Friday, June 23, 2006
Palestinian power struggle
By Neal AbuNab
Since electing Hamas earlier this year, every Palestinian has become a terrorist till proven otherwise. In legal lingo it is called an “unindicted co-conspirator”. The logic is that if they talk like terrorists, act like terrorists and elect indicted terrorists as their leaders then they must be terrorists. This logic was fiercely argued by the Detroit News editor, Nolan Finley, back in February in his article entitled: “Palestinians failed democracy, not the other way around.” It is a logic that caters to the prevalent American public opinion, which was confirmed by the US Congress when last month it passed the “Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act.”
Let’s take this logic one step further because that’s where Israel is headed; every Palestinian is a ticking time-bomb waiting to explode. What do we do about it: we isolate them by building massive prison walls around their towns, starve them and hope that they would start killing each other. That’s exactly the policy Israel has followed in the past three years. When Palestinian gunmen began shooting at each other over a month ago the Israeli government could not contain its euphoria and began releasing statements that expressed “concern” for the humanitarian plight of Palestinians. The media responded positively to the signal and began covering the “plight of Palestinians” focusing on the “violent” factor that controlled their society.
In the past week, the US media has heightened the speculation about a Palestinian civil war. Palestinian militia battles that left 20 people dead so far have attracted more media attention than the suffocating Israeli blockade and the daily shelling and air raids. I think the media is marketing the idea that Palestinians can not get along with anyone even their own people. This leaves Israel with the same solution that America is pondering in Iraq; do not get caught up in a civil war. Israel is steering public opinion to equate Palestinians with Iraqis, the same way it did in March 2002 when it equated its invasion of the West Bank to America’s “Operation Anaconda” in Afghanistan to root out Bin Laden. Considering the superficial level of information that reaches the American public, this does not seem like a hard sale.
I have contended for the past 20 years and from the very first spark of the 1987 Intifadha that the Palestinian cause had become a public relations battle for the hearts and minds of Americans. Young boys throwing rocks at soldiers will not liberate Palestine but if done consistently and without escalation it will draw the attention of the world to solve the problem. It succeeded in convening the 1991 Madrid International Peace Conference. But Palestinians have lost the majority of their gains since 9/11 and the term “terrorist” appears to be sticking. This term is efficient and convenient to describe anyone who disagrees with America’s or Israel’s policies. It is applied liberally much the same way that many Muslims apply the term “Kafir” which means infidel, and both terms are designed to dehumanize anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their narrow interpretation of a certain creed. The prospect of peace diminishes as more Palestinians are branded “terrorists” and more Israelis and Americans are branded “kafir”.
Overplaying the current Palestinian power struggle in the media bolsters the claims of Israel to a unilateral disengagement. In fact, Newsweek reported this week that Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has authorized shipments of M-16 machine guns to go to Palestinian President Abu Mazen’s security force. Israel is hedging its bet in case Abu Mazen does not succeed in turning Hamas around; more guns in Palestinian hands will result in a higher likelihood for an all-out Palestinian civil war.
Nothing more would please Israel’s heart if Palestinians actually followed in the footsteps of Iraqis and began shooting and killing each other indiscriminately. It is the most perfect scenario for Israel at this juncture. But Palestinians are one of the most homogeneous people that live in the Middle East. They have very little sectarian or religious differences. All Muslims of Palestine are Sunnis and the Christians practice traditions similar to the Muslims. In their entire history they have never been divided by differences.
Most Palestinians see the infighting between Hamas and Fatah as a struggle for power. It has no roots for spreading in Palestinian society and political differences are not strong enough to pit a neighbor from his neighbor. The umbrella of common misery always unites them. And if they forget, Israel reminds them of their misery with daily missile attacks to assassinate their leaders.
The struggle for power surfaced after Hamas won two-thirds of the Parliament and felt no compelling need to form a unity government. But the Quartet including the United States and Europe cut off all aid to the Hamas-led government and Arab countries could not deliver on their promise to rescue Hamas financially. Palestinian President Abu Mazen is labeled as a “moderate” and money will flow to him but not to the government. He has beefed up his Presidency institution with Fatah leaders that headed the previous government.
He wants to control foreign policy and the security apparatus which includes all the armed forces. Hamas wants to create a national army out of its militia. The Palestinian Interior Minister created such a force last month and deployed 2,000 Hamas policemen in the streets of Gaza. They were stationed across the street from Fatah policemen and the friction erupted in gun battles.
The government institution is fighting with the presidency institution and the parliament does not hold the decisive card. This struggle will play out for at least another month till Prime Minister Ismail Haniya hammers out the details of a power-sharing agreement with the President, Mahmoud Abbas.
There are two options on the table: a national unity government or a national referendum to be held on July 26. Both options represent a defeat for Hamas. But Hamas over-promised in its election campaign and has so far under-delivered to the Palestinian people. It campaigned to root out corruption and to continue the armed struggle against Israel.
Its campaign of suicide bombings (2001-2004) struck fear in the heart of Israel. It caused the idea of Zionism to collapse as more Jews left Israel than incoming immigrants. It turned the demographic equation around in favor of the Palestinians. But they lost much of their moral grounds as images of blown-up civilians were shown on TV screens across the globe. They also lost a lot of sympathy from the American people.
Hamas, then entered into the political arena in 2005 and decided that image was important and so it suspended its suicide attacks. It held on to the notion that it will not recognize the existence of Israel. But it did not predict that it could not afford this political posture. All financial aid was cut off four months ago and this has effectively crippled it.
When a political party campaigns for any issue it should have the power to deliver on its promises if it wins the elections. But Hamas’s campaign played on the emotions of Palestinians and had no idea how to deliver. Now, it needs to make concessions in order to survive.
Its leader in exile, Khaled Mashaal, called for a unity government last Monday. It is a more palatable face-saving means than the referendum. Polls already show that more than 70% of Palestinians will vote in favor of recognizing Israel in return for a Palestinian state to be established on the 1967 borders.
Ongoing negotiations between Hamas and Fatah involve world powers that have a stake in the conflict. Hamas goes back to Iran for approval and Fatah goes back to Washington. Fatah wants the prime minister position to be filled by a spineless Washington lackey like former Prime Minister Ahmad Qurei. Hamas won’t give up the position and wants money to flow directly to the government. The European Union signaled that it will be ready to resume monetary assistance to the Palestinians in July. But it will route the money through Abbas.
The Palestinian people have no oil or natural resources to speak of. The only thing they still have is a deed to a holy land. Israel wants them to “Quit Claim” that deed for the cheapest price. Recognizing the existence of Israel is not the same as recognizing its right to exist. Hamas has signaled that it is willing to do the former but not the latter.
Fatah argues that recognizing the existence of one’s own enemy is practical. Israel enjoys the unwavering support of the mightiest nation on earth; the USA. The Palestinians can not act irresponsibly by picking a military fight with Israel, that they have not a shred of hope in winning. Hamas’s agenda of an armed struggle is impractical and puts Palestinian society in grave danger.
But that doesn’t mean that they have to give up diplomatic resistance. They have much to learn from the Iranian diplomacy that has thus far prevailed in the nuclear game. Hamas can recognize Israel’s existence without recognizing its right to exist, which will guarantee it some breathing room to cut its teeth in diplomacy.
Hamas has made policy changes to regain some sympathy from the American people. Like I said 20 years ago, the Palestinian cause has become a public relations battle and whoever gains the sympathy of Americans has the upper hand in this conflict.
By Neal AbuNab
Since electing Hamas earlier this year, every Palestinian has become a terrorist till proven otherwise. In legal lingo it is called an “unindicted co-conspirator”. The logic is that if they talk like terrorists, act like terrorists and elect indicted terrorists as their leaders then they must be terrorists. This logic was fiercely argued by the Detroit News editor, Nolan Finley, back in February in his article entitled: “Palestinians failed democracy, not the other way around.” It is a logic that caters to the prevalent American public opinion, which was confirmed by the US Congress when last month it passed the “Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act.”
Let’s take this logic one step further because that’s where Israel is headed; every Palestinian is a ticking time-bomb waiting to explode. What do we do about it: we isolate them by building massive prison walls around their towns, starve them and hope that they would start killing each other. That’s exactly the policy Israel has followed in the past three years. When Palestinian gunmen began shooting at each other over a month ago the Israeli government could not contain its euphoria and began releasing statements that expressed “concern” for the humanitarian plight of Palestinians. The media responded positively to the signal and began covering the “plight of Palestinians” focusing on the “violent” factor that controlled their society.
In the past week, the US media has heightened the speculation about a Palestinian civil war. Palestinian militia battles that left 20 people dead so far have attracted more media attention than the suffocating Israeli blockade and the daily shelling and air raids. I think the media is marketing the idea that Palestinians can not get along with anyone even their own people. This leaves Israel with the same solution that America is pondering in Iraq; do not get caught up in a civil war. Israel is steering public opinion to equate Palestinians with Iraqis, the same way it did in March 2002 when it equated its invasion of the West Bank to America’s “Operation Anaconda” in Afghanistan to root out Bin Laden. Considering the superficial level of information that reaches the American public, this does not seem like a hard sale.
I have contended for the past 20 years and from the very first spark of the 1987 Intifadha that the Palestinian cause had become a public relations battle for the hearts and minds of Americans. Young boys throwing rocks at soldiers will not liberate Palestine but if done consistently and without escalation it will draw the attention of the world to solve the problem. It succeeded in convening the 1991 Madrid International Peace Conference. But Palestinians have lost the majority of their gains since 9/11 and the term “terrorist” appears to be sticking. This term is efficient and convenient to describe anyone who disagrees with America’s or Israel’s policies. It is applied liberally much the same way that many Muslims apply the term “Kafir” which means infidel, and both terms are designed to dehumanize anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their narrow interpretation of a certain creed. The prospect of peace diminishes as more Palestinians are branded “terrorists” and more Israelis and Americans are branded “kafir”.
Overplaying the current Palestinian power struggle in the media bolsters the claims of Israel to a unilateral disengagement. In fact, Newsweek reported this week that Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, has authorized shipments of M-16 machine guns to go to Palestinian President Abu Mazen’s security force. Israel is hedging its bet in case Abu Mazen does not succeed in turning Hamas around; more guns in Palestinian hands will result in a higher likelihood for an all-out Palestinian civil war.
Nothing more would please Israel’s heart if Palestinians actually followed in the footsteps of Iraqis and began shooting and killing each other indiscriminately. It is the most perfect scenario for Israel at this juncture. But Palestinians are one of the most homogeneous people that live in the Middle East. They have very little sectarian or religious differences. All Muslims of Palestine are Sunnis and the Christians practice traditions similar to the Muslims. In their entire history they have never been divided by differences.
Most Palestinians see the infighting between Hamas and Fatah as a struggle for power. It has no roots for spreading in Palestinian society and political differences are not strong enough to pit a neighbor from his neighbor. The umbrella of common misery always unites them. And if they forget, Israel reminds them of their misery with daily missile attacks to assassinate their leaders.
The struggle for power surfaced after Hamas won two-thirds of the Parliament and felt no compelling need to form a unity government. But the Quartet including the United States and Europe cut off all aid to the Hamas-led government and Arab countries could not deliver on their promise to rescue Hamas financially. Palestinian President Abu Mazen is labeled as a “moderate” and money will flow to him but not to the government. He has beefed up his Presidency institution with Fatah leaders that headed the previous government.
He wants to control foreign policy and the security apparatus which includes all the armed forces. Hamas wants to create a national army out of its militia. The Palestinian Interior Minister created such a force last month and deployed 2,000 Hamas policemen in the streets of Gaza. They were stationed across the street from Fatah policemen and the friction erupted in gun battles.
The government institution is fighting with the presidency institution and the parliament does not hold the decisive card. This struggle will play out for at least another month till Prime Minister Ismail Haniya hammers out the details of a power-sharing agreement with the President, Mahmoud Abbas.
There are two options on the table: a national unity government or a national referendum to be held on July 26. Both options represent a defeat for Hamas. But Hamas over-promised in its election campaign and has so far under-delivered to the Palestinian people. It campaigned to root out corruption and to continue the armed struggle against Israel.
Its campaign of suicide bombings (2001-2004) struck fear in the heart of Israel. It caused the idea of Zionism to collapse as more Jews left Israel than incoming immigrants. It turned the demographic equation around in favor of the Palestinians. But they lost much of their moral grounds as images of blown-up civilians were shown on TV screens across the globe. They also lost a lot of sympathy from the American people.
Hamas, then entered into the political arena in 2005 and decided that image was important and so it suspended its suicide attacks. It held on to the notion that it will not recognize the existence of Israel. But it did not predict that it could not afford this political posture. All financial aid was cut off four months ago and this has effectively crippled it.
When a political party campaigns for any issue it should have the power to deliver on its promises if it wins the elections. But Hamas’s campaign played on the emotions of Palestinians and had no idea how to deliver. Now, it needs to make concessions in order to survive.
Its leader in exile, Khaled Mashaal, called for a unity government last Monday. It is a more palatable face-saving means than the referendum. Polls already show that more than 70% of Palestinians will vote in favor of recognizing Israel in return for a Palestinian state to be established on the 1967 borders.
Ongoing negotiations between Hamas and Fatah involve world powers that have a stake in the conflict. Hamas goes back to Iran for approval and Fatah goes back to Washington. Fatah wants the prime minister position to be filled by a spineless Washington lackey like former Prime Minister Ahmad Qurei. Hamas won’t give up the position and wants money to flow directly to the government. The European Union signaled that it will be ready to resume monetary assistance to the Palestinians in July. But it will route the money through Abbas.
The Palestinian people have no oil or natural resources to speak of. The only thing they still have is a deed to a holy land. Israel wants them to “Quit Claim” that deed for the cheapest price. Recognizing the existence of Israel is not the same as recognizing its right to exist. Hamas has signaled that it is willing to do the former but not the latter.
Fatah argues that recognizing the existence of one’s own enemy is practical. Israel enjoys the unwavering support of the mightiest nation on earth; the USA. The Palestinians can not act irresponsibly by picking a military fight with Israel, that they have not a shred of hope in winning. Hamas’s agenda of an armed struggle is impractical and puts Palestinian society in grave danger.
But that doesn’t mean that they have to give up diplomatic resistance. They have much to learn from the Iranian diplomacy that has thus far prevailed in the nuclear game. Hamas can recognize Israel’s existence without recognizing its right to exist, which will guarantee it some breathing room to cut its teeth in diplomacy.
Hamas has made policy changes to regain some sympathy from the American people. Like I said 20 years ago, the Palestinian cause has become a public relations battle and whoever gains the sympathy of Americans has the upper hand in this conflict.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
From: "Neal AbuNab"
To: "'attn blaine'"
Subject: RE: "...Police escort 3 who want city to divest from Israel out of city hall"
Your courage makes me proud. What you are doing is guaranteeing yourself a place in heaven. All this rejection that you get from people who refuse to stand up for justice is a badge of honor that you can present at the gate of heaven. They will also be there and each will be asked why they refused to listen to you, and they will have no answer and they will wish they could come back to this life and have another chance.
I save all my hate mail to present to God for the same reason.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607936/posts
May Allah bless you and all your labors.
Neal AbuNab
To: "'attn blaine'"
Subject: RE: "...Police escort 3 who want city to divest from Israel out of city hall"
Your courage makes me proud. What you are doing is guaranteeing yourself a place in heaven. All this rejection that you get from people who refuse to stand up for justice is a badge of honor that you can present at the gate of heaven. They will also be there and each will be asked why they refused to listen to you, and they will have no answer and they will wish they could come back to this life and have another chance.
I save all my hate mail to present to God for the same reason.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607936/posts
May Allah bless you and all your labors.
Neal AbuNab
From: attn blaine [mailto:attnblaine@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:58
Subject: "...Police escort 3 who want city to divest from Israel out of city hall"
***************************************************
"Protesters disrupt council:
"Police escort 3 who want city to divest from Israel out of city hall"
"ANN ARBOR NEWS" (Michigan)
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Full article on the Web at:
http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-18/1150814444294200.xml&coll=2
Brief excerpt from that article:
" 'The violent, racist, state of Israel was Apartheid South Africa's best friend.
" 'And Mayor Hieftje, tonight, became Apartheid Israel's best friend.
" 'Mayor Hieftje is now using assault and battery to intimidate peaceful speakers, speakers who only ask for divestment from Israel. Ordering police assaults, against peaceful Palestine human rights speakers, is the act of a violent, racist thug, not a protector of freedom of speech....' "
--END of EXCERPT--
***********************************
(Note: The next Ann Arbor City Council meeting is 7 PM, Monday, July 3, 2006.
(Details at City Council's Web page:
http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/Mayor/council.html )
***********************************
Also note: the City Council has refused, for years, to allow a Public Hearing on their own Human Rights Commission's Palestine resolution...
...that Resolution urges an end to militay aid to Israel.
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 11:58
Subject: "...Police escort 3 who want city to divest from Israel out of city hall"
***************************************************
"Protesters disrupt council:
"Police escort 3 who want city to divest from Israel out of city hall"
"ANN ARBOR NEWS" (Michigan)
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Full article on the Web at:
http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-18/1150814444294200.xml&coll=2
Brief excerpt from that article:
" 'The violent, racist, state of Israel was Apartheid South Africa's best friend.
" 'And Mayor Hieftje, tonight, became Apartheid Israel's best friend.
" 'Mayor Hieftje is now using assault and battery to intimidate peaceful speakers, speakers who only ask for divestment from Israel. Ordering police assaults, against peaceful Palestine human rights speakers, is the act of a violent, racist thug, not a protector of freedom of speech....' "
--END of EXCERPT--
***********************************
(Note: The next Ann Arbor City Council meeting is 7 PM, Monday, July 3, 2006.
(Details at City Council's Web page:
http://www.ci.ann-arbor.mi.us/Mayor/council.html )
***********************************
Also note: the City Council has refused, for years, to allow a Public Hearing on their own Human Rights Commission's Palestine resolution...
...that Resolution urges an end to militay aid to Israel.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
The War on Terror
June 10, 2006
What has this war achieved so far? How long do we expect it to continue? What does victory look like? These are all legitimate questions that a nation must ask when it declares a war. The public deserves honest answers from its leaders.
I offer my humble answers to such far reaching questions in a book published recently. It is called “The War on Terror and Democracy – An Arab American Perspective”. It is a collection of selected essays and articles published in recent times mainly in the Arab American News. Each article examines this conflict from a different angle and by the end of the book it is my intention to have provided the reader with a comprehensive view that captures a middle ground. Or at the very least, leave the reader with an impression that a middle ground can exist.
Every conflict has two sides to the story and the more entrenched and rigid each side becomes the less likelihood there will be for peace. Recently, President George W. Bush started coming off his high horse and admitted that he made “some” mistakes in the past. In a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, he admitted using tough talk which defined the culture of this conflict, and the use of phrases like “wanted dead or alive” and “bring it on”, he conceded that such language was “not helpful”.
This sort of macho talk also defined the culture of domestic law enforcement in the early days after 9/11. It sent signals to people in authority that abuse of civil rights was justified. There was a great sense of panic in the nation and Bush’s machoism invited bullies to come forward seeking the glory to be called “heroes”. But such overzealous officers were prosecuted in the aftermath of the AbuGhraib prison torture scandal. And now we have cause to be more concerned with the allegations of massacres committed by US troops in places like Haditha in Iraq.
But peace in this conflict and the way to get there is hardly talked about any more. As Arab Americans we are caught in the middle of this conflict. We fully understand why the people of the Arab and Muslim world are angry and hungry. It is a volatile combination that will keep exploding. We criticize Muslim extremism, rigidity, inflexibility, and inability to compromise even harder than we criticize the actions of the Bush administration. We want this country to succeed and to overcome its ignorance.
At the end of the day we are Americans and we have to engage the mainstream public opinion in a real way that offers alternative solutions. We need to thrust our insight into the kitchens of public policy-making. The mainstream media is not going to solicit our opinion or make us a regular component of its junky diet. Peace is possible, as I claim in my book that “it is no mystery that America can end this war in 100 days.”
I also make some outlandish assertions that amuse some of my colleagues and give critics an easy target. For example, on page 10, I declare that “Judgment Day will happen on April 4, 2009, at noon.”
But there is a method to my madness. I see US foreign policy as fundamentally flawed. America’s relationship with other nations is based on the “friendly” factor. If they are our friends, like Israel, they can violate every human right possible and never risk losing our support. US support is not based on mutual respect of international law or recognition of any moral code that is universal to all human beings. This is like saying we are a nation of laws and no one is above the law unless you were a close friend of George Bush. Close friends are exempt from following the law and they face no consequences to wrongdoing. US foreign policy is corrupt and it represents favoritism and nepotism on an international scale.
On the other hand, you have culturally bankrupt fat Sheiks controlling all the wealth of the Middle East. They are loathed and hated by almost every Arab in the world. When Saddam Hussein took out the Kuwaiti Sheiks in 1990 very few Arabs cried. George Bush senior and Margaret Thatcher were outraged that international law was violated and a sovereign nation was invaded. Most Arabs don’t believe that these fabricated banana republics even deserve the title of sovereign nation. They are mostly plantations like the ones abolished by Abraham Lincoln and the American civil war. They have no legitimacy for existence except the right afforded to them by the US. Every Arab believes that he has a right to the wealth created by every drop of oil. But they have been deprived of that wealth by the US. They blame the US for their hunger.
Then, we tell them that we want democracy in the Middle East and we make our own gullible American citizens believe that democracy is the only guarantee against terrorism. We send troops invading another sovereign nation, Iraq, on a “noble” mission to install democracy by the barrel of a gun. While in another hot spot called occupied Palestine, people on their own create a democratic movement and they conduct free elections. But, we disagree with the results because they elected “unfriendly terrorists.” So, what do we do? We starve them more.
This week, Mogadishu fell to Islamic Court movement fighters and Somalia may enjoy peace for the first time in 15 years under Islamic rule. Should we be alarmed and begin our invasion plans because an Islamic regime has wrested power by force. It sounds like Taliban in 1995. But maybe not. They signaled that they want to be “friendly” with America and that they will not be whipping their women. So, maybe we should get past the labels of “Islamic” and “terrorist” and begin to look at the people as unemployed, poverty-stricken and desperate. We should look at every Arab state and admit that it is a failed state. I can not name one Arab state that is successful by modern standards.
“The War on Terror and Democracy” provides insight on how we can get out of this quagmire. It is easy to read and every page promises to be packed with fresh and provocative ideas.
What has this war achieved so far? How long do we expect it to continue? What does victory look like? These are all legitimate questions that a nation must ask when it declares a war. The public deserves honest answers from its leaders.
I offer my humble answers to such far reaching questions in a book published recently. It is called “The War on Terror and Democracy – An Arab American Perspective”. It is a collection of selected essays and articles published in recent times mainly in the Arab American News. Each article examines this conflict from a different angle and by the end of the book it is my intention to have provided the reader with a comprehensive view that captures a middle ground. Or at the very least, leave the reader with an impression that a middle ground can exist.
Every conflict has two sides to the story and the more entrenched and rigid each side becomes the less likelihood there will be for peace. Recently, President George W. Bush started coming off his high horse and admitted that he made “some” mistakes in the past. In a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, he admitted using tough talk which defined the culture of this conflict, and the use of phrases like “wanted dead or alive” and “bring it on”, he conceded that such language was “not helpful”.
This sort of macho talk also defined the culture of domestic law enforcement in the early days after 9/11. It sent signals to people in authority that abuse of civil rights was justified. There was a great sense of panic in the nation and Bush’s machoism invited bullies to come forward seeking the glory to be called “heroes”. But such overzealous officers were prosecuted in the aftermath of the AbuGhraib prison torture scandal. And now we have cause to be more concerned with the allegations of massacres committed by US troops in places like Haditha in Iraq.
But peace in this conflict and the way to get there is hardly talked about any more. As Arab Americans we are caught in the middle of this conflict. We fully understand why the people of the Arab and Muslim world are angry and hungry. It is a volatile combination that will keep exploding. We criticize Muslim extremism, rigidity, inflexibility, and inability to compromise even harder than we criticize the actions of the Bush administration. We want this country to succeed and to overcome its ignorance.
At the end of the day we are Americans and we have to engage the mainstream public opinion in a real way that offers alternative solutions. We need to thrust our insight into the kitchens of public policy-making. The mainstream media is not going to solicit our opinion or make us a regular component of its junky diet. Peace is possible, as I claim in my book that “it is no mystery that America can end this war in 100 days.”
I also make some outlandish assertions that amuse some of my colleagues and give critics an easy target. For example, on page 10, I declare that “Judgment Day will happen on April 4, 2009, at noon.”
But there is a method to my madness. I see US foreign policy as fundamentally flawed. America’s relationship with other nations is based on the “friendly” factor. If they are our friends, like Israel, they can violate every human right possible and never risk losing our support. US support is not based on mutual respect of international law or recognition of any moral code that is universal to all human beings. This is like saying we are a nation of laws and no one is above the law unless you were a close friend of George Bush. Close friends are exempt from following the law and they face no consequences to wrongdoing. US foreign policy is corrupt and it represents favoritism and nepotism on an international scale.
On the other hand, you have culturally bankrupt fat Sheiks controlling all the wealth of the Middle East. They are loathed and hated by almost every Arab in the world. When Saddam Hussein took out the Kuwaiti Sheiks in 1990 very few Arabs cried. George Bush senior and Margaret Thatcher were outraged that international law was violated and a sovereign nation was invaded. Most Arabs don’t believe that these fabricated banana republics even deserve the title of sovereign nation. They are mostly plantations like the ones abolished by Abraham Lincoln and the American civil war. They have no legitimacy for existence except the right afforded to them by the US. Every Arab believes that he has a right to the wealth created by every drop of oil. But they have been deprived of that wealth by the US. They blame the US for their hunger.
Then, we tell them that we want democracy in the Middle East and we make our own gullible American citizens believe that democracy is the only guarantee against terrorism. We send troops invading another sovereign nation, Iraq, on a “noble” mission to install democracy by the barrel of a gun. While in another hot spot called occupied Palestine, people on their own create a democratic movement and they conduct free elections. But, we disagree with the results because they elected “unfriendly terrorists.” So, what do we do? We starve them more.
This week, Mogadishu fell to Islamic Court movement fighters and Somalia may enjoy peace for the first time in 15 years under Islamic rule. Should we be alarmed and begin our invasion plans because an Islamic regime has wrested power by force. It sounds like Taliban in 1995. But maybe not. They signaled that they want to be “friendly” with America and that they will not be whipping their women. So, maybe we should get past the labels of “Islamic” and “terrorist” and begin to look at the people as unemployed, poverty-stricken and desperate. We should look at every Arab state and admit that it is a failed state. I can not name one Arab state that is successful by modern standards.
“The War on Terror and Democracy” provides insight on how we can get out of this quagmire. It is easy to read and every page promises to be packed with fresh and provocative ideas.
Hamas nearing collapse
June 3, 2006
June 3, 2006
Hamas is boxed in and cornered. Palestinian President Abu Mazen will do the honors of clipping its wings and plucking its feathers. The struggle between the Palestinian Presidency and the Palestinian Government is deeper than it seems. It is almost a sectarian conflict between the “exiled” Palestinians and those who stayed behind living under occupation.
When I went back to Ramallah in 1994 I was dogged by the stigma that I was a Palestinian “deserter” who chose to live the good life in America while the rest of them had to suffer all these years living under occupation and guarding our land. It was hard to sensitize some people to the fact that I was thrown out of my home and forced into exile. I suffered double if not triple what they had suffered. But engaging in such arguments is futile. Some Palestinians would like to measure your “Palestinianism” by how much you suffered. If they can prove to themselves that they had suffered more than you did then they are entitled to enjoy some benefits from you. In their eyes, you become a fat cow ready to be milked and swindled.
That’s how they welcomed Arafat and his people when he arrived in Jericho in late 1993. Arafat brought money and prosperity with him and the mid nineties are nowadays lamented as the golden days of the Oslo peace. During those years thousands of exiled Palestinians were allowed back into the territories. They brought with them a permissive way of life that reflected Western culture.
The “exiled” Palestinians were tolerated by the “indigenous” Palestinians because of their money and not much else. They resented them because they did not adhere to strict traditional customs and they had a pragmatic approach that discussed “sacred cow’ issues openly. The “exiled” were ready to barter away anything for the good life.
The “exiled” ruled the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian fighters loyal to Arafat were brought in from Tunis, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. They formed the infrastructure of the police and security agencies. They began assembling a typical Arab regime that relied on a wide network of Mukhabarat (secret security informants). Economic benefits were handed out to the faithful sponsors of the regime and the opposition was ostracized.
In time, Arafat and his friends took control of the entire Palestinian economy as it was given to them by the negotiating Israeli partner. US and European aid increased as the Palestinian Authority swelled up with employees. They turned an almost self-reliant decentralized economy into a Saddam Hussein Baathist-type welfare regime.
For a while the Palestinians did not mind it. They were squeezed out of private enterprise by giant Corporations owned by Authority men and their partners. But they found a job in this ever growing Authority. They all became teachers, policemen and Mukhabarat and now they number 160,000 employees. And they have not been paid any wages in three months. They are hungry and angry.
Arafat and his authority managed to centralize the Palestinian economy, disengage its intricate intertwine with the Israeli economy, and make it totally dependent on foreign aid. He gave Israel a single pipeline to the Palestinian economy. When Hamas won the elections at the end of January Israel shut down that pipeline.
Through his usual sheer incompetence and greed, Arafat was able to replay the same old scenario he had executed once before in Lebanon in the seventies. Foreign aid money was considered a “peace” dividend and was rarely used for nation-building. Peace dividends are payments given to people friendly to the idea of peace while the opposition is subjected to economic sanctions.
When Hamas decided to go it alone and form its own government almost two months ago I knew it was a disaster for the Palestinian people. Hamas leaders inherited a liability they were not prepared for. These leaders are not seasoned politicians or economic reformists that know how to untangle corruption through decentralization and market liberalization. Their first on the ground action was to hire 2,000 more policemen. They were Hamas militia fighters and they started fighting with the Fatah police force.
Fighting corruption entails massive layoffs from the Palestinian Authority and breaking the Palestinian corporate monopoly. By its action Hamas has proven that all it seeks is a piece of the pie created by Arafat. This won’t work if it doesn’t recognize the existence of Israel and work within the will of Abu Mazen.
By the way, the only two countries in the world that have a parliamentary system sharing power with a presidency system are Iraq and Palestine. And both are failed states set up by the US State Department. Palestinian constitutional reforms are needed to define the powers of the presidency and the prime minister. Both are competing to lead Palestinians in two opposing directions.
The second action Hamas has taken so far was sending its foreign minister to Arab and Muslim countries begging for money. Al-Zahhar got the money and he delivered it to Cairo but no bank consented to transfer the money to the Palestinian government. Qatar declared that it had $50 million dollars waiting for Hamas to collect it but no bank would touch the hot money. Arab League Secretary General, Amer Mousa, declared two weeks ago: “we are crippled in our ability to send money to the Palestinian Authority.”
A few days later one of the Hamas leaders was apprehended by Fatah border officers trying to smuggle 800,000 Euros in cash into Gaza. This is what Hamas leaders have turned into; money smugglers! Hamas might still be able to market the romantic notion that it can fight Israel. But it can not fight the United States of America. New York’s financial center acts as the world’s clearinghouse for banking transactions. Every bank in the Arab world is tied into the American banking system. None of these banks would risk being declared by the State Department as a “material” supporter of terrorism. Their assets would be frozen and their directors prosecuted.
There is not a single Arab leader who would step forward and give political guarantees to a bank willing to transact with the Hamas government. It is under siege and if it doesn’t form a unity government with Fatah and moderate its language it will be forced out.
Having strong ties with Iran will not save Hamas from financial ruin. Iran has no control over any banking structure as it faces the real threat of financial sanctions itself. Abu Mazen has given the Hamas leadership an ultimatum and if by June 6 a formula for national unity, like the one drafted recently by Palestinian prisoners, is not reached he will hold a national referendum.
The moral of the story is that politicians have to feed the growling stomachs first and foremost before tackling any issues of social justice. It is a lesson that Hamas may not have the time to learn.
When I went back to Ramallah in 1994 I was dogged by the stigma that I was a Palestinian “deserter” who chose to live the good life in America while the rest of them had to suffer all these years living under occupation and guarding our land. It was hard to sensitize some people to the fact that I was thrown out of my home and forced into exile. I suffered double if not triple what they had suffered. But engaging in such arguments is futile. Some Palestinians would like to measure your “Palestinianism” by how much you suffered. If they can prove to themselves that they had suffered more than you did then they are entitled to enjoy some benefits from you. In their eyes, you become a fat cow ready to be milked and swindled.
That’s how they welcomed Arafat and his people when he arrived in Jericho in late 1993. Arafat brought money and prosperity with him and the mid nineties are nowadays lamented as the golden days of the Oslo peace. During those years thousands of exiled Palestinians were allowed back into the territories. They brought with them a permissive way of life that reflected Western culture.
The “exiled” Palestinians were tolerated by the “indigenous” Palestinians because of their money and not much else. They resented them because they did not adhere to strict traditional customs and they had a pragmatic approach that discussed “sacred cow’ issues openly. The “exiled” were ready to barter away anything for the good life.
The “exiled” ruled the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian fighters loyal to Arafat were brought in from Tunis, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. They formed the infrastructure of the police and security agencies. They began assembling a typical Arab regime that relied on a wide network of Mukhabarat (secret security informants). Economic benefits were handed out to the faithful sponsors of the regime and the opposition was ostracized.
In time, Arafat and his friends took control of the entire Palestinian economy as it was given to them by the negotiating Israeli partner. US and European aid increased as the Palestinian Authority swelled up with employees. They turned an almost self-reliant decentralized economy into a Saddam Hussein Baathist-type welfare regime.
For a while the Palestinians did not mind it. They were squeezed out of private enterprise by giant Corporations owned by Authority men and their partners. But they found a job in this ever growing Authority. They all became teachers, policemen and Mukhabarat and now they number 160,000 employees. And they have not been paid any wages in three months. They are hungry and angry.
Arafat and his authority managed to centralize the Palestinian economy, disengage its intricate intertwine with the Israeli economy, and make it totally dependent on foreign aid. He gave Israel a single pipeline to the Palestinian economy. When Hamas won the elections at the end of January Israel shut down that pipeline.
Through his usual sheer incompetence and greed, Arafat was able to replay the same old scenario he had executed once before in Lebanon in the seventies. Foreign aid money was considered a “peace” dividend and was rarely used for nation-building. Peace dividends are payments given to people friendly to the idea of peace while the opposition is subjected to economic sanctions.
When Hamas decided to go it alone and form its own government almost two months ago I knew it was a disaster for the Palestinian people. Hamas leaders inherited a liability they were not prepared for. These leaders are not seasoned politicians or economic reformists that know how to untangle corruption through decentralization and market liberalization. Their first on the ground action was to hire 2,000 more policemen. They were Hamas militia fighters and they started fighting with the Fatah police force.
Fighting corruption entails massive layoffs from the Palestinian Authority and breaking the Palestinian corporate monopoly. By its action Hamas has proven that all it seeks is a piece of the pie created by Arafat. This won’t work if it doesn’t recognize the existence of Israel and work within the will of Abu Mazen.
By the way, the only two countries in the world that have a parliamentary system sharing power with a presidency system are Iraq and Palestine. And both are failed states set up by the US State Department. Palestinian constitutional reforms are needed to define the powers of the presidency and the prime minister. Both are competing to lead Palestinians in two opposing directions.
The second action Hamas has taken so far was sending its foreign minister to Arab and Muslim countries begging for money. Al-Zahhar got the money and he delivered it to Cairo but no bank consented to transfer the money to the Palestinian government. Qatar declared that it had $50 million dollars waiting for Hamas to collect it but no bank would touch the hot money. Arab League Secretary General, Amer Mousa, declared two weeks ago: “we are crippled in our ability to send money to the Palestinian Authority.”
A few days later one of the Hamas leaders was apprehended by Fatah border officers trying to smuggle 800,000 Euros in cash into Gaza. This is what Hamas leaders have turned into; money smugglers! Hamas might still be able to market the romantic notion that it can fight Israel. But it can not fight the United States of America. New York’s financial center acts as the world’s clearinghouse for banking transactions. Every bank in the Arab world is tied into the American banking system. None of these banks would risk being declared by the State Department as a “material” supporter of terrorism. Their assets would be frozen and their directors prosecuted.
There is not a single Arab leader who would step forward and give political guarantees to a bank willing to transact with the Hamas government. It is under siege and if it doesn’t form a unity government with Fatah and moderate its language it will be forced out.
Having strong ties with Iran will not save Hamas from financial ruin. Iran has no control over any banking structure as it faces the real threat of financial sanctions itself. Abu Mazen has given the Hamas leadership an ultimatum and if by June 6 a formula for national unity, like the one drafted recently by Palestinian prisoners, is not reached he will hold a national referendum.
The moral of the story is that politicians have to feed the growling stomachs first and foremost before tackling any issues of social justice. It is a lesson that Hamas may not have the time to learn.
Olmert hits the jackpot
May 27, 2006Ehud Olmert, the newly elected Prime Minister of Israel, arrived in the United States like a conqueror and he was received with more honors and pomp than bestowed upon royalties. His visit this past week was a continuation of the election campaign and he worked the media selling his ideas. The other side to the story was totally absent from the debate, and for all intents and purposes the Palestinian story has disappeared from the American political scene.
Olmert sought the mandate of the American people for his unilateral disengagement plan and he got it. He marketed the idea as a great sacrifice by Israel in the name of peace, and as the most humane solution for the Palestinians. He was “concerned” about the humanitarian crisis in the occupied territories and never once did he mention that he had ordered the blockade that is causing it. Throughout his three-day visit the much-dreaded ‘O’ word (Occupation) never came up in anybody’s jargon.
If your community commands enormous political influence in the United States, like the Jewish community, this is the perfect time to extract concessions from the beleaguered Bush. His weakness at home strengthened the negotiating hand of Israel; as if it needed any more strengthening. Olmert, in fact, got more than he had hoped for. Bush gave away the store, so to speak. He gave Olmert everything he had asked for in return for one lousy meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The irony of it all is that the future of Palestine is in the hands of Bush and he gives away so cheaply what does not belong to him. He blessed the Olmert plan that extends to 2010. Bush even sold the negotiating ability of the next US President.
Olmert spent six hours at the White House talking and dining privately with Bush. During those hours a major shift in US policy towards the Middle East took place. At their joint press conference Bush praised Olmert for his “bold ideas”. The same day the US Congress groveled to Olmert by passing a resolution that banned all US aid to the Palestinian Authority and barred its members from entering America. It was a sad day for America to see its leaders trampling over each other in a mad stampede to please Israel.
Olmert received the greatest privilege, only reserved for blood allies like Britain’s Tony Blair, in addressing the most powerful deliberative body in the world, the US Congress, on Wednesday. In his speech, he extended his hand out and urged the Palestinians not to “ignore our outstretched hand for peace”. At that very moment Palestinians were experiencing Olmert’s hand of “peace” and it came in the form of bullets. Israeli army units were raiding downtown Ramallah and Olmert’s “outstretched hand for peace” was shooting Palestinians indiscriminately. They killed 4, wounded 60 and arrested a resistance leader. Such incursions are commonplace and part of the every day life under occupation. And this is what Palestinians are resisting. They have no resistance towards peace.
In his speech to the Congress, Olmert emphasized the common values shared by the two nations. He said “the unbreakable ties between our two nations extend far beyond mutual interests. They are based on our shared goals and values stemming from the very essence of our mutual foundations.” He quoted three verses from the Bible to affirm Israel’s claim to the land of Palestine. In an election year, he was clearly directing these remarks to the all-powerful Christian voter group. He went on to remind everyone of the goal of defeating terrorism and called on Hamas to “renounce the culture and education of terror.”
Olmert’s motive to invoke the theme of common values and to talk about it for almost half an hour can be interpreted in two conflicting views. Is it because America is finding it increasingly hard to attack Muslim nations on behalf of Israel? Or is it because America and Israel have genuinely joined in a common destiny and vision for this world? I suspect it is more of the latter than the former. In 2002, Bush said: “fearful people live behind walls like the Berlin Wall.” Today, America’s eyes are focused on building a massive wall on its border with Mexico. Israel has been building its apartheid wall for the past three years. The common values of liberty, democracy and human rights have become so frail that they need massive walls to protect them.
Olmert described Iran as the “world’s leading sponsor of terror” and said that every generation is tested by “a moment of truth and trial.” In a clear bid for military action he urged the Congress “our moment is now. We will be judged by the actions we take now. Not by our resolve but by our results.”
He went back to list the impressive credentials of Israel and that it had more companies listed on the Nasdaq Stock market than any other foreign nation. He described the country he immigrated to, Israel, as “an oasis of hope and opportunity in a troubled region.” He addressed the Palestinian people as an entity separate from its leadership and asked them to be courageous in choosing “peace over terror.” He dangled the carrot of a modern prosperous democratic state living side by side with Israel and closed by saying: “we hope and pray that our Palestinian neighbors will also awaken”, referring to the promise of a bright future.
In my opinion, every Palestinian yearns for peace and will gladly take that carrot over the fiery stick of steel that has been tormenting him for almost 60 years.
The problem is that Olmert has no mandate from his people to abide by UN resolutions or to respect the will of the International community. He wants Abbas to disarm all Palestinian militias, force Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and have the Hamas-led Palestinian government abide by all agreements signed between Israel and the PLO. Israel itself has not abided by a single agreement it had signed with the PLO. Israel declared the Oslo Accords dead in 2001 and not the Palestinians.
Olmert has no intentions of negotiating with the Palestinians. Let me translate what he is saying in layman’s language: we’ll go to a meeting with Abbas and if we don’t like what he’s saying we’ll just go ahead and do what suits us. He has already set the expectations of failure for negotiations. He will not sit down and talk to the Palestinians under a United Nations framework which abides by the will of the International community. That is the true test of negotiating in good faith. He says that “we can’t wait forever” and if Israel can’t find a Palestinian partner then it will draw its own borders unilaterally.
Olmert’s rhetoric about going the extra mile to achieve a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians is a smoke screen intended for US public opinion. It reminds me of the impossible conditions imposed by Ariel Sharon on Arafat in 2001. This rhetoric is a prelude to a massive Israeli military action probably planned for 2007. Abbas will undoubtedly fail in the eyes of the Israeli government and it won’t be long till they declare him, like they did Arafat, as an accomplice to terrorism.
In the Middle East, we have learned that it is far safer to place a bet on war, as the odds for peace are getting slimmer by the day.
Neal AbuNab
 |
| Contact Neal |
| - |
| Books |
 |
 |