The New Era Blog

Media and PoliticsAsma Nemati

itamena86@gmail.com (Asma Nemati) — Mon, 12 May 2008 23:49:00 +0000

A few months back as I was driving back home from work, I clicked my radio on KPFA. I was lucky to listen to a live session of hearings in Seattle regarding the FCC's decision to review (and potentially implement, if passed) rules that restrict the amount of local media outlets a single company can own. I first listened in because some of the amusing remarks, but then they grew a little more intense. Many people vehemently spoke against the program, citing that it'd be a hands down death to media diversity. Others, though small in number, said the outdated restrictions don't apply no more, pointing out that new technology--Internet, satellite radio, Cable, etc--has enabled other, more diverse, media voices.

But this, at least some parts of it, rests on a major assumption: that people have unlimited access to the Internet. Keeping this in mind, it's not surprising why it was ignored in the first place when you realize that the FCC is turning a blind eye to big companies such as ATT, Comcast , Verizon and Time Warner from censoring information they don't agree with to their users. If nothing at all, this is a blatant infringement on net neutrality. It seems like both the cross-media ownership and the limitation on net-neutrality go hand in hand.

For some reason, however, this controversial work in progress has been kept out of the public eye, as is obvious by the lack of attention it is getting. If they both pass, they're not only going to change what we access on theInternet, but also the diversity of what we'll access. All of this reminds me of the Chinese government's crackdown on the Internet , notoriously brought to the fore by the media after Yahoo admitted that it gave email information of a journalist that later was used by the government to convict him for leaking state secrets.

Some might say, so what? Why does the media matter? First of all, it is our most basic source of communication; this tool allows us to transcend language, geographic, and cultural barriers that might otherwise obstruct our path in pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

Especially now, media matters more than ever. Mass media can make or break news. Take a look at the Iraq war. The destructive nature of the war is completely downplayed by major news sources. Over one million people have died since March 2003. One million. It's easier to read than imagine. Of course, there are more conservative numbers, but this finding is probably more accurate since it was based on samples representative of most Iraqis.

Or, take a look at the American casualties suffered throughout the war. Over 4000 lives have been lost. But what about those soldiers no longer in combat, off duty and back in the states? Recently, the Veterans Health Association confirmed that 18 veterans commit suicide a day. When these statistics are not related, we are prevented from attaining information that could be severely helpful in our future decisions. This breeds ignorance of information besides what the government wants us to hear, and that in turn breeds tolerance of imperial expansion at the expense of millions of lives, destitute lands and natural resources, and an absolute destruction of a culture and people. Of course, the Iraq war has not done all of that, but mass media's coverage attitude may potentially allow that to happen.

And that's what's scary--the media's destructive power. In light of all this, the FCC's attempt to limit mass media has yet to be decided. Until then, I'm keeping my fingers crossed and hoping that democracy and people's freedom of information will prevail.

Jimmy Carter in Syria: Striving for Peace or In Bed with the Enemy?Gilad Chudler

itamena86@gmail.com (Asma Nemati) — Sat, 03 May 2008 18:11:00 +0000

Last month, former president of the United States of America Jimmy Carter flew out to Damascus and held talks with Hamas – a radical Islamic group that legally came to power in the 2006 Palestinian Parliamentary elections.

Following his meeting with the exiled leader of Hamas, Khaled Mashaal, there has been a flurry of protests and support from the international media. Countless forums and blogs have been featuring heated debates revolving around the former president’s most recent foray into independent peacekeeping. The time has come for one more journalist to take a stab at what the effects of Jimmy Carter’s visit will have and whether or not he was justified in his most recent diplomatic efforts.

As far as this writer is concerned, there are several issues to take into account with this case. They are as follows:

-The outlash from the political right in the US Congress has been shameful. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., lobbied Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to revoke Jimmy Carter’s passport. That’s correct. A member of the US Congress actually lobbied the government to revoke the passport of a former president. The same president who in the 1970’s brokered the most ground-breaking and long lasting peace agreement in the history of the Middle East between Israel and Egypt.

Many folks tend to forget that the reason Israel receives so much money from the United States is simply a result of a treaty that Jimmy Carter, the supposed Israel-hating, apartheid accusing devil personally brokered.

-Although some of the criticism from the conservative right has, perhaps, been a touch heavy-handed, there must be room to chastise Jimmy Carter for embarking on a diplomatic quest that should be reserved for a current not former, member of the United States government. This brings me to my next point.

-Let’s not forget who put the Palestinians up to a proper, democratic election in the first place. It certainly was not any country that the US deems as harboring terrorist organizations, nor was it by a country that the US even deems as an enemy. So who did set up the vote? Oh right, I remember! It was the United States of America!

If the United States is going to continue to be a world leader, it must stand by its democratic principles. How can a country, that claims to believe in democracy so deeply, choose to invade other non-democratic countries in an effort to keep the world “safe,” support a fair election in a democratically-starved region and not keep up some sort of dialogue with the winner of that election? Everybody knew well before the 2006 Palestinian elections that Hamas had a strong chance of winning. Since they won, the US has chosen to turn their back on them because since Hamas won instead of Fatah, the US put itself in a tough situation: Hamas is considered to be a terrorist organization by the US, Israel and the EU.

This brings me to my final point. Just because many people think that the United States should at least have some kind of channels of communication if not outright open diplomatic ties with Hamas, this does not mean by any stretch of imagination that Israel should. Israel has been at war with Hamas since the organization was created and they should not be expected to have wide open diplomatic discussions with Hamas. Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and until that point is reversed Israel should not be expected to help out or support a democratically elected government that refuses to accept the right of the neighbor to exist. Their stance is not that Israel should cease their occupation: they wish for the complete destruction of Israel.

So, what does all this mean? There are a couple conclusions that can be taken from these various observations. Was Jimmy Carter wrong for holding talks with Hamas? I will take the stance that Jimmy Carter was absolutely wrong for personally holding talks with Hamas. Jimmy Carter, although a former president of the United States, does not currently speak for America nor its people. By going out on his lone-ranger missions, he only befuddles an already dumbfounding and mindblowingly complicated situation.

Although I believe Carter was wrong for holding the talks with Hamas, I do believe that the United States should be making efforts towards opening communication channels with Hamas. It just doesn’t make sense for the United States to completely turn away from Hamas. Fatah, who is now the closest thing to an ally Israel and the United States has ever seen from the Palestinians, was originally a terrorist group that went legit. Instead of isolating Hamas and strengthening their position as “noble resistors of imperial hegemony”, opening talks with them would put the spotlight on their government and would “put the ball in their court”. As long as their people are forced to starve and kept in isolation from the outside world, they will have a huge swathe of support. If there were more concerted efforts to incorporate them into a political process, they would almost be forced to moderate their views because otherwise all of their support would disappear. Once a group is legitimized they must start acting like a real political entity lest they lose their hard-fought rise to power.

Although Jimmy Carter’s heart may have been in the right place, his maverick diplomacy has only muddled one of the most confusing political situations in human history. Hopefully, at the very least, people will wake up and realize that we can’t keep beating Hamas into a corner because it only strengthens and legitimizes their malevolent intentions. There was a time in US history where carrots-and-sticks ruled the diplomatic arena. It’s time to reintroduce a few carrots back into the scene.

Dr. Sami Al-Arian and the U.S. Justice ParadoxAsma Nemati

itamena86@gmail.com (Asma Nemati) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:07:00 +0000

There’s no denying that since the inception of the US Constitution there have been many cases through which fundamental rights of Americans have been exploited in the very name of upholding those Constitutional rights. The target usually has been prevalent minorities who are undergoing some sort of assimilation process within the US.

Amongst the minorities and prior to 9/11, African Americans, Native Americans, and Japanese Americans have, relatively speaking, suffered more than others in numerous ways. But the plight of the Muslim activist is quite unique in the current American Justice ambiance.

This is how the US Justice system serves them: Freedom of speech does not exist, the right of due process is only right for a few, and only some men are created equal.

The aftermath of 9/11 is especially interesting when it comes to the justice system’s abuse of power, clad in sophisticated and accepted terms, and not in outright separation of the society from the “other” by means of detention camps or direct genocide.

Instead of fearing fear itself, America submitted to terror without a fight, turning a blind eye to her history, foundation, values and morals. The blame was put on MUSLIM terrorists and Muslims were guilty by association, resulting in their deportation from the country en masse without an explanation, the Big Brother eye on their personal activities, and the passing of the unpatriotic Patriot Act to rub in the injustice just a little bit more.

Dr. Sami Al-Arian’s case is one perfect example.

He was only in his teens when he arrived in the US for education, following the advice of his father who was willing to sacrifice anything to provide an opportunity for his son to better his life, something his father was deprived of starting with the catastrophe in 1948, after being forced out of his home in Palestine.

Dr. Sami Al-Arian studied engineering and after obtaining a PhD, he joined the University of South Florida. Besides becoming a prominent figure in the Islamic community, Al-Arian was keen on voicing his opinion on a most sensitive issue he had experienced and endlessly read about: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

His op-eds questioning the widespread American support of Israel, especially in regards to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, appeared in the USF paper and many of his colleagues noticed this.

Eager to share his opinion and putting his rights into action, Al-Arian then co-founded two groups that put him both in the local and national limelight. The Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP) was more of a support group than anything, while World Islamic Studies Enterprise (WISE) was an intellectual and academic research think-tank. WISE also shared some of its programs/events with USF, particularly with USF’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies.

Al-Arian was also caught on tape speaking at a rally in which he condemned Israel’s behavior in the first intifada, emphatically calling for “death to Israel.” But that meant something very specific—he admitted that he was calling for death to the occupation, and death to laws that had forbidden him any kind of affiliation with Palestine, his homeland.

In an interview on Creative Loafing Tampa blog, he emphasized that he did not mean kill every Israeli—innocent civilians were simply innocent and always protected. But armed resistance against occupation is something else he called for, something very much in line with International Law.

But for some, that sentence meant only one thing, a point that would be overemphasized after Al-Arian’s arrest in 2003.

Prior to that, Dr. Sami Al-Arian was politically active and was a leading figure on civil rights in America, bringing a variety group of people to both his organizations and hosting many public events on behalf of Palestinians.

When it came to applying for citizenship, he successfully passed his naturalization test and waited for results that would never come. He filed a Freedom of Information Act to see his INS files. He was finally able to obtain it after some legal issues. And what he found there was not surprising—it contained articles on him from The Tampa Tribune.

On February 20, 2003 he was arrested by the FBI on charges of supporting terrorism. Dr. Al-Arian protested his incarceration by going on a hunger strike, which lasted 140 days.

Throughout his U.S. Justice experience, Al-Arian is constantly denied explanation of why he is being held and everything is progressing slower than a snail’s pace. In the meanwhile, Dr. Al-Arian’s physical health is deteriorating, especially due to his diabetes.

Al-Arian’s sentence expired last weekend but he’s still behind bars. The Justice Department turned a blind eye to his agreement of pleading guilty in 2006 to one terrorism-related charge in exchange for deportation. But that has yet to happen.

Despite his lawyers’ efforts, there is no denying that the Justice Department is willing to go to extremes to keep Dr. Al-Arian behind bars. Why? For simply speaking his mind on the Palestinian issue. That is where the Justice paradox kicks in.

Justice is denied to those who differ with mainstream America, no matter how absurd their conviction. Equality doesn’t matter, either. And despite international censure, including a complaint by Amnesty International, Dr. Al-Arian has been a subject of the infamous U.S. prison system.

Politics ON the College CampusGilad Chudler

itamena86@gmail.com (Asma Nemati) — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:58:00 +0000

Once upon a time, not so long ago, I was a student at UCLA eagerly absorbing every snippet of information I could get my greedy little paws on. I was fired up about politics and I loved the fact that there were always so many controversial things happening on Bruinwalk.

My mother is an Israeli and thus I was raised with what some may call a slight bias in favor of Israel. I remember watching the news in my teens, becoming flabbergasted any time somebody would criticize Israel. “How could they say that about Israel?” I would say to myself, “Look at the Palestinians. They are always trying to kill us, they all hate us.”

Nearly ten years later I still have a soft place for Israel in my heart, although hawkish university professors and a diverse student body taught me that no heated political situation is straightforward and that there are always several viewpoints through which one should examine a conflict. I have spent literally years of my life in Israel and most of my family resides there. There is one big difference in the way I interpret the Israeli-Palestinian conflict these days: I have learned to become critical of both Israelis and Palestinians.

When I first arrived at UCLA I wanted to get my hands dirty and really get involved in campus politics. Used to joining Israeli and Jewish youth groups, I naturally gravitated towards Bruins for Israel. I quickly realized, to my dismay, that this was not the group for me. I was in a point in my life where I was trying to expand my horizons and break out of my shell. I wanted to find people whose souls cried for understanding and peace: instead I found the usual crowd… a bunch of kids with Israeli parents who wouldn’t dare criticize Israel and always had a legitimate reason for hating the Palestinians.

I realized at that point that I could no longer be a part of such groups. I began to explore various options on campus. I went to speakers that were critical of Israel like Rashid Khalidi as well as avid supporters of Israel such as Alan Dershowitz. After each speaker, I found myself in a state of sadness. Every speaker that I went to, at the outset, would start of relatively politically correct. Unfortunately, as they would continue in their speeches, they would either become vehemently anti-Israel or anti-Palestinian. I remember during the Dershowitz speech that there were maybe half a dozen Muslim students and the inverse during Khalidi.

While at UCLA I worked closely with Professor Judea Pearl, a UCLA professor that has dedicated his life to creating dialogue between Jews and Muslims. I remember he asked Khalidi a poignant question and instead of taking him seriously Khalidi almost laughed him off, and there were derisive snickers that came from the audience. At Dershowitz, there were exasperated sighs when a young Muslim woman came up to the podium to ask him a question.

I also became quite disillusioned with the Muslim student groups on campus. UCLA has an annual Palestinian Awareness Week…I quickly learned to avoid the main Bruin avenue during those days. Instead of Palestinian Awareness, it was more like “Breed Israeli Hatred Week”. Posters likening Israel to the Nazis and a separation barrier jungle gym were just some of the tasteful attractions. Jewish and Muslim students would engage themselves in violent arguments trying to convince one another that their people are murderers and have no right to exist. I also remember Muslim students protesting Israel Independence Day. It was such awful sights on campus that made me disillusioned with student politics.

What is wrong with college campuses today? Are students not supposed to be open-minded beings, seeking truth and justice? Students are too young to be so hateful. Whatever happened to young idealism? I’m not going to write about whether the Israelis are justified in their occupation nor am I going to mention reasons why I believe the Palestinians do not have a state of their own yet.

What I am going to do is make a plea to the youth of the world to understand that by taking sides and not listening to others, we have sealed the fate of the human race. We will be doomed to a future of continued warfare, hatred, racism and misunderstanding.

Students are the future leaders of the world. What does the future hold for a generation that by age 18 already have such strong, righteous convictions about their own cause? If we do not begin to campaign for understanding instead of playing the blame game, the cycle of violence will perpetuate ad infinitum. For those of you who will end up reading this, if you take a vested interest in the current Middle East events, the next time you watch the news or pick up a paper do the world a favor—close your eyes and put yourself in the shoes of both sides. You may be surprised at what you find.

Pope Benedict's Infatuation with IslamAsma Nemati

itamena86@gmail.com (Asma Nemati) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:43:00 +0000

A few weeks back, I wasn’t surprised to read the headlines marking Easter: Pope Benedict Baptizes a Muslim. Does the Pope want a pat in the back for being the savior of a man who once belonged to a religion that supposedly harbors terrorism, according to the Baptized Magdi Allam, whose conversion closely resembles Michael Savage’s sudden shift from the left to the right of the political spectrum: strange and absolutely sudden. But is the Pope trying to motivate the general Muslim world to think twice about their faith? Or, is the Catholic Church alarmed by the fact that, now more than ever, there are more Muslims in the world (about 20 percent of the world’s population) than there are Catholics (about 17 percent of the world’s population)?

Let’s not forget how he initiated his relations with the Muslims in his early days by this notorious quote in a speech intended to galvanize Europeans to their Christian roots: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” And, the intended prose worked. Islam was made into “them” for Europeans and the Catholic leader turned out to be not only a good Pope, but a shrewd politician, as well.

As can be seen, the Pope’s infatuation with Islam is not a very pleasant one. During a time when Islam is highly at risk of misrepresentation, the Pope is simply adding salt to the wound. Of course, he is certainly not obliged to act otherwise. But it also must be said that he does not have any right to misrepresent Islam in general, and especially so blatantly. I am amongst the majority of Muslims who feel this way.

Unfortunately, big leaders attract big media attention, which sometimes leads to the total skewing of a set of beliefs or even a faith. Islam has had its share of this since its inception and now, more than ever, we definitely don’t need it. Debate and dialog, however, is certainly an option and should be convened regularly amongst and within members other faiths or beliefs.

Finally, it is also up to Muslims to alter their image in the media, and other venues in which we are highly stereotyped. Not all Muslims will convert to Catholicism, and the Pope’s actions are simply to unify, yet again, a divided Europe, the unification of which he has no power over except by way of his favorite scapegoat—the vicious Muslim terrorists. And despite the fact that Magdi Allam’s lies about his own religion’s widespread violence (which clearly points out to his lack of knowledge about his own faith), the fact of the matter is that the majority of Muslims think and act otherwise.

A recent Gallup poll of Muslims in 39 countries surveyed that 92 percent of Muslims believe that attacks on civilians are never justified. When asked to explain their stance, a significant number of the group cited the Koran's insistence on safeguarding innocent life as a moral duty, as reported by the International Herald Tribune.

With all due respect to the current Pope, I must say I really miss the late Pope John Paul. I’m the kind of person who will go out of my way in order for others to feel comfortable, all the while respecting their beliefs. Pope John Paul did just that and he reached out to many different faith communities in the hopes of making the world a more peaceful place.

Pope Benedict, however, is vigorously treading on a path of false assumptions and false knowledge. He's better off doing his research before representing Islam to his extensive audiences and seeking to bring an end to the gap between his community and others, something I’m sure is in accordance with Jesus Christ's teachings.

Iraq: Five Years PassedGilad Chudler

itamena86@gmail.com (Asma Nemati) — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:08:00 +0000

This week marks five years of an American presence in Iraq. After watching three of the most important buildings in America topple, citizens of the most powerful country in the world wanted revenge for these horrific acts. Many in the United States were swept up in the fervor of Bush’s “axis of evil” and became convinced by the administration that an invasion of Iraq would help prevent such attacks in the future.

Five years later the world is as dangerous a place as ever and the Middle East hasn’t been this turbulent since Lawrence of Arabia. In a speech that was prepared for the anniversary’s date, President Bush said, “Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision – and this is a fight America can and must win.”

How right you are, President Bush. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the correct decision in many respects: he truly was a brutal dictator who was not above terrorizing ethnic swathes of his own citizens. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq had a history of dangerous affairs with weapons of mass destruction including an attempted nuclear facility and let us not forget the rampant use of chemical weapons.

One would have to search far and wide to find a staunch supporter of Saddam Hussein and the world should be thankful for his removal. Yet, many Americans are now asking themselves, “Didn’t we originally invade Iraq because we were told Saddam had direct links to Al-Qaeda and was possessing weapons of mass destruction?”

At this point in time, citizens across the country are fed up with what has become an immensely unpopular and costly war. Pundits have estimated that the Iraq war will likely end up costing tax-payers upwards of three trillion dollars. Who knows how much more American tax payers will cough up if John McCain is elected president, considering he has claimed that US forces will stay in Iraq for another “10,000 years” if necessary.

Many of us who have followed the war since day one have been asking ourselves the same question for half of a decade now, “Why Iraq? Why was it so necessary to purge that country of questionable leadership instead of somebody else?” This question has only become more pressing now that America knows that the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda was essentially fabricated by the administration and that more and more evidence points to the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the time of invasion. It’s no coincidence the media has labeled this war “Bush’s War”.

Since America invaded Iraq, the other two members of the “Axis of Evil” have had the freedom to further their goals with America tied up in a war that will never finish. North Korea has set off a nuclear weapon to the chagrin of the international community and Iran gains waves of influence throughout the Middle East every day. For the first time in its history, Iraq is now a hotbed of terrorism. Opportunistic foreign jihadists moved into Iraq to fight America and to establish radical elements throughout the country in an effort to take advantage of the chaos, misery and instability that the war has brought.

Despite all of these factors, President Bush insists that, “Defeating this enemy in Iraq will make it less likely we will face this enemy here at home.” Well President Bush, this wandering Jew disagrees. Before the Iraq invasion there was no element in Iraq that posed as a substantial threat to the United States. Now there is an entire network of terrorists that have taken advantage of the instability. These networks are a part of much larger international networks and pose a grave threat to Western countries.

It is true what Bush says about the recent surge of troops into Iraq in this sense, “it has done more than turn the situation in Iraq around – it has opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror.”

Such statements have what could be called a drop of truth in it because before the American invasion there were no terrorists in Iraq to fight against – now it is chock full of them.

Yet, what options are left for America at this point?

Roughly 70% of Americans do not support the Iraq war and that number only increases every day. Americans are sick and tired of spending billions of dollars a day on a war that has sent America straight into a recession and they are sick of sending their sons and daughters to a war they don’t agree with.

Can America even pull out of Iraq at this point? If American troops were to leave next week, what would the consequences be? For years experts have said that the moment American troops leave Iraq, a massive civil war similar to the one that broke out in Vietnam after the US Army left would erupt leaving thousands, possibly millions dead. The fragile democracy that is finally beginning to garner support and strength in Iraq would almost certainly crumble. Perhaps the most frightening prospect would be the strong influence Iran could immediately impose on the fledgling Iraq which would strengthen what has been a coalition of conservative states who openly support terrorism.

The truth is that at this point there are now straightforward easy answers as to what America “should” do. Dick Cheney made a surprise visit to Iraq with his family earlier this week to talk about opening up Iraq’s vast oil fields to foreign investors (Still wondering whether oil played a role in America’s invasion?) Frankly, the current administration is not ready to leave Iraq because none of their goals have been met: There is certainly not a pro-Western liberal democracy in place of Saddam, we have not gotten our hands on Iraqi oil and the Middle East is more dangerous than ever. The instability in Iraq caused by this war has done nothing but endanger Israel’s position as the only liberal democracy in the region.

It is easy with the power of hindsight to say that invading Iraq was a mistake. There are only a few neo-conservatives sitting in their living rooms below Ronald Reagan posters hung up on their mantles that believe Iraq was a good idea and that America should “stay the course.” The true challenge is deciding what the best move is now. Iraq finally seems that it is starting to stabilize, at least in a relative sense. There are only 100 people dying a week now instead of every day which is a step in the right direction, at least. The Iraqi government is more stable now than it has ever been since Saddam was toppled. Is the time approaching for American troops to come home to their loved ones?

Americans are only now beginning to feel what will surely be the long term affects from this war. Already America’s economy is buckling in the face of a massive deficit that has only continued to increase due to poor management of government funds. Soon, college campuses across America will be filled with blind, deaf and limbless soldiers seeking a higher education –roughly 30,000 soldiers have been injured and nearly 4,000 US soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. The prospect of travelling for internationally minded Americans becomes more and more frightening as the world continues to turn against America for what they view as a gross violation of international law and a blatant grab for oil amidst the chaos of 9-11.

The upcoming presidential election will help determine the course of Iraq, but less than many think. America is stuck in a dangerous quagmire in Iraq, one that it will not be able to dig itself out of anytime soon.

unHoly Showdown in the Holy Land Asma Nemati

itamena86@gmail.com (Asma Nemati) — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:48:00 +0000

After a fiery katyusha rocket was launched, and an innocent Israeli killed, over 100 Palestinians lost their lives last week. According to B'Tselem, 54 of the killed were not involved in hostilities and 25 were minors. Domestic pressure led Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to halt the peace talks.

That was not the end of it. A Palestinian gunman opened fire on an Israeli school, killing eight students. Peace talks were not halted by the Israeli government, however, but a plan to build more illegal settlements was approved last Sunday. And then there were more attacks in the West Bank just today, leaving four dead.

It seems like the two sides are far from any peace talks. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are to blame. Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s uncontrollable behavior has only brought more bloodshed to the occupied territories; the Palestinians need to think again about what government they’re going to support.

Israel exists, period. And this is what is troubling many Palestinians. Across the occupied territories one will find many households clinging on to keys as part of the old tradition of keeping alive their history. Yes, Palestinians were robbed of their land. Will they gain it back? This is what many colleagues of mine bring up when the word Palestine or Israel is uttered. And this is the major problem our media needs to bring to light; that of what the Palestinians want.

Many a “leaders,” for the sake of leaving a legacy or otherwise, will hold fancy meetings clad with red carpets and golden couches in the middle of barren deserts all in the name of peace. Well, that tradition has been repeated numerous times since the inception of occupation: 1948.

However, it is dangerously imprudent to delve on all the latter just now, since many have talked about that for decades without any progress. The fact is that innocent Israelis and Palestinians are caught in the midst of this sham.

Peace and security, or an imitation of them, will never be tasted by the many Palestinians who’ve been caged up in this occupation unless some sacrifices are made. Security will never be felt by Israelis unless they, too, make some sacrifices.

Both Palestinian and Israeli terrorists need to be blamed when terrorist actions from both sides are committed.

For any kind of talk between the two entities, settlement building needs to be stopped in the occupied territories and the rockets need to stop terrorizing Israelis.

Below are a few steps to consider if any peace talks are to be maintained:

-Re-elections in the Gaza Strip

-Prisoner exchanges between Israel and Palestine

-A unified Gaza strip and West Bank

-Israel’s end to deadly, disproportional attacks

Besides the Palestinian and Israeli “To Do” list, people of conscience around the world need to hold their leaders accountable for their response, or lack of, to actions terrorizing Israelis and Palestinians.

To reiterate, both Palestinians and Israelis need to take a good long look at themselves and each other—they’re merely reflections of each other, their roots dating back to Abraham. This may seem too much to ask, but it is very possible. Only when we believe do we make the “impossible” alive and real as our very own selves.