History keeps repeating itself because people either forget its lessons or won’t learn from them. Arabs and Americans have something in common these days. We suffer from Alzheimer’s. Take the business of war, for example. Who would believe that after some fourteen centuries Arabs are still disputing over who was to succeed the Prophet (pbuh) — Abu Baker, Omar or Ali? What difference does it make today to millions of Shiite and Sunni Muslims about who was right in the war after the death of Caliph Othman? Don’t we have enough troubles on our plate today instead of trying to solve differences among people who died 1400 years ago? America is at — or perhaps within — our gates and we are repeating the mistakes of those who discussed what came first — chicken or egg — while their enemies took their city.
In the last fifty years we have gone from independence struggles to wars of dependence. The first thing we did after liberation was to submit to neocolonization. In place of Britain, Italy and France, we went after the new superpowers of the day, America and Soviet Union. The Cold War divided our Arab nation and put us in opposing camps, fighting each other more than fighting the enemy. Meanwhile Israel developed from a gang of Zionists, terrorizing Palestinian villages and murdering women and children into a major nuclear power that is now, through its superpower ally, the US, terrorizing the entire region.
Chances for solving many of our problems and disagreements presented themselves time and again, but we never missed a chance to miss a chance. We were almost always ruled by dictators though they called themselves by other names. Freedom and democracy, scientific and economic liberation proved to be the way to go but we still persist in and cling to our miserable old, ways. Rulers come and go, but dictatorships, corruption and captivity go on ... until we perish at the bottom of civilization and history.
The Americans have a similar record of failure in their history classes as well. In two hundred and twenty-eight years of independence, the Americans have been engaged in two hundred wars. Since the end of World War II, America has waged wars in 22 countries. A century and a half since the end of black slavery and forty years after the civil rights struggle, the race struggle continues. Black and Latino ghettos in American cities are filled with drugs, gang wars and economic failures. Still in the circles of power, few questions are asked and even fewer solutions discussed. History might yet be repeated.
I won’t go into Vietnam because not much can be added. Hollywood has never stopped turning out movies about the period and libraries are full of books about the lessons to be learned from that war. It is worth noting that one of the political players during the Vietnam War, Donald Rumsfeld, has been a major mover and shaker in the most recent American war. Other players who should have learned from Vietnam and the first Gulf War also failed to do so. Colin Powell who fought in Vietnam and directed the first Gulf War fell for the neocons’ schemes. Even if true that he resisted the current, he should have resigned much earlier. In the courts of history, his hands are as bloody as any of the neocons. Now what about the history lesson of Afghanistan? When the former Soviet Union invaded that Muslim country to replace a hostile regime and install an ally, America revived Islamic jihad after centuries of inactivity and gave it full support. Billions of dollars and military, political and intelligence aid were provided. The US — rightly — led the world community to denounce the invasion as a breach of international law. It did the same when Iraq invaded Kuwait. After the Soviet withdrawal, America supported another kind of Mujahedeen, the Taleban. Hand in hand with Pakistan, it helped the new Salafi movement take control of a war-torn country. Ten years later, America invaded and occupied that country, as well as doing the same in the much tougher geopolitical terrain of Iraq. This time the Mujahedeen of the world didn’t need any help. They already know what to do and how to do it. The enemy is different, but the story is familiar: The crusaders are returning less than fifty years after the “official” independence from colonialism. A clash of civilizations begins and another liberation war is warranted.
I don’t know how many more lessons we, Arabs and Americans need before we learn from history. What I do know, however, is that we are making not only ourselves but the entire world suffer. It is about time we opened our history books, read them carefully and learned from them.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Why Palestine Is So Dear to Us
Many Americans cannot appreciate the link between the anger of 1.5 billion Muslims and the plight of few million Palestinians on a small piece of land that makes less than one percent of the Muslim world. To them, this is a sorrowful affair, but not enough of a cause for the resultant clash of civilizations. Instead, they suggest, Palestinians could easily be absorbed in the Arab and Muslim world. Life goes on. End of story.
Just imagine if someone suggested that the destruction of a couple of towers in New York, and a single wall in the Pentagon, and the death of some 3,000 people, not all of them Americans, do not deserve the anger of 260 million Americans. There are more people killed in accidents and crimes in a day. An earthquake or a hurricane could have caused similar destruction and loss of lives.
What is the big deal? The buildings can be easily rebuilt. The families of the victims and the owners of affected buildings can be nicely compensated. Life goes on. End of story.
But no. America was rightly upset, rightly angry, and rightly resolute on punishing those responsible for mass-murdering Americans and insulting America. We do disagree on why this happened, what is the appropriate response, and who should be punished. But we certainly agree that America was attacked and insulted and must respond in kind. Punishment should match the crime.
Similarly, how could any just person suggest that the uprooting of millions from their ancestors’ homeland can be easily compensated somewhere else? I understand that in America people move around. Except for Natives, all came from other continents. In the Old World, it was different. A land where my ancestors were buried, my history was made, my culture is based can’t be easily replaced. Given the choice, an old family house in a poor village is a world better than a luxurious Manhattan apartment or a Swiss chalet.
If the Jews of the world feel the same toward a homeland they left four thousands years ago, what of the Palestinians who were kicked out only forty or fifty years ago and have no place they could call home.
But if that is the case for the Palestinians, what is the stake for Muslims and Arabs? I could ask the same question of Americans. What was in it for the West to intervene on behalf of Christians of East Timor, Sudan and the old Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?
In Islam, we are a big family, all for one, one for all. Fellow Muslims are regarded as brothers and sisters. What affects one in Chechnya or Kashmir hurts us all.
In addition, Palestine is a holy land. Jerusalem is as holy to Muslims as it is to Christians and Jews.
For us, Palestinians, Muslims and Christians, are an extended family. Of course, we care about the schoolgirl who was shot twenty times by an Israeli solider who wasn’t justly punished for it. Surely, we feel bitter about what happened to the little boy who was targeted by Israeli soldiers and died in his father’s hands. You bet we feel the pain of hundreds of families, whose homes were destroyed in days by Israeli bulldozers as a collective punishment.
We don’t need to be Arabs or Muslims to feel sorry for them, any decent human should, as Americans, rightly, expected us to feel about the victims of 9/11. The world felt the pain of both Americans and Palestinians and demanded justice. The difference is: America is a nuclear superpower, and can take justice into its hands, never mind the UN, world law and opinion. The Palestinians can only hit back against the sophisticated, overwhelming Israeli killing machines, with stones, small fire, and human bombers.
Now that our stand, as Muslims and Arabs, is, hopefully, clear, let me explain why we blame America, more than Israel, for our pain. First, America was the first in the world to recognize Israel. It took President Truman 10 minutes to do so in 1948. On the other hand, it took generations for the US to recognize any Palestinian representative. The US was the last country in the world, other than Israel, to recognize the PLO, years after the UN recognized it as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians.
For fifty years now, the US chose to blindly support Israel against the Arabs. It vetoed tens of Security Council resolutions. It voted, mostly alone, with Israel some eighty UN resolutions. It supplied Israel with hundreds of billions of dollars in cash and sophisticated arms and guaranteed loans. In short, by providing the bloodline to an otherwise failed state, the US is more than a partner in crime. It is the mother ship.
Just imagine if someone suggested that the destruction of a couple of towers in New York, and a single wall in the Pentagon, and the death of some 3,000 people, not all of them Americans, do not deserve the anger of 260 million Americans. There are more people killed in accidents and crimes in a day. An earthquake or a hurricane could have caused similar destruction and loss of lives.
What is the big deal? The buildings can be easily rebuilt. The families of the victims and the owners of affected buildings can be nicely compensated. Life goes on. End of story.
But no. America was rightly upset, rightly angry, and rightly resolute on punishing those responsible for mass-murdering Americans and insulting America. We do disagree on why this happened, what is the appropriate response, and who should be punished. But we certainly agree that America was attacked and insulted and must respond in kind. Punishment should match the crime.
Similarly, how could any just person suggest that the uprooting of millions from their ancestors’ homeland can be easily compensated somewhere else? I understand that in America people move around. Except for Natives, all came from other continents. In the Old World, it was different. A land where my ancestors were buried, my history was made, my culture is based can’t be easily replaced. Given the choice, an old family house in a poor village is a world better than a luxurious Manhattan apartment or a Swiss chalet.
If the Jews of the world feel the same toward a homeland they left four thousands years ago, what of the Palestinians who were kicked out only forty or fifty years ago and have no place they could call home.
But if that is the case for the Palestinians, what is the stake for Muslims and Arabs? I could ask the same question of Americans. What was in it for the West to intervene on behalf of Christians of East Timor, Sudan and the old Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?
In Islam, we are a big family, all for one, one for all. Fellow Muslims are regarded as brothers and sisters. What affects one in Chechnya or Kashmir hurts us all.
In addition, Palestine is a holy land. Jerusalem is as holy to Muslims as it is to Christians and Jews.
For us, Palestinians, Muslims and Christians, are an extended family. Of course, we care about the schoolgirl who was shot twenty times by an Israeli solider who wasn’t justly punished for it. Surely, we feel bitter about what happened to the little boy who was targeted by Israeli soldiers and died in his father’s hands. You bet we feel the pain of hundreds of families, whose homes were destroyed in days by Israeli bulldozers as a collective punishment.
We don’t need to be Arabs or Muslims to feel sorry for them, any decent human should, as Americans, rightly, expected us to feel about the victims of 9/11. The world felt the pain of both Americans and Palestinians and demanded justice. The difference is: America is a nuclear superpower, and can take justice into its hands, never mind the UN, world law and opinion. The Palestinians can only hit back against the sophisticated, overwhelming Israeli killing machines, with stones, small fire, and human bombers.
Now that our stand, as Muslims and Arabs, is, hopefully, clear, let me explain why we blame America, more than Israel, for our pain. First, America was the first in the world to recognize Israel. It took President Truman 10 minutes to do so in 1948. On the other hand, it took generations for the US to recognize any Palestinian representative. The US was the last country in the world, other than Israel, to recognize the PLO, years after the UN recognized it as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians.
For fifty years now, the US chose to blindly support Israel against the Arabs. It vetoed tens of Security Council resolutions. It voted, mostly alone, with Israel some eighty UN resolutions. It supplied Israel with hundreds of billions of dollars in cash and sophisticated arms and guaranteed loans. In short, by providing the bloodline to an otherwise failed state, the US is more than a partner in crime. It is the mother ship.
Sunday, October 31, 2004
World Citizens, We Need to Talk!
If Islam is a tolerant, peaceful, open-minded religion, then why do 1.5 billion Muslims hate us? This is the question Westerners often ask. Why do so many Muslims take such militant stands against the West and commit terrorist acts?
In order to answer, I must admit first that there are individuals who, either on purpose or through ignorance, misinterpret the Holy Qur’an and the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) to legitimize their personal hatreds. Why? Some of them are prisoners of history; the cultural and physical ghettos they live in sustain their ignorance and lack of awareness. They are ignorant and need both teaching and enlightenment. Then there are militant Muslims from similar roots and environments who mix their agenda with a political analysis of current Western positions. They are more aware of the world, well-traveled and involved in current affairs.
They believe the Crusades are linked to the history of colonization over the last three centuries and also to recent wars against Muslims in Palestine, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Eastern China, Southern Philippines, Afghanistan and Iraq. That is in addition to Western support of oppressive regimes or anti-Islamic secular ones. Muslims seem to have been under attack for nearly a millennium — since first Crusade. Thousands of the faithful marched to Palestine on one of history’s most cruel, bloody and destructive invasions. Later other Crusaders went on the march for a similar reason — to occupy, enslave and steal the resources of the Muslim world. The second time it was called colonization.
And US President George Bush announced his own crusade in response to Sept. 11. Only, he didn’t care to find the accused and dismantle Al-Qaeda; he used the event as a pretext to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, he turned a blind eye to other attacks on Muslims from Palestine to Chechnya, Kashmir and the Philippines.
The “under siege” mode in the Muslim world, coupled with past and present anger and hatred, have produced a very explosive mix.
Thanks to Bush’s neo-Crusade, now even those who only disliked the West have been convinced to join the militants. Wave after wave of angry people — young and old, male and female — have joined the ranks of those who decided to “do something about it.”
The equally harsh, unwavering, unrelenting Western response helped and introduced the world to a vicious cycle of violence, mistrust and hate. Indiscriminate aerial attacks on Fallujah are followed by suicide attacks on military and civilian targets in Baghdad. Blind support for Israel leads inevitably to more Islamic support for militant groups. Revealing statements, such as Bush expressing disappointment if the Iraqis were to elect an Islamic government, are answered by angry sermons beginning with “I told you so,” and ending with “They are after us; we must hit back or become history.”
How can we stop this madness and shortcut the vicious circle? How can intelligent, good people improve situation and steer things to more effective dialogue leading to better understanding and collaboration? How can we replace confrontation with cooperation and peaceful coexistence? How can we end the “Clash of Civilizations” instead of heading for the “End of History”?
Frankly, I have little hope or faith in those who led us into the mess in the first place. The Bin Ladens, Bushes, Putins and Sharons of the world will always relish a good fight. Their political, ideological and self-interests are so entrenched that no matter what we do to change them, we end up on a dead-end street. I do hope, however, that a new breed of leaders will deal more effectively with the roots of terrorism. Kerry, are you listening?
Academia, the media and the intellectual world can — and must — help overcome the gaps of misunderstanding and to build bridges of communication between cultures, religions and nations. So far, we have remained in the mode of “Either you are with us or against us” that put us into opposing camps. Given this stark choice, people, no matter how intellectual or intelligent, tend to rally round their flags.
This is changing, however. After rigorous self-examination, The New York Times apologized for not scrutinizing earlier government propaganda about Saddam Hussein’s WMD and decided to change and improve its editorial standards and policies. The Economist also made a similar about-face in their support for the Iraq war. These are good signs.
The rest is up to us, the citizens of this world, and the residents of this planet. And the first step is the most basic — to sit and talk.
In order to answer, I must admit first that there are individuals who, either on purpose or through ignorance, misinterpret the Holy Qur’an and the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) to legitimize their personal hatreds. Why? Some of them are prisoners of history; the cultural and physical ghettos they live in sustain their ignorance and lack of awareness. They are ignorant and need both teaching and enlightenment. Then there are militant Muslims from similar roots and environments who mix their agenda with a political analysis of current Western positions. They are more aware of the world, well-traveled and involved in current affairs.
They believe the Crusades are linked to the history of colonization over the last three centuries and also to recent wars against Muslims in Palestine, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Eastern China, Southern Philippines, Afghanistan and Iraq. That is in addition to Western support of oppressive regimes or anti-Islamic secular ones. Muslims seem to have been under attack for nearly a millennium — since first Crusade. Thousands of the faithful marched to Palestine on one of history’s most cruel, bloody and destructive invasions. Later other Crusaders went on the march for a similar reason — to occupy, enslave and steal the resources of the Muslim world. The second time it was called colonization.
And US President George Bush announced his own crusade in response to Sept. 11. Only, he didn’t care to find the accused and dismantle Al-Qaeda; he used the event as a pretext to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, he turned a blind eye to other attacks on Muslims from Palestine to Chechnya, Kashmir and the Philippines.
The “under siege” mode in the Muslim world, coupled with past and present anger and hatred, have produced a very explosive mix.
Thanks to Bush’s neo-Crusade, now even those who only disliked the West have been convinced to join the militants. Wave after wave of angry people — young and old, male and female — have joined the ranks of those who decided to “do something about it.”
The equally harsh, unwavering, unrelenting Western response helped and introduced the world to a vicious cycle of violence, mistrust and hate. Indiscriminate aerial attacks on Fallujah are followed by suicide attacks on military and civilian targets in Baghdad. Blind support for Israel leads inevitably to more Islamic support for militant groups. Revealing statements, such as Bush expressing disappointment if the Iraqis were to elect an Islamic government, are answered by angry sermons beginning with “I told you so,” and ending with “They are after us; we must hit back or become history.”
How can we stop this madness and shortcut the vicious circle? How can intelligent, good people improve situation and steer things to more effective dialogue leading to better understanding and collaboration? How can we replace confrontation with cooperation and peaceful coexistence? How can we end the “Clash of Civilizations” instead of heading for the “End of History”?
Frankly, I have little hope or faith in those who led us into the mess in the first place. The Bin Ladens, Bushes, Putins and Sharons of the world will always relish a good fight. Their political, ideological and self-interests are so entrenched that no matter what we do to change them, we end up on a dead-end street. I do hope, however, that a new breed of leaders will deal more effectively with the roots of terrorism. Kerry, are you listening?
Academia, the media and the intellectual world can — and must — help overcome the gaps of misunderstanding and to build bridges of communication between cultures, religions and nations. So far, we have remained in the mode of “Either you are with us or against us” that put us into opposing camps. Given this stark choice, people, no matter how intellectual or intelligent, tend to rally round their flags.
This is changing, however. After rigorous self-examination, The New York Times apologized for not scrutinizing earlier government propaganda about Saddam Hussein’s WMD and decided to change and improve its editorial standards and policies. The Economist also made a similar about-face in their support for the Iraq war. These are good signs.
The rest is up to us, the citizens of this world, and the residents of this planet. And the first step is the most basic — to sit and talk.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Equality Only in Due Rights and Responsibilities
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
MBC anchor Somia Alshibani asked me in a live interview for Panorama FM: What do I think of sex equality. I said there was no such equality.
In Islam, women have more rights in many aspects. Mothers are given triple what fathers are given from children because they do a harder job.
Male children, on the other hand, are given double the inheritance of their sisters because they have to take care of their families.
Therefore, equality should not be universal, except in due rights and responsibilities. Arab women are getting less of their rights when shouldering greater share of responsibilities. That is not fair.
Some male callers agreed, others vehemently denied my claim.
I told them, I am not saying let’s be modern and give women what they are getting elsewhere.
Instead, I ask we go back 1400 years, to the time of the Prophet, when women could ride and drive, trade and fight, judge and rule in legislation and government.
Men, then, didn’t feel bad about it. Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) worked for his merchant wife, Khadeja, and told his companions to consult his other wife, Aesha, in their religious affairs. Women argued with him and his Caliphs in public.
When women were right, great men like the second Caliph, Omar, admitted their mistakes and revised laws accordingly. As for fight, we owe a great woman warrior the life of our Prophet. She was the one who defended him in the battle of Ohud when most men ran away.
How come after fourteen centuries of progress we still don’t have women ministers, ulemas, or even Shoura members? Why can’t Saudi women run their own businesses, argue cases before courts and officials, or drive their cars?
Why can’t they travel a couple of hours in an airplane alone, or work with men in the same environment, or join security forces?
If, after decades of education and development, women are not mature enough to drive, as a caller suggested, then, our society has failed miserably and must change base and ways.
Examples of women’s unjust treatment are plenty. Not thoroughly and efficiently checked, denounced and punished, domestic violence is maiming many of our better halves.
In many cases, inheritance is not claimed, because many segments of society denounce women who do.
Mandatory male agents and managers for businesswomen are stealing and mismanaging their businesses.
My fellow men, it is high time we treated our women like adults, trusted and respected them, and allowed them their overdue Islamic rights.
We don’t need the West to tell us that, Allah and his Prophet did so long before.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
MBC anchor Somia Alshibani asked me in a live interview for Panorama FM: What do I think of sex equality. I said there was no such equality.
In Islam, women have more rights in many aspects. Mothers are given triple what fathers are given from children because they do a harder job.
Male children, on the other hand, are given double the inheritance of their sisters because they have to take care of their families.
Therefore, equality should not be universal, except in due rights and responsibilities. Arab women are getting less of their rights when shouldering greater share of responsibilities. That is not fair.
Some male callers agreed, others vehemently denied my claim.
I told them, I am not saying let’s be modern and give women what they are getting elsewhere.
Instead, I ask we go back 1400 years, to the time of the Prophet, when women could ride and drive, trade and fight, judge and rule in legislation and government.
Men, then, didn’t feel bad about it. Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) worked for his merchant wife, Khadeja, and told his companions to consult his other wife, Aesha, in their religious affairs. Women argued with him and his Caliphs in public.
When women were right, great men like the second Caliph, Omar, admitted their mistakes and revised laws accordingly. As for fight, we owe a great woman warrior the life of our Prophet. She was the one who defended him in the battle of Ohud when most men ran away.
How come after fourteen centuries of progress we still don’t have women ministers, ulemas, or even Shoura members? Why can’t Saudi women run their own businesses, argue cases before courts and officials, or drive their cars?
Why can’t they travel a couple of hours in an airplane alone, or work with men in the same environment, or join security forces?
If, after decades of education and development, women are not mature enough to drive, as a caller suggested, then, our society has failed miserably and must change base and ways.
Examples of women’s unjust treatment are plenty. Not thoroughly and efficiently checked, denounced and punished, domestic violence is maiming many of our better halves.
In many cases, inheritance is not claimed, because many segments of society denounce women who do.
Mandatory male agents and managers for businesswomen are stealing and mismanaging their businesses.
My fellow men, it is high time we treated our women like adults, trusted and respected them, and allowed them their overdue Islamic rights.
We don’t need the West to tell us that, Allah and his Prophet did so long before.
Too Wise to Fall for Tricks
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Now and then, Americans ask me the same question: Why don’t you, Arabs, help us in Iraq? Aren’t you better off without Saddam?
Just imagine, I would say, you live in a dangerous neighborhood. Two bullies are vying for control. The stronger, Israel, is a nuclear menace supported and maintained by a super godfather, USA. It steals your lands, destroys your homes, oppresses your people and threatens your future. Another local bully, the Iraqi Baath regime, was installed and maintained by the same godfather.
One day the little Iraqi monster grew dangerously and started to pursue an agenda of its own. At the same time, it outlived its usefulness.
The bigger Israeli monster complained to daddy and demanded specific action. Daddy decided to get rid of his Iraqi evil creation and run business directly with the help of its now one and only partner in crime, Israel. There were smokescreen justifications, of course, like how dangerous and evil the little monster was. None was new, so the godfather had to exaggerate and claim that the ex-agent is now a nuclear superpower, plotting with shadowy groups to destroy the free world.
Wiser godfathers used to divide and conquer -not this one. He is a cowboy who trusts his gun to solve all kind of troubles. Arrogantly, he warned us in advance that our turn is next. Once done with the big guy, he would change the face of our earth to his and his spoiled protégé’s liking.
The easy task proved to be tough. It shouldn’t have been a surprise though, since it was just like we told him it would be. His war justifications proved to be false and he needed our help. So now he claims that his real, “honest to God” purpose is to liberate us from a tyranny and introduce our world to freedom and democracy.
The redneck forgot that he already revealed his future plans. Thanks to his advance notice, we are now too wise to fall for his tricks. Instead, we will gladly let him rot and burn in the hell he ignited.
If he still has any intelligence, fairness and decency left in him, he would turn instead on those who dragged him into this trap of the century-Israel and its allies and agents in America and Iraq.
Now, tell me my American friends, if you were us would you help the ally of your sworn enemy to overcome his hurdles so they could all gang on you? No? I didn’t think so.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Now and then, Americans ask me the same question: Why don’t you, Arabs, help us in Iraq? Aren’t you better off without Saddam?
Just imagine, I would say, you live in a dangerous neighborhood. Two bullies are vying for control. The stronger, Israel, is a nuclear menace supported and maintained by a super godfather, USA. It steals your lands, destroys your homes, oppresses your people and threatens your future. Another local bully, the Iraqi Baath regime, was installed and maintained by the same godfather.
One day the little Iraqi monster grew dangerously and started to pursue an agenda of its own. At the same time, it outlived its usefulness.
The bigger Israeli monster complained to daddy and demanded specific action. Daddy decided to get rid of his Iraqi evil creation and run business directly with the help of its now one and only partner in crime, Israel. There were smokescreen justifications, of course, like how dangerous and evil the little monster was. None was new, so the godfather had to exaggerate and claim that the ex-agent is now a nuclear superpower, plotting with shadowy groups to destroy the free world.
Wiser godfathers used to divide and conquer -not this one. He is a cowboy who trusts his gun to solve all kind of troubles. Arrogantly, he warned us in advance that our turn is next. Once done with the big guy, he would change the face of our earth to his and his spoiled protégé’s liking.
The easy task proved to be tough. It shouldn’t have been a surprise though, since it was just like we told him it would be. His war justifications proved to be false and he needed our help. So now he claims that his real, “honest to God” purpose is to liberate us from a tyranny and introduce our world to freedom and democracy.
The redneck forgot that he already revealed his future plans. Thanks to his advance notice, we are now too wise to fall for his tricks. Instead, we will gladly let him rot and burn in the hell he ignited.
If he still has any intelligence, fairness and decency left in him, he would turn instead on those who dragged him into this trap of the century-Israel and its allies and agents in America and Iraq.
Now, tell me my American friends, if you were us would you help the ally of your sworn enemy to overcome his hurdles so they could all gang on you? No? I didn’t think so.
World Citizens, We Need to Talk!
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
If Islam is a tolerant, peaceful, open-minded religion, then why do 1.5 billion Muslims hate us? This is the question Westerners often ask. Why do so many Muslims take such militant stands against the West and commit terrorist acts?
In order to answer, I must admit first that there are individuals who, either on purpose or through ignorance, misinterpret the Holy Qur’an and the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) to legitimize their personal hatreds. Why? Some of them are prisoners of history; the cultural and physical ghettos they live in sustain their ignorance and lack of awareness. They are ignorant and need both teaching and enlightenment. Then there are militant Muslims from similar roots and environments who mix their agenda with a political analysis of current Western positions. They are more aware of the world, well-traveled and involved in current affairs.
They believe the Crusades are linked to the history of colonization over the last three centuries and also to recent wars against Muslims in Palestine, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Eastern China, Southern Philippines, Afghanistan and Iraq. That is in addition to Western support of oppressive regimes or anti-Islamic secular ones. Muslims seem to have been under attack for nearly a millennium — since first Crusade. Thousands of the faithful marched to Palestine on one of history’s most cruel, bloody and destructive invasions. Later other Crusaders went on the march for a similar reason — to occupy, enslave and steal the resources of the Muslim world. The second time it was called colonization.
And US President George Bush announced his own crusade in response to Sept. 11. Only, he didn’t care to find the accused and dismantle Al-Qaeda; he used the event as a pretext to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, he turned a blind eye to other attacks on Muslims from Palestine to Chechnya, Kashmir and the Philippines.
The “under siege” mode in the Muslim world, coupled with past and present anger and hatred, have produced a very explosive mix.
Thanks to Bush’s neo-Crusade, now even those who only disliked the West have been convinced to join the militants. Wave after wave of angry people — young and old, male and female — have joined the ranks of those who decided to “do something about it.”
The equally harsh, unwavering, unrelenting Western response helped and introduced the world to a vicious cycle of violence, mistrust and hate. Indiscriminate aerial attacks on Fallujah are followed by suicide attacks on military and civilian targets in Baghdad. Blind support for Israel leads inevitably to more Islamic support for militant groups. Revealing statements, such as Bush expressing disappointment if the Iraqis were to elect an Islamic government, are answered by angry sermons beginning with “I told you so,” and ending with “They are after us; we must hit back or become history.”
How can we stop this madness and shortcut the vicious circle? How can intelligent, good people improve situation and steer things to more effective dialogue leading to better understanding and collaboration? How can we replace confrontation with cooperation and peaceful coexistence? How can we end the “Clash of Civilizations” instead of heading for the “End of History”?
Frankly, I have little hope or faith in those who led us into the mess in the first place. The Bin Ladens, Bushes, Putins and Sharons of the world will always relish a good fight. Their political, ideological and self-interests are so entrenched that no matter what we do to change them, we end up on a dead-end street. I do hope, however, that a new breed of leaders will deal more effectively with the roots of terrorism. Kerry, are you listening?
Academia, the media and the intellectual world can — and must — help overcome the gaps of misunderstanding and to build bridges of communication between cultures, religions and nations. So far, we have remained in the mode of “Either you are with us or against us” that put us into opposing camps. Given this stark choice, people, no matter how intellectual or intelligent, tend to rally round their flags.
This is changing, however. After rigorous self-examination, The New York Times apologized for not scrutinizing earlier government propaganda about Saddam Hussein’s WMD and decided to change and improve its editorial standards and policies. The Economist also made a similar about-face in their support for the Iraq war. These are good signs.
The rest is up to us, the citizens of this world, and the residents of this planet. And the first step is the most basic — to sit and talk.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com
If Islam is a tolerant, peaceful, open-minded religion, then why do 1.5 billion Muslims hate us? This is the question Westerners often ask. Why do so many Muslims take such militant stands against the West and commit terrorist acts?
In order to answer, I must admit first that there are individuals who, either on purpose or through ignorance, misinterpret the Holy Qur’an and the sayings of the Prophet (pbuh) to legitimize their personal hatreds. Why? Some of them are prisoners of history; the cultural and physical ghettos they live in sustain their ignorance and lack of awareness. They are ignorant and need both teaching and enlightenment. Then there are militant Muslims from similar roots and environments who mix their agenda with a political analysis of current Western positions. They are more aware of the world, well-traveled and involved in current affairs.
They believe the Crusades are linked to the history of colonization over the last three centuries and also to recent wars against Muslims in Palestine, Bosnia, Chechnya, Kashmir, Eastern China, Southern Philippines, Afghanistan and Iraq. That is in addition to Western support of oppressive regimes or anti-Islamic secular ones. Muslims seem to have been under attack for nearly a millennium — since first Crusade. Thousands of the faithful marched to Palestine on one of history’s most cruel, bloody and destructive invasions. Later other Crusaders went on the march for a similar reason — to occupy, enslave and steal the resources of the Muslim world. The second time it was called colonization.
And US President George Bush announced his own crusade in response to Sept. 11. Only, he didn’t care to find the accused and dismantle Al-Qaeda; he used the event as a pretext to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, he turned a blind eye to other attacks on Muslims from Palestine to Chechnya, Kashmir and the Philippines.
The “under siege” mode in the Muslim world, coupled with past and present anger and hatred, have produced a very explosive mix.
Thanks to Bush’s neo-Crusade, now even those who only disliked the West have been convinced to join the militants. Wave after wave of angry people — young and old, male and female — have joined the ranks of those who decided to “do something about it.”
The equally harsh, unwavering, unrelenting Western response helped and introduced the world to a vicious cycle of violence, mistrust and hate. Indiscriminate aerial attacks on Fallujah are followed by suicide attacks on military and civilian targets in Baghdad. Blind support for Israel leads inevitably to more Islamic support for militant groups. Revealing statements, such as Bush expressing disappointment if the Iraqis were to elect an Islamic government, are answered by angry sermons beginning with “I told you so,” and ending with “They are after us; we must hit back or become history.”
How can we stop this madness and shortcut the vicious circle? How can intelligent, good people improve situation and steer things to more effective dialogue leading to better understanding and collaboration? How can we replace confrontation with cooperation and peaceful coexistence? How can we end the “Clash of Civilizations” instead of heading for the “End of History”?
Frankly, I have little hope or faith in those who led us into the mess in the first place. The Bin Ladens, Bushes, Putins and Sharons of the world will always relish a good fight. Their political, ideological and self-interests are so entrenched that no matter what we do to change them, we end up on a dead-end street. I do hope, however, that a new breed of leaders will deal more effectively with the roots of terrorism. Kerry, are you listening?
Academia, the media and the intellectual world can — and must — help overcome the gaps of misunderstanding and to build bridges of communication between cultures, religions and nations. So far, we have remained in the mode of “Either you are with us or against us” that put us into opposing camps. Given this stark choice, people, no matter how intellectual or intelligent, tend to rally round their flags.
This is changing, however. After rigorous self-examination, The New York Times apologized for not scrutinizing earlier government propaganda about Saddam Hussein’s WMD and decided to change and improve its editorial standards and policies. The Economist also made a similar about-face in their support for the Iraq war. These are good signs.
The rest is up to us, the citizens of this world, and the residents of this planet. And the first step is the most basic — to sit and talk.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
The World Vote for Bush
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
A British friend asked me: Who is your favorite candidate in the US presidential race?
For an Arab, both parties are hopelessly Israeli captives. Kerry might be more inclined to seek multilateral if imperfect solutions. On the other hand, he is either too naïve or a greater appeaser of Israel at the expense of America’s best interests with Saudi Arabia.
All American presidents, since Franklin Roosevelt, valued the strategic partnership with the Muslim-world leader and the world’s largest oil producer and reservist. They appreciated their alliance with the Kingdom during World War II, the Cold War, and the war on terror. Kerry seems to miss the point in his rhetoric.
Now, who is best to lead his nation and the world for the next four years? My guess is Kerry, but that won’t be the best for the world in the long run. At least now we know what the American foreign policies are about. We are no longer fooled by the pretty face of Clinton and the fine rhetoric of Reagan. US imperial ambitions and schemes, hidden and advanced slower but surer by wiser leaders, are now exposed by this impatient, ignorant and arrogant administration. Thanks to Bush and Zionist company, the world today, peoples and governments, is uniting in their apprehension, understanding and resistance of the American hegemony.
Four more years of bullying will harden the formulation of anti-American imperialism enough to resist future schemes, no matter how sophisticated and smart.
The future will be much safer and happier with stronger checks and balances on US power and designs. United, larger and stronger Europe, coordinated Asia, wiser Muslims, emerging Russia and forthcoming China won’t be as easily fooled and led.
Bush will help bring about this new world, and the world will thank him for it ...later.
So, as a world citizen, G.W. Bush is my candidate. If I were American, though, I would definitely vote for Kerry. He is good news for the economy, civil liberties, US global image and interests, world peace and ...home security. It might not be too late to pursue US imperial designs via the WTO, UN, NATO, and the various regional and international treaties formulated to serve US interests and affirm its leadership.
In four more years, we will get out of the Iraqi and Afghani quagmires, appease our detractors, improve US standing with our allies, force the Arabs into worse deal than they were offered four years ago and pacify the Middle East.
This way, the next president will find it much easier to lead the world into the New American Century — good news for Americans, bad news for the rest of us.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
A British friend asked me: Who is your favorite candidate in the US presidential race?
For an Arab, both parties are hopelessly Israeli captives. Kerry might be more inclined to seek multilateral if imperfect solutions. On the other hand, he is either too naïve or a greater appeaser of Israel at the expense of America’s best interests with Saudi Arabia.
All American presidents, since Franklin Roosevelt, valued the strategic partnership with the Muslim-world leader and the world’s largest oil producer and reservist. They appreciated their alliance with the Kingdom during World War II, the Cold War, and the war on terror. Kerry seems to miss the point in his rhetoric.
Now, who is best to lead his nation and the world for the next four years? My guess is Kerry, but that won’t be the best for the world in the long run. At least now we know what the American foreign policies are about. We are no longer fooled by the pretty face of Clinton and the fine rhetoric of Reagan. US imperial ambitions and schemes, hidden and advanced slower but surer by wiser leaders, are now exposed by this impatient, ignorant and arrogant administration. Thanks to Bush and Zionist company, the world today, peoples and governments, is uniting in their apprehension, understanding and resistance of the American hegemony.
Four more years of bullying will harden the formulation of anti-American imperialism enough to resist future schemes, no matter how sophisticated and smart.
The future will be much safer and happier with stronger checks and balances on US power and designs. United, larger and stronger Europe, coordinated Asia, wiser Muslims, emerging Russia and forthcoming China won’t be as easily fooled and led.
Bush will help bring about this new world, and the world will thank him for it ...later.
So, as a world citizen, G.W. Bush is my candidate. If I were American, though, I would definitely vote for Kerry. He is good news for the economy, civil liberties, US global image and interests, world peace and ...home security. It might not be too late to pursue US imperial designs via the WTO, UN, NATO, and the various regional and international treaties formulated to serve US interests and affirm its leadership.
In four more years, we will get out of the Iraqi and Afghani quagmires, appease our detractors, improve US standing with our allies, force the Arabs into worse deal than they were offered four years ago and pacify the Middle East.
This way, the next president will find it much easier to lead the world into the New American Century — good news for Americans, bad news for the rest of us.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Israel of America? America of Israel?!
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Some American readers agreed with me on the importance of asking why people commit crimes before jumping to conclusions and moving to “what” we do and “how.” But they would like answers to other questions.
One asked: Please describe in detail the right course of action for the US in Iraq and Afghanistan and tell me why it will work.
I e-mailed him: (In short: Be independent. Act independent. Israel’s friends are now running your show to serve its interests not yours. The day America runs its own show, for its own interests, it will know what to do and how to do it. Meanwhile, let’s talk to Sharon; he seems to be the man in charge).
I do understand that in the US version of democracy, groups of various backgrounds lobby their government to defend or achieve their interests.
Some carry dual citizenships, say Israeli and American, and have dual obligations to both countries.
Jewish segments of society work hard to maintain and improve the unique relations with Israel. The Arab-Americans should have done the same. Other groups from Cuban and Irish backgrounds did better.
Fair enough.
But there are limits. America should come first. You cannot, knowingly, sacrifice US interests to serve Israel. You cannot break the law, local or international, or pressure your government to break it.
You must not call for or support actions or policies that are immoral or illegal. You should not use your vote, political and economic muscles or your unprecedented influence in the media to corrupt the democratic system, deceive the public and put undue pressure on decision makers to grant Israel billions of tax-payer money, free and subsidized arms, and wage proxy wars. You should not use your position to compromise US national interests and security like spying for Israel, or formulating foreign policies that put its interests above world stability and harmony, and US international image and best interests. (For more on the Jewish influence see for example, Goldberg’s Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment and Findley’s Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts about the US-Israeli Relationship).
The neoconservatives, who planned the war on Iraq, did so in 1996, for Israel. They lobbied USA since for their evil plan on behalf of Israel. After being included in this administration, they finally achieved their goals. If that is not crossing the line and betraying America, then I don’t know what is. Many American Jews I know agree with me on this, by the way.
US foreign policies have been hijacked by Israel for ages; it’s worse now. Until the US leadership takes charge of its own affairs, there is no way out for America from this neo-Vietnam nightmare.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Some American readers agreed with me on the importance of asking why people commit crimes before jumping to conclusions and moving to “what” we do and “how.” But they would like answers to other questions.
One asked: Please describe in detail the right course of action for the US in Iraq and Afghanistan and tell me why it will work.
I e-mailed him: (In short: Be independent. Act independent. Israel’s friends are now running your show to serve its interests not yours. The day America runs its own show, for its own interests, it will know what to do and how to do it. Meanwhile, let’s talk to Sharon; he seems to be the man in charge).
I do understand that in the US version of democracy, groups of various backgrounds lobby their government to defend or achieve their interests.
Some carry dual citizenships, say Israeli and American, and have dual obligations to both countries.
Jewish segments of society work hard to maintain and improve the unique relations with Israel. The Arab-Americans should have done the same. Other groups from Cuban and Irish backgrounds did better.
Fair enough.
But there are limits. America should come first. You cannot, knowingly, sacrifice US interests to serve Israel. You cannot break the law, local or international, or pressure your government to break it.
You must not call for or support actions or policies that are immoral or illegal. You should not use your vote, political and economic muscles or your unprecedented influence in the media to corrupt the democratic system, deceive the public and put undue pressure on decision makers to grant Israel billions of tax-payer money, free and subsidized arms, and wage proxy wars. You should not use your position to compromise US national interests and security like spying for Israel, or formulating foreign policies that put its interests above world stability and harmony, and US international image and best interests. (For more on the Jewish influence see for example, Goldberg’s Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment and Findley’s Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts about the US-Israeli Relationship).
The neoconservatives, who planned the war on Iraq, did so in 1996, for Israel. They lobbied USA since for their evil plan on behalf of Israel. After being included in this administration, they finally achieved their goals. If that is not crossing the line and betraying America, then I don’t know what is. Many American Jews I know agree with me on this, by the way.
US foreign policies have been hijacked by Israel for ages; it’s worse now. Until the US leadership takes charge of its own affairs, there is no way out for America from this neo-Vietnam nightmare.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Darfur and Crusaders
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
An American friend asked me what I meant when I claimed in a previous article (Double Talk, Double Standards) that Evangelists collect billions to support Christian revolts in the Muslim world. I gave him three examples: East Timor, South Sudan and Darfur. He seemed to recognize the first two but not the last. I had to explain:
In many wild parts of the globe there have been continuous struggles among various groups for racial, economic and religious reasons. Darfur is a huge countryside, the size of France. It has all kinds of tough terrains: Jungles, deserts and mountains.
Most of its inhabitants, if not all, are Muslims. They come from Arab and African origins. The Arabs are mostly nomads and Africans farmers. In dry seasons, nomads move to farming areas to feed their camels and sheep. They fight over rights. This is an ancient, global phenomenon.
It was worse when central governments were weaker, like before the present government took over. In recent years the nomads got stronger because they joined the state in fighting the southern revolt. After the peace accords, they returned home veterans and well-armed. In their absence, some Africans revolted with foreign help. Support comes from the same sources that sustained the southerners — Evangelical organizations, neighboring countries and Israel.
The goal is to cut off the Arab Muslim Sudan from the rest of Africa. The state called on the Arab nomads again, this time against their old rivals. Another war ensued. Like in the southern war, the Western world took notice only when the government forces seemed to be winning.
No one is denying that the situation is bad. Five thousand people were killed or died from both sides, more from the insurgents. Both rivals committed atrocities. The government should stop supporting the nomads, and the foreign powers must cut off arms to the separatists.
Terrible as is, the situation has not reached the level of genocide, and the government cannot alone improve the situation. More than 2,500 Iraqis were killed in a month, half the number of people killed in Darfur in 18 months. Close to a million (and counting) of Hutus and Tutsis were killed lately in similar conflicts in Rwanda and Burundi.
The situation is worsening there, as well as in Iraq, Afghanistan, the occupied Palestinian territories, Chechnya, Kashmir, Muslim parts of China and Philippines.
No one is calling this genocide or charging the US and the concerned governments of responsibility. Why only Sudan is the focus of all attention and actions? Is it because in most other cases Muslims are the victims? Or is it because all the right ingredients are present here: Oil, Islam, Arab, Israel and the Bush-Blair crusade?! You tell me, my American friend!
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
An American friend asked me what I meant when I claimed in a previous article (Double Talk, Double Standards) that Evangelists collect billions to support Christian revolts in the Muslim world. I gave him three examples: East Timor, South Sudan and Darfur. He seemed to recognize the first two but not the last. I had to explain:
In many wild parts of the globe there have been continuous struggles among various groups for racial, economic and religious reasons. Darfur is a huge countryside, the size of France. It has all kinds of tough terrains: Jungles, deserts and mountains.
Most of its inhabitants, if not all, are Muslims. They come from Arab and African origins. The Arabs are mostly nomads and Africans farmers. In dry seasons, nomads move to farming areas to feed their camels and sheep. They fight over rights. This is an ancient, global phenomenon.
It was worse when central governments were weaker, like before the present government took over. In recent years the nomads got stronger because they joined the state in fighting the southern revolt. After the peace accords, they returned home veterans and well-armed. In their absence, some Africans revolted with foreign help. Support comes from the same sources that sustained the southerners — Evangelical organizations, neighboring countries and Israel.
The goal is to cut off the Arab Muslim Sudan from the rest of Africa. The state called on the Arab nomads again, this time against their old rivals. Another war ensued. Like in the southern war, the Western world took notice only when the government forces seemed to be winning.
No one is denying that the situation is bad. Five thousand people were killed or died from both sides, more from the insurgents. Both rivals committed atrocities. The government should stop supporting the nomads, and the foreign powers must cut off arms to the separatists.
Terrible as is, the situation has not reached the level of genocide, and the government cannot alone improve the situation. More than 2,500 Iraqis were killed in a month, half the number of people killed in Darfur in 18 months. Close to a million (and counting) of Hutus and Tutsis were killed lately in similar conflicts in Rwanda and Burundi.
The situation is worsening there, as well as in Iraq, Afghanistan, the occupied Palestinian territories, Chechnya, Kashmir, Muslim parts of China and Philippines.
No one is calling this genocide or charging the US and the concerned governments of responsibility. Why only Sudan is the focus of all attention and actions? Is it because in most other cases Muslims are the victims? Or is it because all the right ingredients are present here: Oil, Islam, Arab, Israel and the Bush-Blair crusade?! You tell me, my American friend!
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Double Talk, Double Standards
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
There is no humiliation and provocation worse than applying different standards of justice and morality — one for the rich and powerful and another for the less fortunate. You add insult to injury when you justify the unjustifiable by framing the issues. This is an ancient art. In recent history, the Nazis, Communists, Zionist (and now neo-conservatives) were masters of this.
When the Zionists talk about the right of return, they don’t mean for all — only the chosen ones. Those who left four thousand years ago have a right to reclaim lands, farms and houses now occupied by those who lived there in the intervening centuries. Talk about the same rights for those who have been recently kicked out and you are sued for anti-Semitism and inciting hatred.
In the “war on terror,” the Russians continue their unspeakable atrocities in Chechnya as do the Israelis and Americans in countries which they occupy. On the other hand, when the driven-to-insanity victims retaliate with the only means available to them, they are labeled “savage terrorists.”
Israel is expanding its settlements and building a dividing wall in defiance of the Security Council, the International Court of Justice, road map to peace and the Israeli Supreme Court. Still, Israeli and American “framers” call the wall “defensive,” the expansion “natural growth,” and the raids on civilians “retaliation,” and to hell with international laws, world opinion and common sense.
When American religious leaders, including presidential advisers, insult Islam, call for war on Muslims, and collect billions to help Christian revolts in Muslim countries, it is their constitutional right. But when Muslims support Islamic charities and causes, and when our extremists express their frustration, anger and desperation, it is inciting hatred and support for terrorism. Worse, we are all held responsible and punished collectively.
During World War II, the French resistance against the Nazis was accepted as necessary and right and justified as both. But when Palestinians, who have no other course of action, react to Israel’s state terrorism with suicide bombs, the Palestinians are guilty of savagery.
A Pakistani nuclear bomb is called Islamic, and the “alleged” Iranian quest for nuclear power is regarded as a threat to world peace and security. But Israel, which the world voted the most dangerous state, is not even mentioned as a nuclear state and its bomb is not called “Jewish.”
These contradictions and this selective application of justice have convinced many Muslims that the West is on a new crusade. The law of the victor is therefore met with the desperate resistance of the proud but injured underdog. Your terrorist is their Mujahid. Your “war on terror”, is their “Zionist-Christian Crusade.” And your liberation is their neo-colonization.
The conflict of civilization, thanks to the US and the UK, is therefore guaranteed. The other side has nothing to lose. The question is: For how long can such prolonged bloody conflict be sustained?
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
There is no humiliation and provocation worse than applying different standards of justice and morality — one for the rich and powerful and another for the less fortunate. You add insult to injury when you justify the unjustifiable by framing the issues. This is an ancient art. In recent history, the Nazis, Communists, Zionist (and now neo-conservatives) were masters of this.
When the Zionists talk about the right of return, they don’t mean for all — only the chosen ones. Those who left four thousand years ago have a right to reclaim lands, farms and houses now occupied by those who lived there in the intervening centuries. Talk about the same rights for those who have been recently kicked out and you are sued for anti-Semitism and inciting hatred.
In the “war on terror,” the Russians continue their unspeakable atrocities in Chechnya as do the Israelis and Americans in countries which they occupy. On the other hand, when the driven-to-insanity victims retaliate with the only means available to them, they are labeled “savage terrorists.”
Israel is expanding its settlements and building a dividing wall in defiance of the Security Council, the International Court of Justice, road map to peace and the Israeli Supreme Court. Still, Israeli and American “framers” call the wall “defensive,” the expansion “natural growth,” and the raids on civilians “retaliation,” and to hell with international laws, world opinion and common sense.
When American religious leaders, including presidential advisers, insult Islam, call for war on Muslims, and collect billions to help Christian revolts in Muslim countries, it is their constitutional right. But when Muslims support Islamic charities and causes, and when our extremists express their frustration, anger and desperation, it is inciting hatred and support for terrorism. Worse, we are all held responsible and punished collectively.
During World War II, the French resistance against the Nazis was accepted as necessary and right and justified as both. But when Palestinians, who have no other course of action, react to Israel’s state terrorism with suicide bombs, the Palestinians are guilty of savagery.
A Pakistani nuclear bomb is called Islamic, and the “alleged” Iranian quest for nuclear power is regarded as a threat to world peace and security. But Israel, which the world voted the most dangerous state, is not even mentioned as a nuclear state and its bomb is not called “Jewish.”
These contradictions and this selective application of justice have convinced many Muslims that the West is on a new crusade. The law of the victor is therefore met with the desperate resistance of the proud but injured underdog. Your terrorist is their Mujahid. Your “war on terror”, is their “Zionist-Christian Crusade.” And your liberation is their neo-colonization.
The conflict of civilization, thanks to the US and the UK, is therefore guaranteed. The other side has nothing to lose. The question is: For how long can such prolonged bloody conflict be sustained?
Sunday, September 12, 2004
The Missing ‘Why’
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
One of the most important lessons I learned during my studies in the US was always to ask “why.” After the school shooting in Springfield, Oregon where I lived, all America asked why. It took ages for the questioning and debate to calm down. After 9/11, that important question was sidelined and the discussion moved instead to “what.”
Others naturally enough followed the US lead. Russia ignored its brutal occupation of Chechnya and focused on global jihad.
More savage, inexcusable attacks and hostage-taking resulted, but President Putin wouldn’t even admit the cause, let alone that Russian policy may have been to blame. India took a similar position concerning Kashmir. Sharon, the godfather of US neo-conservatives and many Congressmen and administration leaders, never asked the question. American rhetoric and its blind support for Israel helped him avoid it.
Now, the whole issue of savage occupation, daily raids and incursions, as well as the dividing wall and the stalled peace process are not even mentioned. To this war criminal, Palestinians blow themselves up for cultural, religious and genetic reasons. They are part of a global terror movement and the only way to deal with them is to kick and kill in return; no one in the shooting gallery, guilty or innocent, is spared and no civilized rules are respected.
Today, thanks to the US example, states and terrorists are playing on the same low, dirty level. The proverb “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs” is now a virtual motto for the war on terror.
We Arabs are equally guilty of not asking the important and difficult questions. We tend to ask “why” only when it relates to others and the answer will not incriminate us. That’s why we are at the bottom, kicked and humiliated by all, including small but mighty Israel. Of course, our enemies won’t help us out of the hole; that is up to us. Colonization is history. What has happened to us in the last fifty years is mostly our own doing. Competitors and alliances conspire against each other and that is a fact of life. Why can’t we do the same? We can’t even agree on a common market and a common currency. Why do we not ask “why.”
Governments intent on implementing their own agendas and unwilling to admit errors and fix them have no reason to ask or to answer hard questions. Beyond such shallow responses as “They hate us because we are democratic, rich and free.” Well, why don’t “they” hate the far richer and freer Scandinavians.
Even more important and of greater significance, why are the rest of us not asking the question? Why are our intellectuals, our media and our self-styled academics silent? In this part of the world, we don’t have enough freedom but what about the democratic world? What are the forces influencing and filtering the debate? How can we overcome this democracy-killer dam? For the sake of humanity, some questions are worth asking — and answering.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
One of the most important lessons I learned during my studies in the US was always to ask “why.” After the school shooting in Springfield, Oregon where I lived, all America asked why. It took ages for the questioning and debate to calm down. After 9/11, that important question was sidelined and the discussion moved instead to “what.”
Others naturally enough followed the US lead. Russia ignored its brutal occupation of Chechnya and focused on global jihad.
More savage, inexcusable attacks and hostage-taking resulted, but President Putin wouldn’t even admit the cause, let alone that Russian policy may have been to blame. India took a similar position concerning Kashmir. Sharon, the godfather of US neo-conservatives and many Congressmen and administration leaders, never asked the question. American rhetoric and its blind support for Israel helped him avoid it.
Now, the whole issue of savage occupation, daily raids and incursions, as well as the dividing wall and the stalled peace process are not even mentioned. To this war criminal, Palestinians blow themselves up for cultural, religious and genetic reasons. They are part of a global terror movement and the only way to deal with them is to kick and kill in return; no one in the shooting gallery, guilty or innocent, is spared and no civilized rules are respected.
Today, thanks to the US example, states and terrorists are playing on the same low, dirty level. The proverb “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs” is now a virtual motto for the war on terror.
We Arabs are equally guilty of not asking the important and difficult questions. We tend to ask “why” only when it relates to others and the answer will not incriminate us. That’s why we are at the bottom, kicked and humiliated by all, including small but mighty Israel. Of course, our enemies won’t help us out of the hole; that is up to us. Colonization is history. What has happened to us in the last fifty years is mostly our own doing. Competitors and alliances conspire against each other and that is a fact of life. Why can’t we do the same? We can’t even agree on a common market and a common currency. Why do we not ask “why.”
Governments intent on implementing their own agendas and unwilling to admit errors and fix them have no reason to ask or to answer hard questions. Beyond such shallow responses as “They hate us because we are democratic, rich and free.” Well, why don’t “they” hate the far richer and freer Scandinavians.
Even more important and of greater significance, why are the rest of us not asking the question? Why are our intellectuals, our media and our self-styled academics silent? In this part of the world, we don’t have enough freedom but what about the democratic world? What are the forces influencing and filtering the debate? How can we overcome this democracy-killer dam? For the sake of humanity, some questions are worth asking — and answering.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
The War on Business
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Sometimes it seems as if there is a secret war on business led by officials and bureaucrats who regard businessmen as the enemy. Somehow those people have developed the notion that all capitalists are corrupt, scheming, unpatriotic selfish individuals who should be checked, controlled and restricted. The result is all the maddening rules and regulations, produced by different ministries contradicting one another and competing for the ultimate say. Years may pass and vast sums be paid before a project is approved. And after the project is finished, things may change.
No man-made laws are immutable. At least, however, nobody should amend the rules overnight without consulting with those affected by the change; certainly the rules should not be changed in the middle of the game as they sometimes are here. You issue me a license today to open a shop and after I have spent my life savings doing so, you decide to withdraw my license or introduce new regulations that will completely disrupt all my plans or — and this is a cruel new twist — open a shop in competition with mine.
When public hospitals and colleges were unable to cope with demand, we encouraged private investment. Many people took up the challenge and built good hospitals and schools. With a little help and in spite of the most confusing standards and rules, they still managed to provide services equal to, or better than, public hospitals and universities. The state funded institutions have, just like the private ones, recently begun providing services and instruction for those who are willing to pay. Insured as well as rich patients may choose to get faster and better service in specialized, military and university hospitals. Students who cannot afford private colleges but don’t qualify for free education pay less at government universities.
While this is good news for patients and students, it is unfair competition to investors who don’t get public facilities and funds to subsidize their services. Such tactics, if continued, will force many institutions to cut costs drastically which may affect the quality of their services. Some may leave the business and new investment will be discouraged.
Instead of competition leading to better and more affordable services, the opposite has happened and we are all losers. With competitors defeated, state hospitals and colleges won’t have the incentive to improve services, and then we are back to square one.
I do appreciate the budgetary pressures that have led public institutions to sell part of their services and the desire of many parts of society to have access to more choices and more affordable services. Instead of win-lose situations, however, we could all win if we let the private sector run the private business for public institutions. That way, health and education businesses could offset their losses and coordinate service fees to avoid crippling price wars. And we could stop yet another war on the private sector.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Sometimes it seems as if there is a secret war on business led by officials and bureaucrats who regard businessmen as the enemy. Somehow those people have developed the notion that all capitalists are corrupt, scheming, unpatriotic selfish individuals who should be checked, controlled and restricted. The result is all the maddening rules and regulations, produced by different ministries contradicting one another and competing for the ultimate say. Years may pass and vast sums be paid before a project is approved. And after the project is finished, things may change.
No man-made laws are immutable. At least, however, nobody should amend the rules overnight without consulting with those affected by the change; certainly the rules should not be changed in the middle of the game as they sometimes are here. You issue me a license today to open a shop and after I have spent my life savings doing so, you decide to withdraw my license or introduce new regulations that will completely disrupt all my plans or — and this is a cruel new twist — open a shop in competition with mine.
When public hospitals and colleges were unable to cope with demand, we encouraged private investment. Many people took up the challenge and built good hospitals and schools. With a little help and in spite of the most confusing standards and rules, they still managed to provide services equal to, or better than, public hospitals and universities. The state funded institutions have, just like the private ones, recently begun providing services and instruction for those who are willing to pay. Insured as well as rich patients may choose to get faster and better service in specialized, military and university hospitals. Students who cannot afford private colleges but don’t qualify for free education pay less at government universities.
While this is good news for patients and students, it is unfair competition to investors who don’t get public facilities and funds to subsidize their services. Such tactics, if continued, will force many institutions to cut costs drastically which may affect the quality of their services. Some may leave the business and new investment will be discouraged.
Instead of competition leading to better and more affordable services, the opposite has happened and we are all losers. With competitors defeated, state hospitals and colleges won’t have the incentive to improve services, and then we are back to square one.
I do appreciate the budgetary pressures that have led public institutions to sell part of their services and the desire of many parts of society to have access to more choices and more affordable services. Instead of win-lose situations, however, we could all win if we let the private sector run the private business for public institutions. That way, health and education businesses could offset their losses and coordinate service fees to avoid crippling price wars. And we could stop yet another war on the private sector.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
What Is Wrong With Arabs?
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
An American reader, Gordon Reade, sent me the following question, which is no doubt on the minds of many:
“In America our history books say that while Europe was mired in the dark ages, the Arabs led the world in art, education, science, math, philosophy, military power and you name it. According to our books, a thousand years ago the Arabs were every bit as powerful as America is today.
But what our books don’t tell us is what went wrong. The Arabs of today would be virtually unrecognizable to the Arabs of the past. Clearly you guys suffered some tremendous catastrophe long before 1967 and long before 1948. What went wrong and when did it happen? Do the Arabs have a name for it?”
I answered him: True, we ruled and enlightened the world for some thousand years, reaching China, India, Central Asia, Africa, Spain and northern Europe.
Our contributions to science and culture were immeasurable. They included the invention of the zero, algebra and the astrolabe and the discovery of blood circulation.
We translated Greek, Indian and Persian literary treasures and added our own. Then, we fought each other and the Ottoman Turks took over the Islamic Caliphate and united its disintegrated empire. While the Turks are not Arabs, they are Muslims.
At the time, they used Arabic alphabet and ruled our world in the name of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as his successors “Caliphs”.
The Ottomans were once the most powerful nation on earth. They ruled supreme for many centuries. At the end of 19th century, they began to decline. Their mistake was the one oft repeated by many empires.
They felt so invincible that they had no need to consult with anyone regarding anything they did in the world, no matter how vital or colossal. Arrogance and mistreatment of subject people led to revolts, including some in Arab countries. Still, their rule continued until World War I when they and their allies, the Germans, were defeated.
The Western victors then took over and colonized the Arab world, lasting up to the late sixties. They left behind dictatorial regimes; most still rule today with Western support. America, alone, installed some of the most horrible regimes and leaders like Saddam Hussein and others.
Today, the Arabs suffer from a decline on all fronts. Politically, most of us are prisoners to emergency and revolutionary rules.
Economically, altogether we produce every year less than Spain. Culturally, we print fewer than one percent of the books in the world. We have questionable levels of poverty, quality of education and unemployment rates. That says it all.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
An American reader, Gordon Reade, sent me the following question, which is no doubt on the minds of many:
“In America our history books say that while Europe was mired in the dark ages, the Arabs led the world in art, education, science, math, philosophy, military power and you name it. According to our books, a thousand years ago the Arabs were every bit as powerful as America is today.
But what our books don’t tell us is what went wrong. The Arabs of today would be virtually unrecognizable to the Arabs of the past. Clearly you guys suffered some tremendous catastrophe long before 1967 and long before 1948. What went wrong and when did it happen? Do the Arabs have a name for it?”
I answered him: True, we ruled and enlightened the world for some thousand years, reaching China, India, Central Asia, Africa, Spain and northern Europe.
Our contributions to science and culture were immeasurable. They included the invention of the zero, algebra and the astrolabe and the discovery of blood circulation.
We translated Greek, Indian and Persian literary treasures and added our own. Then, we fought each other and the Ottoman Turks took over the Islamic Caliphate and united its disintegrated empire. While the Turks are not Arabs, they are Muslims.
At the time, they used Arabic alphabet and ruled our world in the name of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as his successors “Caliphs”.
The Ottomans were once the most powerful nation on earth. They ruled supreme for many centuries. At the end of 19th century, they began to decline. Their mistake was the one oft repeated by many empires.
They felt so invincible that they had no need to consult with anyone regarding anything they did in the world, no matter how vital or colossal. Arrogance and mistreatment of subject people led to revolts, including some in Arab countries. Still, their rule continued until World War I when they and their allies, the Germans, were defeated.
The Western victors then took over and colonized the Arab world, lasting up to the late sixties. They left behind dictatorial regimes; most still rule today with Western support. America, alone, installed some of the most horrible regimes and leaders like Saddam Hussein and others.
Today, the Arabs suffer from a decline on all fronts. Politically, most of us are prisoners to emergency and revolutionary rules.
Economically, altogether we produce every year less than Spain. Culturally, we print fewer than one percent of the books in the world. We have questionable levels of poverty, quality of education and unemployment rates. That says it all.
Sunday, August 22, 2004
My Jewish Friend
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Professor Herbert C. Kelman is co-chairman of Harvard Middle East Seminar and director of the program on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution in the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs. In addition, he is a Mideast expert who has been studying and analyzing both the Israeli and Palestinians for over thirty years. The day after the Democratic National Convention in Boston along with some Arab journalists, I met him.
According to his research, both Israelis and Palestinians want peace. The question we asked was why, if they want peace, have the Israelis chosen the wrong leader? His answer was, “When you are at war you choose a general.” The Israelis mistakenly believed the former Israeli Prime Minister Barak had given the Palestinians an offer they couldn’t refuse at Camp David. They turned it down and a new intifada began in 2000.
In fact, the offer to the Palestinians wasn’t acceptable; Israel would have kept its settlements, cutting through Palestinian land, Kelman says.
Besides, there were unresolved questions about Jerusalem and the return of Palestinian refugees. The intifada, in any case, was provoked by Sharon’s entering the Haram Al-Shareef with Israeli soldiers, despite warnings by the Israeli government. As planned, violence erupted and Sharon made a strong response that seems to work.
Eventually, Israelis think, the Palestinians will see the light and choose peace. The same tactic, creating fear and playing savior, is used by President Bush to win public support. And Americans, like Israelis, fell for it. We all do in an environment of fear. The tough sheriff always wins. It is not much different for the Palestinians. They want peace as much as anyone but they think the Israelis don’t. They need to understand that Arafat is a great freedom fighter but not a statesman. He should be president without authority, as in Israel, and let reformers run the government.
This was the idea behind the creation of the post of Palestinian prime minister. It was an excellent Palestinian idea, undone by Bush and Sharon who insisted on diminishing both the man and his post. Sharon never wanted a peace partner. He needs war in order to justify his existence and unilateral plans.
“What if the Labor party in Israel, the reformers in Palestine and the Democrats in America win? Will peace then automatically win?” Professor Kelman explains: “America has too great an interest in Israel to be a neutral peace broker. At least, however, Kerry is a pragmatic man rather than an ideological one. A peace-oriented leadership in Israel and Palestine would definitely help a Democratic White House with a good historical record of brokering peace in the Middle East.”
Before our meeting ended, I presented Professor Kelman with a portrait I had drawn of him during the meeting as a token of my admiration for my new Jewish friend and partner in peace.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Professor Herbert C. Kelman is co-chairman of Harvard Middle East Seminar and director of the program on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution in the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs. In addition, he is a Mideast expert who has been studying and analyzing both the Israeli and Palestinians for over thirty years. The day after the Democratic National Convention in Boston along with some Arab journalists, I met him.
According to his research, both Israelis and Palestinians want peace. The question we asked was why, if they want peace, have the Israelis chosen the wrong leader? His answer was, “When you are at war you choose a general.” The Israelis mistakenly believed the former Israeli Prime Minister Barak had given the Palestinians an offer they couldn’t refuse at Camp David. They turned it down and a new intifada began in 2000.
In fact, the offer to the Palestinians wasn’t acceptable; Israel would have kept its settlements, cutting through Palestinian land, Kelman says.
Besides, there were unresolved questions about Jerusalem and the return of Palestinian refugees. The intifada, in any case, was provoked by Sharon’s entering the Haram Al-Shareef with Israeli soldiers, despite warnings by the Israeli government. As planned, violence erupted and Sharon made a strong response that seems to work.
Eventually, Israelis think, the Palestinians will see the light and choose peace. The same tactic, creating fear and playing savior, is used by President Bush to win public support. And Americans, like Israelis, fell for it. We all do in an environment of fear. The tough sheriff always wins. It is not much different for the Palestinians. They want peace as much as anyone but they think the Israelis don’t. They need to understand that Arafat is a great freedom fighter but not a statesman. He should be president without authority, as in Israel, and let reformers run the government.
This was the idea behind the creation of the post of Palestinian prime minister. It was an excellent Palestinian idea, undone by Bush and Sharon who insisted on diminishing both the man and his post. Sharon never wanted a peace partner. He needs war in order to justify his existence and unilateral plans.
“What if the Labor party in Israel, the reformers in Palestine and the Democrats in America win? Will peace then automatically win?” Professor Kelman explains: “America has too great an interest in Israel to be a neutral peace broker. At least, however, Kerry is a pragmatic man rather than an ideological one. A peace-oriented leadership in Israel and Palestine would definitely help a Democratic White House with a good historical record of brokering peace in the Middle East.”
Before our meeting ended, I presented Professor Kelman with a portrait I had drawn of him during the meeting as a token of my admiration for my new Jewish friend and partner in peace.
Sunday, August 15, 2004
American Israel: What Difference?
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
James Rubin, senior adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, was blunt when we asked him during the Democratic National Convention in Boston about the party’s stand on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. He insisted that America was committed to support Israel, no matter what.
The US would always be prepared to stand against world opinion — the International Court of Justice, the UN, its closest allies or anyone else, using its mighty veto to block any resolution against Israel, which is seen by much of the world as a rogue nation.
The Palestinians, he contends, are solely responsible for the breakdown of the peace process. Israel is simply acting in self-defense when it uses American arms and technology to kill civilians, bomb neighborhoods and assassinate political leaders.
The Israeli wall, considered illegal even by the Israeli Supreme Court, according to Rubin is a legitimate attempt to stop Palestinian suicide bombers whom he alleged are directed and tolerated by Arafat.
The elected Palestinian leader, he went on to say, must disappear in order for the peace process to restart.
The world votes against Israel, he coolly explained, because “Third World countries (even though those voting against Israeli atrocities, settlements and the “wall” include Europe and Japan) have an unbalanced and uninformed view of the situation.”
The supposedly civilized, educated gentleman even brushed UN-documented facts of Palestinian suffering as “exaggerated” and self-inflicted misery. Reflecting on what I had heard from the AIPAC-installed, Rubin and other Zionist Democrats and Republicans, I wondered why we would ever regard America as a sovereign, independent country.
And why would any Arab country respect UN authority if its resolutions only apply to us and never to Israel? And should the Palestinians accept America as a broker in any deal with Israel if US positions are no different from extremist Israeli policies and stands?
If I were Arafat, I would give up on both Israel and the United States of Israel, and listen to the Hamas and Hezbollah contention that there is only one way to deal with state terror: Terror. After all, Arafat is judged a terrorist either way.
I would tell the Palestinian leaders that this so-called peace deal is now too broken to be fixed, too weak to work and too rotten to be digested. The only way out is out — out of the deal, out of the offices and back to the street fight. Give Israel back the territory and let it, as occupier, be responsible for what goes wrong and pay for it.
At least then it wouldn’t have anyone to blame for its shortcomings but itself, and no punching bag to hit in reprisal. I say: Let’s all go back to square one — to the pre-US-guaranteed, US-betrayed Mideast Peace Accords world. That was a much, much more dignified square.
kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
James Rubin, senior adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, was blunt when we asked him during the Democratic National Convention in Boston about the party’s stand on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. He insisted that America was committed to support Israel, no matter what.
The US would always be prepared to stand against world opinion — the International Court of Justice, the UN, its closest allies or anyone else, using its mighty veto to block any resolution against Israel, which is seen by much of the world as a rogue nation.
The Palestinians, he contends, are solely responsible for the breakdown of the peace process. Israel is simply acting in self-defense when it uses American arms and technology to kill civilians, bomb neighborhoods and assassinate political leaders.
The Israeli wall, considered illegal even by the Israeli Supreme Court, according to Rubin is a legitimate attempt to stop Palestinian suicide bombers whom he alleged are directed and tolerated by Arafat.
The elected Palestinian leader, he went on to say, must disappear in order for the peace process to restart.
The world votes against Israel, he coolly explained, because “Third World countries (even though those voting against Israeli atrocities, settlements and the “wall” include Europe and Japan) have an unbalanced and uninformed view of the situation.”
The supposedly civilized, educated gentleman even brushed UN-documented facts of Palestinian suffering as “exaggerated” and self-inflicted misery. Reflecting on what I had heard from the AIPAC-installed, Rubin and other Zionist Democrats and Republicans, I wondered why we would ever regard America as a sovereign, independent country.
And why would any Arab country respect UN authority if its resolutions only apply to us and never to Israel? And should the Palestinians accept America as a broker in any deal with Israel if US positions are no different from extremist Israeli policies and stands?
If I were Arafat, I would give up on both Israel and the United States of Israel, and listen to the Hamas and Hezbollah contention that there is only one way to deal with state terror: Terror. After all, Arafat is judged a terrorist either way.
I would tell the Palestinian leaders that this so-called peace deal is now too broken to be fixed, too weak to work and too rotten to be digested. The only way out is out — out of the deal, out of the offices and back to the street fight. Give Israel back the territory and let it, as occupier, be responsible for what goes wrong and pay for it.
At least then it wouldn’t have anyone to blame for its shortcomings but itself, and no punching bag to hit in reprisal. I say: Let’s all go back to square one — to the pre-US-guaranteed, US-betrayed Mideast Peace Accords world. That was a much, much more dignified square.
Sunday, August 08, 2004
Arab-American Voice Needed
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
Arab-American delegates to the Democratic Convention in Boston were more than enthusiastic. When asked for a meeting, they obliged the very same day. Over 10 members representing different parts of the country attended.
They explained their dilemma. Thomas T. George, (CEO, The George Group, Lakewood, Ohio) was eloquent. He and other third generation Arab-Americans told how they had been happy to leave politics to politicians, just like in Arab countries.
They went about their lives, pushing their children to excel in business, science and technology. As a result, the 2.5 million Arab-Americans are among the most educated and prosperous minorities in the US. More than two- thirds are Christians, mostly from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Palestine. All had happily melted into the multicolor, multiethnic American pot.
Then came 9/11, and things changed. For one, they were forced to relate to their Arab identity. The FBI, among many security agencies, now classified them as Arabs, treating them as such.
Neighbors, friends, business associates and schoolmates discuss Mideastern issues with them, and expect explanations.
Finally, they decided if they were to live as Americans they must act American. The politics they avoided for generations became now a necessity for survival. The Jews have successfully managed to combine personal successes with political ones, so why cannot the Arabs do the same?
Today, Arab-Americans are learning their way in the political maze. Many are motivated to invest time and money in the political process. In tight races, more than two million votes can — and should — make a difference.
“What party line are you taking?” I asked. Taleb Salhab, coordinator for Florida Arab American Leadership Council, explained that they were taking both sides, Republican and Democrat. First, people are encouraged, as they should be, to freely express their political orientations. Second, the Arab-American voice should be heard in both directions.
“What impact, if any, are you making?” Kerry sounds very much like Bush in his stand toward us. Both kiss Sharon’s hands and ask political favors which AIPAC, the most prominent Jewish lobby group, never fails to oblige. Just like Bush, Kerry had to switch his stand on the wall Israel is building on Palestinian land after hearing from the godfather. He supported Bush’s war on Iraq even though he now blames the president for it. So what difference are you making?
Professor Samia El-Badry, president of the International Demographic and Economic Associates, Austin, Texas, took my question. Yes, the effect is still minimal, she says, but that is a beginning since Arab-Americans began to play very late in the game.
She went on to count some successes on the domestic front, and promised to keep Arab voices clearly and consistently heard. Good luck, Arab Americans. Yours is an overdue step on a thousand-mile marathon.
— (kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa)
Arab-American delegates to the Democratic Convention in Boston were more than enthusiastic. When asked for a meeting, they obliged the very same day. Over 10 members representing different parts of the country attended.
They explained their dilemma. Thomas T. George, (CEO, The George Group, Lakewood, Ohio) was eloquent. He and other third generation Arab-Americans told how they had been happy to leave politics to politicians, just like in Arab countries.
They went about their lives, pushing their children to excel in business, science and technology. As a result, the 2.5 million Arab-Americans are among the most educated and prosperous minorities in the US. More than two- thirds are Christians, mostly from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Palestine. All had happily melted into the multicolor, multiethnic American pot.
Then came 9/11, and things changed. For one, they were forced to relate to their Arab identity. The FBI, among many security agencies, now classified them as Arabs, treating them as such.
Neighbors, friends, business associates and schoolmates discuss Mideastern issues with them, and expect explanations.
Finally, they decided if they were to live as Americans they must act American. The politics they avoided for generations became now a necessity for survival. The Jews have successfully managed to combine personal successes with political ones, so why cannot the Arabs do the same?
Today, Arab-Americans are learning their way in the political maze. Many are motivated to invest time and money in the political process. In tight races, more than two million votes can — and should — make a difference.
“What party line are you taking?” I asked. Taleb Salhab, coordinator for Florida Arab American Leadership Council, explained that they were taking both sides, Republican and Democrat. First, people are encouraged, as they should be, to freely express their political orientations. Second, the Arab-American voice should be heard in both directions.
“What impact, if any, are you making?” Kerry sounds very much like Bush in his stand toward us. Both kiss Sharon’s hands and ask political favors which AIPAC, the most prominent Jewish lobby group, never fails to oblige. Just like Bush, Kerry had to switch his stand on the wall Israel is building on Palestinian land after hearing from the godfather. He supported Bush’s war on Iraq even though he now blames the president for it. So what difference are you making?
Professor Samia El-Badry, president of the International Demographic and Economic Associates, Austin, Texas, took my question. Yes, the effect is still minimal, she says, but that is a beginning since Arab-Americans began to play very late in the game.
She went on to count some successes on the domestic front, and promised to keep Arab voices clearly and consistently heard. Good luck, Arab Americans. Yours is an overdue step on a thousand-mile marathon.
— (kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa)
Sunday, August 01, 2004
Told You So, America!
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
I am in Boston, and have been to Washington and North Carolina in a US Dept. reporting tour to cover the elections. During the last 10 days, I have debated the Iraq war, a major election issue, with many American scholars and politicians.
One of their explanations goes like: “OK, as it turned out, Iraq never threatened our security, since it acquired no weapons of mass destruction and had no established link to Al-Qaeda. But we couldn’t risk it. There was no hard evidence, but plenty of doubts. We couldn’t have waited idle and risked a nuclear attack on America.”
So, is it enough to have a suspicion about a country’s intention to invade it? Wasn’t that Saddam’s rationale for invading Kuwait? Isn’t it an irony that America, in accordance with international law and common sense, led the world against this medieval logic in 1991, and then used the same defeated principle to conquer the defeated in the new century? Which way are we heading as time progresses, toward the rule of law or the law of the Wild West? Besides, if that was the case, shouldn’t North Korea with its advertised nuclear capabilities be the first?
The other explanation is romantic: “We warred to topple a dictator, and introduce Iraq and the region to democracy and freedom.”
Well, if the US is now in the liberation business, shouldn’t the Cubans, with millions of relatives in America, be first in line? Castro is a much older enemy of the States, has never served American interests, as Saddam, was an ally of Soviet Union, and once a dangerous neighbor who almost caused a nuclear holocaust. Besides, Cuba is much smaller, nearer and easier to conquer than Iraq. An added bonus would be millions of happy Cuban-American votes, especially in Florida, the state which almost cost Bush his presidency.
But, hey, there is no oil in there, and no Israeli and corporate interests, either. Less war means less guns and fat contracts, who needs that?
When war addicts finally run out of excuses, they throw the ball on you and demand: You think you are Mr. Genius? Give me a better way to clean up the mess?
Great! You design the trap of the century, lead us screaming and kicking into it, then, without even admitting any mistake, expect us to come up with a better way out or we are equally stupid! Somebody has to first come out clean and own up their misdeeds, then we could talk solutions. Otherwise, we will just sit on the fence, shouting at the losing team and its ignorant and arrogant leaders, and enjoy saying: “Haven’t we told you so?”
— (kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa)
I am in Boston, and have been to Washington and North Carolina in a US Dept. reporting tour to cover the elections. During the last 10 days, I have debated the Iraq war, a major election issue, with many American scholars and politicians.
One of their explanations goes like: “OK, as it turned out, Iraq never threatened our security, since it acquired no weapons of mass destruction and had no established link to Al-Qaeda. But we couldn’t risk it. There was no hard evidence, but plenty of doubts. We couldn’t have waited idle and risked a nuclear attack on America.”
So, is it enough to have a suspicion about a country’s intention to invade it? Wasn’t that Saddam’s rationale for invading Kuwait? Isn’t it an irony that America, in accordance with international law and common sense, led the world against this medieval logic in 1991, and then used the same defeated principle to conquer the defeated in the new century? Which way are we heading as time progresses, toward the rule of law or the law of the Wild West? Besides, if that was the case, shouldn’t North Korea with its advertised nuclear capabilities be the first?
The other explanation is romantic: “We warred to topple a dictator, and introduce Iraq and the region to democracy and freedom.”
Well, if the US is now in the liberation business, shouldn’t the Cubans, with millions of relatives in America, be first in line? Castro is a much older enemy of the States, has never served American interests, as Saddam, was an ally of Soviet Union, and once a dangerous neighbor who almost caused a nuclear holocaust. Besides, Cuba is much smaller, nearer and easier to conquer than Iraq. An added bonus would be millions of happy Cuban-American votes, especially in Florida, the state which almost cost Bush his presidency.
But, hey, there is no oil in there, and no Israeli and corporate interests, either. Less war means less guns and fat contracts, who needs that?
When war addicts finally run out of excuses, they throw the ball on you and demand: You think you are Mr. Genius? Give me a better way to clean up the mess?
Great! You design the trap of the century, lead us screaming and kicking into it, then, without even admitting any mistake, expect us to come up with a better way out or we are equally stupid! Somebody has to first come out clean and own up their misdeeds, then we could talk solutions. Otherwise, we will just sit on the fence, shouting at the losing team and its ignorant and arrogant leaders, and enjoy saying: “Haven’t we told you so?”
— (kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa)
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Of America and Americans
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
I was a little bit apprehensive when I gave my passport to the immigration officer at Washington international airport. I wasn’t sure I would be welcome after reading stories of how our fellow Muslims, Arabs and Saudis are treated in America since 9/11. I was in for a pleasant surprise. The officer welcomed me, politely explained that certain procedures are required for Saudis, which wouldn’t take more than 10 minutes in a nearby office. In an apologetic tone, he asked me not to think of this routine as anything more than standard procedure.
I was treated with similar politeness in the office he directed me to, and was given similar assurances and explanations. Fifteen minutes later, I was on my way out.
Like millions of immigrants and people of color, I just blended into the American melting pot and went about my business as usual.
This, of course, doesn’t mean all is well for everyone, everywhere at all times, as Mohammad, a Pakistani taxi driver, explained. Some Muslims have been beaten by angry mobs; others treated poorly by their colleagues or neighbors. The FBI and other security agencies have wrongly accused and detained Muslims, and some airport and airline officers singled them for “special screening.”
Within the polyglot society that is the United States, there are as many attitudes as there are people. The adherence of the majority of citizens, and especially their officials, to the rules of the country is impressive. Of course there are going to be exceptions. They are however, very much the exception and so when they occur, they become news.
Still, Mohammad assured me, he and most Muslims he knew were never bothered, ever. Even though he wore a beard, attend prayers in mosques, and participated in various Islamic activities, not once was he investigated or pressured.
Again, I asked the same question to Jennifer Salan, Communication Director of the Arab American Institute (10,000 members). She agreed with Mohammad and assured me that civil rights groups and organizations representing Muslim and Arab Americans are taking up cases of discrimination and talking to the appropriate authorities regarding laws and mistreatments of Muslims and Arabs in America.
My visit is not over yet; I am here for two weeks to cover the 2004 elections as a guest of the foreign press center in the US department with a group of Arab journalists. But if my previous experiences are any guide, the actual situation is much better than what we anticipated. Accidents do happen, of course, and incidents of aggressive investigation and treatment of Saudi students, in particular, do occur. However, the overall environment is as welcoming as ever. And the American people are as hospitable, open, generous and beautiful as they always were.
This conclusion confirms my earlier conviction that American foreign policies are one thing, and America the civilization, the dream, and the great nation is something else.
- (kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa)
I was a little bit apprehensive when I gave my passport to the immigration officer at Washington international airport. I wasn’t sure I would be welcome after reading stories of how our fellow Muslims, Arabs and Saudis are treated in America since 9/11. I was in for a pleasant surprise. The officer welcomed me, politely explained that certain procedures are required for Saudis, which wouldn’t take more than 10 minutes in a nearby office. In an apologetic tone, he asked me not to think of this routine as anything more than standard procedure.
I was treated with similar politeness in the office he directed me to, and was given similar assurances and explanations. Fifteen minutes later, I was on my way out.
Like millions of immigrants and people of color, I just blended into the American melting pot and went about my business as usual.
This, of course, doesn’t mean all is well for everyone, everywhere at all times, as Mohammad, a Pakistani taxi driver, explained. Some Muslims have been beaten by angry mobs; others treated poorly by their colleagues or neighbors. The FBI and other security agencies have wrongly accused and detained Muslims, and some airport and airline officers singled them for “special screening.”
Within the polyglot society that is the United States, there are as many attitudes as there are people. The adherence of the majority of citizens, and especially their officials, to the rules of the country is impressive. Of course there are going to be exceptions. They are however, very much the exception and so when they occur, they become news.
Still, Mohammad assured me, he and most Muslims he knew were never bothered, ever. Even though he wore a beard, attend prayers in mosques, and participated in various Islamic activities, not once was he investigated or pressured.
Again, I asked the same question to Jennifer Salan, Communication Director of the Arab American Institute (10,000 members). She agreed with Mohammad and assured me that civil rights groups and organizations representing Muslim and Arab Americans are taking up cases of discrimination and talking to the appropriate authorities regarding laws and mistreatments of Muslims and Arabs in America.
My visit is not over yet; I am here for two weeks to cover the 2004 elections as a guest of the foreign press center in the US department with a group of Arab journalists. But if my previous experiences are any guide, the actual situation is much better than what we anticipated. Accidents do happen, of course, and incidents of aggressive investigation and treatment of Saudi students, in particular, do occur. However, the overall environment is as welcoming as ever. And the American people are as hospitable, open, generous and beautiful as they always were.
This conclusion confirms my earlier conviction that American foreign policies are one thing, and America the civilization, the dream, and the great nation is something else.
- (kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa)
Friday, July 23, 2004
Told You So, America!
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
I am in Boston, and have been to Washington and North Carolina in a US Dept. reporting tour to cover the elections. During the last 10 days, I have debated the Iraq war, a major election issue, with many American scholars and politicians.
One of their explanations goes like: “OK, as it turned out, Iraq never threatened our security, since it acquired no weapons of mass destruction and had no established link to Al-Qaeda. But we couldn’t risk it. There was no hard evidence, but plenty of doubts. We couldn’t have waited idle and risked a nuclear attack on America.”
So, is it enough to have a suspicion about a country’s intention to invade it? Wasn’t that Saddam’s rationale for invading Kuwait? Isn’t it an irony that America, in accordance with international law and common sense, led the world against this medieval logic in 1991, and then used the same defeated principle to conquer the defeated in the new century? Which way are we heading as time progresses, toward the rule of law or the law of the Wild West? Besides, if that was the case, shouldn’t North Korea with its advertised nuclear capabilities be the first?
The other explanation is romantic: “We warred to topple a dictator, and introduce Iraq and the region to democracy and freedom.”
Well, if the US is now in the liberation business, shouldn’t the Cubans, with millions of relatives in America, be first in line? Castro is a much older enemy of the States, has never served American interests, as Saddam, was an ally of Soviet Union, and once a dangerous neighbor who almost caused a nuclear holocaust. Besides, Cuba is much smaller, nearer and easier to conquer than Iraq. An added bonus would be millions of happy Cuban-American votes, especially in Florida, the state which almost cost Bush his presidency.
But, hey, there is no oil in there, and no Israeli and corporate interests, either. Less war means less guns and fat contracts, who needs that?
When war addicts finally run out of excuses, they throw the ball on you and demand: You think you are Mr. Genius? Give me a better way to clean up the mess?
Great! You design the trap of the century, lead us screaming and kicking into it, then, without even admitting any mistake, expect us to come up with a better way out or we are equally stupid! Somebody has to first come out clean and own up their misdeeds, then we could talk solutions. Otherwise, we will just sit on the fence, shouting at the losing team and its ignorant and arrogant leaders, and enjoy saying: “Haven’t we told you so?”
— (kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa)
I am in Boston, and have been to Washington and North Carolina in a US Dept. reporting tour to cover the elections. During the last 10 days, I have debated the Iraq war, a major election issue, with many American scholars and politicians.
One of their explanations goes like: “OK, as it turned out, Iraq never threatened our security, since it acquired no weapons of mass destruction and had no established link to Al-Qaeda. But we couldn’t risk it. There was no hard evidence, but plenty of doubts. We couldn’t have waited idle and risked a nuclear attack on America.”
So, is it enough to have a suspicion about a country’s intention to invade it? Wasn’t that Saddam’s rationale for invading Kuwait? Isn’t it an irony that America, in accordance with international law and common sense, led the world against this medieval logic in 1991, and then used the same defeated principle to conquer the defeated in the new century? Which way are we heading as time progresses, toward the rule of law or the law of the Wild West? Besides, if that was the case, shouldn’t North Korea with its advertised nuclear capabilities be the first?
The other explanation is romantic: “We warred to topple a dictator, and introduce Iraq and the region to democracy and freedom.”
Well, if the US is now in the liberation business, shouldn’t the Cubans, with millions of relatives in America, be first in line? Castro is a much older enemy of the States, has never served American interests, as Saddam, was an ally of Soviet Union, and once a dangerous neighbor who almost caused a nuclear holocaust. Besides, Cuba is much smaller, nearer and easier to conquer than Iraq. An added bonus would be millions of happy Cuban-American votes, especially in Florida, the state which almost cost Bush his presidency.
But, hey, there is no oil in there, and no Israeli and corporate interests, either. Less war means less guns and fat contracts, who needs that?
When war addicts finally run out of excuses, they throw the ball on you and demand: You think you are Mr. Genius? Give me a better way to clean up the mess?
Great! You design the trap of the century, lead us screaming and kicking into it, then, without even admitting any mistake, expect us to come up with a better way out or we are equally stupid! Somebody has to first come out clean and own up their misdeeds, then we could talk solutions. Otherwise, we will just sit on the fence, shouting at the losing team and its ignorant and arrogant leaders, and enjoy saying: “Haven’t we told you so?”
— (kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa)
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Our Society Suffers From Schizophrenia
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi • kbatarfi@al-madina.com
A foreign journalist told me about a weird incident that happened to him on his flight from Jeddah to London. After taking a short nap on board, he woke up to set eyes on a totally different scene. His veiled neighbor wearing the familiar long black abaya had disappeared. In her place, he found a beautiful and stylish girl in tight pants checking her make-up. Still dazed, he looked right and left trying to find his veiled neighbor, but then came the second surprise: All surrounding veils were gone. Some men who had been taking care of their women were busy watching others, some of the completely silent women started talking and laughing loudly, expensive dresses came out, and for the first time the astonished journalist saw and heard Saudi women. In London, it was the same. Cheery Arabs were gathering in London’s markets, squares and nightclubs dressed in the latest Western fashions.
My confused friend asked: If your religion and traditions specify certain features for a woman’s dress, why is their use limited to your country? Why can’t I phone my friend’s wife in Jeddah if I can meet her in full make-up in London? Why does my Muslim friend perform his prayers regularly five times a day in his country and turns his back on some or all of them in London? Is your religion confined to the land of Islam or do rules vary according to time, place and occasion?
I explained to him that these few don’t represent the whole of society. There are maximum and minimum levels of veiling depending on persuasion and circumstances. Covering the face is not required in most Islamic schools of thought. The black abaya is a societal tradition and not a condition for wearing the veil. Foreign women do the same when they visit the Kingdom. They wear veils and dress in long abayas out of respect for the country and its authentic traditions.
Although I believe in that answer, I also share the desire to explore the reasons for the “schizophrenia” many segments of our society suffer from. Our young are taught the noble values and virtues of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in schools and mosques, and learn about them from radio and TV, but when they are out in the real world dealing with adults and observing the behavior and attitudes of their teachers and parents, they discover that what they had learned is not necessarily what is practiced. Confusion rules and innocence is submerged in a sea of contradictions.
We are in real need of religious, sociological, and scientific studies concerning these phenomena. Experts in each field should participate in exploring ways to get us out of this situation. Allah doesn’t help a people unless they help themselves.
A foreign journalist told me about a weird incident that happened to him on his flight from Jeddah to London. After taking a short nap on board, he woke up to set eyes on a totally different scene. His veiled neighbor wearing the familiar long black abaya had disappeared. In her place, he found a beautiful and stylish girl in tight pants checking her make-up. Still dazed, he looked right and left trying to find his veiled neighbor, but then came the second surprise: All surrounding veils were gone. Some men who had been taking care of their women were busy watching others, some of the completely silent women started talking and laughing loudly, expensive dresses came out, and for the first time the astonished journalist saw and heard Saudi women. In London, it was the same. Cheery Arabs were gathering in London’s markets, squares and nightclubs dressed in the latest Western fashions.
My confused friend asked: If your religion and traditions specify certain features for a woman’s dress, why is their use limited to your country? Why can’t I phone my friend’s wife in Jeddah if I can meet her in full make-up in London? Why does my Muslim friend perform his prayers regularly five times a day in his country and turns his back on some or all of them in London? Is your religion confined to the land of Islam or do rules vary according to time, place and occasion?
I explained to him that these few don’t represent the whole of society. There are maximum and minimum levels of veiling depending on persuasion and circumstances. Covering the face is not required in most Islamic schools of thought. The black abaya is a societal tradition and not a condition for wearing the veil. Foreign women do the same when they visit the Kingdom. They wear veils and dress in long abayas out of respect for the country and its authentic traditions.
Although I believe in that answer, I also share the desire to explore the reasons for the “schizophrenia” many segments of our society suffer from. Our young are taught the noble values and virtues of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in schools and mosques, and learn about them from radio and TV, but when they are out in the real world dealing with adults and observing the behavior and attitudes of their teachers and parents, they discover that what they had learned is not necessarily what is practiced. Confusion rules and innocence is submerged in a sea of contradictions.
We are in real need of religious, sociological, and scientific studies concerning these phenomena. Experts in each field should participate in exploring ways to get us out of this situation. Allah doesn’t help a people unless they help themselves.
Sunday, July 18, 2004
It’s the Foreigners’ Fault
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
Here, we have a serious attitude problem. We seem to disagree on an awful lot of things, but agree on one: Foreign hands are responsible for much of our ills and predicaments; we are blame free, and it is always somebody else’s mistake.
Just listen to preachers, teachers and public speakers. Read what our intellectuals, columnists and analysts are telling us in the media everyday. It seems that there is a general agreement on the responsibility and involvements of “others” in almost everything, from security problems to flaws in education, unemployment to capital flight, immorality to corruption, crimes to car accidents. Saudis are mostly victims to foreign plots, schemes and conspiracies.
I ask these interesting, educated brains, how anyone, but ourselves, could be possibly responsible for this suspicion, misunderstanding and even hate of those who look different, think different, or pray in a different way?
Who taught our kids in schools not to be independent thinkers and free scientific researchers, and just follow set rules and thoughts? Who designed our curriculum to be so theoretical and unpractical, and so unresponsive to market realities and needs? Who developed our faulty development plans? And who neglected our economic problems until it was almost too late to fix? We did.
Now, you can tell me from this moment till morning that the West doesn’t love us, Israel hates us, and America is not a reliable friend, and I won’t even argue. But I will ask in return, are we so hapless that we let the others lead us to our demise without objecting, resisting or even thinking?
How have countries like Malaysia managed to move from an agricultural to a high-tech economy, from poor to rich, and from ignorant to highly educated nation, without the help of the rich natural resources we are blessed with?
And, hey, they did this without sacrificing their Islamic values or principles. So, let’s put this lame excuse of the contradiction between modernity and religion to rest.
My fellow Saudis, ladies and gentlemen, unless we own up to our mistakes, we will just stand by as the world moves on at light speed, play victim, blame foreigners, pray for an easy victory over our enemies, and wait for a savior or a God-made miracle.
Allah doesn’t do the job for the lazy, and prayers without hard work are not accepted. So, let’s admit our faults, realize our failures, and seriously look for remedies.
In the meantime, just for once, forget about foreign conspiracies and cease foreign bashing.
- (kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa)
Here, we have a serious attitude problem. We seem to disagree on an awful lot of things, but agree on one: Foreign hands are responsible for much of our ills and predicaments; we are blame free, and it is always somebody else’s mistake.
Just listen to preachers, teachers and public speakers. Read what our intellectuals, columnists and analysts are telling us in the media everyday. It seems that there is a general agreement on the responsibility and involvements of “others” in almost everything, from security problems to flaws in education, unemployment to capital flight, immorality to corruption, crimes to car accidents. Saudis are mostly victims to foreign plots, schemes and conspiracies.
I ask these interesting, educated brains, how anyone, but ourselves, could be possibly responsible for this suspicion, misunderstanding and even hate of those who look different, think different, or pray in a different way?
Who taught our kids in schools not to be independent thinkers and free scientific researchers, and just follow set rules and thoughts? Who designed our curriculum to be so theoretical and unpractical, and so unresponsive to market realities and needs? Who developed our faulty development plans? And who neglected our economic problems until it was almost too late to fix? We did.
Now, you can tell me from this moment till morning that the West doesn’t love us, Israel hates us, and America is not a reliable friend, and I won’t even argue. But I will ask in return, are we so hapless that we let the others lead us to our demise without objecting, resisting or even thinking?
How have countries like Malaysia managed to move from an agricultural to a high-tech economy, from poor to rich, and from ignorant to highly educated nation, without the help of the rich natural resources we are blessed with?
And, hey, they did this without sacrificing their Islamic values or principles. So, let’s put this lame excuse of the contradiction between modernity and religion to rest.
My fellow Saudis, ladies and gentlemen, unless we own up to our mistakes, we will just stand by as the world moves on at light speed, play victim, blame foreigners, pray for an easy victory over our enemies, and wait for a savior or a God-made miracle.
Allah doesn’t do the job for the lazy, and prayers without hard work are not accepted. So, let’s admit our faults, realize our failures, and seriously look for remedies.
In the meantime, just for once, forget about foreign conspiracies and cease foreign bashing.
- (kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa)
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Absence of Alternatives in Our Society
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi • kbatarfi@al-madina.com
Whenever Islam prohibits something we naturally need, it always gives us a better alternative. Marriage, for example, is the substitute for adultery. While black magic is prohibited, science is encouraged. This divine wisdom is what we lack in our human judgment.
As we start the summer season the same old question is asked: What is the alternative to international tourism? With all our natural resources and rapid advancement in the tourism industry we still lack good preparation and organization, especially when it comes to families with limited resources and varied and conflicting interests, such as women’s needs vs. men’s, adults’ vs. children’s. Add this to high prices, phony sale offers and poor information service. Not to mention the beaches, mountain tops and public parks that somehow turned into commercial projects and private villas and palaces.
Our discussion about families leads us to the problem of singles. While families have options, bachelors don’t. What can millions of singles do for entertainment? Go to malls, beaches, cafes? Then what? Even getting accommodation for singles is becoming a challenge. Besides, treating them with suspicion (many deserve it, though) everywhere they happen to be even when walking in public parks, is forcing them into summer exile. What better options do they have?
As for entertainment, we seem to have tightened some parts too much, and opened others too wide. While we forbid cinemas, which can be censored and controlled, we let our homes’ space open for all kind of really bad programs without the slightest control. While we set rigid rules to segregate sexes, we drop all rules in tourist villages and chalets. As we spend billions on sports facilities, we forget to provide public parks and playgrounds to neighborhoods. Expensive malls and commercial tourist facilities are built everywhere, but few public beaches and children’s playgrounds are provided.
Good alternatives are not lacking only in tourism and entertainment. On our highways, we prohibit pedestrian crossing, but neglect to provide pedestrian bridges. We don’t allow private help at lessons at homes but provide no after-hour schools. Our children are not allowed to study in international schools, but we don’t provide equal alternatives. Non-Saudis are not allowed to have their own schools according to their countries’ curriculum, and yet we don’t allow them to study in our public schools.
I go back to what I started with and say: If our religion provides better alternatives to forbidden needs, and regards everything as “halal” except what is prohibited, why can’t we Saudis do the same?
Whenever Islam prohibits something we naturally need, it always gives us a better alternative. Marriage, for example, is the substitute for adultery. While black magic is prohibited, science is encouraged. This divine wisdom is what we lack in our human judgment.
As we start the summer season the same old question is asked: What is the alternative to international tourism? With all our natural resources and rapid advancement in the tourism industry we still lack good preparation and organization, especially when it comes to families with limited resources and varied and conflicting interests, such as women’s needs vs. men’s, adults’ vs. children’s. Add this to high prices, phony sale offers and poor information service. Not to mention the beaches, mountain tops and public parks that somehow turned into commercial projects and private villas and palaces.
Our discussion about families leads us to the problem of singles. While families have options, bachelors don’t. What can millions of singles do for entertainment? Go to malls, beaches, cafes? Then what? Even getting accommodation for singles is becoming a challenge. Besides, treating them with suspicion (many deserve it, though) everywhere they happen to be even when walking in public parks, is forcing them into summer exile. What better options do they have?
As for entertainment, we seem to have tightened some parts too much, and opened others too wide. While we forbid cinemas, which can be censored and controlled, we let our homes’ space open for all kind of really bad programs without the slightest control. While we set rigid rules to segregate sexes, we drop all rules in tourist villages and chalets. As we spend billions on sports facilities, we forget to provide public parks and playgrounds to neighborhoods. Expensive malls and commercial tourist facilities are built everywhere, but few public beaches and children’s playgrounds are provided.
Good alternatives are not lacking only in tourism and entertainment. On our highways, we prohibit pedestrian crossing, but neglect to provide pedestrian bridges. We don’t allow private help at lessons at homes but provide no after-hour schools. Our children are not allowed to study in international schools, but we don’t provide equal alternatives. Non-Saudis are not allowed to have their own schools according to their countries’ curriculum, and yet we don’t allow them to study in our public schools.
I go back to what I started with and say: If our religion provides better alternatives to forbidden needs, and regards everything as “halal” except what is prohibited, why can’t we Saudis do the same?
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Women Rights Revisited!
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi • kbatarfi@al-madina.com
In Islam there is a principle known as “sad althara’a.”
The idea is to avoid anything that may lead to sin or wrong-doing. Therefore, since women driving may lead to situations where they might be harassed or taken advantage of, we don’t allow them to drive. The same goes for women working and studying in mixed environments.
Covering faces and wearing black cloaks are not required of women in Islam. These customs developed on the basis of the general “sad althara’a” principle in order to avoid temptations that might lead to improper relations. Other things that resulted from this principle include not opening up the country to very much-needed foreign investment, foreign expertise and tourism.
There are others, too, such as setting up branches of highly reputable international universities and scientific institutes and teaching English in the first years of primary school. Fears of the corrupting influence of Western culture on Islamic and Arabic values has led to the closing of many windows of opportunity which might have led to good reforms and improvements in our society, economy and education.
This has in turn produced the present situation in which women, the better half of our nation, as well as followers of different schools of religious thought, have been marginalized, their talents under-utilized, their opportunities reduced and their rights limited. I would argue that this principle has been abused for a long, long time and it is now time for us to think carefully in order to regulate and control the way we apply and use it.
Going for easy solutions to difficult and complex problems may lead to crazy situations. One could argue that the best way to stop traffic accidents would be to prohibit cars and use camels and horses instead. Or that we must shut down the Internet because it allows people to access pornography. Or since traveling to Western countries allegedly leads to improper indulgence, we should limit travel to those areas only to elders and to situations which could be classed as emergencies. These are not just funny ideas; some people actually consider them to be good and correct solutions.
Islam has limited what is prohibited to a list. Anything and everything not listed is allowed, is “halal.” Doing it the other way round would obviously be un-Islamic and therefore unacceptable. We don’t need a “fatwa” to tell us whether we can do things Islam has never prohibited.
If someone is in some confusion about the “sad althara’a” principle, he or she ought to refer the matter to a council of authorized and specialized Islamic scholars representing all regions and all Islamic schools of thought. Those scholars should investigate all related dimensions and issues while consulting with all concerned parties. They must make sure the perceived dangers are real and that the benefits realized will exceed the possible harm. Only after doing so can we accept the rule.
In Islam there is a principle known as “sad althara’a.”
The idea is to avoid anything that may lead to sin or wrong-doing. Therefore, since women driving may lead to situations where they might be harassed or taken advantage of, we don’t allow them to drive. The same goes for women working and studying in mixed environments.
Covering faces and wearing black cloaks are not required of women in Islam. These customs developed on the basis of the general “sad althara’a” principle in order to avoid temptations that might lead to improper relations. Other things that resulted from this principle include not opening up the country to very much-needed foreign investment, foreign expertise and tourism.
There are others, too, such as setting up branches of highly reputable international universities and scientific institutes and teaching English in the first years of primary school. Fears of the corrupting influence of Western culture on Islamic and Arabic values has led to the closing of many windows of opportunity which might have led to good reforms and improvements in our society, economy and education.
This has in turn produced the present situation in which women, the better half of our nation, as well as followers of different schools of religious thought, have been marginalized, their talents under-utilized, their opportunities reduced and their rights limited. I would argue that this principle has been abused for a long, long time and it is now time for us to think carefully in order to regulate and control the way we apply and use it.
Going for easy solutions to difficult and complex problems may lead to crazy situations. One could argue that the best way to stop traffic accidents would be to prohibit cars and use camels and horses instead. Or that we must shut down the Internet because it allows people to access pornography. Or since traveling to Western countries allegedly leads to improper indulgence, we should limit travel to those areas only to elders and to situations which could be classed as emergencies. These are not just funny ideas; some people actually consider them to be good and correct solutions.
Islam has limited what is prohibited to a list. Anything and everything not listed is allowed, is “halal.” Doing it the other way round would obviously be un-Islamic and therefore unacceptable. We don’t need a “fatwa” to tell us whether we can do things Islam has never prohibited.
If someone is in some confusion about the “sad althara’a” principle, he or she ought to refer the matter to a council of authorized and specialized Islamic scholars representing all regions and all Islamic schools of thought. Those scholars should investigate all related dimensions and issues while consulting with all concerned parties. They must make sure the perceived dangers are real and that the benefits realized will exceed the possible harm. Only after doing so can we accept the rule.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Don’t Panic, Saudi Is Here to Stay
Many Western friends ask me worried questions about the state of our war on terror: What is going to happen now? Are you in deep trouble? Do you think you can survive the upheaval?
I say to them, don’t panic. Terrorist groups like the IRA in Britain, ETA in Spain, the RAF in Germany, the Red Army in Japan, The People’s War Group in India, RO 17 N in Greece, have led bloody campaigns against their regimes for ages. Yet the systems are still there and life goes on. Saudi Arabia has dealt with this kind of threat before. In the 1920s, the founder, King Abdul Aziz, had to fight and destroy a very strong militant army that sought to bring down his government and establish a Taleban-style one. They lost, he won.
Later, in the late 1950s and most of the 1960s, Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser supported revolutionary groups that sought to topple the Saudi monarchy. They all ended up in prison.
In 1979, a fundamentalist group occupied the Grand Mosque in Makkah and terrorized the holiest Muslim city for weeks. Again, government forces prevailed. The insurgents ended up in graves and prison cells.
Today the challenge is as serious and as dangerous, but, as usual, we are winning. Their loss is much higher than ours. In the long run, we can sustain the war, they can’t. Saudi security forces today are better equipped and trained than ever. Time is on our side, not theirs.
More importantly, the militants lost the war for the hearts and minds of the public. The terrorist Abdul Aziz Al-Muqrin pushed the wrong button when he slit the throat of his American hostage. He turned every decent human being off and shamed us all. When Muqrin was killed, people were congratulating each other. Mobile phones were busy sending and receiving SMS messages with the good news. Even on extremist websites like Alsahat, most were relieved.
Solid systems are bothered, but not toppled by insurgencies. We have survived 200 years of roller-coaster history. A couple more years of trouble won’t break our backs or necks. In fact, they will make us stronger, as long as we learn from our lessons.
We need to continue down the road of reform, and do it much faster. We should give our women, foreign guests and Shiites their overdue rights. We should encourage a free press, create transparent government, fix our education and legal systems, join the WTO, open up to investment and provide our young with better training and jobs.
If we do this, in the future we will look back and remember these times as the years of reform rather than of the war on terror.— kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
I say to them, don’t panic. Terrorist groups like the IRA in Britain, ETA in Spain, the RAF in Germany, the Red Army in Japan, The People’s War Group in India, RO 17 N in Greece, have led bloody campaigns against their regimes for ages. Yet the systems are still there and life goes on. Saudi Arabia has dealt with this kind of threat before. In the 1920s, the founder, King Abdul Aziz, had to fight and destroy a very strong militant army that sought to bring down his government and establish a Taleban-style one. They lost, he won.
Later, in the late 1950s and most of the 1960s, Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser supported revolutionary groups that sought to topple the Saudi monarchy. They all ended up in prison.
In 1979, a fundamentalist group occupied the Grand Mosque in Makkah and terrorized the holiest Muslim city for weeks. Again, government forces prevailed. The insurgents ended up in graves and prison cells.
Today the challenge is as serious and as dangerous, but, as usual, we are winning. Their loss is much higher than ours. In the long run, we can sustain the war, they can’t. Saudi security forces today are better equipped and trained than ever. Time is on our side, not theirs.
More importantly, the militants lost the war for the hearts and minds of the public. The terrorist Abdul Aziz Al-Muqrin pushed the wrong button when he slit the throat of his American hostage. He turned every decent human being off and shamed us all. When Muqrin was killed, people were congratulating each other. Mobile phones were busy sending and receiving SMS messages with the good news. Even on extremist websites like Alsahat, most were relieved.
Solid systems are bothered, but not toppled by insurgencies. We have survived 200 years of roller-coaster history. A couple more years of trouble won’t break our backs or necks. In fact, they will make us stronger, as long as we learn from our lessons.
We need to continue down the road of reform, and do it much faster. We should give our women, foreign guests and Shiites their overdue rights. We should encourage a free press, create transparent government, fix our education and legal systems, join the WTO, open up to investment and provide our young with better training and jobs.
If we do this, in the future we will look back and remember these times as the years of reform rather than of the war on terror.— kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Sunday, June 20, 2004
Problem With Our Public Performance
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi • kbatarfi@al-madina.com
When asked on the BBC’s “Hard Talk” last week about teaching hate in schools, Dr. Abdulrahman Al-Matroudi, deputy minister for Islamic affairs, explained that the concept of fighting Jews during Armageddon is a religious concept believed and taught by other religions including Judaism. The issue here, he explained, is whether it is prudent to teach such concept to 9th graders. This reminds me of a point usually forgotten in our response to similar questions — our fanatics are no worse than theirs.
In an article published in the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune, Nicholas D. Kristof writes about a call by some leading evangelicals at a Washington conference for their fire-breathing brethren to tone down their badmouthing of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Giving examples of outrageous statements by Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson and Jerry Vines, he reports a new rationale not to provoke Muslims. Kristof explains, however, that the change of tone doesn’t reflect a change in conviction — it is more a PR move that also tries to protect traveling evangelicals.
These fanatics are part of an empire that receives billions of dollars annually, with huge support from governments, political parties, religious and public organizations. What they get in a year is more than all Muslim organizations put together have received in their entire history. Besides hundreds of TV channels and radio stations, superpowers, led by the US, put their huge political, economic and even military resources at the service of such organization.
The NYT report mentioned one George W. Bush as the world’s No.1 evangelical. The support received by the Christian militant movements in Sudan and Indonesia are examples of such support. On the other hand, Muslim charities are harassed, banned and pressured. Their employees are sometimes taken prisoners of war for being in the wrong place at the wrong time — even though this is exactly the kind of environment that requires charity presence.
Going back to Dr. Matroudi’s interview, one couldn’t help noticing his unconvincing performance. I don’t blame him. To appear on such a challenging program, you need more than English — and he wasn’t great at that, either. More important is to know what you are talking about, to have up-to-date and comprehensive information as well as some freedom to speak your mind, let alone the truth.
Avoiding the questions and speaking in vague and outdated terms does not work. It doesn’t help your credibility either to assume that your host doesn’t know enough so you can cover up and embellish embarrassing facts. Journalists do a lot of research these days, and they do know what they are talking about.
I would recommend we appoint capable spokespeople representing each department, give them proper training and information and enough space to be more transparent and straightforward. Otherwise, it is better for us to opt for “no comment!”
When asked on the BBC’s “Hard Talk” last week about teaching hate in schools, Dr. Abdulrahman Al-Matroudi, deputy minister for Islamic affairs, explained that the concept of fighting Jews during Armageddon is a religious concept believed and taught by other religions including Judaism. The issue here, he explained, is whether it is prudent to teach such concept to 9th graders. This reminds me of a point usually forgotten in our response to similar questions — our fanatics are no worse than theirs.
In an article published in the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune, Nicholas D. Kristof writes about a call by some leading evangelicals at a Washington conference for their fire-breathing brethren to tone down their badmouthing of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Giving examples of outrageous statements by Franklin Graham, Pat Robertson and Jerry Vines, he reports a new rationale not to provoke Muslims. Kristof explains, however, that the change of tone doesn’t reflect a change in conviction — it is more a PR move that also tries to protect traveling evangelicals.
These fanatics are part of an empire that receives billions of dollars annually, with huge support from governments, political parties, religious and public organizations. What they get in a year is more than all Muslim organizations put together have received in their entire history. Besides hundreds of TV channels and radio stations, superpowers, led by the US, put their huge political, economic and even military resources at the service of such organization.
The NYT report mentioned one George W. Bush as the world’s No.1 evangelical. The support received by the Christian militant movements in Sudan and Indonesia are examples of such support. On the other hand, Muslim charities are harassed, banned and pressured. Their employees are sometimes taken prisoners of war for being in the wrong place at the wrong time — even though this is exactly the kind of environment that requires charity presence.
Going back to Dr. Matroudi’s interview, one couldn’t help noticing his unconvincing performance. I don’t blame him. To appear on such a challenging program, you need more than English — and he wasn’t great at that, either. More important is to know what you are talking about, to have up-to-date and comprehensive information as well as some freedom to speak your mind, let alone the truth.
Avoiding the questions and speaking in vague and outdated terms does not work. It doesn’t help your credibility either to assume that your host doesn’t know enough so you can cover up and embellish embarrassing facts. Journalists do a lot of research these days, and they do know what they are talking about.
I would recommend we appoint capable spokespeople representing each department, give them proper training and information and enough space to be more transparent and straightforward. Otherwise, it is better for us to opt for “no comment!”
Don’t Cry Wafa, Fight!
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi, Arab News
When Wafa Al-Rasheed cried during her speech to the National Dialog Forum in Madinah last week, many of us cried with her. She was responding to a member who went out of his way to criticize the women who drove their cars in 1991 to present their case to the government and demand their natural right to drive.
Not only did Dr. Muhammad Al-Arifi accuse them of an outrageous, anti-Islamic act, but he expressed his astonishment that some of those women still work in educational institutions, providing a bad influence on our girls and threatening the sanity of future generations.
Ten members, men and women, left the conference in protest, and demanded an apology from Al-Arifi. He did apologize, through the media, and mediators brought the protesters back.
However, his apology wasn’t really an apology.
The man never retreated from his positions, and still believes every word he said. That includes his demand for women teachers not to wear their hair and dresses in fashionable ways. Such behavior, he contends, contradicts Islamic ways and may influence young students to follow suit.
Teachers, he preached, must be a conservative model of modesty to their students. He also feels that we don’t need to teach our children subjects like world geography. In the minds of Al-Arifi and people like him, the only useful subject is religion.
I would ask Wafa: What do you expect? This forum is just the first step in the first mile of the 1000-mile rollercoaster trip.
In the real world rights were never granted, they had to be taken. Women and other underprivileged groups must prepare for a long and bitter struggle with those whose interests happen to be in conflict with theirs.
French women fought for their rights to family inheritance up to the 1960s. Swiss women only got the right to vote in the 1970s. Many, there and elsewhere, were punished for their views and paid dearly for their positions. But at the end of the long road, they won their rights.
Al-Arifi is not an authority, but he represents a large body — women and men, young and old, educated and illiterate — that confuses religion with tradition. Some are ignorant, some are just confused, but others intentionally use the confusion to preserve the status quo and protect their interests.
The ignorant we could educate and enlighten. With the confused we could debate. But with those who resist in order to protect their self-interest, we can only fight for our rights.
— kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
When Wafa Al-Rasheed cried during her speech to the National Dialog Forum in Madinah last week, many of us cried with her. She was responding to a member who went out of his way to criticize the women who drove their cars in 1991 to present their case to the government and demand their natural right to drive.
Not only did Dr. Muhammad Al-Arifi accuse them of an outrageous, anti-Islamic act, but he expressed his astonishment that some of those women still work in educational institutions, providing a bad influence on our girls and threatening the sanity of future generations.
Ten members, men and women, left the conference in protest, and demanded an apology from Al-Arifi. He did apologize, through the media, and mediators brought the protesters back.
However, his apology wasn’t really an apology.
The man never retreated from his positions, and still believes every word he said. That includes his demand for women teachers not to wear their hair and dresses in fashionable ways. Such behavior, he contends, contradicts Islamic ways and may influence young students to follow suit.
Teachers, he preached, must be a conservative model of modesty to their students. He also feels that we don’t need to teach our children subjects like world geography. In the minds of Al-Arifi and people like him, the only useful subject is religion.
I would ask Wafa: What do you expect? This forum is just the first step in the first mile of the 1000-mile rollercoaster trip.
In the real world rights were never granted, they had to be taken. Women and other underprivileged groups must prepare for a long and bitter struggle with those whose interests happen to be in conflict with theirs.
French women fought for their rights to family inheritance up to the 1960s. Swiss women only got the right to vote in the 1970s. Many, there and elsewhere, were punished for their views and paid dearly for their positions. But at the end of the long road, they won their rights.
Al-Arifi is not an authority, but he represents a large body — women and men, young and old, educated and illiterate — that confuses religion with tradition. Some are ignorant, some are just confused, but others intentionally use the confusion to preserve the status quo and protect their interests.
The ignorant we could educate and enlighten. With the confused we could debate. But with those who resist in order to protect their self-interest, we can only fight for our rights.
— kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Let Us Reshape Our Society
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi • kbatarfi@al-madina.com
When people move from one culture to another they often experience culture shock. When I returned from the United States, after my five years spent there studying, I was shocked to find that things had changed here dramatically to the extent that people had become polarized.
I would go to a mall and see girls completely covered, hands included. Nearby, girls less modestly dressed eyed boys wearing the latest Western fashions, exchanging signs and mobile phone numbers. Between the people who adopted these two different lifestyles, disagreement and anger had grown to unprecedented levels.
Adnan is a perfect example of “let’s-live-as-we-please” attitude. He despises conservatives, wants to study anything but religion, and demands cinemas, discos, bars, top-less beaches... with no religious police. If all this doesn’t come soon, he says he will consider going to live in the United States.
Walid, on the other hand, does not allow TV and music at home. His wife and daughters do not answer the phone, less a strange male is on the other end. They only go out when it is absolutely necessary. Walid believes travel to foreign countries should only be allowed under special circumstances, such as studying. Learning about the hereafter is more important to him than about this passing journey we call life. Anyone of a different race, religion and school of thought is a complete mystery to him.
What about moderation? What about the rest of us who live between these two extremes? Fortunately, we do exist. The problem is that we lack voice and willpower. We go about our life, trying to pass through the chanting and shouting parties without provoking them or taking sides. We discuss our ideas only among ourselves. While occasionally we may get into a heated debate with one side or the other, in the final analysis we don’t count.
What the world sees, what we see, is a polarized society, with each camp trying to impose its ideas on the rest. Whose fault is this? I contend it is ours — the moderate, tolerant and worldly. We are not united or organized, we don’t advocate a cause, and we don’t contribute to the reshaping process of our society. We don’t even have a name.
As a first step, may I suggest a definition of who we are? We are people who believe in a rich, tolerant, open and diverse Islam — an Islam that accommodates all schools of thought with similar principles and values. We believe in a dialogue with other religions and different schools of our own. We respect the other and believe in mutual and individual responsibility toward the building of a peaceful world where we share resources, exchange knowledge and human skills, and work collectively to safeguard the global environment, peace and human rights.
And what should we call ourselves?
I would suggest: Muslims.
When people move from one culture to another they often experience culture shock. When I returned from the United States, after my five years spent there studying, I was shocked to find that things had changed here dramatically to the extent that people had become polarized.
I would go to a mall and see girls completely covered, hands included. Nearby, girls less modestly dressed eyed boys wearing the latest Western fashions, exchanging signs and mobile phone numbers. Between the people who adopted these two different lifestyles, disagreement and anger had grown to unprecedented levels.
Adnan is a perfect example of “let’s-live-as-we-please” attitude. He despises conservatives, wants to study anything but religion, and demands cinemas, discos, bars, top-less beaches... with no religious police. If all this doesn’t come soon, he says he will consider going to live in the United States.
Walid, on the other hand, does not allow TV and music at home. His wife and daughters do not answer the phone, less a strange male is on the other end. They only go out when it is absolutely necessary. Walid believes travel to foreign countries should only be allowed under special circumstances, such as studying. Learning about the hereafter is more important to him than about this passing journey we call life. Anyone of a different race, religion and school of thought is a complete mystery to him.
What about moderation? What about the rest of us who live between these two extremes? Fortunately, we do exist. The problem is that we lack voice and willpower. We go about our life, trying to pass through the chanting and shouting parties without provoking them or taking sides. We discuss our ideas only among ourselves. While occasionally we may get into a heated debate with one side or the other, in the final analysis we don’t count.
What the world sees, what we see, is a polarized society, with each camp trying to impose its ideas on the rest. Whose fault is this? I contend it is ours — the moderate, tolerant and worldly. We are not united or organized, we don’t advocate a cause, and we don’t contribute to the reshaping process of our society. We don’t even have a name.
As a first step, may I suggest a definition of who we are? We are people who believe in a rich, tolerant, open and diverse Islam — an Islam that accommodates all schools of thought with similar principles and values. We believe in a dialogue with other religions and different schools of our own. We respect the other and believe in mutual and individual responsibility toward the building of a peaceful world where we share resources, exchange knowledge and human skills, and work collectively to safeguard the global environment, peace and human rights.
And what should we call ourselves?
I would suggest: Muslims.
Sunday, June 13, 2004
Where Is the Media Outrage?
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi, Arab News
The New York Times has apologized because it didn’t investigate the US administration’s excuses for waging war on Iraq as thoroughly as it should. I respect that apology and take my keffyah off to the editors.
It must be said, though, that the paper did question the war and did take a stand against it. That cost it a lot of fans in the circles of power and earned it some powerful enemies.
A couple of journalistic scandals in the paper were uncovered, damaging a highly respected paper, and very well covered. Still, the paper steadfastly stood its ground and time proved it right.
On the other hand, most other American papers went along with the war propaganda.
Reporters and writers rarely questioned the evidence and motives or care to ask the hard questions. Even after most claims were found baseless, the evidence fabricated, and motives suspicious, there was no real outrage.
The same can be said of our media. An American civilian was savagely slaughtered, on camera, and little fuss has been made about it.
Some would explain the mooted reaction by the mode of anger and anti-American sentiment in the Arab street, especially after the Abu Ghraib crimes, and the devastation of Gaza by Bush’s champion Sharon.
Others would explain that the Arabs have been victims for so long that they can’t find it in them to sympathize with a small loss for the enemy.
Why would we who lost tens of thousands to unjustified, brutal war, the argument goes, worry about one enemy down, no matter how brutally that happened.
I would say to all those apologists that such arguments may suit barbaric Nazis and Zionists but cannot fit the ethics of the civilized Arab nation. Islam instructed us to use a sharp knife and be efficiently quick when we slaughter an animal.
Sentenced killers must be killed with a sharp sword in a specified way to assure a quick and easy death. We are prohibited from mutilating enemies’ corpses under any circumstances.
If all that is due to animals, criminals, and enemy soldiers, it has to be even more so when it comes to innocent civilians.
The media should lead, not just follow the public mode and reflect its sentiments. It should educate, enlighten and propagate our noble principles at all times, especially when the world is on fire and rage confuses the rest of us.
Both American and Arab media failed us in this test. When we most needed them, they were feathers to the wind. What an outrage!
—kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
The New York Times has apologized because it didn’t investigate the US administration’s excuses for waging war on Iraq as thoroughly as it should. I respect that apology and take my keffyah off to the editors.
It must be said, though, that the paper did question the war and did take a stand against it. That cost it a lot of fans in the circles of power and earned it some powerful enemies.
A couple of journalistic scandals in the paper were uncovered, damaging a highly respected paper, and very well covered. Still, the paper steadfastly stood its ground and time proved it right.
On the other hand, most other American papers went along with the war propaganda.
Reporters and writers rarely questioned the evidence and motives or care to ask the hard questions. Even after most claims were found baseless, the evidence fabricated, and motives suspicious, there was no real outrage.
The same can be said of our media. An American civilian was savagely slaughtered, on camera, and little fuss has been made about it.
Some would explain the mooted reaction by the mode of anger and anti-American sentiment in the Arab street, especially after the Abu Ghraib crimes, and the devastation of Gaza by Bush’s champion Sharon.
Others would explain that the Arabs have been victims for so long that they can’t find it in them to sympathize with a small loss for the enemy.
Why would we who lost tens of thousands to unjustified, brutal war, the argument goes, worry about one enemy down, no matter how brutally that happened.
I would say to all those apologists that such arguments may suit barbaric Nazis and Zionists but cannot fit the ethics of the civilized Arab nation. Islam instructed us to use a sharp knife and be efficiently quick when we slaughter an animal.
Sentenced killers must be killed with a sharp sword in a specified way to assure a quick and easy death. We are prohibited from mutilating enemies’ corpses under any circumstances.
If all that is due to animals, criminals, and enemy soldiers, it has to be even more so when it comes to innocent civilians.
The media should lead, not just follow the public mode and reflect its sentiments. It should educate, enlighten and propagate our noble principles at all times, especially when the world is on fire and rage confuses the rest of us.
Both American and Arab media failed us in this test. When we most needed them, they were feathers to the wind. What an outrage!
—kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Sunday, June 06, 2004
National Dialogue? Just Talking!
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi, Arab News
Dr. Ghazi Al-Gosaibi, our intellectual minister, angered many when he wrote in Al-Watan recently that the National Dialogue forums are meant to train people in debating skills, not to recommend reforms.
The notion that more than 60 people who represent all social groups and are some of our best in most fields were just brought in to engage in speech training course was shocking.
This could be because our expectations were too high, or due to the general feeling that we are so late and need to move much faster, or that the implication that our top intellectuals don’t know how to speak their minds, express their thoughts and discuss their positions was insulting.
Al-Madinah columnist Muhammad Salahuddin felt it was like asking a straight-A college graduate to go back to kindergarten. Al-Riyadh writer Mohammad Reda Nasruallah wrote that time was running out, and we needed to reform our government to better respond to the challenges and to implement urgently needed social and administrative reforms.
Dr. Muhammad Al-Qunaibit, a Shoura Council member, asked how Gosaibi would feel if asked to invest so much time and effort in one of these forums only to be told that all was just for practice. Abdullah Khayyat of Okaz expressed his astonishment that Gosaibi, a respected intellectual, would advocate that the forums’ recommendations should not be at the top of the decision-makers’ agenda.
I do agree with Dr. Gosaibi on the need to improve our culture of debate. Our school curriculum, like our society, is not based on two-way dialogue. Children are brought up, whether in school, home or mosque, to listen, memorize and obey. They are not supposed to discuss and disagree, or encouraged to read beyond a very limited canon, or to carry out scientific research.
When they study in the West, they get their first culture shock at school as they struggle to cope with the new learning environment. They don’t know how to argue, speak their minds, think independently, and do free uncharted research.
Yes, we need to change all that, not just within the Center for National Dialogue but everywhere — at school, in the media, in the administration, in society at large.
But I don’t agree with Dr. Gosaibi that the fruits of two real, mature, well-prepared and conducted debates should not be put to good use. Those are reform recommendations most people, if not all, agree must be urgently implemented.
The world is watching. Women, the unemployed, the underprivileged, Shiites and other schools of thought are waiting. The clock is ticking, Dr. Ghazi, and we don’t have all day.
— kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Dr. Ghazi Al-Gosaibi, our intellectual minister, angered many when he wrote in Al-Watan recently that the National Dialogue forums are meant to train people in debating skills, not to recommend reforms.
The notion that more than 60 people who represent all social groups and are some of our best in most fields were just brought in to engage in speech training course was shocking.
This could be because our expectations were too high, or due to the general feeling that we are so late and need to move much faster, or that the implication that our top intellectuals don’t know how to speak their minds, express their thoughts and discuss their positions was insulting.
Al-Madinah columnist Muhammad Salahuddin felt it was like asking a straight-A college graduate to go back to kindergarten. Al-Riyadh writer Mohammad Reda Nasruallah wrote that time was running out, and we needed to reform our government to better respond to the challenges and to implement urgently needed social and administrative reforms.
Dr. Muhammad Al-Qunaibit, a Shoura Council member, asked how Gosaibi would feel if asked to invest so much time and effort in one of these forums only to be told that all was just for practice. Abdullah Khayyat of Okaz expressed his astonishment that Gosaibi, a respected intellectual, would advocate that the forums’ recommendations should not be at the top of the decision-makers’ agenda.
I do agree with Dr. Gosaibi on the need to improve our culture of debate. Our school curriculum, like our society, is not based on two-way dialogue. Children are brought up, whether in school, home or mosque, to listen, memorize and obey. They are not supposed to discuss and disagree, or encouraged to read beyond a very limited canon, or to carry out scientific research.
When they study in the West, they get their first culture shock at school as they struggle to cope with the new learning environment. They don’t know how to argue, speak their minds, think independently, and do free uncharted research.
Yes, we need to change all that, not just within the Center for National Dialogue but everywhere — at school, in the media, in the administration, in society at large.
But I don’t agree with Dr. Gosaibi that the fruits of two real, mature, well-prepared and conducted debates should not be put to good use. Those are reform recommendations most people, if not all, agree must be urgently implemented.
The world is watching. Women, the unemployed, the underprivileged, Shiites and other schools of thought are waiting. The clock is ticking, Dr. Ghazi, and we don’t have all day.
— kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Ingenius Solution to ME Issue
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi, Arab News
Many have responded favorably to my call for one democratic, secular nation instead of the two-state Israeli and Palestinian solution we have been fighting over for over half a century.
Others accused me of being a Jew hater, unrealistic, an idealist or a dreamer. I can’t deny the “dreamy” part, but didn’t some of the best solutions to world troubles started one day as rosy, unrealistic, unthinkable dreams?
Sadat was certainly a visionary dreamer, and his dream turned to reality. He achieved by peaceful means what Nasser lost in bloody wars.
I’ll skip that part of the feedback, then, and present to you the best response I received so far. It reads:
“For myself, I have always had difficulty reconciling two apparently irreconcilable positions: First, that Jews do have a right to an independent state as their only guarantee of sanctuary and respect in a world dominated by independent states; but, second, that Palestinians too have a right to freedom, security and independence. I had always thought both of these positions defensible and disinterested, but — unfortunately — hopelessly impractical because they were clearly irreconcilable.
Your ingenious solution had never occurred to me before. But, clearly, it’s the only way both sides can have their cake and eat it too.
I’m not sure that adopting the US Constitution as is is a wise move for any state: It’s not that effective at home, so why presume it’d work abroad?
But certainly the proposed solution — a single, secular state as the homeland of both Israelis and Palestinians — is not only logical, it is the only solution that can approximate real justice and peace for both sides.
“The practical barriers to its implementation are all, of course, “religious”.
In this regard, the response of the anonymous rabbi in your piece is instructive, and doubtless would have his counterpart among both Islamic and Christian communities in the Middle East and beyond.
The kind of unthinking bigotry that masquerades as “religious” thinking in these situations will, probably, be always with us.
But a secular state can act as a referee in such situations, and a truly committed ecumenical leadership in each of the communities of faith could go a long way toward defusing the more barbaric forms of religious bigotry and the injustice they spawn.
I my response, I asked my new friend and fellow peacenik to help me spread the word. We need to start a popular call for this one-state solution.
Who knows, maybe we, and the inhabitants of both countries, get lucky and one day achieve our dream.
— kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Many have responded favorably to my call for one democratic, secular nation instead of the two-state Israeli and Palestinian solution we have been fighting over for over half a century.
Others accused me of being a Jew hater, unrealistic, an idealist or a dreamer. I can’t deny the “dreamy” part, but didn’t some of the best solutions to world troubles started one day as rosy, unrealistic, unthinkable dreams?
Sadat was certainly a visionary dreamer, and his dream turned to reality. He achieved by peaceful means what Nasser lost in bloody wars.
I’ll skip that part of the feedback, then, and present to you the best response I received so far. It reads:
“For myself, I have always had difficulty reconciling two apparently irreconcilable positions: First, that Jews do have a right to an independent state as their only guarantee of sanctuary and respect in a world dominated by independent states; but, second, that Palestinians too have a right to freedom, security and independence. I had always thought both of these positions defensible and disinterested, but — unfortunately — hopelessly impractical because they were clearly irreconcilable.
Your ingenious solution had never occurred to me before. But, clearly, it’s the only way both sides can have their cake and eat it too.
I’m not sure that adopting the US Constitution as is is a wise move for any state: It’s not that effective at home, so why presume it’d work abroad?
But certainly the proposed solution — a single, secular state as the homeland of both Israelis and Palestinians — is not only logical, it is the only solution that can approximate real justice and peace for both sides.
“The practical barriers to its implementation are all, of course, “religious”.
In this regard, the response of the anonymous rabbi in your piece is instructive, and doubtless would have his counterpart among both Islamic and Christian communities in the Middle East and beyond.
The kind of unthinking bigotry that masquerades as “religious” thinking in these situations will, probably, be always with us.
But a secular state can act as a referee in such situations, and a truly committed ecumenical leadership in each of the communities of faith could go a long way toward defusing the more barbaric forms of religious bigotry and the injustice they spawn.
I my response, I asked my new friend and fellow peacenik to help me spread the word. We need to start a popular call for this one-state solution.
Who knows, maybe we, and the inhabitants of both countries, get lucky and one day achieve our dream.
— kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Sunday, May 23, 2004
Introducing Israel to Democracy
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi, kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
A question that keeps popping up in my conversations with Americans and Jews is: What is your stand on Israel? Do you believe in its existence? Do you advocate the return of the four million Palestinians who were forced to leave their homes in the last fifty years? Do you support the two-state solution?
The last conversation I had regarding these issues was with a rabbi. We were in Athens a week ago attending an international conference to improve dialogue between the world religions and civilizations. I told him I liked his speech about how even if we can’t love our neighbors we should at least pretend that we do.
It was inevitable he would ask me the “usual” questions and I answered as usual: Yes, Yes and no.
Yes to Israel’s existence. I might not love it, but in normal circumstances, I will deal with my neighbors as if I loved them, just like you preached this morning. How do I define those circumstances?
In short: Just and comprehensive settlement to our differences, according to international laws and mutual agreements.
And yes, I advocate the return of Arab refugees to their homes. If twelve million Jews can claim the right of return to lands they left four thousands years ago, it makes more sense for four million Palestinians to claim the same right to homes and farms that still exist, land they left over the last five decades.
But no, I don’t support the two-state solution. The place is too small and integrated to be sliced into two entities. Instead, I would call for a united, democratic and secular country.
It shouldn’t be Jewish, Muslim or Christian, but a multi-cultural state, where all are given equal rights and responsibility — just like the United States of America.
In fact, I would choose the American Constitution, as is, for the new state, where democracy rules, there’s freedom for everyone, the law is above all, and secularism is sacred.
My new friend didn’t like my answers. He said Israel must stay a Jewish nation, where Jews are the only citizens who enjoy all its benefits and rights. The others, Christians and Muslims, shouldn’t have equal rights, and must be under different regulations.
No returnees should be accepted because this will fatally change the demography of the state and end the Jewish dreamland.
We agreed to disagree but decided to keep in touch. Maybe one day we can reach more agreement on these issues. In the meanwhile, I would like to put my idea to a referendum.
Just imagine: No more peace negotiations; no more give and take; no more walls and fights. All it takes is for Israel to adopt the American Constitution and we all live happy ever after. Who says: Yes?
A question that keeps popping up in my conversations with Americans and Jews is: What is your stand on Israel? Do you believe in its existence? Do you advocate the return of the four million Palestinians who were forced to leave their homes in the last fifty years? Do you support the two-state solution?
The last conversation I had regarding these issues was with a rabbi. We were in Athens a week ago attending an international conference to improve dialogue between the world religions and civilizations. I told him I liked his speech about how even if we can’t love our neighbors we should at least pretend that we do.
It was inevitable he would ask me the “usual” questions and I answered as usual: Yes, Yes and no.
Yes to Israel’s existence. I might not love it, but in normal circumstances, I will deal with my neighbors as if I loved them, just like you preached this morning. How do I define those circumstances?
In short: Just and comprehensive settlement to our differences, according to international laws and mutual agreements.
And yes, I advocate the return of Arab refugees to their homes. If twelve million Jews can claim the right of return to lands they left four thousands years ago, it makes more sense for four million Palestinians to claim the same right to homes and farms that still exist, land they left over the last five decades.
But no, I don’t support the two-state solution. The place is too small and integrated to be sliced into two entities. Instead, I would call for a united, democratic and secular country.
It shouldn’t be Jewish, Muslim or Christian, but a multi-cultural state, where all are given equal rights and responsibility — just like the United States of America.
In fact, I would choose the American Constitution, as is, for the new state, where democracy rules, there’s freedom for everyone, the law is above all, and secularism is sacred.
My new friend didn’t like my answers. He said Israel must stay a Jewish nation, where Jews are the only citizens who enjoy all its benefits and rights. The others, Christians and Muslims, shouldn’t have equal rights, and must be under different regulations.
No returnees should be accepted because this will fatally change the demography of the state and end the Jewish dreamland.
We agreed to disagree but decided to keep in touch. Maybe one day we can reach more agreement on these issues. In the meanwhile, I would like to put my idea to a referendum.
Just imagine: No more peace negotiations; no more give and take; no more walls and fights. All it takes is for Israel to adopt the American Constitution and we all live happy ever after. Who says: Yes?
Sunday, May 16, 2004
To My American Readers, With Love
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi, Arab News
It is refreshing to learn that some of you agree with at least some of what I stand for. I appreciate and learn from your critical, independent, humane and global views. Together, we could start a global movement against all kinds of abuse, extremism and terror.
But there are also readers who insist that there is a difference between the crimes of a better class of people, who can do no wrong, and the lesser breed, whose similar or smaller crimes are inexcusable. I would only say to them: This is the mentality of the super-race, the crusaders and Zionists that gave rise to Bin Laden and his kind.
After centuries of imperialism and a concomitant flood of this rubbish, we cannot take it anymore. Either a crime is a crime and a criminal is a criminal regardless of color and race, or we have the law of the jungle, the Wild West, and all lawsuits are void.
I would ask this — hopefully — small number of vocal readers: Why does the US so adamantly refuse to join the World Court of Justice? Why would it force every member to sign a bilateral agreement not to persecute any American for war crimes? Why does it, on the other hand, preserve the right to persecute anyone, even prisoners of war, outside the international judicial system and without regard for the global conventions it is a signatory to?
You rightly regard the crimes of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as not representative of America. I lived in beautiful America with very beautiful Americans, and I wholeheartedly agree. How come, then, that you insist that the crimes of Muslim terrorists are representative of 1.5 billion Muslims, and blame Islam and Saudi Arabia for the extremist misreadings of Islam and the terrorist acts of a minority?
The double standards go on. You regard the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians, Afghani and Iraqi women and children as collateral damage, the barbaric violence of your soldiers as natural reactions in the fog of war. And then you turn around and tell us that the savage burning of four mercenaries and killing of militant Israeli settlers — land thieves — by rogue elements with valid complaints are indefensible crimes that all of us should pay or apologize for.
“War is Hell,” and if you start a fight you better roll with the punches. If you don’t like the heat, get the hell out of our kitchen. You shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Finally, if I sound angry, then wait until you hear from the Muslim street. For the sake of all of us peace lovers, I hope you don’t wait too long.
— kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
It is refreshing to learn that some of you agree with at least some of what I stand for. I appreciate and learn from your critical, independent, humane and global views. Together, we could start a global movement against all kinds of abuse, extremism and terror.
But there are also readers who insist that there is a difference between the crimes of a better class of people, who can do no wrong, and the lesser breed, whose similar or smaller crimes are inexcusable. I would only say to them: This is the mentality of the super-race, the crusaders and Zionists that gave rise to Bin Laden and his kind.
After centuries of imperialism and a concomitant flood of this rubbish, we cannot take it anymore. Either a crime is a crime and a criminal is a criminal regardless of color and race, or we have the law of the jungle, the Wild West, and all lawsuits are void.
I would ask this — hopefully — small number of vocal readers: Why does the US so adamantly refuse to join the World Court of Justice? Why would it force every member to sign a bilateral agreement not to persecute any American for war crimes? Why does it, on the other hand, preserve the right to persecute anyone, even prisoners of war, outside the international judicial system and without regard for the global conventions it is a signatory to?
You rightly regard the crimes of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as not representative of America. I lived in beautiful America with very beautiful Americans, and I wholeheartedly agree. How come, then, that you insist that the crimes of Muslim terrorists are representative of 1.5 billion Muslims, and blame Islam and Saudi Arabia for the extremist misreadings of Islam and the terrorist acts of a minority?
The double standards go on. You regard the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians, Afghani and Iraqi women and children as collateral damage, the barbaric violence of your soldiers as natural reactions in the fog of war. And then you turn around and tell us that the savage burning of four mercenaries and killing of militant Israeli settlers — land thieves — by rogue elements with valid complaints are indefensible crimes that all of us should pay or apologize for.
“War is Hell,” and if you start a fight you better roll with the punches. If you don’t like the heat, get the hell out of our kitchen. You shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Finally, if I sound angry, then wait until you hear from the Muslim street. For the sake of all of us peace lovers, I hope you don’t wait too long.
— kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Sunday, May 09, 2004
No to Terrorism, No to Collective Punishment
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
I am sorry. I feel ashamed. I am very sad. Unfortunately, I couldn’t express my feelings any better to my American, British and Australian friends when I heard the details of what happened to their fellow citizens during the savage terrorist attack in Yanbu, last week.
It made me feel guiltier when my friends started to comfort me. Imagine. Those wonderful hearts were telling me not to be so upset, and that it wasn’t my fault.
Megan Stack of the Los Angeles Times went further to express her own feelings after she learned of the gruesome and shameful treatment to the Iraqi prisoners by American and British soldiers in Iraq.
Here we were, two representatives of great cultures and nations, feeling helpless, hurt and ashamed of those who put us in this position. What had happened to our world, we wondered? How could any human, let alone members of great religions and civilizations commit such horrible crimes?
Megan and I are sane people who won’t fall into the trap of stereotyping and collective guilt and punishment. We understand that a few do not represent the overwhelming majority of decent Arabs, Muslims, American, Christian and Jews. We applauded Crown Prince Abdullah, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair when they expressed their disgust at what had happened, promised tighter measures to prevent repetition, and assured us that the few who committed these horrible crimes do not represent the rest of us.
Yes, the bad American and British apples do not belong in the great American and British gardens. As don’t the Arab terrorists belong in ours. As Bush and Blair have put rightly on many occasions, Islam and the great Arab nations are not to be blamed for the acts of the few who commit such terrible crimes against humanity and their own nations.
Let’s hope that the wider spectrum of Western media, legislative and security apparatus will be more aware of this basic fact and treat Arabs and Muslims with less suspicion and more understanding. And that Western intellectuals will not confuse Islam — the religion of peace, tolerance and cooperation — with the acts and interpretations of the fanatics and extremists which exist in every civilization.
On behalf of Megan and myself, and all decent Americans and Saudis, Christians and Muslims, we condemn the acts of barbarism as aggression against humanity and civility.
I asked my good American friend Megan to convey this message to her audience, while I convey the same message here to Arab News readers.
I hope all who agree e-mail us their solidarity.
— (kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa)
I am sorry. I feel ashamed. I am very sad. Unfortunately, I couldn’t express my feelings any better to my American, British and Australian friends when I heard the details of what happened to their fellow citizens during the savage terrorist attack in Yanbu, last week.
It made me feel guiltier when my friends started to comfort me. Imagine. Those wonderful hearts were telling me not to be so upset, and that it wasn’t my fault.
Megan Stack of the Los Angeles Times went further to express her own feelings after she learned of the gruesome and shameful treatment to the Iraqi prisoners by American and British soldiers in Iraq.
Here we were, two representatives of great cultures and nations, feeling helpless, hurt and ashamed of those who put us in this position. What had happened to our world, we wondered? How could any human, let alone members of great religions and civilizations commit such horrible crimes?
Megan and I are sane people who won’t fall into the trap of stereotyping and collective guilt and punishment. We understand that a few do not represent the overwhelming majority of decent Arabs, Muslims, American, Christian and Jews. We applauded Crown Prince Abdullah, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair when they expressed their disgust at what had happened, promised tighter measures to prevent repetition, and assured us that the few who committed these horrible crimes do not represent the rest of us.
Yes, the bad American and British apples do not belong in the great American and British gardens. As don’t the Arab terrorists belong in ours. As Bush and Blair have put rightly on many occasions, Islam and the great Arab nations are not to be blamed for the acts of the few who commit such terrible crimes against humanity and their own nations.
Let’s hope that the wider spectrum of Western media, legislative and security apparatus will be more aware of this basic fact and treat Arabs and Muslims with less suspicion and more understanding. And that Western intellectuals will not confuse Islam — the religion of peace, tolerance and cooperation — with the acts and interpretations of the fanatics and extremists which exist in every civilization.
On behalf of Megan and myself, and all decent Americans and Saudis, Christians and Muslims, we condemn the acts of barbarism as aggression against humanity and civility.
I asked my good American friend Megan to convey this message to her audience, while I convey the same message here to Arab News readers.
I hope all who agree e-mail us their solidarity.
— (kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa)
To My American Readers, With Love
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi, Arab News
It is refreshing to learn that some of you agree with at least some of what I stand for. I appreciate and learn from your critical, independent, humane and global views. Together, we could start a global movement against all kinds of abuse, extremism and terror.
But there are also readers who insist that there is a difference between the crimes of a better class of people, who can do no wrong, and the lesser breed, whose similar or smaller crimes are inexcusable. I would only say to them: This is the mentality of the super-race, the crusaders and Zionists that gave rise to Bin Laden and his kind.
After centuries of imperialism and a concomitant flood of this rubbish, we cannot take it anymore. Either a crime is a crime and a criminal is a criminal regardless of color and race, or we have the law of the jungle, the Wild West, and all lawsuits are void.
I would ask this — hopefully — small number of vocal readers: Why does the US so adamantly refuse to join the World Court of Justice? Why would it force every member to sign a bilateral agreement not to persecute any American for war crimes? Why does it, on the other hand, preserve the right to persecute anyone, even prisoners of war, outside the international judicial system and without regard for the global conventions it is a signatory to?
You rightly regard the crimes of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as not representative of America. I lived in beautiful America with very beautiful Americans, and I wholeheartedly agree. How come, then, that you insist that the crimes of Muslim terrorists are representative of 1.5 billion Muslims, and blame Islam and Saudi Arabia for the extremist misreadings of Islam and the terrorist acts of a minority?
The double standards go on. You regard the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians, Afghani and Iraqi women and children as collateral damage, the barbaric violence of your soldiers as natural reactions in the fog of war. And then you turn around and tell us that the savage burning of four mercenaries and killing of militant Israeli settlers — land thieves — by rogue elements with valid complaints are indefensible crimes that all of us should pay or apologize for.
“War is Hell,” and if you start a fight you better roll with the punches. If you don’t like the heat, get the hell out of our kitchen. You shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Finally, if I sound angry, then wait until you hear from the Muslim street. For the sake of all of us peace lovers, I hope you don’t wait too long.
— kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
It is refreshing to learn that some of you agree with at least some of what I stand for. I appreciate and learn from your critical, independent, humane and global views. Together, we could start a global movement against all kinds of abuse, extremism and terror.
But there are also readers who insist that there is a difference between the crimes of a better class of people, who can do no wrong, and the lesser breed, whose similar or smaller crimes are inexcusable. I would only say to them: This is the mentality of the super-race, the crusaders and Zionists that gave rise to Bin Laden and his kind.
After centuries of imperialism and a concomitant flood of this rubbish, we cannot take it anymore. Either a crime is a crime and a criminal is a criminal regardless of color and race, or we have the law of the jungle, the Wild West, and all lawsuits are void.
I would ask this — hopefully — small number of vocal readers: Why does the US so adamantly refuse to join the World Court of Justice? Why would it force every member to sign a bilateral agreement not to persecute any American for war crimes? Why does it, on the other hand, preserve the right to persecute anyone, even prisoners of war, outside the international judicial system and without regard for the global conventions it is a signatory to?
You rightly regard the crimes of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as not representative of America. I lived in beautiful America with very beautiful Americans, and I wholeheartedly agree. How come, then, that you insist that the crimes of Muslim terrorists are representative of 1.5 billion Muslims, and blame Islam and Saudi Arabia for the extremist misreadings of Islam and the terrorist acts of a minority?
The double standards go on. You regard the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians, Afghani and Iraqi women and children as collateral damage, the barbaric violence of your soldiers as natural reactions in the fog of war. And then you turn around and tell us that the savage burning of four mercenaries and killing of militant Israeli settlers — land thieves — by rogue elements with valid complaints are indefensible crimes that all of us should pay or apologize for.
“War is Hell,” and if you start a fight you better roll with the punches. If you don’t like the heat, get the hell out of our kitchen. You shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Finally, if I sound angry, then wait until you hear from the Muslim street. For the sake of all of us peace lovers, I hope you don’t wait too long.
— kbatarfi@al-madina.com.sa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)