My last article, “Best Model for Arab World?” has generated a passionate debate. Many disagreed with my view that Turkey and Dubai can’t be taken as the best model to follow. I appreciate their perspective and understand their concerns. Most opponents come from the New World (USA). Heritage-aware secular Europeans were more concerned with the religion aspect.
I agree that progress carries a hefty price tag. We cannot stop the time machine or turn its clock backward. Economics dictates ways and means that might not suit every soul and please every heart.
The question is: Should it be either or? Do we have to choose between modernity and civilization; prosperity and identity; progress and heritage? Does globalization mean the death of cultural diversity? Can’t a nation be progressive as well as proud of its past achievements and committed to its value system?
My stand is: Yes, we can be proud Arabs, good Muslims and great civil builders. We did it in the past and can do it again. Great civilizations, like China and India, are doing it today.
Yes, culture and heritage do matter. Lose your identity and you lose your soul, relate to your roots and you stand taller. That is my perspective; here are other points of view from dear readers.
— Why try to imitate anyone else? Arabs should simply decide for themselves what sort of society they want and build it.
Gordon
— Malaysia is an Asian, not Arab country. Its progress was achieved mainly by the Indian and Chinese communities. Turkey and Dubai have the right attitude toward humanity that is more important than any religious attitude.
Bulbul
— Turkey is a country with identity. It didn’t join the European Union because it must adhere to certain standards. Kemal Attaturk’s revolution is effective and sooner or later they will be in the EU.
I lived in Dubai and found it a role model. Its leaders work according to a plan and know exactly what they are doing. Yes, laborers are foreign, but managers and planners are locals.
Najat
— The advocates of Turkey-Dubai model do not share your frame of reference. Put the question to those who are on the same plane like me.
While I respect your search for near-best, why look for models at all? We have the Qur’an and Sunnah. Let’s take an overdose of learning and knowledge and set about building our own new model, better than Malaysia.
Anis
— Dubai is an excellent example of how to blend the best of East and West and tolerance in action. Yes, on the surface you will find it more West than East, but dig deeper and you’ll find that the Eastern heritage, cultures and values remain intact.
Carol
— Most of Muslims in the world are not Arab. Arabic as a language has a limited vocabulary, so it is not practical for scientific pursuits without adding English, French, or German derivatives.
Modernity is not a problem for Arabs, but it is for fundamentalist Muslims. Arabs must get over the habit of indexing every human event to Israel. You should just recognize it and move on with your lives.
An attachment to heritage and identity is valuable only if it moves you forward. So the best model for the Arab world is to separate religion from government and politics. This will lead to peace and progress, without sacrificing your identity.
Chris
— Turkey is a great nation but still hopelessly poor and cannot be bracketed with UAE or Qatar. It is a hope and possibility that they will be admitted into the EU, at which time maybe Attaturk experiment will have finally paid off.
Peter
— “Hollywood” is the model that is now banging on the doors of the Arab world. It is not the best model but hard to stop because it attracts the young.
Ferdinand
— If you want to build skyscrapers you have a choice: School the builders, or import them.
Heidi
— Similar worries exist in my country. Some fear we are going to be Islamized by the growing number of Muslim immigrants. Others fear a EU attempt to replace national identity with European.
I won’t give up my identity easily for another, especially when the present culture and lifestyle have such a good track record in terms of stability and low poverty. On the other hand, I am open to changes. If not, we would still be living like the old Vikings, 1000 years ago.
What is a culture, a religion or an ideology and what is its purpose? They are all strategies for survival — to make money, to prosper. So if your own society isn’t good at making money then it is high time to adjust your culture a little.
David
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Best Model for Arab World?
In my last column, “Why Arabs Lost Past Glories?” I cited Malaysia as an example of how we could develop a progressive model based on Islamic and indigenous heritage. Some of you reminded me of other successful examples, like Turkey and Dubai. With all due respect, I disagree. There are elements of success in both experiments, but I could point out failures as well. Let me explain:
Turkey at one time was a nation that unified the Ummah under its Islamic banner. They revived the caliphate, this time under non-Arab sultans.
For centuries, they spread civility, modernity and peace over a vast empire. Most of the Arab world was part of the map that expanded from 1326 when the empire was founded by the Muslim warrior Osman, from Istanbul to the borders of Iran, East, and Austria, West; and from Russia, North, to Africa, South. The empire was finally dissolved at the end of World War I and modern Turkey born.
Turkey, then, took an opposite turn. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk founded the Republic of Turkey in 1923 on Western principles. Ataturk (Father of the Turks) abolished the sultanate in 1922. Before his death in 1938, he managed to change the Turkish alphabet from Arabic to Latin, imposed an anti-Islamic constitution, and put the army as the ultimate guardians of the secular state.
His successors kept Turkey forcefully and adamantly on this track. The hope was the country would eventually join the secular Europe, leaving its Islamic heritage behind. It achieved neither. The Muslim population kept Qur’an at heart, as did their brethren under oppressive Communist rule in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Chechnya.
At the same time, the Muslim world didn’t trust the first Islamic country to recognize Israel and join the NATO, while Christian Europe wouldn’t let them in. Halfway here, halfway there, Turkey now seems to have lost the sense of direction and belonging. You can’t buy tomorrow if you sell your yesterday and lose your today. Without a character to face the world with, you can’t face even yourself.
Dubai and its copycats like Qatar seem to be going down a similar road. Worse, with tiny population, they had to call for massive help. Only they chose mostly non-Arab, non-Muslim work force. Some 90 percent of residents in Dubai are foreigners. English, Hindi and Farsi are dominant.
You can live in this Arabic, Muslim emirate without the need to learn a single Arabic word. And you could live an entirely Western life in ultra-modern skyscrapers, visit malls and resorts without much of a reminder or an exposure to the original culture.
The same can be said about other Gulf countries. With the indigenous population down to 10 percent in some states, and the majority made up of one or two foreign ethnic groups, the demography of these countries is fast changing. Soon, many foreigners will be granted citizenship and have a say in its decision-making process. Naturally, they would advocate policies favorable to their countries of origin and cultures. Then what will become of the nations we call Arab and Muslim?
I discussed these concerns with an influential Gulf minister. Smart and highly educated, as he is, he was mostly dismissive. Progress has a price, he explained. We don’t have enough talent to build this miracle you witness around you. They had to be imported. And since there are great pools of labor in our immediate neighborhood, like India and Iran, they come first. We provide them with good work and business opportunities, so they are too happy and would not think of creating trouble. As long as we are fair and kind to them, they won’t be a security threat. As for the effects on our culture, it is unavoidable.
The world today is one big village. Cultures are melting and a mixed global heritage is being formed. Yes, we might lose some identity, but that is the price we must pay.
I told him that it was a very hefty price. Identity cannot be traded. Identity is who you are, what you are and why you exist. Identity is your today’s security and tomorrow’s warranty. If you lose your face and change your genes, you not only endanger your present, but forfeit your future, too.
And what for? You don’t need all the brand new towns and inflated economy made by foreigners for foreigners. You could live happily with one fraction of all that, and keep your country, too.
My Turkey-Dubai admirers disagreed with my logic. Live facts and numbers, they argued, are better measurements of achievement and a more accurate indication of the future than history lessons and romantic attachment to heritage and identity.
Well, that was my position, and that is theirs. What is yours, dear readers?
Turkey at one time was a nation that unified the Ummah under its Islamic banner. They revived the caliphate, this time under non-Arab sultans.
For centuries, they spread civility, modernity and peace over a vast empire. Most of the Arab world was part of the map that expanded from 1326 when the empire was founded by the Muslim warrior Osman, from Istanbul to the borders of Iran, East, and Austria, West; and from Russia, North, to Africa, South. The empire was finally dissolved at the end of World War I and modern Turkey born.
Turkey, then, took an opposite turn. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk founded the Republic of Turkey in 1923 on Western principles. Ataturk (Father of the Turks) abolished the sultanate in 1922. Before his death in 1938, he managed to change the Turkish alphabet from Arabic to Latin, imposed an anti-Islamic constitution, and put the army as the ultimate guardians of the secular state.
His successors kept Turkey forcefully and adamantly on this track. The hope was the country would eventually join the secular Europe, leaving its Islamic heritage behind. It achieved neither. The Muslim population kept Qur’an at heart, as did their brethren under oppressive Communist rule in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Chechnya.
At the same time, the Muslim world didn’t trust the first Islamic country to recognize Israel and join the NATO, while Christian Europe wouldn’t let them in. Halfway here, halfway there, Turkey now seems to have lost the sense of direction and belonging. You can’t buy tomorrow if you sell your yesterday and lose your today. Without a character to face the world with, you can’t face even yourself.
Dubai and its copycats like Qatar seem to be going down a similar road. Worse, with tiny population, they had to call for massive help. Only they chose mostly non-Arab, non-Muslim work force. Some 90 percent of residents in Dubai are foreigners. English, Hindi and Farsi are dominant.
You can live in this Arabic, Muslim emirate without the need to learn a single Arabic word. And you could live an entirely Western life in ultra-modern skyscrapers, visit malls and resorts without much of a reminder or an exposure to the original culture.
The same can be said about other Gulf countries. With the indigenous population down to 10 percent in some states, and the majority made up of one or two foreign ethnic groups, the demography of these countries is fast changing. Soon, many foreigners will be granted citizenship and have a say in its decision-making process. Naturally, they would advocate policies favorable to their countries of origin and cultures. Then what will become of the nations we call Arab and Muslim?
I discussed these concerns with an influential Gulf minister. Smart and highly educated, as he is, he was mostly dismissive. Progress has a price, he explained. We don’t have enough talent to build this miracle you witness around you. They had to be imported. And since there are great pools of labor in our immediate neighborhood, like India and Iran, they come first. We provide them with good work and business opportunities, so they are too happy and would not think of creating trouble. As long as we are fair and kind to them, they won’t be a security threat. As for the effects on our culture, it is unavoidable.
The world today is one big village. Cultures are melting and a mixed global heritage is being formed. Yes, we might lose some identity, but that is the price we must pay.
I told him that it was a very hefty price. Identity cannot be traded. Identity is who you are, what you are and why you exist. Identity is your today’s security and tomorrow’s warranty. If you lose your face and change your genes, you not only endanger your present, but forfeit your future, too.
And what for? You don’t need all the brand new towns and inflated economy made by foreigners for foreigners. You could live happily with one fraction of all that, and keep your country, too.
My Turkey-Dubai admirers disagreed with my logic. Live facts and numbers, they argued, are better measurements of achievement and a more accurate indication of the future than history lessons and romantic attachment to heritage and identity.
Well, that was my position, and that is theirs. What is yours, dear readers?
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Peace in the Middle East? Why Not!
This week Arab leaders meet in Riyadh to discuss a number of burning issues, including Iraq, Lebanon and Iran as well as the Arab peace initiative.
An American reporter asked me when I think the Middle East will get over the current turbulence. Soon, I told him. And I have my reasons. Let me explain.
Conflicts over interests stop when the parties reach a point beyond which more fights mean more loss to all and everybody realizes that only negotiations offer any chance of better deals.
Let’s start with Iraq. The US, Iran, Turkey, Syria and the Gulf nations are losing out as a result of the continuing turmoil in Iraq. Without peace, America cannot deliver any of its promises to Iraqis. No security means no freedom, democracy or prosperity.
Failing on all these counts and eluding stability will present the US administration with a host of no-go options. To withdraw now and leave Iraq in chaos will certainly mean a near-future return to save “the World’s Gas Station.” Staying the course and playing the role of fireman means unbearable cost in souls and dollars. Add to this the long-lasting stains on the US image and the loss of business contracts for oil, arms, and construction corporations. Peace, then, is a must.
Iran, too, has hit a bottom. More war means more American, Turkish and Arab involvement in Iraq and too many threats. The Iraqis are cutting each other’s throats, almost equally. To achieve its goals in Iraq, including political influence and Shiite dominance, Iran now needs peace.
Turkey will have to interfere militarily if Iraq is broken and the Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey pursue their dream of a united Kurdistan. A strong central government running a peaceful country is the best guarantee against such a project.
Syria is under tremendous pressure — from Lebanon and Israel to the west and from Iraq to the east, plus America and company from all over. Peace and quiet on all fronts is urgently needed to survive the day.
The Arab Gulf nations have most to lose if chaos continues in Iraq. Theirs is a volatile region. You cannot play with guns or fireworks in a gas station! Besides, with similar religious and ethnic demographics in each country, similar fires may break out. Tribes and families are split over borders. How can you prevent help going from one part to another? Besides, nuclear Iran and fiery Iraq will still be there long after America leaves. Grab peace as long as a strong power is in place, or lose it for ages.
The Iraqis, too, cannot win in a prolonged sectarian war. Their country will turn into another Lebanon: A free arena for neighbors’ disputes and fights. Development will be postponed, peace and prosperity forsaken. Their best and brightest are being killed, turning into militants or immigrating. More of such loss and the country’s future will be left in the hands of hooligans.
In Lebanon, all parities have reached a dangerous stalemate. An unfortunate accident or event, like the recent student fight in the Arabian University, might trigger a civil war. No Lebanese will benefit from more wars in a country that was finally edging toward normality, stability and economic prosperity.
Syria cannot sustain its isolation. It has never been so cut off from the world. Except for Iran, it is now estranged from all. Peace in Lebanon is its return ticket to the world.
Even Israel, if cool heads prevail, cannot benefit from this state of affairs. The situation in the occupied lands and Gaza is getting more dangerous. More pressure on the Palestinians is delivering more militants and suicide bombers to the resistance. The situation in Iraq is similarly hazardous. If Americans leave, chaos will produce more anti-Israel forces that will make life harder for Israel. An extremist Shiite government will bring a powerful anti-Israel Iran closer to the border. Peace promises a much better deal to the Jewish state.
That’s why I believe we have a good chance of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. The good omens are plenty. Saudi Arabia is leading the march toward reconciliation — King Abdullah is meeting with Arab leaders, Prince Bandar undertakes frequent trips to regional capitals and Dr. Abdulaziz Khojah (Saudi ambassador to Lebanon) continues mediation efforts in Beirut.
The Makkah Agreement ceased the bloodshed in Palestinian territories and paved the way for a unity government. Now comes the Arab Summit in Riyadh and the revisited Arab peace initiative. If all parties played their cards right, the peace cake will serve all a good feast.
An American reporter asked me when I think the Middle East will get over the current turbulence. Soon, I told him. And I have my reasons. Let me explain.
Conflicts over interests stop when the parties reach a point beyond which more fights mean more loss to all and everybody realizes that only negotiations offer any chance of better deals.
Let’s start with Iraq. The US, Iran, Turkey, Syria and the Gulf nations are losing out as a result of the continuing turmoil in Iraq. Without peace, America cannot deliver any of its promises to Iraqis. No security means no freedom, democracy or prosperity.
Failing on all these counts and eluding stability will present the US administration with a host of no-go options. To withdraw now and leave Iraq in chaos will certainly mean a near-future return to save “the World’s Gas Station.” Staying the course and playing the role of fireman means unbearable cost in souls and dollars. Add to this the long-lasting stains on the US image and the loss of business contracts for oil, arms, and construction corporations. Peace, then, is a must.
Iran, too, has hit a bottom. More war means more American, Turkish and Arab involvement in Iraq and too many threats. The Iraqis are cutting each other’s throats, almost equally. To achieve its goals in Iraq, including political influence and Shiite dominance, Iran now needs peace.
Turkey will have to interfere militarily if Iraq is broken and the Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey pursue their dream of a united Kurdistan. A strong central government running a peaceful country is the best guarantee against such a project.
Syria is under tremendous pressure — from Lebanon and Israel to the west and from Iraq to the east, plus America and company from all over. Peace and quiet on all fronts is urgently needed to survive the day.
The Arab Gulf nations have most to lose if chaos continues in Iraq. Theirs is a volatile region. You cannot play with guns or fireworks in a gas station! Besides, with similar religious and ethnic demographics in each country, similar fires may break out. Tribes and families are split over borders. How can you prevent help going from one part to another? Besides, nuclear Iran and fiery Iraq will still be there long after America leaves. Grab peace as long as a strong power is in place, or lose it for ages.
The Iraqis, too, cannot win in a prolonged sectarian war. Their country will turn into another Lebanon: A free arena for neighbors’ disputes and fights. Development will be postponed, peace and prosperity forsaken. Their best and brightest are being killed, turning into militants or immigrating. More of such loss and the country’s future will be left in the hands of hooligans.
In Lebanon, all parities have reached a dangerous stalemate. An unfortunate accident or event, like the recent student fight in the Arabian University, might trigger a civil war. No Lebanese will benefit from more wars in a country that was finally edging toward normality, stability and economic prosperity.
Syria cannot sustain its isolation. It has never been so cut off from the world. Except for Iran, it is now estranged from all. Peace in Lebanon is its return ticket to the world.
Even Israel, if cool heads prevail, cannot benefit from this state of affairs. The situation in the occupied lands and Gaza is getting more dangerous. More pressure on the Palestinians is delivering more militants and suicide bombers to the resistance. The situation in Iraq is similarly hazardous. If Americans leave, chaos will produce more anti-Israel forces that will make life harder for Israel. An extremist Shiite government will bring a powerful anti-Israel Iran closer to the border. Peace promises a much better deal to the Jewish state.
That’s why I believe we have a good chance of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. The good omens are plenty. Saudi Arabia is leading the march toward reconciliation — King Abdullah is meeting with Arab leaders, Prince Bandar undertakes frequent trips to regional capitals and Dr. Abdulaziz Khojah (Saudi ambassador to Lebanon) continues mediation efforts in Beirut.
The Makkah Agreement ceased the bloodshed in Palestinian territories and paved the way for a unity government. Now comes the Arab Summit in Riyadh and the revisited Arab peace initiative. If all parties played their cards right, the peace cake will serve all a good feast.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Muslims Mute on Terrorism?
It is very easy to give simple answers to difficult questions. Anyone can do it, even George W. Bush. Why do they hate us? Because we elect our leaders. Why Muslims kill Muslims? Because they hate each other. Why young Muslims turn into suicide bombers? Because they hate life. Why no progress in the Middle East? Because Arabs are born lazy and backward. Why Islamic terror? Because Islam inspires violence and condones terrorism. Where is the Muslim outrage? Don’t hold your breath! They all support terror.
Past victims included Jews, blacks and Native Americans. Jews were demonized to justify discrimination and extermination. The African brain was “found” to be less capable. Millions were enslaved, misused and killed because they were lesser humans. “The only good Indian is a dead Indian,” the invaders discovered. So genocide claimed the lives of millions of natives in North America.
Now it is the Muslims’ turn. Push them to the limit; if they fail it is because of their religion and race; if they react stupidly or violently, it must be their faith and genes. Either way, you win.
Since those who fight back follow the same faith or come from the same race, we are all responsible. We should not only dissociate and condemn them, but also fight them along with the invaders. Neutrality is no longer an option. The problem is if we do so our people will curse us, if we don’t the crusaders who are looking for an excuse to oppress us will find one.
The bottom line is we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
American columnist Thomas Friedman, in a recent article, wants to know why Muslims are mostly mute toward suicide bombing. He fully knows why 1,300 million Muslims are angry, and he also knows that only a few thousand Muslims are in a violent mode. As an “Israel-First” American, he must have known that his uniformed terrorists in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan kill thousands of civilians for every enemy combatant they eliminate, and destroy towns and villages for every enemy cell they demolish.
The terrorists in nice suits and cool uniforms are the ones who drive young men and women to so much desperation that life equals death to them. Some find no weapons to fight back the superpowers of the day but their own bodies. In World War II, the European resistance fighters were called martyrs when they jumped the enemy’s guns. The Japanese, who did similarly, were called maniacs. In our case, they are called terrorists. Victor’s justice includes name-calling.
“Where is the outrage?” Friedman “innocently” asks. Answer: The public outrage due is against your wars on Islam and Muslims. Our terrorists fight us as much as they fight you, and we are fighting them back. Listen to our mosques and follow our media and you will find lots of battles, speeches, fatwas and articles against them — that is if you don’t limit your readings to Israeli MEMRI (founded and run by a former Mossad colonel).
This is our outrage, but where is yours? Where is the outrage against the US soldiers who randomly shot and killed 16 Afghan civilians on a highway in revenge for an earlier Taleban attack? Or against the Marines who raped innocent Iraqi women and killed family members in retaliation for a roadside bomb? Or against the killing, maiming and displacing of a million Lebanese civilians in response to the capturing of two Israeli soldiers?
We are fighting our terrorists, but are you fighting yours? Our bad and ugly are taken to court, humiliated and hanged; when are yours going to be tried and punished? We call our terrorists “terrorists,” you call yours presidents, prime ministers and patriotic “men and women in uniforms.” We don’t blame your religion and race for the crimes against us, but you blame ours to justify collective punishment.
Yes, we have our hate speakers and fear merchants, but they are mostly in caves and prisons, hunted and doomed. Yours, however, are members of legislative bodies. They lead legitimate governments, businesses, churches, synagogues and media organizations. Friedman is trying to compete with a league of villains like Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James C. Dobson, and Franklin Graham. Google them out and see what kind of hate speeches they make against Arabs and Muslims every day. Our extremists are civilized in comparison. If you want us to go out of our way to denounce our extremists, you should show us the way by denouncing yours. It takes two to tango.
Past victims included Jews, blacks and Native Americans. Jews were demonized to justify discrimination and extermination. The African brain was “found” to be less capable. Millions were enslaved, misused and killed because they were lesser humans. “The only good Indian is a dead Indian,” the invaders discovered. So genocide claimed the lives of millions of natives in North America.
Now it is the Muslims’ turn. Push them to the limit; if they fail it is because of their religion and race; if they react stupidly or violently, it must be their faith and genes. Either way, you win.
Since those who fight back follow the same faith or come from the same race, we are all responsible. We should not only dissociate and condemn them, but also fight them along with the invaders. Neutrality is no longer an option. The problem is if we do so our people will curse us, if we don’t the crusaders who are looking for an excuse to oppress us will find one.
The bottom line is we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
American columnist Thomas Friedman, in a recent article, wants to know why Muslims are mostly mute toward suicide bombing. He fully knows why 1,300 million Muslims are angry, and he also knows that only a few thousand Muslims are in a violent mode. As an “Israel-First” American, he must have known that his uniformed terrorists in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan kill thousands of civilians for every enemy combatant they eliminate, and destroy towns and villages for every enemy cell they demolish.
The terrorists in nice suits and cool uniforms are the ones who drive young men and women to so much desperation that life equals death to them. Some find no weapons to fight back the superpowers of the day but their own bodies. In World War II, the European resistance fighters were called martyrs when they jumped the enemy’s guns. The Japanese, who did similarly, were called maniacs. In our case, they are called terrorists. Victor’s justice includes name-calling.
“Where is the outrage?” Friedman “innocently” asks. Answer: The public outrage due is against your wars on Islam and Muslims. Our terrorists fight us as much as they fight you, and we are fighting them back. Listen to our mosques and follow our media and you will find lots of battles, speeches, fatwas and articles against them — that is if you don’t limit your readings to Israeli MEMRI (founded and run by a former Mossad colonel).
This is our outrage, but where is yours? Where is the outrage against the US soldiers who randomly shot and killed 16 Afghan civilians on a highway in revenge for an earlier Taleban attack? Or against the Marines who raped innocent Iraqi women and killed family members in retaliation for a roadside bomb? Or against the killing, maiming and displacing of a million Lebanese civilians in response to the capturing of two Israeli soldiers?
We are fighting our terrorists, but are you fighting yours? Our bad and ugly are taken to court, humiliated and hanged; when are yours going to be tried and punished? We call our terrorists “terrorists,” you call yours presidents, prime ministers and patriotic “men and women in uniforms.” We don’t blame your religion and race for the crimes against us, but you blame ours to justify collective punishment.
Yes, we have our hate speakers and fear merchants, but they are mostly in caves and prisons, hunted and doomed. Yours, however, are members of legislative bodies. They lead legitimate governments, businesses, churches, synagogues and media organizations. Friedman is trying to compete with a league of villains like Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James C. Dobson, and Franklin Graham. Google them out and see what kind of hate speeches they make against Arabs and Muslims every day. Our extremists are civilized in comparison. If you want us to go out of our way to denounce our extremists, you should show us the way by denouncing yours. It takes two to tango.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Wrong Comparisons, America!
I asked two US officials the same question on two different occasions and received the same response. They were Liz Cheney (Dick Cheney’s daughter), assistant secretary of state for Middle and Near East, and Lorne W. Craner, assistant secretary of state for human rights, democracy and labor. Both were supposed to explain why America’s human rights record today is so poor; how the American conscience tolerated Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib; why the leader of the free world sends prisoners to dictatorships for torture; why the US kidnaps suspects, ships them to secret prisons in bases around the world, even without the knowledge of host countries.
Without flinching, the two top officials started by pointing to Arab police states and human rights records. They were basically saying: “You are in no position to criticize us on such issues because you fared worse!”
Lorne Craner went further to compare the American justice system with that of the worst Arab and Muslim countries in his defense of his administration’s treatment of Muslim and Arab prisoners. He also compared citizen rights in America to ours.
The argument goes like this: “Before you point a finger at our systems take a minute to examine yours! We are still way ahead of you. Learn and follow. Once you are our equals, then you may be qualified to discuss our shortcomings!”
This was so disturbing because I might accept it from an ignorant demagogue, but not from high-level representatives of the Land of the Free.
“So now you are comparing your superpower, world-leader nation with our Third World countries?” I answered in disbelief. “If so, who are you to preach to us? If we now refer to the same value system, then please come down from your high moral ground and stop showing us the way?”
When I asked about the colossal collateral damage American forces caused in Iraq and Afghanistan, Craner made another comparison, this time to World War I and II. Imagine that! After 60 years of progress, after the UN, the Geneva Conventions and all the rules governing war and occupation, comes the representative of the great nation that led that progress to take us back to square one!
I also asked other American officials about the phenomenal corruption in Iraq. Again, the comparison was made to our corruption. And whenever I mentioned the propaganda campaign in Iraq that involved bribing writers and journalists to publish “made in USA” editorials and stories, I am reminded of Arab propaganda.
Even when I ask about the slow process of visa issuing or the way some Muslims are treated in US airports and FBI custody, a comparison is made to the situation in Arab embassies and countries.
“Look at your press! Look at the way Arab governments are using the media for propaganda. At least, in America, the government cannot directly use or abuse the media. We are free to criticize the president and his administration any time. Can you?” the argument goes.
When I wrote the column, “The Myth of US Freedom of Press” two weeks ago, many American readers reminded me of the Arab record in this area. I anticipated this familiar reaction and ended my article with this loud and clear statement: “We, in the Arab world, never claim to have true free press, but American media brag about it.” Still many missed the point or insisted on missing it.
Sorry, but I refuse, on behalf of the admirers of the American Bill of Rights, to accept this lowering of a flag that has been for centuries a symbol of freedom, democracy and justice. America and the world deserve better!
US officials are not the only ones making this kind of argument. The French did it, too.
When they banned the hijab for schoolgirls, they pointed to a similar ban in two Muslim countries, Tunisia and Turkey. Wasn’t the human rights the biggest concern France cited for voting against Turkey’s membership of the European Union? What moral difference is there if we now compare records of human rights abuses in a leader of the civilized world and that of Third World countries? Besides, we hold up France to its great constitution, secular traditions and freedoms, not to the value system of lesser nations.
What a shame! Where are we going to look for inspiration and enlightenment if the guardians of the City of Light and the Statue of Liberty are acting like the worst of us?
Without flinching, the two top officials started by pointing to Arab police states and human rights records. They were basically saying: “You are in no position to criticize us on such issues because you fared worse!”
Lorne Craner went further to compare the American justice system with that of the worst Arab and Muslim countries in his defense of his administration’s treatment of Muslim and Arab prisoners. He also compared citizen rights in America to ours.
The argument goes like this: “Before you point a finger at our systems take a minute to examine yours! We are still way ahead of you. Learn and follow. Once you are our equals, then you may be qualified to discuss our shortcomings!”
This was so disturbing because I might accept it from an ignorant demagogue, but not from high-level representatives of the Land of the Free.
“So now you are comparing your superpower, world-leader nation with our Third World countries?” I answered in disbelief. “If so, who are you to preach to us? If we now refer to the same value system, then please come down from your high moral ground and stop showing us the way?”
When I asked about the colossal collateral damage American forces caused in Iraq and Afghanistan, Craner made another comparison, this time to World War I and II. Imagine that! After 60 years of progress, after the UN, the Geneva Conventions and all the rules governing war and occupation, comes the representative of the great nation that led that progress to take us back to square one!
I also asked other American officials about the phenomenal corruption in Iraq. Again, the comparison was made to our corruption. And whenever I mentioned the propaganda campaign in Iraq that involved bribing writers and journalists to publish “made in USA” editorials and stories, I am reminded of Arab propaganda.
Even when I ask about the slow process of visa issuing or the way some Muslims are treated in US airports and FBI custody, a comparison is made to the situation in Arab embassies and countries.
“Look at your press! Look at the way Arab governments are using the media for propaganda. At least, in America, the government cannot directly use or abuse the media. We are free to criticize the president and his administration any time. Can you?” the argument goes.
When I wrote the column, “The Myth of US Freedom of Press” two weeks ago, many American readers reminded me of the Arab record in this area. I anticipated this familiar reaction and ended my article with this loud and clear statement: “We, in the Arab world, never claim to have true free press, but American media brag about it.” Still many missed the point or insisted on missing it.
Sorry, but I refuse, on behalf of the admirers of the American Bill of Rights, to accept this lowering of a flag that has been for centuries a symbol of freedom, democracy and justice. America and the world deserve better!
US officials are not the only ones making this kind of argument. The French did it, too.
When they banned the hijab for schoolgirls, they pointed to a similar ban in two Muslim countries, Tunisia and Turkey. Wasn’t the human rights the biggest concern France cited for voting against Turkey’s membership of the European Union? What moral difference is there if we now compare records of human rights abuses in a leader of the civilized world and that of Third World countries? Besides, we hold up France to its great constitution, secular traditions and freedoms, not to the value system of lesser nations.
What a shame! Where are we going to look for inspiration and enlightenment if the guardians of the City of Light and the Statue of Liberty are acting like the worst of us?
Monday, March 05, 2007
Miscalculation, the Middle Eastern Curse
It seems miscalculation is a Middle Eastern curse. This has been the case throughout history.
In the last century we kept the tradition alive. Conflicts, like Iraq-Iran and Gulf wars, were born out of Arab, Iranian and Western miscalculations. This and other ones left millions dead, maimed, poor and homeless.
Our best and brightest went either down with desperation or immigrated. Some of the most successful ethnic groups in America today are Arab-Americans. Arab immigrants achieved similar success in the rest of the world from Australia and Indonesia to Africa and Brazil, but not in the Middle East.
Here we go again, as Ronald Reagan would say, in the new millennium.
Even though the century has just begun, we are already caught up in vicious circles and circus of dire miscalculations.
The party began in 2001 with an attack on America that was as foolish as it was criminal.
As intended, this action provoked a chain of disastrous reactions. The neocons were looking for an excuse to jump-start their plan to rule the Middle East.
The 1996 “Clean Break” scheme called for invasion, regime change and map redrawing. To put the plan to work, a powerful alliance led by the neocons was made with the Christian right, the Zionists and the arms, oil and construction businesses.
Everything was ready, only a good pretext was missing. Enter 9/11. Enter the nonexistent link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Enter the manufactured scare of nuclear mushrooms over New York and Washington. Enough! Ready. Set. Go.
However, this was a colossal and embarrassing miscalculation. The “cakewalk” turned into a quagmire.
The Iraqi population, instead of throwing rose petals and “hurrahs” at the “liberating armies”, welcomed them with roadside bombs and suicide bombers.
The “Iraq-first, neighbors-later,” became “please, neighbors, Get Me Outta Here!”
Saddam’s regime miscalculated, too, when it underestimated the American threats. True, it didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, but it didn’t do a good job of convincing the world of its innocence. Hezbollah and its backers in Tehran and Damascus miscalculated when they provoked Israel. They expected a reaction, but not on such massive scale.
The Israeli and their allies miscalculated, as well. They thought Hezbollah could be erased; and Iranian and Syrian business in Lebanon could be shutdown with one masterstroke. Instead, their political and military cards were burned. Hezbollah and backers came out singing and dancing.
Today, both Iran and USA are miscalculating their face-off. The Iranians went way beyond what would be tolerated in their intervention in Iraq. The Americans went extreme with their reaction to the Iranian nuclear program. With a blind eye to the decades-old Israeli program that produced hundreds of nuclear heads and a network of advanced delivering systems, America exaggerated the danger of the Iranian program as they did with the Iraqis’.
Experts, including Americans, reached the conclusion that Iran would not be able to make a bomb in ten years. So, why all the fuss, now? And why it was OK when the American ally, the Shah, was starting this very program with Western assistance?
Iran, too, is miscalculating when it thinks that having over 150,000 American soldiers under its thump in Iraq, and an overextended US military will prevent a gung-ho administration from hitting it. What Iran fails to understand is that this US president is badly in need of refocusing his peoples’ attention on a new enemy, new danger, new justification for more wars and war expenditures. And he is badly in need of a legacy — something that has eluded him so far.
Neglecting the Palestinian problem is another US miscalculation. This administration thought they could win both the war on Muslim countries, and the hearts and minds of 1,300 million Muslims without giving them back their Holy Mosque in East Jerusalem.
The result is the lowest-ever approval ratings for US in its history.
Mirroring a similar global trend, the US that was among the world’s most popular nations only six years ago is now bracketed with Israel as the most dangerous country threatening world peace and stability. The so-called Axis of Evil — North Korea, Syria and Iran — fared better.
The Arab leaders miscalculated when they relied on corrupt regimes, police states and Western support for survival.
Instead of winning their constituencies with true democracy, better education, economic development and political reforms, they played for time with fake, reluctant and half-hearted, half-baked reforms.
Yes, they succeeded in riding out Western resolve and pressure; but they lost what’s left of their people’s trust, support, respect and loyalty. Now, that is the “Mother of All Miscalculations!”
In the last century we kept the tradition alive. Conflicts, like Iraq-Iran and Gulf wars, were born out of Arab, Iranian and Western miscalculations. This and other ones left millions dead, maimed, poor and homeless.
Our best and brightest went either down with desperation or immigrated. Some of the most successful ethnic groups in America today are Arab-Americans. Arab immigrants achieved similar success in the rest of the world from Australia and Indonesia to Africa and Brazil, but not in the Middle East.
Here we go again, as Ronald Reagan would say, in the new millennium.
Even though the century has just begun, we are already caught up in vicious circles and circus of dire miscalculations.
The party began in 2001 with an attack on America that was as foolish as it was criminal.
As intended, this action provoked a chain of disastrous reactions. The neocons were looking for an excuse to jump-start their plan to rule the Middle East.
The 1996 “Clean Break” scheme called for invasion, regime change and map redrawing. To put the plan to work, a powerful alliance led by the neocons was made with the Christian right, the Zionists and the arms, oil and construction businesses.
Everything was ready, only a good pretext was missing. Enter 9/11. Enter the nonexistent link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Enter the manufactured scare of nuclear mushrooms over New York and Washington. Enough! Ready. Set. Go.
However, this was a colossal and embarrassing miscalculation. The “cakewalk” turned into a quagmire.
The Iraqi population, instead of throwing rose petals and “hurrahs” at the “liberating armies”, welcomed them with roadside bombs and suicide bombers.
The “Iraq-first, neighbors-later,” became “please, neighbors, Get Me Outta Here!”
Saddam’s regime miscalculated, too, when it underestimated the American threats. True, it didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, but it didn’t do a good job of convincing the world of its innocence. Hezbollah and its backers in Tehran and Damascus miscalculated when they provoked Israel. They expected a reaction, but not on such massive scale.
The Israeli and their allies miscalculated, as well. They thought Hezbollah could be erased; and Iranian and Syrian business in Lebanon could be shutdown with one masterstroke. Instead, their political and military cards were burned. Hezbollah and backers came out singing and dancing.
Today, both Iran and USA are miscalculating their face-off. The Iranians went way beyond what would be tolerated in their intervention in Iraq. The Americans went extreme with their reaction to the Iranian nuclear program. With a blind eye to the decades-old Israeli program that produced hundreds of nuclear heads and a network of advanced delivering systems, America exaggerated the danger of the Iranian program as they did with the Iraqis’.
Experts, including Americans, reached the conclusion that Iran would not be able to make a bomb in ten years. So, why all the fuss, now? And why it was OK when the American ally, the Shah, was starting this very program with Western assistance?
Iran, too, is miscalculating when it thinks that having over 150,000 American soldiers under its thump in Iraq, and an overextended US military will prevent a gung-ho administration from hitting it. What Iran fails to understand is that this US president is badly in need of refocusing his peoples’ attention on a new enemy, new danger, new justification for more wars and war expenditures. And he is badly in need of a legacy — something that has eluded him so far.
Neglecting the Palestinian problem is another US miscalculation. This administration thought they could win both the war on Muslim countries, and the hearts and minds of 1,300 million Muslims without giving them back their Holy Mosque in East Jerusalem.
The result is the lowest-ever approval ratings for US in its history.
Mirroring a similar global trend, the US that was among the world’s most popular nations only six years ago is now bracketed with Israel as the most dangerous country threatening world peace and stability. The so-called Axis of Evil — North Korea, Syria and Iran — fared better.
The Arab leaders miscalculated when they relied on corrupt regimes, police states and Western support for survival.
Instead of winning their constituencies with true democracy, better education, economic development and political reforms, they played for time with fake, reluctant and half-hearted, half-baked reforms.
Yes, they succeeded in riding out Western resolve and pressure; but they lost what’s left of their people’s trust, support, respect and loyalty. Now, that is the “Mother of All Miscalculations!”
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The Myth of US Free Press!
The senior press historian brought to a climax his presentation of the American press freedom concept by announcing: Here we achieved the Founding Fathers’ dream of the open marketplace of ideas.
I told him: That was in the glorious past, when an enlightening and critical press was the public watchdog on the government. Today, it is more like the supermarket of ideas, where most thoughts are manufactured, packaged and shelved.
The professor was proud of having over 1,300 newspapers in America, but those and hundreds of radio and TV stations are mostly owned by five mega corporations. The few remaining independent papers are a rare species, threatened with extinction.
How can you maintain a true form of press freedom if everything is for sale? How can you provide enlightenment if market forces decide your form and direction? How can you be a dedicated watchdog if your eyes are constantly on the beef, and your leash is in the beef industry’s hands?
You can tell me it is not my business, if it was not America. From Hollywood movies to network sitcoms, from print news to sound bites, and from New York Times to CNN, the American media rules. They set trends and standards, educate and train, and preach the rest of us on democracy, ethics and freedom. This gives them the unique universal position of leading or misleading, and upgrading or downgrading the message and the messenger.
So, when The Washington Post and The New York Times that published the Pentagon papers, unfolded the Watergate scandal and brought the downfall of a powerful president uncritically buy this administration’s justification for the Iraq war, we have to worry. When most American papers refuse to publish a review of a best-seller book from an American president, Jimmy Carter, and his article defending himself against an Israeli smearing campaign, we have to worry. And when the open and free market of ideas fails to face off a lobby dedicated to promoting a foreign country’s interests over America’s, we have to worry.
A Pulitzer Prize winner once explained his anti-Arab, pro-Israel position saying he had a constituency to cater for. Israel’s powerful friends can hurt you, he revealed. Arabs, on the other hand, can only send angry messages, he could live with that. Thomas Friedman changed after his visit to Saudi Arabia, and was kind enough to say a few nice things about its leadership. It didn’t take long to hear from the lobby, it seems. Today, he never makes any criticism of Israel, but hardly a week passes without a jab at the evil Arabs.
The Op-Ed editors of an independent major city newspaper were telling visiting Arab reporters how free they were to take the public’s side in any fight. No government or business interests could influence the editorial policies of their paper, they assured us.
I asked them squarely: Are you free enough to criticize Israel? They said yes. But, later, one editor took me aside and told me a story. Once, Israel was misbehaving in a way that cannot be defended or ignored. Its army was bombarding the Palestinian town of Jenin in 2002, and innocent civilians were killed everyday. The editor wrote a mild criticism of Israel, balanced with a criticism of the Palestinian authorities. The next couple of days, a few Arabs wrote praising the balance and many Jews wrote criticizing the stand. All lived in the paper’s city area.
Two weeks later a flood of letters came from outside the city and state with strong criticism. They all carried the same language or text. At the same time, many individuals and corporations canceled their subscriptions and advertisements. They cited this particular article and accused the paper of anti-Semitism. Some threatened lawsuits. This was the last article of its kind, the editor said. “Our survival at the end of the day is more important to our shareholders and staff than the survival of the Palestinians.”
Another case in point, an American TV producer interviewed by an Arab radio was asked to explain the overwhelming support for Israel in the US Congress. He said: You need millions of dollars to run for Congress, and the Israeli lobby will make or break you depending on your loyalty, not to your country but to theirs. If you beat your competitor in pledging your undying loyalty to the Holy Cow, Israel, you win their steadfast support. Later, they watch you like a hawk and judge you on your voting record. One mistake and you are down with a scandal or in the next election. Therefore, the American explained, most elected politicians and lawmakers are in the lobby’s pocket. The interview was translated by an Israeli Arab-media watch group, an article was written about it in a pro-Israel paper, and the torture campaign began! In a few weeks the pressure was too much for his employers to bear and he had to resign.
We, in the Arab world, never claim to have true free press, but American media brag about it. Freedom of the press, you say? Tell me about it, America!
I told him: That was in the glorious past, when an enlightening and critical press was the public watchdog on the government. Today, it is more like the supermarket of ideas, where most thoughts are manufactured, packaged and shelved.
The professor was proud of having over 1,300 newspapers in America, but those and hundreds of radio and TV stations are mostly owned by five mega corporations. The few remaining independent papers are a rare species, threatened with extinction.
How can you maintain a true form of press freedom if everything is for sale? How can you provide enlightenment if market forces decide your form and direction? How can you be a dedicated watchdog if your eyes are constantly on the beef, and your leash is in the beef industry’s hands?
You can tell me it is not my business, if it was not America. From Hollywood movies to network sitcoms, from print news to sound bites, and from New York Times to CNN, the American media rules. They set trends and standards, educate and train, and preach the rest of us on democracy, ethics and freedom. This gives them the unique universal position of leading or misleading, and upgrading or downgrading the message and the messenger.
So, when The Washington Post and The New York Times that published the Pentagon papers, unfolded the Watergate scandal and brought the downfall of a powerful president uncritically buy this administration’s justification for the Iraq war, we have to worry. When most American papers refuse to publish a review of a best-seller book from an American president, Jimmy Carter, and his article defending himself against an Israeli smearing campaign, we have to worry. And when the open and free market of ideas fails to face off a lobby dedicated to promoting a foreign country’s interests over America’s, we have to worry.
A Pulitzer Prize winner once explained his anti-Arab, pro-Israel position saying he had a constituency to cater for. Israel’s powerful friends can hurt you, he revealed. Arabs, on the other hand, can only send angry messages, he could live with that. Thomas Friedman changed after his visit to Saudi Arabia, and was kind enough to say a few nice things about its leadership. It didn’t take long to hear from the lobby, it seems. Today, he never makes any criticism of Israel, but hardly a week passes without a jab at the evil Arabs.
The Op-Ed editors of an independent major city newspaper were telling visiting Arab reporters how free they were to take the public’s side in any fight. No government or business interests could influence the editorial policies of their paper, they assured us.
I asked them squarely: Are you free enough to criticize Israel? They said yes. But, later, one editor took me aside and told me a story. Once, Israel was misbehaving in a way that cannot be defended or ignored. Its army was bombarding the Palestinian town of Jenin in 2002, and innocent civilians were killed everyday. The editor wrote a mild criticism of Israel, balanced with a criticism of the Palestinian authorities. The next couple of days, a few Arabs wrote praising the balance and many Jews wrote criticizing the stand. All lived in the paper’s city area.
Two weeks later a flood of letters came from outside the city and state with strong criticism. They all carried the same language or text. At the same time, many individuals and corporations canceled their subscriptions and advertisements. They cited this particular article and accused the paper of anti-Semitism. Some threatened lawsuits. This was the last article of its kind, the editor said. “Our survival at the end of the day is more important to our shareholders and staff than the survival of the Palestinians.”
Another case in point, an American TV producer interviewed by an Arab radio was asked to explain the overwhelming support for Israel in the US Congress. He said: You need millions of dollars to run for Congress, and the Israeli lobby will make or break you depending on your loyalty, not to your country but to theirs. If you beat your competitor in pledging your undying loyalty to the Holy Cow, Israel, you win their steadfast support. Later, they watch you like a hawk and judge you on your voting record. One mistake and you are down with a scandal or in the next election. Therefore, the American explained, most elected politicians and lawmakers are in the lobby’s pocket. The interview was translated by an Israeli Arab-media watch group, an article was written about it in a pro-Israel paper, and the torture campaign began! In a few weeks the pressure was too much for his employers to bear and he had to resign.
We, in the Arab world, never claim to have true free press, but American media brag about it. Freedom of the press, you say? Tell me about it, America!
Sunday, February 11, 2007
You Break It, You Own It, America!
From the US Congress Press Gallery, I listened to an American president, George W. Bush, deliver the State of the Union address, his third to the nation. I watched as he spoke the reactions of his listeners on both sides of the isle. Democrats and Republicans were showing their agreement and disagreement in body language from standing ovations to head shaking and smirking.
The most dividing issue, of course, was Iraq. Questions asked these days include: Whose fault it was? Who voted for the war and against it? What to do about it? Will sending more troops pacify Iraq and speed up the eventual withdrawal, or complicate the problem and increase the American casualties and expenses?
Who voted for and against the resolution authorizing the Iraq war is relevant for three reasons: 1. The Democrat win in the November Congress elections showed how important the Iraq issue is to voters, and how alarmed the public perception of the situation is and its low-grade evaluation of government performance. 2. An earlier than usual run for 2008 presidential election brought candidates carrying anti-escalation or anti-war message. 3. The new Congress is overwhelmingly against the administration decision to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.
As I told the intellectuals I met in a Washington press visit organized by the National Democratic Institute, the State of the Union address should not be confined to the American audience. The whole world is interested in what the emperor has to say since the US empire is the co-author of world geopolitical map and modern history after World War II, especially since becoming the world’s solo “mover and shaker” following the sudden demise of the Soviet Union. Still, this world-police president is not talking to us in his most comprehensive and all-important speech of the year.
The Democrats, too, fail in addressing our concerns. In his response to the State of the Union address, Sen. Jim Webb, who has the credibility of being a veteran with a son-solider in Baghdad, spoke eloquently about how America should pull out instead of escalating its military presence in Iraq. He counted the human and material costs. But they were all American. Like the president, and almost every decision-maker I read and listened to during this visit, it was all about their troops and dollars.
The deafening silence in this wild and loud circus is about Iraqi fatalities and cost. Hundreds are killed daily because of this unnecessary war, billions of dollars in collateral damage and lost revenues are incurred weekly, and a whole country is slipping into the Dark-Age tunnel of civil war. Still no politician in America seems to care about these losses.
The excuse I was given? Americans don’t care! When you ask what the loss of the Vietnam War was, they’d say 50,000. Those are their dead but no mention of the three million Vietnamese killed by those 50,000 and their mates.
Most Americans today believe the war on Iraq was a disastrous mistake. That is the opposite of their position before and after the fall of Baghdad. Even then, the causalities and collateral damage were huge but on the Iraqi side only. Now, after years of fighting back, the Iraqis, like the Vietnamese and Afghans before them, are turning the gun barrel against the invaders. Yes, their losses are much greater, but at least the occupiers are feeling the heat, too.
I am always happy when people finally come to their senses, but why now and how? Many Americans still believe US propaganda that it invaded Iraq to search and destroy nuclear weapons, topple a dictator and spread freedom and democracy. When things went sour, they believed it was all others’ mistakes — neighbors and Iraqis. “We didn’t know this was a nation of killers,” an American friend complained. “You people are used to killing each other for ages! We came with an open hand and heart, but you don’t deserve our kindness! You don’t deserve our help! We are out of here”
I remind these people of an old American rule: If you break it, you own it! You go riding and shooting in a china shop, hang the manger, dismiss the staff, insist on running the business your way, but when everything goes banana you blame it on everyone and everything but yourself, then run!
Iraq was one piece before you rode in, Mr. Cowboy. Sunnis, Shiites, Christians and Jews lived side by side in harmony for centuries. Anything that happened during your occupation is your responsibility. The Ottoman Empire ruled Iraq for four hundred years — in peace. In four years, you managed to turn it into a slaughterhouse. So, don’t tell me now it is “them,” because even if it was, under the Geneva Conventions, it is your job, as an occupying power, to provide security and maintain law and order in the territories under your rule — no excuses accepted.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Blaming Religions for the Crimes of the Religious!
I was leaving the US Congress after a discussion about President Bush’s State of the Union address, which I had the privilege of attending the previous night, when I saw her.
She was a beautiful, lovely lady in her early 60s and looked great in her elegant, black and red European-style dress. So was her husband in his classic black suit and red-ribboned hat.
I asked if they would kindly take a group photo with me and a couple of fellow Arab journalists invited by the National Democratic Institute to attend the 110th Congress convention. They happily obliged. Then the lady recognized me. As it turned out, she read and wrote me frequently for years.
After some hesitation, she revealed her screen name. I was surprised! This cute sweet heart was one of my harshest critics who wrote so many anti-Islam, anti-Arab and anti-Saudi comments. I often thought she was actually a man. Women, I reasoned, were not capable of such hate, anger and foul words.
We were thrilled to meet each other in such fashion, and the couple invited me to lunch a day later. I went. And, as I told a concerned American friend later, it was a clash of civilizations!
I found that she is a computer consultant and an intellectual who speaks five European languages. Born in France to a Christian family, she became an opponent of organized religions in her 20s.
She never liked Arabs and Muslims. “Americans and Europeans,” she claimed, “fear Islam, because they know it for what it is: A religion of violence. Your Qur’an and the Prophet instruct you to hate and kill us. I can show you hundreds of passages where you were told to kill, kill, kill non-Muslims!”
It amazed me that she looked like she did believe that. How many would agree with her, I wondered. I knew if I just denied her accusation, she won’t be convinced. And since she is scientific, I decided to use mathematical logic instead.
What is the percentage of devout Muslims, I asked. “Most! You are a dangerously religious people,” she answered.
If so, I reasoned, then most of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world are potential killers.
Just imagine a billion of snipers, mujahedeen and suicide bombers scattered everywhere including here in America, where eight millions Muslims reside — excluding visitors like me. If that was the case, how come your world is not on fire?
She retorted: Then explain why Muslims have killed more people than any followers of any religion in history?
I told her that I don’t blame religions or prophets for the misdeeds of their followers. Otherwise, we would blame Christianity for the millions the Crusaders killed for centuries in the name of Jesus, or the bloody religious wars in Europe, or the Catholic mass killing of Muslims and Jews in Spain during the Inquisition, or the colonizers’ heinous crimes in a world they called primitive and in need of the light of Christianity.
In the last century only, Christian armies caused the death of tens of millions, fifty millions of them in World War II alone. In Ireland and Spain, Christian sects have been killing each others for ages, often in the name of God. In America, radical Christians have hanged and burned natives, blacks and Jews since the discovery of America to recent days.
In Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya and Palestine, hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush called his war a crusade, and claimed that he received his directions directly from God. The Evangelical-Zionist alliance that pushed the war agenda are Christians and Jews. Some of US allies in this war showed similar religious motivations and hate for Islam, like the former Italian Prime Minister Silivio Berlusconi.
Muslims did similar killing in the name of Allah in past centuries and today. Sometimes it is legitimate resistance to occupation and other times for political gains under religious banners. Still, even our extremists dare not blame Christianity or any other religion for the crimes of its followers.
It is part of our religion to believe in Christianity and Judaism, Jesus and Moses, the Bible and Torah. On the other hand, your radicals blame Islam, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the Qur’an for the criminality of a few thousands out of 1.3 billion Muslims. It is just not right, not logical and not fair.
My friend wasn’t moved much. But at least I was still welcome as a friend, and not feared as a potential killer!
She was a beautiful, lovely lady in her early 60s and looked great in her elegant, black and red European-style dress. So was her husband in his classic black suit and red-ribboned hat.
I asked if they would kindly take a group photo with me and a couple of fellow Arab journalists invited by the National Democratic Institute to attend the 110th Congress convention. They happily obliged. Then the lady recognized me. As it turned out, she read and wrote me frequently for years.
After some hesitation, she revealed her screen name. I was surprised! This cute sweet heart was one of my harshest critics who wrote so many anti-Islam, anti-Arab and anti-Saudi comments. I often thought she was actually a man. Women, I reasoned, were not capable of such hate, anger and foul words.
We were thrilled to meet each other in such fashion, and the couple invited me to lunch a day later. I went. And, as I told a concerned American friend later, it was a clash of civilizations!
I found that she is a computer consultant and an intellectual who speaks five European languages. Born in France to a Christian family, she became an opponent of organized religions in her 20s.
She never liked Arabs and Muslims. “Americans and Europeans,” she claimed, “fear Islam, because they know it for what it is: A religion of violence. Your Qur’an and the Prophet instruct you to hate and kill us. I can show you hundreds of passages where you were told to kill, kill, kill non-Muslims!”
It amazed me that she looked like she did believe that. How many would agree with her, I wondered. I knew if I just denied her accusation, she won’t be convinced. And since she is scientific, I decided to use mathematical logic instead.
What is the percentage of devout Muslims, I asked. “Most! You are a dangerously religious people,” she answered.
If so, I reasoned, then most of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world are potential killers.
Just imagine a billion of snipers, mujahedeen and suicide bombers scattered everywhere including here in America, where eight millions Muslims reside — excluding visitors like me. If that was the case, how come your world is not on fire?
She retorted: Then explain why Muslims have killed more people than any followers of any religion in history?
I told her that I don’t blame religions or prophets for the misdeeds of their followers. Otherwise, we would blame Christianity for the millions the Crusaders killed for centuries in the name of Jesus, or the bloody religious wars in Europe, or the Catholic mass killing of Muslims and Jews in Spain during the Inquisition, or the colonizers’ heinous crimes in a world they called primitive and in need of the light of Christianity.
In the last century only, Christian armies caused the death of tens of millions, fifty millions of them in World War II alone. In Ireland and Spain, Christian sects have been killing each others for ages, often in the name of God. In America, radical Christians have hanged and burned natives, blacks and Jews since the discovery of America to recent days.
In Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya and Palestine, hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush called his war a crusade, and claimed that he received his directions directly from God. The Evangelical-Zionist alliance that pushed the war agenda are Christians and Jews. Some of US allies in this war showed similar religious motivations and hate for Islam, like the former Italian Prime Minister Silivio Berlusconi.
Muslims did similar killing in the name of Allah in past centuries and today. Sometimes it is legitimate resistance to occupation and other times for political gains under religious banners. Still, even our extremists dare not blame Christianity or any other religion for the crimes of its followers.
It is part of our religion to believe in Christianity and Judaism, Jesus and Moses, the Bible and Torah. On the other hand, your radicals blame Islam, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the Qur’an for the criminality of a few thousands out of 1.3 billion Muslims. It is just not right, not logical and not fair.
My friend wasn’t moved much. But at least I was still welcome as a friend, and not feared as a potential killer!
Blaming Religions for the Crimes of the Religious!
I was leaving the US Congress after a discussion about President Bush’s State of the Union address, which I had the privilege of attending the previous night, when I saw her.
She was a beautiful, lovely lady in her early 60s and looked great in her elegant, black and red European-style dress. So was her husband in his classic black suit and red-ribboned hat.
I asked if they would kindly take a group photo with me and a couple of fellow Arab journalists invited by the National Democratic Institute to attend the 110th Congress convention. They happily obliged. Then the lady recognized me. As it turned out, she read and wrote me frequently for years.
After some hesitation, she revealed her screen name. I was surprised! This cute sweet heart was one of my harshest critics who wrote so many anti-Islam, anti-Arab and anti-Saudi comments. I often thought she was actually a man. Women, I reasoned, were not capable of such hate, anger and foul words.
We were thrilled to meet each other in such fashion, and the couple invited me to lunch a day later. I went. And, as I told a concerned American friend later, it was a clash of civilizations!
I found that she is a computer consultant and an intellectual who speaks five European languages. Born in France to a Christian family, she became an opponent of organized religions in her 20s.
She never liked Arabs and Muslims. “Americans and Europeans,” she claimed, “fear Islam, because they know it for what it is: A religion of violence. Your Qur’an and the Prophet instruct you to hate and kill us. I can show you hundreds of passages where you were told to kill, kill, kill non-Muslims!”
It amazed me that she looked like she did believe that. How many would agree with her, I wondered. I knew if I just denied her accusation, she won’t be convinced. And since she is scientific, I decided to use mathematical logic instead.
What is the percentage of devout Muslims, I asked. “Most! You are a dangerously religious people,” she answered.
If so, I reasoned, then most of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world are potential killers.
Just imagine a billion of snipers, mujahedeen and suicide bombers scattered everywhere including here in America, where eight millions Muslims reside — excluding visitors like me. If that was the case, how come your world is not on fire?
She retorted: Then explain why Muslims have killed more people than any followers of any religion in history?
I told her that I don’t blame religions or prophets for the misdeeds of their followers. Otherwise, we would blame Christianity for the millions the Crusaders killed for centuries in the name of Jesus, or the bloody religious wars in Europe, or the Catholic mass killing of Muslims and Jews in Spain during the Inquisition, or the colonizers’ heinous crimes in a world they called primitive and in need of the light of Christianity.
In the last century only, Christian armies caused the death of tens of millions, fifty millions of them in World War II alone. In Ireland and Spain, Christian sects have been killing each others for ages, often in the name of God. In America, radical Christians have hanged and burned natives, blacks and Jews since the discovery of America to recent days.
In Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya and Palestine, hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush called his war a crusade, and claimed that he received his directions directly from God. The Evangelical-Zionist alliance that pushed the war agenda are Christians and Jews. Some of US allies in this war showed similar religious motivations and hate for Islam, like the former Italian Prime Minister Silivio Berlusconi.
Muslims did similar killing in the name of Allah in past centuries and today. Sometimes it is legitimate resistance to occupation and other times for political gains under religious banners. Still, even our extremists dare not blame Christianity or any other religion for the crimes of its followers.
It is part of our religion to believe in Christianity and Judaism, Jesus and Moses, the Bible and Torah. On the other hand, your radicals blame Islam, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the Qur’an for the criminality of a few thousands out of 1.3 billion Muslims. It is just not right, not logical and not fair.
My friend wasn’t moved much. But at least I was still welcome as a friend, and not feared as a potential killer!
She was a beautiful, lovely lady in her early 60s and looked great in her elegant, black and red European-style dress. So was her husband in his classic black suit and red-ribboned hat.
I asked if they would kindly take a group photo with me and a couple of fellow Arab journalists invited by the National Democratic Institute to attend the 110th Congress convention. They happily obliged. Then the lady recognized me. As it turned out, she read and wrote me frequently for years.
After some hesitation, she revealed her screen name. I was surprised! This cute sweet heart was one of my harshest critics who wrote so many anti-Islam, anti-Arab and anti-Saudi comments. I often thought she was actually a man. Women, I reasoned, were not capable of such hate, anger and foul words.
We were thrilled to meet each other in such fashion, and the couple invited me to lunch a day later. I went. And, as I told a concerned American friend later, it was a clash of civilizations!
I found that she is a computer consultant and an intellectual who speaks five European languages. Born in France to a Christian family, she became an opponent of organized religions in her 20s.
She never liked Arabs and Muslims. “Americans and Europeans,” she claimed, “fear Islam, because they know it for what it is: A religion of violence. Your Qur’an and the Prophet instruct you to hate and kill us. I can show you hundreds of passages where you were told to kill, kill, kill non-Muslims!”
It amazed me that she looked like she did believe that. How many would agree with her, I wondered. I knew if I just denied her accusation, she won’t be convinced. And since she is scientific, I decided to use mathematical logic instead.
What is the percentage of devout Muslims, I asked. “Most! You are a dangerously religious people,” she answered.
If so, I reasoned, then most of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world are potential killers.
Just imagine a billion of snipers, mujahedeen and suicide bombers scattered everywhere including here in America, where eight millions Muslims reside — excluding visitors like me. If that was the case, how come your world is not on fire?
She retorted: Then explain why Muslims have killed more people than any followers of any religion in history?
I told her that I don’t blame religions or prophets for the misdeeds of their followers. Otherwise, we would blame Christianity for the millions the Crusaders killed for centuries in the name of Jesus, or the bloody religious wars in Europe, or the Catholic mass killing of Muslims and Jews in Spain during the Inquisition, or the colonizers’ heinous crimes in a world they called primitive and in need of the light of Christianity.
In the last century only, Christian armies caused the death of tens of millions, fifty millions of them in World War II alone. In Ireland and Spain, Christian sects have been killing each others for ages, often in the name of God. In America, radical Christians have hanged and burned natives, blacks and Jews since the discovery of America to recent days.
In Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya and Palestine, hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush called his war a crusade, and claimed that he received his directions directly from God. The Evangelical-Zionist alliance that pushed the war agenda are Christians and Jews. Some of US allies in this war showed similar religious motivations and hate for Islam, like the former Italian Prime Minister Silivio Berlusconi.
Muslims did similar killing in the name of Allah in past centuries and today. Sometimes it is legitimate resistance to occupation and other times for political gains under religious banners. Still, even our extremists dare not blame Christianity or any other religion for the crimes of its followers.
It is part of our religion to believe in Christianity and Judaism, Jesus and Moses, the Bible and Torah. On the other hand, your radicals blame Islam, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the Qur’an for the criminality of a few thousands out of 1.3 billion Muslims. It is just not right, not logical and not fair.
My friend wasn’t moved much. But at least I was still welcome as a friend, and not feared as a potential killer!
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Delivering the Middle East to Iranians
Nuri Al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister threatened that he would review relations with any country that dared to criticize his government’s handling of Saddam’s execution. Now that the American president is doing exactly that soon after the British prime minister dared to, I wondered what he is going to do. George W. Bush went even further than most Arab critics by saying that it is hard now to convince Americans to support Al-Maliki government, which he described as a less than matured and trustworthy regime. Still, our usually macho Iraqi prime minister has, so far, nothing to say to his Western critics. It wasn’t his mistake to start with. America redrew the geopolitical maps, re-dealt the sectarian cards and helped in putting him where he doesn’t belong — or was it Iran who did so?
Politics is a confusing business. Its games have few rules and its cards are mostly dealt under the table. What we see is hardly what we get. The clearest rule is attributed to late British Prime Minister Winston Churchill: There are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.
We will have to assume some hidden friends-foes understanding if we are to explain the unexplainable in the American foreign policies. Take for example hating Iran, then delivering Iraq, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon to her on a silver plate. Al-Maliki, like Ibrahim Al-Jafari before him, came from Iran. These are not even their true names — the real ones are Farsi. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is an Iranian. So is Abdulaziz Al-Hakim and most of his gang leaders. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians were allowed to settle in Iraq after the invasion. They changed its demographics and infiltrated its government, security forces and army.
Today, some 150,000 American soldiers, not including the 20,000 extra troops due soon, are virtual hostages in Iraq. With a push of a remote control button, Tehran can, in a minute, put them all in jeopardy. The Iraqi Shiite militias as well as the sectarian government, the US-trained police and the rest of the Ministry of Interior forces are loyal to Tehran. The army is still mixed, Sunni and Shiite, but Iran’s stooges are working hard on changing it. Most recruits today are Shiite, many not be even Arab. Leading positions are given to them. Sunni soldiers are forced to leave. In short, you may say that an Iranian Army is ruling Iraq. How can you threaten a war with a country that had your boys under her thump?
Bush talks about mistakes his administration committed in Iraq. He doesn’t specify, so should we assume that one of them is invading Iraq under false pretexts and with the guidance of self-interest parties, such as Israel, Tehran-based or allied opposition groups, and arm, oil and construction businesses? Or that after the invasion the Iraqi Army, the security forces and many government leaders and autocrats were dismissed overnight, and let go with their expertise, secrets and guns? Or was the biggest mistake, after the invasion, turning the government over to people who are known to be Iranian agents and stooges like Ahmad Chalabi, Al-Jafari, Al-Hakim and Al-Maliki?
Maybe the smart American president meant to apologize for delivering Sunni Hamas to Shiite Iran by supporting the Israeli torture of the Palestinians as punishment for choosing, in an internationally certified elections, a decent government that doesn’t suit Israel? Or maybe he was now regretting handing pro-West Lebanon to Hezbollah, Iran and Syria by supporting Israeli devastation of a peaceful country? Or could it be that he finally realized that his blind support of Israel and following its orders is turning 1.3 billion Muslims, Sunni and Shiite, away from the Zionist-Christian crusaders toward the other camp, be it Al-Qaeda (Sunni) or Iran (Shiite)?
If I were an Iranian leader I should declare George W. Bush my hero. My country fought Iraq for eight years without getting one inch or oil well. Taleban was a thorn on her side. The Sunni world was suspicious of us. But with one masterstroke after another this wonderful Superman brought down both regimes, and installed friendly governments.
In the midst of the chaos and mess he created, I managed to get my hands full of all resources of power in Iraq. I was also able to build a nuclear infrastructure that will eventually give me the ultimate deterrent power.
Now the redneck is making me a hero in the Muslim world. All these threatening cowboy postures and stupid strategic and tactical mistakes helped me unite the Iranian people around my leadership and improve my economics by the rise in oil prices. I wouldn’t have it better if I tried. But here is the superpower of the world delivering all these rewards and spoils of war to my door without costing me a single shot. Long live USA! Long live George W. Bush!
Politics is a confusing business. Its games have few rules and its cards are mostly dealt under the table. What we see is hardly what we get. The clearest rule is attributed to late British Prime Minister Winston Churchill: There are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.
We will have to assume some hidden friends-foes understanding if we are to explain the unexplainable in the American foreign policies. Take for example hating Iran, then delivering Iraq, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon to her on a silver plate. Al-Maliki, like Ibrahim Al-Jafari before him, came from Iran. These are not even their true names — the real ones are Farsi. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is an Iranian. So is Abdulaziz Al-Hakim and most of his gang leaders. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians were allowed to settle in Iraq after the invasion. They changed its demographics and infiltrated its government, security forces and army.
Today, some 150,000 American soldiers, not including the 20,000 extra troops due soon, are virtual hostages in Iraq. With a push of a remote control button, Tehran can, in a minute, put them all in jeopardy. The Iraqi Shiite militias as well as the sectarian government, the US-trained police and the rest of the Ministry of Interior forces are loyal to Tehran. The army is still mixed, Sunni and Shiite, but Iran’s stooges are working hard on changing it. Most recruits today are Shiite, many not be even Arab. Leading positions are given to them. Sunni soldiers are forced to leave. In short, you may say that an Iranian Army is ruling Iraq. How can you threaten a war with a country that had your boys under her thump?
Bush talks about mistakes his administration committed in Iraq. He doesn’t specify, so should we assume that one of them is invading Iraq under false pretexts and with the guidance of self-interest parties, such as Israel, Tehran-based or allied opposition groups, and arm, oil and construction businesses? Or that after the invasion the Iraqi Army, the security forces and many government leaders and autocrats were dismissed overnight, and let go with their expertise, secrets and guns? Or was the biggest mistake, after the invasion, turning the government over to people who are known to be Iranian agents and stooges like Ahmad Chalabi, Al-Jafari, Al-Hakim and Al-Maliki?
Maybe the smart American president meant to apologize for delivering Sunni Hamas to Shiite Iran by supporting the Israeli torture of the Palestinians as punishment for choosing, in an internationally certified elections, a decent government that doesn’t suit Israel? Or maybe he was now regretting handing pro-West Lebanon to Hezbollah, Iran and Syria by supporting Israeli devastation of a peaceful country? Or could it be that he finally realized that his blind support of Israel and following its orders is turning 1.3 billion Muslims, Sunni and Shiite, away from the Zionist-Christian crusaders toward the other camp, be it Al-Qaeda (Sunni) or Iran (Shiite)?
If I were an Iranian leader I should declare George W. Bush my hero. My country fought Iraq for eight years without getting one inch or oil well. Taleban was a thorn on her side. The Sunni world was suspicious of us. But with one masterstroke after another this wonderful Superman brought down both regimes, and installed friendly governments.
In the midst of the chaos and mess he created, I managed to get my hands full of all resources of power in Iraq. I was also able to build a nuclear infrastructure that will eventually give me the ultimate deterrent power.
Now the redneck is making me a hero in the Muslim world. All these threatening cowboy postures and stupid strategic and tactical mistakes helped me unite the Iranian people around my leadership and improve my economics by the rise in oil prices. I wouldn’t have it better if I tried. But here is the superpower of the world delivering all these rewards and spoils of war to my door without costing me a single shot. Long live USA! Long live George W. Bush!
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Gulf Countries Face Closer Regional Cooperation
A western journalist asked us, a group of citizens from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries: “Is Arab nationalism still alive? Is regional grouping a realistic alternative or a step on the road to Arab unification? Are you today more or less committed to your national unity, and why?”
These are loaded, thought provocative questions. They show the level of curiosity and anxiety many feel in the West about our future stability. They ponder over the possibility of civil wars in the oil-rich region that may endanger the Western-allied governments. With Lebanon in the verge of a civil war, and Iraq in the middle of another, their worries are understandable, if not justified.
The answers to the journalist questions varied, but they can be summarized as follows.
Before the Iraq invasion, some groups and individuals, residing in and out of their countries, working above and under ground, were aspiring to certain rights and privileges. Their aspirations include more religious freedoms, as well as political and civil rights. Some radicals went further to call for some sort of independence or self-governance. Others hoped for more association and stronger relations with foreign countries, like Iran.
All Gulf citizens are Arabs, but some come from non-Arab origins, such as Persian, Indian, and black African ones. While most demands and complaints today are religious and political, ethnic issues may lay ahead. In some Gulf states, as much as 80 percent of the population is composed of foreigners, mostly from India and Iran. If even a small percentage of them became citizens, they would make a sizable non-Arab minority who might call for more consideration for their heritage and identity.
Today, the nationality rules are strict toward foreign residents in GCC countries, even those with long-term residency. The regulations are even stricter for non-Arabs. But these rules are not acceptable to the World Trade Organization and will have to be streamlined along universal standards.
All GCC countries are members of WTO and Saudi Arabia was the last of the six countries to join the organization at the end of 2005. The Bahraini labor minister recently warned his GCC counterparts that if they don’t limit the number of years foreign workers are permitted to reside, GCC countries will soon face the prospect of de-Arabization of their demographics and culture.
Existing borders among the council members are not ancient; some are not even finally drawn. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were each united from different parts. Most, including, the Emirates, were British protectorates up to the 1960s when they were granted independence. Except for the Omani Almahara region that rebelled in the seventies with the support of its communist neighbor, the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, no region in the Gulf has seriously sought independence.
Apart from Saudi Arabia and Oman, all are geographically and demographically small states that can’t afford to get smaller. Most citizens are committed to the unification of their countries. Many aspire to even larger entity, in the form of United Gulf States — a dream that was born a quarter of a century ago, with the creation of the GCC.
After the Iraq invasion, and with the civil war there now being fought along mostly religious, but also ethnic lines, separatists are having a second thought. Who would want to end up in such a mess? Life is too precious to be wasted in bloody fights, especially when engineered and administered by foreign powers.
There was a brief and rare moment of Islamic solidarity after the Iran supported Hezbollah stood up to Israel and its backers. But then the sectarian government of Iraq wasted all the credit and sympathy Hezbollah had earned for the Shiites and Iran. With stupid actions and policies, like the circus trial of Saddam Hussein and his hanging by radical Shiites, and the accompanying irrational reactions from the Sunni fundamentalists, we are back to religious suspicion, hatred and rivalry.
In such an explosive atmosphere, it is inconceivable for any religious minority to raise divisive issues. While some may think that with Western support this is the time to redraw the maps and regain certain authority and rights, most are calling for the healing of wounds, division bridging, and national and regional unity. The Gulf governments are now more aware and worried about foreign schemes to divide their nations under the cover of human rights. In response, they are taking serious, if slow and cautious, steps towards political reforms to insure the satisfaction and loyalty of their minorities.
As for Arab nationalism, most of us think it is a passé doctrine. More relevant and fashionable is the dream of the Muslim Caliphate. As a response to Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Arabism, Saudi King Faisal campaigned for Islamic unity. In recent years, this noble cause was hijacked and taken over by radical groups. They have given it a bad name. However, most people today are realistic. While we aspire to some sort of political and economic cooperation, we don’t hold our breath for the Islamic Union or the United Arab States. Our priorities are more mundane: Developing our nations in vital areas of education, economic, science and technology, as well as solving crucial issues of unemployment, crime, pollution, radicalism and terrorism.
In conclusion, both division and pan-Arab unification are far-fetched. More likely in the foreseeable future of Gulf countries is closer regional cooperation that aspires but is not able yet to reach the European Union level — not too bad for tribal based societies.
These are loaded, thought provocative questions. They show the level of curiosity and anxiety many feel in the West about our future stability. They ponder over the possibility of civil wars in the oil-rich region that may endanger the Western-allied governments. With Lebanon in the verge of a civil war, and Iraq in the middle of another, their worries are understandable, if not justified.
The answers to the journalist questions varied, but they can be summarized as follows.
Before the Iraq invasion, some groups and individuals, residing in and out of their countries, working above and under ground, were aspiring to certain rights and privileges. Their aspirations include more religious freedoms, as well as political and civil rights. Some radicals went further to call for some sort of independence or self-governance. Others hoped for more association and stronger relations with foreign countries, like Iran.
All Gulf citizens are Arabs, but some come from non-Arab origins, such as Persian, Indian, and black African ones. While most demands and complaints today are religious and political, ethnic issues may lay ahead. In some Gulf states, as much as 80 percent of the population is composed of foreigners, mostly from India and Iran. If even a small percentage of them became citizens, they would make a sizable non-Arab minority who might call for more consideration for their heritage and identity.
Today, the nationality rules are strict toward foreign residents in GCC countries, even those with long-term residency. The regulations are even stricter for non-Arabs. But these rules are not acceptable to the World Trade Organization and will have to be streamlined along universal standards.
All GCC countries are members of WTO and Saudi Arabia was the last of the six countries to join the organization at the end of 2005. The Bahraini labor minister recently warned his GCC counterparts that if they don’t limit the number of years foreign workers are permitted to reside, GCC countries will soon face the prospect of de-Arabization of their demographics and culture.
Existing borders among the council members are not ancient; some are not even finally drawn. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were each united from different parts. Most, including, the Emirates, were British protectorates up to the 1960s when they were granted independence. Except for the Omani Almahara region that rebelled in the seventies with the support of its communist neighbor, the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, no region in the Gulf has seriously sought independence.
Apart from Saudi Arabia and Oman, all are geographically and demographically small states that can’t afford to get smaller. Most citizens are committed to the unification of their countries. Many aspire to even larger entity, in the form of United Gulf States — a dream that was born a quarter of a century ago, with the creation of the GCC.
After the Iraq invasion, and with the civil war there now being fought along mostly religious, but also ethnic lines, separatists are having a second thought. Who would want to end up in such a mess? Life is too precious to be wasted in bloody fights, especially when engineered and administered by foreign powers.
There was a brief and rare moment of Islamic solidarity after the Iran supported Hezbollah stood up to Israel and its backers. But then the sectarian government of Iraq wasted all the credit and sympathy Hezbollah had earned for the Shiites and Iran. With stupid actions and policies, like the circus trial of Saddam Hussein and his hanging by radical Shiites, and the accompanying irrational reactions from the Sunni fundamentalists, we are back to religious suspicion, hatred and rivalry.
In such an explosive atmosphere, it is inconceivable for any religious minority to raise divisive issues. While some may think that with Western support this is the time to redraw the maps and regain certain authority and rights, most are calling for the healing of wounds, division bridging, and national and regional unity. The Gulf governments are now more aware and worried about foreign schemes to divide their nations under the cover of human rights. In response, they are taking serious, if slow and cautious, steps towards political reforms to insure the satisfaction and loyalty of their minorities.
As for Arab nationalism, most of us think it is a passé doctrine. More relevant and fashionable is the dream of the Muslim Caliphate. As a response to Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Arabism, Saudi King Faisal campaigned for Islamic unity. In recent years, this noble cause was hijacked and taken over by radical groups. They have given it a bad name. However, most people today are realistic. While we aspire to some sort of political and economic cooperation, we don’t hold our breath for the Islamic Union or the United Arab States. Our priorities are more mundane: Developing our nations in vital areas of education, economic, science and technology, as well as solving crucial issues of unemployment, crime, pollution, radicalism and terrorism.
In conclusion, both division and pan-Arab unification are far-fetched. More likely in the foreseeable future of Gulf countries is closer regional cooperation that aspires but is not able yet to reach the European Union level — not too bad for tribal based societies.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
The Ongoing Case Against Israel
Criticizing Almighty Israel and the Mafiosi Israel Lobby in Washington is dangerous business. My last article about them brought me accusations and threats.
Not all Israel supporters are as bad as they may sound. Some are simply brain washed. Most Americans grew up in an environment that reveres and fears the Almighty Israel. They are constantly fed guilt for the Holocaust because their ancestors hadn’t done enough to prevent it, and then convinced that Israel is Jews ultimate haven. Therefore, any objective review of Israel’s actions and policies disgracing peaceful Judaism is regarded as anti-smite and hate speech. Many decent people, including brave Jews, lost their reputation, life achievement and professional future for committing the crime of criticizing Holy Israel or doubting its authoritative linkage to the Jewish faith and race.
The unprecedented American support and protectiveness of Israel might be understandable if it was a vital strategic asset or if there was a compelling moral case. But neither explanation is convincing.
With the accumulated $140 billion in direct aid, not including costly military and diplomatic support, Israel wasn't much of help when needed, like during the Iranian Revolution in 1979. To secure oil routes and fields, America had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force.
Again, in the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003, Israel was an embarrassing liability. To maintain its alliance with the Muslim world, the US could not use Israeli bases or ask for its help.
As a crucial ally in the War on Terror, Israel was given a free hand in Palestine and Lebanon. But the terrorists who threaten Israel do not threaten America, except when it threatens them, directly or via proxies, like Israel. Palestinian violence is a response to Israel’s cruel colonization of their territories. America is attacked largely as punishment for its alliance with Israel. For more on this, read Jimmy Carter’s book " Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"
As for Syria and Iran, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests. Here again, the alliance with Israel is a burden. Its vast nuclear arsenal is why Iran sought nuclear weapons in the first place. Still, Iran knows too well the dire consequences if it attacked America or its allies directly or via proxies. Israel stead-fast refusal to make land for peace deal with Syria and accept the Arab League 2002 Peace Initiative based on UN Resolution 242 prolonged the Arab-Israeli conflict and soured US crucial relations with 1.5 billion Muslims. For a bi-partisan American perspective, read the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group’s report.
For all the support and sacrifices, Israel doesn’t act the loyal partner. It habitually ignores US requests and renege on promises like refraining from building new settlements and ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders and not spying on its benefactor. According to the US General Accounting Office, Israel “conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally.” Some of the large quantities of classified material Jonathan Pollard provided Israel in early 1980s were passed on to the Soviet Union to secure more exit visas for Soviet Jews, comprising US security and exposing its intelligent posts and agents in Europe and the Communist Block. Sensitive American intelligence and military technologies were sold to China by Israelis. As recently as 2004, Larry Franklin, a key Pentagon official, passed sensitive classified materials to an Israeli diplomat with the help and cover of the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
If backing the underdog is a justification, America should support the Arabs. A 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies concludes that “the strategic balance decidedly favors Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbors.”
Israel aggressive past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians who, by the way, had nothing to do with the Holocaust. In fact, Jews in Palestine were treated far better than in Europe and America. Today, Israeli Arabs are treated as second class citizens. A recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a “neglectful and discriminatory” manner towards them. Unlike the US, where the Constitution grants equal rights to people irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship—so much so for the "democratic state" myth.
I, finally, rest my case with a statement I copied from the Harvard study, “Israel Lobby,” attributed to the Jewish State founding father and its first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, who told the president of the World Jewish Congress, Nahum Goldmann: “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
Not all Israel supporters are as bad as they may sound. Some are simply brain washed. Most Americans grew up in an environment that reveres and fears the Almighty Israel. They are constantly fed guilt for the Holocaust because their ancestors hadn’t done enough to prevent it, and then convinced that Israel is Jews ultimate haven. Therefore, any objective review of Israel’s actions and policies disgracing peaceful Judaism is regarded as anti-smite and hate speech. Many decent people, including brave Jews, lost their reputation, life achievement and professional future for committing the crime of criticizing Holy Israel or doubting its authoritative linkage to the Jewish faith and race.
The unprecedented American support and protectiveness of Israel might be understandable if it was a vital strategic asset or if there was a compelling moral case. But neither explanation is convincing.
With the accumulated $140 billion in direct aid, not including costly military and diplomatic support, Israel wasn't much of help when needed, like during the Iranian Revolution in 1979. To secure oil routes and fields, America had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force.
Again, in the Gulf Wars of 1991 and 2003, Israel was an embarrassing liability. To maintain its alliance with the Muslim world, the US could not use Israeli bases or ask for its help.
As a crucial ally in the War on Terror, Israel was given a free hand in Palestine and Lebanon. But the terrorists who threaten Israel do not threaten America, except when it threatens them, directly or via proxies, like Israel. Palestinian violence is a response to Israel’s cruel colonization of their territories. America is attacked largely as punishment for its alliance with Israel. For more on this, read Jimmy Carter’s book " Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"
As for Syria and Iran, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests. Here again, the alliance with Israel is a burden. Its vast nuclear arsenal is why Iran sought nuclear weapons in the first place. Still, Iran knows too well the dire consequences if it attacked America or its allies directly or via proxies. Israel stead-fast refusal to make land for peace deal with Syria and accept the Arab League 2002 Peace Initiative based on UN Resolution 242 prolonged the Arab-Israeli conflict and soured US crucial relations with 1.5 billion Muslims. For a bi-partisan American perspective, read the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group’s report.
For all the support and sacrifices, Israel doesn’t act the loyal partner. It habitually ignores US requests and renege on promises like refraining from building new settlements and ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders and not spying on its benefactor. According to the US General Accounting Office, Israel “conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally.” Some of the large quantities of classified material Jonathan Pollard provided Israel in early 1980s were passed on to the Soviet Union to secure more exit visas for Soviet Jews, comprising US security and exposing its intelligent posts and agents in Europe and the Communist Block. Sensitive American intelligence and military technologies were sold to China by Israelis. As recently as 2004, Larry Franklin, a key Pentagon official, passed sensitive classified materials to an Israeli diplomat with the help and cover of the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
If backing the underdog is a justification, America should support the Arabs. A 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies concludes that “the strategic balance decidedly favors Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbors.”
Israel aggressive past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians who, by the way, had nothing to do with the Holocaust. In fact, Jews in Palestine were treated far better than in Europe and America. Today, Israeli Arabs are treated as second class citizens. A recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a “neglectful and discriminatory” manner towards them. Unlike the US, where the Constitution grants equal rights to people irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship—so much so for the "democratic state" myth.
I, finally, rest my case with a statement I copied from the Harvard study, “Israel Lobby,” attributed to the Jewish State founding father and its first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, who told the president of the World Jewish Congress, Nahum Goldmann: “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
Gulf Countries Face Closer Regional Cooperation
A western journalist asked us, a group of citizens from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries: “Is Arab nationalism still alive? Is regional grouping a realistic alternative or a step on the road to Arab unification? Are you today more or less committed to your national unity, and why?”
These are loaded, thought provocative questions. They show the level of curiosity and anxiety many feel in the West about our future stability. They ponder over the possibility of civil wars in the oil-rich region that may endanger the Western-allied governments. With Lebanon in the verge of a civil war, and Iraq in the middle of another, their worries are understandable, if not justified.
The answers to the journalist questions varied, but they can be summarized as follows.
Before the Iraq invasion, some groups and individuals, residing in and out of their countries, working above and under ground, were aspiring to certain rights and privileges. Their aspirations include more religious freedoms, as well as political and civil rights. Some radicals went further to call for some sort of independence or self-governance. Others hoped for more association and stronger relations with foreign countries, like Iran.
All Gulf citizens are Arabs, but some come from non-Arab origins, such as Persian, Indian, and black African ones. While most demands and complaints today are religious and political, ethnic issues may lay ahead. In some Gulf states, as much as 80 percent of the population is composed of foreigners, mostly from India and Iran. If even a small percentage of them became citizens, they would make a sizable non-Arab minority who might call for more consideration for their heritage and identity.
Today, the nationality rules are strict toward foreign residents in GCC countries, even those with long-term residency. The regulations are even stricter for non-Arabs. But these rules are not acceptable to the World Trade Organization and will have to be streamlined along universal standards.
All GCC countries are members of WTO and Saudi Arabia was the last of the six countries to join the organization at the end of 2005. The Bahraini labor minister recently warned his GCC counterparts that if they don’t limit the number of years foreign workers are permitted to reside, GCC countries will soon face the prospect of de-Arabization of their demographics and culture.
Existing borders among the council members are not ancient; some are not even finally drawn. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were each united from different parts. Most, including, the Emirates, were British protectorates up to the 1960s when they were granted independence. Except for the Omani Almahara region that rebelled in the seventies with the support of its communist neighbor, the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, no region in the Gulf has seriously sought independence.
Apart from Saudi Arabia and Oman, all are geographically and demographically small states that can’t afford to get smaller. Most citizens are committed to the unification of their countries. Many aspire to even larger entity, in the form of United Gulf States — a dream that was born a quarter of a century ago, with the creation of the GCC.
After the Iraq invasion, and with the civil war there now being fought along mostly religious, but also ethnic lines, separatists are having a second thought. Who would want to end up in such a mess? Life is too precious to be wasted in bloody fights, especially when engineered and administered by foreign powers.
There was a brief and rare moment of Islamic solidarity after the Iran supported Hezbollah stood up to Israel and its backers. But then the sectarian government of Iraq wasted all the credit and sympathy Hezbollah had earned for the Shiites and Iran. With stupid actions and policies, like the circus trial of Saddam Hussein and his hanging by radical Shiites, and the accompanying irrational reactions from the Sunni fundamentalists, we are back to religious suspicion, hatred and rivalry.
In such an explosive atmosphere, it is inconceivable for any religious minority to raise divisive issues. While some may think that with Western support this is the time to redraw the maps and regain certain authority and rights, most are calling for the healing of wounds, division bridging, and national and regional unity. The Gulf governments are now more aware and worried about foreign schemes to divide their nations under the cover of human rights. In response, they are taking serious, if slow and cautious, steps towards political reforms to insure the satisfaction and loyalty of their minorities.
As for Arab nationalism, most of us think it is a passé doctrine. More relevant and fashionable is the dream of the Muslim Caliphate. As a response to Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Arabism, Saudi King Faisal campaigned for Islamic unity. In recent years, this noble cause was hijacked and taken over by radical groups. They have given it a bad name. However, most people today are realistic. While we aspire to some sort of political and economic cooperation, we don’t hold our breath for the Islamic Union or the United Arab States. Our priorities are more mundane: Developing our nations in vital areas of education, economic, science and technology, as well as solving crucial issues of unemployment, crime, pollution, radicalism and terrorism.
In conclusion, both division and pan-Arab unification are far-fetched. More likely in the foreseeable future of Gulf countries is closer regional cooperation that aspires but is not able yet to reach the European Union level — not too bad for tribal based societies.
These are loaded, thought provocative questions. They show the level of curiosity and anxiety many feel in the West about our future stability. They ponder over the possibility of civil wars in the oil-rich region that may endanger the Western-allied governments. With Lebanon in the verge of a civil war, and Iraq in the middle of another, their worries are understandable, if not justified.
The answers to the journalist questions varied, but they can be summarized as follows.
Before the Iraq invasion, some groups and individuals, residing in and out of their countries, working above and under ground, were aspiring to certain rights and privileges. Their aspirations include more religious freedoms, as well as political and civil rights. Some radicals went further to call for some sort of independence or self-governance. Others hoped for more association and stronger relations with foreign countries, like Iran.
All Gulf citizens are Arabs, but some come from non-Arab origins, such as Persian, Indian, and black African ones. While most demands and complaints today are religious and political, ethnic issues may lay ahead. In some Gulf states, as much as 80 percent of the population is composed of foreigners, mostly from India and Iran. If even a small percentage of them became citizens, they would make a sizable non-Arab minority who might call for more consideration for their heritage and identity.
Today, the nationality rules are strict toward foreign residents in GCC countries, even those with long-term residency. The regulations are even stricter for non-Arabs. But these rules are not acceptable to the World Trade Organization and will have to be streamlined along universal standards.
All GCC countries are members of WTO and Saudi Arabia was the last of the six countries to join the organization at the end of 2005. The Bahraini labor minister recently warned his GCC counterparts that if they don’t limit the number of years foreign workers are permitted to reside, GCC countries will soon face the prospect of de-Arabization of their demographics and culture.
Existing borders among the council members are not ancient; some are not even finally drawn. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were each united from different parts. Most, including, the Emirates, were British protectorates up to the 1960s when they were granted independence. Except for the Omani Almahara region that rebelled in the seventies with the support of its communist neighbor, the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, no region in the Gulf has seriously sought independence.
Apart from Saudi Arabia and Oman, all are geographically and demographically small states that can’t afford to get smaller. Most citizens are committed to the unification of their countries. Many aspire to even larger entity, in the form of United Gulf States — a dream that was born a quarter of a century ago, with the creation of the GCC.
After the Iraq invasion, and with the civil war there now being fought along mostly religious, but also ethnic lines, separatists are having a second thought. Who would want to end up in such a mess? Life is too precious to be wasted in bloody fights, especially when engineered and administered by foreign powers.
There was a brief and rare moment of Islamic solidarity after the Iran supported Hezbollah stood up to Israel and its backers. But then the sectarian government of Iraq wasted all the credit and sympathy Hezbollah had earned for the Shiites and Iran. With stupid actions and policies, like the circus trial of Saddam Hussein and his hanging by radical Shiites, and the accompanying irrational reactions from the Sunni fundamentalists, we are back to religious suspicion, hatred and rivalry.
In such an explosive atmosphere, it is inconceivable for any religious minority to raise divisive issues. While some may think that with Western support this is the time to redraw the maps and regain certain authority and rights, most are calling for the healing of wounds, division bridging, and national and regional unity. The Gulf governments are now more aware and worried about foreign schemes to divide their nations under the cover of human rights. In response, they are taking serious, if slow and cautious, steps towards political reforms to insure the satisfaction and loyalty of their minorities.
As for Arab nationalism, most of us think it is a passé doctrine. More relevant and fashionable is the dream of the Muslim Caliphate. As a response to Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Arabism, Saudi King Faisal campaigned for Islamic unity. In recent years, this noble cause was hijacked and taken over by radical groups. They have given it a bad name. However, most people today are realistic. While we aspire to some sort of political and economic cooperation, we don’t hold our breath for the Islamic Union or the United Arab States. Our priorities are more mundane: Developing our nations in vital areas of education, economic, science and technology, as well as solving crucial issues of unemployment, crime, pollution, radicalism and terrorism.
In conclusion, both division and pan-Arab unification are far-fetched. More likely in the foreseeable future of Gulf countries is closer regional cooperation that aspires but is not able yet to reach the European Union level — not too bad for tribal based societies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)