Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Israel and Saudi Cohorts now?

"You cannot have security when you threaten others around you- Mike Ghouse" I am responding to two columns about the subject line posted below.

The Neocons are individuals with an extremist mind-set regardless of their religious or political affiliations. They are in every group.They believe that only war and annihilation of others solves their conflict, how dumb! You cannot have security when you threaten others around you; it is such a simple idea to understand. Indeed, they are the real threat to the security of every nation including Israel and the United States. They are Cheney, Bush, Rove, Palin, McCain, Netanyahu, Lieberman and their likes. Their policies and actions are the reason conflicts flare and continue it is time to dump them and take the approach of diplomacy. Continue

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Peace, extremism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website http://www.mikeghouse.net/

Friday, July 3, 2009

Happy July 4th


July 4th is celebration time,
while we do that we need to reflect upon
the men and women who dedicated their lives
for this freedom that you and I enjoy.

I have shared a few links below to reflect upon.
This is the time to appreciate the freedom we have
and honor all those who contributed towards it.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Our National Anthem:
http://www.mikeghouse.net/USATEXAS/nationalanthem.asp

Flag Etiquette:
http://www.mikeghouse.net/USATEXAS/etiquette.asp

A friend of mine shared the following story;

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men
who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors,
and tortured before they died.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.
Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army;
another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or
hardships of the Revolutionary War.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes,
and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.
Eleven were merchants,
nine were farmers and large plantation owners;
men of means, well educated,
but they signed the Declaration of Independence
knowing full well that the penalty would be death if
they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and
trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the
British Navy. He sold his home and properties to
pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British
that he was forced to move his family almost constantly.
He served in the Congress without pay, and his family
was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him,
and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer,
Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that
the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson
home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General
George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed,
and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed.
The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.
John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying.

Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill
were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests
and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his
children vanished.

So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and
silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: freedom is never free!
I hope you will show your support by sending this to as many
people as you can, please. It's time we get the word out that patriotism
is NOT a sin, and the Fourth of July has more to it than beer, picnics, and baseball games.

The first three states to recognize America’s freedom:

1. France
2. Morocco
3. The Sultanate of Mysore (Karnataka now), India.

Have a blessed July 4th

Bill of Rights:
http://www.mikeghouse.net/USATEXAS/billofrights.asp

Civil Rights:
http://www.mikeghouse.net/USATEXAS/civilrights.asp

Our Constitution:
http://www.mikeghouse.net/USATEXAS/constitution.asp

Our History:
http://www.mikeghouse.net/USATEXAS/history.asp


U.S. National Anthem "The Star Spangled Banner"
Composed by John Stafford Smith - lyrics Francis Scott Key

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thru the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out of of their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave'
From the terror of flight and the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave

Listen to "The Star-Spangled Banner"
Read the modern score of "The Star-Spangled Banner"

#

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Democratic Faiths

.
Democtratic Faiths

The following article “Democratic faiths” is an excellent piece on roots and sustenance of democracy, however, the author exhibits his inadequacy and bias in his research.

The Muslims around the world are waking up and figuring out the effects of cold wars, the power struggles of nations to control the resources and extricating themselves from these tentacles. It is time for Muslims to wake up and figure out how to bring sustainable democracies in their nations. While the majority of Muslims want the democratic form of governance which is indeed rooted in Islam, they have been unable to speak up against their rules, we Americans also have experienced that since 2001. The Saudi King made a statement that his subjects are not ready for democracy. Is that the faith he has in his people? No one is eternal and immortal, except the continuance of human race and it is our obligation to bring sustainable governance, where people are continually involved in its checks and balances for harmonious co-existence.

Author’s bias comes through when he subtly claims superiority for Hinduism and Christianity and shows his ignorance about Islam or rather Prejudice against Islam.

This is not how you build peaceful societies by creating bias against another faith. One has to find the truth, point the specific errors and not generalize it to suit one’s bias.

Continued: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2009/06/democratic-faiths.html

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker and a Writer. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, Terrorism, India, Islam, Peace and civic issues. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and several Blogs listed on his personal website http://www.mikeghouse.net/

#

Friday, June 26, 2009

Obama the all rounder and Urdu

Obama is an all rounder and a Pluralist. He has refrenced all faiths in his talks, and now this is another beautiful part of him. If you recall some of the earlier Presidents and the men and women from the Moore times, they were scientists, mathematicians, poets, philosophers, ambassadors, and doctors all roled in to one. Obama is the one.

Urdu and or Hindi is perhaps the only language in the world with three scripts - Roman, Persian (urdu) and Sanskrit (hindi) and I am blessed to be familiar with all of them. - Mike Ghouse

If you want to make high-brow small talk at one of President Barack Obama’s cocktail parties, don’t bother brushing up your Shakespeare. Try reading Urdu poetry.

As POLITICO’s Ben Smith points out in his blog, Obama showed off his intellectual flair by evoking a standard of Pakistani culture in a recent interview with Dawn, a popular English-language newspaper in Pakistan.

“‘I would love to visit. As you know, I had Pakistani roommates in college who were very close friends of mine. I went to visit them when I was still in college; was in Karachi and went to Hyderabad. Their mothers taught me to cook,’ said Mr Obama.

‘What can you cook?’

‘Oh, keema ... daal ... You name it, I can cook it. And so I have a great affinity for Pakistani culture and the great Urdu poets.’

‘You read Urdu poetry?’

‘Absolutely. So my hope is that I’m going to have an opportunity at some point to visit Pakistan,’ said Mr Obama.”

It may sound somewhat esoteric, but this ancient form of mystical and oft-times philosophical love poetry has been popular in Pakistan and parts of India for centuries. And there are a few things to know before you try to impress the poetry-lover-in-chief.

One of the most popular poets was Mirza Ghalib, whose work dates from the mid-19th century. The still-popular art form usually features the story of a lover scorned by his beloved. And there is almost never a happy ending. “Often the beloved is often a total witch,” says Gwen Kirk, a University of Texas master’s candidate in the subject of Urdu poetry. “She breaks the lover’s heart all the time; she neglects him. It’s all about the process of trying to get closer to the beloved, and it’s got a lot of Sufi and mystical elements as well.”

The ghazal is the most common form of Urdu poetry, and, like sonnets, it follows strict rules of form: four to 12 couplets with a meter and rhyme scheme. But the similarities end there. Couplets in an Urdu poem can sometimes be completely unrelated to each other, each delving into themes that range from unrequited love to the meaning of life.

Fear not if your Urdu — one of two official languages in Pakistan — is a little rusty. Obama likely reads one of the many translated compilations of the texts, according to Kirk. Or if he is a truly savvy Urdu poetry enthusiast, he may choose to listen to the poems recited or sung, as it is commonly performed in the region.

Obama’s admission that he shares an affinity with the “great Urdu poets” may get him further in the region than most think. The language and poetry are commonly associated with Pakistan’s and India’s Muslim population, according to Kirk, and it remains intensely popular in the region — poetry recitals sometimes attract gatherings of thousands of people.

“It does show a willingness to understand that part of the world,” says Kirk.

And in general, it gives Obama further credibility as a supporter of the arts. Not only is he one of three American presidents to have poetry read at their Inaugurations, but he reads the stuff, too!

Want to dig into Urdu poetry? Here’s an example of what awaits you:



To hell with all hindering walls and doors!
Love’s eye sees as feather and wing, walls and doors.
My flooded eyes blur the house
Doors and walls becoming walls and doors.
There is no shelter: my love is on her way,
They’ve gone ahead in greeting, walls and doors.
The wine of your splendor floods
Your street, intoxicating walls and doors.

(Translated by Shamsur Rahman Faruqi and Frances W. Pritchett)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24055.html



Thursday, June 18, 2009

Time for a Common Vision?

.
Islamists and the West: Time for a Common Vision?

If you are a moderate Israeli or Palestinian, Jew or a Muslim, you will find value in this piece by Ahmed Yousef.

The real enemies of Peace in the Middle East are the right wingers on both sides of the issue. They are the ones who believe in annihilation of the other to achieve peace, dialogue is not part of their brain system. Sadly, we the Americans are duped by our media to see only one point of view without questioning it, some of us have lost to see another point of view at all.

The right wingers on either side of the issue may not like this piece as they may never had an opportunity to extricate themselves from the massive doses of propaganda they may have inhaled.

The goal should be peace – Hope for Palestinians to live a normal human life and Security for Israelis who can live a normal daily life.

Two critical things emerge in this commentary;

i) “The Palestinian cause lives in the hearts and minds of 1.5 billion Muslims spread over five continents. It is the pivotal factor in matters of war, peace, as well as other complex problems in the Middle East. Thus, a just resolution of the Palestinian case is vital for achieving stability, security, and prosperity in what is called the Middle East arc of crisis.” Indeed, this issue is the epicenter of a whole lot of problems, the Muslims have been talking about it, writing about it, but American Media had no inclination to pick on this.

ii) “Thus Hamas (both as a movement and as a government) fell victim to the misguided policies of the George W. Bush administration not only toward the Palestinian people and their national cause but also toward the peoples of the Arab and Islamic regions more broadly." And I would add, toward the people of Israel. The Neocons have done more harm to Israel's security than Hamas could ever dream of.

While Hamas Charter calls for annihilation of Israel, the Israeli leaders have called for the elimination of the Palestinians, both are wrong and both really don’t mean it, but use it to dig in their heels and literally impose their thoughts on to the common Israelis and Palestinians.

Full story: http://israel-palestine-dialogue.blogspot.com/2009/06/time-for-common-vision.html

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker and a Writer. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, Terrorism, India, Islam, Peace and civic issues. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and several Blogs listed on his personal website http://www.mikeghouse.net/
#

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Essence of God and Religion

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-ghouse_14met.ART.East.Edition1.50e0b73.html

Pluralist Mike Ghouse sees opportunity for faith discussion after Holocaust Museum shooting .

By DIANNE SOLÍS / The Dallas Morning News
dsolis@dallasnews.com

Carrollton resident Mike Ghouse was horrified when he heard last week that a security guard had been shot to death at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.

Mike Ghouse discusses interfaith tolerance and under- standing online and on air.

"I thought, 'Why do people have hate?' " said Ghouse, who 15 years ago founded the Foundation for Pluralism. "That was my first response."

The 57-year-old homebuilder and property manager sees the tragedy as a way for people to discuss their separate faiths, to forge understanding and to defuse religious tensions. His foundation's mission is to embrace the ecumenical ways of the world.

"There is not a faith we haven't covered," he says.

Ghouse is a Muslim who originally emigrated from the Bangalore area of India about 30 years ago.

"I will never claim my faith is superior to others," he said. "Every faith is beautiful to me. The inability to accept the differences of others causes conflict."

Ghouse is a frequent-flier in cyberspace, and many of his commentaries on ecumenical respect can be found at www.mikeghouse.net , on Facebook and on Twitter. The multilingual Ghouse also started talk shows on the radio geared toward the Diaspora from India and Pakistan. And when weekend worship comes, Ghouse visits services at Muslim mosques, Hindu temples, Jewish synagogues and Catholic churches.

His own daughter was so swept up by her father's pluralism that she became a Baptist.

# # #

Pluralism; the Essence of God and Religion

Mike Ghouse

Thanks to Dallas Morning News for sharing different religious ideas with the public.

Pluralism is not a religion, but a practice of 'living and letting others live'. It is simply an attitude of accepting the otherness of other and respecting the God given uniqueness of each one of us. Pluralism is an attitude of religious co-existence, letting others be who they are and resisting the temptations to look down upon others who believe differently. What is the need and the authority for it?

The fact of the matters is we exist, and we can trace us back to a singular source be it the intelligent design, big bang or the evolution. For the sake of using a common word or a generally acceptable identification we can call that causer, creator and the sustainer, a God.

When the matter and life came into being, each one was designed to seek its own balance. For example, the Planet has been set to circumambulate around the sun precisely for millions of years, it has its own place in the scheme of things, and designed to stay on its course, it respects the other planets and stars and does not collide with others.

Whereas the humans were not put on that trajectory, they were given the freedom to create their own space and balance. The creator is all about love and reached out to each one of the seven billion of us and delivered a beautiful formula (religion) through the spiritual masters to live in peace with oneself and others. God did not sign a deal behind any one's back that he will favor one over the other, or he will privilege one or the other, he just cannot do that, if he did, he would be a sneaky God and that is not what God is all about. Just as we love whatever little we create, God loves us all despite our shortcomings. He blessed us with an opportunity to be his best in creating balanced societies (own family to the world) where one can live without fear of any kind, where justness is the norm of the society.

Each one of us is dear to the creator and it is our individual and collective responsibility to keep that ecological, social, moral or spiritual balance within us and with what surrounds us; life and environment. Those of us who sin, i.e., creating an imbalance in the society through murder, theft, falsities or taking advantage of others, will pay a price for it in terms of un-settling emotions and discomfort within. Those who work for keeping that balance intact rejoice a balanced tranquil life.

To be religious is to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill, indeed that is the purpose of all spiritual systems from Atheism to Zoroastrianism and every tradition in between.

Jesus was a Pluralist, he embraced every one and set the example to us that we should not reject any one because they are lepers, prostitutes or whatever we differ from, he was representing God's point of view. Moses was a Pluralist uniting the tribes to live in peace under One God; Muhammad was a Pluralist who brought all the differing tribes and faiths to co-exist and live their own traditions under the Madinah pact and he declared no man is superior to the other and that all are equal (acknowledging the otherness of other) in God's presence. Buddha was a Pluralist and taught the principle of pain (internal hell) and pleasure (paradise), Mahavir taught to accept the different views to find solace within; Krishna the Pluralist said whenever there is immorality on the earth, he will emerge and bring the balance back to the society; Zarathustra taught the concept of what is good and bad some five thousand years ago; Pluralist Nanak said service to mankind with a blind eye amounts to creating beautiful societies, and Bahaullah, the pluralist said we are all one race and one humankind and all religions are beautiful. The Shamans in Cherokee, Mayan, Toltec and all other native traditions in America, Africa, Europe, Australia and Asia taught us to co-exist, live together with our differences. They were all God's men and women and God is all about pluralism; i.e. co-existence.

I am personally blessed to have a pluralistic environment around me, my family members and friends are made of many faiths, races and cultures and I honor each one of them, we are a part of the same (God’s) creation. It is beautiful to feel love towards every human regardless of their make up, try it you may fall in love with the idea and enjoy the serenity of life.

I will be happy to speak to your group be it in a Church or a civic place. A day is coming when you find every faith, race and ethnicities will live in the same neighborhood, same street and the same community. We have to learn to keep that balance and it comes from learning to accept the otherness of other, and respect the God given uniqueness of each one of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker and a Writer on Pluralism, interfaith, terrorism, peace, interfaith, Islam, civic issues and India. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network offering a pluralistic perspectives on issues of the day. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com

© MIKE GHOUSE 2001- 2009 :: ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS AS COMMENTS BELOW

.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Analyzing Obama Speech - CSID

Analyzing Obama's Speech to the Muslim World

The Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) and the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED) co-hosted a panel discussion on Thursday, June 4, 2009 entitled "Analyzing Obama's Speech to the Muslim World." The panelists were Geneive Abdo of The Century Foundation, Richard Eisendorf of Freedom House and Will Marshall, of the Progressive Policy Institute. Radwan Masmoudi, President of CSID, moderated the panel.

Masmoudi expressed his apprehension that President Obama would not prominently feature democracy and human rights in his speech. He was pleasantly surprised, however, that democracy was among the speech's main themes. He noted that after twenty years of deterioration of US-Muslim relations due to mistrust, misunderstandings and a lack of information and knowledge on both sides, President Obama's speech set a new course. And while Obama's speech opened hearts and minds in the Muslim world, Masmoudi warned that people in the region would expect concrete, policy-based follow up to his words.

Marshall labeled the speech as "masterful;" noting Obama' unique ability to delicately address complicated issues while simultaneously providing clear solutions in his speeches. As a corollary, he contrasted Bush's use of the imperative voice in communicating with the Muslim world with Obama's deft tone imbued with honesty and respect. He argued that this approach had a disarming effect to those who are inherently distrustful of the United States and burdens its detractors to justify their clichéd beliefs.

While his overall assessment was positive, Marshall insisted on including three caveats to his praise. First, he worried that Obama's message of reconciliation conceded too much to the al-Qaeda narrative of victimization. Marshall argued that it was not Obama's role to reinforce Muslim feelings of identity politics; rather, it was his duty to debunk them. Second, he noted that the historical animosity between the US and the Muslim world would not change in one speech. He argued that Obama spoke to a tough-minded audience and that radicalism and extremism would not bend to rhetorical sweet-talking. In this vein insisted that values should guide US policy and that America should reap the consequences of such an endeavor. Third, he argued that for Obama's efforts to be seen as a departure from Bush-era policies ignores the real problem of fifty years of America's short-minded policies of allying with expedient allies against Communism and radical Islamism. This track record only reinforced his belief that the United States must align with ordinary people's aspirations against their governments and not step back from promoting democracy.

Geneive Abdo characterized Obama's approach as "evasive" and devoid of any real policy prescriptions. And while he addressed buzzwords such as colonialism and occupation, she argued Obama's approach was not nearly expansive enough. She continued by noting how Obama's rhetorical brilliance raised expectation so high that Iran and al-Qaeda had preemptively issued statements responding to his speech. She continued by critiquing Obama's use of extremism as a foil in his speech. She argued that the debate was already well beyond this dichotomy and that Obama should have used his speech to address the political, economic and social reasons for extremism's regional constituency.

She also noted the originality of using the affluence and freedom of America's Muslim community as an argument in the US's favor. She did not think this argument would be particularly persuasive given the divergence of circumstances among Muslims in the United States and the Middle East. On the War in Iraq, Abdo criticized the president for not apologizing for the invasion and not offering concrete plans for the country. She did admit, however, that he at least repudiated the Bush notion that Iraq was a war of necessity and not one of choice. Abdo also believed that Obama criticized the Palestinians far more than the Israelis in his speech, but did note how the president's tough rhetoric revealed a burgeoning rift between the US and Israel. In summation, she graded the presentation of his remarks highly but felt the substance of the speech was mediocre and that the conflict between the two sides was rooted in policy and not a lack of respect.

Richard Eisendorf noted the choice of Cairo as the venue for the speech as the center of the Arab world and that the diversity of the crowd represented the full breadth of Egyptian public opinion. He then pointed to the loud applause during sections on democracy and human rights as evidence the crowd was not full of Mubarak loyalists. Acknowledging the concerns of his fellow panelists, he asserted that while policy follow up to the speech will be the most important element of his outreach to the Muslim world, the speech did leave a very strong feeling of respect in the way the United States under Obama intends to reach out to the Muslim world. He also pointed to the three D's the administration has heretofore considered the cornerstones of its foreign policy: diplomacy, development and defense. He argued that in the president's speech he appeared to add the fourth 'D' of democracy to the fold.

Eisendorf also highlighted the shift Obama intended to make from Bush policies and how that would affect public opinion in the region. He specifically mentioned the straightforward manner in which Obama addressed the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He also noted the significance of the president's use of the word 'Palestine' and other key buzzwords. In addition, he believed many in the region would find his rhetoric on this issue insufficient. As a final point, Eisendorf felt Obama finally established his doctrine of 'quiet diplomacy based on mutual respect.'

In his summary statement, Masmoudi noted that while the tone of the speech was largely positive, it only represented the beginning of the administration's engagement with the Muslim world and that implementing the ideas of the speech would be a tremendous challenge. Meeting this challenge, he said, would require the concerted effort both by the domestic American reform constituency as well as positive steps by the Muslim world.
.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Muslims Condemn display of hate at Holocaust Museum

Muslims Condemn display of hate at Holocaust Museum As Americans and as Muslims, we condemn this expression of hate; killing innocent people at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC.

Continued: http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2009/06/muslims-condemn-display-of-hate-at.html

#

Sunday, June 7, 2009

OBAMA : Uri Avnery on Cairo speech

Uri Avnery

I am pleased to share the article by Mr. Uri Avnery, a shining example of a Jewish man who would stand for justice. He is not alone, the moderate majority of Jews want justice and fairness, but have not been able to speak up against the mighty bulldozer of the extremist Jews.

The time for moderates has come now, the moderates who care about every soul including the extremists, thank God, the moderates are speaking up. The world would be a better place if the Neocons * put their efforts in bettering the world than creating chaos.

I am pleased to share Uri Avnery’s article on Obama’s speech, Uri is another Jewish intellectuals who gets branded “self-hating Jew” by the extremist among Jews. They do that with all who speak justice and long term peace and security for the people of not only Israel, but also the Palestinians. The moderats follow the Jewish tradition of Justice where as our Neocon extremists including the Lobby, the Netanyahu’s, Lieberman, Barak, Pipes and their likes are bent on creating further imbalance in the society and prolonging the fear and insecurity for Jews.

Indeed, this group is really the enemy of Israel and I pray that the moderate majority recognizes this and takes the right step in encouraging actions and words that will eventually bring them peace, not just for them, but for every one in the region.

Israel cannot have sustainable peace when others around her aren't. Time for the moderates in Israel and Palestine to take charge.

Mike Ghouse

# # #

The Tone and the Music

ONE MAN spoke to the world, and the world listened.

He walked onto the stage in Cairo, alone, without hosts and without aides, and delivered a sermon to an audience of billions. Egyptians and Americans, Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Arabs, Sunnis and Shiites, Copts and Maronites – and they all listened attentively.

He unfolded before them the map of a new world, a different world, whose values and laws he spelled out in simple and clear language - a mixture of idealism and practical politics, vision and pragmatism.

Barack Hussein Obama – as he took pains to call himself – is the most powerful man on earth. Every word he utters is a political fact.

“A HISTORIC SPEECH”, pronounced commentators in a hundred languages. I prefer another adjective:

The speech was right.

Every word was in its place, every sentence precise, and every tone in harmony. The masterpiece of a man bringing a new message to the world.

From the very first word, every listener in the hall and in the world felt the honesty of the man, that his heart and his tongue were in harmony, that this is not a politician of the old familiar sort – hypocritical, sanctimonious, calculating. His body language was speaking, and so were his facial expressions

That’s why the speech was so important. The new moral integrity and the sense of honesty increased the impact of the revolutionary content.

AND A REVOLUTIONARY speech it certainly was.

In 55 minutes, it not only wiped away the eight years of George W. Bush, but also much of the preceding decades, from World War II on.

The American ship has turned – not with the sluggishness everyone would have expected, but with the agility of a speedboat.

That is much more than a political change. It touches the roots of the American national consciousness. The President spoke to hundreds of million US citizens no less than to a billion Muslims.

The American culture is based on the myth of the Wild West, with its Good Guys and Bad Guys, violent justice, dueling under the midday sun. Since the American nation is composed of immigrants from all over the world, its unity seems to require a threatening, world-encompassing evil enemy, like the Nazis and the Japs, or the Commies. After the collapse of the Soviet empire, this role was taken over by Islam.

Cruel, fanatical, bloodthirsty Islam; Islam as the religion of murder and destruction; an Islam lusting for the blood of women and children. This enemy captured the imagination of the masses and supplied material for television and cinema. It provided lecture topics for learned professors and fresh inspiration for popular writers. The White House was occupied by a moron who declared a world-wide “War on Terrorism”.

When Obama is now uprooting this myth, he is revolutionizing American culture. He wipes away the picture of one enemy, without painting another in its place. He preaches against the violent, adversary attitude itself, and starts to work to replace it with a culture of partnership between nations, civilizations and religions.

I see Obama as the first great messenger of the 21st century. He is the son of a new era, where the economy is global and the whole of humanity faces the danger to the very existence of life on the planet Earth. An era where the Internet connects a boy in New Zealand with a girl in Namibia in real time, where a disease in a small Mexican village spreads all over the globe within days.

This world needs a world law, a world order, a world democracy. That’s why this speech really was historic: Obama outlined the basic contours of a world constitution.

WHILE OBAMA proclaims the 21st century, the government of Israel is returning to the 19th.

That was the century when a narrow, egocentric, aggressive nationalism took root in many countries. A century that sanctified the belligerent nation which oppresses minorities and subdues neighbors. The century that gave birth to modern anti-Semitism and to its response – modern Zionism.

Obama’s vision is not anti-national. He spoke with pride about the American nation. But his nationalism is of another sort: an inclusive, multi-cultural and non-sexist nationalism, which includes all the citizens of a country and respects other nations.

This is the nationalism of the 21st century, which is inexorably striving towards supranational, regional and world-wide structures.

Compared to this, how miserable is the mental world of the Israeli Right! How miserable is the violent, fanatical-religious world of the settlers, the chauvinist ghetto of Netanyahu, Lieberman and Barak, the racist-fascist closed-in world of their Kahanist allies!

One has to understand this moral and spiritual dimension of Obama’s speech before considering its political implications. Not only in the political sphere are Obama and Netanyahu on a collision course. The underlying collision is between two mental worlds which are as distinct from each other as the sun and the moon.

In Obama’s mental world, there is no place for the Israeli Right or its equivalents elsewhere. Not for their terminology, not for their “values”, and still less for their actions.

IN THE political sphere, too, a huge gap has opened up between the governments of Israel and the USA.

During the last few years, successive Israeli governments have ridden the wave of Islamophobia that has spread throughout the West. The Islamic world was considered the deadly enemy, America was galloping grimly towards the Clash of Civilizations, every Muslim was a potential terrorist.

Israel’s right-wing leaders could rejoice. After all, the Palestinians are Arabs, the Arabs are Muslims, the Muslims are Terrorists – so that Israel was assured a central place in the war of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness.

That was a Garden of Eden for racist demagogues. Avigdor Lieberman could advocate the expulsion of the Arabs from Israel, Ellie Yishai could enact laws for the revocation of the citizenship of non-Jews. Obscure Members of the Knesset could grab headlines with bills that might have been conceived in Nuremberg.

This Garden of Eden is no more. Whether the implications will become clear quickly or slowly - the direction is obvious. If we continue on our path, we will become a leper colony.


THE TONE makes the music – and this applies also to the President’s words on Israel and Palestine. He spoke at length about the Holocaust – honest and courageous words, full of empathy and compassion, which were received by the Egyptians in silence but with respect. He stressed Israel’s right to exist. And without pausing, he spoke about the suffering of the Palestinian refugees, the intolerable situation of the Palestinians in Gaza, Palestinian aspirations for a state of their own.

He spoke respectfully about Hamas. Not anymore as a “terrorist organization”, but as a part of the Palestinian people. He demanded that they recognize Israel and stop violence, but also hinted that he would welcome a Palestinian unity government.

The political message was clear and unequivocal: the Two-State Solution will be put into practice. He himself will see to that. Settlement activity must cease. Unlike his predecessors, he did not stop at speaking about “Palestinians”, but uttered the decisive word: “Palestine” – the name of a state and a territory.

And no less important: the Iran war has been struck from the agenda. The dialogue with Tehran, as a part of the new world, is not limited in time. As from now, no one can even dream about an American OK for an Israeli attack.

HOW DID official Israel respond? The first reaction was denial. “An unimportant speech”. “There was nothing new”. The establishment commentators picked out a few pro-Israeli sentences from the text and ignored all the others. And after all, “these are just words. So he talked. Nothing will come out of it.”

That is nonsense. The words of the President of the United States are more than just words. They are political facts. They change the perceptions of hundreds of millions. The Muslim public listened. The American public listened. It may take some time for the message to sink in. But after this speech, the pro-Israel lobby will never be the same as it was before. The era of “foile shtik” (Yiddish for sneaky tricks) is over. The sly dishonesty of a Shimon Peres, the guileful deceits of an Ehud Olmert, the sweet talking of a Bibi Netanyahu – all these belong to the past.

The Israeli people must now decide: whether to follow the right-wing government towards an inevitable collision with Washington, as the Jews did 1940 years ago when they followed the Zealots into a suicidal war on Rome – or to join Obama’s march towards a new world.

** (extremists in all faiths – who don’t believe in dialogue, who want to see others annihilated and of course promoting hate and chaos is their source of income)

Friday, June 5, 2009

OBAMA : Essence of Cairo speech

.
President Obama emphasized and built upon the idea of co-existence and challenged fellow humans to think in those terms. It is a change he has talked about, and has now delivered to the world wide audience who is ready to absorb it.

God wants his creation to learn to accept the otherness of other and respect the uniqueness bestowed upon each one of the 7 billion of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge to pave the way for peaceful co-existence. That is indeed God’s will and the message from Zarathustra, Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, Mahavir, Jesus, Mohammad, Nanak, Bahaullah and many a spiritual masters in Native American, African and other traditions.

It is one of the most powerful speeches in pluralism ever! It brings the world towards justice and balance. No nation or community can have advantages over the other; such benefits are deleterious and are counter productive in making of the peaceful societies.

You simply cannot have peace and security when others around you don’t.

He spoke for the silent moderate majority of the people, regardless of their faith or nationality; he spoke for a very large audience. Perhaps it has happened for the first time in human history.

He did not appease any one nor did he offend any one.
He spoke what was needed to be said and he was frank and fair.
He stressed the need for a dialogue.
He assured the Israelis his support.
He was firm with the Israelis to stop settlements as they are the impediments to peace.
He acknowledged the suffering of the Palestinians
He spoke about the hopes and aspirations of all human beings.
He asked the silent majority to take charge.

Mike Ghouse is a Dallas based Speaker, Writer, Thinker and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and television networks offering pluralistic perspectives on issues of the day including Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, Peace, India and Civic issues. His comments, news analysis and opinions are on the Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. Mike is a Dallasite for three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com