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...

مجد سورية الأسير وعار الإعلام والإعلاميين

وائل عبد الرحيم

يُحاكم في سورية قياديو إعلان دمشق للتغيير الوطني الديمقراطي المعتقلون منذ أشهر بتهم سياسية عوّدنا نظام الحكم في سورية على تضمينها أبعاد الارتباط بالخارج والعمالة، رغم ضحالة هذه المزاعم والادعاءات.
والحال أن من يحاكم في سورية هم كوكبة من نساء ورجالات الشام الديمقراطيين الوطنيين، ونخبة من الكفاءات الشريفة التي تضرب جذورها في العمق السياسي التاريخي للشام، والتي لم تصبها لوثة السياسات الكبيرة، فاستمرت تعضّ على الجرح وتوائم خطابها الرافض للديكتاتورية والفساد مع رفضها الذوبان او الارتهان لحسابات الدول.
هذه المعارضة في 'دمشق الشام' هي معارضة مبدئية، ولعلّ مواجهة نظام حكم سليط اللسان يزخر خطابه باتهامات التخوين والخيانة ويتربع على عرش القضايا الكبرى تستدعي من مناضلي إعلان دمشق ورفاقهم من الناشطين الوطنيين في سورية تأكيد الطابع المبدئي للمواجهة.
هذا كله مفهوم، ومفهوم ايضاً ان يستشرس النظام الذي يفاوض الإسرائيلي، ويسعى لنيل رضا الأميركي، في الدفاع عن نفسه فيستعيد اساليب البطش والتنكيل الأمنية.. لا حاجة لتبيان الرابط بين الديكتاتورية والفساد، بين القمع وبين إقصاء المجتمع السياسي السوري عن نقاش القضايا الكبرى، هذه القضايا التي تكتسب هالة القدسية في خطاب التخوين، ويُمنع النقاش فيها حينما ياتي وقت التفاوض والصفقات الكبيرة منها والصغيرة.
لكن.. ما أريد ان الفت النظر إليه، هو الغياب شبه التام للإعلام العربي ولا سيما الفضائيات عن إيفاء هذه القضية حقها.
فإذا كان مفهوماً ان الإعلام الرسمي في الدول العربية يتجنب 'التدخل' في شؤون 'الأشقاء' كي لا يتدخلوا هم في شؤونه أيضاً (!)، إلا ان الإعلام 'الخاص' او المستقل لم يشذّ عن هذه القاعدة.
'الجزيرة' مرتهنة بالكامل إلى علاقتها بالنظام السوري وارتباطها بالأخوان المسلمين في الوقت نفسه، وتغيب عن التركيز على الاعتقالات إلا كجزء من تحصيل حاصل حيث تفرض أبسط قواعد المهنية ان لا يتم تجاهل الخبر.. لكن لا البرامج تتناولها ولا التغطيات الطويلة التي عوّدتنا عليها هذه المحطة. فالتغطية خجولة.
اما 'العربية' فتقترب من هذه المسألة بقدر ما تتلاقى مع نفخها المستمر لتضخيم حجم تحالف عبدالحليم خدام – صدر الدين البيانوني الموغل في حساباته الإقليمية والدولية والبعيد عن تمثيل التطلعات الحقيقية للمعارضة الوطنية السورية في الداخل.
البي بي سي التي أطلقت تلفزيونها العربي، تزاوج بين 'حياديتها' المعلنة وضعف إمكانياتها المالية لتبعد عمّا يثير غضب الأنظمة، وهي التي تفخر بانها بدأت الإرسال مبكراً ذات صباح لتغطية إطلاق الأسرى اللبنانيين من سجون إسرائيل، تتغاضى عن واقع أنها محكومة بمراعاة اضطرارية (مراعاة تهزّ ضميرها المهني!) لمتطلبات العمل في الدول العربية.. فلا تريد مشاكل ولا قطع علاقات، وفي الوقت نفسه تعزف معزوفة القومية العربية الإسلاموية البلهاء بأموال دافعي الضرائب في بريطانيا.
العار في كلّ ذلك، انه وعلى الأقل منذ اعتقال فداء حوراني ورفاقها في نهاية 2007 لم يخرج برنامج تلفزيوني واحد على الأقل على أثير هذه الفضائيات للحديث عن هذه القضية.
هو عار ليس فقط على ممولي هذه الفضائيات، بل على العاملين فيها وعلى كبار محرريها، لأننا نعرف كلنا كإعلاميين ان ثمة هامشاً من الحرية معطى لهم.
لكن ما العمل حينما يكون الإعلامي ضابط نفسه قبل ان يضبطه الاخرون؟
الم يحن الوقت للتفكير جدياً بكسر حلقة الاحتكار والحصار والنضال من اجل إعلام عربي حرّ مرتبط بقضايا مجتمعاتنا وليس بالسياسات الضيقة لبعض الدول، او بالنزعات الشخصية لبعض 'كبار' مثقفي إعلامنا في الداخل والمهجر؟

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...

The Fundamentalist Waltz

By Joseph El-Khoury

As a generally peace loving individual I should rejoice over the signing today of a mutual non-aggression understanding between two feuding factions in Lebanon. But I am not!

So Hezbollah and the 15 or so Salafist (read Sunni hard-liners) groups have finally agreed to settle their theological and ideological differences through ‘rational’ dialogue as opposed to Rocket Propelled Grenades. It took dozens of casualties to get to this point and the fact that the Salafists couldn’t find enough in common between them to join hands under one banner should be enough to predict the chances of success. Can a duly signed sheet of paper resist the instinctive fundamentalist urges to eliminate any discordance through fire and steel? Even putting my cynical attitude to one side the answer is still a resounding No!

But even if it did work, I will still be far from happy. It is hard to feel part of such a historic moment where One Muslim decides not to spill the blood of another Muslim…when one is not a Muslim. In fact I should probably be more concerned. For when spilling someone’s blood seems to be the only way forward in the struggle against Zionism and Imperialism a simple statistical calculation will make it obvious that this blood is more likely to be mine now than it was last week.

On a practical level the choice of interlocutor puts the strategy of the resistance to the test. Once committed to reassuring the Christian Street it revelled in the assertion by its Aounist Allies that the real threat came from Sunni extremists lurking behind the respectable façade of Hariri’s Future (Al-Mustaqbal) Movement. While the latest evidence from Tripoli confirms that on a local level these groups might have at least cooperated if not fused militarily, the signature of the accord with Hezbollah gives the impression that the Salafists are now on an equal footing with the Shiite group. A fact that will not escape its secular detractors but more importantly the Christian electorate in the run-up to the 2009 parliamentary elections.

Reflecting further, it seems this agreement is a reminder of a time when killing a goat belonging to one tribe might get you into serious trouble but slaughtering the entire herd of another tribe was considered OK for some strange reason only understandable to a few elders. Morality had nothing to do with it but prejudice, hierarchy, kinship did. Centuries of philosophical soul searching, Enlightened Monarchies, nationalist movements, Socialist revolutions, Liberal Reform have led to a Tribal gathering held by a small number of bearded men in an obscure Hotel.

I despair! Call me Old fashioned but I am hoping for a return to a basic universal civil contract that guarantees my human rights as a citizen of a modern state.

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...

Why the ‘Sand Niggers’ should vote for Obama

By Joseph El-Khoury

Out of all derogatory terms used for Arabs in the Anglo-Saxon world 'Sand Niggers' is the one that best describes their present situation at the ethnic group everyone loves to hate. For other colourful expressions I would refer you to the Urban Dictionary available on the web. Similar to the way Black people were perceived as lacking in morals, naturally violent, immune to any cultural sense, lazy and unreliable in a pre-civil rights movements America, anti-Arab prejudice is mainstream post 9/11.

As mentioned by various Arab media outlets, both candidates to the US presidency have made very little attempts to attract the vote of approximately 1.5millions Arab-Americans, who in some states (Michigan, Ohio) make a significant minority. These might even prove more crucial if the race is tight. While McCain seems at all uninterested in this community, Barack Obama went out of his way to distance himself from any display of Muslim support for his campaign, even asking young veiled women to step out from a camera shot during a rally. This is hardly surprising for the son of a Kenyan Muslim who spent his early years in Indonesia. His advisors know that while Christian America might forgive him for being Black, it will not allow him any flirtation with the ’Evil Religion’.

To be fair to Senator Obama and his opponent, the Arab-American community is neither homogeneous nor united. It is split down many religious, socio-economical and cultural fault lines that go beyond the generational gap common to every immigrant community. In general terms, Lebanese (also Syrian and Iraqi to a lesser extent) Americans of Christian extraction form a distinct sizeable group who maintain strong links to their motherland but are keen to show themselves as ‘faith cousins’ fully integrated to the American dream. Coptic Egyptians are a smaller but well organised group with a militant Christian streak. They are socially conservative on issues such as abortion, gay rights and the death penalty and feel comfortable in enlightened republican circles. Many Muslim Arabs of various origins are as socially conservative but find it harder to show their American credentials due to a heavier religious and cultural load. In some cases this extends to public expressions of faith (The veil) which for the insulated average American belong to the enemy. Their Arab identity is emphasised in relation to other Muslims but more recently the two groups have grown closer as a consequence of wholesale prejudice against them and the Islamisation of the Palestinian struggle. US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan only served to confirm their beliefs in a conspiracy targeting the existence of their religion.

The issue or Israel remains essential to understanding the relation between Arab-Americans and their adopted country. The US has been unwavering in its support for the Zionist entity since its creation in 1948 providing it consistently with the financial, technological, military means to dominate the Middle East and wreck the hopes of one Arab generation after the other. This is unlikely to change regardless of who takes over the White House come November. But two factors Arab voters should consider while casting their votes. The first factor is that An Obama administration will not be motivated by ideology in its position vis-a-vis Israel while remnants of the neo-conservative and evangelical Christian agenda will persist in a Bush-McCain transition. Pragmatic policies might still be detrimental to the Palestinians but are easier to debate and challenge than those backed by divine intervention. The second factor is that the election of a Liberal modern Black man to the highest office will be good for America, whatever foreign policy he adopts. This is a revolution in the making and as all astute immigrants know it is by joining hands with the locals for the common good that you gain acceptance. As the American poet Gil Scott-Heron cynically puts it: ‘The revolution will not be televised...’ but the election certainly will!

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...

It’s the economy… stupid!

By Bassem Hassan

Picture: AFP / Getty

First and foremost, I should thank/apologize to Bill Clinton*- or more appropriately his brilliant campaign chief James Carville- for stealing their 1992 US presidential campaign slogan and using it as a title for my article.
Having said this, I should clarify that this is not an article about the former or even current American presidential campaign.
Finally, I should tell you what this article is actually about. It is about everyone’s favorite topic: Hizbullah! And make no mistake, it is everyone’s favorite topic. If you don’t believe me, just check the number of comments any article that mentions the word Hizbullah receives on this site. In fact, if you want your article read by a lot of people, just plant the word Hizbullah at several key points throughout your article and enjoy the response and the popularity it brings with it! But I digress.
What, you may ask, does Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign slogan have to do with the controversial Lebanese movement? Good question.
A lot in fact. A major question that surrounds Hizbullah is why is it so popular? Almost every analysis you read- generally by us self-styled intellectuals of every ideological color, shape or form- concentrates on one (and occasionally both) of two main arguments.

The first is what I shall call the argument from theology. This tends to be the argument of those who are either right of center and know it, or who are right of center but haven’t realized it yet (for example the Decoratic Left Movement, as Dr. Samah Idriss so eloquently calls it). The argument goes something like this: Hizbullah binds its followers by a bond of theological allegiance to the concept of “Wilayat al Faqih” which- as those intellectuals put it- dictates obedience to the Theologian-King (e.g. the Supreme Leader in Iran), the self-claimed representative of the 12th Shia Imam (i.e. Al-Mahdi) whose return the majority of Shia are thought to eagerly await. Please note that it is rather likely that the Supreme Leader himself is not terribly eager for Al-Mahdi to return, since that would mean the end of his own supremacy… but again, I digress. Add this formidable spiritual bond to the traditional “minoritarian” thinking of the Lebanese secterian mind et Voila: the magic potion that endears Hizbullah to its Shia base. Problem solved. Liberal thinker go home happy!Ridiculous! Cries the leftist intellectual- at least of the sort still stuck in 1973 or thereabouts and glued to different chairs of various communist party committees. Stuff and nonsense! They counter with what I shall refer to as the argument from dignity. Hizbullah is supported by its base because of its formidable resistance to the Zionist enemy and its military victories over occupation. These victories have restored dignity to the nation and offered hope that the eternal armed struggle shall defeat the enemy and liberate the holy land (in which case it would of course cease to be eternal). Viva la Revolucion! This hope for a dignified future free of occupation and oppression by the Zionist gang and its imperial masters is what guarantees the allegiance of the masses to what is- au fond- a working class liberation movement. And that’s that. Time for leftist intellectual to resume paperwork on behalf of the disenfranchised.
So, this is the gist of what you usually read- or more horrifyingly- watch on Arabic sattelite channels during the course of “political talk shows”. Brrrrrrrrrrr!
You almost never hear these analysts ask themselves the simple question of why people actually support anyone. And that’s where Bill Clinton- or rather his brilliant slogan- comes in. Yes, people want to live in dignity and freedom. But that usually starts by having a place to live in and meal to eat. It starts by not having to choose between dinner and sending your kids to school. It starts by having paved roads to facilitate economic and social life. It starts by having access to water and electricity to wash your clothes and keep clean. It starts by earning your living through your own labour.
In other words, it starts with the sort of dignity that the Lebanese political system has not only failed to offer to the people of the south since independence, but in fact purposefully denied them. That is the sort of dignity that Hizbullah has been systematically offering people in the south of Lebanon and Beirut’s southern suburbs since the early nineties. And that is exactly why the old Hizbullah of the early eighties- despite “Wilayat Al-Faqih” and despite heroic resistance to occupation- was almost universally loathed and feared, even among the Shia. They learned their lesson very quickly, and with ruthless efficiency: the route to people’s hearts and minds passes through their pockets. And once you have their hearts and minds, you become invincible.
There is probably no better demonstration of this fact than the aftermath of the 33-day war whose anniversary we are celebrating this week. Witness what happened to the reconstruction efforts run by the Lebanese government (i.e. dismal failure, highway robbery, and disgraceful secterian hate-mongering) and contrast that with what Hizbullah succeeded in doing (temporary apartments, a higher rate of restoration, small scale corruption and, by-and-large, even handedness). All that with significantly less money one must note.

So there-in lies their secret. Hizbullah delivers. Not only on its political and military promises, but more importantly, more fundamentally, on the promise that “its people” will live in dignity…of the sort that actually counts when you wake up every morning.

Notes to the article:
* William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946) served as the forty-second President of the United States from 1993 to 2001.

A propos, here’s a joke for the Arabic speakers among you: Bill Clinton wu shrab mayytoh!

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.