[WCUSP] Fwd: Washington Post editorial – Land of the Freed

Wed Nov 7 13:03:49 CST 2007

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: PLO Mission to the USA <plomission1 at aol.com>
Date: Nov 7, 2007 1:30 PM
Subject: Washington Post editorial – Land of the Freed
To: odilehh at gmail.com

                           PLO Mission
                        Washington, DC

November 7, 2007

Subject: Washington Post editorial - Land of the Freed

From: PLO Mission - Washington, DC

1)

Afif Safieh, the Head of the PLO Mission, was last week on a lecturing
tour in Nebraska organized by "Nebraskans for Peace".  He met with:

1-     the editorial board of the "Omaha World-Herald"

2-     leading members of the Palestinian community

3-     Rabbi Aryeh Azriel and members of the inter-faith group in Omaha

He lectured twice at the Catholic/Jesuit Creighton University and had
dinner with the President of the Jesuit community and several faculty
members.

He also lectured at the Lutheran Dana College in Blair and had lunch
at the invitation of the President of Dana College, Dr. Janet Philipp,
in the presence of several faculty members and student
representatives.

2)

On Thursday, November 8, Afif Safieh, the Head of the PLO Mission,
will chair the monthly meeting of the Council of Arab Ambassadors in
Washington.  The council operates with a 3 month rotative presidency
among its members.

3)

Washington Post editorial:

Washington Post Editorial 7/11/2007
Land of the Freed
For two members of the 'Los Angeles Eight,' America finally acts to
right a wrong.

LAST WEEK, after almost 21 years, the U.S. government agreed to drop
its case against Khader Hamide and Michel Shehadeh. The two men, who
are of Palestinian descent, were permanent legal residents of the
United States when they were targeted for deportation because of their
alleged affiliation with a terrorist group. The government's evidence
was so flimsy and its legal arguments so bizarre that many in the
immigrants' rights, civil liberties and Arab American communities came
to see the case as an overt act of hostility by the government toward
people of Arab descent -- and understandably so.

The saga began in 1987 when Mr. Hamide and Mr. Shehadeh, along with
six others who came to be known as the Los Angeles Eight, were
arrested and accused of supporting the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), an extremist offshoot of the Palestine
Liberation Organization. The PFLP is, in fact, a loathsome group that
relies on violence and terrorist tactics as strategic tools. The men
had raised money for the group and distributed its magazine, although
they consistently denied they were members and claimed to have donated
money to fund the group's humanitarian work in assisting displaced
Palestinians. Apparently the government recognized from the beginning
that its case was weak, because it decided to try to deport the men
under a Cold War-era law prohibiting membership in an international
communist organization; the PFLP espoused Marxist ideology.

The law, under fire from court challenges, was repealed in 1990. But
that didn't stop the government, which in 2003 tried to remove the two
men from the country by retroactively applying a law that did not
exist in 1987. This law, which prohibits "material support" of a
terrorist organization, was passed in 1996 -- almost a decade after
the men were arrested.

In dropping the case, the government conceded only that neither Mr.
Hamide nor Mr. Shehadeh are "currently" believed to be dangerous. Yet
in 20-plus years of federal court filings and immigration proceedings,
prosecutors were unable to produce a shred of evidence to show that
the men were a threat.

Mr. Hamide and Mr. Shehadeh have lived lawfully in this country with
their families for decades. Now that the case against them has been
dropped, they will be allowed to apply for citizenship in three years.
Both have said they will do so. It speaks volumes about these two men
-- and, we'd like to hope, about the ideals of the United States that
were violated in the execution of this case -- that Mr. Hamide and Mr.
Shehadeh still wish to be bound as citizens to a country that has
treated them so shabbily.

4)

>From the Arab American Institute

Washington Watch:

Democratic Candidates Discuss Israel-Palestine

By James Zogby
November 7, 2007

Washington Watch is a weekly column written by AAI President James
Zogby. The views expressed within this column do not necessarily
reflect those of the Arab American Institute.

We invite you to share your views on the topics addressed within Dr.
Zogby's weekly Washington Watch by emailing jzogby at aaiusa.org.

           Last weekend, most of the Democratic presidential
candidates addressed remarks to a gathering of Arab American leaders
assembled at their Quadrennial National Leadership Conference (NLC) in
Michigan. An examination of how each of them dealt with the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict proved quite revealing.

            But first, to set the context. Over 600 Arab Americans
gathered for this year's NLC, sponsored by the Arab American
Institute. Among the bi-partisan group were Arab American elected
officials and party leaders, and representatives of forty-one
organizations from twenty states. During the three day meeting, they
discussed key domestic and foreign policy issues, and took a long hard
look at how best to prepare and position the community for the 2008
contest.

            All of the Presidential candidates were invited to speak
or send representatives, and some did. On the Republican side, only
Texas Congressman Ron Paul responded, delivering remarks that touched
on many of the community's concerns. Paul spoke critically of the Bush
Administration's adventure in Iraq and its failure to pursue an
"even-handed" policy with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict. His
comments were well-received. The fact that none of the other
Republicans responded was disappointing to some, but not surprising,
since too many of them have rhetorically boxed themselves in with
hostile positions on civil liberties, the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, and the Middle East in general.

            Among the Democrats, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson
and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich made appearances; while New York
Senator Hillary Clinton, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and former
North Carolina Senator John Edwards sent video presentations of their
remarks accompanied by senior campaign officials who spoke and
responded to questions. Kucinich, a long-time critic of U.S. Middle
East policy and an advocate for peace and justice was passionate and a
crowd-pleaser, but what was especially striking to me was the way in
which the four leading Democrats chose to address the critical issue
of Israeli-Palestinian peace.

            Excerpts from their remarks follow:

Hillary Rodham Clinton: "Getting out of Iraq will also enable us to
play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that
would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the
Palestinians. Whether or not the United States makes progress in
helping to broker a final agreement, consistent U.S. involvement can
lower the level of violence and begin to restore our credibility in
the region, and reengaging in this process will be a priority of my
administration." See Clinton's full statement here.

Barack Obama: "Our neglect of the Middle East peace process has fueled
despair and extremism. As President I will make a personal commitment
to work toward ending the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis,
and realize the goal of two states living side by side in peace and
security. This is important to Arab Americans, it's important to
Jewish Americans, and it is important to me." See Obama's full
statement here.

John Edwards: "I want to be the President who stays very actively
engaged in trying to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli issue. It's a
huge issue, everyone knows it; the ultimate solution is a two-state
solution, two states living side by side with peace and security, and
I want to be the President that makes a serious effort to reach that
solution." See Edwards full statement here.

Bill Richardson: "Amidst an avalanche of incompetence, President
Bush's record in the Middle East stands out as singularly flawed. For
years he has disengaged from the peace process, allowing the situation
to drift downward. . . . It is crucial that we break the continued
deadlock in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. We must help the
Israelis and Palestinians negotiate a two-state solution which
guarantees Israel's security and creates a viable Palestinian state.
To do this, the U.S. must rebuild the credibility it has lost under
George W. Bush, so that we can facilitate, broker, and help finance a
lasting peace.

            "I will go to work on day one of my term, employing my
years of experience as a negotiator to broker a solution. The broken
dream of peace cannot be abandoned. We must take the shattered pieces
and build a new reality." See the fulladdresshere.

             Much can be learned from the candidates' choice of words,
what was said and not said.

Of the four, Obama, Edwards and Richardson spoke of their personal
commitment to become directly engaged in negotiations between Israelis
and Palestinians. Only Obama and Richardson directly expressed their
commitment to realize the specific outcome of two states, while
Edwards described this outcome only as a goal worth making a "serious
effort to achieve."

            Obama and Richardson found fault with he Bush
Administration's neglect of the Middle East peace process and spoke of
the danger posed by this neglect. Richardson's remarks were the most
evocative, while Obama added an interesting domestic component to his
commitment, noting that the peace-making effort has not only his
support but that of Arab Americans and Americans Jews.

            What is interesting is the degree to which Senator
Clinton's comments stood in contrast to those of her fellow
candidates. Whether intentionally or not, she was remarkably vague,
promising neither personal involvement in peacemaking nor committing
to a specific outcome, saying only that " U.S. involvement" serves a
tactical objective  in that it would "lower  the level of violence and
help to restore our credibility in the region." (In fact, a review of
all of Clinton's published statements and remarks since becoming a
candidate provided nothing that would add clarity to her position on
this critical issue.)

            As I noted, much can be learned from their words - what
was said, and not said.

 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Contact Information
 phone: (202) 974-6360
Fax: (202) 974-6278
Email: plomission1 at aol.com
Website: www.plomission.us

Forward email