Dr. Khaled Batarfi Page

Salam, Shalom, Peace ... 2 ALL.

2007-12-02T09:34:00.000-08:00

Khaled M. Batarfi, Ph.D.

Photos By: Reem M. Alfaisal

Readers’ Take on Best Model for Arabs

2007-04-26T03:22:00.000-07:00

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

Best Model for Arab World?

2007-04-18T05:57:00.000-07:00

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?

Peace in the Middle East? Why Not!

2007-03-25T15:58:00.000-07:00

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.

Muslims Mute on Terrorism?

2007-03-18T06:40:00.000-07:00

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.

Wrong Comparisons, America!

2007-03-11T05:03:00.000-07:00

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?

Miscalculation, the Middle Eastern Curse

2007-03-05T23:42:00.000-08:00

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!”

The Myth of US Free Press!

2007-02-28T02:26:00.000-08:00

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!

You Break It, You Own It, America!

2007-02-11T03:28:00.000-08:00

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.

Blaming Religions for the Crimes of the Religious!

2007-02-04T03:40:00.001-08:00

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!

Blaming Religions for the Crimes of the Religious!

2007-02-04T03:40:00.000-08:00

Delivering the Middle East to Iranians

2007-01-25T09:33:00.000-08:00

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!

Gulf Countries Face Closer Regional Cooperation

2007-01-14T05:51:00.000-08:00

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.

The Ongoing Case Against Israel

2007-01-07T09:54:00.000-08:00

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?”

Gulf Countries Face Closer Regional Cooperation

2007-01-07T05:56:00.000-08:00

Return of the ‘American’ Jedi

2006-12-24T02:41:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,
The Israeli lobby in America is under pressure these days. It seems they crossed so many red lines that some hot-blooded Americans felt obliged to protest.
The 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner, former US President Jimmy Carter, is not alone with his recent book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” and LA Times and Guardian article, “How I See Palestine.” A recent Harvard study entitled “The Israel Lobby” by Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt details the ways of the lobby and its victims. Tellingly, they later joined the victim list. There are similar studies and books exposing the lobby, like “They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby” by 22-year veteran Congressman Paul Findley whose stand cost him dearly, and “Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment” by American-Jewish insider, J. J. Goldberg.
Some still think this is a lobby like any. An American friend argued that the tobacco and gun lobbies are among the strongest in the US. They use similar aggressive methods to advance their agenda and influence decision makers in Congress and the Administration — what is the difference? I explained that these groups are working on an all-American platform, claiming to represent and defend the interests of the American public and businesses. In the Israeli lobby case, it is Americans for Israel. They fight and pressure not for the good of the American nation, but for that of a foreign country. They even dare to say it loud and clear, like former House Majority Leader Dick Armey who pronounced in September 2002: “My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.” (Not America)!
This Christian Zionist congressman and chief author of the Republican Contract with America, who called in May 2004 for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, is not alone. According to the Harvard study, the lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Tom DeLay, former majority leader in the House of Representatives and Trent Lott, Senate minority leader. All of whom believe Israel’s rebirth is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God’s will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett, the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast supporters. Other Jewish senators and congressmen work to ensure that US foreign policy supports Israel’s interests.
You can’t argue with success. For decades, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history.
According to the Harvard study, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War II, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the US foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a budget surplus and a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.
Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s agenda. The US consistently supported the Israeli position in every peace negotiation. An American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: “Far too often, we functioned...as Israel’s lawyer.” Finally, the Bush Administration’s ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel’s strategic situation.
Israel knows it could rely on the lobby and its friends in the American power structure. They never fail it even if it means sacrificing their own country’s best interests. Whatever Israel wants Israel gets.
That is why Israeli former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Oct. 3, 2001 said to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio, “Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that...I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”
I wonder what type of Americans know this and accept it. I am pretty sure it is not the American public.

Carter’s Book: The Lobby Strikes Back

2006-12-17T02:30:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

I have been asking the same questions President Jimmy Carter raises in his new book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” and LA Times article “How I See Palestine,” but I stood no chance of convincing most Americans for the simple reason of being an Arab.

During my graduate studies in the US, I noted how difficult it was for any, even in a university sanctuary, to debate, let alone criticize, Israel. It is suicidal, I was told, for politicians, writers, journalists, professors and even students, to ask the wrong questions about Almighty Israel. You may deny the existence of God, if you wish, but you will be crucified if you doubt the right of Israel to exist or the holy “pay me for life” arrangement with the budget-surplus state. Freedom of speech does have its limitations. Like any mafia, the Israeli lobby knows how to muscle and reward. They buy whoever is for sale and character assassinate anyone whose soul isn’t available. They think and operate with their bucks and guns. And they have plenty of both.

Please, don’t take my word for it; don’t even take the words of the Harvard study, “The Israeli Lobby,” or the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Maybe we are all conspiring against poor Israel and its poorer lobby. Let’s listen here to the words of a great American president who happened to be a world class peacemaker, observer and advocate. He is also the godfather of the 1978 Camp David Peace Accords, the first Arab-Israeli peace agreement. And if his words are not enough, I’ll bring you, next week, powerful Israeli voices, including those of a former president and prime minister.

In the LA Times article, Carter reveals: “The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize policies of the Israeli government is due to the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.

On the ways of the lobby, he discloses the open-secret unknown only to the American public: “It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians.”

Of the American “free” press compliance with the lobby, he complains: “What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land. Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that ‘he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel.’”

The myth of the freedom of information, research and debate in academia is also visited by Carter. “My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors.”

So what is so wrong about the book that put the lobby on fire? According to its author, “the book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine’s citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine, to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers.”

Carter goes on to denounce the treatment of Palestinians, “In many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the casualties on both sides.

He concludes, “The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors. Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.”

Amen!!

The Iraq Study Group Report, Amen!

2006-12-16T04:35:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

The most important recommendations the Iraq Study Group (ISG) came up with were exactly what we, US friends in the region, were calling for since the start of the disastrous invasion-occupation of Iraq: Solve the Arab-Israeli issue, cooperate with Iraq’s neighbors, and bring all Iraqi parties to the table — your enemies included. My last article reached those conclusions.

Many American readers felt I was an Arab extremist. Now, their own officials and senators, from both the Democratic and Republican parties, are in agreement. Interestingly, the pro-Israel neoconservatives and evangelicals are accusing the Baker-Hamilton group of weakness and appeasement — the opposite of extremism and wickedness charges against me.

It is understandable, though, that the “Israeli more than Israel” are nuts about uncovering the Israeli link to the Iraqi debacle. It was much easier and safer for their Zionist deity when the blame was squarely on the savage side — the extremist Arabs and Muslims.

As they portray it, the Crusaders, on God’s orders, were only spreading the light of democracy, freedom and love! The champions of peace and prosperity were fighting the ghosts of darkness and forces of evil.

They had to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders as a small price to pay for defending superior values of a superior religion, culture and race. They had to burn the woods to save a tree. Now that they failed, it is entirely the others’ fault. That includes not only the long list of enemies, but also agents, allies and friends. The only exception, of course, is the one who dragged them there — Israel.

It is frustrating to hear the arguments of the ISG critics. They come strong, for example, against any contacts with the so-called evil regimes — Syria, Iran and Hamas. That is amazing coming from a country that kept a presidential hotline with the worst of its enemies, the Soviet Union, for forty chilling years.

Such contacts saved America and the world from nuclear annihilation more than once, the most famous being the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. The lesson here was, you lose nothing by talking to your enemies, but you may lose everything by not doing so.

You and your enemies have shared interests. If you start on them, you build a working relationship that could help your negotiation about contrasting interests. In the case of Iraq, all, except Israel and the warlords, have the same interests — peace and stability. This is a good start.

Then there are valid concerns and legitimate interests you should appreciate. You cannot ride over to people’s backyard promising loud and clear: I’m going to change your world forever. Iraq first, Syria and Iran next, then the rest of the Arab world, and expect all to wait in the slaughter line peacefully. You cannot let yourself be led by Zionists, spilling rivers of blood, yours included, to make the world a better place for Israel, and expect Arabs and Muslims to be cooperative. You cannot divide a united nation, taking sides, and letting one party prevail over the other, getting away with theft and murder, then blame the oppressed losers for fighting back.

More importantly, you cannot set a standard that can only apply to you. If you break the universally agreed rules you can’t blame the others for charting their own. In Iraq, you shocked and awed the whole population as a proudly announced strategy. You shot and bombed on suspicion and collectively punished, collaterally damaged your enemies.

Why, then, do you expect the reaction to be any different? In your treatment of prisoners of war, you killed and tortured, and when exposed, lightly punished the perpetrators and let their superiors get away untouched. In doing so, you set an example that endangers your own as the insurgents felt justified in doing the same to their hostages.

Appreciating your opponents’ valid concerns and showing your readiness to accommodate their legitimate interests will help win their confidence and cooperation. It is not a zero-sum, win or lose game. There are enough gains for all from a comprehensive peaceful solution for the region’s staggering conflicts — including Israel. That is what the Iraq Study Group found, and that is what we were advocating for ages.

Simply put, you cannot pick and choose what to fix in a falling roof. Every column has to be raised, every window has to be fixed, and every weak link and leak has to be addressed. Solving the root of all troubles, the Arab-Israeli conflict as the group recommended, is a must.

Since America, with the powerful Israeli lobby in control of its Mideast policies, cannot play the honest broker, the way out is what the Baker-Hamilton report advised: An international conference that includes every stake holder in the region plus Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Europeans and the United Nations. The same goes for Iraq and Iran — the multinational, multilateral approach is the one and only way to go.
From what I hear, the new Congress is all for the ISG recommendations. The question is, will this administration buy in? Or is it too invested in its arrogant policies that we have to endure the hell waiting until a new administration takes over? Only Cheney can tell!

Restoring Credibility, America!

2006-12-04T01:13:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

My American host was genuinely puzzled. Why was it wrong to liberate Iraq from an oppressive regime, introduce democracy to a cave-age region and rid it of weapons of mass destruction? He also wants to know where America went wrong, and how to rectify that, make friends with the Muslim world and get out safely from Iraq.
I was on a two-month training program, The Emerging Leaders Fellowship, sponsored by the US State Department in the Northwestern University Media Management Center and the Seattle Times.
Questions on these lines were asked in many media and academic circles by people concerned about their country’s dire standing in the world, and the Iraq quagmire.
I start by asking them to read the Harvard research paper, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy,” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Part of the study explains how the Iraq invasion was drummed up by Likud allies in the US government, Congress, media and think tanks against basic American interests. Christian Zionist senators and congressmen, like majority leader Tom Delay and Dick Armey who proclaimed that protection of Israel is their highest priority and God meant for Israel to exist and expand, went out of their way to push the White House into this war.
Not even oil, arms and construction business were higher in their agenda.
If getting rid of dictatorships in the world was the real motivation, the closer-to-home Castro regime should have been first. Communist Cuba has been a constant pain and challenge to the US for half a century. Two generations of victims are now American citizens and residents.
Then, there is North Korea — an absolute Stalinist state that never hid its nuclear ambitions. To achieve such aspirations, hundred of thousands of citizens died of malnutrition. It is a present and clear danger to its neighbors who are US allies and a challenge to Washington’s strategic interests.
Instead, America took on the more difficult, less urgent task of overthrowing the Iraqi government. Why?
The “Clean Break” plan to invade Iraq was actually drawn by neoconservatives in 1996 and presented to the then Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, a Likud hard-liner, who thought it was too extreme. The same plan was later presented to President Clinton, then to his successor Bush and his deputy, Cheney. All turned it down. After 9/11, the campaign was renewed and intensified by pro-Israel groups. This time the plan was endorsed. To sell it to the American public and the world, pretexts and evidences, like Iraq’s link to Al-Qaeda and its weapons of mass destruction, were manufactured.
Knowing why America really went to war, which was obvious to all, except the American people, explains why recently America and Israel were globally voted the most dangerous nations threatening world peace and stability, ahead of North Korea and Iran.
The Israeli link also explains the unprecedented animosity the US built up in the Arab and Muslim world. Understanding this background will help find a lasting, comprehensive and peaceful solution for the region and a safe and easy way out for America.
Getting into a mess is easier than getting out. America went to the war with an attitude. Its leadership felt they know all they needed to know, depending on Israel’s intelligence with its American supporters and Iraqi agents. No one else, including Arab allies and internal opposition in CIA and State Department, were given a fair hearing. All plans were focused on winning the war, not the peace. They counted every bullet and bomb up to the day of victory, but not much attention to details for the day after.
Ignorance combined with arrogance is an explosive mix. Leaders who didn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shiite, and have never fought a war, assumed they knew better than seasoned political and military experts. Even when it was obvious the drive was slipping in the wrong direction, they “stayed the course” rather than admit mistakes.
To change this perception of being an Israeli hunting dog, America needs to declare its independence from Israel. It is easier to talk business with those who care only about their own interests, and exclusively represent their own country. Double loyalty is confusing.
Second, you need fresh leaders who can credibly say: I had nothing to do with this! Recycling the same discredited faces makes it much harder for people to believe their sincerity.
Finally, you need to humbly and sincerely apologize to your victims, ignored allies and people whom you turned enemies.
Then you should invite all, foes and friends, to the table; sell your plans; ask for help and support; and make sure they believe you. People recognize their interests when they see them.
Governments, groups and individuals will cooperate if your offerings solve their problems, allay their fears, relieve their pain and/or give them better options. It is basic human nature. And humanity is what has been missing in this game.

History Answers the Pope!

2006-10-01T06:11:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

My last column, “Is the Papal Apology Acceptable?” has generated some enlightening and angry responses. If the pope were wrong about Islam and violence, some wonder, why would Muslims react to his accusations with violence?

I agree with them that we shouldn’t and apologize unconditionally for the acts of some misguided Muslims. However, this is what happens usually in angry protests. This is not an excuse, but an attempt to explain the few incidents where churches, synagogues and mosques were attacked. Religious and sectarian conflicts from Ireland and Spain, to Iraq and India are the worst examples of how irresponsible actions or words can cause great damage. Responsible leaders, therefore, refrain from incendiary speeches in such environment of mistrust, misunderstanding and animosity as the world is living since 9/11.

But religions and prophets should not be held responsible for the wrong actions and statements of misguided followers, even if they happen to be presidents, prime ministers and religious leaders.

Here are representative samples of readers’ reactions:

“I don’t get it. The pope refers to the violent history of Islam’s conquest; Muslims, worldwide, respond with, “Don’t call us violent or we’ll kill more of you.” — Joel

“Islam needs a reformation that supports human reason as a cure for the literal understanding of the Qur’an.” — John

“The person the pope quoted called Islam ‘evil and inhuman’ for spreading its religion by the sword. But this is like the pot calling the kettle black: the church also spread its religion by conquest. If anything else, the pope is a hypocrite.” — Mark

“The Catholic Church has many problems! Why wouldn’t its leader deflect criticism by disparaging Islam? It seems to have worked. He has not spoken out against the war being waged against Islam!” — Otis

“The pope needs not apologize for the truth. Christians do not excuse the awful pain inflicted on people around the world in the name of Christianity. It’s history. In the West we are free to write and read about history-good and bad. Sadly, Muslims are stuck in the Middle Ages and are too insecure to accept their own shortcomings and some of their own miserable history.” — JHM

“Westerners have difficulty in understanding jihad. Where are the moderate Muslims, we ask without looking at our policies of invasion and unconditional support of Israel.” — KGB

I was about to write this article in response to these and similar comments when I received an essay that mirrors my thoughts by Uri Avnery, an Israeli Peace Activist. I decided instead to quote him. Here are my favorite quotes:

“Jesus said: ‘You will recognize them by their fruits.’ The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to ‘spread the faith by the sword’? Well, they just did not. For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration.

The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

“In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Christian Orthodox, Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith-and they were the forefathers of most of today’s Palestinians.

“There is no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the ‘spreading of the faith by the sword’?

“What happened afterward is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: To become Christians or to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries.”

Thanks Uri Avnery. And to the Holy See I respectfully say: I accept your apology, appreciate your reach-out, hope for the best ... and rest my case.

– (http://kbatarfi.blogspot.com)

Is the Papal Apology Acceptable?

2006-09-24T05:03:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

Half an apology is better than none. Finally the Holy See, Pope Benedict XVI, the leader of one billion Catholics saw that what he uttered during the speech at Regensburg University in Germany was insulting and offensive enough to endanger the vulnerable relations between Christians and Muslims. Personally, I accept the apology even though I still have many unanswered questions regarding this episode and past stands of the man, the school of thought he represents and the extremist conservative group he leads.

"I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address," the pope told pilgrims at the summer papal palace, Castel Gandolfo, last Sunday, "which were considered offensive." So far, he is expressing sorrow for the reactions and is not admitting that his statements were "offensive". Being considered so could be a mistake of the other, but not necessarily yours!

Then comes the half-satisfying explanation that "These were in fact quotations from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. The true meaning of my address in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect."

If you don't agree with a quote, why would you introduce it without registering your disagreement? Would it be acceptable for a Muslim religious leader to quote German theologian and religious reformer Martin Luther's views of the Vatican, and the insulting remark that the pope was "a donkey," without comments?

Anyway the pontiff apologized; now the question is: Was that enough? We were told that this was an extraordinary apology. The pope is supposedly someone who cannot make mistakes. Apologizing is not an option because it hurts his holiness and credibility.

That's why popes refrain or should refrain from saying or doing controversial things. They have lots of smart consultants, experts and speechwriters to help them say and do the right thing. So what went wrong?

According to Vatican insiders, there is a new group, a kind of neocons, who are worried about the growing number of Muslim immigrants to Europe, and the rapid growth of Islam in the world. Islam, in their view, is not a religion to be treated on the same footing as Christianity. Therefore, they are against any civilization dialogue that would treat Islam as equal to Christianity that in their view is anyway superior.

The late pope, like his predecessor, was a believer in peaceful coexistence among religions and peoples. The dialogue with Muslims reached a historical level in the last decade. His popularity in the Islamic world reached similarly high peaks.

Pope Benedict, on the other hand, belongs to the other camp. He campaigned against the membership of Muslim Turkey in the European Union. Since taking over, he demoted the office responsible for dialogue with Muslims to a clerical level. His view of how Islam does not equal Christianity is well known. Is it any surprise then he would quote a medieval text that agrees with his line of thought without distancing himself or contradicting these views?

I would say: Yes, it is surprising. A pope is not just a religious leader; he is also a political figure. While he is entitled to his personal stands and views, he should act his position and carefully weigh his actions and statements.

Any politician should know that saying what he said about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Islam right after Bush coined the term "Islamic fascists" and Christian cartoonists drew the Prophet as a terrorist would be very bad timing, to say the least. Extremists and conspiracy theorists among us were warning Muslims of the hostile intentions and scheming of the neo-crusaders. Now, who would furnish a better proof for such allegations than the successor of the popes who incited and rallied the Crusaders to kill Muslims, destroy Islam and spread the Christian faith by the sword in the Holy Land for centuries?

At a time when a billion and a half Muslims feel besieged by the "war on terror," here comes yet another attack on their faith and Prophet. What purpose would that insult serve, I wonder?

Hopefully, the pope and his conservative consultants now realize that the best way to serve God and save His children is to build bridges of dialogue and foster understanding, tolerance and peaceful coexistence.

This can be achieved by continuing the same path as his predecessors followed, and building on the strong bases they worked so hard to establish. It is not too late to say and do the right thing, Your Holiness!

(http://kbatarfi.blog-spot.com)

Lessons of Lebanon and 9/11 Attacks

2006-09-12T01:30:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Sunday, 10, September, 2006

What is the difference between a report and an Op-Ed piece? A reporter should cover all sides in his/her news story or analysis. A column, on the other hand, is meant to express a writer’s own opinion. At least this is my understanding. Obviously my American friend does not subscribe to this view or he does not recognize this vital difference. Hence his suggestion that I should be “fairer” in my articles about the Lebanon war. A journalist, he says, should represent all sides of a conflict, regardless of his or her own views.

I explained to him that I am not writing as a journalist, but as an opinion writer. Besides, Israel and company have powerful media forums whereas Arabs have very few. It is not fair to share the little space we have with Israeli apologists. Readers have greater access to the other side, so they won’t have a problem getting the Zionist message.

My friend insisted that at least I be logical, sensible and credible. For my opinion to be heard and respected by all sides, he argued, it has to show restraint, factuality and reason.

I agree. I must not lie or twist facts to support my stand or to convince my readers. Like a lawyer arguing a case, I could highlight certain facts and ignore others, knowing my opponent would focus on them, but abusing the truth is not permissible.

I should also be moral. For example, I must not preach hate, support injustice or advocate violence and terrorism. No moral writer can be anti-Semite, support Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Lebanon or Palestine, or apologize for Al-Qaeda targeting civilians.

However, as long as I adhere to standard ethic rules, I am free to take any stand I feel right.

Anger, my friend contented, blurs reason. I should not write when I can’t control my emotions. He noted that my articles after the cease-fire in Lebanon were more like me than the ones I wrote during the war.

I told him that in the heat of conflict, sense and sensibility takes a back seat to anger, obstinacy and revenge. It is just hard for people under fire to think kindly of the shooters, or find excuses for their behavior. Shouts and war cries silence any fair reasoning and logical review. We are but humans.

However, after the battle storm dies down, sanity should rule. Now that Lebanon is on the road to recovery, we could afford to breath easier, think logical, and be fair even to our enemy.

We expected this from the world’s only superpower and leader, USA, soon after 9/11. Wounds were supposed to start healing, and forward, positive, scientific and constructive thinking was expected to take over. Emotional responses were the last thing anyone predicted. Yet, that is exactly what happened and still happening five years after the event.

Adventures like Iraq invasion justified with lies and truth-twisting backfired on the perpetrators. Supporting other criminal adventures like “bombing Lebanon to the Stone Age” and destroying Palestinian towns and villages drained whatever left of world sympathy toward America after 9/11, as international polls show.

In Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, mostly innocent people and their homes and towns were destroyed. The bad guys are still at large, regrouping and attacking with the support of large portions of their societies. Victims are turned into avengers. Angry fellow brethren all over the Muslim world became a huge pool of potential jihadists against the occupiers. If only half a percentage of some 1.5 billion Muslims went down that road there would be multimillion fighters.

From Spain and UK to Indonesia and the Philippines, and from Morocco and Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Iraq, the terrorist attacks have increased many folds. Against all security preparations, terrorists managed to deal blow after blow to all of us. Evidently, the world is less safe today than it was before the war on terror.

Instead of stopping the bleeding, more blood, American included, was spilled all over, and enormous economic costs slowed the development of a better world. Worse, fear, hate and mistrust ruled a globe that was starting to be interconnected with instant and affordable communication, trade and education — a world that was starting to establish a new order based on the rule of law, justice and human rights.

Within months of 9/11, the dream we nurtured for half a century since the end of World War II evaporated with the first B52 bombing of villages and farms in poor Afghanistan. Instead of healing the wounds and uniting the world against preachers of hate and manufacturers of death, the theories of “The Clash of Civilization” and “The End of History” are now becoming more and more a reality.

In five years, we witnessed how the leaders and builders of the emerging free, peaceful world gradually turned into its jailers and destroyers. We deserved better!

People Have the Power to Change Govt Policies

2006-09-12T01:20:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
"Why do you hate us?" asked the American lady in the next seat after she found I was an Arab. "But I don’t' hate you?" I responded. "You hate my country that is the same thing?" She countered. "No," I explained, "Your country is too large and diverse for anyone to hate. You have some eight million Muslim Americans, not including residents. Your country helped the world ending two great wars, and your scientists saved it from epidemic diseases and gave us electricity and so many other great civilization advancements. You can't hate a country as a whole, let alone a great one like yours."
"Then who do you hate in America?" She demanded. "It is rather what," I clarified. "I know some of us confuse the issues, maybe intentionally, but the majority don't. A poll after poll showed that most Muslims hate certain US foreign policies, just like most people in the planet—from its disregard of global treaties on environment and human rights, to exporting war and fear, to its blind support of Israel. Change of policies will change attitudes. Trust might take longer, but cooperation will fly right away."
"I hate war. I don't understand politics and have no say in the making of said policies. Why would I walk in any Arab street afraid of what people may do or say to me?"
"People in the street won't harm you, but they might tell you what they think of your government's policies. Since you are a taxpayer citizen in a democratic country, you do have a say and a vote. And you should use them."
I told her a story. After 9/11, I visited Eugene, Oregon, where I lived and studied for five happy years till the end of 1999—two years before the terrorist attack. I was afraid that the wonderful liberal, friendly environment had changed. I was pleasantly surprised.
To the contrary, my Arab and Muslim friends told me. Right after the event, many concerned citizens surrounded the mosque to protect it from possible attacks. Emotions were running high, and those beautiful Americans were afraid some militant groups or angry individuals might take revenge.
The good people of Eugene sat up daily vigilance for more than a week. The mayor and police officers attended a number of Friday prayers and reassured the Islamic Center management and Muslim residents of their commitment to protect them and allow free and safe access to the mosque. The University of Oregon administration showered its Arab and Muslim students with care, support and sympathy. So did professors and fellow students.
Proactive actions like this, especially when coming from ordinary American citizens, improved the attitude of Muslims towards their host country, and failed the terrorists' attempt to breed hatred and mistrust in both sides.
Other actions, like street demonstrations, as we witnessed in Europe, Australia, South America and the Far East, distance citizens from wrong state policies. There are other ways of influence, like writing campigns and protest calls to concerned legislative and state department as well as the media.
In democracy, the people are the base of the whole system, the source of all powers. Before 9/11 some may accepted the notion that Americans did not know or care about what went in the rest of the world. Now that the world is visiting the homeland, that is not an option ore an excuse any more. To say I have nothing to do with my government cannot be acceptable or believed even by the average man in streets of Third World countries."
My neighbor lady was silent for a while, looking ahead and ignoring me. Then suddenly she turned around smiling, shook my hand and introduced herself as "your American friend." She didn't promise anything, but in her now glittering eyes I saw a strong determination to change. More importantly, at that moment she seemed to understand that we don't hate her or her fellow Americans—only disagree with certain government stands and actions.
I never ceased to be amazed by the power of people to people communication. I am also amazed by the power citizens can exercise if well informed in domestic and international affairs, well aware of the game of power, and well trained on the tools of democratic influence.
The Internet, another American great invention, provided us with the tools we needed to overcome not only physical obstacles, but also established mass communication monopolies, such as media. Today, we could know more; work better, faster and more organized to make our voice heard and our wishes respected by states and leaders. Power to the people!

Ending the Cycle of Violence in Middle East

2006-08-27T23:04:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Tragedies in history are repeated, because we don’t learn from our mistakes. The world has witnessed so many holocausts since the dawn of time. Empires grow, weaken and die for the same reasons. They decline when they reach a certain level of arrogance and ignorance. That is when they look down on smaller and weaker nations, and stop listening to their opinions, complaints and criticism. This has been the case from the ancient civilizations of China, Iraq and Egypt, to colonial era of European powers, to the new age of Soviet Union and USA.
We have already repeated our mistakes in the Greater Middle East from Afghanistan to Iraq, Palestine to Lebanon, and now Iran. So, before going further on the repetition course, let’s take a timeout for reflection on the latest crisis — the Lebanon war.
It is tough to be evenhanded and balanced when your own family is being slaughtered to pieces. Still, I learned a couple of valuable lessons from some Israeli writers and journalists, who, in the midst of a maddening war, were sane, fair and courageous enough to expose the fallacies and wrongs of their government. Against popular emotional stands, they strived to get their criticism across. Time proved them right, and more Israelis are now having doubts and questions about long-held beliefs and strategies, as we all should.
Israel has a natural right to live in peace. Arabs must show their unsure neighbor that there is light at the end of the tunnel. No nation in a strong position will ever part with war-gained spoils unless they get something solid in return. For even the most pacifist Israelis, it is not reasonable to give concessions without rewards. We must guarantee them peaceful and friendlier neighborhood.
I agreed with many of my Israeli counterparts that King Abdullah’s peace initiative, sponsored by the Arab League in 2002, should be the blueprint for comprehensive peace project. It is based on UN Resolution 242 and accommodates Israeli demands for border adjustments and some concerns regarding return of refugees.
Unfortunately, the last Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon responded to this historical grand Arab gesture by bombing late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat’s headquarters, destroying Jenin and pressuring the US administration to change its initial support of the initiative. He and his like won the day. We all, Arabs, Israelis and peace seekers all over the world, lost.
They say Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, but so are Israelis, especially the rightists. There were times, with the last Labor government, when we were on the verge of real victory for all — peace. The Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations brought all players — Palestinians, Israelis and neighbors to the negotiation table. It worked, till Arafat made a historical mistake of refusing an admittedly inadequate deal instead of negotiating changes. The Israeli opposition refused it, too, and vowed to defeat it. To kill the project in its infancy, Sharon provoked the second intifada by booting the grounds of Islam’s third holiest shrine — Al-Aqsa. After winning the elections, he made sure the project was buried forever.
For long, Lebanon has been the playground of many recurring mistakes. The Lebanese, Syrians, Arabs, Americans and French committed terrible mistakes. Israel was the worst. The invasion of 1982 and the occupation of parts of Lebanon for eighteen years destroyed the capability of the Lebanese Army, justified the interference of other players, like Syria, Iraq and Iran, and gave birth to the resistance movement of Hezbollah.
The latest Israeli invasion and bombardment of its northern neighbor doesn’t look like the last mistake. Instead of eradicating the Hezbollah, Israel weakened the very government which was supposed to disarm the group, and the very people it tried to turn against it, not to mention the radicalization of the whole region. Iran and its protégé only dreamt of the status they now enjoy in the Muslim world from Morocco to Indonesia. By violating the terms of the cease-fire, Israel is on course to repeat history once more.
The Arabs and Israelis should, instead, use the lesson of this tragic event to restart the project of peace, cooperation and prosperity for this long-troubled part of the world. The terrible loss of lives and economic potentials should make us aware of the downhill journey we are taking.
Only via the road to peace can we turn around the Lebanon corner. If leaders are not yet ready to make the move, then it is our responsibility, the peoples of the region, to make them be. After all, it is our children’s future we are talking about.

Israel and US: Why Should Arab Opinion Be Any Different?

2006-08-27T06:02:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,

Sunday, 20, August, 2006

In conflicts, interested people usually take extremely different stands. Writing about such issues usually invites angry responses. To my last article, “The Death of Moderates in Muslim World,” I received lots of steamy messages that I typically put on my e-mail list. Good examples are the comments from two American readers presenting different views about Israel, Zionism and the US stand.

The first, from a dear fellow journalist, said: “I reject your bitter abuse and overuse of the term ‘Zionists’ and the rather distorted twist of facts to support your presumptive and fragile view of the events of the past and of the present.

“As for Jews being in collusion with many fundamentalist Evangelists, guess you are reading something that is secret; as a Jew I know nothing about it. I consider those radicals to be in the same category as other radicals; now you share their company in terms of my list of suspects promoting intolerance and hatred. Let’s get something straight: Zionism was about a homeland for peaceful existence and protection and not about colonialism.

“Israel had no choice but to defend its population; Hezbollah had a choice of returning the two abducted soldiers, fighting in the open and not hiding behind women and children. The many deaths and the destruction will never sit right with me and though I understand the fangs of war, one wonders why we are intense about killing each other. You have given us the answer; lies breed anger and anger breeds hatred.

“My regret is that you are ignoring the whole story and your broad brush is food for those who thrive on bigotry and division.

“This reminds me of the KKK but as they have twisted Christianity, so perhaps are you twisting moderate Islam. -Ed”

Scott read Ed comments and responded: “An old movie, ‘The Hornet’s Nest’, opens with Italian civilians facing Nazis in an impromptu firing squad, repeatedly asking, ‘Where are the partisans? No answer? Murder them all —women, elderly and kids included.

“Here again, Israelis seemed to ask: Where are Hezbollah fighters? No answer? Bomb Lebanon’s airport, harbors, schools, homes, and nurseries!

“This unacceptable use of terror on civilians in Lebanon, the unbelievably excessive use of force and the brutal destruction of a struggling, and fledgling democracy have changed me forever. While I still respect Jews, I no longer respect Israel. I will forever look forward to the end of this failed social experiment.

“Israel has been in violation of UN Resolution 242 for over 35 years now. They refuse to sign the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and appear to have a fleet of nuclear weapons —the WMDs we cannot allow any nation to have in the Middle East. They habitually use US jets and helicopters (which ties regular Americans to these attacks) to assassinate alleged resistance or terror leaders.

“I saw Pat Robertson last week telling his millions of viewers to pray for Israel. I’m not sure if Zionists or Jews are in collusion with fundamentalist Evangelists, but these nuts sure are pulling for the nation of Israel. Regardless of the motive, we do not represent ‘honest-brokers’ any longer.

“In World War II, arguably, the Jewish people suffered the greatest in that dark chapter of human existence. Yet, what they learned appears only to be the methods of brutality. The assault of Lebanon confirms this.

“I now stand with the billions in the world who do not accept this cancer in the midst of Muslims. It was a difficult task to create a Jewish nation, and expect so many to relocate. Rather than exhibit the glorious patience that has characterized Jewish history, we have seen only excessive brutality and a complete lack of compassion for others.

“Israel was created by a UN vote in 1947. It is time to rescind that vote. It is time to end the failed experiment of the nation of Israel. The Palestinians have not been ‘right,’ but the Israelis sure have been wrong.”

Salam and shalom...Scott”

I am frequently asked: Do Arabs endorse the existence of Israel? We had to “accept” but I, for one, would never “endorse” its existence. This is a “certified” terrorist organization by even UN mandate authority. Britain still regards as wanted terrorists the prime ministers of Israel, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir. Their terrorist organization was made into state, displacing native Palestinians, stealing their homes, farms and lands and denying them the right to return. However, thanks to the superpowers of the world, Israel became a reality. We accepted all UN resolutions, such as 242, and collectively sponsored King Abdullah’s initiative of 2002, assuring Israel normal relations if it returns to pre-1967 borders. Israel refused even the road map sponsored by the US, its protector and benefactor.

Overwhelmingly, the world public opinion, from Britain and Germany to Korea and Japan, regards the US and Israel as the greatest threat to world peace and stability. Why would the Arabs be any different?

The Death of Moderates

2006-08-17T06:11:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
In the war of hotheads, the cool heads lose out. Radicalism invokes the worst in us. It makes us angry, hateful, aggressive and crazy. Those with cooler temper and wiser brains cannot make themselves understood, acceptable or even heard. In the noise pollution that goes with fanaticism it is really hard for any differing voice to float over the herds' cheers and shouts.
Thanks to Israel and company, all volcanoes of suppressed, clamed and negotiated hard feelings are now erupting in the Muslim World. All old and new wounds are now open and sour: from the creation of Israel on Arab land, to 1967 War that grabbed more lands including Islam's third holiest shrine, Al-Agsa Mosque, to 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the over twenty years of occupation of its South, to Qana I that killed scores of civilians to Gaza and Jenin massacres up to the recent history from Afghanistan to Iraq. The list of wounds is long and hurtful, and whenever it seems to cool a bit, an adventure like this hit again. No lull is long enough for moderates to preach peace, forgiveness and logic.
Mel Gibson is right when he said in a recent Los Angeles Times interview that Zionists are behind all ugly wars in the world. They are everywhere; the neoconservatives in the US administration are only the tip of the iceberg. Millions more are spreading like cancer in the civilized world, from places of worship to academia, to think tanks, to governments. Their ideologies surpass their sense and sensibility. Reason takes a back seat to a sick obsession, like getting all Jews into Palestine, so Jesus would come and start the Armageddon and end the world as we know it.
This unholy alliance between two influential, ideologically driven groups, the Zionists and Evangelicals, took the world into a hellish journey. To end History, they decided to burn the temple—our world—down. The Irony is: the Evangelicals believe that at the end of this journey Jews and others (including Muslims) would either convert to Christianity or be eradicated. The Jews, on the other hand, believe the opposite. So both are allied for now against Muslims, but know in advance that they will have to eliminate the other once they finish us.
On our side, there are those who understand what is at stake, and read the writing on the walls. Their response is one of a kind. Jihadis meant to get the snakes heads out, and shoot them. They always contented that under the civilized and liberal skin of the superpowers of the world hide crazed devout crusaders who would do anything to reoccupy the Holy Lands. By terrorizing them with hits like 9/11, they would throw their masks and show their faces. Knowingly or unknowingly, the overkill reactions proved their point. Now Israel and allies are stressing the same point.
In such an environment, the nice and pacifist, the logical and reasonable cannot compete with the trigger happy, hell makers, hate spreaders and fire breathers of the world—on all sides.
Try defending Israel's allies these days or blaming Iran, Syria or Hezbollah for starting this fire, in any Arab street. Try warning from the defying the UN and world public opinion in any Israeli street. Try calling for restraining Israel and pushing for immediate ceasefire in America. If you do, you are likely to be labeled defeatist, liberal, unpatriotic, unbeliever if not outright traitor.
Like Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, Hezbollah and Nasrallah were relatively small players. Overnight, they were made huge and powerful by their enemies. With the only choice given to Arabs and Muslims "Either you are with me or against me", most chose the Muslim brethren over Israel and allies. You can't call Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, the certified war criminal of Sabra and Shatila, Man of Peace after his Jenin massacre and still maintain credibility with Muslims. In fact you only give credibility to the man who in October 3, 2001, as Israeli Prime Minister, told Shimon Peres, on Kol Yisrael Radio: "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
This is the same "Man of Peace" who as Foreign Minister told a meeting of militants in 1998, "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." When this and similar actions provoked Palestinians into the second Intifadeh, it was blamed on Arafat.
With such fanatics, who would blame the average man for silencing the moderates and listening, if not following, to hate and revenge preachers?

They Defy Logic and Deny History

2006-08-10T04:10:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

“It is hard to convince someone who knows he is right.” True, especially when the other is not so conversant with the complexities of history, geography and politics. Add bias, anger and Zionist media and you get a typical pro-Israel audience.
What many American readers lack is the big picture. That’s why they are genuinely surprised when told of the bad news from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Most really believed that they were going in as celebrated liberators, just like World War II documentaries showed they did in Europe. For them, the world is simple, people are good or evil, places are the same, and experiences are replicable. During the Cold War, the world was simpler to comprehend. Movies helped and news sound bites made it an easy task — who needs the headache? Education by entertainment is an established industry. Well! Welcome to the real world. Welcome to the Middle East.
Now, how could an Arab writer change a lifetime perception of who is “The Beautiful, The Bad and The Ugly” in this part of the world?
Here is the picture that was fed to generations of Americans. Israel is the historical homeland for Jews. They went back to an “empty” land (some how it stayed empty for 4,000 years!) to live in “peace” with Arabs who were supposed to gladly give away their homes and farms to the nice European Jews.
Instead they fought and denied them a legitimate right to establish a “Jewish government” on a “Jewish land”. Later, the Arabs tried to destroy Israel so the civilized world led by America had to support the small, democratic and peaceful Israel against the barbaric, primitive, anti-West Arabs.
The mostly Third World members of the UN, influenced by communists, tried to cast Israel as an aggressor and rogue nation. America had to use over 80 vetoes to rescue poor Israel from harsh Security Council resolutions. Later it had to support Israel’s position not to implement other ones like Resolution 242 requiring the Jewish state to give back the land it occupied in the 1967 War to its Arab neighbors.
Not even peace agreements signed in the White House and Camp David should be binding. Unlike “standard” members, like Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, Israel should not be put under any pressure to comply with UN resolutions. After all, Israel is the Land of the Chosen People. Even in equality, there are people who are more equal than others.
True, King Abdullah’s Peace Initiative sponsored by the Arab League in 2002 clearly promised the establishment of normal relations with Israel if it returns to pre-1967 borders. Arabs cannot be trusted. They simply hate us because we are freer, richer and infidels. Didn’t we see them dancing in the streets on 9/11? Let Israel wipe them off the map. The world would be a happier and safer place without terrorists. Now, please don’t confuse the issues by citing their long list of complaints against US policies and steadfast support of Israel. And of course no need to mention that Arabs are also Christians and Jews, “with us and against us.”
In the last episode of such “simple” history, the chain of events was too tall and complicated for many. Instead an even simpler version, that fits the established perception, was fed to the “simple” audience. It all started with “terrorist” organizations (never mind they were only labeled so by Israel and its allies) capturing three Israeli soldiers — one in Gaza, two in Lebanon.
All preceding Israeli actions, like their incursions into Palestinian and Lebanese territories to kill, destroy and abduct from farmers to government ministers were omitted as too much unnecessary details. So was the fact that over ten thousand Arab abductees are rotting in Israeli prisons for 27 years, including women and children, most without trial. Who cares, they are Arabs, for God sake!
Historical facts are omitted too. Who cares if Hamas was cultivated by Israel to stand up to Fatah, or that Hezbollah was established to fight the Israeli 1982 invasion of Lebanon and its occupation for over 20 years? Who cares if both organizations are legitimate political parties with representations in their respective governments and Parliaments and never were involved in any terrorist activities against any but the occupiers of their lands? Who cares if Hamas is democratically elected to govern the Palestinian territories and if the disarmament of Hezbollah is an internal Lebanese matter?
Who is interested in the tiny historical fact that Qana was shelled exactly ten years ago by Israelis resulting in similar massacre? All these details can be distracting from the main focus, would certainly confuse the audience and — God forbid — may cast a slur on the moral standing of Israel.
You know what? Maybe the Arabs should stop trying to make their point by arguments alone. Maybe, the US Founding Fathers’ armed way is the only way. Maybe Hamas and Hezbollah’s way is the way.

Israel's Allies and the Lack of Civility!

2006-07-31T02:40:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Arabnews.com (30 July 2006)

My pro-Israel reader was giving me a history lesson. He had most of his facts right but, like many of Israel's defenders, he was putting the events of the current Middle Eastern crisis in the historical order that fits his biased position.
Hamas and Hezbollah, according to him, started this war by capturing three Israeli soldiers. "Hamas" he asserts, "conducted a cross-border raid which resulted in the death of three soldiers and the capture of one. Israel then responded to them and only them. Then Hezbollah conducted a cross-border raid that resulted in the deaths of eight soldiers and the capture of two. Are these not acts of war?"
In my response I said: This is exactly our problem with Israel's allies and supporters. They choose the most convenient point of history to start from. No, please, let us start from the beginning of the episode.
In the case of Hezbollah, there are more than ten thousand Arab abductees rotting in Israeli prisons, most without trial for twenty-seven years. Five hundred of them are women. Some were born in prison.
In the case of Hamas, thousands of Palestinians have been killed, not to count the injured; all of them, except a few are civilians. More are imprisoned, many without trial, including ministers and legislators in the Palestinian government. All this is forgotten history, thank you very much, what is remembered is one Israeli hostage in Gaza and two in Lebanon. For them millions in Lebanon and Palestine had to be collectively punished. How much cheaper could we go before we could respond in kind?
Another reader asked me if I have Jewish friends, and went on to declare: "A basic assumption these days is that it is preventable to have civilian casualties. This is stupid and inane, especially when Hezbollah chooses to use their populace as shields. You should be writing an article on the restraint the Israelis have had so far."
I e-mailed him back assuring him that I do have Jewish friends. Some are writers and journalists; others are teachers and classmates during my graduate studies in America. Many are against Israeli aggression and ashamed of its recent actions.
Israel is targeting civilians after failing to find soldiers in the hope of using the tragedy to force a political solution. Hezbollah's soldiers are underground on the border area, not in children's schools, hospitals, mosques and refugee buses heeding Israeli warning to leave. To find soldiers, Israel must invade with ground troops. Now that they have done, they are finally finding Arab soldiers - the hard way.
A third reader wrote: "I think you have been caught up in the Al-Jazeera hype. Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations. They have been condemned by just about every civilized country in the world. The UN has called for the disarmament of Hezbollah, but Lebanon has been unable to do this. After weeks of random missile attacks and armed incursions into undisputed Israeli territory, Israel was forced to respond. Israel has no territorial ambitions in this conflict, but they are risking their citizens' lives and security to clean up a mess that other Arab countries are powerless to address - terrorism.
"Granted, there have been civilian casualties. When Hezbollah hides in residential areas and launches missiles from apartment complexes, those are the consequences. Israeli bombs and shells have been carefully aimed at known hide-outs and launching sites of Hezbollah, but I don't think the same can be said of the missiles launched by Hezbollah. Rather than condemn Israel, we should compliment them for doing what is right under the circumstances. Chris."
I wrote back: Chris, I believe you are caught up in the Zionist hype. No civilization in the world regards freedom fighters as terrorists except Israel and its allies. Strange enough, your buddy, Britain, once regarded the American freedom fighters as terrorists. According to your standards, which I don't agree with, they were right and we now have a terrorist "civilization".
Please, check the latest count on who is with and against an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon. Only the "civilizations" of US, UK and Israel are against. The rest of the world "civilizations" are for an immediate stop of the killing machine.
Four hundred were killed in Lebanon - only a handful are soldiers. The clearly marked and isolated UN base was shelled fourteen times, four observers were killed. Then their rescuers were shelled. All calls to Israeli Army didn't help.
Inside Israel, those killed by Hezbollah's primitive rockets number less than 20 - half were soldiers. No hospitals, schools or refugee buses were hit. How come a guerrilla group with no smart weapons or super intelligence can be more accurate than the world's best-equipped army and the third best intelligence agency? Go figure.
Another problem with most comments I received so far is the lack of sympathy for Arab victims - like we don't count - so much for civility and civilization, Chris.

Hezbollah’s Script and Israel’s Play

2006-07-23T02:29:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi
War is hell, explained Yankee Gen. William T. Sherman as he burned Atlanta during the American Civil War. Today, the Israelis are saying the same thing as they burn Gaza and Lebanon. They have been in this hell-making business for ages and have forgotten what it is like to be at the receiving end.

This time, it is different, for a change. Israelis are feeling the heat they used to export, just like the Serbs did at the end of the Kosovo War. And like the Serbs, they kept brutally pushing to advance their gains, until the tide finally turned against them.

So what happened here? The Israelis pushed Hamas to a corner. Put simply, they didn’t like what democracy brought — a government they hated to do business with. Characteristically, they tried to change the environment to their liking. As they overran the democratically elected Arafat government, they sought to overrun its successor too. The Palestinians are punished once more for making the wrong choice. According to Israeli rules, Arabs must elect not those who serve their best interests, but those who serve the interests of the Israelis. Hamas definitely didn’t fit the bill.

According to another Israeli rule, no rules, moral or legal, are applicable to the Jewish state. And since Hamas arrogantly refused to accept the role of yes, sir, they may all go to jail or hell, ministers and legislators included. They get killed or kidnapped until they agree to Israeli terms. This was easier done with the under-the-thumb Palestinian Authority. Hezbollah, however, is another story.

You see, the Israeli Army has got so used to flex its muscles on civilians that it has lost its ability to wrestle with soldiers. Operating missiles and jet fighters to bomb cities and villages from far and above is not the same thing as going down and dirty to fight real men. The surrounding environment helped. In the largely unarmed Lebanon and Palestinian territories, they could hit anywhere and fly over any place without even the pretense of a resistance. The Arabs also got used to being at the receiving end of the death and destruction assembly line. This changed a little bit with Hamas, and more so with Hezbollah. Escaping a humiliating war in south Lebanon, Israel had to withdraw in shame and shambles. The lesson they learned the hard way was: Stick with aerial bombardment and never try your super army with Arabs carrying primitive guns and superior determination. Your soldiers end up bleeding and running.

So, it was inevitable that Israel would want so badly to disarm and dislodge the unyielding, disobedient and out of control armed group from the inconvenient location it occupies. And since Israel is never alone, it uses its political capital and connections to get the big powers of the world to back it up in its quest.

Hezbollah and its backers, Syria and Iran, were acutely aware of these maneuvers. After the dislodging of Syria from Lebanon, time was dangerously short for the group. Disarming Hezbollah would have demoted it from its prominent position as the one and only militarily capable unit to a toothless political party. With West-backed government in Lebanon and collaborating Arab governments, the grip was tightening. So a script, like the one Osama Bin Laden wrote for the West, had to be executed in the hope that Israel will play along, as the West did.

The insulted and agitated Israeli government eager to show that its civilian leader is no less war criminal than his predecessors easily and eagerly complied. In the hasty and overkill response they weakened the same force they relied on — the Lebanese government — to neutralize the group. However, Hezbollah has escaped, so far, safe and sound. In fact, they became politically stronger in the Arab and Muslim world. Like other radical groups, they become more popular and credible with every outrageous action from the enemy camp. When forced to choose, no true Muslim or Arab will ever choose Israel over a brethren.

Armed with its military and political successes, Hezbollah will be a more important player in the region. All they need to do in this test is to survive. With their vast stocks of missiles and tested expertise in guerrilla warfare, this is almost a given.
The question Israel and its allies and friends must ask themselves, as they should have in Iraq and Afghanistan is, how they could complain and claim to be mystified about the rise of radicalism and Iranian dominance in the Muslim world if they serve them so well with such inhuman and barbaric actions as targeting civilians from Kandahar to Haditha to Beirut? The ignorant and arrogant, says an Arab proverb, is his own worst enemy.

What Choices Our Divorced Women Have?

2006-07-03T03:50:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Arabnews (July 3, 2006)

My last article “What is It Like to Be a Saudi Woman” evoked many responses, positive and negative.
Some thought I was generalizing, and claimed that Lila’s story was either exaggerated or unique.
Most women, they asserted, are happy and content with their role and position in society. But since most respondents are men, I wasn’t too surprised.
Women, on the other hand, were overwhelmingly in agreement. Some related their own tragic stories. I had to do some investigation to confirm the basic facts. To protect their true identities, I won’t use their real names.
Suha is the daughter of a prominent merchant — very beautiful, sweet, and smart. Her mother used harsh methods to bring up her daughters as obedient and respectful girls.
When a young man from a prominent merchant family came along, Suha welcomed him without asking too many questions. She was barely seventeen and had just finished high school. Her unhappy experience at home made her think that it won’t get any worse. It sure did.
The husband was cruel, self-centered, womanizer and distasteful. While she continued her college education, he was busy building up his family business empire. She didn’t mind his absence; what she dreaded was his presence.
So harsh were his methods, she longed for her mother’s cruel ways.
But one child after another made her hesitant to opt for divorce. She was so attached to her five children that she couldn’t bear to leave them behind.
Finally, she decided to end her misery. After a year without her kids, she was granted divorce, but custody of the children went to her husband. Another year passed without getting the court-set access to her children. Her ex-husband decided to punish her by denying her what she needed most.
She described how she used to hide in her car every morning outside their school to watch them go in and out. And how it tore her to pieces not to be able to hug and kiss them.
Finally, with the help of her father’s connections, she managed to get back custody of her kids. In the meanwhile, she finished her university, found a good job and established herself as a women’s rights activist.
Hanaa is another intelligent, sophisticated beauty queen. She was forced into a marriage she hotly refused.
Her suitor of choice was accepted at first, then refused because the rest of the family thought he was of a lesser class. Her father was adamant that she accept her cousin.
The boy was so stupid that he couldn’t understand that she wasn’t kidding when she told him to look elsewhere.
After the marriage, she tried to make it work, but couldn’t. Her husband had no character, no education, no sensitivity, no romance, not even a mind of his own.
His family controlled him completely. He couldn’t stick to any promise he made, like letting her finish her college.
Fourteen years and four children later, her psychiatrist gave her two options: Either to get divorce or be treated indefinitely for depression and related illnesses. When she finally divorced, her sister, married to a man of similar personality, “congratulated” her. She might follow suit, soon.
Roeda was in love with an airline captain. Her father refused him because flying would take him away from his wife so often. To escape the immense pressure they put on her, she took the first suitor they chose for her on two conditions: She would be allowed to finish her college studies and invite her divorced mother to the wedding party. She got both wishes, but for a romantic girl of eighteen, the man was too vulgar, insensitive and cruel.
After a year of increasingly unhappy life, she decided enough was enough. Against enormous resistance, she got what she asked for — divorce. Her punishment was movement restriction for eight years. This means she could hardly see a friend, attend a party or go out. All suitors were refused for one reason or another. Now 28 years old, she finally got married to a married man with wife and children.
He is kind and considerate, but too shallow and primitive for her taste. Why accept him? She was escaping her torturing at home and a cruel father. What choices did she have?
To those who felt I was generalizing and exaggerating, please look around you. We have enough cases to regard the situation as quite normal. Without protected and enforced rules and regulations, we cannot claim that all our women have their rights.
Leaving it to the conscience of society and the kindness of male guardians is not fair. Justice can only be upheld with law and authority.

What Is It Like to Be a Saudi Woman?

2006-06-27T03:39:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,
June 25 2006

Lila is the daughter of a brand-name family. This is important in the marriage market, but she has other important qualifications too. She is beautiful, smart, cute and moderately religious. In the beauty section, she is golden dark, tall with thick, long, flowing hair. In school, she had always been top of her class. Her friends and family love her for her good nature, optimism and sense of humor. She never misses a prayer or a religious duty, and lives a modern life with sophisticated attitude. In short, she is a poster-wife.
Her first shocking lesson came at an early age. The family promised to send her to medical school if she achieved A+ grade in high school. She did, but they changed their mind. That was her life’s dream and it was brutally shattered. Instead of becoming a heart surgeon, as she hoped, she is now a high school teacher. Why? Because this is a job where she doesn’t have to mix with men!
Later, there were more shocking lessons. Her suitors were turned away, one after another. Reasons varied, but mostly it was about their social and economic class. Since she inherited a fortune from her father and has a good salary, her brothers suspected that any man with lesser fortunes was after her money.
By the time the “right” suitor arrived, they had already soaked most of her savings. With promises of profitable investment and wiser management they divided her inheritance as well as that of their mother and sisters among themselves. If persuasion didn’t work, they applied social pressure. A woman who refuses to accommodate her own sons and brothers is called names and denied peace of mind.
Finally, they agreed to a suitor. She wasn’t given enough time to check him out, let alone love him. He turned out to have no merits except coming from a brand-name family. He has a shallow, childish personality, who lets his mother run all his affairs and make all his decisions. She couldn’t communicate or meet at any intellectual or emotional level with him from day one.
No one understood her reasons to demand divorce. Her family, tribe, the court and the whole community were against her. As long as he provides for her, and doesn’t mistreat her physically, there were no acceptable legal, logical or social grounds for divorce. She was lucky, because her husband gave up on her, and his mother agreed. They demanded compensations and got them. Gladly, she paid them back the dowry, gifts, jewelry, and whatever cost them for the wedding party and other events.
After divorce, she was socially punished for her rebellion. Her male guardians still wouldn’t accept suitors of lesser class. Suitable ones wouldn’t marry a divorced woman with rebellious attitude. And she wouldn’t accept silly, shallow, old and expired men just because they happen to come from the right tribe.
Now in her mid-thirties, her chances and choices are increasingly limited. The few suitors who trickle now are mostly in their fifties and sixties with wives and kids. In this range they are usually too traditional for her taste. Some are looking for self-financing, salary-earning wives. Others want to escape busy wives and noisy kids to spend some time every now and then with a young, light and lonely woman. Who needs that?
Lila is still waiting. There are many like her — some in a worse situation than hers. At least, Lila can work — a good investment of energy and time. She can go on the net and communicate with people like me. But others I know are not permitted even to leave home, unless really necessary. More decided to accept the hell they know, rather than try the terrible life of the divorced. Then, there is the problem of kids. Mothers have to stay the course with unpleasant husbands and continue to lead unhappy lives so their children won’t be taken away from them.
A lot has to be reviewed, changed and improved: Laws, rules and customs. Islam gave women their due rights and traditions took them away. Since we claim to be Muslims, we should abide by Islamic rules and follow the noble example set by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Are We Treating Our Guest Workers Right?

2006-06-18T01:27:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

"Arabnews" Sunday, 18, June, 2006

Let me begin by quoting a letter from an expatriate:

“We were talking about the stock market crash when my Arab friend suddenly said: Many Saudis are trying to figure out why Allah is punishing them so hard. Of the reasons they came up with, moral decadence tops the list. I agree, but not from the same perspective. By moral decadence, they mean materialism, commercialism, dating, indecent entertainment, and less religious devotion and mosque going.

I see it from a different perspective. As a long-term expatriate, I can testify to how tough it is for foreigners to work and live in your country.

I can talk from now to the wee hours of the morning about what many employers are doing to their ‘sponsored’ employees and how the system is less than just to us.

Take me as an example. I signed a contract with a company for a certain salary and benefits. After the company became my sponsor, the contract was suddenly changed, duties were increased and rewards reduced.

I could have gone to the Labor Bureau, but I’d need an expensive lawyer. Besides, I’d have to stay home for a while without any source of income. In addition, in retaliation, my sponsor could accuse me of any number of things, from laziness to theft. He has all the power, connections and tools, and I don’t. So I decided to accept the new terms and stay on.

Like me, thousands get their salaries late, sometimes after months. Others are sent home without compensation or left in the street to find jobs and then pay part of their wages back to the sponsor for keeping them sponsored. And don’t tell me they should complain. You know what it is like when they do it. Their employer could report them to the authorities as absconders. Once captured, they get sent home after staying for a while in the infamous ‘deportation facilities’.

In conclusion, I say: To please Allah, Saudis must re-evaluate the way they treat their guest workers.”

I was ashamed to say much in defense. While, I hope, the majority of Saudi employers are decent and just, too many are not. We have heard stories about the abuse and harassment of nurses, maids and domestic servants. However, we didn’t hear of major changes to labor laws that would prevent such abuses. I understand that the government cannot enter every house, know about every case and protect every expatriate. The authorities cannot, by their nature, interfere in a dispute if the parties didn’t ask for interference. But nongovernmental organizations concerned with human rights can actively seek and find these cases. On behalf of the victims, they should sue the offenders and collect compensations. Hot lines to concerned authorities and organizations should be established, publicized and given to every expatriate on arrival. Random checks on work places and interviews with employees should be conducted. Recently allowed, labor committees in private companies should be activated and given more powers and authority to look after members, like any decent union would.

In addition, we have to be strict with abusers. Punishment must fit the crime. Long prison terms and hefty financial penalties should apply to serious cases of abuse, for males and females alike.

Our media should extensively cover these cases, and publish the proceedings and penalties. Offenders should know what awaits them if they misbehave; we should make it crystal clear to potential abusers that we have a zero-tolerance policy for such crimes.
Major changes to the sponsorship laws are long overdue. So are better facilities and higher capacities for the offices of the Labor Ministry that deal with labor disputes. A worker cannot wait forever without a source of income hoping for a verdict in his favor. Many are driven to despair because it takes too long, sometimes years to get justice.

The human rights body should focus more on the problem. We should encourage them and charity organizations to facilitate and provide services to guest workers under stress, including safe havens, social, medical and psychological consultations and legal representations.

This is much more important than fixing the stock market. If we do that, we could assure our position as the Kingdom of Humanity, the moral authority and leading inspirer to the Muslim world.

A Call for West-Islam Open-Doors Policies

2006-06-15T15:53:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi
(Arabnews) Sunday, 11, June, 2006

I was in the middle of an interesting debate about why and how the fanatics on all sides are winning while the project for repairing and extending the bridge of understanding between the West and the Muslim world is slowing. Suddenly, I received a call. It was from a friend I hadn't heard from for ages. Once the best of friends, we broke off on a sour note.
As I explained to members of a visiting German parliamentary delegation last week, my friend and I were too angry, arrogant and impatient to offer explanations and ask for answers. Pain was buried in anger, and anger fueled by pain. A vicious circle that led us so far away from each other, that we couldn't even meet or talk. Jealous, ignorant and unwise friends didn't help. To one side or another, they offered sympathy, support and undying loyalty. That helped us through our psychological turmoil, but reduced the need and motive to solve our disagreement.
Many years later, my friend called. It was so unexpected and pleasant a surprise. In the first call we didn't discuss our differences. Later, we aired them and found they were so trivial and silly. We couldn't believe we had so much energy and focus invested in so unimportant issues while a lifetime of good and beautiful relations and feelings were sacrificed and forgotten. Misunderstanding, miscommunication, misinformation, acting on haste and jumping to wrong conclusions are mostly the reasons why so many good and prosperous relations go sour and keep that way.
I told Joachim Horster and his colleagues that mistrust and fear come out of ignorance and divide. When we meet and talk, a simple smile and hello go a long way toward solving complicated issues. The rest will melt away with enlightened discussions and civilized interaction.
The best way to achieve harmony between civilizations is to open doors and encourage people-to-people exchange. When I was invited to America as part of a Saudi press delegation shortly after Sept. 11 my beloveds were horrified. My mother almost prevented me from going. I wasn't as sure as I pretended, but I won my case and went.
Yes, at the airport there was some "special" treatment for Arab citizens. I was lucky but others had to endure hours of wait to fill forms and prove they were what their passports claimed they were. Once out of the airport all went as normal as it could be.
The Arabs and Muslims I met in that visit reported few, if any, inconveniences, mostly from overzealous or racist FBI agents and citizens. But there was no general trend or policies. No public hatred, closure of mosques, mass arrests of Muslims, or biased laws and regulations against them.
If only my fellow Arabs and Muslims could see that! If more of us could visit America and the rest of the Western world and experience first hand how untrue and unfounded their worst suspicions and misgivings were! But, alas, gates are tight for most, closed for so many. Millions of Muslim students, merchants, tourists and patients were denied US visas in recent years. Visas to other Western nations are becoming more difficult to obtain. Denial doesn't always come with explanation, which makes the denied feel rejected. Some were returning students, visiting parents, vacationing families and seriously ill patients.
In the meanwhile, the media and fanatics are busy feeding negative messages to both sides. No day is lost without stories aired and published about mistreatment of Muslims in the West, and Westerners in the Muslim world. Sermons, speeches, comments and op-eds exaggerate and inflame what is already an aggravated state of mind.
The only way out of this bad-to-worse situation is for governments to design and encourage all kinds of people-to-people visitation such as exchange programs, tourism, educational and cultural cooperation.
I know I have said this over and over again in the years since the breaking point of 9/11, but it is worth it. And as nerves cool down, anger is abated and wisdom birds return home, the call to welcoming and cooperation policies may find more sympathetic hearing and supportive attitudes.
I bet on this overdue outcome for the sake of humanity, civilization and our best interests.

The Twisted Logic of the Fanatics

2006-06-15T15:52:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Arabnews (June 4, 2006)

It is awfully hard to persuade someone who is convinced he is right. No matter how persuasive your logic, you will find them immune to persuasion with a locked logic of their own. I found this is true with fanatics of all kinds. Ours are no different. Examples are plenty.

Let’s take the latest. The Labor Ministry has given a year’s notice to shops selling women’s clothes to employ Saudi women only. They later had to extend the deadline to an as yet unspecified date.

This was an overdue move. Most shops today employ men to sell women’s stuff, such as lingerie. It is embarrassing, to say the least, for a woman to take advice on what nightclothes to wear for her husband or on the latest panties and swim dresses.

Besides, our women need jobs and the system is not helping. The girls’ curriculum is not geared for work. Graduates, therefore, have few work options, mostly as teachers, doctors or nurses. If a girl wants to be a civil engineer, a lawyer, a pilot or a diplomat, she will have to study abroad.

After graduation come other obstacles. Women must work in women-only environment. Except for hospitals, mixed work environments are forbidden by law. This means the overwhelming majority of job opportunities, by default, go to men.

So, while more than half our graduates are girls, few can work. The rest hang their certificates at home and stay there. What a waste!

As expected, the fanatics threw a fierce fight against the Labor Ministry for suggesting the new law. Their logic is absurd. Women working in shops are vulnerable. Male shop owners and shoppers may take advantage of salesgirls. In their paranoid view, only by staying home could women be safe. And if at all necessary, they can work as teachers in girls-only schools or at home and in women-only businesses.

The underlying assumption here is that our women are weak and cannot be trusted. They are easy prey and can easily fall to temptation. Men are wolves lurking outside looking for any chance to jump on them, as soon as they leave their castles.

With such conviction, no logic in the world may help. You tell them that many women are poor and need to support their families, and they say they should go to charities. You remind them that dire circumstances may lead some to immoral ways, and they say, “the free die of hunger rather than sell themselves to the Devil.”

Another example of twisted logic and locked mentality is the reasoning behind banning women driving. Again, fanatics talk about protecting women. They liberally use the “what if” logic: What if a car broke down in a deserted area? What if men followed a girl or tried to attack her where no help is available? What if she broke a law and policemen had to take her to a male-dominated station? You give them solutions. You tell them: Let’s agree first on the principle, and then study how we solve expected problems. You remind them of a million or more male drivers working in our homes. You list the dangers that are not mere “ifs” but solid reality. You point to the contradiction of worrying about males in the street and accepting males in the driving seat. But you can’t get anything across.

What is really frustrating in their logic is their insistence on forcing the rest of us to follow it. A girl may opt to study Home Improvement in college, but it is not her or her family’s business if my daughter chose to study home building, instead. A woman may choose not to work, but she is not entitled to tell other women not to. Another may insist she won’t work in a mixed environment, but she shouldn’t object if others choose to. She could opt to have a man driving her around, but why would she care if other women choose to drive themselves?

The problem with fanatics is not that they force their logic on their families and dependants — and that’s bad enough — but they insist the whole society follow their lead. All of us should wear as they wear, eat what they eat, study what they study, work and live according to their rules. Not that we are following a different religion.

This has nothing to do with Islam, but with a certain school of thought that belongs to a certain sect. Islam has never forbidden women working or driving, but certain cultures and traditions did.

Good for them, if they choose to but they should not, may not intervene in other peoples’ choices — people from other cultures and with different ways and thoughts. Your freedom must end where others’ starts.

Why Change Business Rules All Too Frequently?

2006-06-15T15:51:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

I asked the Honda dealer for a car with window shades, and was told they don't have them. Why not? After years of strict no, the government finally allowed cars to be shaded in the back windows. The dealer smiled sweetly and teased: And what if they changed their minds, again?

He is right. I remember when they changed their minds before and car windows were smashed at the customs before they were allowed in. Luckily, the shaded Chrysler minivan I brought home after I finished my Ph.D. studies in the US was spared such a fate because the law had just changed. Since then, it has changed twice. Each time car and shopowners had to cope with a hefty price. Shades were pealed off cars, and inventories in shops and warehouses were confiscated or wasted with no compensation.

Abrupt rule changes are not new. In the late 1990s, shops in Jeddah had to close down in many areas because the newly appointed mayor revised the commercial zone system. Owners were given until the end of their contracts to move out. If that happened to be only days away, so be it! Many went bankrupt because they had invested their capitals in decorating and establishing their businesses. They couldn't afford to lose all these investments and just move on. "It isn't like a tent you fold and carry," I told the mayor. He wouldn't listen. Nobody cared then, nobody does now.

Today, we have three glaring examples of such arrogant and ignorant bureaucratic attitude. The Shoura Council has just approved a law that prohibits shops remaining open beyond 9 p. m. The committee that designed the law had already listened to representatives of shopowners who explained why a law that works for a village may not work for a city, or what suits school season may not be good for the holidays. The bureaucrats who might never have been in business decided that closing shops earlier will provide jobs for Saudis. How? I understand that more shifts mean more opportunities. But the way they see it is this: Saudis can only work eight hours a day, and if businesses are forced to stick with this time limit then more citizens would be encouraged to work for them.

They forgot that we, Saudis, especially in our typically hot summer, prefer to get out and about only at night. Closing shops earlier deprived both merchants and customers of the best time for conducting business.

While we encourage local tourism, mindless laws like this make it very hard for the industry to thrive and compete with the more alluring regional and international destinations. In Dubai and Bahrain, for instance, malls can stay open as late as past midnight. In hot and humid weather, where else, if not in air-conditioned malls, people can spend their leisure time?

Another example is the order to close live-bird shops. I understand the concern about bird flue, but the question is: Who should shoulder the burden? The shopowner, who may have invested his life's savings in the business or the government? If it is absolutely necessary to close these shops, then the government should compensate the owners or make it up for them by finding ways to recoup their losses and change course. The ever-modified law of furnished apartments is another case in point.

To just make laws, implement them, then wash your hands off the dire consequences for the affected parties is not fair.

The reason why laws had to be changed back and forth is that they were not well studied and conceived.

A good case is the limousine Saudization law. After issuing a decree that forced limousine companies to be fully Saudized within six months, the implementation was first delayed, then forgotten. For a start, there weren't enough Saudi drivers to fill the gap. The King Fund that gives interest-free loans to Saudis to buy taxis has not generated enough interest.

Besides, taxi companies were not consulted. In many instances, even after the concerned parties are consulted regarding a new law, their views are not always taken into account. When the universal rent contract was finally approved by the Shoura Council, the concerns of building owners were not heeded.

For businesses to prosper, we need stable laws and regulations. Investors must be quite sure that their investments won't be spoiled all on a sudden because some smart bureaucrats thought of changing the rules in the middle of the game. If this happens, then the government should shoulder the losses, not the players. This is only fair.

Helping the Stock Market Victims

2006-06-15T15:50:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

You hardly join a discussion these days without dwelling on the stock market Big Bang. People are confused, astonished, and angry.

When three to four million Saudis out of 13 are hurt you don't need a whistle-blower to tell you that something is worth keen attention. Unfortunately most discussions are focused on the market itself, less time is devoted to the social effects of the crash.

What do you do to help millions of affected people? Some sold all their worldly possessions to "gamble" in the bourse. Others left their secure jobs to find time and energy to invest in high-flying stocks. Many sold their homes, cars, shops and businesses below market prices to raise some reasonable capital. Women used their life savings, jewelry and dowry to get on board.

The crash was worse still for those who bought cars at installments and then sold them at much less than the original price. Also for those who got long-term bank loans and the workers who took advanced salaries from their companies. They all hoped to pay debts and make a fortune in a market that doubled in value for two consecutive years. They all turned into players in stock trade. Even the likes of my illiterate poor mother-in-law suddenly became proud shareowners, keen readers and armchair analysts of market trends.

A person I know was typical of many. He resigned a good position, collected retirement compensation, as well as the jewelry of his wife, daughters and sisters, plus some friends' savings. Then sold his farm and three loaned cars and put all proceeds in a bank portfolio. Against his three million riyals, the bank gave him three more. After the crash, he lost half the portfolio and the bank reclaimed the other half. He came out from this business with huge loans and debts and no revenue to pay them back or even to live on. He is now in deep depression after some heart and other health complications.

Like him, people of limited means and huge losses, are struggling to make ends meet. Imagine the short- and long-term effect of this shocking experience on them socially, psychologically, mentally and politically. How are they going to feel about those "fat cats", who stole the market? How are they going to evaluate the performance of the government agencies that were supposed to well manage the market and protect the weak and the unaware? And where will they go to pay huge debts and to cover daily expenses?

When crises hit, you need strong crisis management. We urgently need a high commission made of highly professional representatives of all concerned authorities and parties. Their mission should be to study and manage the social calamity and to provide solutions to affected people.

After the New York Stock Exchange crash of 1929, millions went broke and hungry, until President F. D. Roosevelt sponsored the congressional bill that created the Social Security Act of 1935. The new system provided a safety network for the needy and unemployed. It also helped spur the economic recovery in the 1940s and 1950s.

What we need is urgent steps to help people cope with their losses and challenges. For example, we should reach an understanding with loaners such as banks, government loan funds and car companies, to reschedule loans to market victims. We ought to make it easier for those who resigned jobs to reclaim them. And we must give more support to charities to help them provide food, shelter, medical and social services to the deprived.

We also need more good economic news - more business and job opportunities, greater investments and projects, higher public spending, lower rates on services (electricity, natural gas etc.) and salary bonuses. For the unemployed, we should provide social security benefits.

When the stock market crisis hit Asia in the mid-1990s, most governments were financially ill prepared to deal with the aftermath. Fortunately, our finances are in good shape with oil prices hovering around $70 a barrel and we could afford to deal with this situation.

Fixing the stock market is top national priority; so is helping the victims and providing for the most affected.

Advocating the Rights of Women and Minorities

2006-05-10T01:24:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,
Last Saturday, our weekly diwania was very tense. A prominent Saudi columnist was disappointed that his paper wouldn't publish one of his articles. In the article, he had criticized a prominent family for not announcing the name of their daughter in the wedding invitation card. Most people only print the name of the groom. His conclusion was: If the leading families of the country, who happened to be liberal, are afraid of breaking this custom, then who will dare to free us from Dark-Ages ways?
The rest of us were divided. Nobody disagreed that traditions, mostly accumulated in the last 30 years, insult women by hiding their names. We disagreed on explaining the tradition.
The writer who came from the tribal South assured us that it didn't use to be like that 30 years ago. The men in his village knew all women by the face and name. Today, thanks to the neo-Islamists, they all cover their faces and hide their names.
Instead of referring to your wife, sister or daughter by their given names, you say my folks or dependents, he noted. "Last week, I was called to my son's school because he was in a fight. Why? His classmate kept telling him his sister's name. Yes, she is my sister; my son's response was every time. Finally, my son told his friend: I know your sister's name, too. The boy went bananas and into big fight. What my son didn't know in the beginning of this episode was that the boy meant it as an insult. This was common. It shouldn't, and we, opinion and society leaders, should fight it. The least we could do is to announce our daughters' names in their wedding invitation cards."
I supported his position and reminded the others that names of the Prophet's mother, wives, daughters and female members of his extended family were not kept secret. We also know the names of the greatest women in our Islamic history. King Abdul Aziz, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia was proud of his sister Nora, to the extent that he gave himself the nick name "Akho Nora" (the brother of Nora). Names of King Abdullah's wife and daughters are announced when they participate in or sponsor public events and charity works.
No one disagreed with our position, but some wondered whether it is the responsibility of prominent families and opinion leaders to advocate such a position. The argument goes like this: "While it is absolutely right to announce the female names in any event or invitation cards, we should also respect the right of those who choose not to. Leading families or not, every group has its traditions, and every person has his/her convictions. We should respect, if not celebrate, cultural diversity."
Then, we debated another point: Should the government advocate changing wrong customs and how? The writer insisted we should use schools, media and all available platforms to promote positive changes in our society.
Women's rights, respect for other religions, sects and thoughts, for example, are not subject to disagreement.
Therefore, the government, media and intellectuals should design public education and awareness programs to promote these rights and principles, starting with kindergarten and children's books.
The movement that took our society to where it is now should be overturned.
Others disagreed. They argued that societies develop in their own way, at their own pace without intervention from governments or other organized forces. No one group or authority has the right to direct social attitudes, traditions and convictions.
My stand was: Since "organized forces" were allowed for ages to take society to where it is now, we should allow others from different schools of thought with noble principles (like rights for women and minorities) to do the same.
The curriculum has to be changed in accord with these values. To reach acceptable level of national consensus on these issues, we could simply follow the recommendations of our national dialogue forums.
This way, we could avoid siding with one group or another. This way, we legitimize the campaign for positive change. And this way, we help society move forward - the least we could do for the majority, our women plus minorities.
History is a train that can only go forward. And it won't await us forever.

The American Culture Shock Works for Sure

2006-05-01T06:45:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

“Would Osama Bin Laden have ended up so anti-American if he had the chance you had to live and study in the US?” the American journalist wondered.

I gave him a long answer (sorry it wasn’t an easy question): “Many Muslims went to America conservative and came back liberal. Others only became conservative, even radicals, after their American experience. A few remained uninfluenced either way.

Said Qutub, the godfather of Islamic radicalism, was a romantic poet before he lived for a short while in Colorado, one of the most beautiful places on earth. Still, he wrote later about his discovery then and there of the Western decadence and how he decided to change course to fight the US influence on the Muslim world. His books persuaded many Muslim generations and led them on the way of confrontation with Western values and with Muslim regimes that do not strictly adhere to the Shariah.

On the other hand, most people I know, young and old, returned from America positively impressed. A prominent anti-US leftist told me after his first visit: I discovered that America is not just pro-Israel Congress and White House. It is also the hospitable, friendly, open and generous people.

During the cross-Atlantic flight from London to New York, my American neighbor told me all about his life and family, showed me their pictures, and discussed everything from the environment to US foreign policies. We agreed and disagreed, but he never showed any anger, arrogance, stubbornness or hostility. Before we parted ways, he gave me his card, invited me home, and ... presented me with a medal of honor he received in the US Army.

Are all Americans like that? I didn’t live enough in the States to judge, but all the people I met from the steward on the airplane, to the passport officer, to the man in the street, were so nice to me. How could I hate a country with such lovely attitude? How could I ever hate America the country, the people and civilization? No, from now on, I’ll just hate their foreign policies.

Going to America right away from a conservative society is usually a huge culture shock. Many cannot cope, but most do process the change and absorb the different lifestyle, in time. America, as an immigrant society, more than most Western nations, has the capacity of accommodating and welcoming strangers. Depending on the place you happen to visit or live in, you may get easier or harder transit experience. Young and liberal get on faster than the older and conservative, but somehow, almost all manage to manage.

Back to the original question, I don’t think Osama, who did shortly visit America in the 1970s for medical treatment for his son, would have changed fundamentally. His stand is more political than social. His criticism is directed at US foreign policies, not at American social attitudes. But knowing how friendly the average American is, I’d bet that would have made a good impression on Osama.

I was lucky to have known American expatriates since childhood. The kids in the nearby compound were my playmates. This allowed me to see the different other not as a stranger or an enemy but as a friend. After years of study in the US, the positive image was enforced. My professors, classmates and neighbors of all faiths, races and colors showed me that no matter what a person’s background maybe it is how he treats you and what ethics and values he upholds that matters.

I would imagine that for the anti-Americans of the world to live in such a liberal, friendly, and civilized environment as I did in Eugene, Oregon would have made them more tolerant and friendly and less suspicious and hostile. It would moderate their anger toward the public who elected a government they despise. It would make them understand that electing a president doesn’t necessarily mean supporting all his foreign policies.

That is one reason I encourage our students, professionals and opinion and community leaders to have such experience and exposure.

It defeats our best intentions and purposes to encourage studies in the States and then find it so difficult and humiliating to get a visa. It would very much help if we expand on Saudi-American visitor exchange programs, workshops, conferences and scholarships. We need more of face-to-face, people-to- people meetings.

Only by building a direct bridge between our peoples and cultures will we get to know each other, and care for each other. Love doesn’t grow in abstention.

What is Wrong with the Stock Market?

2006-05-01T05:57:00.000-07:00

What is Wrong with the Stock Market?
Dr. Khaled Batarfi

John D. Rockefeller was once asked why he decided to sell all his stocks just months before the 1929 Wall Street Crash. He explained: One morning, I was on the way to my office and stopped to have my shoes polished. The guy asked my advice about the shares he bought. If people with this kind of talent were now playing the market, I knew there was something wrong.

The limousine driver who took me home from Jeddah airport announced happily that this was his last trip. He was retiring. The young, high school graduate, explained to me that he was now a good broker. For months now, he sits on the computer at home, buying and selling in the stock market. Starting with a few thousands, he is now making more than he gets from his limousine, without the headache. Like Rockefeller, I knew then there was something wrong. But unlike Rockefeller, I haven’t sold my stocks. I am stuck with it now. In fact, we should have seen it coming long time ago. There are lots of things that have been wrong, persistently.

Let’s start with the imbalance of liquidity and availability. While the first is increasing, reaching historical heights of over half a trillion riyals in private accounts alone, few shares and investment avenues are available. For some reason, giant companies, like petrochemical SABIC, petroleum ARAMCO, telecom STC, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Saudi Arabia’s biggest banks Al-Ahli and Samba, among others, are mostly or completely in government hands. Take SABIC for example. When it was partially privatized (30 percent) the promise was more percentage to follow. This was some 20 years ago, and until now there is not even a hint of what to expect. Therefore, lots of money is chasing few shares and investment opportunities. The bubble market was a sure result. Bursting was a question of when not if.

Another “wrong” is the absence of transparency. The overseers of the stock market are not talking. The overseers of the whole economy are not talking either. The movers and shakers, nicknamed hamoors after the big fish, are hardly known. The media has no clue. And only the hamoor-connected analysts are talking to the masses. Of course, their advice is self-serving, leading buyers toward one company’s stock or another.

Three million Saudis, out of 13 million, went wild in the wild market. Few have any clue. They buy and sell on rumors and instinct, with little or no idea about the solidity of the company they buy in. Therefore, bankrupt and small-time businesses’ shares are sold at higher rates than that of market leaders. Bisha’s shares, the small agricultural company with a few thousands date trees, reached over SR2,400, much higher than SABIC’s SR1,800. Why? Because a few “hamoors,” who own most of the shares, artificially inflated them. When the time was right, they sold all, and let the price fall to the range of a few hundred.

What was the penalty, if any? Only a few people were punished. Their identities were not revealed. And the punishment didn’t include imprisonment. Their response? Driving the market from around the point of 21,000 to bellow 13,000! The government response? In the first interview ever with Jammaz Al-Suhaimi, chairman of the Capital Market Authority, we were told that 50 percent of the liquidity was invested in the weak companies and that this has to be corrected. What is new in the most important matter of transparency and strong rules against cheaters? Nothing. Business will continue to run as usual.

The huge drop goes against market fundamentals. Corporations are making tons of profits. Banks are doubling their earnings. Business thrives and projects are plenty. In short, we have no shortage of good news.

I would understand that weak companies are losing much of their inflated values — this is called correction. But the big question is: Why every company, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, rich and poor is losing, too? And if the hamoors are doing it, and we already know them by name and address, why can’t we “correct” them, as well? The banks are now turning down loan requests to invest in the stock market. This takes out much of the liquidity. Can’t we do something about that?

I don’t know how much “correction” we need, and what we can do without interfering too much in a free market phenomenon, but what worries me is that no one else seems to know. And if those who are supposed to know are not telling or doing something about it, then we all should worry. At stake here is not only the state of a trillion-riyal market, but the economy train this engine is driving. Crash seems to be the one conclusion I can see.

It Is Time for New Saudi-US Bridges

2006-04-16T03:58:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

Communication is both art and science. You may be born with the gift, but you need to work on it. Certain tools that come with education and experience are needed. You should know what you are talking about and whom you are talking to, master the language preferred by your audience, and prepare well with information and training.
We all need good communicators. You need to sell your convictions, products, and messages to all kinds of people at all levels for so many purposes. At home, shop and government, whether you are selling a new budgetary system, a new toothbrush or a political candidate, good communication skills are essential.
Saudis and Americans found themselves in dire need of outstanding communicators after Sept. 11, 2001. Unfortunately, there was shortage of such talent on both sides. Somehow, we couldn’t communicate well for many years. Things are improving, but still ... a lot needs to be done before we declare victory.
Needless to say, we were totally taken by surprise. In the beginning, we, Saudis, couldn’t believe that some of our own committed such horrible and sophisticated crime. We were stuck in the denial mode for too long.
Some still are. This cost us very precious time. By the moment we moved, it was almost too late to repair the damage, let alone improve the image of our nation, culture and people. Our enemies, on both sides, used the stall to further the damage and their agenda. Religious radicals, Christian, Jewish and Muslim, crossed interests and locked moves to break all bridges between Islam and the West, Saudi and American.
Where have all of us, Saudi and Americans, gone wrong? First, we should have seen it coming — not necessarily at the same magnitude. The omens were plenty. Radicalism on all sides was increasing. Israel was pushing the envelope. Peace projects — UN-sanctioned, US-guaranteed deals — were ignored. Arab and Muslim anger was boiling.
From our ivory towers, we were watching. Some of us tried to understand. Many were happy with their packaged explanations. Little was done to contain the phenomena. Our priorities were different. Economic woes, domestic politics and other distractions took our eyes away from the ball. When it finally hit us, we were poorly prepared to act — except in anger. Our actions were actually reactions. Our audience was mostly domestic.
Second, we were in the denial mode for too long. This is natural human behavior, but hardly wise. When faced with an ugly truth, we tend to disbelieve, refuse admittance, and return fire with fire: Criticism with criticism, accusations with accusations. Lots of valuable time and effort are wasted in the process. In the meanwhile, the bad guys are working round the clock to boost their gains and increase our losses.
Third, in time of perceived danger, people tend to ignore their differences and stick together. Right or wrong, they retreat to the siege mentality. In such a mode, no mistake is admitted, and not even an inch is given away. That might be understandable or excusable, if, at least, you search your soul then admit and fix your problems. Staying the course, no matter how wrong, is suicidal.
Still, it is not too late. Communication, in my opinion, is the key. We started in the last couple of years to build and rebuild some bridges. To increase the momentum and speed up the pace, we should improve our tools.
We come from different cultures and speak different languages, but that is a challenge, not an obstacle.
Many Saudis studied in America, and many Americans worked in Saudi Arabia. They lived in their host countries for years, made friends, explored the culture, and some even intermarried.
Most feel depressed about the post-9/11 state of our relations. They are fired and ready to do something about it. All we need is some training, organization and support.
Let’s imagine we start some sort of Saudi-US friends clubs here and there, link them tighter, and provide them with channels and avenues to communicate with media and public.
Sponsored visits, conferences, visitor and student exchange programs and so many other activities and events can spring out and spread around. In time, we will win, because, when given a choice, people prefer peace and cooperation to hate and confrontation. This is especially true when the storms of anger and confusion pass, as they did. It is now time for reflection, reassessment, repair and reconnection. It is now time for educated, enlightened, well-thought and organized action. It is now time for the good guys to prevail.

A Tale of Three Cities

2006-04-16T01:20:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Dr. Basim is a prominent Saudi lawyer. At one time he worked for the World Bank in New York. We all envied him. What a position he held in the capital of capitals of world capitalism!
But then he suddenly returned and sat a law firm in Jeddah. Now don't get me wrong; I expect our brightest to come back home after they finish their studies abroad. We need them. But for a Saudi to represent us in such a great institution is an honor to be upheld.
Thinking he was just homesick, I was critical. He should have stayed longer to get more experience and prominence, I told him.
It wasn't homesickness that brought me back, he calmly explained. "One day I was hurrying down a Manhattan street on my way home. Then I realized that there was no reason to hurry. I had no family waiting for me, no date or appointment and wasn't hungry. I slowed down and was pushed over by the guy behind. He was cursing at the sudden slowness. When I asked him why the hurry, he was disgusted. Only oldies, handicapped and tourists would walk the way I did, he snapped.
I put my back to the wall and stopped to watch the human traffic. It was 5.30 p.m, and most people seemed, just like me, on their way home. They all hurried. They all ran. Why? I asked myself. Because that is the rhythm of life in New York. We chase our tails to survive.
We run in vicious circles, until it becomes the norm. You compete with yourself if you don't have a competition.
Do I need this? Can I survive with a slower rhythm of life? Not in such a capitalist city, I decided. Then and there I realized I must go home."
In three weeks I had been to three different cities. London, a favorite of mine, showed me how we can be modern, capitalist and preserve a unique culture, all at the same time.
Dubai, tries hard to follow on the same footsteps. Problem is, like most Gulf states or cities, they jumped from tents to towers without the necessary progressing trip in between.
Then I went to Tunis. Even though a French colony for centuries, they progressed much earlier. Still, they haven't gone down as far in the capitalism and consumerism road as have London and Dubai.
The rhythm there was refreshingly relaxed. I spent most of my money in seawater and mineral springs spas-much less in the elegant but relatively few, small and expensive shops and malls.
The Tunisian heritage is very much preserved. The social life is largely intact, even in cities. People are going about their lives with much easier breath. They have plenty of time to chat with you on the street, to take you home for dinner or to sit with you at a cafe for sweets and a cup of tea.
Here, in Jeddah, where I live, things are changing ... fast. Malls are erupting everywhere. Materialism and consumerism, symptoms of free market and capitalism, are gaining ground even with conservatives. More and more, we measure people and achievements by numbers rather than merit. Less and less we find time to reflect, enjoy our gifts of family and friends and take breaks.
It doesn't have to be one way or another. We don't have to live in tents or work half a day. We don't have to live in jungles of cements and asphalt, either. What we need is a balance. Once we decided on that, we could formulate a vision-as a nation and as individuals. Our cities, our homes, our lives could be built upon that.
One thing we can't afford: To rush down the road without an objective, without a plan, without even a map.

The French Approach to Muslim Discontent

2006-04-16T01:17:00.001-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi
France has been a strong supporter of Arab causes after King Faisal’s state visit and crucial meeting with President Charles de Gaulle days before the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

France’s stand against the war on Iraq and the larger US-led campaign to fight terror with terror won it lots of credit in the Arab and Muslim world. However, the pretty image was stained lately by a couple of major events: The law prohibiting hijab in public schools, and the recent riots in its poor Muslim neighborhoods. Both exposed the deep-rooted racism toward the French of Arab origin and Muslim background. As public polls showed, most French applauded the hijab ban and don’t think highly of their Muslim fellow citizens. This hurts.

Dr. Pascal Boniface is the founder and director of the Institute for International and Strategic Relations. He is also a consultant on strategic issues for the French defense and foreign departments.

I met him recently with members of the International Relations Committee of the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

He was mostly on the defensive during our exchange. The majority of French people, he insisted, are not racist. Only a small minority thinks of Islam as a problem and considers French Muslims inferior. The hijab issue was taken out of context and blown out of proportion. Most French believe in multicultural and multiracial secular society. In fact that is why they supported the hijab law!!

On the recent riots, he advised not to believe the American media. Yes, a majority of the rioters happened to be Muslims; the rest were black. But the issue was about social problems, not Islam. Solutions are on the way to address all causes of discontent, like unemployment, inequality and racism.

I asked: If Muslims form 10 percent of the population, what is their representation among decision-makers in all branches of power, including the media? And are they consulted when it comes to decisions affecting their lives?

To be honest, he said, Muslims are not represented well in the corridors of power. When Boniface was a professor in the university, few Muslims were among his students. Most joined the workforce as soon as they finished high school if not earlier. Poverty might be a reason, but there might be other causes.

The same absence can be noted among the elite. This is a real problem that needs to be addressed, urgently. Boniface said the French authorities are working on quick fixes for the social problems that produced such anger and unhappiness among the Muslim population. But we also need to look at the larger picture and work at the strategic level, he said. In a way, the riots were a blessing in disguise. Now, no one can ignore the obvious and delay actions any more. The danger is clear and present to all.

Consultations are going on with the leaders of the Muslim community on how to face radicalism and fanaticism. The same debate is going on in the elite circles. Intellectuals and experts are looking at ways to give more education, empowerment and representation to all minorities, especially the biggest, Muslims. Actions are already being taken, Boniface said. In the next election, for example, Muslims figure in the list of liberal candidates. One of them is already heading a list. In public TV and media, we are looking for better representation. Muslim and black producers, actors and presenters should get more and better opportunities. Now we have Muslim scholars appearing on public TV. More windows of opportunities are on the way ... soon.

But of course these steps are not without resistance, Boniface conceded. As you know, there are groups who feel that greater presence means stronger influence. In a democracy, governments can’t just take actions without considering all voices and opinions. Let’s hope that justice and sensibility prevail. It is high time we gave Muslims fair representation in education, government and media.

I wrote last week about how the British try to solve the problems of their Muslim minority in cooperation with Islamic councils. Meeting with Dr. Boniface was a good opportunity to check what is going on on the other side of the Match Canal.

We all have minority issues. The first step is to come out clean about them. We can’t solve a problem no matter how small if we don’t admit its existence. Thorough study must follow, involving all concerned parties, giving them equal access and respect.

Solutions are mere paperwork if not executed. This is the hardest part and it needs a strong and determined leadership to work it out.

There is no simple solution to complex problems. But the easiest and most obvious first is to communicate with the right people, the right way. Great ideas and thoughts will flow from there.

Wise British Moves to Tackle Domestic Radicalism

2006-04-16T01:17:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
What distinguishes the experienced former empires from the new immature ones is wisdom. The wise do not act on instinct. They thoroughly investigate before they make a finding, then fully analyze before they formulate a judgment. They do hit and miss, like the rest of us, but they self-correct when they find out.

The British always strike me as wise. They have known through their long colonial history how to make the best of what they had. Of the many lessons they learnt and taught is don't jump to conclusion, don't burn bridges you may need to use, and don't sour your words less you have to eat them.

After 9-11, they made a strategic decision to ally themselves with the Americans in what came to be known as the War on Terror. They tried to moderate lots of decisions but at the end they dutifully followed in US steps, and did what they felt they had to do.

Still, their actions were always calculated to maximize benefit and minimize loss. Their profits from Iraqi contracts are high; while their domestic troubles in the areas they rule are low. They tried understanding, respect and self-discipline. Relatively speaking, they made many successes in their management of post war Iraq.

Domestically, they were wise in their relations with Arab and Muslim communities. Even after the metro bombings of 7-7, their reactions were reasonably moderate. Arab and Muslim phobia was kept at minimum. Their relations with local Islamic communities were of cooperation not confrontation. From the Royal family to the Prime Minister to concerned government officials and most media editors there were a good level of understanding and appreciation of the situation.

I just came from an organized visit to London. The Foreign Office took us, three Saudi journalists and writers, to meet with a number of officials in governmental and non-governmental organizations dealing with interfaith relations. They explained to us how they try to make sense of the participation in the metro attacks of second generation, educated and clean-record young Muslim citizens.

Instead of relying on paranoid police tactics, they went to Muslim leaders and asked for assistance. A number of councils were created to study the phenomenon. They thoroughly and patiently studied the political, social, economic and religious dimensions. The study is not over yet, almost a year after the attack, but many recommendations are already implemented. Social, educational, racial and religious discrimination that produced unemployed, unqualified and unhappy generation are now being tackled.

According to Tony Heal of the Faith Communities Unit in the Interior Ministry, many corrective steps are taken to insure better schooling, fairer treatment, and higher representation in government including the police and other security agencies.

Further wise steps include screening local and foreign imams. All had to get approval from recognized Muslim councils. Foreign and visiting imams must speak fluent English to get visas. The Council monitors mosques for immoderate teaching and radical views. They encourage the public to collaborate with the government and the Council in fighting radicalism and terrorism by avoiding and reporting suspicious activities.

All the people I met, and they were many, agreed that there are valid reasons for the problem. No one claims that terrorism is an illegal import. The relation between Al-Qaeda and the attackers is minimized, while the focus is mostly on the provoking policies like the war on Iraq and the perceived crusade against Islam and Muslims. They asked us and many others for advice and encouraged us to criticize, analyze and recommend. In searching for accurate answers you have to act humble, respectful, keen and sincere. Our hosts certainly did.

Those are wise and positive steps. Communicating, even with your enemies, is the only way to find out the whys and hows of their actions. Nobody sacrifices his life to punish the people he hates just for fun. Regardless of the validity of their anger, your enemies must have a reason. Finding out the correct answers is the first step towards understanding and resolution.

Such steps do tend to be tedious and last longer. They won’t satisfy public anger or make a leader instantly popular, but … they are the right thing to do.
I salute those who are working hard and smart on this problem. I hope the rest of us do the "same thing", the "same way."

Do We Need Al-Hiaa?

2006-04-16T01:14:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
Members of the Human Rights Committee are visiting Sheikh Algaith President of the Commission for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue (known as Hiaa) to check some disturbing complaints.
According to Ms. Suhaila Zein Alabedeen, The newly-found nongovernmental organization is checking stories of human rights abuse by zealot commission members.

Cases include beating, imprisonment and verbal abuse of innocent couples because of unfounded suspicions of improper relations. Others complain that the commission members hunt for such relations in family sections of public places. If single men are not allowed into these areas why these members are the exception? they protest. Many were taken from malls, restaurants and streets just because they couldn't prove they were relatives.

A South African nurse was caught in a supermarket with her Lebanese boyfriend. Both were Christians shopping for Xmas. The "Hiaa" put them in its private prison for 14 days. Both were denied phone calls and access to their lawyers, embassies and companies.
It took their relatives and friends a couple of weeks to find and bail them out.

A Filipino maid with her husband and infant were caught in another market for similar suspicion. Even though the husband proved their relations, his wife was kept in prison and he was let out with the infant. A prison officer insisted she should return to her sponsor not husband. She left her sponsor because he had not given her a single salary for six months. Apparently, this wasn't enough reason to let her go, so the husband's lawyer enlisted the help of the Human Rights Commission and the media. Prince Salman, the Governor of Riyadh intervened and ordered her release.

A Saudi Doctor with his sister was leaving the market with a couple of traveling bags when an angry Hiaa member approached them. Why, he wanted to know, was the lady half covering her hair, and that under her abaya the lower parts of her legs were not covered. (How could he tell? He must have been a keen observant!) Besides, the brother must prove that she was his sister. Both should go to the Hiaa offices for further investigation and proper Islamic teaching.

To make a long story short, the brother was strong enough to insist on taking his sister home first then went to their offices to go through unforgettable confrontation. It would have been even worse if she wasn't his sister or he wasn't Saudi!

Engaged couples, colleagues, relatives and friends are caught everyday in very open, very public places on their own or in groups because the Hiaa regards this as "Khelwa". Al-Khelwa in Islam means that a man and a woman are meeting alone where no one can see them. To be in a public place automatically means you are not alone, and therefore not in Khelwa.

The problem is a matter of basic principles. Either you believe in human rights and dignity or you don't. Either you presume the best in people or the worst. Either people are innocent until proven guilty or they are all guilty until they prove their innocence. Either all people are equal under the law, foreigners of all nationalities included, or they are not. Either you take Islam as is, or you make your own version and enforce it on others.

Besides, how can one be the accuser, judge, juror, jailor and executor at the same time? How could a Hiaa member make the accusation, take the accused to his private court, judge him without the presence of a lawyer and imprison him in Hiaa jail? This is too much authority in one hand. Justice cannot be served this way even if the Hiaa members were angels, and they are not.

In the reform mode we are in, it is about time we fix this problem. I don't advocate the scrapping of Hiaa. We do need them. They do a lot of good work in promoting Islamic values and preventing vice, as they are supposed to do. But these duties have to be regulated, and performed in civilized manner. Human rights and due process have to be observed. Thos who cross the line and abuse their authority must be disciplined. Punishment should fit the crime—no exceptions allowed.

Lessons of Riyadh Book Fair

2006-03-05T05:46:00.000-08:00

(Islam is about freedom and choice. To drive the entire faith into the narrow interpretations of a single school is simply un-Islamic.)

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
This year's Riyadh Book Fair was eventful—mostly unwelcome events, though. Somehow, the fundamentalists found it an opportunity to flex their muscles and prove a point. They wanted all to know that no matter how far we progress on the road of women and minority rights, speech and press freedoms, democracy and all, they are still in a strong position of influence. But they went too far, this time.

According to press reports, members and volunteers of the Institution of Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice were in force everywhere. In the family days, where single men are not allowed, they were the exception. Carrying sticks and wielding religious authority, they went around telling women to cover their faces, wear "abaeas" (black cloak) over their heads in one piece, rather than two—head scarf and body cover. In some instances, they told salesmen in book stands not to smile or joke when talking to women. A man holding the hand of his half-blind wife was told not to show affection in public.

When people tried to argue, in peaceful way, (there was no alternative anyway!), they were harshly told to just follow orders. Women were telling them that in Islam there are different schools of thoughts. Only one says women should cover their faces. Salesmen were trying to explain that they are supposed to be nice to customers. A husband argued that he was holding hands with his wife, not a girl friend. Besides, he explained, with her eyes troubles, she could easily lose her way in the crowded place. Nothing worked with these people. They felt they were there to perform a strict divine duty not to convince people or convey messages.

During the same event, a number of Saudi intellectuals were harassed, verbally, and almost physically. The fundamentalists came early on, occupied most of the hall, and went on the offence as soon as the lecture started.

In the main lecture hall, two ministers and a number of intellectuals were attacked for their known liberal or Sofi views. Then a tensed aggressive group surrounded them threateningly. They had to be saved by security. In the women section, another intellectual was threatened and verbally abused. Writer Fawzia Albaker was taken home in tears.

These people didn't come to listen, learn and discuss. They came to teach lessons and make statements. They were not prepared to take other views into consideration, or allow for the possibility of misunderstanding, miscommunication or even errors on their side. Many came from positions of authority and influence. They include university professors, school teachers and mosques' imams.

This can't be good, especially in such event. In this time and place, when the whole country is moving towards modernity, globalization, democracy and reforms, we still have people going around with sticks and divine authority to enforce their narrow view of the world. They only represent a minority of the Muslim World and behave like there is no Islam but theirs.

As a result we get people doing what they are told regardless of what they believe: women wearing what they must at home and extremely different abroad, youth following the strict rules when watched, and breaking all when alone; and a whole society in a state of schizophrenia. We don't have cinemas but our satellite dishes can bring us the world's best and worst. We can't mix in public, but many go from one liberal party to another. Single men cannot enter malls, but they find ways to meet with girls behind closed doors. Banned books and intellectual materials can always be had via the net and from neighboring countries, such as Dubai, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt and Yemen. It is an indication that most visitors of book fairs in Arab countries come from Saudi. We hunt books that should have been available to us, without having to travel around to get them.

We can't go on like this. You can't drive down two crossed road at the same time. Either you decide to open your windows to the winds or to live in a closed underground cave. You are part of this world or you are not. Since you don't have an option anyway, better be serious and sincere about it.

Islam is about freedom and choice. You become Muslim with your own free will. Then you choose to understand the message according to any interpretation of the multiple mathhabs and their different schools of thought. To drive the entire faith into the narrow interpretations of a single school is simply un-Islamic.

The experience of Riyadh Fair Book should alarm us. These people crossed the most revered Islamic lines and should be punished. We should also make sure that no one else dare to cross them again.

Civilized Dialogue Starts at Early Age

2006-02-25T22:22:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

Civilized dialogue is better taught at early age. Dr. Sami Angawi agreed. But unlike most of us, he decided to do something positive about what he believes in.
In his weekly “diwania”, called “Makkia” (after the holy city of Makkah), members can be as young as five years old. As part of a concentrated effort, they get training during the week on how to present themselves, and how to argue a case without getting personal. On Tuesdays, they practice, real-time, in the Makkia.
In a mixed but creatively segregated environment, women and men, young and old, sit together to talk, listen and discuss.
I attended last week’s meeting as a moderator. The discussion guest, Rajaa Al-Sanae, writer of the controversial novel “Girls of Riyadh”, couldn’t like it more. For the first time, she was surrounded by readers of all ages and sexes to discuss her book in an open, but professionally organized environment.
Evenly divided, the hall was occupied at the dimly lighted back by our better halves, wearing hijab. The other part was the men’s section. Men and women faced each other, but women could see us in the more lighted section better than we could see them. In addition, those who were men-shy could sit behind some sort of parting curtain. Rajaa sat in the middle.
We started by fielding comments from the older members and guests, but quickly turned the platform to the younger crowd. They were beautiful. Their comments and questions were well studied and prepared.
The kids came for training a couple of days earlier. They all had to read the book as homework. It showed. The younger people were even better than the older ones in the way they articulated their thoughts, built up their arguments, and presented their questions and comments.
I was impressed. This is exactly what I have been calling for. Our schools should do better, providing classes in dialogue and forums for debate. More important, we must allow them to speak up their minds. At home, class, mosque, they should be given the chance to formulate their own opinion, make up their own stand and decide for themselves what they want to achieve and be.
We shouldn’t interfere in every part of their lives. We can’t keep telling them from childhood to adulthood what to think, read, study, what future to choose, and whom to marry. If we do, we end up with followers but no leaders. Those who only know how to follow orders can’t hope for a bright future.
I was happy to see these kids differ in what they thought of a novel. Then remembered that the same book was published abroad, sold all over the world, but not where it really matters. Even in Riyadh Book Fair, this month, where all censored books of Ghazi Al-Gosaibi and Turki Al-Hamad were released for the first time, the book was taken off shelves. Four hundred books were permitted but then confiscated without explanation!
Banning books is widespread. Even in academic libraries, books are banned. Reasons, vary. The ban not only includes what is regarded as ideologically incorrect, but also the politically, socially and literally imperfect. With such a wide net, even our college students are not allowed self-determination. That’s why they shy away from scientific research and prefer, if not demand, textbooks at all levels, including doctoral.
Professors, including graduates of Western universities, have to oblige.
As a result, we get carbon copies of future leaders. They study the same thing, the same way, and reach the same conclusions. When they study abroad, they carry their package with them. It confuses them when asked to look for information and make up their minds about it. They find it hard to argue with their professors. Where they came from, it is one-way street dialogue. They sat at the listening end, respectfully, and trustfully — no argument allowed.
Then comes the really hard part — debate. This is what Dr. Sami, an American schools graduate, found lacking and tried fixing. To find yourself in a multicultural environment is hard enough. To have to make a constructive dialogue with men and women of all ages, thoughts, and background is too much for many.
What to do about it? The next National Dialogue Forum is about our outdated curriculum, and how to improve it. I suggest we transform the entire system to be based on free thought, open research and civilized dialogue. We have wasted ages and generations; we can’t afford to waste any more.

Saudi Women, Opportunities and the Road Ahead

2006-02-19T04:41:00.001-08:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

The 20-member group of intellectuals who went before the visit of King Abdullah to China consisted mostly of women. One of them, Aljohrah Alsodairy (23), spoke fluent Chinese. They made waves and charmed the Chinese with their excellent quality and positive attitude.
Reem Al-Faisal, world-class photographer, was in China three months ago, hobbling from one town to another, six in all, in the Yunnan Province, south of China to show her Haj photo collection. In the last decade, she showed her talent in at least ten cities in Europe, Asia and the Arab world. Her work was published and praised in prominent journals like Le Monde, Le Figaro, The Guardian, Liberation, Canvas and Marie Claire.
•••
The Seventh Jeddah Economic Forum has just ended. More than 2,700 delegates attended. About a fourth were women, mostly Saudi. Most organizers and welcoming committees were college girls. The presence of women in business, media and academia was very much felt and appreciated. Effat College for girls alone provided tens of young organizers.
Etimad Abdulaziz Al-Noaim is a young Saudi journalist. This was her first assignment. She did extraordinarily well. In a matter of three days she was transformed from a shy girl to a confident professional woman. Her writing and communication talents shined all of a sudden. Her enthusiasm was contagious. She will never forget this opportunity.
Ranya Bajsair is the coordinator of the Foreign Relations Committee at the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI), the forum organizer. Trained in Swiss schools for eleven years, fluent in three languages, and a holder of a Master’s degree in business administration, Ranya was responsible for the VIP stage room. Ranya prepared note speakers before they faced the audience and made a great impression.
•••
Rajaa Alsanae, the young girl who wrote the controversial, best-seller novel, “The Girls of Riyadh,” was in town discussing her book with readers, men and women, old and young. She was treated like the respected intellectual she is, not a scandalous novelist, as some critics depicted her for describing the secret lives of four high-class young girls. All characters, of both sexes, were shown as victims of the known but adamantly denied ills of our society.
These ills include the way we regard and treat our better halves as dependents, not equal partners. Because of such an attitude, too many of us have not cared much to let our girls independently develop their character, education, skills and careers.
Our social, educational, legal, political and civil systems were designed in a way that made it harder for talented, aspiring and independent women to make their presence, contribution and partnership in the development of their nation. How could a woman make it to the top, if her education and training options are so limited, work environment so restricted, and job opportunities so few?
Rajaa visited the Khadija bint Khuwailed Women Center at the JCCI. She was warmly greeted and encouraged by three elected and appointed female board members: Madawi Alhasoon, Lama Al-Suleiman and Olfat Al-Kabbani. Dr. Nadia Baeshen, the center’s founder and manger, explained to us how education and training figured in their pioneering project. In the job market of today, only the better skilled and well prepared can compete. Computer, foreign languages, communication skills are among the highest in demand. It was not by chance that the center provides intensive, updated and advanced training courses in these areas.
What do these events have in common? They are all about women empowerment. I am more optimistic today than any time in our recent history about women’s place in our society. We made surprisingly smooth and successful steps down this road. King Abdullah made it a mark of his reign to give women their voice, space and opportunities. They seem to get the message and move ahead in sure, if not fast, steps to claim their rights. We have been waiting for the opening of this window for a long, long time. Wasting it is not an option.

Confusing Hate Speech With Freedom of Expression, Again!

2006-02-15T03:48:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

Many commented on my last column about the difference between freedom of expression and hate speech. Some are still confused about the issue and couldn’t understand the strong Muslim response. But before I give a summary of the main arguments advanced by some of my readers, here’s some “breaking news” from Denmark.

According to MediaGuardian.co.uk, Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), refused to run drawings making fun of Jesus Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten. He received an e-mail back from the paper’s Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: “I don’t think Jyllands-Posten’s readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.”

The illustrator told the Norwegian daily Dagbladet, which saw the e-mail, he felt Jyllands-Posten rated the feelings of its Christian readers higher than that of its Muslim readers.

No comment! Now, let’s go back to some of the comments. I’ve discussed this issue with dozens of people in the West, including many in the US and Europe, and the overwhelming response is curiosity and cynicism.

Three trains of thought seem to come up the most: 1) In the West, Christians and Jews are mocked and insulted in articles and cartoons all the time.

This usually leads to many angry letters to the editors and public debate on talk radio and cable news. It never leads to violence and destruction. Freedom of religion also means that others don’t have to live by the rules of your religion.

2) The claim that hate speech toward religion is causing this rage seems bogus, since the Arab and Muslim press routinely prints horribly vile cartoons about Jews. This leads many to believe that this whole controversy is being contrived by anti-Western imams, or others with an agenda that includes attacking the West or causing a distraction, (Syria and Iran for example).

3) Don’t Muslims see the irony that in response to cartoons claiming an inherent link between Islam and terrorism, they commit acts of terrorism?

It seems many still don’t get it. You can’t compare the holiest man in Islam with Hitler, Statue of Liberty and Uncle Sam but to Jesus, Moses and Mary (peace be upon them). And you don’t compare apples to oranges. The Holocaust is an event, not a prophet.

The Western media is full of negative depictions of Islam and Muslims in movies, talk shows, news analyses and commentary, especially after Sept. 11.

But they never generated the outcry the Danish caricatures of the Prophet did.

I am against any stereotyping and targeting of people of any race or faith, in any part of the world.

That’s why I am calling for widening the scope of the anti-Semitism laws that protect Jews to include the rest of us. Can anyone explain to me why not?

Hate Speech in the Guise of Freedom of Expression

2006-02-05T01:05:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

“Freedom of expression is important, but so is respect for other people.” This was the opinion of Danish Vice Prime Minister Bendt Bendtsen in an interview with daily Jyllands-Posten about the paper’s action in publishing 12 demeaning caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that has pitted Denmark against the Muslim world.

“Freedom of speech is an important right, but it also carried with it an obligation to use good judgment,” he contended. “What Jyllands-Posten did is totally legal. I’ve got nothing against freedom of speech — it is important for us all — but if it can offend and hurt a lot of people, why use freedom of speech for that? This is about respecting other people’s cultures.”

Bendtsen reminded: “It was not unheard of for Danes to get upset over misused religious symbols: Two summers ago, a grocery store was forced to stop selling flip-flops with pictures of Jesus after religious groups complained.”

“Danish newspapers could possibly learn something from US newspapers, which tended not to try to push the limits of what was permissible,” he advised. “In the US, freedom of expression is also important. At the same time, there is also a tradition of showing consideration for others.”

I don’t think I can put it any better. It is amazing, though, that he needed to state the obvious.

The editors of the Norwegian, Danish, French and Jordanian newspapers that published the caricatures have something in common. They run small-time newspapers, and were probably trying to make waves, build up reputation and boost sales. This might sound cynical, but it is much better than the alternative explanation — religious hatred. One can’t call what these papers did an exercise of “maximum free speech”, as the Danish paper’s editor put it. If so, why not start with your own? Muslims believe in and respect all of Allah’s prophets and messengers and would not tolerate disgracing any of them.

If practicing “maximum free speech” was the real motive, then there are other ways to flex your muscles. Try, for example, casting a single shade of doubt on the “official” number of the Holocaust victims. People get imprisoned, fired and their character assassinated for discussing the issue.

Denmark and Norway are among the few European nations that have clean history with the Muslim “Ummah.” They didn’t join in the Crusades. They never colonized Muslim lands. They didn’t help in the creation and support of Israel. They took no part in the so-called “war on terror” against Arab and Muslim nations. Therefore, they have never been on any black list of the terrorists, the anti-Western, or anti-globalization activists.

With such a clean record, spotless history and profitable business relations with over 1,200 million Muslims, you expect Danish leaders to be wiser.

Why would the queen, prime minister and conservative Christian groups go out of their way to squander all these fortunes?

Why would they, out of the blue, insist on inflaming Muslim passions with mindless, hurtful, hateful statements and caricatures?

What is the cultural, intellectual value of depicting the holiest symbol of a fifth of the world’s population as a suicidal bomber, womanizer and terrorist ?

Hate speech got the world into its worst conflicts and wars, most on ideological grounds — Christian Crusades, European holy wars, Muslim sectarian civil wars, World War I and II, down to recent conflicts in Ireland, Bosnia, Chechnya, Lebanon, Rwanda, Kosovo and neocon “crusade” on terror. Hate speech killed millions of Native Americans, blacks, Armenians, Jews, Bosnians, Indian untouchables, Chinese and Cambodian intellectuals, Chechens, Gypsies, and Kosovars. All started with some hateful doctrine based on race or ideological superiority, such as Nazism, Zionism, white supremacy and Mao’s Cultural Revolution. By dehumanizing and demonizing the other, it makes you feel superior and helps you rally your own behind a cause. It also justifies your acts of aggression, suppression and injustice.

So, what could and should the civilized world do to fight this disease? When Jews suffered because of hate speech, we invented the anti-Semitism law to protect them. I propose widening this umbrella to include the rest of us. The UN and other concerned international organizations, governmental and nongovernmental, must start collaboration to come up with such rules.

Otherwise, the current clash of civilizations will continue at a larger and more dangerous level and rate.
Humiliated people of a certain religion, race or culture may take it only for a while. The world’s most devastating war, World War II, was a direct result of humiliation the German race suffered at the hands of victorious World War 1 powers. Humiliating over a billion Muslims can’t go on for long without a hit back. Extremists, terrorist organizations and hate preachers are already working on it. Can we afford to wait until the damage is irreversible? We waited too long before and did too little. We should wake up earlier and do better ... this time.

The Luxury Tax of Dubai Experience

2006-01-30T01:44:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi
“Yes, we have enough money to keep us happy for many generations, but we decided to make our country prosperity-maker for the world, starting with our immediate neighbors. Besides, after the business plane takes off, stopping or slowing midair is not an option.” This was the answer of a senior Emirati official I met during my recent visit to his booming, blossoming country.
True, Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Sharjah are becoming profitable arenas for global heavyweight investors. They boast some of the world’s highest buildings, biggest shopping malls, artificial islands, best airlines and airports, among many other signs of affluence. The investment in the future is even greater.
I do appreciate the mentality of openness, transparency and optimism. The Emiratis make you feel that nothing is impossible to achieve if you have the will, the courage and the right attitude.
Still, I couldn’t help ask my candid host about the price they had to pay, the side effects and if it was really worth it?
Some 95 percent of Dubai’s population is expatriates. At the current rate, in ten years, the native population may go down to less than one percent. Most expatriates are from one racial background. Few locals have a stake in the huge development their country is making. You can hardly find them in the street, offices and boardrooms. In fact, you can go around Dubai for days and see no Emirati and speak no Arabic.
I relayed this to my host, and he was like waiting for the question. “You don’t see a problem with that?” I asked.
“Not really!” he said. “Yes, I would hate to miss my language in the street, but ... there is a price for luxury!”
What a price, I thought; then pressed on: More than just losing your language, you may actually lose your culture and identity. Your kids will grow in an alien world, where they become a tiny minority in their own country. They won’t need their language to communicate, because almost no one else uses it. They would look hard for an Arabic school to attend.
There is also the security dimension. How can you control a majority of a certain race if things went the Parisian way? In France, the rioters represented a small minority, but still it took a big power a long while to calm things down. How are you going to deal with a similar disturbance if your majority demanded more rights in what they may regard as their homeland?
To be fair, this is not just an Emirati phenomenon. The Bahraini labor minister submitted a study to the recent Gulf Cooperation Council summit about the worsening situation in the whole region. He warned that, soon enough, millions of expatriates will be eligible to full citizenship. Most are non-Muslim or non-Arab. Since all Gulf countries are now members of WTO, they can’t keep denying such rights to long-term residents. He suggested that for nonessential labor there should be a stay limit of six years.
The Emirati official was not alarmed. “Our expatriates”, he contended, “won’t rebel because they are happy. Losing cultural identity in today’s global village is normal. Dubai and other Emirate cities are now top global hub for business, media and entertainment. We do try to give a local flavor and touch to our cities, services and offerings. Look at this hotel, for example. It has Arabic and Islamic architectural look and feel, but was built by foreigners. What difference does it make? There is a price to be paid for luxury.”
But why do you have to get all your labors from one region? Since you do have a choice, why haven’t you diversified? I asked.
He was frank.
“Labor from the region we depend on is cheaper and more skilled. They expect less and give more. Security-wise, we have had the best experience, yet, with them than with other nationalities. Our economic boom is private sector made. If businesses prefer certain nationality and we don’t have a problem with that for the above reasons, then ... why not?”
The next few days in Dubai, I talked to people of different nationalities. He was right. Most were economically happy or OK. But politically, they were not. Many long-time residents demanded equal treatment. “Why Emiratis pay only a third of the outrageously expensive electric bills and we pay in full”, an Egyptian executive protested. “This means we subsidize the locals. It is not fair.”
An Emirati airport staff felt insecure. “I can’t argue even with a taxi driver, because his street population might gang up with him against lonely me! It is scary!”
I still think the Dubai experience is enriching, educating and enlightening. There are so many useful lessons we could learn from. But one of the most important is: There should be a limit to what price you pay for luxury!

Haj: Some Lessons for the World

2006-01-15T02:04:00.001-08:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,
Haj was an educating and ennobling experience. Like my last three holy journeys, I learned a lot about myself, ourselves and the world we live in. Here are some of the lessons.
Haj is an occasion where people of all colors, races and backgrounds live together, move as one, and do the same thing, the same way, at the same time. You can’t feel superior to others if you have to be an integral part of their thoughts, feelings and actions. It doesn’t matter here if you are from a better economic or social class, or have higher position or education. It doesn’t make a difference if you are culturally more sophisticated, elegant or better looking. Under the sunny sky of Makkah, in the squeezed crowd of millions, in the simple two-piece white dress everyone looks the same.
In the holy places you forget who you are and where you came from, at least in your relations with the others.
I saw men and women perform the same rituals at the same space and time. Women did not have to cover their faces. In fact, they were required not to.
No religious police, rules or regulations prevent them from doing what they had to do in the same place as men and with men. No one tells them to stay behind to take care of home and children. No one dares say they are lesser creatures than men, and should not be part of men’s tougher and superior world. In Haj, men and women are as equal as children of Allah can be.
If we could go back to our lives with such sense! If we were to give our women what Islam gave them! If we decided to stop mixing our Dark Age tribal traditions with the pure Islam of Khadeeja, Aisha and the great women at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his caliphs!
There was no political or social enmity during the Haj. I saw Indians, Pakistanis and Kashmiris share the same tents and mosques. They helped each other and cared for one another. Iraqis and Kuwaitis, Sudanese of all tribes and races, Syrians and Lebanese, Moroccans and Algerians and many others who came from warring places were united under the blessings of one merciful God. If only the leaders of these nations would learn a lesson from this! If they could unite their peoples as they were united in Makkah under the banner of peaceful, encompassing and tolerating Islam!
Religious rivalry was absent, too. Muslims of all sects were praying to the same God, toward the same direction, behind the same imam. They were identical in their appearance, performance and feelings. Sunnis and Shiites, Salafis and Sufis, conservatives and liberals ate together, walked together, and prayed together. They didn’t ask, they didn’t tell, and they didn’t argue about the history of differences that occurred some thousand and four hundred years ago. If we could take that home with us, stop digging the past, and start planning for the future!
And there was no politics. We all prayed for a united and liberated Muslim nation. We prayed for the freedom of occupied Palestinians, Iraqis, Chechens, Kashmiris and Afghanis. But there was no hatred of the non-Muslims. There were no calls for jihad against the peaceful nations and peoples of the non-Muslim world. For almost a week, we were busy praying for the betterment of our families and societies, and cared less for the confusing and dividing politics of governments and leaders. If we could continue to do so after Haj! If we could focus more on the improvement of ourselves rather than on the destruction of our perceived enemies and rivals!
In Makkah we all learned that the world is so small, life is so short, and death can be so close. I faced death with many others more than once. Most of us survived. If we could appreciate that and always remember that only love can make our lives worth living!
In the holy sites, we learned to resolve our differences peacefully. We had to share tight spaces, meager resources, and tough environment. Many pushed their way through tight crowds; others lost their temper standing in long lines for food or water. But every time we reminded ourselves that Allah won’t accept our Haj if we don’t make peace with each other.
Problems were quickly solved and compromises made with apologetic, friendly smiles. If we could always remember that most things are not worth fighting for! And that with more humility, less intransigence, and some compromises we could all live a better, happier and peaceful life!
If we all, Muslims and non-Muslims, could learn what we, the pilgrims did, our world will definitely be a much better and happier place!

Haj: Some Lessons for the World

2006-01-15T02:04:00.000-08:00

Your Take on Arab Hypocrisy

2006-01-05T05:32:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
"So that is all the Arab hypocrisy you cared to mention?" Many readers asked or seemed to ask.
Some reminded me of the way we talk and act on women issues. When Rajaa Alsanae, a Saudi dentist, wrote her first novel about the love lives of four Saudi girls, many exploded. They called the book "Sex and the City." While many similarities exists with the famous HBO's TV series, there was no explicit sex in the book, only the adventures, dreams and disappointments of four Saudi girls in their relations with the other sex.
The book is a true description of how many segments of society still treat women as a piece of property to be sold to the highest bidder. One girl was refused by the groom's mother because she was half American from a lesser family. The other lost her chance because she was divorced. The third had to play the game of aloofness with the man she loved, learning a lesson from a friend who was divorced because she showed her eagerness to have sex with her husband before she moved in with him. Naturally for many paranoid Saudi men, he suspected that she was experienced in the art of love, and he wasn't the first in her life. The fourth character was very traditional, but lost her husband to a Japanese girlfriend.
Love is the last thing considered in lots of traditional marriage arrangements. Many young hearts are crushed in the process without mercy, empathy or mere understanding.
Some of us, men and women, live in denial. They felt the book gave false impressions about our virtuous society. But few could deny the existence of these and many other similar tragedies. The best way to solve a problem is to admit it. You can't cure an illness if you don't know or refuse to know.
Hypocrisy rules when it comes to our women rights. We do make flowery talk: She is the beloved mother, sister, daughter and wife; the preserved and protected pearl and jewel. But most won't even utter their names in public, referring instead to "the family," or "dependents."
Because of such "dependency-property" attitude, our women need to get males' permission for education, work, bank accounts, travel, and even medical attention. Imagine that: a new guideline for girls schools stated that in case of emergency, the school cannot send students to hospitals without male guardian permission. Another rule stipulates that doctors, even in extreme emergencies, need to wait for such permission.
Foreigners and religious minorities also suffer from our hypocrisy. We talk about Islamic and Arab hospitality, principles and rights. We claim that we treat our foreign guests well and give them their due rights. The truth is too many suffer from physical, psychological and financial maltreatment.
The same goes for religious minorities, whether they are Muslims of other sects or non Muslims. They deserve more religious rights, starting with passion and respect.
Other respondents highlighted additional aspects of our hypocrisy, as they see them. Dr. Joseph Lerner wrote: "The religious differences within Islam are overwhelming. Then, there are the tribal-like aspects of the Arab world which impact the functional integrity of the existing states.
Consider the Arab response to Palestinian refugees. The Arab League has directed Arab countries not to grant citizenship to them. Some Arab countries refuse to accept them as refugees and those which do, limit their employment opportunities. Their living facilities are generally below national standards. Arab countries limit their financial assistance claiming the problem was caused by non-Arabs."
Muhammad Yusuf declared: "We Western Muslim’s can really understand that Arabs are cursed with hypocrisy. We followed the Islamic countries summit in Makkah and the Saudi National Dialogue where participants speak about a united Muslim Ummah, but it is all talk with no action. We see Arabs claiming that western Governments are trying to destroy Islam. It is not Western governments that destroy us, but Arab hypocrisy, backbiting, lying, etc, etc..
Saudi King Abdullah was right when he said in Makkah summit "Allah will never change to the better the situation of any people unless they first change themselves, as Allah promised in the Quran."
Chris Chrisman contended that "the first step in making change happen is to recognize the need for change. I am reading more and more articles by Arab journalists and intellectuals saying that their world cannot continue on the same course it has been maintaining. This is very hopeful. Have a great New Year.
Ralph Sorbris advise that the best way to improve Arab situation is to unite: "For the new Gregorian year of 2006, I wish you all the best and I look forward to see the formation of a common vision for the Middle East. A strong united Middle East would enrich the world."

Where Is the Arab Media Outrage?

2005-12-26T01:22:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
“So, where is your media outrage? Instead, you show Western hostage beheadings, allow Muslim fanatics to preach on TV and radio, and publish hate speeches against Christians and Jews. Where is the shame? Where are your principles? You should be campaigning for peace, tolerance and human rights and against intolerance, women and minority abuse, and religious fanaticism. That is the holy role of the media, Arab journalists!”
The above are not the exact words, but a summary of an American scholar’s comments during an international conference convened last week in Dubai on the role of the media to enhance security of Gulf states.
In my response, I said to him (in the general meeting and later in a smaller group discussion): What you are calling for is a classic academic and professional question discussed for ages in journalism schools and forums. Is our role to educate, preach and enlighten the public or just to provide accurate, updated and objective information? Do we campaign and rally for causes we support, or just provide an open marketplace of ideas and a neutral forum for debate and discussion?
The Western media in general, and the American in particular, stand for independence and neutrality: You give the masses well investigated and researched reports and news stories, supported by available evidence, background information and analysis. You allow all parties to have equal access to the public. You don’t take sides or make judgments, except in editorials. It is up to your audience to decide what and whom to believe, accept and side with. End of role.
When riots erupted in Los Angels after the acquittal of four white policemen accused of brutally beating black motorist Rodney King in 1991, the media professionally covered the events. They didn’t campaign for black rights or advocate a review of a long history of abuse and enslavement.
Journalists in non-democratic countries are justly accused of being tools of propaganda, mouthpieces of the rulers, and ideologically committed to one school of thought. They marginalize different viewpoints, campaign for certain causes, and serve their owners and controllers’ interests.
Most new independent media in the Arab world are moving away from the old ways. They attempt to provide as-is news and multi-perspective commentary. If you don’t like what is written, write a letter to the editor. If you don’t agree with a guest of a live show, call in and tell him so. If an opinion or a report on a website seems wrong, email them your correction. As long as your perspective, no matter how different or unique, is published or aired, you can’t complain about the equal opportunity and space given to those you disagree with.
In evaluating Arab media performance, we need to distinguish between mainstream media and underground outlets. The first is owned and supervised by governments and media corporations. Their policies prevent them from preaching religious hatred or siding with terrorists. After all, terrorists are enemies of the Arab states, as much as of the West. But at the same time, they cannot ignore their statements and actions. Professional coverage of events requires comprehensive reporting from all sides.
The non-licensed media are mostly Internet based. Comments are usually unsigned. Web blogs, electronic newsletters, mailing lists and discussion groups are uncensored and uncontrollable. Those are the ones who may preach and advocate, with impunity.
By the way, the mainstream media never aired or printed beheading videos and pictures, as some websites did. This turned the public against the perpetrators. The coverage of the suicide bombing of civilian compounds in Saudi Arabia and wedding parties in Jordan made most people see the ugliness of the terrorist organizations they may once have admired, believed or tolerated.
Finally, you cannot take media coverage out of context. The liberal US media tolerated outrageous breaches of constitutional principles after 9/11. Because they thought the administration was fighting a just war, they turned a blind eye to abuses of international rules, civil liberties and human rights — at home and abroad. Where was the outrage over the administration’s lies and sleazy and brutal tactics? Why did the New York Times accept the Bush administration’s request and delay a story about government eavesdropping on American citizens for a whole year? Where is the campaign against torture in CIA prisons around the world?
If the context allows for such tolerance on the American side, why can’t it also be applied to Arab media? After all, the media are supposed to reflect the public’s mood. In a world where the anger against Western policies has been boiling for decades, you can’t expect much sympathy for colonizers and occupiers. Instead, a minimum level of tolerance for some sort of violent reaction in response to even worse actions should be expected and accepted.

Unemployment: The Ticking Time Bomb

2005-12-23T00:41:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi

I just came back from two international conferences. The first, in Berlin, discussed Gulf states’ security, the other in Beirut was about “social issues in the eyes of the Arab media.” Both conferences highlighted a very clear and present danger: Unemployment.
In the Arab world, today, we face three dangers: Economic stagnation, political unrest and extremism. The first two inflame the third. Why have we had these problems for more than thirty years now with little signs of hope? Here is my take: Economic progress is based on creativity, liberty and the rule of law. Creativity cannot flourish in an environment of fear and police rule. Slaves and soldiers are trained not to think for themselves but to obey orders without a second thought. The rule of law can only be maintained with a system of checks and balances. You can’t get that in regimes that put all powers, executive and legislative, in the hands of one great leader or one group of decision makers who think of themselves as owners and not servants of the public. You can’t go far in an environment of unilateralism, nepotism, corruption and favoritism.
Since the creation of modern states in the Arab world, we were promised but so far denied these basic components of civilization and human rights. Most Arab countries today still insist on reforming without changing their mentality, attitude or corrupted systems. They offer opening windows without bringing down the ancient walls of tribalism, one-party rule and individual leadership. And when internal and external pressures persist, they make symbolic gestures, like releasing political prisoners, running sure-to-win presidential elections and allowing some live debate and media criticism that never reaches to the top and can be silenced anytime the givers decide to clamp down.
What does it take to solve the problem of unemployment in the Arab world? In the British Council-sponsored conference in Beirut we studied the worsening situation in leading Arab countries. The role of the media was extensively examined. But study after study showed that we need lots of immediate attention and extensive work to correct the underpinning problems.
Theoretical, political and ideological education systems are the biggest obstacle. Other administrational and social ills like nepotism, red tape, corruption, and state-dependent economies come next. Women as well as religious and racial minorities suffer the most, the young more than the old.
The newcomers to the job market, especially from these groups, find most seats already taken by those who won’t leave before they reach retirement age, beside the socially, economically or politically well-connected and the better prepared. The latter include those who were lucky enough to study in private or foreign schools in subject areas that were most needed, like foreign languages, computer science, engineering and medicine.
In my opinion, the best solution is to open up to the world. In this era of globalization you have no option anyway. So why don’t you start now at your own pace, and with your own initiative?
Opening up means you need to upgrade your standards. You cannot compete for investors if you cannot provide protection and guarantees for their investments. They need stable, workable, universally applicable laws. They expect a minimum level of transparency, accountability and openness. They are used to certain freedoms, liberties and rights. They must have unhindered access to certain government, legal, information and religious facilities.
We should provide their investments with updated and functioning infrastructure, such as communication services, public transportation and business amenities. We must upgrade our local talent, ease foreign recruitment in needed specialties and liberate our labor movement.
But first of all, we ought to change our isolationist, racist attitude towards foreigners. Our religion and Arab culture command us to be hospitable, kind and fair to our guests, no matter where they come from. Our current attitude is alien to what we are and what we stand for. It happens to be bad for business, too.
If we expand the dancing floor we don’t need to limit the number of dancers. In fact, we will have enough space for more outsiders who would enrich us with their talents, ideas and cultures. That is what made America, Canada and Australia such desirable destinations to the world’s best and brightest, including our own. Arab countries are not that crowded. There is enough room for many more people to join and enlighten the party.
Arab regimes don’t need to worry. Here we are not talking revolutions, but evolutional, short and mid-term solutions. Long term ones will present themselves if we start on the right track, at the right speed, with the right attitude.
What Arab regimes should worry about are the economic time bombs, such as unemployment. In the absence of social networks, like free social services and unemployment allowances, what options do frustrated, desperate and humiliated job seekers have?
Wrong turns might be the only available detours when the right road is blocked.

Our Youth’s Work Ethics and Attitude

2005-12-22T00:45:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Every time I hear one more businessman or corporate manager complaining about his young Saudi recruits, I know before he finishes his first sentence it is going to be a complaint about qualifications and discipline. I don’t exactly know why, but so many graduates go to the marketplace with little patience, work ethics and discipline, not to mention other shortcomings in training and skills.

We must admit that our education system has problems. For one, it tends to focus more on theory and ideology than practicality and job related skills. Some thirty-five years ago our schools taught English and French. Now, we are still debating whether English should be taught in elementary schools. Worse, English teachers need better training themselves. My son had to convince his teacher that “is” doesn’t have to be capitalized and some university students were confused about where to use “is” and “are”.

Computers in many schools and colleges still use DOS. Laps are rarely well equipped and handicraft workshops are not part of the curriculum. Libraries are stuffed mostly with religion, history and Arabic literature books. Academic libraries are heavily censored and rarely updated and lack many resources. Public libraries can be counted on one hand, and only in the major cities—please forget about smaller towns and villages.

Still, the educational system is not the only problem our youth have. The way we raise them is another. We teach them at an early age to follow the official line without any questioning. They are supposed to read only textbooks. Independent research is not encouraged. They are told exactly where in textbooks to study — or memorize — for exams. When they reach university, they expect — and get — the same treatment. After all, most of their teachers either gave up on them or are trained that way themselves — garbage in, garbage out.

Wherever they go, our young are not encouraged to think, search and invent. Following the set rules is the norm. Few dare to break them.

This explains why our graduates are underskilled. But the train doesn’t stop here. We have work ethic and attitude problems, as well. Somehow, this generation is worse than the previous. A couple of generations ago we were OK. Our fathers and grandfathers worked harder, produced more, and had a much better attitude towards work and higher ethical standards. Is there a turning point when our workforce started to deteriorate? If so, when and how? If not, where did we go wrong and why?

I would say the economic boom of 1975-82 had a lot to do with it. Along that way, we got used to having easy money and an easy life. A whole generation was brought up in such a corrupting environment. Then came the conservative change of the curriculum around 1982. For the next 23 years the curriculum guardians kept the books almost untouched. They probably feared that any change would make them less conservative. The focus in this system is on teaching not inspiring, memorizing not understanding, directing not exploring.

Why am I going back to the problem of education? Because in the absence of family, school is the most influential institution left in our kids’ upbringing.

But why is the family is absent? It is the economic boom again. It made parents leave the most tasking and vital duties of their children’s’ upbringing to domestic helpers, if not to the street. Fathers go home to rest before leaving again for more work, or to join friends to play cards, smoke shisha, and watch sports.

Mothers go from family and friend’s gatherings to parties, from shopping to social outings. The kids are left in the care of Filipino and Sir Lankan maids. Older kids are given freedom to play, shop, and chase girls.

There are other culprits, too. What have the media done to educate and enlighten? What has the corporate world done to train and retrain? Aramco, SABIC, banks and Saudi Arabian Airlines, and Abdullatif Jameel have achieved a lot by their focus on training, but what have the rest of our private sector been doing?

All the above are mere shots at the truth. I do know claim to know all the answers, but I do know that we need to talk. We need dialogue forums compromising experts, specialists, public and private decision makers, parents, and representatives of the new generation. We must discuss all issues in an open-minded format. No one group should censor, control or program our debate. It must be inclusive of all strands and stands — men and women, Sunni and Shia, liberal and conservative, and every shade of color in between.

Let’s do this, and answers will come rolling. Actions should immediately follow.

Our Youth, Reforms and Future

2005-12-21T00:53:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

How do you make your youth more responsible, humanistic, and appreciative of their country, heritage and art? How can you make them more loving and lovable, caring and considerate? What changes you should apply to your education system and the way children are brought up? And how can we help some of them be less self-centered, violent, and hateful of the different other?
Is this a tall order? Not if all concerns are symptoms of the same illness. Not if the medicine comes in one package. Not if the alternative is self-destruction.
Why now? Why suddenly we have this problem and need urgent solution? And how can we solve it without antagonizing a powerful segment of our society and authority?
First, it is not a new problem; only our awareness of it is new. A whole generation was born in the middle of an economic boom that lasted seven years from 1975 to 1982. It started with the oil boycott crisis, Iranian revolution and Iraq-Iran war, and then quickly plunged into a long lasting recession.
With the huge and sudden influx of cash and foreign products, people and values, our morals and ways of life changed — not always for the better — and the virus of materialism ran into our system.
At the other end, a conservative movement went on the offensive. Worried of losing to new trends and modern decadence, they fought furiously. When Johaiman’s violent crusade to militarily change our world was defeated, the fundamentalist movement continued the challenge intellectually.
Since we were concerned that we might have strayed too far from the roots of our conservative society, we listened to them and swallowed too much of their prescribed medicine.
Some of us agreed, more were in doubt, and many revolted. The social balance and coherence were lost in the furious clash of principles, doctrines and religious interpretation.
Today, we stand to harvest what the winning school of thought single-handedly seeded in the last twenty-five years. Unrivaled and hardly checked or questioned, they made a lot of system alteration, curriculum change, school penetration, media watching, social progress administration, intellectual censorship, and comprehensive preaching and training.
Today, they are on the defensive, but they still stand by their strong-headed beliefs, resisting change and finding ways to continue their crusade. They are still influential in all the wrong places — schools, mosques and religious establishments.
Second, it is high time we did something about that section of our youngsters which lacks in worldly awareness, sympathy and direction. Those with no proper contact with the other half and the other who is different in religion, school of thought, race, language and culture tend to get confused, suspicious, and even hateful of them.
Exploited by people with extremist agendas, those angry and religiously motivated youngsters can be foot soldiers of dangerous ideologies. There is no more dangerous a soldier than the one who has no regrets, has nothing to lose, and is ready to take his own life for a cause.
Our experience shows that the only way to neutralize them is to eradicate them or re-educate them. The Interior Ministry’s re-education campaign has proved so successful that many ex-extremists are now working for the program that saved them to save others.
Third, we have no choice but to urgently solve the problem. If we keep ignoring it, denying its existence or leaving it to the healing of time, two terrible things would certainly happen.
One, the problem will persist, if not worsen, as long as the elements that produced it, the environment that encouraged it, and the rules that tolerated it are still in place.
Two, the world that waited too long for us to act will eventually get sick and tired of waiting. The least the rest could do is to leave us behind in their march toward a more integrated, liberated and prosperous world. Isolation is not an option in the New World Order.
Internally, the wiser and brighter might get the same message and reach the same conclusion — it is a hopeless case. Again two bad things might happen. They might get paralyzingly depressed. Or they may just leave us and pursue better life and future somewhere else. We can’t afford either.
So what do we do? There are a lot of proposed changes and reforms. We already know what we need to do, but disagree on the extent and speed. Shall we wait for everyone to come on board, or take the willing and move on? Do we take the winding country road or use the highway? If the latter, do we run in the fast or slow lane?
So far, we opted for the slower road of consensus-building to minimize friction and confrontation. No one is ready for a social upheaval — not in the middle of our war on terror and extremism.
I could be wrong. But this might prove too little, too late.

Empowering the Saudi Youth for the World

2005-12-21T00:52:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi
So what do we do to rescue our kids from the hell of extremism to the heaven of tolerance, love and peaceful coexistence?
I always say that solving a problem starts with a good, sincere question. Answers come automatically if you provide an environment of free thought, speech, and press.
Here is a good example. I raised similar questions in my last couple of articles and good answers were given to me on a golden plate.
It seems Dr. Haifa Jamal Al-Lail, dean of Effat College for Girls, and Dr. Ghazi Binzagr were studying the same problem and coming up with creative, practical solutions.
We are members of the International Relations Committee (IRC) of Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI). Our Chairman Amr Khashoggi asked us to think of ways of training our youth on how to communicate, appreciate and project our country and culture. Haifa and Ghazi came back with the following plan:
Saudi Arabian Youth Ambassadors Program is dedicated to creating world-class ambassadorship. It has three basic strategies. One, to instill three identities: An understanding of the Saudi identity, an appreciation of the Arabian identity and the centrality of the Arabic language to it, and a deep admiration and respect for a tolerant global Islamic identity.
Two, to teach basic personal and interpersonal communication skills to guarantee maximum effectiveness of their communication with the world.
Three, to ensure that these programs will move the youths from the local to the global arena gradually and with wisdom (Hikmah).
The plans have three phases. The First Phase is entitled (Safwa) which means “select elite” in Arabic. It is also an acronym for the first letters of Saudi Arabian Future World Ambassadors.
The plan will find, recruit, and locally train Saudi youths to prepare them to become youth ambassadors to the world.
It will also select events that can become the building blocks for the first phase of the Saudi youth international empowerment program. The Second Phase is entitled (Safeer), which means ambassador in Arabic. Here, Saudi youths will be sent to selected parts of the world to participate in visits designed to link them with the world and help them understand how other countries work while also giving them the chance to represent Saudi Arabia to the world.
Selected youths will be sent to a country or two as samples of building blocks that can later become the foundation of Phase Two of the program.
The Third Phase (Majlis) which means “gathering” or “council” in Arabic is dedicated to creating a Saudi/International Youth Council.
The sponsors of such a plan will be ready to help Saudi youths host a first event in Saudi Arabia inviting youths from around the world (or selected countries) for dialogue, exchange, and understanding. If successful, we may choose to institutionalize this effort into a permanent Majlis: The Saudi Arabian Youth Ambassadors Council.
The Action Plan for the First Phase will prepare 30-40 Saudi males and females to be ambassadors. The goal is to instill the Saudi Arabian, Arab and Muslim identities in young Saudi participants by lectures, training, field trips and discussion forums.
Lectures will explore the history, geography, social, economic, and political system of Saudi Arabia. They will also provide brief historical and socioeconomic and political information about the targeted foreign country.
Training will focus on basic personal, interpersonal and diplomatic communication skills and languages.
In the field trips, Saudi participants will visit cities and villages in Saudi Arabia, religious sites and foreign diplomatic missions (embassies and consulates) for the purpose of awakening in the participants a deep sense of purpose and identity.
The plans also call for a small forum for participants with the Saudi foreign minister, Saudi and foreign ambassadors so they learn more about foreign affairs. It will also train them in debating skills and give them practical experiences.
Executing the plan will require strong commitment from IRC members and all related public and private sponsors and parties for the entire program.
Recognition (certificate or trophy) would be given to all youth participants as an incentive to attract them and retain them for the entire program.
Funding should be available through sponsorship and support for processing the three phases required for the whole program. Crucial logistical controls must be in place before the program can be launched.
Selection of foreign country must take place before the program begins.
I congratulated Haifa and Ghazi on a project well done, and I offered to publish it in my column, hoping more interest from concerned parties would give it a head start. We need more of such plans ... more of such planners ... and more of as many enthusiastic participants, helpers and executors.
No problem is too big for a solution. As long as there is a will, there is always a way.

Ways of Dialogue With the Other

2005-12-18T00:59:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi

Once I asked Abdullah, my young conservative friend, to join me in a “diwania” (weekly gathering). He was surprised to find people with diverse views among my friends. There were liberals and Islamists, those who belonged to the left or the right, and those, like myself, of the middle.
We talked and discussed. After heated discussions someone cracked a joke and we all laughed. On the dinner table we seemed to have forgotten our differences altogether. Abdullah couldn’t understand this. On our way back, he was thinking and pondering. Finally he asked: “How could you all be friends? How could you discuss divisive issues like curriculum change, roots of terrorism, minority and women rights, extremism, the attitude of youngsters, and joining the World Trade Organization and not get angry with each other? Early in the evening I thought you hated each other. One camp was almost shouting at the other. Then some of you came to an agreement. Others were whispering in the ears of the people they disagreed with earlier. And then you all joked and laughed like nothing happened. I might not understand, but please try explaining, anyway.”
I tried. I told him that in Islamic civilization, as in any other, people have not only the right but also the obligation to a free debate on all issues of concern to some or all. Since heated debates do cause fractions, dislike and anger, golden rules were set. They are almost alike everywhere. Basically, you express yourself as you wish, as long as you don’t insult the personal feelings of others. Talk about public issues as strongly as you like but never go personal with your opponents. Even if you disrespect his position, respect his person, and his/her right to speak his/her mind.
Abdullah thought for a while, and then looked hopelessly at me and said: “I need time to absorb all this. You see, I was raised in all-of-one-idea environment. We debate, yes, but within the same boundaries, under the umbrella of the same school of thought, representing different angles of the same issue. The other camps have always been alien to us. They represent the rival if not the enemy. You cannot be friends with others without their subscribing to your school of thought. Besides, these disagreements are too serious to be forgiven in a minute. It is not sports. You cannot just fight it out in the field or fan club, and then leave hand-in-hand. This goes against how I was raised. You may convince me intellectually that this is the true Islamic way, but I would need lots of time and effort to change my natural response and attitude.”
I wish Abdullah were a lone case. Unfortunately, he is typical of many young people raised by some teachers, scholars, trainers and fathers to be of one idea, one group, one way. They are not used to dialogue with the others. When they confront alternative stands and thoughts, they either avoid it or fight it. Whether the fight is mental or physical, they can’t help shielding their heads and hearts against the other’s message. They feel guilty for talking nicely to holders of contradicting thoughts.
Labeling is their best game. Instead of analyzing and attempting to understand the other’s point of view, they take the easy way out by judging people’s intentions and classifying them accordingly. So, I was called in different settings, by different people, or even the same ones, so many names. In a party, last Tuesday, I was labeled by the same person as Salafi (fundamentalist), Ikhwani (of the Muslim Brotherhood), liberal and American stooge. How can I wear all these hats and kofyas at once? Go figure! So, we do have a problem. Once we recognize it and decide to face it rather than ignore and deny it as we did for ages, it is not a hopeless case. Like Abdullah, many youngsters can be impressed. With comprehensive, well-planned and thought-out, enduring and relentless program we could change even the die-hards. At least we could teach them how to make a useful dialogue.
The idea is not necessarily to makeover people, but to teach them how to be civilized: Respectful, reasonable and sensible in dealing with the different other. They could insist on their beliefs if they so wish. They could preach and try to convince us to move over to their side of any argument. But they should do so following our Islamic rules of debate (Fegh alkhelaf), not by force, not with hate, disrespect and dissidence.
By the way, Abdullah became an active member of our “diwania.” He turned out to be a wonderful debater. Told you! It is not over, yet!

Our Missing Middle

2005-12-18T00:47:00.000-08:00

Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
What is the difference between our right and left? I was asked this recently by a bright Saudi student. I said it was the missing middle. She thought for a moment then asked: What are we supposed to be as a nation? I told her: We are the nation of the middle, as the Qur’an has described us. But that we should tolerate those on both sides.
Again, she paused. Then she came back with a stronger question: “Why would we tolerate the extremists on both sides? We are a young nation starting our way on the road of progress and development. Do we need these divisions and dividers to distract us? They could continue their fight in prison, where they belong, but we cannot afford to have them around wasting our time and energy with their intellectual, if not physical, fight.”
I reminded her that we are not new to development and progress. The Umma ruled the world for centuries. We introduced Europe to science, medicine, astronomy and technology. Today, we are restarting, not starting on that road.
Great nations read their history well before importing experiences and experiments from others. Our culture not only allows but calls for sophisticated, civilized debates. The Qur’an is full of such debates. Allah has debated with the non-believers and believers alike, including his prophets. Remember His debates with Abraham, Moses, Muhammad (peace be upon them) and their peoples? He never says believe the hereafter because I said so. No, he gave evidence of His being and supported His statements with logical and physical proofs. His prophets did the same with the extremists and doubters.
To follow this divine example, we should allow for all kinds of peaceful expressions of thought, marketing of perspectives, and discussion of ideas. Let the left and right and all those in between make their cases and defend their positions and try as best as they can to bring us over to their sides.
As long as this is done without hurting personal feelings, attacking personalities, enlisting authorities or denying the others their equal right to free association, thought and expression, we will do fine. After all, we are a young nation, with educated and open-minded citizens among us. We are mature enough to listen to all, and, at the end of the day, make our own stand and take our own position.
Those who deny the other party their day in the court of public opinion, are not sure of their ability to persuade or, worse, of the validity of their case. If they are as sure-footed as they pretend, why would they censor academic libraries and international book fairs? Why are certain groups not allowed to present or defend their “mathhab,” doctrine or stand? How come one school of thought is the one and only voice heard, taught and preached? After they had their chance for decades to establish their ideologies in our heads, why can’t they trust us enough to listen to other points of views? Is it because they don’t believe in our ability to distinguish right from wrong, or because they don’t believe in their ability to convince us? Is it that they don’t believe in us or don’t believe in themselves?
My young friend looked at me tentatively, while absorbing what I had just said. Then she smiled and flashed her bright large eyes at me said: “Man! You know what you just said? You are telling me that all what we were taught, read and trained in all our life, is one-sided stuff. That we need to re-educate, reread, retrain ourselves all over again to absorb other schools of thought, other trends and perspectives, and to open up to the rest of the civilized world. This is a huge order! This is not an evolution, but a revolution! This is like reliving your life in a different a world, starting from scratch. Man! This is mass killing of our present characters and the remake of another!”
I laughed and said: “Girl! How lazy your generation can be! All that is needed for those who have already graduated from such a learning experience is to have a taste of a new one. For those who are still entering education, we should change the parameters of their experience, allow them more freedom to explore on their own, and let them come up with their own conclusions.
“We should stop breastfeeding them after their infant years, so they can depend on themselves the rest of their lives. We must open the world for them to research and study, discover and communicate with others, instead of limiting them to our own. How hard can this be for them? After all, babysitting people is harder than letting them grow on their own.”

Lamenting Our Missed Opportunities

2005-11-06T06:36:00.000-08:00

There is nothing more bitter than missed opportunities. In the Arab world we had lots of that to mourn. And unlike the rest of the human race we can’t find a better time to do so than during our Eid celebrations. While others enjoy theirs, we tend to ruin our happy anniversaries remembering the worst moments in our history and keep asking what an Arab poet asked 1,000 years ago, “Eid, what kind of Eid did you bring with you?”
I hate to do the same and ruin what are supposed to be happy moments with similar remembrances. But since everyone else is doing it, why not me? Here is what I would mourn most: Our missed opportunities for freedom, democracy, progress and peace. I won’t go far in history, limiting my memory to the last hundred years.
In the beginning of the 20th century, Hussein ibn Ali, grand sharif of Makkah made a deal with the Allies. He was to lead a revolution against the Ottomans. In return he was promised to be declared the new caliph of the Muslim Ummah and the king of all Arabs. He did his part betraying the Muslim Caliphate that installed him but never received his ultimate reward. The English were kind enough to recognize him in 1916 as the king of Hijaz, install one son as the king of Iraq, a second as the emir of Jordan. But that was it. Not even the rest of Arabia and the Gulf area were to be under his control.
Still, there was a great opportunity for him and his sons to cooperate with the other Arab leaders, like sultans (later kings) Abdul Aziz in Riyadh and Fuad in Cairo to free and improve the rest of the Arab world. The colonizers were open to gradual progress starting with freeing slaves and giving women and minorities their due rights. Instead he insisted on pursuing his dream of being the king of kings. In the process, he antagonized the Saudis and ended up losing his fiefdom and destroying the dream of Arab unity. Later, the independent and semi-independent Arab governments decided in 1945 to start a process of unity under the Arab League banner. But even today, after more than half a century, we are still at square one.
When Nasser led the era of military revolutions in the Arab world, we were promised unity, freedom, reforms and progress. Instead, every colonel wanted to rule the rest. Even young Qaddafi of small Libya felt he deserved to lead the horde. Marriage projects like those between Egypt and Syria; Egypt, Sudan and Libya; and, in recent history, the cooperation councils of the Gulf states, the Western Arabs (Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia) and the Eastern Arabs (Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Yemen), either failed to achieve their set goals or disintegrated disgracefully. We had peace opportunities with our main foe, Israel, and lost them. The best chance was the road Egyptian President Sadat opened for us. Instead of working with him to negotiate as a group, most leaders felt insulted that he didn’t consult with them first. For this mistake they were willing to forgo the golden opportunity and fragment the Arabs into two camps — the small peace group and the “countries that are standing up and challenging.” Later the war party members were warring among themselves. We lost. Israel won. The end of the first Gulf War between Iraq and Iran presented another golden opportunity. We were then more in agreement than not. With the eight-year costly war no longer a distraction, we could have concentrated on getting our act together and working on achieving our goals and dreams.
Not so fast! Saddam couldn’t have a break of more than a couple of years before he started another adventure. This time against his brotherly allies who supported him in the previous aggression. We deserved this because we missed our opportunity to forge good relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. We had more in common with the new Muslim regime than we did with the Baathists.
One war led to another. The Third Gulf War, like the second divided and distracted the Arabs once more. Again, Arab leaders found a good excuse to delay reforms. Even with democracy a priority in the Anglo-Saxon agenda for the Middle East, Arab governments managed to find ways not to reform. A few improvements here, a couple of basic or meaningless elections there, and we convinced the world we are moving in the right direction. The Americans and British found something to show for their costly war, and the Arab governments managed to avoid costlier confrontations with the neo-Crusaders.
After 1426 Eid anniversaries we are mourning once more, unable to positively answer the Shakespearian question (to be or not to be). What a waste!

Reforms? Why? Why Not?

2005-11-02T10:32:00.000-08:00

My last article "Reformatting the Middle East" has generated many responses. Some were in agreement; others rationally disagreed.
Dr. Thuraya Arrayed is a prominent Saudi writer and women-rights activist. She writes: (I still hang on to my belief in true continuing reform. You do too. I hope to be there for it. How can we start our trip towards true reform in the Arab world?
What we need is a genuine sense of dedication as part and parcel of our value system. The norm now is "every one is for himself" and "get it any way you can". "Smear the others and even kill them to make sure you are the only one remaining on the scene.
Anyone who does not apply that norm finds himself with the short end of the stick. The grip of this destructive conception must be broken.
Reform has been either a dream or a nightmare because we continue to sleep and ignore our role in making our fate change direction.

Yet, it is a miracle that some of us still believe that reforms will become a reality. Our experience has been a past of continuous disappointments, a present that is reflecting the negative results of all the accumulation of wrong decisions and selfish actions by shortsighted individuals. No wonder it is also an experience of a dream future which never materializes as promised.

We have always been sold glittery lies, told what we would like to hear and believed it was honest promises only to find out it was the way to guarantee the "promiser" his self interests. So why are we still believing in reform??? Because nothing else is left to hang on to. The other options are worse: suicide, suicidal bombings or becoming suicidal bomber yourself. Who wants that? We all know that diffusing the power of these inciters of destruction and reestablishing the normal functioning of the brainwashed angry youth are the first step towards reform.

Rescue the educational system from the clutch of the perpetuators of ignorance and opponents of human rights, and you would have started a new generation that will demand reform as a right and as a continued driving force in their life style.
Egyptian political analyst Hatem Ezzeldin writes: (There was no revolution in Egypt and there were none in the Arab world throughout history. It is hard to compare what happened from army turnovers to true revolutions in Europe in nature, characteristics and outcomes.)
Saqib Bukhari (England) objects to the Western link to our reforms. He says : (It is wholly true that the Arab world and the wider Muslim world needs to be reformed and like you said, the push for reform has been at the loudspeaker for quite some time.

However, what I feel quite alarming is that you don't pay much attention to who are calling for these reforms and why. If one was to look at the political landscape of the Arab world and the aspiration of its populace, one finds that people can be categorized as "Nationalist", "Secularist", "Fundamentalist", "Socialist" and so on, calling for different types of reform. The reform debate currently at the forefront of global politics is extrinsically linked to the exportation of democracy and this odd notion of freedom and equality between the sexes.
For the West to be successful in such reforms, they can utilize the secularist (or sometimes called the modernists) coupled with military onslaughts as we are seeing in Iraq.

The cause for reform, then, is part and parcel of the war on terror, which in all intents and purposes, is a war on political Islam. Therefore, the current actions and policies of the West towards the Muslim world simply reinforce the rhetoric of the politicians in the early 20th Century. The "liberal" Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli held a copy of the Quran in the House of Commons and said, "Muslims can never be defeated until this (the Quran) is taken from them."

So, to conclude, the nature of these reforms is to counter the growing rise of the need for political Islam by millions of Muslims throughout the world. The Nationalist movements failed so if we want to call for reforms in the Muslim world, we need to realize that it's only through Islam we can rise and gain back our dignity.)

Virginia Johnston (Gainesville, FL) writes: (You must have heard about our special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. If the law cannot get to the truth of what has happen to the American people under the Bush administration, and as we hear the death rattles of our own democracy, we have no right reforming the Middle East.)

Reformatting the Middle East

2005-10-25T06:18:00.000-07:00

Like democracy, “reform” is a catchword these days in the Arab world. Leaders promise it, media sing it, and people wish to believe it. But is it believable? Or is it just too good to be true? Or maybe something in between — buy one true promise and get ten lies free?
Before we decide which case is the case, let us review our progress on the road to reforms, so far.
The question of reforms is not new, and didn’t arise after 9/11. The promise arrived with every revolution and evolution phase in our modern history.
After we fought with the Allies in World War I against our rulers, the Ottoman Empire, the new regimes that replaced them promised to deliver us to a new world of freedom, progress and democracy.
The Western colonizers brought in some enlightenment, some sophistication, some modern infrastructure and some democracy. Many Arab metropolises like Cairo, Aden, Baghdad, Damascus, Khartoum and Casablanca became world class. They had life and semi-free press, parliaments, labor unions and other democratic tools and privileges. Airports, railways, ports, highways and many other modern infrastructure networks were built. In Egypt, the Suez Canal was finally dug and operated. In Aden, the new port was one of the world’s biggest and busiest.
It wasn’t enough, though. Humans hate to surrender their decision-making right to foreigners. Reforms were mostly in big cities and towns. Villages and remote areas were left almost as backward as they were found. Education was a minority privilege.
The military academies were for certain class. And the final decision on real matters, including who stays in power, was squarely in the hands of the occupiers.
Parliaments get dissolved, elected prime ministers dismissed, and kings assassinated. Alliances, wars and peace agreements have to get through London, Paris and Rome before they can be made. Nationalist movements were fought and subdued politically and militarily. In the end, only the army was left as a national institution capable of effecting change.
Nationalist officers swept the Arab world as one successful revolution encouraged another. From Egypt to Iraq, from Libya to the Sudan and from Syria to Yemen, Arab armies were on the march to reclaim their nation’s destiny.
Like the colonists, they promised reforms, but unlike the colonists they delivered few. In fact, freedoms were lost and democracy became a show business, a big lie, and a facade for police regimes. Prisons in the new states grew larger, the infrastructures older, the economy weaker and poverty more endemic.
There was growth in other sectors, like education, but quantity did not always match quality. Graduates of Egyptian, Iraqi and Sudanese colleges were way better, if lower in numbers, than today. Cultural life became too much politicized and propagandist.
The media turned into tools for state control and “political education” rather than means for free discussion and debate, as well as watchdogs on government performance. The revolutions that promised to correct, reform and then leave, became permanent. (Whom are you revolting against, if you are the ruler?)
So, could anyone blame Arabs for suspecting any claim of true reforms? Now many Arab governments are talking about reforms — real this time! At the same time, America is pushing a new agenda for the Middle East. The world would be safer, they reckoned, if disillusioned, dissatisfied, poor and angry Arab masses were given the chance to live a better present and dream of a brighter future. With good education, vibrant economy, real democracy, they won’t be easy recruits for the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi, the theory goes.
Reform or else was the message that reached Arab capitals. Many didn’t need much convincing. In Saudi Arabia the call for reforms and national dialogue preceded 9/11. In Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Morocco, Algeria, the Sudan and Jordan, regimes felt the need to reform for their own reasons. Those include civil wars in the Sudan, Algeria and Yemen, civil liberties movements in Kuwait and Egypt and new leaderships in Morocco, Jordan, Syria, Qatar and Bahrain. Are these reforms deep and wide enough? Not much or not at all. But they are good, small steps in the right direction. We need to encourage them, blow the wind in their sails, and make those steps steady and sure. Intellectuals in each county must take the lead and call for public involvement and participation. We need to continue building civic institutions that deliver the goods, not just the “see me I am here” charade.
And we all need to remember that to survive in the new world of borderless trade and transparent governance, this is the only way to go.

‘Tribalizing’ Democracy!

2005-10-15T16:36:00.000-07:00

Democracy is such a magic word! Politicians love to pretend it, intellectuals to explore it, people to demand it, media to measure it, and a bunch of organizations to watch it. Few, however, really understand what it is and where they stand on it — especially in the Arab world.

Lately, I read many scholarly and news reports about fake democracy in the Arab world. Almost nobody is rejecting democratic reforms these days for fear of looking bad before world public opinion. More importantly, it is politically dangerous to do so, since Uncle Sam may put you on his list of “failed regimes.” Depending on how much oil or terrorism you may have, or how inconvenient you are to Israeli and US interests (in this order), you could be erased, modified or seriously talked to.

Most governments either pretend to be more democratic than America, on their way to be, or don’t need to. When put under pressure and scrutiny to hurry reform measures and be more transparent about them, they play the “injured dignity,” you-hurt-my-feeling card. (How dare you instruct ancient civilizations on governing art?)

Others lecture you on how democracy must be homegrown, not imported, fit-for-all takeaway; and how we need time to grow our own. That “time break” means ages. By the time we reach there, they won’t be there, you won’t be there, or you won’t be interested anymore — an effective stalling technique.

The funny ones try to sell you the claim that we already have democracy. Look how the people adore their rulers, they say. Note how our leaders come from humble origins, visit with the roots and interact with the common man. People and destiny have chosen them. This is ultimate democracy.

The frustrating ones are smarter. They play the game as it should be played. “You wanna democracy? No problema! We give you one.” Then they give you a big show. Constitutions get changed, candidates run, media criticize, analyze and cover events, and the whole country party-celebrate! It is Elections Time! But the whole game is designed to re-elect the same aging rulers and preserve the same oldie regimes. The only difference is: It is now legitimate illegitimacy. Go figure.

One of those fakers gave me a lecture the other day. He went on and on about the history of democracy and its “rotten” application today. “Did you know that the original Athenian concept was democracy for free men only, as was the case in the first American version? Women, slaves and the poor were excluded,” he argued. “Western democracy is custom-made for the white man. The West is based on individualistic system, we are based on consensus. With tribal societies, like ours, we already have our own version of democracy. Leaders are ‘accepted’ by the people, and led by consensus. They have their ways of seeking, building and enforcing such consensus. At the end of the day, the whole nation — not just those who voted ‘yes’ — is on board in any project.”

I say to him and to all those like him, if you are so sure about what your people want, let them say so. Put in the scientifically proven mechanisms to measure their sentiments. Give every runner an equal chance and provide a level-playing ground. Allow the media to play its role as the people watchdog. Let all vote for whoever wishes to run and let the world scrutinize the vote and see that you won fair and square.

Once empowered with such mandate, you can implement your agenda with powerful authorization and public support. The civilized world may disagree, but they would have to respect the people’s choice.

Does this sound science fiction or foreign play? That is because nobody reads history.

History showed that only those who win people’s hearts by democratic means stay in power or leave peacefully. Democratic systems develop in time. Autocratic regimes do not evolve peacefully; they come with a revolution ... and end with one.

Who Hangs the ‘Wake-Up’ Bell?

2005-10-08T16:43:00.000-07:00

Democracy is about free debates on all issues relating to public interest. It is the supermarket of ideas, to which all members of society contribute and benefit from available intellectual products.
Saudi Arabia is now ripe with discussions about all kinds of opportunities and challenges facing our nation. From rights for women, guest workers, children and minorities, to education, extremism, globalization and social decadence, all the cards are on the table. Players include men and women, old and young, conservatives and liberals, Sunnis and Shiites. No one is excluded from taking part in this mental exercise. If not in the mainstream media and forums, then at least you could say what you want without censorship on the Internet.
Is this good or bad? Too early or too late? Too fast or too slow? Those are valid questions for the debaters to address. But it is vital for society to continue its roundtable, round-the-hour dialogue. The exercise is good for our mental health. We got mentally fat with all the junk thoughts we had been fed for ages. It is about time we slimmed down and muscled up with a healthier diet, better digestion and a good workout.
“What is the use?” I was asked by a frustrated youth after a long night of discussions in a weekly “dewania” (intellectual gathering). “We talk and talk, and by the end of the day, we all go home to catch a football game, a fat meal, and sound sleep. Nothing happens overnight, nothing happens the next day. And when we meet again, it is the same story all over, for nobody has done anything to change the status quo since our last meeting.
“Isn’t it better for the sake of our cholesterol level and blood pressure, serenity and sanity to save our breath and time, and look for better things to do?
“Isn’t some quality time with your kids, a gem exercise, and a trip to the sea or a desert camp more fun and useful than the smoky discussion that is all hot air and no substance? Personally, I am having colon problems from listening to all these intellectual debates that agree on solutions but not on how to implement them. Bottom line is, without ‘do’ and ‘doers’ we are wasting our mental and physical energy for nothing!”
This reminds me of the “Who will bell the cat?” tale. For those who don’t know this classic Aesop tale, it is about a group of mice meeting to figure out how to defend themselves from attacks by the cat. One wise rodent pointed out that a bell around the neck of the cat would herald the cat’s movements and thus all the mice could escape the feline’s clutches in time. The mice agreed that a bell was indeed a brilliant solution, and after a long pause, one inquired, “Who will bell the cat?” No one volunteered and no problem was solved.
Solutions are plenty and cheap. You can buy one and get ten free. The problem is when it comes to action no one likes to be in the driver’s seat. Most prefer to be in the audience. Few care to be in the play.
This has to change. In the new mode of civic institution building, reforms and dialogue, we need more effective participation. This means more individual and group initiatives — speaking out, joining forums, participating in public institutions, forums and actions.
Talk for talk’s sake is not enough, but also not bad. After a long rest it is not easy to jump right into action. We need time to flex our mental muscle, open our eyes and ears and awaken our senses to capture present and future trends, modes and drifts.
Once you get the picture, you start pondering and reflecting. Others do the same, and you get together to exchange thoughts and ideas. Then you get bored of sitting still, and warm up for action. Since doors are now opened for participation, you join in with your own thoughts, actions, and contribution.
That’s how I hope we all do. But truth is: I am not sure we are all up to it. Decades of dependence on the government to make all decisions and do all the work for us have left us with little understanding and weak motivation to make the right move and do the right thing.
I hope and pray this attitude changes soon. Some of us should hang the bell, the rest support them. Our present reforms and future progress depend on such courageous initiative, and cooperation.

Building Bridges With Americans

2005-10-08T16:37:00.000-07:00

American visitors to Saudi Arabia come with their baggage of perceptions and get their first cultural shock on day one — especially those who come for the first time. Thanks to media and education, our image as backward, savage, and fundamentalists persists. Misperception leads to perception and if repeated enough times and long enough it becomes reality. Once in the news, you’re always in the news and it is difficult to remove the stigma once it sticks.
Some reporters and researchers write their reports during the long flight to Saudi Arabia, and come here to fill the gaps. They look around every corner for political tension, religious extremists, battered women and street wars. They do find, now and then, what they look for and jump on it. That would be fine if at the same time they report the other side of the story, which represents the norm more than the spicy stuff.
Just imagine if, after a visit to America, I write only about drugs, crimes and racial discrimination. While those problems exist in America as in any other society, they are not what America is about. The same is here. We have our share of social ills such as fundamentalism, extremism, marginalizing minorities, consumerism, drug abuse, abuse of women and foreigners. But we also have our bright spots. Look around you and you will see the inspired and inspiring people, young and old, men and women, liberal and conservative, Sunni and Shiite.
Such was the case with a visiting group of American intellectuals. We met in the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry last week. Our group, the International Relations Committee, is made of concerned citizens volunteering to build a bridge of communication and understanding with the rest of the civilized world. The chairman of the committee, Amr Khashoggi, is an intellectual businessman, educated in American universities, like most of us, father to two bright kids who have just graduated and returned home to serve their country. They were all present at the meeting and at another gathering with Karen Hughes, US undersecretary of state for public diplomacy.
Committee members come from different business, academic and government backgrounds. They include economist Dr. Nahed Taher, businessman Eng. Omar Khalifaty, journalist Ms. Maha Akeel, merchant Dr. Ghazi Binzagr, psychotherapist Assia Khashoggi, and political scientist, Ms. Ranya Bajsair.
Guests and hosts talked in a spirit of openness and friendship. Some were emotional, apologetic or frank. However, all expressed their sorrow, anger, disappointment, confusion, misunderstanding and criticism in a civilized way. At the end, we all felt like hugging each other. It was a great group therapy.
Alta Schwartz, director of Outreach program in Georgia Middle East Studies Consortium touched my heart. She expressed her dilemma as a Jew trying to reach out to us. She told me about a recent visit to Gaza and her shock and dismay at the Israeli abuse of Palestinians. How could she dissociate herself from Israeli policies and actions? She wants to rescue her religion from the extremists who have hijacked Judaism in Israel and America. She spoke about that tense moment when she tells an Arab she is a Jew and how she got used to the frank discussion that follows and the friendship that results.
I told her of my experience in America when my best friend suddenly told me that he was a Jew as well as a Communist! I had that double-shock moment but it passed quickly. It really didn’t matter what his religion was as long as he treated me right. As it turned out, we ended up helping each other in school projects and learned a great deal about one another’s perspectives. After reviewing my dissertation about US media bias toward Israel, he thanked me for moderating his views about Middle East history. I thanked him for standing up for me. He, and other colleagues, advocated changing class schedules to accommodate my Ramadan fasting hours. Similar tense moments became easier, like when I found out that the wonderful doctor and nurse who took care of my newborn daughter were Jews. Alta liked my calling her a cousin. I explained to the rest that Jews and Arabs are Semite cousins. An American pointed out that we are all cousins. What stands between us can easily be torn down. The biased media, ignorant intellectuals, inconsiderate politicians, and geographic, cultural and political barriers can be overcome with a simple smile, hello and a handshake.
As soon as we talk and visit each other’s homes and meet with family members, we will discover how strikingly similar we all are. We all wake up every day worrying about school grades and job security, family well-being and neighborhood safety.
We go through our days striving for a better life, and a brighter future. And when we sleep, we get nightmares about losing the ones we care about, and confronting those we don’t. We dream about an environment of peace, love and prosperity.
If we just understand these basic facts about each other, it is the perfect win-win. Only the merchants of hate, war and misery lose out in this eventual battle of bridge-building for the sake of all humanity.

Our Economy, Our Women

2005-09-27T04:31:00.000-07:00

What’s the relation between our women and the economy?
Last Saturday, I attended a heated debate about the government’s decision to allow women to run in the election to the new board of the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry, as well as similar elections in other cities.
This is the first time businesswomen get the right to be candidates, not just voters. I thought this was a historical, but overdue step. It defies logic that 15,000 owners of Saudi businesses cannot be represented on the boards of trade organizations like the chambers of commerce and industry.
The same can be said of the boards of banks, companies and industries, where women make a sizable minority of shareholders and employees. Similarly, government ministries and departments, courts and religious scholars’ organizations, universities and schools all deal with constituencies of both sexes. Isn’t it absurd that even in the Department of Girl’s Education only men are in charge?
Some of the opponents are basing their objections on religious and cultural grounds. I told them: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) worked for a businesswoman, his wife. He consulted another wife, Aisha on matters of state and religion, and told his companions to take half their religion from her. Why is it that, after 1400 years, women are not allowed to be at the level they reached then? If culture is the issue, it is wrong since it is in conflict with the principles of Islam.
As for experience and expertise, they come with training and practice. New generations of men go through this learning curve to reach higher positions, so why not our better half?
To help in this direction, we need to improve women’s education and training. Many fields, like engineering, accounting, and décor are still off limits to girls in public colleges, even though they are better school achievers than boys.
• Here is a comment on my last article “The Economic Boom: Our Second Chance!” from an American who taught and understood Saudi girls. I found it refreshing and enlightening to see one’s position from a different angle and with different eyes.
Let me quote her letter:
“I left Jeddah about two months ago and was living there for a little over a year. I have written to your e-mail correspondence a few time concerning women’s issues, but I think this issue about how to spend the money is just as, if not more, important. It is also relevant to the women’s issue.
Jeddah has turned into a giant mall and it’s very disappointing and sad. In the past, weren’t the best and most renowned educational centers in the Middle East based in Makkah and Madinah? Are not Arabs known for great educational achievements such as algebra and beautiful poetry? Well, it seems things have changed, and not because of bad financial times.
There should be large public libraries, good sporting facilities and top-notch learning facilities for everyone.
So as to not abandon my women I will speak to how this correlates directly to women. When young women have more to do with their days than go to the malls to spend money they haven’t earned, they themselves will gain a higher feeling of self-worth. This is much more important and preliminary to achieving a status that they seek in society.
I taught Saudi girls and it got very boring when all they had done over the weekend was to shop, meet at a cafe, or sit at home. What about scuba diving, sports leagues, book clubs, efficient technical institutes?
Of the hundred or so female students I taught, NOT ONE had ever scuba— dived. With one of the world’s most beautiful reefs at their fingertips, none were given the opportunity to take advantage of something people outside of the Kingdom can only drool over. At this point, society is telling Saudi women all they are worthy of is spending money.
Certainly, the men don’t have it much better. Therefore, it’s time to stop ignoring Saudi youth. Make investments in their future. Create a school system that allows them to compete in the world that looms like a tidal wave above them.
Of course, follow-through is just as important as the initiation. Provide them with facilities so they can be involved in healthy activities to make them well-rounded individuals. Then they can say, ‘This weekend? Hmm, where do I start’”.

The Economic Boom: Our Second Chance!

2005-09-27T04:25:00.000-07:00

In the early 20th century, during the British colonial rule of Egypt, an Egyptian suddenly decided to establish the first national bank. He was motivated by a moving experience. An Egyptian farmer was crying in shame, anger and sorrow because the British bank tricked him. Typically, they gave him a loan, drove the cotton price down and confiscated his land for payment. Now, he was going to work as a laborer in his ancestor's land.
Young Talat Harb decided then and there to establish Misr Bank. Many laughed at him. He proved them wrong.
Within a couple of decades, Misr's Bank sat up 28 Egyptian companies producing everything from cotton dresses to heavy industries. They went into every field from hypermarkets for local products to Cinema for local movies, to sea, air and land transportation.
In addition, the bank helped starting and supported sixty more businesses in all kind of production and service fields.
The bank trained and maintained a competent and competitive professional Egyptians work force. Not only Talat Harb Basha suprvised them during work hours, but he also insisted that as representatives of the bank they must well behalf in their private lives. He would fire anyone who mistreated his wife or stole his neighbors. The bank's image had to be upheld at all times.
When the British forced him out, Misr Bank was worth more than two billion Egyptian pounds. He commented: "They could fire me but they can't fire the professional generation this nation now has."
Many Arab banking pioneers were inspired by this example. In Saudi, Salem bin Mahfouz, founded the National Commercial Bank to break the "economic colonialism" in his country, as he explained to the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, King Abdulaziz. He sat up companies, built low-rent flat blocks, and supported hundreds of factories, farms and businesses. The bank played the role of the Central Bank before it was sat at a later stage.
Suleiman and Saleh Alrajehi started, like bin Mahfouz, from the bottom. They well understood the needs and aspirations of their nation and business environment. Their bank was more like a holding company of specialized units. They entered the fields of modern agriculture, poultry, manufacturing and marketing, among many others.
In addition to supporting businesses, those pioneers helped their people. Charity works accounted for as much as third of their fortunes, with billions sat aside for helping the poor and underprivileged.
In the beginning of the 20th century, Mohammad Ali Xenel sat up a network of schools. Not only providing free education, he also supported the poor students' families and sent the best to India to pursue higher studies. In the sixties, Sheik Abdullah Al-Suliman donated million of acres of his land, including his palaces and farms to support the establishment of King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah. Sheik Abu Bakar Bakhashab was first to support the project with a million Riyal donation, a fortune by the standards of those days.
Today, fewer people act and think the same way. Tall among the best is Mohammad Abdulatif Jameel. He, alone, put up 100 million riyals to establish pioneering schools, services and funds. Hundreds of poor women are getting micro financing of up to a thousand riyal to start small businesses individually and in small groups. Young girls and boys are taking training courses in untraditional courses for Saudis like food catering, hair dressing, fashion design, event management, and car maintenance. Others are sent aboard to study in prestigious universities like Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Oxford and Cambridge. Before they graduate, Jameel finds them secured jobs in and outside his group.
Abdulrahman Fakeeh is another shining example. His free training schools are focused on modern tools like computer and languages, as well as traditional like farming and poultry. After graduation students are free to work for him or anywhere else, without any strings attached.
The same can be said of charitable business groups, lik Alkherieji, Alamodi, Bin Mahfouz, Xenel, Bin Laden, Aljaffali and Bugshan.
There must be many others working in silence. But the percentage is too small, the help insufficient, and the philosophy rapidly changing. Banks today are more concerned with fueling consumerism than nurturing small businesses. Most investors prefer to make easy money by building malls, importing and selling consumer goods, and providing services and entertainment. Productive businesses that provide good paying jobs and reform the economy attract fewer investors.
Charity is less smart, focused and directed towards sustainable help, such as training, cottage industry and productive families. Investment venues are hardly enough to absorb more than 500 billion riyals in private bank accounts alone.
We blew our first economic boom of the late seventies, and need to dramatically change strategy, philosophy and attitude before we blew our second chance.

Arab Leaders and How They Treat Public Criticism

2005-09-15T03:22:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,

ARAB officials are not used to any sort of criticism, especially in public, and don’t tolerate open debate about their performance.

Now and then, I have off-the-record conversations with Arab leaders of various levels in the public and private sectors. Most are unelected.

I ask them: Why don’t they allow intellectual, peaceful dissent and free discussion of ideas and thoughts? They have the power to pick and choose among proposals; so why the imposed silence and unilateral governance?

Their rationale goes like this: Talk to me respectfully and I’ll listen and consider. Do that in public and you put me in a serious dilemma. If I respond positively, I admit to having made mistakes and you take credit and steal the victory. Worse, by relenting to your demands, I show weakness. You can’t run a business, let alone a country like that.

Besides, in our culture, you don’t humiliate your leader, be it a father, a boss, a sheikh or a president. We shouldn’t copy less respectful societies in this regard.

Eastern societies are different. We don’t go around smearing the image of our heads and expect them to take it kindly. Of course leaders get angry; they are only human. Of course they punish offenders; they have prestige, security and unity to protect. Wrong approaches deserve bad receptions.

If you are sincere, then don’t make a scene. If public interest is your goal, come and talk to me in private. Let me take the credit for doing the right thing. It won’t hurt you, but makes me stronger. However, if it is fame, political gain or any other self-interest you are after, I won’t allow you to gain it at my expense. I will fight you to the bitter end. And you will most likely lose, because I have the muscles and you are toothless.

An Arab public official may add: Make a noise and you might get the outside world’s attention. Some foreigners might take up your cause. Western officials might call on your behalf. This helps me prove you are an agent and traitor. Human rights organizations might protest. Pressure may mount. But it is up to me to set you free. And if I do, I could make your life miserable. You can live outside prison, but the whole country will be your jail. The difference is: I pay your expenses inside, but make sure you are not able to pay them outside. Your call! Your choice!

In response I say: “Those with tight chests and short breaths are not good for leadership,” as an Arab proverb says. If you are so sensitive and thin-skinned, be kind enough to leave the headache for those who are not. You are right to be offended if critics were intruding into your personal affairs that don’t affect your job performance. But if people are criticizing, demanding or advising on issues that concern their well being, then you ought to listen, respect and accept.

Say we are a traveling group. We choose you as our organizer and treasurer. You start acting without our authorization, slipping your gambling loses into the budget or changing our travel plans. Isn’t it our right to raise concerns and objections, present suggestions and proposals and call into review your administrative performance? Why do we have to come, one by one, in private, to discuss such issues with you? Why can’t we debate them among us all? And why is no one but you entitled to take credit for our achievements and proposals?

Most disasters in the history of mankind were caused by dictators. Good governance requires teamwork. No one person, no matter how brilliant, decent and strong, can successfully lead for long without decision sharing. Be it a family, small business, sports team or nation, people need and must take part in the managing of their own affairs.

Systems differ, but the basics are the same. Mechanisms may be tailored to suit different cultures and environments, but they all pursue the same goal — public participation in the decision-making process.

Ordinary citizens must have the divine, constitutionally protected right to voice their opinions publicly or privately without fear of persecution, isolation or retaliation. They should be entitled to expect respectful and systematic responses to their questions, interaction with their proposals, and addressing of their concerns.

Some agree with such logic — intellectually. The problem is, when we talk we are all men of principles. When we act, we are chasers of benefits. Without any protecting, overriding and correcting mechanism, leaders will always pursue their own interests — first.

Is Corruption Curable?

2005-09-04T08:06:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

“Framing” is a dangerous art. You can give a horrible thing a good name and make it look good. With the right media tools, you can sell it to the masses. A good lie, repeated long enough, convinces even the liars themselves.
Worse, lies in time become norms. The rules change to accommodate. And new generations know no better or different. The social evolution alters its ways accordingly, and what was immoral in the past, becomes acceptable and even ethical.
Take for example “corruption” in the Arab world.
Bribe is now called “commission.” The rationale goes like: Life became costly. What was regarded a decent life in the good old days is now poverty. Salaries, especially in the public sector, are meager. You need to think of your family and dependents. Good accommodation and private schooling cost a fortune. Every one is doing it; why not me?
Corruption is universal, but in degrees. Ours is one of the worst. This reminds me of a funny — and telling story.
Once, an Arab minister was invited to Japan. His Japanese counterpart took him on a city tour. He noted that most Japanese live in small apartments. Later, he was invited to lunch with the Japanese minister and was awed to see his spacious villa. “How could you afford this on your salary?”
The Japanese asked him to look out the window. “Do you see that bridge?” he whispered. “I got 10 percent commission on the project.”
Years later, the Japanese came to visit his Arab friend. On a city tour he noted that many people lived in shantytowns, if not homeless. He visited the minister’s home, and found it a palace. He couldn’t resist asking how come. The Arab minister didn’t need to whisper what is common knowledge. Do you see that bridge? He asked proudly. The Japanese couldn’t see anything. “Of course,” the Arab explained, “I took 100 percent commission on it!”
True, corruption is universal, but in our Arab world it is cancerous. Billions are spent on development but most go to private Swiss accounts. Few are brought to justice or even exposed. Little is done for the average man. Meanwhile, the ships of civilization are steaming ahead in all seas and oceans, while ours are sinking. Something has to be done if we ever hope to survive the storms of the New World Order where no economic or political barriers are allowed. So, is corruption a curable disease or a hopeless case? If we can fix it, then how and where to start?
This is a long story with so many variables. Some diseases are more curable than others. The longer you wait, the harder it gets; the stronger the medicine, the faster the recovery. But first, you need to know, acknowledge and be committed. Without knowing the extent of your problem you can’t appreciate it. Without acknowledging the seriousness of the disease and the urgent need to cure it, you are not prepared. And without commitment you might start but not finish, take some steps and leave some, get mixed results, no results or make it worse.
Our corruption is cancerous but curable. It will take lots of effort, plenty of headache, and tons of commitment. Once we decided we had enough, we can think up the right systems, procedures and safeguards that deal with cases, causes and symptoms.
When the Mafia polluted America in they early 20th century, the police, laws and courts were powerless, and often too corrupted to fight it.
In response, a committed US government came up with new solutions. They put new laws, created special task forces, and reinvented the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). From a small group of investigators within the Department of Justice in 1908, the bureau grew up to become a formidable force with (to a large extent) incorruptible agents. They took on organized crime, with the support and backing of a committed government, and achieved great successes.
The story was replayed in the sixties when the Kennedy administration gave full authority and support to Attorney General Robert Kennedy to break up the Mafia structure, and he did — to a great extent.
What I am driving at is: It is possible to cure a disease like corruption if we research it, acknowledge it, and sincerely decide to fight it. If there is a will, there is always a way.
Most important, though, we should start from the top down. Catch the sharks before the crap. And make it a holy rule that no one is above the law. Otherwise, it is going to be like in the Communist and Baath regimes, the fat cats swallow it all while the rest dies of malnutrition!

Reforms? Where? How Fast?

2005-08-28T10:50:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,

How far and how fast we go down the road of reforms is an open question in all Saudi political, intellectual and social circles. Most believe in reforms.
A minority is not hot for change. Since they are happy with the way it is, they insist all be as happy. Unfortunately, many are influential in all above circles.
In the reform camp, we are of two minds. Some believe in speed, others advocate slow progress. Speeders disagree on where to go fast and where to slow down, or even halt. Economic reforms might top the agenda for some, but they might not stand for social reforms, such as women and minority rights.
Others, especially in intelligentsia and academia, advocate democratic and personal freedoms and rights first. They would like to see the glass ceiling that prevents many parts of society from rising above certain level broken. They’d like to see the divide between sexes, races and economic classes brought down. Education and legal reforms are priority, too. Then comes other kind of reforms like that in the investment and business sectors.
For me, all these issues should be given the same level of attention. Reforms should go in parallel and packages. You can’t fight corruption without free press. You don’t get to the moon without good education. Citizens who don’t feel they belong won’t give you their best.
They need an environment of trust and fairness. They want to identify with the rest of us. They demand the same treatment regardless of race, gender and ideology under the rule: What you know and do, not who you know or are that matters. In short, reforms are trains not cars. Trains don’t go one carriage at a time. On board you receive as much as you give. No one is left behind, and no one is given the red carpet without paying first for the privilege.
I had a debate lately with an advocate of slow progress. “Democracy took over 400 years to take hold in the ‘mother of modern democracy,’ England, since the sealing of Magna Carta in 1215 to the issuing of the Bill of Rights in 1689. Let’s at least have a breathing space of 40 years,” he suggested.
I asked him: How come we didn’t need that much time to catch up with the rest of the modern world in other aspects of civilization? Why didn’t we wait forty years to make use of its modern tools and sciences? That is because human knowledge is an accumulative project. We don’t rediscover the wheel in every civilization. We build on each other’s achievements, block over block. And we start from where the others ended.
“But democracy is a social revolution. You open your doors to its winds and may end up with a hurricane that brings down the temple. Going slow is the surest way to reach your destination without an upheaval like the French or the American Revolution, and now the Iraqis’ sudden jump to the turbulent high seas of democracy. We are a deeply conservative society rooted in certain ways of governance, from family to tribe to nation. We need ample time to change.”
I remind him that in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his caliphs, we had more democracy than most Arab countries do today. More recently, King Abdul Aziz in the 1920s gave us fully elected and authorized Shoura, regional and municipal councils. If our Arab culture could absorbs democracy then, why not now? Thanks to education and modern communication, we are ready. Check discussions on the Internet and satellite TVs and meet people in the street to see how far they are enlightened. Let’s not forget that more than 70 percent of our population is below thirty.
They expect more than what’s on offer. And their expectations should be met, at least in their lifetime.
He countered: “Just look around you! Arab countries who claim to be democratic are dictatorships, poor and backward.”
But theirs is fake democracy, I reminded him. The Iraqi Parliament under Saddam had never represented the people. The same could be said of many Arab and regional democratic experiments.
But when there are real, sincere ones, like that of Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, Kuwait, Bahrain, and now Saudi Arabia, you can see it is working. They might not be perfect, comprehensive or advanced, by Western standards, but they’re certainly sure and steady steps in the right direction. What we need today is more, faster steps on the road of democracy, freedom, equality and reforms. We need to open up to the world we live in, educate ourselves of its ways and tools, connect and ... belong.

Our Preachers in the 21st Century

2005-08-27T05:55:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,

Traveling thousands of miles, a man once carried a question from the city of Kufa in Iraq to Madinah. This was during the Umayyad era. On arrival, he wouldn’t rest before meeting one of the greatest scholars of his time, Alhasan bin Sereen. The question was: Does the mosquito blood invalidate wudhu (pre-prayer wash)?
The scholar was astonished: Can you believe these people? They kill the Prophet’s grandson Al-Hussein and worry about the blood of a mosquito!
This is exactly the trouble with religious extremists, then and now. They are like the fishnet of the law.
It tends to catch crabs and let the sharks get away. They may get concerned about a mosquito’s blood, but not the blood of river they caused with their illegitimate jihad. They worry about the way a sheep is slaughtered, but not how an innocent hostage’s throat is severed.
They cry foul when a hate preacher is deported from London, but demand prison for a Christian resident for leading a peaceful Sunday prayer in their country. They accuse the Shiites of deviating from the Sunnah “path” of the Prophet (peace be upon him) without following his example in more substantial matters.
Take, for example, the Friday sermon. The Prophet used to give a short, peaceful, nonpolitical one. Many imams, nowadays, give an hour-long of shouting lectures. When I reminded one of the Prophet’s ways, his response was typical: “Muslims today need more enlightenment.”
But what about the old, sick and busy of us? Didn’t the Prophet censure an imam for reading long surahs of the Qur’an in his prayers?
Besides, what can you say in an hour that you cannot summarize in half?
Mostly, it is repetition and mumbling about social decadence, youth’s deviance from the true path, and Zion-Crusaders’ conspiracies.
Don’t we get enough of this stuff from the media to have more in a day of reflection, peace, rest and celebration?
My imam didn’t like what I said, and accused me of being a Western loyalist betraying Islam. Some believed him.
Now, I am not saying we shouldn’t be concerned with such social and political issues. I write about them myself. But to limit our scope to a small number of problems that are symptoms of larger ones, and neglect more pressing issues is not right.
Satellite TV’s obsession with belly dancing and its negative influence on viewers is a valid concern. But the answer is to call for an alternative programming that balances the needs of the here and the hereafter, like that of Almajd, Iqra and Almanar channels, not to outlaw satellite dishes. Our youth needs exciting options, if we are to shut down the seductive ones. Before we prohibit a desirable road, we should provide a reasonable detour.
We should also discuss other important issues, such as domestic violence, women and minority rights, racism, foreigner bashing, political reforms and a host of other social, cultural and economic concerns. Here is more: Our education needs a lot of fixing.
The economy is long in cash flow, short in investment venues. Our nation is young. Most of us are below thirty-five. Many can’t find a place in universities.
Too many are unemployed, untrained and unarmed with modern tools for the increasingly sophisticated, competitive and demanding job market.
While we complain about the presence of seven million expatriates, most of our seven million women are kept at home. They lack proper training, welcoming environment, family encouragement and social support. They can’t study, work, travel or even have urgent surgery without male permission. They can’t even drive.
Just imagine if thousands of enlightened imams discussed such issues at least once a week! Ours is a conservative society, and we listen to our preachers more than intellectuals and teachers.
If we assign good imams from all schools of thought (there are 3000 mosques in Jeddah alone), they could lead the whole nation to a better present and more promising future.
But first, we should review, study and carefully observe the qualifications and attitudes of existing imams, religious educators and preachers. If needed, we should re-educate, reorient and enlighten the willing. Those who insist on their Dark Ages ways should keep their thoughts to themselves.
It is a different world now, and we need different mentalities to cope with its challenges. A system to monitor mosques and imams is already in place, training courses are now available, and the laws to deal with the situation are being enacted. What is urgently needed is for the Ministry of Islamic Affairs to rigorously implement them ... now.

The Trouble With Thomas Friedman

2005-08-14T08:39:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,

When I was a student in the US, The New York Times and Thomas Friedman were my favorite read.
The distributor wouldn’t accept subscription in the area I lived in of Eugene, Oregon, so I had to “find” the paper every single day. Sometimes I had to travel all over town to get a copy.
I told Friedman that I was fan of his when I met him here in Jeddah and then in Washington. But that was three years ago. Since then, Friedman changed a few lanes that surprised even his colleagues in some Washington press circles, as I was told by some in Washington. He lost their and my confidence and loyalty as a result. We have good reasons.
Take for example Friedman’s stand on Iraq war. For months he was admirably moral in his insistence that this was a war of choice not necessity. He rightly warned the US administration of the illegality of a war based on unproved accusations. Time proved him right.
However, when the war tide became overwhelming, he suddenly changed lanes and took the opposite direction. Just before the invasion, he was advising on what to do after what he thought would be an easy war.
Some of his advices were valid and wise, but it shocked me and many of his admirers that he was now validating and approving the invasion.
Friedman is a crusader. He designs a mission for himself, and then keeps hammering on the issue forever.
Lately, he has become obsessed with lowering US dependence on Middle East oil, especially from Saudi Arabia. His rationale goes like this: Let’s punish those “medieval” nations for supporting “terrorism”, and force them to reform. Rich dictatorships tend to resist reform and support terror. Make them poorer and they will embrace Western democracy, America, the West and — of course — Israel. Poverty will make Saudis more educated, market-oriented, worldly, and less religious.
There are other domestic rationales of course, like making America greener, but that it is about less oil consumption, not dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
Friedman wrote extensively and repeatedly about another of his obsession — globalization. His books “The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization,” and the latest best-seller, “The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century,” is about, among other things, how it is becoming impossible to differentiate American from foreign products. You buy a computer and it is half-made in China, half-collected from different parts of the world, and sold with US logo. I agree. And I like Friedman’s stand that this is a reality we have to embrace and make the best use of.
But then he turns around and tells us that he could differentiate between Saudi oil and other oils sold in the open world market. To the best of my knowledge, they are all black!
Like cocoa, rubber and gold, oil is a global commodity. Producing countries sell it to international oil traders.
Those in turn sell it in the open market. Other traders, petrochemical companies and refineries buy it and resell it raw and manufactured.
These products may be sold as they are to consumers or used as feeders to make more sophisticated products.
So you may boycott a chocolate coming from a certain Swiss producer, but you cannot boycott cocoa.
The same can be said about all other basic natural products. International oil companies, who are mostly Americans, own or eat the greatest chunk of this cake.
The world is becoming one big hypermarket that mixes all things and sells to global citizens, as Friedman would say defending outsourcing to India, and free trade with China. Why it is a different story when it comes to Saudi oil?
Besides, who, with a straight face, would claim that poverty produces reformers and democrats, security and technology, but Friedman? If so, why democracy and scientific achievements thrive mostly in richer nations? Why wars are made on and in poorer countries? Why security is a privilege for richer neighborhoods like LA’s Beverly Hills not as much for poorer districts like New York’s Harlem? And why most graduates from elite schools come from richer families?
According to Friedman’s earlier views, the secret of Arab radicalism in recent years is severe unemployment and general poverty. If that is the case, how could a poorer Middle East make better, more sophisticated, civilized and secured neighborhood? With post-9/11 Friedman’s lane-changing, Israel-first attitude, one doesn’t have to wonder much. In his Saudi bashing and Israel serving, at least he is consistent.

Never Far Away From the People

2005-08-07T01:50:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,

I was asked in a live TV show to highlight the best achievements of late King Fahd and the merits of King Abdullah. It was difficult to summarize, but I tried.

I said: The best title for King Fahd’s era is “infrastructure building.” Internally, he built great networks of roads, communication, schools, universities, civil institutions and public services. The holy cities of Makkah and Madinah witnessed the greatest expansion and development in history. Internationally, he built a great economic and political infrastructure that enhanced the country’s standing, influence and prestige. He initiated the first Arab peace offer to Israel in 1982, Lebanon’s Peace Agreement that ended its long civil war, and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Whenever we needed political backing, it was readily availble, like during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The king took a courageous stand, then, by calling on foreign help and a respectful and grateful world obliged.

Before I talked about King Abdullah, my time was up. Here is what I wanted to say: I met the then Prince Abdullah for the first time around 1982. He invited a group of journalists to attend the National Guards annual training, and I was lucky to be among them.

We were waiting for him at the VIP language at Riyadh airport. When he arrived he wholeheartedly and humbly apologized for being late and presented his valid excuse. Then he went around shaking hands in highly friendly and charming spirit with everyone, including a teenage reporter, like me.

Later, in the desert camp, we experienced more of his unique merits.

He was very open and simple, talking to locals, eating and sipping coffee with them, and discussing everything from the weather to personal needs. They called him by the first name or Abu Miteb (father of Miteb) or ibn Abdul Aziz, (son of Abdul Aziz). The journalists rode a school bus, and were supposed to follow the prince’s four-wheeler. But the Bedouins wouldn’t respect this order. They came, with their dusty pickups, between our car and his. In camps, they jumped before us and took the best seats. We, the official guests, had to sit in the back or stand around. When I asked why security wouldn’t organize that, I was told the prince would hate to upset them.

Once I came late, and all the spaces around the prince were taken, so I sat in the empty place next to him. This was supposed to stay available to unexpected senior guests. Many were surprised at my daring move, but the prince was not. To show all that it was OK, he started talking to me about the weather. He said: I smell rain, can’t you? I asked: How can he tell? He smiled his fatherly, loving, encompassing smile and explained: The air is wet, you know! He should know. A Bedouin at heart, he is never away from the desert or the people.

A Yemeni office boy told me once: (I used to visit Prince Abdullah regularly. One evening, he was sitting in the garden with some visitors. I saw him from where I stood at the gate, and tried to get in. The guard refused to let me in. This was private, he said, and advised me to come later for the prince’s open “majlis.” Abu Miteb saw that and hurriedly came to greet me. He told the guard never to treat his guests this way again. That night he sat me beside him. At the dinner table he was cutting meat and putting food on my plate. And when I left, his secretary gave me double the amount I used to get as princely gift. I am but a poor, old man, with many kids. I won’t take a blow for anyone, but I’ll take a bullet for him.)

I wasn’t surprised to hear that story, it was one of many. When we were in the desert camp I saw him treating poor, simple people like kings. I saw him serving his guests and filling their plates with food himself. And I witnessed how he was giving more attention to the less expecting, like the young journalist I was. I would take a bullet for him, too.

May Allah have mercy on King Fahd’s soul, and help King Abdullah to take us to higher flights on the same path his father and brothers led us on. There is a lot to be achieved and 14 million Saudis — men and women, young and old, Sunni and Shiites — are ready to help achieving it.

Terrorist Attacks: Where Is the Outrage?

2005-07-31T05:49:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,

An American friend protested once: If Muslims really are against terrorism why don’t I hear strong condemnation coming from every direction — religious leaders, intellectuals, media and all?
Recently, he called again surprised at the level of outrage against the London attacks and wondered: There are more brutal ones in Iraq, why only London you care about?
He meant to say: I understand the sympathy with Sharm El-Sheikh and Egypt, but the English standing in the Muslim world is supposed to be just like that of ours. Both countries invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. They are closest allies in the “war on terror.” Why the difference in treatment?
I explained to him what he probably already knew: Media is about new, amazing and shocking news. The terrorist attacks on London and Sharm El-Sheikh fit the bill. The story in each case was huge, surprising and new. It was more of one big fireball, rather than small and similar flashes. This is the problem with the Iraqi terrorist attacks — they are all the same. Just like the stories that streamed from the world’s troubled areas, like during the civil wars in Lebanon, Sudan, Congo, Nicaragua, Bosnia and Kosovo. Unless you have a new angle or dimension, they taste like old news.
During the Vietnam War, international media, including the American, was not as interested in reporting daily events as they were in the beginning. Yes, when there was a shocking new story, like the aerial bombardment of North Vietnam, the reports were front page. No one was as much interested in daily skirmishes.
During the first Gulf War between Iraq and Iran, I remember how the news made front-page headlines. Months later, it started getting slimmer and withdrawing to inside pages.
People get used to repeat bad news. They become numbed and start to care and feel less about them. The first murder crime in a neighborhood might get people talking for a long while.
But in a dangerous neighborhood were crimes are daily affairs, no one talks about them as much. This is basic human nature.
My friend wasn’t totally convinced. He knew better. As he suspected, I wasn’t telling the whole story. Maybe because it was long and complicated. Maybe, I was in a hurry. And maybe I was self-defending.
Here is the rest of the story. The situation in Iraq is much more complicated than in London. Here, we have occupying powers that invaded a sovereign country under false pretexts. Occupation, as history of nations testifies, produces resistance. Resistance generates retaliation. The vicious cycle goes on and on, along with all the resulting resentments, mistrust and hatred from both sides. Such negative thinking about the “enemy” makes the heart colder, morality confused, and emotions mixed. Yes, people get upset when some of their own get killed in the crossfire, but they usually blame it on the other side, especially if it was the one who started it.
I am not trying to justify the muted reaction in the Muslim world to the mayhem in Iraq, but only to analyze and explain.
As for my own stand, here it is: I feel that the best for the Iraqis now is to continue their democratic reforms and nation-building. Only when they manage to rebuild their civil and security infrastructure, they may demand gradual withdrawal of foreign forces.
My stand is based on cool reasoning, not hot emotions. Public opinion is not always based on rational thinking. The French and Dutch said no to the EU Constitution for emotional reasons. Many didn’t even care to read it. They feared for the future, they were angry with their own governments and politicians; many were unemployed and poor. They said no to that more than to the constitution.
In the fog of war, accurate and objective intelligence is as hard to get as water in a desert hell. Information tends to be colored and biased. Emotions cloud reasons. Anger poisons perception, decisions and stands. As a result, the public, via the media and the rumor factory, gets a much-skewed picture of what is going on. This explains the different reactions to seemingly similar events. There are no easy answers to difficult questions. I hope my American friend is reading this right now. I hope this time I fully answered his valid, but tough questions. And I hope he would appreciate, accommodate, and understand!

Expatriate Workers and Us!

2005-07-24T03:25:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi

“You don’t know how it feels to be a foreigner in this country, unless you live like one. It is unbearable!” said my Arab scuba diving trainer. I was shocked and since then, I have become more sensitive and observant. Sad to say, he was right. I tell you why.

Before the oil boom of the late ’70s, we lived more like a normal society. We had our rich, middle class and poor, Saudis and non-Saudis, educated and less educated. Mostly, we lived in harmony.

I remember those days with fondness because of all my schoolmates who came from all over the world, Arabs and non-Arabs. It didn’t matter then who came from where. In fact, we were fascinated by the stories students from India, Africa and other Arab countries told us about their homelands.

I remember how my Egyptian friends were proud of the land of the Nile and great pyramids, and the wonderful picture they made of Cairo, the heart of the Arab world. I remember my Eritrean friend when he insisted with an edge of anger and pride that we pronounce his homeland’s name correctly. And I remember all the stories I heard from my Iraqi teacher and my father’s Jordanian and Yemeni, Lebanese and Pakistani friends about their countries and heritages.

In the society I lived in before the oil boom, we were more in tune with all the others. My American and English neighbors, boys and girls, played with me and my Arab friends in the streets and visited me at home.

I still remember, with fondness, an old American friend I used to sit with for hours every afternoon discussing politics and religion. I was a child then with limited English vocabulary, but he was kind enough to discuss such serious issues with much patience and respect. I enjoyed and learned a lot from my dialogue with him and my Christian Lebanese neighbor who rented with her husband and kids half our house.

Those golden days are by and large gone now. The boom showered us with lots of money, prestige and pride. Within few years our society changed a lot. The “rich-middle-class-poor” divides were now gone. The ladder to the roof became an elevator. One day you hardly survive. The next morning your old, crumbling home is sold for millions and you can employ the same people who employed you.

Foreigners came in their millions. Most worked in labor jobs Saudis no longer desired. Lazy generation, accustomed to maids and servants, ruled. Newly enriched and empowered parents and society taught them that: We should act like kings. We are the chosen ones and the rest of the world is here to serve us. We owe them nothing but salaries and they owe us gratitude, loyalty and respect. With our cash we could buy the world, and no one could ever be good enough to buy us.

Capitalism, consumerism, materialism, and other ills of modern times are now our ills too. What you wear, ride and use in your daily life became a measure of your worth.

This also applies to the others. Foreigners from poorer parts of the world do not enjoy the same respect and admiration we give citizens from richer and more advanced countries. Westerners, for example, enjoy much more privileges than Easterners and Africans, including most Arabs, except from the richer Gulf region.

I believe the mentality that governs our complex relations, official and private, with our guest workers and outsiders is in a great part a product of this set of materialistic measurement of people’s worth. A European is given much more respect and work compensation than Easterners with similar or better qualifications. An Irish nurse, for example, is treated like a queen, while a more qualified Arab, Indian or Filipino is not.

Other influential factors are ideological, cultural, educational and racial. In sharp contradiction to Islamic teachings, some extremists managed to ideologically justify their sense of “unjustified” superiority. I read a book of a senior Islamic scholar who glorified the super pure Arab race of the Arabian Peninsula. He concludes that we should not marry from other races lest our noble blood mixes with the less worthy. I wrote in response that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) married a non-Arab, a Christian and a Jew. Does that mean his children are less pure than yours? The Sheikh never answered in public, but tried to meet in private. I refused.

What Options Do We Have?

2005-07-17T07:47:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,

When the TV show “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” hit Arab TV screens it was enormously popular. A major reason, in my opinion, was the show gave options. For an Arab nation that has been deprived of the right to choose, it was refreshing and exciting.

As a child, I was taught to accept what is taught and given without protest. You eat what is on the table, dress like everyone else, go with the family where the elders choose to, study in the school you are put in. In class and mosque you don’t ask questions, except for clarification.

Teachers and preachers tell you exactly how it is, and you got to believe. The books are similar. They echo what you learn from media, education and religious institutions — the same message, different messengers. To succeed you learn to follow instructions, memorize texts, and stay “in line”.

At home and in social gatherings, kids listen and learn but are not allowed to speak up or argue. The wise ones are the silent, because “if talk is silver, silence is golden.”

Fathers, tribal sheikhs, teachers, preachers, and leaders don’t have to explain their instructions if they choose not to. “The sheikhs know better,” is another golden rule.

My father was an intellectual who gave me the right to think for myself, but I was careful not to embarrass him in public. When he was not around, I did ask hard questions.

When I went to British and American schools, the quality of being “maverick” worked well for me. Teachers appreciated my questioning nature and encouraged my independent thinking. Not so in some immigrant Arabic settings.

Elders in the small Arab community of Eugene, Oregon, were groomed in our culture before they immigrated to the West. They expected respect and obedience. Questions were allowed but they had to be “polite.” Rude questions implied you didn’t believe or subscribe to their school of thought or they were wrong or mistaken. What options do I have, then? I kept asking myself all my life, and especially these days.

We don’t choose what paths our countries are heading to, what doctrine our systems are based on, what curriculums we study, what “madhabs” we follow, and what fatwas we accept. Try going your own way and you are in for trouble. Conformity is holy, and those who don’t conform pay a price. They will be ostracized.

A writer called recently for a referendum on women driving. I told him that the majority has no right to deprive the rest of us of our human rights. Women may decide to cover their face because they subscribe to a certain school of thought or follow certain traditions. That’s their right. But when they try to impose it on others they infringe on their rights. The same can be said about working and studying in a mixed environment. There are people who believe they should be more conservative than others. We disagree on that, but respect their stand. What we don’t accept is for them to enforce their choice on us.

Many believe we don’t need to teach English in elementary schools. That’s up to them and their kids. But it drives me crazy when they demand that no other kids take such classes.

What options do I have if I could only go to schools that teach the “one and only,” made-for-all curriculum? Why only foreigners can go to locally based international schools? Why followers of other madhabs can only study in our schools, try in our courts, and read our books?

Why can’t I read what I wish to read? Why people who belong to certain ideologies decide for the rest of us what books are allowed, even in academic libraries? Why can’t followers of other faiths practice their religions without let or hindrance? Don’t we do the same in their countries?

What we need in the Arab world is more choices, freedoms, and options. After decades of progress in education, the Arab nation is mature enough to decide for itself. Women and minorities can and should be allowed the basic human right of choosing what suit them, as long as it doesn’t contradict the standard rules of Islam as agreed by the Islamic Fiqh Council.

Without the freedom to choose we can never have the motives, space and environment for creativity.

Without creativity we will never be strong, independent and leading. In a deadly competitive world based on science and technology that’s a death sentence

Our Women vs. Our Image!

2005-07-10T10:53:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,

Women issues have always been hot buttons in Saudi Arabia, just as abortion is in America and immigration in Europe. You push a button and receive instant passionate responses. I wrote a couple of articles about women under stress and heard from so many.

Most respondents agreed with my position, some have interesting perspectives. Few Westerners sound like “how lucky we are to live in a civilized world. What a pity you don’t!” Muslims, especially women, are happy we opened the files, but some are concerned that the stigma might be attached to Islam rather than to misbehaving Muslims.

Saudis who appose my stands seem to be of two minds. No one justifies domestic violence. Many would readily recite Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) positions in women’s favor. But here the agreement ends. When it comes to women rights different cultures produce different stands. Tribal and rural traditions, for example, may contradict urban customs.

Take women driving, for example. Bedouin females do drive their cars, because their environment demands it. Urban women, on the other hand, are not allowed. No one claims Islam prohibits it. They do however cite fears and concerns that women driving may compromise Islamic and social values. Women, they say, need to be guarded all the time. Not only are they “treasures” and easy target that may be attacked by the wolves of this world, they are also weak creatures that can’t be trusted. The latter explains why many women are patronized at all stages of their lives. Like children, they maybe loved, adored and well taken care of, but not trusted to decide for themselves. Worse, some don’t trust a woman with emotions, ethics and character. They suspect that she would fall for all kinds of temptation, sexual, intellectual, material and otherwise.

Some of those people are religious. But when you tell them how women were treated in the era of the Prophet and the caliphs, they tell you those were different times. Corruption and modern temptations are rampant and one cannot be too careful. Why women? Because they are the heart of modern decadence. Look around you, they advise, and see how women are reduced to a sexual commodity. They would readily give you global rates of divorce, illegitimate children, rape and other forms of violence and exploitation. The only way to preserve our society and culture is to keep our women safe at home, they argue.

Other Saudis who disagree with my position would agree with them in private but are afraid of the stigma. They expect Western campaigns against Islam and Saudi Arabia would use such self-revelations and criticism to bolster their case and intensify their attacks. They readily argue that mistreatment of women is not a Saudi specialty and give you figures to show worse cases of abuse and exploitation in America and Europe. So, why us?

My Friend Ed, an American Jew, agreed: This category of human relations is not limited to Saudi Arabia; far from it. It exists in parts of the Western world as well, hidden and exposed. Slamming Islam is totally wrong and irresponsible; some folks enjoy each and every opportunity to belittle Muslims. This has been going on for centuries and we never seem to grow up and be respectful. However, the rights of women are integral to a humanistic society and this is a universal caveat. Nick, a British Middle East observer, disagrees: Argument about image and comparison is often heard in the region. In the US and Europe there is indeed the same problems. But they are discussed in the media; there are civil organizations to support women and very stringent laws against those men who abuse women. This is not an issue about image.

An American friend wrote: The problem of abusing women is indeed universal. What needs discussion is what are the protections available to women faced with abuse. Can a woman get a restraining order easily? Will the police come to her aid or hesitate to interfere in a family matter? Are there shelters waiting for her and her children if she has no family who will take her in? Are laws supportive of her right to live without abuse or do the laws encourage her husband (or father or brother) to blackmail her into remaining in a private hell to provide food, shelter and education for her children?

Many Saudi women are blessed with kind, loving, respectful husbands who know the value of a good woman, helpmate and foundation for the family. The question is where are the laws to protect those who don’t? My stand is: We should work on our problems without worrying about who thinks what of us. The fair and wise will know we are doing the right thing. The unfair and unwise will criticize us anyway. Meanwhile, half the population starves for justice.

Battered Wives and Women Under Stress

2005-07-04T01:54:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,

My last article “Justice for Women: Some Urgent Steps” generated many positive and passionate responses. Huda, my niece, for instance, decried the way countless women are denied marriage to men of their choice. They are pressured to marry relatives or from rich and well-connected families.

Too many parents ignore Islam’s instructions to let their girls choose. This is a symptom of how they regard women as incapable of deciding for themselves. A girl, they fear, would go for a handsome, romantic suitor rather than a solid man of character, achievement and position.

When life becomes hell for wives, they have to endure it because no one — judge and society — would accept their grounds for divorce. Psychological satisfaction is not good enough of a reason for separation in lots of courts of law and public opinion.

Many divorced women are brutally punished. They take most of the blame for the marriage’s failure. While a man, especially with no kids, can remarry a woman of his choice, his divorced wife hardly can. The stigma of being a divorcee limits her choices and timeline. In lots of cases, she goes from one prison to another. This and the risk of losing her kid’s custody force many abused wives to stay the course. A hell you know, they figure, is better than the one you don’t.

Needless to say, this should not be tolerated in an Islamic society. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, told us that the best of us are the kindest to their women. He set a great example in the way he treated his women with respect, love and kindness. His first wife, Khadija, was also his boss. His young wife, Aisha was his consultant in matters of politics and governance. We are supposed to follow his example to be Muslims, so why we don’t?

Here is a sample of the best response:

“As I read this, I thought of a young Saudi lady who has struggled with similar issues. Although she was fortunate to have a family who finally recognized the depth of her despair/abuse and allowed her to return home with the child, she now faces the stigma of being a divorced woman and the associated restrictions attached by society.

In particular, her movements are continually watched and she is under pressure to remarry another of any number of older suitors. One can only imagine the stress and duress she finds herself in at the moment on a daily basis.

Of course, when one considers a younger male of closer proximity in age and hopefully, more compatible in interests, problems arise there as well due to the stigma of “divorce”. Sadly, the girl feels the only freedom available to her is another marriage, but to whom?

Naturally, her experience has given her a level of maturity beyond her age — a maturity others of her age cannot even begin to comprehend. In essence, this young lady feels trapped by life’s circumstances.

There is so much more that Saudi society can do and give to their precious females — the benefits of which would be felt by all of society.

However, it will take many strong courageous voices standing together to be heard, and with the reminder that these humane changes are within Islam and present no moral degradation of society.

I tell my young friend that she is strong and that I pray for her to maintain her strength and courage to face life as it is before her. I encourage her to ensure that her actions always include her own prayers to seek guidance and strength from God. Although not related by blood, she became my daughter through a deeper kinship while I resided in KSA. My heart aches for her.” — Mary

“Domestic violence is a prevalent crime being committed against women not just in Saudi Arabia but in numerous Muslim countries. From the well known Mukhtaran Mai case in Pakistan to last year’s headlining case of Saudi Rania Al-Baaz to Karachi’s Dr. Siddiqi’s brutal assault and so many more DV cases against so many helpless women. We should be ashamed as Muslims for not speaking up against this! Women, specially caring and devoted mothers, are national treasures and future makers, as it is mostly under their nurturing new generations are made.” — Your Sister in Islam

“We just cannot keep quiet and let such “criminal acts” continue. Justice cannot be denied and severe punishments must be dealt to stop those who claim to be Muslims and abuse their wives. Prevalent violence against women is becoming a phenomenon that might turn into a habit if we don’t take appropriate actions.” — Khalid Al-Mutairi

I hear you sisters and brothers and pray the whole nation hears you and does something about this disgraceful phenomenon.

Justice for Women: Some Urgent Steps

2005-06-26T03:35:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,

Before I left home today, I was shocked to see our neighbor so broken. She was beaten hard by her drunken husband. He banged her head to the wall, knifed her hand, and used metal and wood sticks over all parts of her body. When she escaped, he followed her to the street. She was only saved when my family took her in.

Later in the day, the poor woman returned home for the sake of her three-year-old daughter.

What options does she have? I wondered. She could go to the police, but she might not be able to prove her case. If she could get through all the painful legal and security procedures that could go on for years, how could she and her little daughter survive? If divorced, she will be deported to Somalia, her poverty-stricken country.

Thousands of women are grilled in a harsh, unfair cultural and legal environment. A woman may escape but that would be a move from her family’s fire to society’s Hell.

A Saudi woman was refused once and again her man of choice. When she protested, her father threw her out and her uncle took her in. Both insisted she can’t marry an airline captain because he would be away most of the time.

With nowhere to go, she went back to her father and accepted the first suitor. As it turned out, he was an animal — rough, tough, and raw. He would see her unconscious on the ground and take her to bed to fulfill his desires, instead of calling for medical help. When she finally left home and walked mindless all over town till midnight, everyone assumed she ran with a boyfriend. She accepted all kinds of punishment on her return to her family but insisted she would prefer to die before she returned to her husband.

After divorce, she was put under virtual house arrest; denied marriage, education and even contact with her divorced mother for many years. No friends, visitors, parties or telephone calls were allowed. When the ban on marriage was finally lifted, she felt so scared that she might refuse suitors for fear of more nightmares with another heartless man.

She was luckier than others, though. Many women had to accept life of endless nightmares with abusing husbands for the sake of their kids, or because their families won’t take them back, or they can’t prove their case to biased male-dominated courts. A woman I know endured over ten years of torture to stay with her six children. When she couldn’t take it anymore, she filed for divorce and custody. Because she didn’t cover her face in court, the judge assumed she was unfit to raise them properly. He ruled that she could see them once a week, but her ex-husband invented all kinds of excuses not to let her. For years, she would wait in a car outside their schools and home just to see them going in and out. She finally had the ruling overturned and won custody. Without her rich and well-connected father, she wouldn’t have managed.

Another woman who fled with her kids from an abusing father found protection with a prominent family. After a long process, the court found that he did abuse his kids ... sexually. Another father was torturing his infant daughter. Her mother had to cover up because she had nowhere to go if divorced. Doctors refused her lame explanation and informed the authorities. Mother and daughter are now in a safe home while the investigation is going on.

Many mothers are blackmailed to drop their custody right for freedom. Overwhelmed courts are making it so difficult for poor and ignorant women to file for divorce, not to mention the difficulty of proving grounds for breakup. The few safe homes in major cities cannot cope with all cases. A free legal aid is just starting in Jeddah, and had yet to be readily available to women in distress.

Small steps and half measures are not enough. We need to discuss the whole issue of “women under stress” in an open national forum with women making half the participants. Major changes to the legal and court system has to be made. Safe homes, police protection, hotlines for help, easier access to legal aid, women sections in courts and — why not? — female judges are needed. We also need harsher and faster justice: An eye for an eye, longer prison terms, and larger compensation. These and other solutions will come up in such forums, and we must implement them not tomorrow, not today, but yesterday. It is high time for real justice for women.

Arab and Western Media Lies Revisited

2005-06-19T05:00:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,
kbatarfi@al-madina.com

My last article “Arab Media: Our Faith, Their Lies” generated many enlightening responses. Most comments came from Western readers who saw similarities between our and their “perception manufacturing” industries. It is no consolation to Arabs that established democracies are doing it, though. By most standards we are very much atop the list of the worst offenders together with the likes of North Korea and Zimbabwe.

Here is a sample of the best responses.

(What will happen to the perception manufacturing industry with a change of existing rule? If the change is to a democracy like the US, it will expand greatly and grow in sophistication. Here we refer to it as “spin-doctoring”. I know the grass always looks greener but, in reality, it’s never as lush up close as from afar. — Mario)

(I think we all need to understand that no form of government has a monopoly on telling lies. The US, for example, has consistently lied about its illegal Iraq war. And in this case, 100,000 (give or take a few) people paid for these lies with their lives. And even though those lies were well known in late 2004, the liars were re-elected.

What I am saying is that even in a well developed democracy, the opportunity to throw out evil and corrupt politicians doesn’t mean they will be thrown out. The political systems under which people live have nothing to do with the social acceptance of lies, corruption and deceit. For so many years, Americans have access to the web, e-mail services, hundreds of satellite news sources and cell phones that reach around the world. The same applies in the UK and yet Tony Blair and G. Bush were re-elected.

The fact is that lies, bold enough, told often and loudly enough, become truth because people want to believe what they are told by “leaders”. Reality is just as subject to being ignored in the US as it is in North Korea.

Secondly, no form of government, democratic or autocratic, is immune from manipulation. In America, the constitutional form of central government guaranteeing specific rights was recently modified to ensure that persons maybe arrested and held without charges by the president’s orders. The reason for this is to make sure that lies and deceit are backed by police authority. So the form of government has nothing to do with the telling of lies or the acceptance of lies.

And in the final analysis, as Chairman Mao said, political power comes from the barrel of a gun. — Bob)

(Of course we are the ones that take things for granted but other than that your story of what the Arabs have gone through over the years sounds strikingly similar to our own lives in America. There is hardly ever a connection to reality when you really look into a lot of facts.

To be frank with you, it felt good in 1967 when I was 17 and Israel fought five Arab nations. Of course we had our news skewed as yours, but here’s what happened in our minds back then: Little tough guys stood up to many big bad guys in a very bad place. To us, then and now, it has always been a war between good Israelis and bad Arabs.

But then there was the USS Liberty and a gradual realization that there has never been an Israeli Air Force pilot stupid enough to attack the ship by mistake much less more than once and by more than one plane.

Yes the nation of Israel does have far too much power here for ages. The Democrats suck at dealing with this problem and the Republicans are even worse.

If you read the story do you think the sailors were hallucinating when they thought they saw a conning tower? I don’t believe this in the least. If there was one under the USS Pueblo what do you think would be also around the USS Liberty?

Our soldiers went there to do a clearly assigned job for the US government but when it turned into a real problem for it they were written off then and now. As the facts finally began to come out at inconvenient time, everybody just shut up on them. Wouldn’t it be true irony if it had something to do with the “Patriot Act”?

It’s not over yet! — Bob USNR)

Yes, Bob. It is not over yet! The people, ours and yours, will have the final say ... someday!

Arab Media: Our Faith, Their Lies

2005-06-12T04:35:00.000-07:00

Dr. Khaled Batarfi,

When the “Voice of Arabs” radio told us triumphantly in the 1960s that Nasser’s Egypt had the strongest army in the region and could throw Israel in the sea if they choose to, we believed. When young, revolutionary, the Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi promised to be the unifier of the Arab world after the death of Nasser, we believed. When Baathists and Arab nationalists carried the “One Arab nation with eternal message” slogan, we believed.

Then came “Alnakbah” (the disaster) of June 5, 1967, when the one army of Israel destroyed not only the “mighty” Egyptian Army but also the Jordanian and Syrian. The Egyptian radio went on with the lies for days. According to the famous anchor Ahmad Said and his colleagues, the Israeli Air Force was losing tens of aircraft daily. This was when most Egyptian jet fighters were destroyed on the ground as though they were sitting ducks. The Egyptian media also claimed that American and British aircraft had joined the Israelis. Needless to say, all were sheer lies.

Many of us knew better afterward. Still, too many continued to believe, even today.

The Arab media kept telling us that all our troubles are due to Zionist conspiracies. They explained to us that we had to prepare for the liberation of Arab occupied lands. Sacrifices had to be made. Freedom, democracy, economic prosperity, good education and all kind of luxuries had to wait. Many believed. Many were skeptical. And as the wait got longer, the prison larger, the civilization gap with the rest of the world wider, more started to get skeptical. Resentment followed.

The new generation, born in a different world, was the most restless. They want to live like their peers in other parts of the world. Satellite TV, the Internet and other modern communication tools gave them an open, unfiltered window. They could see that what they lack others take for granted: Market-oriented training, secured, rewarding jobs, a wife and a home. Some expects even more: Travel, entertainment and (why not?) a car. They resent the military draft. They hate having to serve years in draconic conditions with little or no pay. It feels worse when they see that the rich and powerful can evade it.

The Arab conscious is getting more and more sophisticated and wise. The state media is not. They still sell the same lies and try their best to make us believe them. They want us to believe that some Arab leaders are re-elected because their nations have no better men or women for the job. Arab governments are doing like no other for their people. Our education is the best. Our democratic system is the envy of the world. Security is great not because most Arabs live under police regimes and emergency laws, but because of our wise, strong and honest leaders.

Besides, who said we are poor? Look at Somalia and Liberia and see how lucky we are! Better times are coming. We only need to be patient and work with the government to fight corruption and build a better society. Praise our leaders and pray for them to survive the challenges and win over the enemies and live long enough to get us all into heaven on earth. So don’t listen to the lies our enemies are spreading. Accusation of corruption, lousy management and nepotism are all baseless. Let’s stand together united with our leadership to prove to the envious world that we are truly one, united, strong Arab family.

Then came the Internet and Satellite TV. Then came CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeerah. Others followed and suddenly the truth can’t hide behind the smiley anchors’ faces anymore. The public eye and mind went past the newsroom curtain and the Dear Leader’s portraits to rich sources of information and explanations. So what the media answer would be?

Surprise, surprise! More lies, more going. No one believes? Who cares! There is a whole industry of perception manufacturing. Where would all these people go? How would this entire infrastructure be dismantled? Better leave things as they are, hoping somebody, somewhere still has faith.

Meanwhile, the elite will continue to benefit, the flaws will still be there, and the ship will go on sinking. The people’s knowledge of the truth will grow larger, their patience will get thinner, and the pot will be more and more boiling. The inevitable big bang will happen ... soon enough.