I am so proud of them.
Finally, my wife Nahla has been a pillar of love, strength and resilience. She kept our family together during the most difficult times. There are no words to convey the extent of my gratitude.
We look forward to the journey ahead and take with us the countless happy memories we formed during our life in the United States.
Davidm
First of all the Palestinians have, at times stopped attacking Israel as per the latest in a seemingly unending lines of lines drawn in the sand. Israel simply ignores this and states that they will wait further. The Palestinians lose it and the cycle starts all over again.
Of course Israel gives land to the Palestinians, land they stole in the first place. they give some back with conditions and then allow extremists to settle on the land, then they have to protect the settlers, which further enrages the Palestinians, and it continues. It is no different than the US giving worthless land to the indigenous people of the country and saying how nice they are. This is the height of hypocrisy. The West Bank is, as far as Israel is concerned, open for grabs. They will continue to take more and more in a two steps forward with illegal settlements and one step back so they can refer to the fact that they dismantled a settlement. For every settlement dismantled they allow a few to stay. Once there the land is part of Israel and the Palestinians are further away from a homeland.
Your arguments follow the old saying, “The victors write history.” The West hears Israel almost daily set out their argument and put the blame on the Palestinians. Yet our media rarely lays out the Palestinian argument: An Jewish Israeli can drill a third deeper for water than a Palestinian Israeli, in Israel. Families that have lived on farms and in houses for dozens of generations have been dispossessed because they could not prove ownership in a way acceptable to Israeli bureaucrats. Investigate the double standards that exist.
The bottom line is that Israel will not do what is necessary to allow the Palestinians a homeland that is workable and that will result in anything more than a second class people farming and doing cottage industry.
Aridog
The San Remo accords don’t mean anything in face of the facts of history.
Davidm
I am not anti Israel. I am anti some of what Israel does. This is no different than being American but against some of what America does or any other country. The main problem is the one you so aptly illustrate in your position, the us or them and nothing in between.
I do believe voting should not only be a privilege but a responsibility. The system is designed to buy votes from ignorant voters. Perhaps if the private financial part of the equation was eliminated and an objective branch of the government disbursed the positions of the candidates on an equal time and venue basis, a voter would be forced to actually understand the positions the candidates would be forced to present. As it is it is the least responsible democratic iteration there is.
issac wrote: “The bottom line is that Israel will not do what is necessary to allow the Palestinians a homeland that is workable and that will result in anything more than a second class people farming and doing cottage industry.”
I suspect you have not been over there to see what is going on. You just accept uncritically what the Palestinians tell you.
The way I see it is that there are some who simply do not want to accept the government. They invent the Palestinian State as a way to legitimize their terrorist activity. There never was a Palestinian State before the Israeli government.
On another thread, we saw that an African American rapper advocating shooting the police. Suppose the African Americans started shooting the police and bombing government buildings. They wanted to establish their own government, their own State, right here among the other States, but just for Blacks. Would you favor this kind of two State solution for us?
David-
“In every political assessment test I have taken, I am evaluated to be a centrist.”
Either every test you’ve ever taken was lying or you’re lying right now. I lean towards the latter. It’s not a centrist position to defend waging war as appropriate even when that war is not necessary. That’s psychopathic.
Other than that, your abject servitude to far right agenda, agenda that is so far right that it goes well beyond democratic thought and is openly fascist, clearly eliminates you from the centrist category. I know you’d like to be viewed as a centrist because you understand how despicable your views are to any democratic society, but you’re a psychopath, whether you want to admit it or not.
Paul-
Possibly. However, like the bible says- “never answer a fool according to his foolishness”. Pretending that insane arguments are not just the outward symptoms of a disturbed psychology is granting those arguments validity that they don’t merit. The same applies for arguments that are pure propaganda which are only made to score political points, which defines all of David’s arguments.
Take this statement by David-
“Governments can rightly determine whatever voting mechanisms they want to create, including not allowing anyone to vote. ”
So David believes that our government would be completely justified if they ended the practice of voting. The guy is a complete psychopath that advocates totalitarianism, and yet you want me to pretend that his arguments are the result of reason and not a disturbed psychology? Not going to happen.
Or, take this one-
“I personally favor a weighted voting system, with more knowledgeable and successful people having a greater vote and influence on elections than the ignorant.”
He believes in disenfranchising voters. Those methods that they used to prevent blacks from voting in the South? He loves them. He opposed to the basis of our system of government- equality.
The guy is a cancer to society, and that’s really the only proper way to respond to him.
Anarchist 2.0 – some things are worth thinking about and discussing in theory. Having the dead vote disenfranchises voters. There is nothing equal about that.
For instance, I would like to go back to 1 member of the House of Representatives for every 50,000 population in the state. And I would like the House to expand with every Census. Although it would increase the cost of the House, actually my idea is that only 1/3 would have to be in DC at any one time (for hearings and debates). And they could all vote electronically. The upside of this is that it would be physically and financially impossible to lobby everyone. 🙂
Paul-
Yeah, there are a lot of theories worth discussing. The one you mentioned would make for an interesting discussion. Here’s another one- increase the number of supreme court justices to so that 5 radicals can’t hijack our system of law. That wouldn’t even take an amendment to the constitution. Obama could end the tyranny of the Roberts court tomorrow if he wanted.
Anarchist 2.0 – Congress decides on the size of the court, not the President. Obama cannot do diddle about the Roberts court.
Anarchist wrote: “It’s not a centrist position to defend waging war as appropriate even when that war is not necessary.”
I have never taken this position.
Anarchist wrote: “… agenda that is so far right that it goes well beyond democratic thought and is openly fascist, clearly eliminates you from the centrist category.”
You clearly do not understand my viewpoints. I find fascism to be abhorrent. The State is not more important than the individual. You are correct, however, that I also have problems with democracy. I have the same problems with democracy that the founding fathers of the U.S.A. had with it. Government is better run by wise individuals who govern in a way that is in the best interest of the people and with the consent of the governed.
Anarchist wrote: “So David believes that our government would be completely justified if they ended the practice of voting.”
There would be nothing wrong with a government run by a benevolent dictator. Many families are run this way. The problem is that history has shown that human nature is corrupted by power and money. Voting is simply a tool of measuring the consent of the governed, but there are many other ways to measure the consent of the governed. The problem with universal and equal suffrage is that it weakens government and gridlocks it. Name one private corporation that manages itself through universal and equal suffrage in a purely democratic way. They don’t exist for the same reason that such governments do not exist. It doesn’t work.
Anarchist wrote: “The guy is a complete psychopath that advocates totalitarianism.”
You are pretty loose with your words. I am an independent thinker, not a psychopath. I do not advocate totalitarianism because that hinders the freedom of the individual. I believe strongly in the liberty of the individual. I believe in limited government, responsible primarily for security, to punish those who would harm others.
Anarchist wrote: “He believes in disenfranchising voters. Those methods that they used to prevent blacks from voting in the South? He loves them. He opposed to the basis of our system of government- equality.”
I do not believe in disenfranchising voters. Disenfranchising only happens when that right has been given. Do you disenfranchise non-citizens from voting? No, of course not. They have not been given the right to vote. If somebody has been given the right to vote by the government, that person should not be disenfranchised from voting.
Nevertheless, at the same time, I would favor changing the system of voting in a way that would allow everyone to vote, but includes a weighted system so that the opinions of those more knowledgeable and with more skin in the game count more than those who do not have an invested interest in their society. I go along with universal and equal suffrage because that is what the majority seem to want right now, but I do not think it is the best. If our country gave the right to vote to non-citizens who are resident here, I would support that in the same way, even though I disagree that it would result in the best government.
An interesting sidebar here given the topic of this thread, Sami Al-Arian tried to get citizenship here. He was denied. One reason he was denied was because he voted when he was not a citizen. The Democrats in Hillsborough County, in their zeal not to disenfranchise any voters, gave this non-citizen a voter registration card and allowed him to vote in elections here in the U.S.
I support the equality of people in many ways, but not in the way that modern liberals look at it. It is ridiculous to think that men and women are equal in their gifts and abilities. It is ridiculous to think that all races are equal in their gifts and abilities. If they were, the NFL would hire an equal number of male and female players, and an equal number of blacks and whites. Modern liberals keep pretending that everyone is the same, that even their opinions are equally valuable, and all this does is lead to more conflict and societal unrest. Despite laws for desegregation and a concerted effort for affirmative action to make everyone equal, societies continue to segregate voluntarily along racial lines as well as gender lines. Why? Because that type of equality is a lie. Instead, we should embrace diversity and learn to love one another fervently. When we embrace diversity, we find that the strengths of others who are different from us cover our own weaknesses, and that our strengths cover their weaknesses. A true unity and love develops when we embrace diversity rather than pretend that we are all equal. Furthermore, everyone is equal before the law and have equal standing in the courts of justice. The law applies equally to all. That is the kind of equality referred to in the Declaration of Independence.
Pogo…I regret to admit that you have a point. My question, then, is why? Jews constitute no more than 17 million world wide. What on earth makes that some kind of threat?
That said, I believe Issac will take my comment in stride. We differ at times, but are really on the same ground otherwise.
Aridog,
You’re trying to use rational arguments when discussing Jews.
For many, that’s an impossible task.
Their amygdalas areimmediately hijacked by that four letter word, eliminating all possibility of coherent cognition.
Issac…I take your post as most relevant, and informative, however….I cited the 1922 San Remo Accords (exclusively) as amended because virtually every other middle eastern nation sate recognizes those borders, but seem to make an exception for Israel. We fought a brief war, with multiple Arab allies, with Israel agreeing to “shelter in place” so to speak, to defend those accord borders vis a vis Kuwait. It is good enough for Kuwait, why not for Israel, regardless of who might be, or have been, there? Take history literally, the Pottawatomie have a claim on my house and yard. Should I willingly give it up, or subdivide it? Facetious point, I know…but seriously, what is the difference (trying hard not to mime Hillary).
Main point: The San Remo Accords, however contrived, are established and adhered to (the important part) by everyone in the Arab middle east…yet Israel is expected to divvy their hunk of it all up, a bare scarp of land at that.
Even the Israelis are willing to sub-divide and create a two state solution (really a 3rd state solution once Trans-Jordan was established) because they are not ignorant of demographics and politics there from, so I fail to see what the real beef is….the rhetoric about driving the Jews in to the sea (total annihilation) doesn’t help much does it? From my perspective, the only reason this “2 state solution” hasn’t been established is because the opposite side refuses every attempt and offer. I hardly expect the Israelis to die off as they did at Masada.
Repeat: my main point is simple…if the San Remo Accords are good enough for everyone else, why not Israel? What is the basis for that debate?
I refuse to accept the racial or ethic arguments, which seem to drive much of this pseudo-debate. I have never been so at ease as those times in a foreign land, half a world away, among ethnicities and races not my own, where I became at one with them…by humility, honesty, and good humor, and not seeing them as an enemy (to be shot perhaps) solely due to their skin color, eye shape, or culture.
Moses and ancient history is good to know, and relevant…but you could also draw a conclusion from ancient history that Persia (Iran) should run the whole mess…and they are certainly giving that a shot now. 🙂
Theirs seems to have marginal cognitive content over merely chanting random syllables or ululating.
It’s got ELECTROLYTES!!!
” If you think otherwise, please make your case for it.”
Usually that involves marching with giant paper mâché heads, repeatedly chanting a moronic phrase in unison, and pounding a plastic bucket with a wooden spoon.
Pogo – it is important that the moronic phrase rhyme. 😉
““The only side that can stop this is Israel.””
Isaac, I missed that.
Pure bunk.
“We have a forum here and the opportunity to express ourselves. Does that answer your question?”
Not really. You seemed upthread to be anti-Israel.
Now that’s less clear.
If what you’re arguing is that all sides are morally equivalent, I have to disagree.
Pogo – I think every side has a right to make their argument, I think some arguments have weaker footing than others.
DavidM is a wonderful American.
He believes in IQ testing in order to determine those entitled to vote. Also, he believes it was a big mistake to give women the right to vote.
Bottom line, some really crazy ideas. Nothing like crazy obsessive 16th century ideas delivered with grace and dignity.
Wadewilliams wrote: “He believes in IQ testing in order to determine those entitled to vote. Also, he believes it was a big mistake to give women the right to vote.”
I did not say that it was a big mistake to give women the right to vote, nor have I ever argued for IQ testing to determine who is entitled to vote. IQ tests do not measure knowledge. I simply argue that voting is not a natural right, but rather a privilege conferred by positive law. Governments can rightly determine whatever voting mechanisms they want to create, including not allowing anyone to vote.
I personally favor a weighted voting system, with more knowledgeable and successful people having a greater vote and influence on elections than the ignorant. I think such would lead to better government and a more harmonious and less gridlocked Congress. Much of our societal problems are caused by ignorance, and education is helpful in this regard.
I fail to see why a man like Professor Turley, who is obviously very knowledgeable about government and the Constitution, should have his single vote washed out by an apathetic man who doesn’t know anything about government. Much of the time, the apathetic ignorant person knows nothing about the person for whom he casts his vote. Why should his flippant vote count as much as the knowledgeable person? It makes no sense to me. I value the opinion of the man who educates himself much more than the loser on the street who doesn’t know enough to be able to feed himself. I value their lives equally, but I do not value their opinion about law and government equally.
The notion of Democrats that we should value their opinions equally through universal and equal voting is ridiculous. There is no rational basis for this perspective. If you think otherwise, please make your case for it.
pogo
Mankind began governing itself, not by the lofty ideals of documents such as the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence but by might is right. The masquerading of blatant invasion as something ‘god wants’ or something that is legal because of this or that paper, agreement between colonial powers, etc does nothing to obscure the reality. On country’s declaration is another’s edict of slavery, etc.
Why go on about it? Why do anything? We have a forum here and the opportunity to express ourselves. Does that answer your question?
I knew a young Israeli girl who was going to the University of Nice. This in itself was a ‘ballsy move’ as she was also outnumbered there a hundred to one by Muslims. She had done a turn in the military and spoke as close to the truth as anyone. “We won, get used to it.” When you take that position then you accept the consequences, no matter how horrific. Most Israelis believe that this is their land, whether because it was taken by force or their idea of a supernatural being gave it to them. Why is this so different from Russia invading Ukraine?
I watched a woman member of the Knesset speak her mind once on TV. There had just been another atrocity committed by a suicide bomber. Israel was going about exacting a dozen or so lives for each life lost on its soil. She was recently from Russia, after Gorbachov or someone allowed hundreds of thousands of Russian Jews to emigrate. They arrived in Israel and, soon, if not immediately became citizens, and she was elected by the recent immigrants from Russia who now made up a very significant percentage of the population. Her response in English, heavily accented with her native Russian, was, “Carpet bomb them all.”
Israel is full of decent people. However the state was established and continues to grow at the expense of millions of Palestinians who are not much better off than the First Nation Peoples of North America were when they were adapting to living on secluded parts of what was once theirs. When they fight back, the question is, how much different are they than the Jews who came there, or anybody else for that matter?
Irrespective of their refusals to acknowledge Israel, their intentions of destroying Israel, or whatever, when your back is against the wall, you kick and scratch and do whatever it takes.
David, Thanks for the valuable personal information. For folks new here, there is NO ONE who has been attacked more here, over the last couple years, than DavidM. He handles the bile thrown @ him w/ grace and dignity. I don’t know how he does it. There have been too many vile comments to count directed @ David that have been deleted. He probably has a comment or two deleted over the last couple years? But, no more than that. We don’t degree on some issues. But, the man is the real deal.
jj-
” In addition, guilt by association is the only thing that some detractors have raised here.”
Yes, and more telling, the group that sees no problem with the treatment of Al-
Arian at the hands of the justice department is also the group that will scream the loudest about the violation of constitutional rights by “liberals”. The cognitive dissonance is this group of people is amazing. Whenever it comes down to individual cases, they strongly support any unconstitutional measure taken by the government against people they dislike. They would be willing to sacrifice any protection provided by the constitution for the prosecution or murder of one man, but they still imagine themselves as the heroic defenders of our constitutional rights in what they perceive as a world full of liberals bent on making America communist.
“davidm is a staunch supporter of Israel to the point that he blinds himself. . .”
It’s amazing. It isn’t just Israel though, he’s way out in the right lunatic fringe. He also argues that our war against Iraq was completely justified, not because it was necessary, but because he believes it was technically legal. The question of whether the war was necessary is irrelevant to him.As long as we are killing Muslims, he’s happy. He maintains a truly psychopathic perspective on foreign relations.
Anarchist 2.0 – do you think you could actually make a comment without an ad hominem attack in it?
Anarchist wrote: “he’s way out in the right lunatic fringe.”
In every political assessment test I have taken, I am evaluated to be a centrist.
Have you ever taken the test at http://www.politicalcompass.org/ ?
I would be very interested in learning how you rate on that assessment. I’ll tell you my score if you tell me yours. 🙂 I suspect you would be very surprised at my score because I am nearly dead center on the chart.
Anarchist wrote: “He also argues that our war against Iraq was completely justified, not because it was necessary, but because he believes it was technically legal. The question of whether the war was necessary is irrelevant to him.As long as we are killing Muslims, he’s happy. He maintains a truly psychopathic perspective on foreign relations.”
Not surprisingly, I don’t think you understand my perspective at all about the Iraq war. I would never say that it was “completely justified.” There are many things about the Iraq War that I disagree with. For example, making that country an Islamic Republic whose laws are all judged by the Quran was a huge mistake by President Bush. If our country is going to nation build, then at least do it based upon the principles we believe in and are compatible with our Constitution. Another thing I disagree with is withdrawing our troops prematurely. That was a huge mistake by President Obama.
“From the early 20th Century the Zionist movement encouraged and accomplished the settlement of Palestine by Jews from all over the world.”
Gee, I wonder why that happened.
“So, call it what it is, don’t give it any other justification than might makes right.”
So if the Jews were no different that any other group that forced some other group out, what are you going on and on about?
If it’s all same-same, why bother commenting on Israel’s actions at all?
This gets down once again to what is going on in the Middle East with respect to Israel and Palestine. In connection with that conflict, it is true that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” The deported professor was a Palestinian. He had a right to speak up and to use volatile language at times. He must feel the conflict in his blood and bones far more deeply than most people can even imagine. In addition, guilt by association is the only thing that some detractors have raised here. That is why a jury that lived through the evidence was not persuaded that this man was bad or harmful to society. Letting a judge decide the evidence in a case like this would be like appointing a prosecutor to decide the case. To get a jury to acquiit or deadlock in a federal case of this nature is like performing a miracle that defies reality. The reality is that there is virtually no chance for a targeted individual to get an acquittal in a federal court, and certainly not a target of this kind. The evidence had to be superficial and unconvincing for the jury to acquit and deadlock. davidm is a staunch supporter of Israel to the point that he blinds himself to every aspect of the other side’s complaints. His blind adherence to one view and all of its manifestations makes him unable to see that there could have been injustice created in this prosecution by overzealous prosectors who did not do their homework.
Aridog
You can go back to Moses if you want. The 1922 whatever was a ratification of the Balfour Declaration of 1917. This is nothing more than one in a long line of colonial moves to settle down an area that was left to whomever had the most people and the most arms after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Up until then Arabs, Jews, and Christians would occasionally kill each other over ancient nonsense but were kept in check by Ottoman rule.
From the early 20th Century the Zionist movement encouraged and accomplished the settlement of Palestine by Jews from all over the world. Each time the influx of Jews into Palestine and the resulting squabbles became difficult for the British and French to handle due to the disagreement of the local Arab peoples to see their lands filling up with non-Muslims they filed a ‘White Paper’ or a ‘Declaration’. You can paper the issue or declare whatever you want, the bottom line is that for the past ninety odd years Jews have been coming in and taking away Arab lands. The UN does not acknowledge the post 1967 boundaries that Israel has established not to mention the settlement program.
The Palestinians were the indigenous people that dominated the area. It is a waiting game for Israel. After 1948 three million Palestinians were displaced. They have grown up without a country except for Gaza, a near ghetto like situation and the West Bank, which is eroding from within by a cancer of settlements and no go places for the Palestinians.
The bottom line is that this is no different than what has been going on forever. A strong force comes in and removes a weaker force. Perhaps it’s human nature and can be objectively explained away like the take over of North and South America was and is. However, it is happening now and the only determining part of the equation is Israel. No one can stop Israel but Israel. That is why it is their: responsibility, fault, cause, destiny, whatever, pick a word.
If you take in the past hundred years one thing is easily understandable. People from other parts of the world have come to Palestine and taken it by force. Their reasoning is a combination of having been persecuted in Europe and that their god gave them the land four, five, six or how many thousand years ago.
The Jews have a point. The Palestinians have a point. The Jews win because they have the bomb and are the base religion for the Western World. So, call it what it is, don’t give it any other justification than might makes right.
Envy, mostly.
They turned a desert into a robust city in 3 generations.
Their Arab neighbors keep turning their own cities into rubble.
And then blame the Jews.
Pogo…nothing amazes me more than some folks’ obsession with a nation of 7 million or so out of a world population of maybe 16 million…less than 1% of everything. I think that is almost funny if it were not for the lives, all sides, on the line.
Issac…given our messes provided & provoked by our political nonsense in Libya, Egypt, Syria and other places, perhaps our meddling is contra-productive? Perhaps we should just Shut the Flip Up. YMMV…. 🙂
Issac…and please do not try to tell me that the UN’s opinions over-ride the otherwise fully accepted and legally defined San Remo Accords as amened in 1922. The UN merely usurped the prerogatives for their own purposes, without a shred of legal substantiation…save their own hubris. If not politically contrived…explain why they have not sought an independent Kurdistan? That would slice off pieces of four San Remo defined states, and yet would be an equitable concept….human rights wise and in every other consideration. If we are to demand re-organization, re-organize the whole lot.