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 31, 2004
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)