Not 'Japanese-American' but Japanese. Although am an immigrant to the US, I claim Hawaii as my home state because Hawaii is a large part of my formative years. I know about this issue. Japanese-Americans are also Buddhists, Shintoists, Christians and atheists. No Japanese would ever propose any sort of 'community center', religiously based or otherwise, that would associate Imperial Japan, to be so near to the Arizona Memorial. A 'muslim' cannot be anything else but. A 'mosque' cannot be associated to any other religion but Islam. Japanese and Hawaiian Japanese-Americans are more sensitive about the Arizona Memorial regarding Japan than muslims seems to be about NYC Ground Zero.
Whether or not Japanese Americans would advocate for a temple of whatever they worship is irrelevant - what is relevant is that if the Japanese American community have the need to construct a temple on private property that happens to be close to the Arizona memorial with their own funds, then there is no logical reason to oppose such a project. Any such temple/house of worship would be for catering to the religious/cultural needs of a particular community, and not necessarily for 'insulting Americans', as some insecure Americans appear to feel.
None of those evangelical Christian churches have their own militant military wings, do they? Speech is countered by speech or equally effective -- indifference. But al-Qaeda backed up its jihadist speech and MILITARY ACTIONS with appropriate citations from the Quran. You can call it a 'hijacking' of Islam but for all we care, it was not 'Jesus Saves' but 'Allahu Akbar' that was a war cry, not just on NYC on Sept 11, 2001 but for many other Islam related incidents since then. Indifference is no longer an option for ordinary muslims IF the 'hijacking of Islam' protest is to be credible. Same for countering jihadist speech with sermons that while claiming to 'condemn' terrorists and terrorism, those same sermons mightily strains to involve US or Israel to varying degrees of culpability of said terrorism, effectively saying we are to blame for any Islam related killings since 9/11.
As far as I know most mosques in the US don't have their 'militant military wings' either, so what is your point, other to bash Islam and Muslims by constructing a strawman based on a hypothetical scenario?
And my 'indifference' to any terrorist attack, whether in the name of Islam or not, shall be equal to the indifference of the average non-Muslim American to such an attack. I have no responsibility to account for or apologize for actions that I do not condone and that are not carried out by people chosen by me to represent anything.
And yes, the US and Israel do varying degrees of blame for the rise of extremism and terrorism because of their policies - that is fact. To try and weasel the US and Israel out of culpability by threatening to label those making those factual and logical connections between US/Israely policy and terrorism/extremism is a reprehensible and disingenuous position to take, albeit one taken often by the NeoCons and even some 'ultra-patriotic liberals' in America.
A 'non-state' actor cannot claim to speak and act on behalf of a state, which has finite geographical and political boundaries. But that 'non-state' actor can claim to speak on behalf of a community, or a 'nation', and the ummah is very much a nation. Osama bin Laden did not claimed to act on behalf of Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or Yemen. He claimed authority from the muslim nation itself and the target -- US -- does not have to bear the burden of distinguishing any differences, no matter how subtle or obvious, on who among the muslim nation, can rightly speak and MILITARILY ACT on its behalf. The American state can respond but only in kind and that was the Afghanistan campaign. But the American nation will also respond in kind when we formulate our perception of the muslim nation and that judgment, or 'bigotry' if you wish, will be based upon how the American muslim community respond to jihadist speeches in our midst.
That non-state actor can claim to speak on behalf of Mickey Mouse for all I care, but that does not make Disney Studios culpable or any more responsible for his/her crimes.
Neither I nor any other Muslim can prevent individuals anywhere around the world from absorbing poison and taking up an extremist cause. We Muslims granted no one authority, certainly not OBL and Al Qaeda. That OBL 'claimed authority' on behalf of Muslims does not make us responsible since we did not grant it. We do not have to 'prove' our credibility to you, and we do not care whether you think we did not not, since bigots can never be satisfied in any case.
I have no doubt that people like you will generalize, stereotype, denigrate and 'pronounce judgment' on all Muslims - bigotry is not isolated by race or nationality, and the US has plenty of it. But there are also many Americans like Bloomberg who reject such bigotry, and American Muslims will fight for what is right with their support, and the support of the system.
Nonetheless, attitudes such as yours and those displayed by the conservatives in the US towards the proposed mosque and the implicit vilification of all Muslims and Islam in their opposition to the mosque should be a huge warning for American Muslims that significant part of the right in American should not be trusted and supported at the ballot box.
As I said before, 'Muslims' have nothing to be remorseful about.
I am a Muslim - the 911 attacks were not carried out in my name nor did I authorize AQ or OBL in anyway to take actions on my behalf. I am not obligated to show any more, or less, sentiment towards the attacks than any other American.