Vote for Obama or … Welcome World War IV?

By Bachir Habib

The US presidential campaign is heating up, and Sarah Palin is the latest Republican weapon deployed after the stunning success of the Democratic Convention in Denver. The Palin choice might backfire early against the Republican’s campaign, with personal and professional stories about Alaska’s governor (qualifying her as a bad choice already) invading the press in America and abroad.
However, very strong ideas are making their way to the American political discourse. Frightening principles and words are being used, and “World War IV” is one of them. World War IV entered this campaign when Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor told Seth Colter Walls from the Huffington Post nearly two months ago: “If McCain is president and if his Secretary of State is Joe Lieberman and his Secretary of Defense is Rudolph Giuliani, we will be moving towards the World War IV” (the Cold War counted as World War III).
The more powerful is a Nation, the more its internal affairs become of interest for the International Community. How many non Americans wish they can vote in the US elections to see the candidate that will “help” or “do less harm” to their country securing his way to the White House?
But unfortunately, all those interested in the US elections can’t make their voice heard via powerful lobbies as AIPAC who imposed itself as a pressure group able to guarantee that the elected president considers Israel’s National Interest as integrated to and inseparable from the US National Interest.
It is finally to the American voter alone to decide who will be ruling the American Empire (or what Bush left of it). And that same American voter will indirectly define Washington’s positions towards Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia (etc)… At the same time, the American voter might not be worrying about all the international questions, and his vote might be exclusively on internal issues like healthcare, economy, unemployment, taxes (etc)…
The interaction between internal and international issues becomes crucial when a country holds a position of superpower. Since the end of the cold war in 1991, the US has been considered as the only remaining superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union. November 2008 is a historical moment for the United States of America. And the Russia – Georgia crisis over Ossetia throws doubt over the US remaining in the position it held since 1991.
It is a test of realism for the American Empire. Will it assume the responsibility of its power by voting for a President able to recollect the pieces internally and adopt a less arrogant tone abroad? Or will it vote for a World War IV perspective that will prove that “Each empire holds in its heart the germs of its self destruction”?

Read More...

Summary only...

Peaceful Palestinian Walks disturbed by Zionism

By Bachir Habib

On the second of August 2008, the title of an opinion article in the Jerusalem Post caught my interest. Titled “The ‘Economist’ Rewrites History” by Zalman Shoval, former Israeli ambassador to the United States it accuses The Economist of revisionism only because it positively reviewed, under the Arts section, a book called Palestinian Walks, Notes on a Vanishing Landscape, written by Raja Shehadeh, a Palestinian Lawyer and founder of Al Haq* organization in 1979.
In his book, winner of the Orwell Prize 2008, Shehadeh describes the change in the landscape of the hills surrounding Ramallah through seven walks he took in the area. His lyrical description of the “Biblical Hills” comes as a perfect justification of the prize awarded to the author and his book. The seven walks counted were not made within a year or two; they are spread at least over two decades. That’s exactly why the reader, while turning the pages of this book, is taken through the geographical changes to the hills and their surroundings over a troubled time, where political and military events had the strongest impact on transforming the peaceful nature of what Shehadeh calls the “Highland Hills of Palestine”.
Shehadeh’s perspective is also interesting in the way he shows how the function of the hills surrounding Ramallah changed over the generations. From a place where Palestinian men used to escape the hot summers, working the land and building Qasr (round stones structures built without concrete dotting the land where farmers kept their produce and slept on the open roof), the hills now fulfill a security function, but this time for the Israeli settlers building outposts to better control Palestinian areas. Shehade’s journey and description of this change of function intersects with the Israeli architect Eyal Weizeman’s thesis called "The Politics of Verticality", where the latter develops the idea that the Israeli architecture has played an important role in the conflict for the past six decades. Weizeman’s more recent work has focused on the way the Israeli outposts are built in a South African “apartheid” style.
Shehade’s book is Art, contrary to what his Excellency the ambassador pretends. How can art not relate to politics in that part of the world where the historical artistic patrimony is transformed daily by political conditions? In that specific sense the book is politically potent. Even if its formal relation to the political sphere is subtle, using hints and questions that push the reader to seek political answers elsewhere.
This last argument is probably one of the reasons why Shehade was awarded the Orwell prize. He doesn’t impose political conclusions nor affirms ideological positions. A fact he comes across as a very harsh critic of all Palestinian factions and militias, simply by counting the number of times he came close to being shot dead by armed Palestinian militants on his walks, or the abuse he suffered, he who founded an organization to protect Palestinian rights, at the hands of those who pretended to protect him.
In its review to Shehade’s work, The New York Times Book Review found that: “Few Palestinians have opened their minds with such frankness”. Such acclaim disqualifies totally Shoval who showed nothing but hatred and racism in his judgmental article published in the Jerusalem Post. Nowhere was that more obvious than in the disdain he showed “a certain Raja Shehade, portrayed as a lawyer and a writer…” As if he, a government official, did not know that Shehade is well known to Israeli tribunals as a lawyer who defended the Palestinians against land expropriation practiced by Israel. Shoval’s position is in fact against anyone who dares looking at the Israeli – Palestinian conflict from an angle that questions long-established Zionist myths. That is why he accused The Economist of re-writing History.
His Excellency knows well enough that if this book achieved fame, it is because Shehade does not play political games. Instead, as an experienced professional lawyer, sticks to the hard facts. A concept that the seasoned diplomat obviously struggles with.

*Al-Haq is the West Bank affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists - Geneva, and is a member of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN), the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Habitat International Coalition (HIC), and the Palestinian NGO Network (PNGO).

Read More...

Summary only...

Remembering a Towering Personality

By Ahmad Mustafa*

Long before Francis Fukuyama published his famous article by the end of last century, an Arab thinker coined the term "End of History" in a different context. As it was in Arabic, it did not attract a lot of attention and the author was not much credited. That was one of the early books of Dr Abdul Wahab Al Messiri, who died in Cairo on the 3rd of July 2008, aged 70.
In the book, End of History: An Introduction to Structural Study of Zionist Thought, published in 1972, Al Messiri suggested that the notion of "end of history" is a sort of Western hegemonic theory imposed on the world.
An outstanding professor of English literature, Al Messiri was predominantly known for his Encyclopedia on Jews, Judaism, and Zionism. Though some dogmatic propagandists accused him of anti-Semitism, Al Messiri was the most enthusiastic proponent of Semitism, yet staunchly against Zionism as a fascist outcome of Western imperialism. In the Encyclopedia, which took 25 years of hard and continuous work, Al Messiri establishes the difference between Jews, their religion, and Zionism. He refutes the misleading demagoguery linking Zionism to Judaism, and in all his other writings he was for the peaceful co-existence of Jews, Christians and Muslims in the region. But he was always clear about the nature of the Zionist entity in occupied Palestine, created as a spearhead for Western powers to keep the region under their influence for good.
In his last year, while suffering from cancer, he led the opposition movement Kefaya (Enough) calling for political reform in Egypt. That was part of the spirit of that great thinker - determination and leading by example. Besides the Encyclopedia, Al Messiri wrote tens of books, hundreds of articles, and gave as much lectures on wide range of subjects. He was a model of the comprehensive intellectual, though the main contribution was his unrivalled, in-depth analysis of Zionism and its relevance to the Arab-Israeli struggle.

Intellectual foundation
Al Messiri spent years in the US early in the second half of last century, where he completed his post-graduate studies and worked on the early seeds of his literary project. His exposure to Western culture enriched his experience, without deforming his genuine intellectual foundations.
The most important example, for the wider public aside from his academic colleagues and apprentices, Al Messiri will be remembered with is being genuine, consistent and principled. Devotion and dedication to a cause were the mantra of the time, and he kept inspiring those who worked with him by the same principles. He was one of the knights of a generation of great people that included economist Dr Ramzi Zaki, and politician and writer Adel Hussain, who left our world before him. There remains a few of this brand such as the socio-economist Galal Ameen and writer Mohammad Hasanin Heikal.
One of the things not that well-known is Al Messiri's contribution to the renewal of Islamic thought, in a more rational yet fundamentalist way. Like many of his generation, he started as a Marxist. Then, like many others also, he moved closer to political Islam - without sacrificing the critical mentality and the scientific way of thinking.
I knew Al Messiri through his books before I met him two decades ago. Since then we met in Egypt and abroad, and every time I got that impression of a man who lives what he thinks and says - without any pretence or hypocrisy. Personal integrity, like intellectual genuine consistency, was a common feature among that generation of pioneers. I did not work closely with him in academia, nor was one of his students, but I learnt a lot from him. One precious thing about the great Arab thinker we lost is the humility of a great scholar mixed with the marvellous dignity of Sufism.
Besides his philosophical work, he was a great literary critic, a poet and novelist. I remember one of his recent analysis a few years ago was a comparison between Lebanese singer Nancy Ajram and her Egyptian colleague Ruby, and how he concluded that Nancy is more real than Ruby.
His solid belief that Palestine will one day be for the Palestinians was never shaken, and it was no coincidence that he spent his last week of his life in Palestine Hospital in Heliopolis, where he died. Al Messiri will live, not only through his literary creativity but also through the example he was living all the time.

*The writer kindly agreed to republish this article on Arabdemocracy to commemorate 40 days since Al Messiri's death.

Read More...

Summary only...

وأنت وجوه نحبّها في وجه واحد

وائل عبد الرحيم

محمود درويش يتوسط ياسر عرفات وجورج حبش

هنالك انت، على تلة في رام الله، تناكدنا برحيلك المبكر، تُبكينا وتُثقل علينا.. ما انت إلا وجه اجتمعت فيك كل الوجوه التي نحبها، فكأنما برحيلك رحلوا كلهم... على هذه الأرض قصيدة حب تستحق أن نولد معها من جديد.. على هذه الأرض فلسطين التي زيّنتها انت وسرّحت شعرها وغسلت قدميها، وهي الآن تحضن جسدك.

انت فلسطينُك فلسطيننا، وانت امُّك امنا...

***

حينما يغرُب وجهٌ آخر من الوجوه الحلوة، ...
حينما يذهب فدائي إلى النوم، ويعلن العام ان سيدة، ام البدايات والنهايات، حزينة للفراق، وحينما يبكي الشعراء سيّد الشعراء، وتنزوي عصافير الجليل وترفض ان تطير...
حينها، فلنعلم انه اكثر من موت وأصعب من لحظة رحيل.
شخصياً، أفضل العام الذي قبل هذا العام على العام الحالي. وحتماً افضل الذي قبله، وقبله..
وربما كنت افضّل لو ان الزمن ما عاد زمنا.. تجمّد او تحجر او اخترع الله او العلماء له بديلاً.. هكذا لكنا عشنا احلامنا في سني الحُلم ولم نهزم عشرات المرات.

ليست الهزيمة ان تُحتل الأرض ويمزقها جدار.. بل الهزيمة ان نعود إلى البداوة، والجاهلية تنخر عقولنا وتصيب القلوب بالتيبّس. فلكم هو بليغ حقاً سميح القاسم في رثائك يا محمود درويش، يبكيك فإذ هو يبكي فلسطيننا الآن.. فهي حقاً "ذُبيانُ تَغزو. وعَبْسٌ تُحارِبْ".. وها هو القاسم يتمنى لو انه يلحق بك غير آبه بحزننا، فيصرخ "خذني معك"، حتى لكأنه نكاية يريد ان يضيف حزناً على حزن في الزمن الحزين.
فها هي غزة يا محمود درويش إمارة حيث "صار لكل عصابةٍ نبيّ، ولكل صحابيّ ميليشيا"...!

***

هل اختار محمود درويش الرحيل عن سابق تصوّر وتصميم؟
هل اصيب بجرح الاقتتال وتدمير الذات الذي يمارس ليلاً نهاراً وجهاراً جهاراً دون حياء ودون تورية؟
ربما.. وربما هو مجرد موت..
لكنه القدر ان تغيب الوجوه التي شكّلت وعينا، ترحل وجهاً بعد آخر، تخلي مكانها لأبي سفيان وصبيانه.. وتعلن ان موعد فلسطيننا مع انتفاضة انسانية متجدّدة تأجّل زمناً...

***

انت الذاكرة يا محمود درويش، وانت عرس الجليل، وانت انتفاضة الحجر في رام الله.. وانت مقاومة الحصار في غزة.. وانت الذي ما غادرت حيفا..
انت الاخرون الذين توالى رحيلهم في سنوات القهر هذه، انت ياسر عرفات وجورج حبش وابوعلي مصطفى.. وأنت توفيق زيّاد وإميل حبيبي... وانت وجوه نحبّها في وجه واحد..
وانت بيروت الشعراء والفدائيين... وانت العواصم العربية في لحظة حرية.. وأنت الذاكرة والذكرى.
برحيلك اليوم، تشرف دائرة الحلم على الفراغ... لكن برحيلك يا احبّ الناس إلى فلسطين يزداد الإصرار على التمسك بجوهر الصراع.

***

انا لم أعد اؤمن بالحتميات التاريخية، لكن هذه القضية التي نزفت 100 عام واكثر لن تنمحي.. وهذا الشعب الذي قدّم أغلى الشهداء واجمل الأبناء ليحيا، لن يموت.. هذه هي الحتمية التاريخية!
وسيبقى علمك يا فلسطين، علم منظمة التحرير الفلسطينية، مرفوعاً عالياً عالياً عالياً ما بقي حيّ على هذه الأرض.. وسيبقى هذا الشعب ينشد مع توفيق زيّاد أننا باقون.. باقون.. "كأننا عشرون مستحيل، في اللد، والرملة، والجليل"، واننا "هنا .. على صدوركم، باقون كالجدار"..

***

سنفتقدك يا محمود العائد إلى التراب.. سنفتقد قصائدك وثورتك وشجاعتك وصدق الأحاسيس..
و"فلسطين لنا".. ستظل قصيدة حب، وانشودة حرية وتحرر، ونبيذاً على جسد عار راقص في عرس بين كنيسة المهد ومسجد عمر.

Read More...

Summary only...

Do not Free the Lebanese in Syrian jails! An (Arab) Democratic Appeal

By Jihad Bitar

Yes, this is an open letter through Arabdemocracy.com to all Lebanese and Syrian politicians. Please do not free the Lebanese in Syrian jails, and this for many reasons:

1- They are not important (Michel Aoun during his joint interview with Hassan Nassrallah last year, said that this was not a major issue…and those in jail for fighting for Aoun – while he was hiding in a French embassy- should I think kill themselves out of shame).

2- They are guilty…Yes, they are guilty of being anti-Syrian, they should be hanged…this is how Arab Democracy should be.

3- They love torture …no doubt about that, if they did not love being tortured they wouldn’t have chosen to (Arab) democratically go to jail.

4- They are getting free diet sessions (one prisoner who was released last year recalled how he got 1 potato – rass batata – a day).

5- They are anti democratic. If in Syrian jail, that must be because they are against the Arab Syrian Democratic Republic!

6- They simply do not exist – Sayyed Hassan Nassrallah in his celebration speech for Samir Quntar, listed the Resistance’s next objectives: and Lebanese in Syrian jails did not make the list... Lebanese citizen Sayyed Hassan set the freedom of 4 Iranian diplomats in Israeli jails as an objective, rather than those Lebanese prisoners; that must be because they do not exist.

Read More...

Summary only...

All is not fine in Egypt

By Ahmad Mustafa*

Egyptian demonstrators carrying bread (AP)

Although there are no major riots or violent protests in Egypt that can make headlines on satellite channels, the country is not at all quiet under the surface. It appears that the honeymoon of the energetic government, installed four years ago, is coming to an end soon. You can easily feel it through what you hear from the majority of Egyptians, from all walks of life, who share one negative theme: no trust in the future.
When President Hosni Mubarak appointed Dr Ahmad Nazif as the prime minister of the country in the summer of 2004, everybody - in and out of Egypt - was talking about a new generation of government in which Mubarak's son, Jamal, has been playing a major part from behind-the-scene. With limited reshuffles, Nazif's cabinet included more business people than technocrats and the influential body within the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) led by Jamal Mubarak became more and more powerful.
At that time, many analysts and international institutions hailed the developments as they were keen to see any sort of reform in a stagnant Egypt.
Initially, the new government did live up to its expectations and did not falter. In its first couple of years, it launched an ambitious programme to reform the economy and set straight most of the books on macro-economy.
Though some of the reforms were painful and stirred internal opposition, most Egyptians gave the government the benefit of the doubt and waited to see its trickle-down effect.
Except for a section of the elite - a marginal minority in Egypt - most people did not care too much about the issue of "inheritance of power" from the father to the son and the preparation for the rise of Mubarak Jr.
Majority of the Egyptians are indifferent to the ruling regime, to the extent that in the 19th century when they had the power in their hands they brought in an Albanian (Mohammad Ali) to rule them.
Being indifferent does not essentially mean that they do not know; they know about the sins of omission and commission in their country. But they always say: OK, fine, as I can live and sustain it. But of late they are finding it difficult to meet their basic needs and foresee a bleak future.

Not successful
Clever and enthusiastic ministers in Nazif's government, especially those in charge of the economy, were not successful in gaining the trust of the people in what they were doing. They were keener to talk in English to the outside world and left the more than 70 million Egyptians to the anxious wait to see any benefit.
If it were acceptable in the first half of the government's time in office to focus on major - and sometimes shocking - moves to liberalise the economy, it might not be the case in the last couple of years.
As the government kept on its programme without any political effort to convince the people of the "light at the end of the tunnel", the tide is now turning against it and unfortunately against the much needed reforms itself.
One might argue that economic reform without political reform cannot be a remedy, especially in a country such as Egypt. Yet, even though the pace of political reform does not match the economic reform, the government is trying to force the latter with some political oppression.
That cannot work, and might even strip the economic reform of any meaning. The number of laws passed in the legislature and amendments made to them in a very short time is not a safeguard to a change; rather they are fragile rules that are forced on the people who have no say, or are just ignored as ignorant.
Self-proclaimed economic super-geeks will not be able to keep on like this. Their actions threaten the delicate socio-political fabric of the country. You cannot simply impose models that look perfect on paper and expect the tens of millions of people to cheer you as a hero.
Egypt is not a poor country and seeing the number of Egyptian millionaires living in the UK and elsewhere in Europe and North America, you can tell that the country is gifted.
It was ill-managed, right. But it does not seem to be well-managed now as far as its people are deprived of everything: basic needs and rights including having a say in what is going on in their country.

*Dr Ahmad Mustafa, a London-based Arab writer. Apart from many other journalistic activities, Dr Mustafa is a regular columnist for the Emirati Gulf News newspaper. (This article was published in Gulf News on the 29th of June 2008.

Read More...

Summary only...

De-politicize the Bible and the Quran

By Elie Elhadj

Image: Courtesy of : http://sabbah.biz

For a long-term durable solution to the Arab Israeli conflict, a single democratic and secular state for Jews and Palestinians needs to evolve. Other solutions are like band-aid treatment to cancer. The dream of an exclusive Jewish state in Palestine is unsustainable, unless the Palestinians vanish.
Muslim and Jew can live together in peace. History is the proof. Hundreds of thousands of Jews lived in Arab countries peaceably for centuries. In his Coningsby, British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1868 and 1874-1880), the first and thus far the only person of Jewish parentage to reach the premiership, described the “halcyon centuries” in Muslim Spain where the “children of Ishmael rewarded the children of Israel with equal rights and privileges with themselves.” Sultan Bayezid-II (1481-1512) encouraged thousands of Jews to settle in the Muslim Ottoman Empire following their expulsion from Spain.
Around the time of Israel’s creation, more than 850,000 Jews migrated from Arab countries, 600,000 going to Israel. The charge that the Jews migrated because of Arab maltreatment is an unfair political expediency. The migration happened in the course of Israel’s creation. During this period, 531 Palestinian villages were depopulated and 805,000 refugees lost their homes, according to Palestinian sources (650,000 to 700,000 refugees, according to Jewish sources).
Islam venerates Judaism. The Quran made Abraham as the first Muslim. Islam is the Religion of Abraham. Quran’s Chapter 14 is named after Abraham and, to Joseph Chapter 12 is named. Today, Jewish derived Arabic proper names are common. Feeling powerless, the Arab masses invoked hostile Quranic Verses, recounted stories of the Prophet’s troubles with the Jewish tribes in Medina, drew lessons from substituting Friday for the Sabbath and the prayer’s direction from Jerusalem to Mecca. For thirteen centuries, however, these were non-issues.
Politicizing the Bible’s Genesis 15:18: “The Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying, unto thy seed have I given this land from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates” politicized the Quran.
Politicizing the Bible pushed frustrated moderate Arabs into orthodoxy and the orthodox into Jihadism. The Arab Israeli conflict has degenerated to a religious war that could last for a thousand years. In provoking the enmity of their age-old Muslim friends, Zionism has radicalized Arab Muslims into Islamist extremism. In doing so, it disserved the long-term interests of the Jewish people.
Had Zionism adhered to the stipulation in the 1917 Balfour declaration: “Nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” this conflict would not have developed. The Bible and the Quran must be de-politicized.

The two-state solution is capricious:
First, demographically, a purely Jewish state is impossible to attain. The Zionist dream of creating an exclusive state for the Jewish people in Palestine is unsustainable in the long-term. Presently, about 1.3 million Palestinians are citizens of Israel, or just under 25 percent of Israel’s 5.5 million Jews. Due to their high population’s growth rate the Palestinian-Israelis will eventually become the majority. The number of Palestinians in Israel in 1948 was about 150,000. The Palestinian-Israelis are in addition to the 4.2 million Palestinians who live under Israel’s occupation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Outside Palestine, 2.6 millions are registered in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, plus 1.5 million scattered worldwide.
Secondly, Jerusalem, borders, security, water, settlements, and the refugees’ right-of-return are intractable.
When Clinton, Barak, and Arafat attempted in July 2000 to tackle these issues at Camp David, the negotiations collapsed, leading to the second intifada. Thirdly, even if a miracle patches up a two-state agreement, the extremists on both sides would undermine it.
Fourthly, the Arab masses will shun a Zionist state. Israel’s peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) have failed to develop beyond small diplomatic missions.

Western secular democratic ideals should inspire a single secular democratic state:
First, the intractable obstacles would disappear. Secondly, a single state will commingle Palestinians and Jews into an inseparable mix. Arabs would no longer have an excuse to boycott their Jewish “cousins.” Economic, cultural, educational, and social interaction would follow.
Thirdly, a single state would allow Arabs and Jews access to all Palestine. The Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are instruments of integration between Palestinians and Jews, not segregation, a mixture as difficult to unscramble today as removing the Palestinian Israelis from Israel.
Durable peace requires the genuine welcome of the Arab masses of the Jewish people. The Jews who had lived among Arabs could be helpful. They share customs, habits, values, food, music, dance, and, for the older generation, the Arabic language.
Whether it would be a good bargain to exchange a partial and declining Jewish exclusivity in an unstable two-state solution for a durable single state embracing Jews and Muslims is a question Israel’s Jewish people alone can answer.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Syrian crane made in France

By Bachir Habib

Picture: www.lefigaro.fr

What we witnessed in Paris was not a Euro Mediterranean summit. The French are not dupe, neither the Europeans; and the occasion provided a good cover. What we witnessed was simply Syria’s reintegration into the International Community. Bashar Assad’s visit to Paris is his first successful international visit since 2004.
This visit has to be placed in a context, and that context is not European, it is purely Middle Eastern and challenging after the failure of the regional American project. What happened in Paris is also a European move on the international foreign policy chessboard; a daring maneuver from French President Nicolas Sarkozy who succeeded in convincing his European counterparts that the time was right for distancing themselves from previous alignment on US policy towards the region. This is even more necessary before Washington itself operates a foreign policy shifting leaving Brussels behind. Not to forget that in the United States, it is now “Time to Change” as said by the Democratic presidential contestant Barack Obama.
Sarkozy opened wide the gates of Europe and the world to the Syrian President. Paris tried to show that Assad is received only because he responded positively to the French demands: Reducing interference in Lebanon or using positive influence to help in unlocking the Lebanese political deadlock, pushing towards a Hamas – Israel truce through pressure on his Palestinian allies, and finally proving a true will to make peace with Israel and continue visibly what started secretly between the two countries two years ago as the July 2006 war raged on Lebanese soil.
This is the tip of the iceberg, but at its base resides a more serious issue: A new balance of power is being formed in the Middle East, there’s a decline (at least temporary) of American influence after decades of direct management of the region while a new Iranian (de facto) regional super power will emerge in case Teheran’s nuclear program is not halted.
This new context is highly important to France and Europe, because it’s not only the American “Greater Middle East” that is broken, but because the post cold war American Dream of a Unipolar World that has been crushed.
Is it the new dawn of Multipolarity that we’re witnessing? It might be. But it is definitely not the Multipolarity the West was dreaming of. It is one where Europe and the US will have to deal with countries like Iran, Pakistan and Venezuela (…) as regional super powers that have a National Interest to protect, same as Washington, Brussels or Moscow.
French diplomacy reveals its conviction that reintegrating Syria in the international community is the only way to take it back from Iran’s arms. But Assad declared this week that following a request from France, Syria would hold talks with Iran to try and resolve the crisis over its nuclear programme! Nicolas Sarkozy knows that this is not how Assad can be stolen from Ali Khamenei, and it is unrealistic, at least for now, to expect Damascus to take a distance from Teheran. It is rather the Iranians who are on the verge of being recognized as a great regional power, by using a Syrian crane made in France.
By the way, was Husni Mubarak there? And even if Saudi King Abdullah was with him, Assad would have remained the only star. It is simply not a good time for US allies.

Read More...

Summary only...

We Can Be Heroes... Just For One Day

By Bachir Habib

As soon as the prisoner exchange deal between Israel and Hezbollah left the secret sphere, it became subject to debate in the media and on newspapers pages. The UN is officially calling it a “Humanitarian Agreement”. But this labeling doesn’t seem to justify such a deal in the eyes of many in Israel.
A quick look at the daily press there is enough to reveal an aggressive debate on the issue. Even some international newspapers have fallen in the trap of the internal Israeli debate. Last week, “The Independent” correspondent in Jerusalem Donald Macintyre was the latest Western Fashion Victims choosing to title his piece “Israel to swap killer for two dead soldiers”.
This debate is not expected to end soon. It may at the contrary amplify in the coming days, as the exchange operation nears.
Whether Israel likes it or not, this UN brokered deal is the direct consequence of the July 2006 war. In a conventional war perspective, where the military operations end with a clear winner and loser, such a deal would have occurred sooner after the war. But Israel was not in a posture to admit defeat in August 2006, while Hezbollah showed much triumphalism describing as a “Divine Victory” his ability to resist the Israeli attack.
Israel needed time; it took over a year for the Winograd Report to be issued detailing the Israeli mistakes after a lengthy investigation. After admitting defeat, it is now time for Israel to pay the price.
Under a “humanitarian” cover, Israel is making a historic move. Giving back Samir Kuntar in exchange of two (maybe dead) soldiers captured on the 12^th of July 2006 is a giant leap. The interesting debate about it in Israel is about fears that such a move might become a political and juridical precedent.
The deal will most likely go forward, and the Israeli government is in need to improvise to justify such an unusual event. The latest justifications belong both to the moral sphere. One of the traditional arguments has a religious connotation, invoking Jewish practices that prohibit abandoning dead Israeli soldiers in the battle field.
But the more important and controversial argument is one of “Moral Superiority”.
After at least five decades of Israeli attempts to prove “Military Superiority” and “Technological Superiority” over its Arab neighbors, now it is has found the gift of “Moral Superiority”.
The deal will soon be implemented, Samir Kuntar will be free and welcome as a national hero in Lebanon, while the Israeli nation will overcome its grief by convincing itself that it is morally superior, only for one day. I say one day because no doubt that Israel will continue flaunting basic human rights and international war while claiming eternal victim status.

Moral superiority can only be a stranger in an entity governed by a war doctrine, where every citizen is a solider, and where peace is not possible before the opponent is completely defeated.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Failed States Index 2008

By Joseph El-Khoury

The Failed States Index for 2008 is finally out. This Index has been compiled yearly since 2005 by an organisation called 'The Fund For peace’ and published in the reputable ‘Foreign Policy’. Before the authors credibility is put at stake lets say that as always the company is based in Washington DC, staffed by Americans, under the patronage of other Americans and supported by more Americans. But since no one else worthy of mention has compiled such an index; we will have to put aside our healthy dose of scepticism and accept their mission statement in the words of their president Pauline Baker that ‘it is a research and educational organization that works to prevent war and alleviate the conditions that cause war’.

The product is a table where countries are scored according to a number of criteria touching on a range of economic, social and political factors. Those who are in a real mess are colour-coded in Red for ‘Alert’ and this year 35 countries out of a total of 177 fell in that category. We will focus our attention on those countries which are members of the Arab league. At the top spot Somalia, a country only by name since the late 70s where warlords and religious fundamentalists fight it over with occasional international attention. It is followed closely at number 2 by the Sudan of Omar El Bashir, reputed modernist and democrat, with a special weakness for minorities. At number 5 we find the fascinating democratic experience of Iraq, still one of the most dangerous places on earth five years on from the invasion. Lebanon shows up at number 18, down from 28 the previous year (The country was not even in the red in 2005), probably thanks to the combination of consistent governance and constructive opposition. In the process it has surpassed Srilanka and is only 2 down from Ethiopia (A point to consider next time you look down on your maid/servant). Yemen headed by the friendly Ali-Abdallah Saleh is at number 21 and last but not least Syria, the great defender of Arab pride and always happy to dish out advice through its foreign minister Mr Walid Muallem, at number 35. As a point of consolation in the face of poor Arab performance, Israel is only at number 58 but would surely do better only if it could get rid of this thorn in its side called the Palestinians. Its Jewish population would then live happily ever after following the rules in this rather selective democratic oasis.

For the Fund for Peace webiste
http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=292&Itemid=452

For the Foreign Policy article
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4350

Read More...

Summary only...

The Mirage of Arab Democracy

By Elie Elhadj

Picture: Courtesy of www.seancoon.org

The Article that follows is from Elie Elhadj. M. Elhadj is a banker with 30 years of experience in New York, Philadelphia, London and Saudi Arabia. At age 54, he joined London University's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) to attain his Master's Degree and Ph.D. His doctoral dissertation addressed issues of food self-sufficiency and water politics in the Middle East. In the following article, M. Elhadj explains why, in his opinion, Arab Democracy is a Mirage, and in his conclusion, he comes up with an alternative model, a very debatable one. Click on Read more to access the article.

Arabdemocracy

Arab democracy is fantasy. Democratic ideology cannot defeat Islamic theology. Notwithstanding that Arab rule is tribal, corrupt, and mired in favoritism and nepotism it is significant that Arab rulers typically stay in office until death, be it natural or resulting from a military coup.
No Arab king or president, however, spares an opportunity, to display the loyalty of his subjects. While the presidents conduct stage-managed referendums in which they consistently manage to achieve near 100% approvals, the monarchs draw mile-long queues of happy-looking men on every national and religious occasion to demonstrate their people’s allegiance. Are such shows indicative of true approval, or devoid of genuine support? Regardless of the contrived appearance of these demonstrations, a degree of real support for Arab rulers does exist. It is impossible to falsify every ballot and force every subject to hail the king. When the presidents of Egypt and Yemen allowed contested presidential elections on September 7, 2005 and September 20, 2006; respectively, the former gained a fifth term with 88.6% of the votes cast, hardly different from his four previous uncontested referendums, and the latter won 77.2% majority, after 28 years of rule.
Representative democracy is not a natural choice for most Arabs.

Obedience to hierarchical Islamic authority is. In the Arab home, school, mosque, work place, and the nation at large a culture of blind obedience to autocracy prevails. Poverty, illiteracy, and ill health, together with a fatalistic belief in predestination make the masses politically quietist; except for small minorities of Jihadists and Western influenced professional activists, genuine Arab democratic reforms will not evolve for generations, if ever.

Curiously, Muslim, but non-Arab countries such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Turkey, together representing almost two thirds of world Muslims, conduct democratic elections and allow female prime ministers and presidents.

Why is the political persona of the Arab masses quietist?

First, the masses fear the security forces.

Secondly, the masses worry that change could result in a worse ruler.

Thirdly, the influence of Islam is strong on the Arab peoples. The Quran describes them as the “best nation evolved to mankind” (3:110). The Prophet, His Companions, the Quran, and the Sanctuaries in Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem are all Arabic. Arabs feel they are the guardians of an Arabic religion. Additionally, political frustrations during the past half-century over U.S. policies in the Middle East and Israeli humiliation have been drawing Arabs closer to Islam.
Obedience to authority is the hallmark of Islam’s political theory. In the harsh environment of the Arabian Desert, disobedience and strife could waste scarce water and staples. The Prophet Muhammad, a product of desert living, enshrined obedience to authority into the Islamic Creed. In 4:59, the Quran orders: “Obey God and obey God’s messenger and obey those of authority among you.” The Prophet has also reportedly said: “Hear and obey the emir, even if your back is whipped and your property is taken; hear and obey.” Belief in predestination makes tyrannical rulers seem as if they were ordained by God’s will. Many eminent Islamic jurists opine that in the name of societal peace, years of unjust ruler are better that a day of societal strife.
Today, Arab rulers exploit Islam to prolong their dictatorships. Egypt’s president and the Saudi king declared on February 24, 2004: “The Western model of democracy does not necessarily fit a region largely driven by Islamic teaching.” Pandering Ulama to Arab kings and presidents preach that obedience to Muslim authority is a form of piety.

Fourthly, in the Arab home, poverty drives the father to transform his children into a ‘security blanket’ for old age. Fear of destitution makes the father into what Nobel Laureate Najib Mahfouz calls the “central agent of repression,” constantly threatening his children with the wrath of God if they disobey him. At school, corporal punishment terrorizes students into blind obedience in classrooms. The manager at work, a product of the Arab milieu, demands obsequiousness from subordinates. In the thin Arab labor markets, the employee finds that blind obedience averts financial catastrophe.

Islamist democracy is no Western democracy. Lately, leaders of the Arab World’s best known Islamist movement, the Muslim Brothers, have been supporting free parliamentary elections. Is Islamist parliamentary democracy consistent with Western democracy? The answer is no. The parliament in an Islamist democracy is not the final authority in lawmaking. Islamist parliamentary democracy superimposes an Islamist constitutional court composed of unelected clerics on top of an elected parliament to ensure that man’s laws comply with God’s laws, a structure similar to Iran’s Council of Guardians.

Is the Islamist constitutional court similar to Western constitutional courts? Again, the answer is no. While the former adjudicates according to the Ulama’s interpretation of Sharia law, the latter adjudicates according to parliamentary laws.

The failure of Washington’s Arab democratization project Washington has been supporting Arab dictators in order to keep the Islamists at bay. The advances that the Islamists made in every one of the Arab countries that held elections in 2005 and early 2006 at the instigation of the Bush administration indicate that the foray into Arab elections might be over.
In the occupied Palestinian territories, the Islamist Hamas won 74 of the 132 seats. Iraq’s January 30, 2005 elections were expedited, if not forced, by the leader of the country’s Shiite majority, Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani. His candidates won 140 of the 275 parliamentary seats: In the December 15, 2005 elections, they won 128 seats. In Saudi Arabia, the 2005 municipal council elections were theatrics. Women were excluded. One-half of the councilors were government appointed and the councils have no power, merely a local advisory role. In Egypt, members of the banned Muslim Brotherhood stood as independents in the November-December 2005 parliamentary elections. They won 88 seats, or 20% of the parliamentary seats. They could have won more seats, had they been allowed to campaign freely.
Finally, the cause of democracy was certainly not enhanced when Colonel Qaddafi, the Libyan dictator, capitulated to U.S. pressure without an ounce of change in his tyrannical rule.

The U.S.' “War on Terrorism” has also delayed Arab democratic reforms.

Since Arab rulers’ cooperation is needed to eliminate the local Jihadists, Washington cannot seriously pressure its dictator friends to become democrats, because of the fear that democracy could usher more Islamists into city hall. Furthermore, the enormity of the damage inflicted upon Iraq since 2003 by the American occupation in the name of democracy has repelled the Arab masses from democratic reforms. Arab kings and presidents are delighted!

An alternative to Arab democracy

Since democratic governance is unlikely to grow in Arab soil, an alternative would be benevolent dictatorship. Except for its non-representative nature, benevolent dictatorship could deliver participatory rule, ensure justice for all, and fight corruption, nepotism, sectarianism and tribalism; thus, defusing the anger that breeds and inflames the Jihadists.
How likely is it that benevolent dictatorships might replace Arab rulers’ absolute rule? The answer is that since benevolent dictatorship does not evolve institutionally there is no predictable pattern to discern here. There might be a coup d’état by a benevolent dictator tomorrow; or, there might not be one, ever.

Arab democracy is fantasy.

Useful links:
http://journals.aol.com/eeh100/daring-opinion/
http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1599424118

Read More...

Summary only...

On Israel, peace and the great (!) Arab and Persian leaders

By Jihad Bitar

One year ago, over a hummus based lunch in a Beirut suburb, conversation stirred away (as usual in the ever “peaceful” Beirut) from the best Hummus places, to the current Lebanese political (if you can still call it political) situation. My hosts’ conclusion was reminiscent of the one I always heard my elders tell: “as long as there is no Israeli-Palestinian peace, there will be no peace in Lebanon”. This inherited political dogma was followed by the usual verdict: “But Israel does not want peace”

My reaction stunned the entire gathering; I had ventured into a risky zone (and I am not talking about the restaurant’s restrooms) when I wondered if after all, and for the first time in 50 years, Israel did not have a strategic advantage into making peace with the Arab nations. My point was (and still is) that warfare had significantly changed since the 1990’s: humanity (if you can call it that way) had moved from the era of the mighty air-force (as used in the Bosnia/Serbian war by the US) to an era dominated by medium and long range missiles. And this has a great impact on the geo-strategy of the Middle East; for the first time in 50 years, the heartland of Israel can be the target of any war between Israel and its neighbors. As the 2006 war on Lebanon has shown, even guerrillas like Hezbollah are able to hit towns like Haifa. If attacked, Iran and Syria can no doubt hit Tel Aviv; and the tourism and business minded new Israelis (as opposed to the early Jewish pioneers) cannot accept this. Israel cannot therefore afford not to make peace anymore. My remarks were quickly dusted away by the entire table; Israel receives yearly billions of dollars from the US and peace will only stop this financial gift. That may be true, but missiles hitting Tel Aviv could end up costing much more to the Israeli economy, and until anti-missiles technologies become mature (and the US & China have been heavily investing in this field) Israel therefore needs peace.

The Middle East is at a turning point. Which path will the Arab leaders choose to take? What choices do the Israelis still have? and what will Iran do? On the latter point, one should never forget that historically, the Persians have always looked towards the Mediterranean with gourmet eyes, and have faced the west (then represented by Alexander the great and others) many times on the Mediterranean shores. Add to this the religious aspect, and one can wonder if after 50 years of Israeli peace stalling, the Iranians won’t take over.

Jihad Bitar is a Media and Political Analyst based in Beirut. You can find his reflections on the Arab media scene on his blog.

http://arabmediareview.blogspot.com

Read More...

Summary only...