. fourth time that the entire issue of the 2006 plea agreement is irrelevant to the criminal contempt charges. The judge has repeatedly rejected that argument, reaffirming on Monday that the "record is incomplete" and that the government's response poses more questions than answers. Judge Brinkema stated that there was "enough smoke" in the facts of the case that needed to be cleared up.Courtesy of The Strategist - American Muslim Alliance e-newsletterJustice Department's Integrity at Stake - says Judge- Alexandria, VA - Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled in favor of a defense request to file a motion to dismiss the charges against Dr. Sami Al-Arian at a hearing in federal court today. Her decision follows new revelations that prosecutors in Florida were opposed to efforts by a Virginia prosecutor to call Dr. Al-Arian to testify in another case. The judge's important decision raises the possibility that Dr. Al-Arian's ordeal could be resolved and that he can finally regain his freedom after six years of grueling legal battles.
During the hearing earlier today, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg argued for the . . .
By the end of the hearing, the judge said she was granting the defense's request to file for a complete dismissal of the charges because "the integrity of the Justice Department cannot be compromised."
Judge Brinkema also pointed out that, contrary to the prosecution's assertions, the issue of the plea agreement has never been resolved since no other court has ever granted a hearing to examine all the evidence. After Kromberg concluded his statement to the court, Professor Turley noted that new facts had come to light in the government's recent court motion that had not been previously disclosed. Specifically, none of the courts that have addressed the issue of the plea agreement were made aware of an internal split within the Department of Justice on whether Dr. Al-Arian should be called to testify in Virginia. It has since come to light that prosecutors in Florida objected to efforts by Kromberg to compel Dr. Al-Arian's testimony. Professor Turley concluded by saying that now was the time for the court to consider these new facts and allow the defense to argue for the dismissal of the charges.
In granting the motion, the judge expressed her disappointment with the prosecutors' persistent refusal to present clear statements about their conduct during the plea negotiations. She said that there are serious questions about whether the government conducted bad faith dealings with the defense that could now result in Dr. Al-Arian's imprisonment. Before someone could be forced to give up their individual liberty, she said, these issues should be resolved. She suggested that although prosecutors had not offered their own affidavits on the plea negotiations, she was "reading between the lines" that there was "a meeting of the minds" that the intent of the plea agreement was to conclude Dr. Al-Arian's business with the U.S. government once and for all.
Although Judge Brinkema was originally expected to set a new trial date during today's hearing, she instead gave the defense ten days to submit a motion to dismiss the charges. Prosecutors will then have ten days to respond.
An estimated twenty-five people, some hailing from as far as Tampa, Florida, attended the hearing today to express their support for Dr. Al-Arian.. The Tampa Bay Coalition for Justice and Peace would like to extend its appreciation to those individuals who have consistently stood up for justice in Dr. Al-Arian's case, led by Dr. Al-Arian's legal counsel, Professor Turley from George Washington University and William Olson and P.J. Meitl from the law firm of Bryan Cave.
___________________
Congressmen Call to Open Gaza Crossings
March 9, 2009
On March 5th, the New America Foundation hosted an event featuring Congressmen Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Brian Baird (D-WA), who called for the immediate opening of the crossings into Gaza.
Showcasing a video of conversations they had with Gazan civilians, the lawmakers emphasized opening the crossings was necessary for both security purposes (Gazan and Israeli) and desperate humanitarian conditions that need to be addressed forthwith.
The Congressmen also made clear, that solving the closure issue will require active engagement on the part of the United States.
Also participating in last week's event was New America Foundation Middle East Task Force Director Daniel Levy. Levy emphasized the extent to which opening the crossings and creating economic breathing space for Gazans would act as a disincentive for provocations by Hamas, making the possibility of unification between the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank and Gaza more likely.
For video highlights of the Congressmen's trip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74boaFtZvCA#t=14m36s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74boaFtZvCA#t=18m52s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74boaFtZvCA#t=22m46s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74boaFtZvCA#t=42m56s
About New America
The New America Foundation is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute whose purpose is to bring exceptionally promising new ideas and new voices to the fore of our nation's public discourse. New America is headquartered in Washington, D.C. and has offices in California.
___________________
A STATEMENT ON HAMAS
I was on Capitol Hill last week to hear the findings of Congressmen Ellison and Baird, from their visit to Gaza and Israel on a fact-finding trip, and found myself having to politely challenge a seasoned journalist from the Washington Post on an erroneous assertion that she made concerning Hamas during the Q&A period.
After everything ended a number of people (including the moderator of the forum) came up to compliment me on the observation made and question raised. Among these was a woman who introduced herself as the wife of a World Vision official, who together had spent many years in that troubled region. During our brief conversation she too referenced the "irony" of how Israel had "created Hamas." As I proceeded to politely share my own thoughts on the matter, I reflected on how easy it is for false premises to become foundational truths (in the minds of many people) by simply being repeated over and over again.
After everything ended a number of people (including the moderator of the forum) came up to compliment me on the observation made and question raised. Among these was a woman who introduced herself as the wife of a World Vision official, who together had spent many years in that troubled region. During our brief conversation she too referenced the "irony" of how Israel had "created Hamas." As I proceeded to politely share my own thoughts on the matter, I reflected on how easy it is for false premises to become foundational truths (in the minds of many people) by simply being repeated over and over again.
I advised the lady that my own research on the matter led me to the conclusion that Hamas was "created" by the oppressive circumstances on the ground in Occupied Palestine; that Hamas is an Islamically-based homegrown resistance movement of the Palestinian people. I opined that, early on, the powers-that-be decided that Israel had a security interest in allowing a Palestinian counterweight to the PLO in the occupied territories; and as a result it became Israeli policy NOT TO INTERFERE with Hamas' organization and institutional development...a development that was already underway. (The divide and rule principle.)
Israel obviously had no idea that this policy would end up backfiring, as Israel's oppression against the Palestinian people continued to mount, and as Hamas became stronger in service and accountability to its people.
And thus, to make the argument that Israel facilitated the organizational development of Hamas, would be accurate; to claim on the other hand that "Israel created Hamas" would be erroneous on its face. Israel's only role in the "creation" of Hamas was in producing the oppressive conditions that made the evolution of Hamas necessary - and then for strategic reasons not interfering in its organizational development early on.
And thus, to make the argument that Israel facilitated the organizational development of Hamas, would be accurate; to claim on the other hand that "Israel created Hamas" would be erroneous on its face. Israel's only role in the "creation" of Hamas was in producing the oppressive conditions that made the evolution of Hamas necessary - and then for strategic reasons not interfering in its organizational development early on.
Now, for those who choose to see it otherwise, I can assure them that their disparaging view of Hamas will not diminish the significance of this resistance organization in the eyes of truly aware peace and freedom loving people around the world!
MS
__________________
Was Hamas the Work of the Israeli Mossad?
By Ramzy Baroud
March 5, 2009
www.ramzybaroud.net
While various Western governments are struggling to define a possible relationship with the Palestinian movement Hamas, some progressive and leftist circles are also uneasy regarding their own perception of the Islamic movement.
Some have even made the claim that Hamas is, more or less, an Israeli concoction. In fact, the accusation that Hamas was created by Israeli intelligence has become so commonplace that it often requires no serious
substantiation. While the claim, as it stands, is erroneous, there is certainly a reason and history behind it. But was Hamas, in fact the work of the Israeli Mossad?
The mere suggestion is consequential, for not only does it discredit one single faction, but implies that Palestinians are deceived into thinking that they actually have some control over their collective destiny. This notion - that Hamas is the brainchild of Israel - is simply incorrect.
It could very well be complicated for one to grasp how such a movement could take a foothold and flourish with such popular support if one has no familiarity with the social, economic and religious history of the Gaza Strip, the birthplace of Hamas.
It is true that for years, Palestinians have suffered poverty, hunger and humiliation under the Israeli occupation. And while the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) has played a major role in representing and speaking on behalf of the Palestinian people abroad, its role in the occupied territories has been, at best, lacking.
There are reasons for that, not least because the PLO had its own complex regional and international priorities, and that it lacked the grassroots leverage enjoyed by the Islamic movement. It was only a natural response for the religious institution to fill the gap of an absent government, a role that it took seriously. But let's look a bit more c arefully into the evolution and growth of Hamas in Gaza in particular, a presence that was making a strong impact as early as 1967.
In the early years of the occupation, the Islamic movement in Gaza strategized an effort that would require a strong and well-established foundation. Initially, the movement refuted the notion of armed-struggle and was often criticized and ridiculed by secular liberation movements for masking their weak nature as "pacifism".
The truth is, the Islamic movement in Gaza didn't disregard armed struggle in and of itself; it felt that this nation of mostly refugees was in a vulnerable state and would need years of preparation before they could actually become a force to be reckoned with. For this reason, they invested decades to strengthening social bonds in Gazan society, by building mosques, childcare centers, hospitals, schools and so forth.
The years between 1967 to 1975 were designated by the Islamic movement as the phase of "mosque building". The mosque was the central institution that galvanized Islamic societies in Gaza. It was not simply a place of worship but also a hub for education, social and cultural interaction, and later political organization.
In the period between 1967 to 1987, the number of mosques in Gaza tripled, rising from 200 to 600 mosques. The years between 1975 well into the 1980s were dubbed the phase of "social institution building", which included the formation of Islamic clubs, charitable organizations, student societies, etc, which all
served as meeting points for Muslim youth.
In 1973, the Islamic Center was established in Gaza, the actual body that served as the heart of all the movement's activities. It was widely understood that the center was an extension of the Egypt-influenced Muslim Brotherhood of the past. Israel purposely did little to halt the establishment of the organization, as it
also did little to assist in its growth.
Israel's curi ous attitude could be explained as part of its policy of reward and punishment. Since the Islamists had - at that particular time - renounced armed struggle, and were providing services, which spared the Israeli budget many millions, there seemed little need to discontinue what at the time may have
seemed innocuous activities. But more importantly, Israel was wary of the augmentation of PLO institutions abroad and growing influence on Palestinian societies in the occupied territories.
More, the growing bitterness between other liberation movements in Gaza and the Islamic movement, led by Sheikh Ahmad Yassin gave Israel hope that growing hostilities would result in the pacifying and paralysis of all respective groups, sparing Israel the rigorous task of reining them in. One could argue that any Israeli interference to halt the growth and evolvement of the Islamic movement in Gaza, in that period, would have merely sped up its radicalization, as opposed to annihilating it altogether.
The 1970s and the 1980s were years of growing turmoil for Palestinians with the Camp David Accords, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the many massacres committed by Israel, killings that came to a pinnacle with the 1982 massacres by a Lebanese Forces Christian militia group in Sabra and Shatilla in Lebanon.
It was during this time that the Islamic movement in Gaza was undergoing a tremendous metamorphosis. Decades of groundwork would now be put to the test as the movement evolved to embrace armed struggle. It was certainly not an immediate transformation, but in fact had been evolving since as early as 1967.
Whether religious trends are rational in their very narratives or otherwise, the fact was the growth, shifts and evolvement of the Palestinian Islamic movement, in all of its manifestations in the Gaza Strip, followed a rational process that was unique to Gaza and its history.
No other place in Palestine was as qualified to spawn a major Islamic movement as was the Gaza Strip. The Strip was desperately poor, its population mostly composed of refugees and their descendants. Islamist leaders were themselves refugees and were mostly refugee camp dwellers.
So it was that "Hamas" finally made its official appearance in 1987, taking the transformation of the Islamic movement in Gaza one step further, with the birth of the first Palestinian Intifada. Nearly two decades later, Hamas enjoyed a landslide victory in Palestinian elections, another testimony to its phased and calculated growth.
Instead of trying to understand and appreciate the history behind the popular movement, Western countries responded by sanctions, blockades, and a protracted and suffocating siege by Israel that came to a head with the bloodiest massacre of defenseless Palestinian civilians since 1948.
Analysts, politicians, critics and third-parties alike can squabble about the origins and history of this movement that has among many things given a large segment of Palestinian society a sense of self-respect and feeling of leverage with their occupiers; but to advocate that Hamas was cooked up by some Israeli
agents hell-bent on the demise of the Palestinians is simply hogwash.
- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
By Ramzy Baroud
March 5, 2009
www.ramzybaroud.net
While various Western governments are struggling to define a possible relationship with the Palestinian movement Hamas, some progressive and leftist circles are also uneasy regarding their own perception of the Islamic movement.
Some have even made the claim that Hamas is, more or less, an Israeli concoction. In fact, the accusation that Hamas was created by Israeli intelligence has become so commonplace that it often requires no serious
substantiation. While the claim, as it stands, is erroneous, there is certainly a reason and history behind it. But was Hamas, in fact the work of the Israeli Mossad?
The mere suggestion is consequential, for not only does it discredit one single faction, but implies that Palestinians are deceived into thinking that they actually have some control over their collective destiny. This notion - that Hamas is the brainchild of Israel - is simply incorrect.
It could very well be complicated for one to grasp how such a movement could take a foothold and flourish with such popular support if one has no familiarity with the social, economic and religious history of the Gaza Strip, the birthplace of Hamas.
It is true that for years, Palestinians have suffered poverty, hunger and humiliation under the Israeli occupation. And while the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) has played a major role in representing and speaking on behalf of the Palestinian people abroad, its role in the occupied territories has been, at best, lacking.
There are reasons for that, not least because the PLO had its own complex regional and international priorities, and that it lacked the grassroots leverage enjoyed by the Islamic movement. It was only a natural response for the religious institution to fill the gap of an absent government, a role that it took seriously. But let's look a bit more c arefully into the evolution and growth of Hamas in Gaza in particular, a presence that was making a strong impact as early as 1967.
In the early years of the occupation, the Islamic movement in Gaza strategized an effort that would require a strong and well-established foundation. Initially, the movement refuted the notion of armed-struggle and was often criticized and ridiculed by secular liberation movements for masking their weak nature as "pacifism".
The truth is, the Islamic movement in Gaza didn't disregard armed struggle in and of itself; it felt that this nation of mostly refugees was in a vulnerable state and would need years of preparation before they could actually become a force to be reckoned with. For this reason, they invested decades to strengthening social bonds in Gazan society, by building mosques, childcare centers, hospitals, schools and so forth.
The years between 1967 to 1975 were designated by the Islamic movement as the phase of "mosque building". The mosque was the central institution that galvanized Islamic societies in Gaza. It was not simply a place of worship but also a hub for education, social and cultural interaction, and later political organization.
In the period between 1967 to 1987, the number of mosques in Gaza tripled, rising from 200 to 600 mosques. The years between 1975 well into the 1980s were dubbed the phase of "social institution building", which included the formation of Islamic clubs, charitable organizations, student societies, etc, which all
served as meeting points for Muslim youth.
In 1973, the Islamic Center was established in Gaza, the actual body that served as the heart of all the movement's activities. It was widely understood that the center was an extension of the Egypt-influenced Muslim Brotherhood of the past. Israel purposely did little to halt the establishment of the organization, as it
also did little to assist in its growth.
Israel's curi ous attitude could be explained as part of its policy of reward and punishment. Since the Islamists had - at that particular time - renounced armed struggle, and were providing services, which spared the Israeli budget many millions, there seemed little need to discontinue what at the time may have
seemed innocuous activities. But more importantly, Israel was wary of the augmentation of PLO institutions abroad and growing influence on Palestinian societies in the occupied territories.
More, the growing bitterness between other liberation movements in Gaza and the Islamic movement, led by Sheikh Ahmad Yassin gave Israel hope that growing hostilities would result in the pacifying and paralysis of all respective groups, sparing Israel the rigorous task of reining them in. One could argue that any Israeli interference to halt the growth and evolvement of the Islamic movement in Gaza, in that period, would have merely sped up its radicalization, as opposed to annihilating it altogether.
The 1970s and the 1980s were years of growing turmoil for Palestinians with the Camp David Accords, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the many massacres committed by Israel, killings that came to a pinnacle with the 1982 massacres by a Lebanese Forces Christian militia group in Sabra and Shatilla in Lebanon.
It was during this time that the Islamic movement in Gaza was undergoing a tremendous metamorphosis. Decades of groundwork would now be put to the test as the movement evolved to embrace armed struggle. It was certainly not an immediate transformation, but in fact had been evolving since as early as 1967.
Whether religious trends are rational in their very narratives or otherwise, the fact was the growth, shifts and evolvement of the Palestinian Islamic movement, in all of its manifestations in the Gaza Strip, followed a rational process that was unique to Gaza and its history.
No other place in Palestine was as qualified to spawn a major Islamic movement as was the Gaza Strip. The Strip was desperately poor, its population mostly composed of refugees and their descendants. Islamist leaders were themselves refugees and were mostly refugee camp dwellers.
So it was that "Hamas" finally made its official appearance in 1987, taking the transformation of the Islamic movement in Gaza one step further, with the birth of the first Palestinian Intifada. Nearly two decades later, Hamas enjoyed a landslide victory in Palestinian elections, another testimony to its phased and calculated growth.
Instead of trying to understand and appreciate the history behind the popular movement, Western countries responded by sanctions, blockades, and a protracted and suffocating siege by Israel that came to a head with the bloodiest massacre of defenseless Palestinian civilians since 1948.
Analysts, politicians, critics and third-parties alike can squabble about the origins and history of this movement that has among many things given a large segment of Palestinian society a sense of self-respect and feeling of leverage with their occupiers; but to advocate that Hamas was cooked up by some Israeli
agents hell-bent on the demise of the Palestinians is simply hogwash.
- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world. His latest book is, The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
Hamas official hails British MP George Galloway as 'hero' in Gaza
 |
| British MP George Galloway, left, walking with a Hamas official after having crossed with his entourage from Egypt into Gaza on Monday. (AP) 10/03/09 |
TO READ MORE VISIT:
