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
Sunday, May 30, 2004
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)