Tag: Donald Trump

  • Commentary: Is MUIS The Problem Or The Solution? Are They ‘Really There’?

    Commentary: Is MUIS The Problem Or The Solution? Are They ‘Really There’?

    Is MUIS the problem or the solution?

    While the world express vociferous objections towards Donald trump for his blatant acts of provocation, our beloved MUIS is seen as being indifferent and muted towards the situation.

    MUIS, for the longest time, has not been the representative of the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore.

    It is not capable of expressing the sentiments and advancing the aspirations of the community. Its fecklessness is due to 2 crucial factors.

    1. It receives funding from the gov.

    2. The leadership of MUIS is not elected by the community but rather installed and approved by PAP gov

    MUIS is the highest governing body for the Muslims in Singapore. We placed our hope that it acts for the best of our interest. Yet, MUIS has been found wanting on numerous occasions.

    There are many instances where MUIS has taken on the narrative of the gov and became part of the state propaganda.

    It has no organizational backbone to have views contrary to the state. It operates as if it has to take directives from the gov and wait for instructions on views deemed sensitive. This shows a clear lack of autonomy and of a weak leadership.

    Frequently, the views or statements from MUIS mirrors those of the gov. In doing so, it runs the risk of being seen as subservient to a secular gov. It often uses weak justifications and rationale to which this PAP gov is known for.

    Ive not read any statements from MUIS that are different from those of the PAP gov. Issues like;

    – Tudung
    – The banning of Mufti Menk
    – Yusof Estes being denied entry
    – The discrimination faced by our community in the workforce
    – The Rohingyas
    – The Palestinians

    The list goes on. The near absence of the Malay/Muslim political voice in Singapore is reflected in how MUIS conducts itself on a national level.

    If MUIS continues to be emasculated, and act only for its self-interest, then it will not be a surprise should one day, it becomes irrelevant to the very community it is supposed to serve.

    If that happens, there’s a high chance that the community may seek other avenues for its spiritual consumption and with it, comes the real chance of radicalization slowly growing its base.

     

    Source: Khan Osman Sulaiman

  • I Was Muslim In Trump’s White House And I Lasted 8 Days

    I Was Muslim In Trump’s White House And I Lasted 8 Days

    In 2011, I was hired, straight out of college, to work at the White House and eventually the National Security Council. My job there was to promote and protect the best of what my country stands for. I am a hijab-wearing Muslim woman––I was the only hijabi in the West Wing––and the Obama administration always made me feel welcome and included.

    Like most of my fellow American Muslims, I spent much of 2016 watching with consternation as Donald Trump vilified our community. Despite this––or because of it––I thought I should try to stay on the NSC staff during the Trump Administration, in order to give the new president and his aides a more nuanced view of Islam, and of America’s Muslim citizens.

    I lasted eight days.

    When Trump issued a ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries and all Syrian refugees, I knew I could no longer stay and work for an administration that saw me and people like me not as fellow citizens, but as a threat.

    The evening before I left, bidding farewell to some of my colleagues, many of whom have also since left, I notified Trump’s senior NSC communications adviser, Michael Anton, of my departure, since we shared an office. His initial surprise, asking whether I was leaving government entirely, was followed by silence––almost in caution, not asking why. I told him anyway.I told him I had to leave because it was an insult walking into this country’s most historic building every day under an administration that is working against and vilifying everything I stand for as an American and as a Muslim. I told him that the administration was attacking the basic tenets of democracy. I told him that I hoped that they and those in Congress were prepared to take responsibility for all the consequences that would attend their decisions.He looked at me and said nothing.It was only later that I learned he authored an essay under a pseudonym, extolling the virtues of authoritarianism and attacking diversity as a “weakness,” and Islam as “incompatible with the modern West.”

    My whole life and everything I have learned proves that facile statement wrong.My parents immigrated to the United States from Bangladesh in 1978 and strove to create opportunities for their children born in the states. My mother worked as a cashier, later starting her own daycare business. My father spent late nights working at Bank of America, and was eventually promoted to assistant vice president at one of its headquarters. Living the American dream, we’d have family barbecues, trips to Disney World, impromptu soccer or football games, and community service projects. My father began pursuing his Ph.D., but in 1995 he was killed in a car accident.

    I was 12 when I started wearing a hijab. It was encouraged in my family, but it was always my choice. It was a matter of faith, identity, and resilience for me. After 9/11, everything would change. On top of my shock, horror, and heartbreak, I had to deal with the fear some kids suddenly felt towards me. I was glared at, cursed at, and spat at in public and in school. People called me a “terrorist” and told me, “go back to your country.”
    My father taught me a Bengali proverb inspired by Islamic scripture: “When a man kicks you down, get back up, extend your hand, and call him brother.” Peace, patience, persistence, respect, forgiveness, and dignity. These were the values I’ve carried through my life and my career.

    I never intended to work in government. I was among those who assumed the government was inherently corrupt and ineffective. Working in the Obama White House proved me wrong. You can’t know or understand what you haven’t been a part of.

    Still, inspired by President Obama, I joined the White House in 2011, after graduating from the George Washington University. I had interned there during my junior year, reading letters and taking calls from constituents at the Office of Presidential Correspondence. It felt surreal––here I was, a 22-year-old American Muslim woman from Maryland who had been mocked and called names for covering my hair, working for the president of the United States.

    In 2012, I moved to the West Wing to join the Office of Public Engagement, where I worked with various communities, including American Muslims, on domestic issues such as health care. In early 2014, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes offered me a position on the National Security Council (NSC). For two and a half years I worked down the hall from the Situation Room, advising President Obama’s engagements with American Muslims, and working on issues ranging from advancing relations with Cuba and Laos to promoting global entrepreneurship among women and youth.

    A harsher world began to reemerge in 2015. In February, three young American Muslim students were killed in their Chapel Hill home by an Islamophobe. Both the media and administration were slow to address the attack, as if the dead had to be vetted before they could be mourned. It was emotionally devastating. But when a statement was finally released condemning the attack and mourning their loss, Rhodes took me aside to to tell me how grateful he was to have me there and wished there were more American Muslims working throughout government.  America’s government and decision-making should reflect its people.

    Later that month, the evangelist Franklin Graham declared that the government had “been infiltrated by Muslims.” One of my colleagues sought me out with a smile on his face and said, “If only he knew they were in the halls of the West Wing and briefed the president of the United States multiple times!” I thought: Damn right I’m here, exactly where I belong, a proud American dedicated to protecting and serving my country.

    Graham’s hateful provocations weren’t new. Over the Obama years, right-wing websites spread  an abundance of absurd conspiracy theories and lies, targeting some American Muslim organizations and individuals––even those of us serving in government. They called us “terrorists,” Sharia-law whisperers, or Muslim Brotherhood operatives. Little did I realize that some of these conspiracy theorists would someday end up in the White House.

    Over the course of the campaign, even when I was able to storm through the bad days, I realized the rhetoric was taking a toll on American communities. When Trump first called for a Muslim ban, reports of hate crimes against Muslims spiked. The trend of anti-Muslim hate crimes is ongoing, as mosques are set on fire and individuals attacked––six were killed at a mosque in Canada by a self-identified Trump supporter.

    Throughout 2015 and 2016, I watched with disbelief, apprehension, and anxiety, as Trump’s style of campaigning instigated fear and emboldened xenophobes, anti-Semites, and Islamophobes. While cognizant of the possibility of Trump winning, I hoped a majority of the electorate would never condone such a hateful and divisive worldview.

    During the campaign last February, Obama visited a Baltimore mosque and reminded the public that “we’re one American family, and when any part of our family starts to feel separate … It’s a challenge to our values.” His words would go unheeded by his successor.

    The climate in 2016 felt like it did just after 9/11. What made it worse was that this fear and hatred were being fueled by Americans in positions of power. Fifth-grade students at a local Sunday school where I volunteered shared stories of being bullied by classmates and teachers, feeling like they didn’t belong here anymore, and asked if they might get kicked out of this country if Trump won. I was almost hit by a car by a white man laughing as he drove by in a Costco parking lot, and on another occasion was followed out of the metro by a man screaming profanities: “Fuck you! Fuck Islam! Trump will send you back!”

    Then, on election night, I was left in shock.

    The morning after the election, we lined up in the West Colonnade as Obama stood in the Rose Garden and called for national unity and a smooth transition. Trump seemed the antithesis of everything we stood for. I felt lost. I could not fully grasp the idea that he would soon be sitting where Obama sat.

    I debated whether I should leave my job. Since I was not a political appointee, but a direct hire of the NSC, I had the option to stay. The incoming and now departed national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had said things like “fear of Muslims is rational.” Some colleagues and community leaders encouraged me to stay, while others expressed concern for my safety. Cautiously optimistic, and feeling a responsibility to try to help them continue our work and be heard, I decided that Trump’s NSC could benefit from a colored, female, hijab-wearing, American Muslim patriot.

    The weeks leading up to the inauguration prepared me and my colleagues for what we thought would come, but not for what actually came. On Monday, January 23, I walked into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, with the new staffers there. Rather than the excitement I encountered when I first came to the White House under Obama, the new staff looked at me with a cold surprise. The diverse White House I had worked in became a monochromatic and male bastion.

    The days I spent in the Trump White House were strange, appalling and disturbing. As one staffer serving since the Reagan administration said, “This place has been turned upside down. It’s chaos. I’ve never witnessed anything like it.” This was not typical Republican leadership, or even that of a businessman. It was a chaotic attempt at authoritarianism––legally questionable executive orders, accusations of the press being “fake,” peddling countless lies as “alternative facts,” and assertions by White House surrogates that the president’s national security authority would “not be questioned.”

    The entire presidential support structure of nonpartisan national security and legal experts within the White House complex and across federal agencies was being undermined. Decision-making authority was now centralized to a few in the West Wing. Frustration and mistrust developed as some staff felt out of the loop on issues within their purview. There was no structure or clear guidance. Hallways were eerily quiet as key positions and offices responsible for national security or engagement with Americans were left unfilled.

    I might have lasted a little longer. Then came January 30. The executive order banning travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries caused chaos, without making America any safer. Discrimination that has existed for years at airports was now legitimized, sparking mass protests, while the president railed against the courts for halting his ban. Not only was this discrimination and un-American, the administration’s actions defending the ban threatened the nation’s security and its system of checks and balances.

    Alt-right writers, now on the White House staff, have claimed that Islam and the West are at war with each other. Disturbingly, ISIS also makes such claims to justify their attacks, which for the most part target Muslims. The Administration’s plans to revamp the Countering Violent Extremism program to focus solely on Muslims and use terms like “radical Islamic terror,” legitimize ISIS propaganda and allow the dangerous rise of white-supremacist extremism to go unchecked.

    Placing U.S. national security in the hands of people who think America’s diversity is a “weakness” is dangerous. It is false.

    People of every religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and age pouring into the streets and airports to defend the rights of their fellow Americans over the past few weeks proved the opposite is true––American diversity is a strength, and so is the American commitment to ideals of  justice and equality.

    American history is not without stumbles, which have proven that the nation is only made more prosperous and resilient through struggle, compassion and inclusiveness. It’s why my parents came here. It’s why I told my former 5th grade students, who wondered if they still belonged here, that this country would not be great without them.

    Source: www.theatlantic.com

  • Donald Trump: I Like 2 State Solution But I’ll Leave It Up To Israel And Palestinians

    Donald Trump: I Like 2 State Solution But I’ll Leave It Up To Israel And Palestinians

    WASHINGTON – U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday he likes the concept of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, expressing his preference on the issue for the first time since sparking international criticism for appearing to back away from the longstanding bedrock of Middle East policy.

    But in an interview with Reuters, Trump stopped short of reasserting a U.S. commitment to eventual Palestinian statehood and instead said again that he would be “satisfied with whatever makes both parties happy.”

    Trump’s comments put a new twist on a statement he made at a Feb. 15 joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggesting that his administration would no longer insist on the creation of an independent Palestinian state as part of any future peace accord.

    It could also send a signal to both sides, as well as the international community, that the principle that has long underpinned U.S.-led peace diplomacy will not be discarded if the Trump administration moves forward, as he has promised, with an initiative to restart long-stalled peace efforts.

    “No, I like the two-state solution,” Trump said when asked whether he had backed away from the concept during his joint White House appearance with the right-wing Israeli leader. “But I ultimately like what the both parties like.”

    “People have been talking about it for so many years now. It so far hasn’t worked,” he added. But he then repeated his revised position, saying: “I like this two-state solution, but I am satisfied with whatever both parties agree with.”

    Trump’s comments provided nuance to his earlier comments.

    “I’m looking at two states and one state, and I like the one both parties like,” he said at last week’s news conference. “I can live with either one.”

    Those words were welcomed at the time by the Israeli right but denounced by Palestinians, who seek a state of their own.

    A one-state solution would be deeply problematic for both sides. One concept would be two systems for two peoples, which many Palestinians would see as apartheid and endless occupation. A second version would mean equal rights for all, including for Palestinians in an annexed West Bank, but that would compromise Israel’s Jewish character.

    United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cautioned against abandoning the idea of a two-state solution, saying there was “no alternative,” and Egyptian and Jordanian leaders also renewed their commitment to that goal.

    Trump’s revised language could soften such criticism, but still fails to meet demands that he explicitly re-commit to seeking a two-state solution.

    At the news conference, Trump pledged to work toward a peace deal but said it would require compromise on both sides. He also surprised Netanyahu by urging him to “hold back on settlements for a little bit,” a vague appeal to curb construction of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank captured in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

    But at the news conference he offered no new prescription for achieving an accord that has eluded so many of his predecessors, and Palestinian anger over his strongly pro-Israel stance could make it difficult to draw them back to the negotiating table.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com

  • Israel’s Settlement Law: Consolidating Apartheid

    Israel’s Settlement Law: Consolidating Apartheid

    “Israel has just opened the ‘floodgates’, and crossed a ‘very, very thick red line’.” These were the words of Nickolay Mladenov, United Nations’ Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, in response to the passing of a bill at the Israeli Knesset on February 7 that retroactively legalises thousands of illegal settler homes, built on stolen Palestinian land.

    Mladenov’s job title has grown so irrelevant in recent years that it merely delineates a reference to a bygone era: a “peace process” that has ensured the further destruction of whatever remained of the Palestinian homeland.

    Israeli politicians’ approval of the bill is indeed an end of an era.

    We have reached the point where we can openly declare that the so-called peace process was an illusion from the start, for Israel had no intentions of ever conceding the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

    In response to the passing of the bill, many news reports alluded to the fact that the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House, riding a wave of right-wing populism, was the inspiration needed by equally right-wing Israeli politicians to cross that “very, very thick red line”.

    There is truth to that, of course. But it is hardly the whole story.

    The political map of the world is vastly changing.

    Just weeks before Trump made his way to the Oval Office, the international community strongly condemned Israel’s illegal settlements on Palestinian land occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.

    UN Security Council Resolution 2334 stated that these settlements have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of international law. Fourteen UNSC members voted in approval, while the US abstained, a revolutionary act by the US’ brazenly pro-Israel standards.

    The US, when still in the final days of the Barack Obama administration, followed that act by even more stunning language, as Secretary of State John Kerry described the Israeli government as the “most right-wing in history”.

    A chasm immediately emerged.

    Capitalising on the US-Israel rift, Trump railed against Obama and Kerry for treating pompous Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with “total disdain and disrespect”. Trump asked Israel to “stay strong”, for January 20 was not too far away.

    That date, Trump’s inauguration was the holy grail for Israel’s right-wing politicians, who mobilised immediately after Trump’s rise to power. Israel’s intentions received additional impetus from Britain’s Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May. Despite her government vote to condemn Israeli settlements at the UN, she too ranted against the US for its censure of Israel.

    Kerry’s attack on a “democratically elected Israeli government” was not appropriate, May charged. “We do not … believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case, the construction of settlements,” she added.

    Not only did May’s words define the very hypocrisy of the British government (which committed the original sin 100 years ago of handing historic Palestine to Zionist groups), but it was all that Israel needed to push forward with the new bill.

    It is quite telling that the vote on the bill took place while Netanyahu was on an official visit to the UK. In a country greatly influenced by ‘Friends of Israel’ cliques in both dominant parties, he was among friends.

    With the UK duly pacified, and the US in full support of Israel, moving forward with annexing Palestinian land became an obvious choice for Israeli politicians. Bezalel Smotrich, a Knesset member of the extremist Jewish Home party, put it best. “We thank the American people for voting Trump into office, which was what gave us the opportunity for the bill to pass,” he said shortly after the vote.

    The so-called “Regulation Bill” will retroactively validate 4,000 illegal structures built on private Palestinian land. In the occupied Palestinian territories, all Jewish settlementsare considered illegal under international law, as further indicated in UNSC Resolution 2334.

    There are also 97 illegal Jewish settlement outposts – a modest estimation – that are now set to be legalised and, naturally, expanded at the expense of Palestine. The price of these settlements has been paid mostly by US taxpayers’ money, but also the blood and tears of Palestinians, generation after generation.

    It is important, though, that we realise that Israel’s latest push to legalise illegal outposts and annex large swaths of the West Bank is the norm, not the exception.

    Indeed, the entire Zionist vision for Israel was achieved based on the illegal appropriation of Palestinian land. Wasn’t so-called “Israel proper” – as in land obtained by force from 1948 to 1967 – originally Palestinian land?

    Soon after Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem in 1967, it moved quickly to fortify its military occupation by unleashing settlement construction throughout the occupied territories.

    The early settlements had a strategic military purpose, for the intent was to create enough facts on the ground that would alter the nature of any future peace settlement; thus, the Allon Plan. It was named after Yigal Allon, a former general and minister in the Israeli government who took on the task of drawing an Israeli vision for the newly conquered Palestinian territories.

    The plan sought to annex more than 30 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza for security purposes. It stipulated the establishment of a “security corridor” along the Jordan River, as well as outside the “Green Line”, a one-sided Israeli demarcation of its borders with the West Bank.

    While the religious component of the Israeli colonisation scheme currently defines the entire undertaking, it was not always this way. The Allon Plan was the brainchild of Israel’s Labor government, as the Israeli Right then was a negligible political force.

    To capitalise on the government’s alluring settlement policies in the West Bank, a group of religious Jews rented a hotel in the Palestinian town of Al-Khalil (Hebron) to spend Passover at the Cave of the Patriarchs, and simply refused to leave.

    Their action sparked biblical passion of religious orthodox Israelis across the country, who referred to the West Bank by its supposed biblical name, Judea and Samaria. In 1970, to “diffuse” the situation, the Israeli government constructed the Kiryat Arba settlement on the outskirts of the Arab city, which invited more orthodox Jews to join the growing movement.

    Over the years, the strategic settlement growth was complemented by the religiously motivated expansion, championed by a vibrant movement, epitomised in the finding of Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful) in 1974. The movement was on a mission to settle the West Bank with legions of fundamentalists.

    Presently, by incorporating the illegal outposts (the work of religious zealots) into the strategically located, government-sanctioned larger illegal settlement blocs, Israeli politics and religion converged like never before.

    And between the unfortunate past and the troubling present, Palestinians continue to be driven out of their ancestral land and homes.

    But what is the Palestinian leadership doing about it? “I can’t deny that the (bill) helps us to better explain our position. We couldn’t have asked for anything more,” a Palestinian Authority official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, as quoted by Shlomi Elder.

    Elder writes: “The bill, whether it goes through or is blocked by the Supreme Court, already proves that Israel is not interested in a diplomatic resolution of the conflict.”

    Be as it may, this is hardly enough. It is absurd to argue that it was Palestinians’ purported inability to articulate their position that emboldened Israel to this extent. It is rather the international community’s failure to translate its laws into action that bolstered Israel’s militancy.

    The greatest mistake that the Palestinian leadership has committed (aside from its disgraceful disunity) was entrusting the US, Israel’s main enabler, with managing a “peace process” that has allowed Israel time and resources to finish its colonial projects, while devastating Palestinian rights and political aspirations.

    Returning to the same old channels, using the same language, seeking salvation at the altar of the same old “two-state solution” will achieve nothing, but to waste further time and energy. It is Israel’s obstinacy that is now leaving Palestinians (and Israelis) with one option, and only one option: equal citizenship in one single state or a horrific apartheid. No other “solution” suffices.

    In fact, the Regulation Bill is further proof that the Israeli government has already made its decision: consolidating apartheid in Palestine. If Trump and May find the logic of Netanyahu’s apartheid acceptable, the rest of the world shouldn’t.

    In the words of former President Jimmy Carter, “Israel will never find peace until it … permit(s) the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights.” That Israeli “permission” is yet to arrive, leaving the international community with the moral responsibility to exact it.

    Dr Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for more than 20 years. He is an internationally syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. His books include Searching Jenin and The Second Palestinian Intifada, and his latest, My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net .

     

    Source: www.aljazeera.com

  • Watching America Under Trump Is Like Watching A Real-Life Cartoon

    Watching America Under Trump Is Like Watching A Real-Life Cartoon

    America is now run by Donald, with the help of Mickey (Pence). He’s now becoming Grumpy coz the Justice Department is Goofy-ing around with his executive orders.

    Can’t these guys just behave like the Seven Dwarfs and follow the script? When he gets mad, he Tweets. I’m not sure what Tweety Bird thinks of this coz all this while she’s been terrorized by Sylvester, the All-American cat, not the Persian or Arabia breed.

    He wants to build a wall to keep Speedy Gonzales out. I’m sure those muchachos will make Looney Tunes out of him. After that bad phone call, the Aussies may not want to be his Road Runner anymore.

    And I’m told that his inauguration speech was taken from Dory. Or was it Nemo? That’s a tough one.

    But I’m sure America will be great again!

     

    Source: Effendi Basri