America should not withdraw from the peace process

PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL - Thomas Friedman is emphatic that America should withdraw from the Mideast peace process until Arab and Israeli attitudes soften. I disagree. America should deepen its involvement in peace-making and assume more responsibility than before. In the Middle East, America is not just a broker; Washington is a part of the solution and part of the problem. Israel did not become a regional superpower on its own. As a result, the United States has become joined at the hip to Israel. In a difficult regional environment, Washington is a guarantor of Israel’s security; reciprocally, Israel serves US strategic interests. Thomas Friedman oversimplifies. In a 7 November, New York Times op-ed, Friedman attributes the stalemate to a deficit in seriousness of the protagonists: “If the status quo is this tolerable for the parties, then I say, let them enjoy it. I just don’t want to subsidise it or anesthetise it anymore. We need to fix America. If and when they get serious, they’ll find us. And when they do, we should put a detailed US plan for a two-state solution, with borders, on the table”. The popular columnist is right to look for a paradigm shift for the peace process. However, the solution is not, as he suggests, in abandoning the mediation at a moment of despair. The Middle East conflict might explode if the United States suddenly abandons the scene of conflict resolution. Things are indeed worsening, even before the United States considers disengagement. Regional headlines are telling: President Abbas is threatening to resign. Netanyahu prevails on the settlements issue as Washington yields to the “Israel-first” lobby. Hilary Clinton regrets her praise of Netanyahu for his “unprecedented gesture” on limiting illegal construction on Palestinian land. The region’s public erupts with anger. Israel is mobilised to respond to a defiant and risk-averse Iranian regime, a provoked Hamas in Gaza and a re-mobilised Hizbullah in Lebanon. As the peace process stalls hope starts to fade. The voice of moderation in Palestine is discouraged and the voice of anger is rewarded. Abbas feels he has no peace partners in Israel and no support in the West. Since 1967, the Arab-Israeli conflict has gradually evolved into a complex Arab-Israeli- American problem. The United States has been involved in the Israeli occupation, its maintenance, its expansion and its rationalisation. The United States supplies Israel with phenomenal aid and military assistance. Washington protects Israel from criticism at the United Nations. Most Americans may not wish to be deeply involved in the region. But their government, business and religious leaders over the last four decades have been active in every aspect of life in Israel and in the wider Middle East. America is now also militarily involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not to say that the United States is to blame for all that has gone wrong in Israel and Palestine. Over the last few decades, Israel has shifted from seeking national security to establishing regional dominance. Fear fuels Israeli short-sighted politics and self-fulfilling prophecies. For their part, the Palestinians have diluted their secular approach to statehood by mixing their political struggle with religious symbols. Hamas, an “Islamic resistance” remains popular and powerful. The fundamentalist dimension in the Palestinian struggle has a growing impact on Jewish fear. The two sides of the conflict are divided, and their differences are deepening. Israel is split deeply on the rights of settlers. It is not clear how they can work out a Jewish state within a democratic framework. There is no plan on co-existence with Palestinians and on the viability of a Palestinian state. For Israelis, the future is not a pleasant subject. Divisions among Palestinians are pathetic. The Palestinians have two leadership systems, two governments and two geographical administrations. They are deeply divided on the role of religion in politics and on the nature of resistance. On the future of refugees there is no consensus or a realistic vision. It might be politically too risky for the president now to try harder than before to confront the Israel lobby. Understandably, President Obama would rather risk his re-election prospects on ambitious health reform and fixing the US economy than on twisting arms to recast the US role in the peace process. To enhance the Mideast peace prospects, America must engage as an equal partner in the search for a solution to the conflict, with full rights and responsibilities. Israel should acknowledge that its occupation of Palestinian territories negatively impacts both its own future security and the strategic interests of the United States. The three sides, America, Israel and the Arabs, must work out a win-win peace plan. When the United States participates in the peace process as a stake-holder, not simply as a convener, there will no more be a need to beg and cajole Israel or the Palestinians to be—as Friedman anticipates—more “serious”. ### Dr. Ghassan Rubeiz (grubeiz@comcast.net) is an Arab-American commentator on issues of development, peace and justice. He is the former secretary for the Middle East of the Geneva-based World Council of Churches. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Robertson: Islam not a religion

Palm Beach Gardens: Eccentric religious leaders are free to launch hate “missiles” across international borders. Media networks are totally free to spew provocative interfaith theology. The impact of unregulated religious propaganda on world peace, public diplomacy and ethical business practice is a question which merits serious debate.

The self-appointed champions of politically obsessed religious communities, be it Muslim, Christian or you name it, should realize that defending one’s people or one’s faith through gestures of hate ends up damaging one’s cause more than hurting the target.

On his TV station, on November 10, Reverend Pat Robertson condemned Islam and Muslims, in response to the Fort Hood massacre. Islam “is not a religion” he declared; it is a “violent political system”. He added that “we should treat it as such, and treat its adherents as such, as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group”.

If Robertson wishes to take violent politics out of religion, he better start within his own community. He and his fellow extreme Evangelicals are deeply involved in the promotion of war and territorial occupation in the Middle East.

What characterizes the politics of Robertson are anger and arrogance: passion for war, for power and for wealth, Armageddon culture-clash ideology, disdain for the United Nations and animosity for diversity of life-style and beliefs.

As a McCarthy disciple, Robertson’s commentary on Islam belongs to the Spanish Inquisition rather than to open society.

While Muslim Americans are searching for meaningful ways to express compassion for the families and friends of the victims of Fort Hood, and while authorities at the highest levels are calling for prudence during the investigation of this awful crime, some media outlets are helping the healing and others are not.

At this critical time of emotional disequilibrium in American society, Robertson’s tasteless and inflammatory statement on Islam trivializes compassion and inspiration and pours boiling oil on deep psychological wounds. As a fellow Christian, I find Robertson an embarrassment and a catalyst of conflict.

With a clash-culture strategy, Robertson is taking on the Muslim world, a fifth of the world’s population. The harm to American foreign policy caused by televangelical hate has not been assessed. If we wish to reduce wars and enhance communication across borders new standards of interfaith exchange must be identified.

House resolution indicates America remains solidly behind Israel

The Progressive

By Ghassan Michel Rubeiz, November 5, 2009

Congress needs to stop letting Israel get off easy for violating international law.

On Nov. 3, the House of Representatives voted to discredit a U.N. report that accuses both Israel and Hamas of war crimes in the three-week war last January. The House reflexively backed Israel by a vote of 334-36, with 22 abstentions.

This vote was as immoral as it was counterproductive.

The U.N. report is known as the Goldstone report, after its leader, Richard Goldstone, who is a South African judge with an impeccable reputation and an extensive experience in international criminal justice. Incidentally, Goldstone is of Jewish background; his record in support of Israel is solid.

On Sept. 15, he released his report, entitled “United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict.” Last month, the U.N. Human Rights Council endorsed it.

The report accused Israel of applying disproportionate force on Gaza and of not protecting civilian lives. Israel killed 1,400 people in the Gaza invasion, many of them civilians. During this invasion, 13 Israelis were killed.

The report also charged Hamas with unlawfully shelling rockets on civilian neighborhoods in Israel, actions designed to create terror.

But this was not good enough for the House. Its resolution called on the president and the secretary of state “to oppose unequivocally” the Goldstone report.

This sends a signal to Israel that it can get away with aggression.

It tells Palestinians that Congress cares nothing for them.

And it tells the Arab and Muslim worlds that Washington is not their friend.

The House resolution proves that rational debate in the Congress about Israeli policy is taboo. Until that taboo is lifted, we cannot expect progress in Mideast peace talks.

Need for US-sponsored Arab-Israeli deal

Palm Beach Gardens:

Palestinians and Israelis are locked in a relationship of deep mistrust. A credible outside force must intervene to break up an enduring cycle of despair. In the foreseeable future, there seems to be no Middle East miracle cure, spontaneous recovery, inspiration, powerful leadership or any of those signs of self-generated breakthroughs.

The paradigm of conflict resolution must shift from endless ego massaging, exhaustive pre-bargaining and limitless cajoling to direct US endorsement of a specific peace plan: 1967 borders, a plan for refugees, a shared Jerusalem, future of Israeli settlements, land swap measures, security guarantees for Israel and dimensions of a viable Palestinian state.

Negotiations will start bearing fruits when Arabs and Jews shed anachronistic ideas on forging peace. Since neither side is likely to relinquish hard-line attitudes, the American administration, as a trusted broker of peace, should propose the final outcomes of a two-state solution.

In the Arab Israeli conflict, what is a dream for one side is a nightmare for the other. Palestinians still dream of fulfilling the rights of return of their refugees to Israel proper. Meanwhile, Israel urges the international community to “license” its Jewish character as a state.

Imagine the impact of exact Palestinian justice: the return to Israel of several million refugees. Would not this sudden and massive influx of new Arab residents overwhelm Israeli society? Then imagine the impact of affirming Israel as Jewish state: the sanctioning of the social inferiority of 1.5 million Israeli Arab citizens.

Peace makers must figure how to reconcile the rights of refugees with the survival rights of the state of Israel. Moreover, future peace arrangements must reconcile the rights to a Jewish, democratic homeland with the rights of the non-Jewish citizens to equality.

Justice does not necessarily mean reversal of problematic events. In fact, the return of several million refugees to an already crowded Israeli society may not do adequate justice to either Palestinians or Israelis. However, reintegrating a segment of the refugee population in a future Palestinian state would be natural and suitable.

Palestinians would not be abandoning justice when they invest in the development of a hopeful future for their refugees. But to be symbolically sensitive, Israel must acknowledge the suffering they have caused Palestinians in displacing them across borders. Such Israeli acknowledgement would help the refugees to partially overcome their loss as they think of alternatives.

Moreover, a substantial withdrawal of Israeli settlers from the West Bank and East Jerusalem would partially compensate for barring Palestinians to return to Israel proper, which still remains the “historic Palestine” to many Arabs.

Finally, a comprehensive empowerment plan addressing the future of Palestinians refugees who live in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere would go a long way to addressing justice. Such a plan should be designed by representatives of the Palestinian refugees and approved by the Arab states. On an unprecedented scale, Israel, the Western world and the rich Arab countries should participate in the funding of an empowerment program that will insure all refugees a decent life with ample social opportunity, security, economic prosperity and full citizenship in settlement countries.

In a lasting agreement, Israelis will have to compromise too. In a secular state, Israelis would not be sacrificing security by ensuring equality to non-Jewish citizens.

Religious states do not thrive. There is no reason to believe that Israel would be an exception. In such a unique state, Israel would have to be able to protect freedom and equality from the corrosive elements of a triumphal religious political culture. As a Jewish state Israel will never be able to maintain peace or democracy; it’s Muslim and Christian minorities would be marginalized, regardless of how secular social life in Israel is. Only a fully secular state would be able to build a modern Israeli society.

Not withstanding international law on the rights of return of Palestinians to their homeland and the competing rights of Israel to survive, peace between Arabs and Israel can only be achieved through brokered consensus. To end the mutual fear that paralyzes the peace process, a US- sponsored plan must demonstrate how peace would insure the emergence of a viable Palestinian state and guarantee a secure secular and democratic Israel.

Lebanon needs security and freedom

Published in Daily Star on September 17, 2009

East Meredith, New York

In Lebanon the rulers are proud of existing freedoms and the reformers are obsessed with national security.

With no results yet, the Lebanese have been waiting all summer for a new cabinet of ministers to emerge. For the people its feels like going through a ten-month pregnancy.

Lebanon’s sectarian formula of power sharing offers a demographically shrinking Christian community the prestige of the country’s presidency. A Christian President designates a Muslim Prime Minister, a Sunnite. But the Prime Minister, as the chief of cabinet, has more power than the president. The current chief of parliament, a Shiite, has less formal power than the prime Minister or the President, but his alliance with a strong militia, (Hezbollah) gives him disproportional power.

In a way, the formal equilibrium in power sharing among the representatives of the four religious communities (Shiite, Sunnite, Christian and Druze) serves national stability, but this balance also seems to weaken national leadership, stifle efforts for reform and maintain sectarian tension. Too much energy is spent on political calibration of power.

Since the end of the civil war, Lebanon has faced a number of crises: a series of political assassinations, a devastating war with Israel in 2006, an 18 month strike that crippled the economy. And now, a young designated Prime Minister is having difficulties in forming a new post-election government without securing approval of regional and international powers, powers which have too much influence on domestic politics.

However, Lebanon remains unique in the region. Despite weak national security freedom thrives. There is suspense in Lebanese elections. Politicians win with narrow margins. Criticism of the government is a national sport. Capitalism thrives. Students organize lively political rallies. Thinkers publish controversial ideas. Unconventional art and theatre are appreciated. People dress fashionably; women can chose to wear daring western styles or affirm their identity through traditional dress. How long will these freedoms last?

The freedoms which Lebanon enjoys disappear during national upheavals. The civil war lasted 15 years, from 1975 to 1990. In this domestic war survival of the individual citizen trumped both freedom and national security.

All Lebanese want political reform. National debt has climbed to dangerous levels and is growing. Decent politicians take a back seat allowing opportunist leaders to run a country which lacks the discipline of law and order. A sectarian system of power sharing is bound to fail in the future because demography, the system’s underpinning, has already changed radically. Lebanon’s borders with neighboring countries are porous. Israeli air force violates Lebanese skies on a regular basis.

The situation ought to change, but reform occurs only when the reformer has a better system to replace the old one. The opposition is a unique alliance between Hezbollah – a political party with a strong militia- and the Free Patriotic Movement, FPM, lead by General Michel Aoun. Other minor parties play a secondary role in the opposition.

Observe the inconsistencies in the opposition camp. A “patriotic” party is in alliance with a militia-based party, which many view as threat to the sovereignty of the state. Moreover, a secular Christian “Movement”, FPM, is in alliance with a Shiite “Party of God”, “Hezbollah”. Furthermore, the Lebanese opposition calls for political reform with major backing from Iran and Syria, two countries where the priority of national security is used as a pretext to marginalize freedom. But the opposition remains popular because those who rule appear less credible than those who challenge the system.

This political marriage of convenience is less based on common ideology than on political benefits. A Shiite movement looks “national” in scope and less tribal as it partners with FPM, a secular Christian party. In return, FPM gains electoral weight as it joins a militarized party that represents the largest faith community in the country.

The March 14 bloc is also a pragmatic alliance which lacks consistent ideology, charismatic leadership and confidence. This alliance is also considered pro-Western internationally and pro-Saudi regionally.

Critics of the majority bloc passionately argue that the opposition is a solid partnership across the religious divide; such critics claim that this reform front is a genuine political mass movement to save Lebanon from a future sectarian civil war. Some observers believe that a Christian-Shiite populist alliance has the potential to evolve into a full national liberation movement to free Lebanon from external hegemony and to reform it internally.

Following the logic of the opposition requires an overdose of positive thinking. The popularity of Aoun may be an awakening that rejects the current sectarian power sharing formula, a formula which gives Christians only a temporary guarantee of power.

To some extent, Lebanon owes its flair for political freedom to well established Western educational and cultural institutions, particularly to the heritage of French and American schools and universities. The free political system of Lebanon is structurally geared to be friendly to the West.

But Lebanon’s connection with Iran and Syria through Hezbollah is growing. Regardless of its past contributions to Lebanon, its critics argue that Hezbollah’s militia today intimidates other parties and the state, gives excuse to other groups to organize secret armies, opens the Shiite community leadership to external influence and reinforces sectarianism. Hezbollah’s Shiite composition, its clerical leadership and its symbols appear sectarian.

Can Lebanon undergo reform without losing freedom? The chances are slim since the two major reform movements do not share the same vision of the future. Lebanon deserves a new political system which integrates freedom with security.

.

.

A new approach to foreign aid

East Meredith, New York - The American University of Beirut (AUB), from which tens of thousands of Arab leaders have graduated over the last 140 years, is a shining example of foreign aid put to good use. What distinguish the graduates of AUB are not only leadership and a sense of service to the Arab world; graduates of this New York-chartered university are often also strong believers in American culture and ideals. But foreign aid to poor countries is not always put to such good use. Donors can reach the hearts and minds of recipients when aid creatively addresses human needs such as education, employment, gender equality or health. Unfortunately, however, aid has also been used as compensation for damage done in punitive wars, and has often been squandered through corruption on the side of the donor or recipient. In Iraq, for instance, the Center for Global Development's Commitment to Development Index (CDI) of 2008 calculates that only 11 cents of every dollar actually goes to aid because of wide scale corruption–a great disappointment for the Iraqi people. Regrettably, in Iraq, as in many other countries in the Middle East and South Asia, the bulk of foreign assistance is military-based. Military aid encourages developing countries to depend on weapons to achieve security. Israel, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey receive the lion's share of US foreign assistance, mostly for defense contracts that ultimately benefit US companies and dull the sensitivity of the recipients to peace and reconciliation. Israel and Egypt alone consume over half of the US foreign aid budget. In absolute volume–over $25 to $30 billion dollars annually–America spends more than any other country in foreign aid. Despite the impressive quantity, however, American aid is scant in relation to its national wealth. America donates about 0.016 of its gross national product, according to Robert McMahon at the Council on Foreign Relations but, according to international standards, every donor country is expected to spend about 0.7 per cent of its gross domestic product. Over the past decade, though–especially in light of 9/11–the United States has realized that the status quo must change. As a result, there has been serious progress reforming the process of American foreign aid delivery. New literature on state building, such as Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's foreign and humanitarian aid expert Thomas Carother's Aiding Democracy Abroad, has challenged the dominance of politics in foreign aid. Think tanks and economists that favor trade and foreign investment as strategic methods for wealth building and poverty reduction argue that foreign aid is of no real long-term value to donor or recipient countries. Development experts are also speaking up about the need to improve the level and effectiveness of humanitarian aid while improving other avenues of development. The new US approach to foreign aid parts with the practice of linking help, first and foremost, to US "strategic" needs, which often translates to rewarding autocratic regimes with humanitarian or military assistance for political compliance. The Millennium Challenge Corporation, a US government agency that started in 2003 under the George W. Bush Administration, ties massive foreign aid that comes from tax dollars to the competitive performance of the recipient country. Only countries that invest in human development, respect the rule of law and exercise free market principles are eligible to receive large government grants in human investment. The popularity of the MCC has increased US commitment to development and improved the quality of empowerment initiatives. Reform-oriented countries like Mali, Senegal, Gambia, Morocco, Jordan, Malaysia and Indonesia are among the Muslim-majority countries which have received MCC support or are expected to be awarded large US grants in the future. While America tries to improve its image in the Muslim world, it is slowly realizing that providing aid for programs that will benefit a country's people, not just the state, can help immensely. Extricating the United States' development-oriented assistance fully from its strategic political and military objectives will take time, but US investment in agencies like the MCC–and the countries it benefits–demonstrates that it is on the right track. ### * Dr. Ghassan Rubeiz (grubeiz@comcast.net) is an Arab American commentator on issues of development, peace and justice. He is the former secretary for the Middle East of the Geneva-based World Council of Churches. This article is part of a series analyzing Western policies in the Muslim world written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews). Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 29 September 2009, www.commongroundnews.org Copyright permission is granted for publication.

The Copts suffer from their state, but so do all Egyptians

East Meredith, NY September 1, 2009

Egypt has the largest and oldest Christian community in the Middle East, the Copts. The status of the Copts affects all Christian communities in the region.

In the Arab world minorities learn to seek justice with a broadminded and a long term perspective. The Christian Copts of Egypt feel marginalized and face a dilemma: keep quiet or challenge the system. Minorities of the region often ponder how to deal with their own specific issues of justice, when the entire political system is broken.

It is easy for emigrants to speak their minds about their home country from their comfortable position abroad.

When Egyptian President Husni Mubarak visited President Obama on August 17, the Voice of the Copts strongly protested with a rally and a press conference in Washington DC. The Voice, a human rights diaspora organization, which enjoys only limited support of the Christians they claim to represent in Egypt, is charging Mubarak with full complicity in alleged oppression of Christians and other minorities. DC protesters demanded “that Mubarak take action to stop Muslim extremist violence against Coptic Christians and others in Egypt”.

“Others” refers to a tiny Bahai Egyptian community which faces severe rejection because many Egyptians do not consider Bahaism a valid religion; this is a sad fact.

The Copts are suffering but they are not oppressed. Are the Copts really suffering for being Christians, or are they momentarily distanced from political representation by a regime that wishes to appear more Muslim than it really is?

There are ten to fifteen million Christians in Egypt, representing 12 to 15% of the population. Today, more than in the past, being a Copt is both a religious affiliation and an adherence to a different way of life.

Prejudice and political marginalization in the Arab world are not easy to explain; the dynamics of injustice are commonly misunderstood by outsiders.

Islam and Christianity have coexisted for fourteen centuries in the Middle East. Often the similarities of the two Abrahamic faiths are overlooked and the differences are exaggerated by narcisstic theologians, manipulative politicians and co-opted clerics. In an increasingly insecure and poorly managed society minorities often faced disproportional pressures.

The Voice of the Copts assumes that President Mubarak is able, but unwilling, to control sectarian tension and isolated acts of violence against individual Christians in remote areas of Egypt. The Voice is asking for the impossible. The suffering of the Christians is largely a consequence of political chaos that all Egyptians live under. The most disadvantaged Egyptians are not the Christians; they are the poor, women and children, and the political dissidents.

Christian citizens of Egypt, together with their Muslim compatriots, might consider joining the political struggle against oppression that victimizes all segments of society.

Overall, the Copts are not doing better or worse than the general population. Some are doing better because they tend to have good education. Most feel politically disadvantaged as minorities; some may feel uncomfortable merely for being Christian.

There are no quotas or strong political parties to guarantee a minimum of representation of Copts in Egypt. There are no ways for stopping disgruntled civil servants from abusing the law against minorities.

Copts have many churches and endowed ecclesiastical facilities throughout the country. Still the legal discrimination of not allowing churches to be built or repaired without super rigorous approval procedures is a painful fact.

The Copts are not being attacked as a community. Conflict arises from time to time around local disputes such as mixed-marriage, sexual norms, economic rivalry and village feuds. Copts are not known to be vindictive or politically active. Their leaders have turned inward.

The government is not threatened by the Christians. The Copts are hard working and loyal citizens. The threat to the government is political Islam. The government is appeasing the Muslim fundamentalist opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood, in not making life easier for Copts.

Social distance is also a factor in sectarian tension. Because Copts tend to live in Coptic neighborhoods or villages there develops a social line of separation between them and larger society. When the local community is economically comfortable, communal tension is minimal. When there is widespread poverty and misguided local leadership, inter communal trouble is expected. The role of community leaders - the Christian bishops and the Muslim clerics, the Sheiks - is crucial for prevention of tension. The more open minded religious leaders are the better the inter communal relations.

When Copts cry martyrdom about the inconvenience they face as a minority, the majority Muslim community responds negatively. What the larger society is not saying directly, but may be it should, is that the national priority is changing the overall political system in order to achieve equality for all. The Muslim majority would prefer to see the Copts join the larger political struggle to emancipate Egypt from a milieu of autocracy that suffocates all segments of society.

Any attempt to provocatively broadcast local sectarian tension outside Egypt is counterproductive. The recent Christian community’s appeal to Washington provokes the Muslim majority and makes discrimination – at least partially- a self fulfilling prophecy. In their advocacy the expatriate Coptic organizations are hurting their national image inside Egypt; inadvertently, they are doing a disservice to their community.

Written for Daily Star

Why do Middle East states fear secularism?

East Meredith, New York.

Iran is a country that has gone very far in subjecting governance and societal institutions to the crushing influence of religious leadership, and to the clutches of organized clerical power.

Street demonstrations following the June presidential election shook the Iranian regime. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, defended the integrity of the election and accused the opposition of disloyalty to the nation. The insecure Iranian regime monitors dissidence as a matter of routine. Universities are strategic environments for mobilizing the opposition. The country’s “moral” police surveys universities and worries even about the spread of social sciences in classrooms. Political sociology and philosophy are now considered dangerous topics. Social science has become “anti-Islamic” and “unpatriotic” to a regime gradually losing its grip over society

When the state and the church (or the mosque and the synagogue) are in constant search for legitimacy, it is natural for them to form an implicit alliance to maintain their hold on society, and this they tend to do against what they perceive to be a common enemy: secularism.

Secularism promotes the separation of religious institutions from state structures. On a personal level, the religious and the secular need not be in conflict. When devout individuals vote for the separation of the church, mosque, or synagogue from the state, they are behaving secularly, but that does not necessarily diminish their commitment to the religious.

In the Middle East examples abound of the interconnectedness between the state and religious structures. In Egypt, the government has doubtless tried to suppress religious parties by denying them representation in Parliament. Yet this restrictiveness has not been effective. The Muslim Brotherhood is the fastest growing movement in the country. In contrast, secular parties and thinkers have suffered the most from government pressure. There is not a single secular Egyptian party rivaling the Muslim Brotherhood. Both the government and the religious authorities often work hand-in-hand to impose silence on free thinkers.

Repetitive and pervasive religious indoctrination in the media has also inhibited independent thinking in Egypt. On many occasions, the government has taken liberal authors to court to challenge their “loyalty” to Islam. The late Egyptian writer and Nobel Prize for Literature winner Naguib Mahfouz barely escaped an assassination attempt for writing his vivid, essentially secular novels. When in doubt, courts ask the supreme religious authority to give their verdicts on accused secularists.

In discouraging secular manifestations outside its control, the Egyptian state is hardly an exception in the Arab world. In Lebanon, state, church and mosque dynamics illustrate ways in which religion and politics feed into mutual communal insecurity. The political elite sustains a sectarian power-sharing system of governance, in collaboration with the clergy. The Lebanese are often socially secular but politically they are not. Sectarianism is passed on from one generation to another and is reinforced by laws regulating identity formation, voting, and personal-status issues such as birth, adoption, marriage and inheritance.

Secularism is not simply a temperament or a philosophy. It is also something vital for political liberation, while its absence promotes the status quo. A secular education leads to scientific problem-solving and allows people to be comfortable with creative doubt. Whatever questions poor governance, rulers for life, invasive theology, dull-witted education, unfair gender laws, abuse of national resources, and more, is bound to come from people who respect science, human rights and the rule of law, and who do not consider matters solely in a religious framework.

As critics of religious leaders and political rulers, secular reformers also become threats to injustice. Political questioning disarms those who possessively hold on to temporal and ecclesiastical power.

Sometimes, strange alliances form between states and religious powers. For example, Israel, led by a largely secular government, has worked with evangelical Western churches in combating political Islam.

Bu then everywhere in the Middle East regimes have developed odd relationships with religion. There are regimes that have assumed the role of protectors of Islam. There are rulers who claim direct descent from the Prophet. There are governments that position clerics above the law. There are nations ruled by religious minorities who pretend to be secular. There are countries claiming to base their constitution on religion, despite glaring violations of the essence of that religion. And there is a state whose people are chosen by God and whose land is considered holy.

The secret code binding together the state and the senior cleric is political survival. Yet their survival comes at the expense of the rest of society.

…………………………….

Ghassan Michel Rubeiz is an Arab American commentator. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

Why is development evading the Arabs?

East Meredith, New York

Arabs face stubborn obstacles to social change. They recognize their problems but do not settle on alternatives; and they are worried about replacing their autocratic political regimes. Change, they fear, may lead to even worse circumstances. Responding to the challenge, Arab scholars have collaborated over the past seven years in examining the causes of societal underachievement. They have studied a range of issues: governance, the economy, gender, poverty, education, environment, health, and conflict. Their conclusions, published starting in 2002 in successive UN Human Development Reports, under the auspices of the United Nations Development Program, have been seminal but also short on effective action for reform.

" Arab regimes are in constant search for legitimacy and do not receive much support from their peoples in this regard. Arab countries score low on political freedoms and high on corruption. Regimes threaten the security of their citizens " The UNDP reports have forecast continued deterioration in the wellbeing of the Arab community. The major findings of the 2009 report were released on July 21. The document revolves around the concept of personal insecurity. Its underlying thesis is that citizens facing intense personal stress can not change their circumstances for the better. The findings of the 2009 report spell danger and call for intervention. Arab regimes are in constant search for legitimacy and do not receive much support from their peoples in this regard. Arab countries score low on political freedoms and high on corruption. Regimes threaten the security of their citizens. The legal environment for non-governmental organizations is too restrictive. In six countries political parties are utterly forbidden. Emergency law is declared to justify police-state activities. Elections are predictable and manipulated. Rulers stay in office for long periods. The fertility rate in the Arab world has dropped in recent years, but it is still too high. Rapid population growth in the region is straining the provision of basic services. Today’s Arab population is 330 million, with 60 percent under the age of 25. In six years 400 million people will be sharing dwindling water and food resources. Desertification is eroding cultivable land. The desert has already “swallowed two thirds of the land.” Women deserve a better position both at home, in the work place, and in political circles. The law discriminates against them. Societal norms are gender prohibitive and economic and political opportunities are limited for females. Domestic violence goes unnoticed, while reporting abuse is discouraged. In low-income Arab societies, one of two adult women does not read or write. Children and other minority groups are poorly protected. The economies of the region are not diversified: oil represents 70 percent of exports, while GDP per capita grew by a negligible 0.5 percent between 1980 and 2004. Two out of five Arabs live in poverty, a trend on the increase despite vast oil wealth. Three trillion dollars have been invested in ways that have not created jobs and brought adequate returns. By the year 2020, 51 million new jobs will be required. Every other young man wants to leave for a better life abroad. Current unemployment is about 15 percent.

" It is true that all areas of reform are important and the approach must be comprehensive. But it is also true that governance impacts on all aspects of reform. Good government is a requirement for a multi-faceted program of social and political change. The report must give Arabs practical hints on how regimes can change " Oil, Israel, sectarian upbringing and competing loyalty to tribe and family make this region prone to political conflict and war. The Middle East suffers from several local and international conflicts. It has the largest volume of refugees and displaced people in the world, at 17 million. There is occupation in Palestine, foreign intervention in Iraq, and civil war in Sudan, Yemen and Somalia. Too many regimes depend on outside allies for security. Arab armies are mobilized to protect rulers rather than the ruled. Spending on defense is disproportionate. When it comes to solutions the latest human development report is timid. It calls on politicians and societies to respect rule of law, protect the environment, and diversify the economy. The report also calls for equal rights for women, and transformative education and health care as a right for all citizens. Finally, it calls for the use of effective ways to liberate the region from occupations and the enhancement of security for all citizens. The diagnosis of underdevelopment does not lead to strategic solutions. The four reports which preceded the latest one also lacked a pragmatic blueprint for action. For effective reform to occur two basic questions come to mind. The first is, where does reform start? Heads of Arab governments are not getting the message from these reports. It is true that all areas of reform are important and the approach must be comprehensive. But it is also true that governance impacts on all aspects of reform. Good government is a requirement for a multi-faceted program of social and political change. The report must give Arabs practical hints on how regimes can change. The second question is of a different order. Why is the role of religion in politics a relatively minor aspect of all five reports? Among the many causes freezing social and political reform in the Arab world is the dominance of religious authorities. Such authorities – through their pervasive institutions of socialization and their control over personal-status issues – strongly influence political identity, support tribal authority, define strict limits for women, and restrict intellectual inquiry. The UNDP reports should tackle the religious factor with more courage. Reducing the hold of organized religion on politics and social change – and I do not mean inhibiting faith or spirituality – will have a multiplier effect on reform. Arab societies that give strong leadership roles to religious authorities face more difficulties in state-building than those societies that limit clerical power to spiritual matters. If this generalization is empirically substantiated it should lead us to forceful conclusions for reform. Might the next annual report focus on ways to effectively approach regime-change and liberation of political systems from religious authority? In the Arab world the ruler is the pilot and the cleric is the co-pilot. * Published in Lebanon's THE DAILY STAR on August 17.

Allow Obama to lead the peace process

Ghassan Michel Rubeiz
August 3, 2009, 2009

East Meredith, New York



President Obama is heroically facing domestic and international challenges on many fronts. On the issue of peace, oOur President is working on promoting a lasting security for Israel through a peace deal with the Arabs. But he is
willing to risk political capital by promoting peace. He is also showing great courage in health reform. Simultaneously, Obama is seeking universal health coverage for Americans and working on promoting lasting security for Israel through a peace deal with Arabs.

Just as Obama is meeting stiff resistance from misinformed politicians who confuse universal health care with communism he is facing hurdles from politicians who misconstrue justice-based peace with one-sided advocacy.

Defending Israel, overprotective legislators are trying to slow the growing momentum for a promising Middle East peace process. Last week, Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN) and James Risch (R-ID) circulated a letter to fellow senators for joint signatures. The letter asks President Obama to lean on Arab states to show "dramatic gestures” toward Israel.
The letterIt requests Arab leaders to open new borders, expand cooperation and improve rhetoric toward the Zionist state. Strangely, this legislative move did not include any reciprocal obligation to stop the expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories. The senators from Indiana and Idaho should realize that the Arab states are not in a position now to make new promises beyond the 2002 peace plan which in itself was a far reaching and dramatic offer.

On the surface, the senators’ letter looks fair and balanced; it demands all sides to work for peace. But the pivotal message of the letter is that Arabs states are not doing their best for peace, whereas Israel is. The circulated document also gives the false impression that Obama is rushing for peace before asking the Arab states to commit to normalizing relations. This is not true; moreover unilateral letter it threatens to undermine is threatening the orchestrated team work on the peace process which is now operating on a covert level to Locally, the Obama team is covertly working to make all sides as flexible as possible in preparation for end-game negotiations.

In fact, the Bayh-Risch letter is counterproductively serving to strengthen Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hard-line posture. The Prime Minister considers freezing expansion of illegal housing as an admission of guilt. NetanyahuThis Israeli leader resents the challenge to his unfounded belief that settlements exist for Israel’s security and he . Netanyahu viewssees the willingness to freeze settlements as a one-sided concession. Settlements, for him, are bargaining chips.

The letter is problematic from another angle. The senators from Indiana and Idaho should realize recall that the Arab states are not in a position now to make new promises beyond the 2002 peace offerplan which still stands today, stipulates a . This seven-year old peace offer is game-changing and dramatic. In this two-state scenario, in which Israel will beis allocated 78 % of the disputed land between the east bank of the Jordan river and the Mediterranean and while the Palestinian state is will be allocated 22%: the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. Twenty-two Arab states have pledged to normalize relations with Israel. This pledge implies willingness to absorb millions of Palestinian refugees from Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. What more “dramatic steps” should Arab States be offering, in response to the letter?

To implement the 2002 peace plan of the Arab states will require hard work, reconciliation and forgiveness from each side. Progress at the negotiating table is bound to generate good will and improve Arab–Jewish relations.

Once allowed to unfold, the peace process is expected to generate the “dramatic gestures” the senators anticipate in their distracting letter. Dramatic improved relations will emerge when refugees accept compensation for loss of land and when Israel accepts a shared Jerusalem.

More drama anticipated? The parameters of this peace process are aimed at making Hamas accept Israel and, in turn, making Israel change its tone of communication about Arabs.

More reconciliation required? Progress in negotiations is expected to make Arabs recognize the suffering of all Jews, including those who have emigrated under pressure from the Arab world. Movement in negotiations would lead Israelis to admit the suffering they caused in displacing Palestinians.


Is theThe letter is asking for the products of peace prematurely.? It is tThrough negotiations that, Arabs and Israelis willould stop their mutual demonizing. The breakthrough in peace will come when Arabs and Jews commit to working together to deal with poverty, water shortages, ecological threats, health hazards and minority rights.

US Congress could separately send a pastoral letter praising the peace process and asking the Arab and Jewish communities to facilitate the peace process through their media, their schools and their religious institutions.

The Bayh-Ricsch letter is based on a misconception that in rushing to appease Arabs, President Obama is ignoring basic security needs of Israel. The Senators who will sign this letter are not serving the long term interest of Israel. Both sides are about ready to start the talks on a game changing peace product.

Published by Search for Common Ground News Services

Obama wants peace, but will Congress pressure Israel?

President Barack Obama is investing a good measure of his political capital in the Middle East without receiving, so far, much support from the United States Congress. Last week, the president’s special Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, was in Israel to work toward reaching a better understanding over limiting Israeli settlements. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Advisor James Jones were also in Israel to offer assurances of continued American loyalty. But will Obama be pressured to slow down peace promotion by Israel’s supporters in the Congress?

Observe Senators Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, and James Risch, an Idaho Republican, who recently asked their colleagues to sign a letter to Obama to lean on Arab states to show new “dramatic gestures toward Israel”. The senators expect the Arabs to suddenly improve their ties with Israel, including expanded economic cooperation and improved media coverage. Their initiative does not mention any reciprocal obligation of Israel to stop the expansion of settlements in the Palestinian territories.

Obama was urged by Bayh and Risch to pressure the Arab states into being friendlier toward Israel. In their appeal, the Arabs are asked to take new conciliatory steps after Israel occupied their land, annexed territory, built (and still builds) illegal communities, strangles the occupied territories with a massive security infrastructure, particularly the separation wall, and responds to local insurgencies with devastating wars. The two senators implied in their letter to Obama that the president was being harsh on Israelis – by asking them to stop illegal acts – and was being soft on the Arabs – by not asking them for more concessions.

Equating the Israeli land-grab with Arab diplomatic defensiveness is confusing apples with oranges, if not confusing cause with effect. This is not to deny that the Arab states have contributed to the misery of Palestinians. However, to expect the White House to lean on Arab governments to improve their relations with Israel at this time is a case of asking Barack Obama to add insult to injury.

The Bayh-Risch measure feeds the defensive posture of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu fears that stopping the building of settlements would be an admission of guilt, an admission which may lead to the unraveling of a massive economic project. The Israeli prime minister sees Obama’s call for temporary compliance as an end to the myth that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem exist to enhance Israel’s security. He sees any willingness to freeze settlements as a one-sided concession by Israel.

The senators should realize that the Arab states are not in a position to add substance to the historic 2002 Arab peace proposal made to Israel. The offer, which Israel has so far shunned, is both generous and dramatic enough. In the two-state proposal, one designed to lead to the emergence of Israel coexisting alongside a Palestinian state, Israel is allocated 78 percent of the land and the Palestinian state is allocated 22 percent – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. Twenty-two Arab states are willing to forget the past and absorb millions of Palestinian refugees.

What more dramatic gestures should the Arab states be offering at this juncture? The Arab peace plan will require hard work, reconciliation and forgiveness from each side. Progress at the negotiating table is bound to generate goodwill and will result in the improvement of relations between the sides in the conflict.

The “dramatic gestures” the senators anticipate would naturally materialize through progressive steps of reciprocity. Dramatic results in improved relations would emerge when refugees accept compensation for loss of land and when Israel accepts a shared Jerusalem. The gestures would surface once Hamas accepts Israel and once Israel changes its negative attitude toward Arabs. The gestures would appear when Arabs recognize the suffering of Jews, including those who emigrated from the Arab world under pressure, and when Israelis admit the suffering they inflicted upon Palestinians they displaced. Nothing would be more dramatic than for Arabs and Israelis to stop demonizing one another, or for both sides to commit themselves to working together to solve mutual problems such as water shortages, ecological threats, health hazards and the curtailment of minority rights.

Bayh and Risch would do better to mobilize their bipartisan energies to promote justice and reconciliation. Only by helping push the peace process forward could the senators expect goodwill on all sides.

Ghassan Michel Rubeiz is an Arab-American commentator. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

Israeli Settlements: Netanyahu Plays “Deal or No Deal”

New York, New York

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argues unjustifiably for the need to continue the construction of West Bank settlements to allow for “natural growth” of settler families, he reminds me of the risk driven guest player in the popular TV show “Deal or No Deal”. In this show, the psyched up player is tempted to lose all his guaranteed winnings at an advanced stage of the game after achieving substantial gains. The player-turned-gambler often loses by overestimating his slim chances to win the full million-dollar deal. Under the influence of passionate support of an interactive audience, the gambler typically rationalizes his refusal to quit on time when his chances are favorable and ends up losing. The player’s false rationale to stay in the game against dominant odds is greed or vanity. The player defends the denial of probability law by claiming to pursue a lofty and altruistic cause: e.g. purchasing a dream house or sending children to college through this Deal.

Back to reality. On July 19, Netanyahu’s cabinet approved the construction of 20 housing units in East Jerusalem. There are already two hundred thousand Israeli Jews living in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem and three hundred thousand Jews living in the West Bank. Ten percent of the Israeli Jewish population is already residents in the occupied and forcefully fragmented Palestinian territories. Netanyahu is not satisfied yet with this record of land grab. He dreams of a larger deal, willing to forfeit international support and Israel’s security, everything on the table of negotiation.

Since the 1967 occupation, Israel has spent an estimated one hundred billion dollars to build settlements on Palestinian land. To protect the Israeli settlements on Arab land, an elaborate, immune infrastructure had to be built over the past four decades. In and around settlement communities, there are limitless security structures, roads designated exclusively for settlers, hundreds of checkpoints, luxurious water and other utility systems, intimidating cement barriers, punitive barbed wires and a massive “security” wall that eats up a major part of the West Bank and separates Palestinian villages and cities from one another, and from Israelis communities.

Without pondering the future, successive Israeli governments - of both the Labor and Likud parties - had a major policy in common: extending the settlements and fragmenting Palestinian land. This policy is to weaken the viability of a future Palestinian state in the currently occupied territories, which may be liberated in the future.

Today, Israel is being asked to stop doing what it has been doing for over forty years: to stop building illegally on land Israel does not own. When an illegal political act, which has been tolerated for an extended period of time, suddenly gets declared non-tolerable, as it should have been much earlier, the message is not easily accepted, by the perpetrator of the act. This is what Obama is declaring today as unacceptable and “ must stop”; and this is what Netanyahu is finding hard to comply with.

Ignoring mounting international pressure, the Israeli government continues to refuse to stop building houses on Arab land. The current Prime Minister has been ignoring political pressure and international law, continuing an occupation policy that is no more tenable, or even safe, for Israel’s future security and its image.

President Obama’s staff is using mild and soft power diplomacy with the current hawkish Israeli government. The president is careful not to over spend political capital in dealing with the challenge that the Israel lobby poses for the White House on this issue.

Netanyahu hopes that Israel’s friends in the US congress will not allow Obama to apply full pressure on Tel Aviv. The Israeli Prime Minister is also betting that Obama will be bogged-down in his growing legislative domestic agenda. The current fight for national healthcare reform, by itself, requires more energy and political investment from the President than the Middle East peace process.

With Obama at the helm, the American legislature is being asked this summer to digest two new important ideas, one domestic and one international. The first idea is that national health insurance is a safety valve for capitalism rather than a threat. The second idea is that Israel’s security would be served, rather than hurt, by welcoming a viable Palestinian state.

The Prime Minister of Israel should be thankful for, rather than be grumbling about the fact that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not asked Israel to dismantle all existing settlements. These settlements are illegal undertakings that constitute a threat to the peace process and form an obvious breach of international law- the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids an occupying power from extending its jurisdiction to the occupied. All that Obama is asking for now from Israel is not to further violate the law in order to discuss the parameters of a solution to the Arab Israeli conflict.

Netanyahu has so far refused to accept an Arab offer to exchange land for peace. The deal is not the full “million-dollar deal” but it is close enough, and for both sides of the conflict. The offer would be a revised Geneva Accord: modified 1967 borders to include a segment of the settlements, a border with a land-compensated, a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, international forces for security, a generous and empowering refugee compensation deal that involves some repatriation to the new state and a shared Jerusalem.

As the threat of the one state solution grows on the Arab street, and among intellectuals who have given up the prospects of a two-state solution, both sides of the Arab Israeli conflict are looking for a voluntary, moderate and pragmatic resolution of the conflict. Will Netanyahu join the moderates or will he stay in the game and press the “No Deal” button?

True friends of Israel are excited about the possibility of striking a deal and they are mindful of the alternative, which could be disastrous for all concerned.

Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad: cold war stars

July 9, 2009

East Meredith, New York:

The cold war is back. Last week, Vice President Joe Biden announced in a television interview that Israel, as a sovereign state, was free to take military action to deal with Iran’s nuclear program, but President Barack Obama was not pleased to see his partner-in-leadership improvise foreign policy. Obama must have immediately cautioned his vice president about the need to avoid cold war rhetoric in managing the potentially explosive tension between Iran and Israel. This accidental and unexpected V.P. announcement was soon diplomatically discredited by the president.

If the Biden declaration truly reflected U.S. foreign policy, it would have amounted to licensing Israel to start an unjust and unprovoked war on Iran. Can Israel now afford another devastating and counterproductive military adventure in the region? Furthermore, symbolically, would not such an explosive American cold war client-state talk give President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a fresh excuse to scapegoat his recently mobilized domestic critics as “agents of US imperialism?”

More rhetoric fallout: The nature of the statement that Biden has addressed to Israel further emboldens the current regime in Tel-Aviv, a regime which badly needs limit setting rather than morale boosting.

Biden is well aware that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists on continuing the building of settlements on Palestinian land. In addition, the Israeli prime minister has made unrealistic demands from the Arab side before engaging in peace negotiations.

Israel’s territorial expansion in Arab land is related to Iran’s aggression, but to be fair, the solution of Israel’s hegemony is not, and should not be, in the hands of the Persian state.

The peace process in the Middle East is not likely to bear fruit as long as Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad are in power. The two leaders are hurting the peace process in very different ways: one is too comfortable with an occupation policy to a point of making it a cause of security and faith, and the other is too comfortable with a policy of destabilization of regimes in the region. As long Israel and Iran conceive of regional security through divine intervention, peace in the Holy land is doomed.

Over the last three decades Iran and Israel have become the two superpowers of the region. These two countries are different, but today they share one decisive factor: poor leadership.

Neither of the two leaders is responsible for engineering their countries’ broad political framework, but both excel in exaggeration and rationalize their excesses by demonizing the adversary.

Netanyahu represents those in Israel who are willing to risk their nation’s future by obstructing the formation of a viable Palestinian state. The current Israeli leader is betting that Palestinian leadership and Arab states will remain for ever weak and divided. He is betting also that changing demography can be ignored and the United States will remain hesitant and ambivalent in applying pressure on Tel-Aviv.

For his part, Ahmadinejad applies the Khomeini lens in viewing the Arab-Israeli conflict. Ahmadinejad has singled out the support of Hamas and other Islamic resistance groups. By considering the Palestinian issue primarily as an Islamic affair, he has reinforced the religious dimension of the conflict. By exploiting the religious symbols of the conflict, he has unwittingly strengthened Netanyahu’s parallel exclusivist thesis that Israel is the “Jewish state.”

If Netanyahu gets his way and Israel continues the building of settlements, the Arab states will eventually be forced to shelve the two-state solution and take an alternative position. On the Arab street, the momentum of the one-state solution is already growing fast. This “solution” requires the merger of Palestine and Israel into a single bi-national state. But if Israel dislikes the two-state option today, it will dread the one-state scenario tomorrow.

If the peace process is to come alive, Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad must change outlook or be replaced. By arousing the Israeli appetite for future military adventures, Biden is not promoting the peace process. He is acting as a cold war politician.

The uprising in Iran will live

East Meredith, New York

The struggle will continue in Iran. This great country is on a political fault line, and its people know it.

The wise words of Khaled Mohammad Khaled, an Islamist scholar, are relevant to the current Iranian crisis: “Mixing religion in the affairs of the state detracts from religion and from the state”.

Liberation comes in stages. Iran needs ample time to radically change its political system. The Iranian uprising is strong enough today, but the current regime is bent on breaking the bones of those who challenge its legitimacy.

Despite the strong desire for change, Iranian society is still split between the populist and the modernist.

The populist, who President Ahmadinejad represents, is poorly educated, extra-nationalistic and anti-Western. The populist is still hypnotized by the Khomeini power that emerged through the revolt against the regime of the pro-Western Shah.

The modernist Iranian is open- minded, globally oriented and gender sensitive. The modernist is politically awakened but not yet organized and sufficiently inclusive. The uprising should find attractive ways to draw in the rural and low income groups to the national struggle for modern state building.

Women power in this modernist group is growing rapidly, and with gender empowerment there is great potential for a sweeping socio-political movement.

Public protest requires sustained organization. There seems to be no strategic vision, no party, no identifiable social movement and no structure behind the activism in the street. It is heartening to observe that women of Iran are in the process of figuring out the relevance of political power in building democracy and in reclaiming Islam as a faith rather than a political ideology.

The revolt lacks a forceful leader. To be fair, the former Prime Minister, Mir Hussein Mousavi has an impressive record. But his critics describe Mousavi as a born-again bureaucrat, who conveniently ran on a “change” message at a time when people are yearning for relief from a dysfunctional political system. Mousavi has not yet identified a vision, a forceful message for the uprising beyond “moderation” and smart economic investment.

Leadership vacuum may allow covert foreign meddling to penetrate the current Iranian uprising. The 1979 revolution was diverted from a struggle against the neo-colonial rule of the Shah. The revolution went through rapid metamorphoses to unfortunately become a struggle against modernity, with a religious cover. Religious leaders took over the revolution from the intellectuals.

There is a lesson to be learned. To preserve the Persian authenticity of the struggle, the leaders of this uprising should keep a distance from Western “democracy experts”, for many reasons, not the least of which the presence of a dismal record of foreign intervention in Iran.

For the next round of revolt, women and working class leadership will hopefully take center stage. It is only a matter of a few years before the sweeping round of revolt will come.

Is the Iran revolt stoppable?

June 22, 200

aldikkani

9

East Meredith, New York,

Today, the people of Iran are on the street not just to protest the results of the elections. The revolt aims to free society from the corrosive authority of clerics in politics.

As public pressure on the regime is mounting the government’s defense of its legitimacy is turning brutal: 17 demonstrators killed so far.

It is still too early to predict if the massive protest in the streets will succeed in bringing about a new government. Regardless of the immediate outcome, public trust in the current political system has largely disappeared.

Globalization of politics is crucial. International support for the plight of the people of Iran is growing exponentially through the media.

Those who see this revolt unstoppable find a radically new set of circumstances for political change: awakening of Iranian society- particularly women, conflict within leadership of clerics and ease of spread of information through modern technology.

But those who see this revolt reversible do not believe that Iran is ready for change, given the heavy weight of tradition, the near even split between the populist and the modernist and the formidable record of the Middle East state to suppress dissent.

Dissenting Iranians deserve moral support from the West but they are hesitant to ask for such support for good reasons. External support of internal resistance may backfire.

If there is regime change in Iran, future relations with its adversaries may change significantly. The Arab-Israeli peace process is particularly sensitive to Israel’s future relation with Iran. Hamas and Hezbollah would soften if Iran’s future regime were to be flexible diplomatically.

Despite their social distance from the West, Iranians would like to be viewed differently by the outside world. They have survived intact a long war that was inflicted on them by Iraq, with Western support.

Iran is searching for ways to build a modern state, but not dreaming of a Western model of statehood. It is important not to judge the Iranian struggle for freedom by Western criteria. Iran is a Middle Eastern country with great appreciation for religion. This street revolt in Iran is not a swing from the sacred to the secular. Islam, as a faith, as a set of principles to relate to God, like Christianity or Judaism, can be harnessed to work for democracy instead of working against it.

In 1979, the people of Iran revolted against their government to be free from excessive international influence, the Shah’s symbiotic dependence on the West. Today, Iranians are on the street in massive numbers demonstrating peacefully against their government; they are continuing the process of state building.

What is happening in Iran has wide international implications. Iran is a pioneer in political change. By contrast, the Arab world is too timid in political reform.

Arabs are afraid to substitute entrenched despotic regimes for unpredictable political systems.

What is happening in Iran these days may have dramatic implications for the future of governance of Iran, itself, and for the debate on political Islam, in the 57 Muslim-majority countries.

Even if this revolt fails to reach its full objectives the next one is coming sooner than expected.

Is Iran leading the way for political reform in the region?

June 19, 2009

East Meredith, New York,

Today, the people of Iran are on the street not just to protest the results of the elections. The revolt is deeper and wider in scope; it is aimed at freeing their society from the authority of clerics in politics.

A note of clarification is due. This phase of the Iranian revolution is not aimed at separating religion from politics, but at separating the institutions of religion from the institutions of politics. Separating the two systems is not a threat to either system but an act of maintanance and prevention of mutual meddling.

The process of challenging the political system has made a promising start in a few days. It is still too early to predict if the massive protest in the streets will succeed in bringing about a new government. What is clear now is that public trust in the current political system has largely disappeared. System change is coming sooner than had been expected only a few weeks ago.

The Iranian people deserve moral support from the Western world but they are hesitant to ask for such support for good reasons. The growing political and military strength of Iran over the past three decades has made it a country of controversy, both in its regional milieu and in the West.

In the West, Iran is viewed through a security lens. Iran’s relations with revolutionary groups in Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq, as well as its risky nuclear program, have positioned the Persian state as a strong adversary to Israel and a perceived threat to strategic Western interests.

If there is regime change in Iran, future relations with its adversaries may change significantly. The Arab-Israeli peace process is particularly sensitive to Israel’s future relation with Iran. Hamas and Hezbollah would soften if Iran’s future regime were to be flexible diplomatically.

Despite their social distance from the West, Iranians would like to be viewed differently by the outside world. The people of Iran are proud and bent on self-determination. They have swiftly eliminated colonialism. They have survived intact a long war that was inflicted on them by Iraq, with Western support.

Iran is searching for ways to build a modern state, but not dreaming of a Western model of statehood. It is important not to judge the Iranian struggle for freedom by Western criteria. Iran is a Middle Eastern country with great appreciation for religion. This street revolt in Iran is not a swing from the sacred to the secular. Islam, as a faith, as a set of principles to relate to God, like Christianity or Judaism, can be harnessed to work for democracy instead of working against it.

In 1979, the people of Iran revolted against their government to be free from excessive international influence, the Shah’s symbiotic dependence on the West. Today, Iranians are on the street in massive numbers demonstrating peacefully against their government; they are continuing the process of state building.

What is happening in Iran has wide international implications. Iran is a pioneer in political change. By contrast, the Arab world is too timid in political reform.

To what extent is Iran opening the way to political awakening for other countries in the Middle East? Is there a simple explanation for Arab political passivity in contrast to Persian activism? Is it because the opposition in Iran is the solution – the modern state defender, whereas in the Arab world, the opposition is the problem – a state within the state? The opposition in Iran has reached the point where it can be more creatively constructive while in the Arab world the opposition is more inclined to simply want to destroy the old regime.

Are Arabs afraid to substitute entrenched despotic regimes for unpredictable political systems?

There may be other explanations for Iran’s propensity in risk-taking in political change. As a nation, Iran is strong; it is ancient and relatively homogeneous. Society can afford to experiment with state building without the threat of breaking up into ethnic or sectarian factions.

What is happening in Iran these days may have dramatic implications for the future of governance of Iran, itself, and for the debate on political Islam, in the 57 Muslim-majority countries.

Obama ties Palestinian cause with Israel’s security and Arab reform

June 4, 2009

Pam Beach Gardens, Florida

On June 4, in Cairo, President Obama started a promissing dialogue with the Muslim world:

“So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.”

President Obama reached his Middle East audience with subtle messages. To the Israelis, Obama hinted that if they wanted lasting security they must give Palestinians a state of their own. To the Palestinians, he cautioned that only with peaceful resistance could they achieve liberation. To the Arabs states, he communicated that their primary problem is not Palestine; it is deficits in reforms.

Obama reached his audience with cultural sensitivity. He did not offer new formulas. Instead, he laid out principles. As a guest to the Arab world, he stayed within the zone of comfort of the host.

First on his mind, was the principle of appreciation of Islam. Second, was the urgency of the solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Third, he believes, Arabs should reform politically, if peace between Israel and Palestinians is to last.

The president explained that Americans need to recognize that Islam is a great civilization, that Muslims in the past transmitted art and science to the West and that Muslims respect peace based on justice.

The president explained that the war in Afghanistan was just: to combat violence and extreme ideology. He assumed that Muslims should be on America’s side in fighting the enemies of freedom and peace worldwide.

Mindful of the political implications of a full apology, Obama hinted that the Iraq war could have been avoided: “Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.” While he defended the dethroning of Saddam Hussein, he implied that America could have avoided the war through diplomacy. The president reminded his audience that he is closing Guantanamo Bay, banning torture and withdrawing all US troops from Iraq by 2012.

On Iran, the president was brief and reconciliatory. While he cautioned against the building of nuclear weapons, he encouraged Tehran to develop atomic energy in compliance with international standards. When he spoke about religious tolerance, he was wise to mention that he considers the Sunni-Shiite rift a problem. Obama indirectly acknowledged that some states (i.e. Israel ) already have developed atomic weapons. It is this undeclared fact that made Obama’s comments on Iran’s defense ambitions vulnerable.

Having set the stage for reconciliation, Obama came to the Arab Israeli conflict with clarity and directness. He first explained that US relations with Israel are close and founded on firm grounds: history, suffering and reciprocity. “This bond is unbreakable”, Obama stated.

Then the president compassionately acknowledged the pain of Palestinian displacement. Next came a surprise: Obama is the first president to compare the struggle of the Palestinians with the struggle of Black Americans. He mentioned the lessons learned in South Africa. He reached out to Hamas by recognizing its appeal to Palestinians. He rightly cautioned against the use of violence in the struggle: “Violence is a dead end”.

The president reiterated his firm opposition to the building of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and promised to push the peace process for a two-state solution. The following promise received much applause: “And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires.”

Having given a boost to the Palestinian cause, Obama turned to the Arab states and asked for reform: democracy in governance, the rights of women, religious freedom and economic development. In this part of the speech Obama was very measured. His critics will point out that he was soft in addressing the oppression practiced by Arab regimes. His defense would arugue that he is a guest of the Arab world. His mission is to improve relations, not to cross the privilege of hospitality. The Israelis would have liked Obama to connect Arab reform with Israel’s security more forcefully. That would have been difficult in Cairo.

Obama’s visit to Cairo was historic. It lived up to expectations. It opened dialogue, started pressure on Israel and set the stage for possible new partnerships with the Muslim world.

Obama in Cairo

Palm Beach Gardens

In his much anticipated speech on June 4 in Cairo, what can President Obama say that is new, realistic and appropriate to this historic occasion? The speech of the US president will be watched, graded, dissected and interpreted by hundreds of millions of people, particularly by Muslims and Jews.

Neither side of the Arab-Israeli conflict is totally enamored with President Obama. While moderate Arabs hope that this new president must have something good in him because he is so different from G.W. Bush. Hard-line Arabs are not moved by an American president whom they see compromised by a political system which appears “wedded to Israel”.

Doubt about Obama in Israel is mounting also. While centrist Israelis give the benefit of the doubt to Obama, they are still worried that America may abandon the Zionist state as Washington tries to win the support of 1.3 billion Muslims in its conflicts in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran.

Speech writers must be thinking hard in drafting messages for the President that would revive the faltering Arab-Israeli peace process, appeal to both Arabs and Jews, and restore trust between America and the Muslim world.

As a guest of the region, President Obama must focus on Arab issues. He goes first to Saudi Arabia and then to Jordan on June 3rd. The next day he is Cairo. His Cairo speech must be mindful of Israeli opinion.

In addressing Arab concerns, he must acknowledge the depth of Palestinian suffering and the significance of Palestinian unity. In addressing Israeli concerns, he must stress security issues and continued American support.

In expressing compassion for Palestinians there is no need to worry about provoking Israelis. Israelis are quiet aware of the serious pain of displacement they have caused Palestinians. This is why you find the most powerful writers about Palestinian suffering in the Jewish community.

For Obama, the second important message is about Palestinian unity. Obama will find it difficult to deal with the issue of Palestinian unity since the US policy is unwittingly reinforcing their disunity by punishing one faction (Hamas) and rewarding another (Fateh). It is important for Obama to realize that Hamas has not lost the respect of the Arab street, and that its opponent, Fateh, is not very popular in the Arab and Muslim world. This is where Obama can score a strong point by reaching out to Hamas without blessing its controversial tactics.

If Obama could empathize with the struggle for Palestinian independence he will reach minds and hearts. But he could forcefully comment that the struggle for liberation must unify Palestinians, not separate them. For only a united Palestine can forge a just peace with Israel.

It is customary, for Americans who address the Middle East, whether they target Arabs or Israelis, to assure Israel that Washington remains its closest ally. In Cairo, the US President can explain that enhanced relations with Israel’s current adversaries would ultimately serve Israel’s security. For it is only through integration of Israel in its region will this unique state find permanent security.

In his Cairo speech, Obama needs not play down the special alliance which the US has had with Israel over half a century. It is important for Obama to explain that the special partnership that Israel has with America is a political phenomenon, rather than a religious alliance against Islam. The president can easily explain that the bond with Israel is based on shared values, ways of living and economic enterprise. As such, the close US relations with Israel are not threatened by parallel partnerships with the Arab and Muslim world. It is here where President Obama can appeal to religious leaders- both in the Arab world and in the West- to challenge them to contribute to inter-religious harmony. Obama is in a unique position to stress this point since his diverse and unusual background makes him the most credible source of inspiration for cross-cultural dialogue.

The US president goes to Cairo setting up high expectations in the moderate circles of the Arab world. What he can do is limited, given his congested domestic agenda, a skeptical Islamic world, a divided Palestinian leadership, a hard-line Israeli government, and a US Congress that is not sensitive to Palestinian demands.

The best message Obama can leave behind is his acknowledgment of the limitations he has in dealing with the problems he is addressing. If President Obama can show the same tolerance for Hamas that he shows for Iran, he would score a strategic point. If he sends a firm message to Netanyahu’s government without alienating the centrist Israelis and the American Jewish community, he would score another point.

Hopefully, his speech will contribute to the unity of Palestinians and positively impact the opinion of the mainline Jewish community. Both are critical for the achievement of peace in the Middle East and for reconciliation with Islam.

Reaching Arabs and Israelis

Responsible journalism series: Reaching people on both sides of the Arab-Israeli divide Ghassan Rubeiz

NEW YORK – Writing fairly about the Arab-Israeli conflict often feels like walking on thin ice. Arab readers advise me to be “bold” in reporting on Palestinian suffering. In contrast, pro-Israeli readers advise me to be more sensitive to the “Jewish perspective”. I try and often fail, but I continue to try. First, I cite an example from the Israeli side of my readership and then discuss comments from the Arab side. Last week, my op-ed, “Israel cannot be a democracy and an occupier”, published in Arabisto, Alhewar and elsewhere, must have provoked many pro-Israel readers. I argued that the oppressive occupation threatens the democracy of the Zionist state: “The Zionist state elects its representatives peacefully; its media are robust and it has a thriving free market. This same country has five million Jews ruling mercilessly over five million Palestinians.” A reader objected to my use of the adverb “mercilessly” in characterising the Israeli occupation. This reader wanted me to be able to reach more Americans. He said that if my audience had been non-Israelis in the Middle East, there would have been no problem with my language and underlying assumptions. But if my audience is in the United States, he suspected that I’d find more questioning and doubt. Knowledge of Israeli oppression and “mercilessness” has been muted and obscured by years of attempting to be “balanced” and to sympathise with the Zionist position. He thought my solution might be to modify some of my stronger statements. I explained to this concerned reader that I believed the occupation was “merciless” because it keeps expanding territorially and eliminates the chance to establish a Palestinian state: a requirement for lasting peace. I further explained that, while Israel keeps pleading for peace, the occupation worsens for Palestinians. I added that the occupation is not serving Israel’s security. One day, Israelis might wake up and find themselves in a minority position. The alternative is equally nightmarish: one day, the Palestinians might face ethnic cleansing to Jordan, Egypt or Lebanon. There is no “mercy” in either scenario. It is care for Israel, not hatred, which entitles its friends to speak firmly about the risk of its open-ended, oppressive and, yes, merciless occupation. Through an expanding occupation Israel is gambling on its future; its friends should proclaim loudly: wake up Israel! Today, the Palestinians are the victims; in the future, given changing demography, the power balance may shift. There seems to be more risk for the occupation to eliminate Israel than to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. The greater the risk for Israel, the more audacity is required from its caring critics. I face similar charges from my Arab readers, many of whom object to my blunt criticism of Palestinian rockets that are fired into Israeli neighbourhoods. Granted, these rockets have caused little damage compared with Israeli air attacks on Gaza. However, I believe we should oppose these forms of resistance because they are morally unjustifiable and ineffective. Resistance from Gaza in the form of rockets has not succeeded in ending the occupation. Moreover, it is rather unfair for those Palestinian resisters to expose innocent Palestinian civilians to retaliation from the Israeli side. Were these Arab rockets stopped, Israel would lose the moral protection from the world community to retaliate to Palestinian provocation. Each rocket fuels the common misconception that Hamas is the only problem, and Israel is simply retaliating in self-defence. Each aimless rocket makes the world unfairly forget how the Israeli occupation factors into Palestinian resistance. Another group of readers simply does not expect me, as an Arab, to strongly criticise other Arabs. The idea that “Arabs should not criticise each other in public” is out-of-date. The notion that Israel does enough damage to the Arab image, that Arabs should not add insult to injury, does not hold water. It is my deep belief that the Arabs’ lack of self-criticism is perhaps the most serious social problem that we have continued to ignore since liberation from the Ottoman Empire. It is much easier to write as an advocate for one side of the conflict. There is a large audience on either side of the divide to please the identity-trapped advocate. Responsible writers are always tempted to emotionally advocate the case for their own communities; but a higher calling orients committed communicators to speak their mind and reach people on both sides of the divide. The risk of being misunderstood is a given, but I have no interest in contributing to an ocean of polluted, one-sided writing. I refuse to be disqualified from being a friend of Israel on the basis of being an Arab critic of the occupation. I appeal to Israeli critics to speak louder and to save Israel by saving Palestine along with the Palestinians. ### * Ghassan Rubeiz is an Arab-American social scientist based in Washington, who has spent much of his life working in and around the Middle East. Mr. Rubeiz writes about religion, politics and life in the Middle East. This article is part of a special series on responsible journalism in the Arab-Israeli conflict written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

The Israeli occupation binds together Syria, Iran and the Resistance

February 23, 2009

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida

Washington is now listening intently to Syria. Last week, the Democratic Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John Kerr, met with the Syrian president Bashar Assad. And this week, Syria’s ambassador visits a high level official in the State Department. There is an improvement in relations as Washington considers the reactivation of its embassy in Damascus.

Will President Obama apply his soft and smart diplomacy to Iran also? There are already some positive signs. President Obama’s reconciliatory remarks to the Muslim world in his inaugural speech and the positive reaction he has received from Iran’s leadership are encouraging.

Iran and Syria are close allies and equally critical of Washington’s neglect of the Israeli occupation. The societal make up and national interests of Iran and Syria are very different. What ties the two nations together is their opposition to the US and to the Israeli occupation of Arab land: Palestine of1967, the Syrian Golan Heights and the Lebanese Sheb’a Farms. It is high time for the US to go beyond timid diplomacy and endless talk about peace possibilities. It is high time for applying firm pressure on Israel to define it’s yet to be delineated borders. Such firm action will help Israel establish its much needed national security and, at the same time, improve Washington’s relations with Iran and Syria.

Some members of the US Congress are aware that there is no way to revive the peace process without involving Iran and Syria. Kerry is among the American lawmakers who well understand the relevance of Syria and Iran to regional peace making. But he is among the few who dare show serious interest in normalizing US relations with Iran and Syria. Israel has lobbied hard in Washington and succeeded to maintain the isolation of Iran and Syria from the US.

The recent assignment of George Mitchell as US special envoy to the Middle East is significant. His low-key diplomatic work may contribute to better understanding among all the stakeholders of the peace process.

How is Syria central to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Since 1967, Israel has occupied and established settlements in the Golan Heights, a populated, fertile and strategic Syrian plateau located on its border with Israel and Lebanon. Syria hosts half a million Palestinian refugees who live in camps and hope to return to their homeland. The “external” leadership of Hamas, the strongest Palestinian resistance movement, operates from Syria. Damascus has great influence on Hezbollah, the Lebanese resistance movement. Syria’s influence extends to all issues of Lebanese politics and to the 400,000 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

Iran, too, is central to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran is the main supporter of Hezbollah and an ally of Hamas. Following Israel’s example, Iran is apparently on the road to developing nuclear weapons. Israel considers Iran its greatest threat.

Despite its clerical autocracy and religious fundamentalism, Iran is a strong, populist and a relatively stable country. In time, Iran has a fair chance of achieving democracy. The vibrant Iranian middle class is increasingly distrustful of the ruling of Mullahs as the economy worsens and freedom shrinks. If external threats to Tehran decline, particularly from the US and Israel, Iranian society will be better able to focus on domestic political reform. The best way for the West to divert Iran from its risky nuclear path is to build better relations with the Iranian people. The current, misguided policy of Iran isolation has turned Iran’s moderates and domestic reformers into ultra-nationalistic defenders of the state.

In the search for a solution to the seemingly intractable Middle East conflict commentators overlook the potential of Iran and the relevance of Syria. Consider for example the opinion of Thomas Friedman in a recent article in the NY Times. While Friedman does advocate a softer US diplomatic tone with Iran, he recommends the exclusion of Tehran from the dialogue on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In a January 27 op-ed, [entitled] Abdullah II: the 5-state solution, Friedman argues rather simplistically that if Saudi Arabia offers massive material aid to the Palestinian refugees, Egypt secures Gaza’s borders, Jordan secures the West Bank and Palestinian factions unite, then Israel would withdraw voluntarily from the occupied territories within five years. This “five-state” approach “would be an Arab solution that would put a stop to Iran’s attempts to Persianize the Palestinian issue.”

Approaching the Arab-Israeli conflict as a regional issue is on the mark, but leaving out Syria and Iran as pivotal stakeholders is not smart politics. Damascus with its Golan claims and Tehran with its regional ambitions are gatekeepers to the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Attitude change is necessary but not sufficient to make a breakthrough in the Arab Israeli conflict. Already Senator Kerry may have promised President Assad political rewards such as the re-opening of the US Embassy in Damascus and ending US sanctions on Syria. In return President Assad has been asked to limit his support of Hezbollah and Hamas. Assad is indeed eager to regain normalcy in the international community, but not at the cost of abandoning his best allies.

To persuade Syria and Iran to significantly change their political positions, the US must eliminate the source of insecurity that binds together four extremely different political partners: Iran, Syria, and the two Israeli occupation resistant movements- Hamas and Hezbollah. The US should focus on ending the Israeli occupation and making international arrangements to provide lasting security for Israel.

Resolving the Arab Israeli conflict requires the active and coordinated participation of Syria and Iran.