Israel’s finance minister was accused last week of trying to deflect attention from discriminatory policies keeping many of the country’s Arab families in poverty by blaming their economic troubles on what he described as Arab society’s opposition to women working.

A recent report from Israel’s National Insurance Institute showed that half of all Arab families in Israel are classified as poor compared with just 14 per cent of Jewish families.

Yuval Steinitz, the finance minister, told a conference on employment discrimination this month that the failure of Arab women to participate in the workforce was damaging Israel’s economy. Eighteen per cent of Arab women work, and only half of them full time, compared with at least 55 per cent of Jewish women.

He attributed the low employment rate to “cultural obstacles, traditional frameworks and the belief that Arab women have to remain in their home towns”, adding that such restrictions were characteristic of all Arab societies.

But researchers and women’s groups pointed out that employment of Arab women in Israel is lower than almost anywhere else in the Arab world, including such employment blackspots for women as Saudi Arabia and Oman.

“Most Arab women want to work, including a large number of female graduates, but the government has refused to tackle the many and severe obstacles that have been put in their way,” said Sawsan Shukha of Women Against Violence, a Nazareth-based organisation.

That assessment was supported by a survey this month revealing that 83 per cent of Israeli businesses in the main professions – including advertising, law, banking, accountancy and the media – admitted being opposed to hiring Arab graduates, whether men or women.

Yousef Jabareen, an urban planner at the Technion technical university in Haifa, who has conducted one of the largest surveys on Arab women’s employment in Israel, said the problems Arab women faced were unique.

“In Israel they face a double discrimination, both because they are women and because they are Arabs,” he said.

“The average in the Arab world [for female employment] is about 40 per cent. Only women in Gaza, the West Bank and Iraq – where there are exceptional circumstances – have lower rates of employment than Arab women in Israel. That gap needs explaining and the answers aren’t to be found where the minister is looking.”

He said a wide range of factors hold Arab women back, many of them the result of discriminatory policies by successive governments to prevent the 1.3-million Arab minority, which comprises one-fifth of Israel’s population, from benefiting from economic development.

These included widespread discrimination in hiring policies by both private employers and the government; a long-standing failure to locate industrial zones and factories in Arab communities; a severe lack of state-supported childcare services compared with Jewish communities; a shortage of public transport in Arab areas that prevented women reaching places of work, and a lack of training courses aimed at Arab women.

According to a study by Women Against Violence, 40 per cent of Arab women with degrees are unable to find work. When interviewed, Mr Jabareen said, 78 per cent of non-working women blamed their situation on a lack of job opportunities.

Maali Abu Roumi, 24, from the town of Tamra in northern Israel, has been looking for a job as a social worker since she finished training two years ago. She said cash-strapped Arab schools, unlike Jewish schools, could not afford to employ a social worker, and that Israel’s Arab minority lacked the equivalent of the welfare institutions and foundations funded by wealthy overseas Jews that offered work to many Jewish social workers.

“Most of the Jews I studied with have found work, while very few of the Arabs on my course have been employed,” she said. “When a job comes up, it’s usually part time and there are dozens of applicants.”

The Alternative Planning Centre, an Arab organisation that studies land use in Israel, reported in 2007 that only 3.5 per cent of the country’s industrial zones were in Arab communities. Most attracted such small businesses as workshops for car repairs or carpentry that offered few opportunities for women.

“Israel’s private sector is almost entirely closed to Arab women because of discriminatory practices by employers who prefer to employ Jews,” Mr Jabareen said. He added that the government had failed to provide leadership: among governmental workers, less than two per cent were Arab women, despite repeated pledges by ministers to increase Arab recruitment.

Ms Shukha said: “The civil service is a major employer, but many of these jobs are in the centre of the country, in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, a long way from the north where most Arab citizens live.”

She noted that there were no regular buses from Nazareth, the largest Arab town in the country, to Jerusalem. “The transport situation is even worse in the villages where most Arab women live.”

In addition, she said, most could not travel long distances to find work because of the scarcity of child-care provision. Only 25 government-run daycare centres have been established for preschool children in Arab communities out of 1,600 operating across the country. Ms Shaukha also criticised the trade and industry ministry, saying that, although it had invested heavily in training for Jewish women, only six per cent of Arab women were attending courses, and then mostly for sewing and secretarial work.

Mr Jabareen said Arab men faced massive discrimination, too, but found work because they filled a need in the economy by doing hard manual labour that most Jews refused, often travelling long distances to work on construction sites. “Women simply don’t have that option,” he said. “They cannot do that kind of work and they need to stay close to their communities because they have responsibilities in the home.”

We still don’t know who killed four young police officers as they gathered at a local eating establishment during their shift in Washington state.  We do know they were killed as they sat talking, eating or comparing notes together sometime during their shift early Sunday morning by a lone gunman, and typically as yet, no link to “terrorism” is known.  That’s an interesting part of the American vernacular these days, as if to imply the deaths of these officers is either easier to take or more heinous if it was done by a terrorist versus a non-terrorist.  We have become used to such insertions into language regarding death….it’s coded to tell us whether we should recoil or merely shrug our shoulders and thank God it wasn’t us; for example the use of the term ‘hate crime’ which has racial overtunes, is the trigger for whether we should really reflect on not just the death of an individual but the status of where we are as a society versus the everyday violent deaths of  scores of people as things beyond our control.

So we now precede reports of violent deaths, and especially those against symbols of state power with whether the perpetrator was a terrorist or not.  Usually, as we have come to expect, that designation is supposed to tell us if the criminal is a “Muslim”, because as the common perception goes, every terrorist is a Muslim, and therefore worthy of the entire population’s ire and revulsion.  Unfortunately, this allows us to more easily accept violent death, while at the same time focusing our anger on the perpetrator of the crime and not on the nature of the crime itself.  If it’s a non-terrorist crime we tend to focus less on either the victim or the criminal whereas for “terrorist” related crimes we are obsessed with both in an entirely unhealthy way as a society.  This is the cheapening of human life through the politicization of “terror” and it serves pundits, policy wonks and others well as they shape policy for all of us around the value terror gives to human life, but it doesn’t help us much when we are left with the senseless slaying of people like the four officers above.  I won’t bother to get into the blame game and say that the proliferation of handguns in a violent society is responsible or that Mike Huckabee is responsible for the deaths of these officers because he let the “person of interest” everyone is now looking for out of an Arkansas prison prematurely.  That was the rational that sunk a Michael Dukakis campaign in 1988…the old Willie Horton ads, remember them?  It’s interesting to see how even now Huckabee, who might be looking to run in 2012 is back pedaling on the import of his commutation by saying, ’should he (the person of interest) be found responsible for this horrible tragedy, it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington state’….a typical political statement if there ever was one.  At some point, the buck has to stop being passed, the race/ethnicity of the perpetrator becomes insignificant and the application of the rule of law becomes paramount absent these “mitigating social circumstances” of which governor released him, the ethnic/religious persuasion, the gender, etc, etc, ad nauseum…..  In fact the American system supposedly took all that into account when it said all people are equal under the law so that regardless who commits the heinous act of murder, the equal application of the rule insures justice.  That’s the way it’s supposed to be right?

During the heyday of the cartoons featuring a terrorist prophet of Islam, with a turban in the form of a bomb, we were told free speech was necessary even if it upset the sensitivities of people; in order to live in a more perfect union it was necessary to uphold the principles on which this country were founded than it was to address people’s feelings.  Yes, I know that the cartoons of the Prophet of Islam were featured in a Danish newspaper, but even they the Danish were seen as a bulwark against giving in to terrorism and they had the right as we do here in America to freedom of speech and should not be intimidated from or waive that right.  Yeah…that’s what we were told when it came to dealing with Muslims’ reactions to news they might not deem pleasant.

However, such openness to free speech is not seen in much the same positive or necessary light when it comes to speech or criticism about the state of Israel, as the editors and owners of The Berkeley Daily Planet have found out.  A quick look at the website for the paper, http://www.berkeleydaily.org/issue/2009-11-28, reveals a paper that seems interested in its local affairs, from the closing of a post office location to citizen displeasure at the response of the local university to the financial crisis, but some people, notably Jim Sinkinson of Infocom Group, a media relations company and John Gertz of dpwatchdog.com  seem to think the paper should please the Jewish citizens of the Bay area by printing stories they consider non-offensive towards the state of Israel.  Not exactly the definition of freedom of speech, nor the role of a publication.  In fact almost every group in the world would make that demand, that any publication should print only those items that meet the emotional needs of that particular group and at the same time not offend group sensitivities.  Usually the answer to such a request is simply “nuts”, a free press means it reports what it wants to report and it the media outlet determines what is responsible and reasonable as it pertains to its readership/viewers/listeners and their values.  Fortunately, the editor of the Daily Planet, Becky O’Malley, has said essentially the same thing when defending her paper against the charges leveled by the two who want to limit her papers’ right to publish articles or columns critical of Israel.  In fact, the classiest response I’ve seen to date to her critics is quintessentially free speech in nature, ‘they (her detractors) could start their own paper.’  That alone should be enough to silence her critics,  for in throwing down that challenge O’Malley has defended her right to free speech and a free press and encouraged them to do the same even in opposition to her.

I’ve written before about the racial problem our country has; the new targets are Arabs and Muslims and anything that has to do with them in a positive light is enough to send seemingly intelligent people into an emotional tailspin that sees them plummet headfirst into the ground and explode.  I’ve also said the religious right of this country has made itself irrelevant with its racist banter that is usually inaccurate and divisive and not at all connected to its core beliefs in the divinity of Jesus and his message of eternal salvation.  It’s just something in us that likes to make trouble where there is none.  So I’m particularly amused at the uproar over the sign above in a Best Buy’s advertisement that seems to have sent many people off on their own suicide bent rantings.  Best Buy’s has been in the cross hairs of some of these people since 2006 when it was  said the company stopped recognizing Christmas by removing that word from its ads and using the more generic term “holidays” instead, and now to add insult to injury, the theory goes, they’re  further alienating Christians by recognizing a Muslim holiday over the more popular Christmas in their current ads.  I guess it didn’t occur to those “Christians” that perhaps Best Buy’s was trying to be inclusive in its sales pitch when it said, “Happy Holidays” by honoring and respecting those Christians who  don’t celebrate Christmas or don’t commemorate it on 12/25.   I guess the “Christians” who took offense at the lack of the word “Christmas” only see one view as sufficient to represent all of Christiandom, but Best Buy’s was smart enough to throw out the missing word “Christmas” red herring by the Christian right and came back with a strong statement which said in part

“Best Buy’s customers and employees around the world represent a variety of faiths and denominations. We respect that diversity and choose to greet our customers and employees in ways that reflect their traditions,” said spokeswoman Lisa Svac Hawks in a written statement to The Detroit News. “In addition to Happy Eid, you will see greetings of Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Joyous Kwanzaa and Feliz Navidad in various Best Buy communications during the holiday season.”

Oops.  I guess she told you, all you who had worked yourselves up in a lather over the absence of the word “Christmas”, never mind the absence of the spirit of Christmas, in an advertising campaign.  If it’s “Christmas” you want, then it’s “Christmas” you’re going to get!  Unfortunately that’s not good enough for many of the “religious right” who when confronted with the reality that another store they had targeted was using the word “Christmas” in their ads said the resulting ads were “offensive”, “patronizing”, a “joke”.  It’s apparent what these people are upset with is not the absence of a word, but rather the presence of people who or ideas which are different than themselves.  That’s called “xenophobia”….some of it’s synonym are racist, racialist; prejudiced, bigoted, intolerant and those describe the religious right to a Tee!  In closing, let me take the time to thank Best Buy’s for their understanding that America is made up of people and faiths  from all over the world many of which have been here since the inception of this country.  Their attitude towards the presence of such diversity is more American in spirit than any objection raised by the faux pas “religious right”.

Read the UN report on what happened in Gaza at this location.

When it’s done by Christian or Jewish individuals or states!  Perhaps it’s because the perpetrator of this latest  massacre which resulted in the deaths of 57 people in a battle line state/ally in the “war on terror” was not the typical suspect we associate with acts of terror and therefore it can’t be qualified as terrorism?  In answer to the oft raised claim that all acts of terrorism are only done by Muslims, in the Phillipines this week, the deaths of 57 people at the hands of one group was not done by Muslims but rather a family linked to the President of the Phillipines, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.  Consequently it has become, rightfully so, a gruesome act unfathomable, yet devoid of the religious screeching that usually accompanies reporting on crimes done by Muslims.  Even Michelle Malkin your virulent Islamophobe is silent about this heinous crime that was committed in her native Phillipines because she can’t blame the usual suspects.  Pity that.

Many of us who opposed George Bush’s policies and the lies he used to enact, and enforce them, were called traitors for not supporting our president during a time of war.  Now, those same voices which assaulted our patriotism and trumpeted their own are behind the likes of these billboards and many others gracing American highways.  We’re still in a time of war, if you accept the first declaration of war against terror, misplaced and erroneously called by George Bush, but now it appears its ok to oppose this president, and as some seem to imply, even overthrow him!  Where were these voices when we called for an end to wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to these same people who talk of revolution in America today, why aren’t you supporting a President who is on the verge of possibly sending more troops to fight this pseudo war on terror, or end it?  Why don’t you see your calls for actions against a sitting president as giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and why aren’t your talking radio head icons not making that point on their daily shows?  America…….I’ve got three words for you, Race, Party Politics. 

The first billboard above was taken down and replaced with the one below.

Hat tip to the Brad Blog and Think Progress.

This last incident of a breach of security during an Obama appearance wouldn’t be so suspicious if it was an isolated incident perhaps but it follows an even more suspicious incident that happened during candidate Obama’s campaign and amidst a growing number of threats against the President which have reached astronomical proportions.   Someone within the President’s detail should be held accountable. I’m talking about the husband and wife  pseudo “socialite” team that wrangled their way in to a state dinner at the White House two days ago.  It doesn’t help matters that they were  accompanied by a film and make up crew to the very first gate at the White House and yet by all accounts the Secret Service still did not follow proper procedures when they allowed the two to continue on to another check point whereby they were subsequently cleared for admission to the State dinner.   How can you account for such obvious lapses of security with the President’s security in the Secret Service?  Is this normal, post 911?  Post Fort Hood?  It’s almost as if someone inside the  organization is screaming for the next crazed kook to seize the opportunity they’re being given  to take a shot at the President.  Our fellow countrymen have shown there are many who would like that opportunity.  It appears President Obama has surrounded himself willingly and unknowingly with people who really don’t have his best interest at heart, and who may in fact mean him serious bodily or political harm.  He should do himself a favor and start an entire house cleaning of his Secret Service detail.

It was one of the themes of Ron Paul’s candidacy for president in 2008; American foreign policy would exact a price for Americans that they should neither have to pay or  or are not responsible for paying.  Blowback, a term coined by the CIA after their coup was responsible for re-installing the Shah of Iran to power in the early 1950s means the possible “unintended consequences” of American government’s  covert action against other countries, most notably those in the Middle East and elsewhere.  Paul used the term to refer to any policy of the US government, covert or otherwise that adversely affected the people to whom it was directed, but might have possibly been considered advantageous to American interests in the short term.  What Paul and his supporters, I counted myself among them, wanted to say was that American interventionist policy held no strategic long term advantage for anyone and the best course of action was for the US to not become obstructionist in its relations with foreign countries, especially those in the Middle East.

In the present much ado has been made about a certain Imam that might have inspired Nidal Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter of late, to commit his acts of murder and mayhem, saying the Imam, Anwar Al-Awlak used his firebrand rhetoric which he espoused while an Imam in an Arlington, Va masjid shortly after 911 and which left an indelible mark on Hasan until today.  However, that narrative is incomplete and at the same time convenient for the proponents of blowback, because it allows policy and public to aim their ire at the people who respond to acts of aggression against them in much the same way as they are assaulted.  Thanks to the American Muslim blog, I ran across a National Geographic interview with Al-Awlak while he was Imam of Dar al-Hijrah  masjid and the things he said at that time are a far cry from the firebrand rhetoric he is accused of using to incite people to acts of terrorism against America. In answer to the question of the climate in America created by the 911 catastrophe, al Awlak had this to say.

we stated our position clearly, and I even feel that it’s unfortunate that we have to state this position because no religion would condone this, so it should be common knowledge. But we were in a position where we had to say that Islam does not approve of this. There is no way that the people who did this could be Muslim, and if they claim to be Muslim, then they have perverted their religion.We encourage people to participate in blood drives, we encourage them to donate, and then we encourage the community to reach out. Part of the blame is on us that we haven’t been very active in reaching out to our fellow citizens, so that when these things happen we don’t have to go through this unfortunate backlash. We had a neighbor come in, and she said, “I’m coming to show my solidarity with you, to let you know that we are with you in this and that we are sorry for the difficult times you’re going through.” And then she said, “I wish you had came and visited me earlier, to give me an understanding of your religion. Although we were neighbors, we didn’t really hear from you.” This really is a message for us Muslims, that we need to reach out.

He defined “jihad” this way

The linguistic meaning of the word is “struggle.” The jihad of the individual would be to struggle against the evils of oneself. Therefore, it’s a continuous process of improvement. It is striving to become closer to God. That’s jihad for the individual.Jihad for the community is to protect the religion from any inside or outside enemy. So the jihad of the community would mean that if there is any internal corruption, we would struggle to get rid of it. And if there is an invading force from outside, then we would, too, struggle to defend ourselves, and that is where armed combat occurs. So actually, fighting is only a part of the jihad, and it’s considered to be a defensive force in order to protect the religion. If somebody defends their life, their property or their family, this is considered to be a jihad.

 

Could it be this was the ideology that attracted a searching Nidal Hasan to Awlaki at a time when he was looking for direction and purpose?  As we mentioned in an earlier post the place of worship in Virginia where Awlaki was imam was well known to federal authorities and worhshippers there remember Awlaki strongly condemning acts of terrorism on American soil, as the tone of the above interview seems to suggest.  In a heavy dose of foreshadowing, Awlaki while referring to bin Laden had this to say,

My worry is that because of this conflict,(i.e. in the Middle East-pre Iraq war)  the views of Osama bin Laden will become appealing to some of the population of the Muslim world. Never in the past were there any demonstrations raising the picture of Osama Bin Laden—it has just happened now. So Osama bin Laden, who was considered to be an extremist, radical in his views, could end up becoming mainstream. That’s a very frightening thing, so the U.S. needs to be very careful and not have itself perceived as an enemy of Islam.

True to form, America did just the opposite, entering into what George Bush and others in his administration and the  media called the “clash of civilizations”, an inevitable war of the worlds, and blowback ensued, which is just what the fanatics on both sides of the divide, in Washington and in cities across the Middle East wanted.  Throughout the Iraqi war the constant refrain was the occupation of Iraq by American troops  made America less safe today than it was before and the radicalization of people like Awlaki is proof of that.  Even in the words of the milquetoast Washington Post, Awlaki didn’t become radicalized until he returned to Yemen in 2004, the land of his parents, and witnessed  firsthand the destruction of a nominal agrarian society by an aggressive American foreign policy toward  Yemen and other countries in the Middle East. The fact that Yemeni authorities arrested him once and tried to identify him with a group he had previously eschewed and whose tactics he had condemned played no small part in his about face to  today.  Blowback; and the ability of policy wonks to point to him and by extension Hasan as a reason for repressive measures against Arab/Muslim citizens of the United States, as well as increased vigilance, read, military spending and government intrusion into the lives of all citizens is a convenience of blowback that the initiators and proponents cannot  overlook.  Quite simply, many in government want dissension and strife in areas of the world and if need be at home as well, to justify their continued occupation of such areas amidst huge military and government appropriations.  Anything that can be done to justify this trend is acceptable in their rational, and blowback becomes just another tool, at the risk of ordinary citizens, for the interference of government in people’s lives, either as oppressors or liberators or saviors.