Palm Beach Gardens

Jerusalem is not simply a city in historic Palestine or biblical Israel. This city arguably holds all the knots of the conflict between Arabs and Israelis. Jerusalem invokes issues of identity, history, demography, borders, refugees, settlements and security.

In December 2009, Europe was poised to make an important political declaration: East Jerusalem should be the capital of a future Palestinian state.  That was too good to be true. Israel’s lobby managed to outsmart the leading Scandinavian voice that was well expressed in the in the first draft of this declaration. The final draft was tame: it called the two parties to resolve the issue of [Read More]

Peace prospects in the Middle East are bleak.  Deeply troubling is Israel’s gradual transformation in attitude toward the occupation of Palestinian territories seized after the 1967 war.  The incremental change has been from discomfort of being an occupier to perfect ease of being the legitimate proprietor of territory that had been allegedly occupied by Jordan during the 1948 to 1967 period. The attitude change is partly a defense mechanism to cope with sharp national guilt and partly a public relations ploy to deal with Israel’s international image as a colonial state.

Equally troubling is the fratricide among Palestinian leaders and their inability to get their act together in the face of a defiant occupier.

Few observe a stark new reality: In 1948, the Arabs did not want peace but Israel did; Israel received a generous portion of partitioned Palestine. Arabs then felt that the Jewish minority in Palestine did not merit statehood. Now, the pendulum has swung: It is the Arabs who want peace, not Israel. Israel’s sense of entitlement has grown with its dramatically enhanced military and financial power.

The way Palestinians resist the occupation offers Israel on a silver plate additional excuses to continue the oppression and deepen its impact. As Palestinian factions battle one another, split into a Gaza political entity and a West Bank entity, advocate Ghandi-style resistance in one corner and military jihad in another, delegate national leaders of fading credibility, offer con... [Read More]

Palm Beach Gardens

 
The Christmas day terrorist has shaken the confidence of the public in airline safety and aroused worldwide attention.

 As of January 4, air passengers originating from or passing through terror-suspect countries will be subjected to special measures of security checks. The new security rules will cause anger in the Muslim world.  Of the listed 14 terror suspect countries 13 are Muslim majority societies.

 Was the security failure in passenger screening or in the lack of connection between the West and the Muslim community, where the terrorist finds shelter?  There are limitless questions to ask in the search for a better level of preparedness against terrorism.

 There is a relevant silver lining in the story. The role the family played in this scary near-miss airline episode illustrates the importance of the local community’s early response to nascent terrorist threats.

 Months before the attack, the father of the terrorist spotted danger in his son’s politics and reported his covert activities to the US embassy in Nigeria. Terrorists enjoy anonymity; blending-in with the crowd means survival.  The father broke the local community norms by treating his son for what he is, a terrorist.

 The family of the terrorist is against terror and in solidarity for peace with the rest of the world. As we think of new solutions against terrorism let us not unwittingly discourage the local Muslim community in being a partner in the search for peace.

  In an imperfect world, Americans seem to demand perfect immunity from terrorist attacks.

 Is this realistic?

 First, terrorism can not be completely or unilaterally eradicated. Terrorism thrives in a political vacuum and in failed states, where America is often viewed as a villain. There will always be an ample supply of terrorists as long as widespread autocrac... [Read More]

Palm Beach Gardens:

In attempting to reform their state, the Lebanese fear the unraveling of their nation. President Obama was well briefed on Lebanon’s fragile, “national unity” government, when he received the Lebanese President Michel Suleiman on December 14.  

In private, the US president demanded from Suleiman to control Hizbulla’s growing military power. In response, Suleiman was advised, in advance, to raise the issue of Israel’s threats to Beirut’s sovereignty. Both sides agreed to ignore the negative. Obama is getting better and better at ignoring the elephant in the room.  Remember? In dealing with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Obama smoothly shelved the unpleasant: Israel’s settlers in the Occupied Territories.

Washington is learning. Obama is aware that Hizbulla’s unruliness in Lebanon is a symptom of the sectarian power structure of the country. Hizbullah is both a Resistance and a Shiite political party. Hezbollah, like Hamas, is also a product of a festering peace process.

Lebanon is a nation of contradictions. This nation is ironically the most secular and the most sectarian country in the region. The Lebanese are socially integrated and politically segregated.

The Lebanese communities mix in daily living.  However, political power is shared according to sectarian, demographic formulas. 

Christians and Muslims in Lebanon attend the same schools; they do business and leisure together without much thinking of social background; they live in mixed residential neighborhoods. Lebanon demonstrates that human contact reduces prejudice.   

On the other hand, the Lebanese vote, organize power and manage conflict in predictable sectarian patterns. Political systems which conceive society as categories of religious communities create, reinforce and deepen sectarianism in voting, running for office, forming parties and engaging in public service.

To f... [Read More]

Letter from a Dutch American reader: I received yesterday the letter posted below from a Dutch American reader about a website started by the former Prime Minister of Holland. Mr. Dries Van Agt. Van Agt has created a website to promote peace between Arabs and Israelis. He focuses on showing the suffering of Palestinians.

My Dutch reader explained that she would like the website to be more known outside Holland.

This message is published after consent of its author. It is not meant to express a one-sided position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Dutch statesman’s introduction is published here for three reasons:

1. To connect international peace activists with the Dutch website.
2. To remind people of influence that their silence on what is happening today in the Occupied Territories is tragic, risky and hurting Israel’s long term interest.
3. To send a humble cue to many discouraged Palestinians that they have more friends in the West than they think they do. Palestinians would prevail if they remain steadfast in peaceful resistance.

From a reader who translated the introduction to the website of Dries Van Agt (Former Prime Minister of the Netherlands)

 To Ghassan Rubeiz

“I have contacted Mr. van Agt's webmaster with the request that, considering Mr. van Agt's stature as former Prime Minister of the Netherlands his website would reach a far greater audience than just the Dutch. If it were also in English.  A number of former Dutch Foreign Ministers (all lawyers) have now joined Van Agt and created a forum which is in English...not yet finished....I let you know when it is.”

“Translation from the Dutch

Just like so many in our country I have always felt a strong bond with the state of Israel. I also believed that Israel[Read More]

West Palm Beach, Florida

The Lebanese have worked hard to rebuild their country after a fifteen-year civil war that ended in 1990. They do not seem ready now to take radical steps of reform.

In order of size, the three main religious communities of Lebanon are Shiites, Christians and Sunni. The president of the Republic and the chief of army must be Maronite (Catholic) Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim and the parliament speaker a Shiite Muslim. Christians, roughly a third of the resident population, are allotted by law half of the parliament membership. 

With poor leadership, weak democratic parties and rival neighbors, Lebanon risks its future in seeking real reform. The state structure is built around confessional balance and religion is a badge of identity. The religious institutions register and sanction birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, burial and inheritance. 

Religious leaders and their political patrons are not willing to lose their grip on their communities. Personal and family law is the foundation of the system. Religious institutions help shape the identity of the individual; the political system reinforces this sectarian identity. The positions in parliament, the cabinet, the army leadership and the government top jobs are prescribed by sectarian quotas.

Shiites, the majority in Lebanon, are underrepresented in the parliament and in the government. To compensate, they have gradually created a “state-within-a-state”, by forming a party with a strong military arm and a social security network: Hizbullah.

The Sunnis have lost clout in recent years. The former Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri, who was murdered in 2005, led the rebuilding of the country after the civil war. His son, Sa’ad, is now the Prime Minister. Sa’ad is unable to fill his father’s shoes as he is less experienced and connected in the region.

In the past, sectarian tension existed largely betwe... [Read More]

Palm Beach Gardens, December 5, 2009

 The freedom to express symbols in the place of worship is an important part of religious rights guaranteed by all democratic societies. Now, Switzerland has one thing in common with Saudi Arabia.

 The Swiss referendum vote to ban erection of minarets is reminiscent of Saudi Arabia’s banning of church buildings. The Saudis do not mind Christians conducting worship services in school buildings but they do not tolerate church buildings. There is a strange parallel here: banning minarets in a country that celebrates diversity and banning church buildings in a country that celebrates cultural purity.

 The Swiss vote was a result of fear rather than hate. This judgmental decision on Islamic architecture reflects society’s fear of a growing Muslim minority in the land of William Tell. The anxiety is not irrational or unique; Europe and the wider Western world worry about changing Muslim demographics and mobilize ethnocentric politics. While anxiety about integration of Muslim minorities in Western society is understandable, regressive policies to force integration of minorities or to slow immigration of foreigners will backfire. Provoking the hesitant immigrant reinforces his/her isolation.

 To facilitate social integration, the host country must understand the culture of its minorities and respect their sentiments. Muslim immigrants are much attached to their religion, and why not. For Muslims, especially their migrants, religion may also be a way of life. Banning minarets in Western mosques would risk alienating Muslims from larger society in adopted countries.

 The newly introduced minaret policy is problematic in more ways than imagined. The policy is provocative to the global Muslim community, is in violation of European sentiments on long standing religious freedoms and works against Western interests in the Muslim world.

 Minarets ar... [Read More]