When Professors Fail to Do Their Homework by Dr. Mohamed Elmasry -
I must confess I care little for people who have no notions beyond
generalities and who don't bother to do their homework when offering an
opinion or analysis of any issue. To me, their worldview -- indeed
their moral and ethical "map" of global civilization -- is far too
small and conveys no true picture at all.
Take, for example, the world's 1.3 billion Muslims -- of which 750,000
call Canada home. If you count an average of one Imam (spiritual
teacher) for every 1,000 Muslims, then in Canada alone we have some 750
full- or part- time Imams; the worldwide total would stand at about 1.3
million Imams.
As with leaders in any mainstream faith, some are very well educated,
with Ph.Ds or their equivalent, as well as other post graduate or
post-doctoral training; others have minimal religious training. You'll
find the same breakdown of expertise among any widespread religious
community -- Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, you name
it.
These community-serving individuals go by different titles; Imam,
teacher, Sheikh, Sheikha, Kateeb, or just plain Brother or Sister
before their names. They include both men and women, are paid by
central or local organizations, or are dedicated volunteers.
But they all share a common choice in their decision to serve their co-
religioinists to the best of their respective abilities and
understandings.
It goes without saying that these people range from ultra-orthodox to
liberal in their functional approach to religion. And for sure, they
are not all saints. Some are, but others are not.
And, as with any secular profession, we must acknowledge that a few are
really, really bad. That's life, that's the diversity of humankind;
like it or not, it's a diversity we are given to work with.
So to conclude, for example, that all medical doctors are bad, corrupt,
incompetent or evil because a very few have abused their patients or
cheated on their billing, is not only blatantly illogical but must be
motivated by hate or cruel malice.
Following the London bombings of 7/7 Salim Mansur, a newspaper
columnist for Sun Media, stated with absolute certainty; "It is now
abundantly clear the source of Muslim terrorism is situated within the
body politic of Islam and its adherents, irrespective of how many
times, on the one hand, some Muslim spokespersons try to obscure this
reality and, on the other, politicians of whatever stripe for electoral
purposes behave as ostriches with their heads in the sand."
Mansur should know better. As an academic and associate professor of
political science, he should know from the outset that for any credible
analysis you must get the facts right and stay away from provocative,
self- serving rhetoric.
Far from following the basics of his profession, however, Mansur
continues; "[Young British Muslims] got programmed into becoming
militants, some eventually into suicide bombers, by Islamists
proselytizing in Muslim- organized centres, listening to imams preach a
fundamentalist and sectarian version of Islam, and watching
inflammatory anti-West, anti-Israel, and anti-Hindu television programs
produced by the likes of al-Jazeera."
And he doesn't stop there: "Public relations exercises mounted by
Muslim organizations in Britain, as in Canada and the U.S., with imams
as their leading spokesmen (since they are all men) condemning violence
in abstract generalities, can only delude the most gullible, uninformed
segment of the population in liberal democracies. Historically, the
role of imams in preaching a version of Islam for violent political
ends is indisputable."
Now let us be honest here: is Prof. Mansur contributing anything of
substance to the art of in-depth analysis? Is he even suggesting it?
Or, or he is sticking to a pre-concocted script of shameful
generalizations founded on equally shameful lies?
Consider how the world looks, according to Salim Mansur:
1. Muslims commit terrorist acts exclusively because of Islam (he does
not accuse any other world religion of doctrinally endorsed terrorism
-- he wouldn't dare).
2. Some Muslim spokespersons try to obscure this "reality." Here,
Mansur pretends to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth (whose "truth"?).
3. Politicians "of whatever stripe" who cannot accept Mansur's truth
are offering humane alternatives, not for the sake of faith or
altruism, but merely for "electoral purposes."
4. British Muslims are being programmed by "Islamists proselytizing in
Muslim-organized centres." Really? And what kind of research funding
would be available to compile irrefutable evidence of this nation-wide
conspiracy? Even after years of research, legitimate social scientists
are split on issues as fundamental as the possible correlation of
spreading violence among American youth and the availability of violent
video/computer games. Apparently, Prof. Mansur knows something that
accredited social scientists do not.
5. Al-Jazeera airs "anti-West, anti-Israel, and anti-Hindu television
programs." This is blatantly false, but such details do not seem to
matter in Mansur's limited worldview. He is not Arabic-speaking, so he
must base his disinformation on sources that are secondary at best, and
barely relevant at worst. And by the way, this is the first time (to my
knowledge) that Al-Jazeera has ever been accused of being "anti-Hindu."
A novelty for sure, Professor!
6. Muslim organizations denounce acts of terrorism not because they are
truly committed to eradicating it, but merely as "public relations
exercises." Such an assertion is beneath contempt.
7. When Imams denounce terrorism, they "can only delude the most
gullible, uninformed segment of the population." -- but not Salim
Mansur of course! Just who does he think he is trashing with such a
ridiculous assumption. You? Me?
8. And finally, among the historical qualifications for any Imam in
Mansur's world is the ability to preach "a version of Islam for violent
political ends."
My horrified congratulations go to you, Professor -- what a perfect "analysis"!
(Dr. Mohamed Elmasry is national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. He can be reached at np@canadianislamiccongress.com)
Canada's Anti-terrorism Act Is Anti-freedom
October 15, 2005
To the Senate Special Committee on the Anti-Terrorism Act
Dear Senators:
I had the privilege of watching CPAC’s coverage of your September 26
meeting where you heard witnesses, David Matas (B’Nai Brith Canada) and
Ed Morgan (Canadian Jewish Congress).
First, let me congratulate you on your excellent questions, although I
was seeking answers. You have renewed my hope in the Senate as indeed a
"second thought" process. Your guests, who appear to be reacting to
perceived or real fear as they embrace the current anti-terrorism laws
and encourage further restrictions, caused me great concern.
Senator Serge Joyal made an interesting point, which I agree with in
its entirety. He said, "we must be careful not to enact legislation
just to appease public opinion without being effective...we see the
example of the United States and by looking at them we see what not to
do" (or words to that effect). I would strongly suggest that his
comments reflect exactly what we are doing! I also agree it is wrong.
Several points cause me great concern. The very dynamics of this
legislation are reactive. Unless you have spies everywhere you will
never be certain of what any human being can or will do to another.
This by itself is an atmosphere of presumed terror. Certainly, no
Canadian expected the Sponsorship Scandal or any of the other
mismanagements of public funds! Some would consider the threat of being
robbed to be a form of terrorism.
The declaration, (as suggested in your meeting) of "the glorification
of terrorism" to be seen as illegal, is in fact an infringement on
freedom of expression. How can one have a glorification of terrorism
when no agreement has been arrived at as to how "terrorism" is to be
defined? There are horrific acts carried out by groups seeking many
things that fly in the face of the status quo and usually these acts
are a reaction...
The concept of glorification of an undefined word is ludicrous. The
very word "terror" when applied to political concepts creates what it
claims to eradicate.
For example, what if a writer or a movie script portrayed a human being
acting as a "freedom fighter," believing in their cause etc., as was
often done in history? That character or historical figure could be
created in a positive image, according to the author's view. They could
be seen as glorifying terrorism. History would have to be re-written to
prevent this perception from occurring. We wouldn’t want history to be
re-written, otherwise we couldn’t learn valuable lessons from it.
Lessons like those from WWII. Freedom of expression is a basic human
emotion. One person’s perception is not the same as another’s,
therefore our laws should not be based on emotion.
Current legislation leaves too much to interpretation. The term
"incitement of hatred" can in fact be applied to the arts. Hatred is an
emotion which cannot be legislated. In the event that an author creates
a character or series of characters that cause emotion in the reader,
they could in fact be inciting hatred towards a group of people. One
might consider a depiction of Hitler as an incitement of hatred towards
Germans. Taken to extremes, a movie about a husband who beats his wife
could incite hatred in women towards men. While I fully appreciate the
views expressed by your guests -- that they require protection from
terrorism, and that according to their statistics more acts of
terrorism are used against Jews than any other group -- some might
argue that the present state of affairs is terrorizing the Muslim
community. What I fail to understand is that the Jewish people in Nazi
Germany were racially profiled; they were tattooed, rounded up and
detained as suspects. They were imprisoned and then murdered by the
state, because in the eyes of the Nazis they were a threat to the
German way of life.
Yet your witnesses are supporting a similar atmosphere in Canada. Many
other groups of people were systematically targeted during the War.
Many historians draw very direct parallels between the current
atmosphere of fear being imposed through media and government and the
precursor years to WWII.
Yet even with this well documented horrific history, our government is
proposing biometric identification (modern day tattooing) while
discussing immigration restrictions or alerts based on country of
origin. We are seeing in Canada today the arrest and detainment
(without charge and for unspecified lengths of time) of people
suspected of being terrorists. How can a person be a suspected
terrorist, when we are unable to define terrorism? We are seeing
Canadians losing their liberty to pacify another country’s fears. What
is the basis for their fears? We are funding a military war regime to
quell their fears at the expense of life-sustaining social programs. In
effect, we are participating in the destruction of lives on both ends
of the spectrum with one parasitic policy.
We are becoming reactionaries rather than using existing laws; we are
imposing more restrictions on law-abiding Canadians. Intelligence
gathering in Canada did not prevent the Air India bombing, nor assist
in the long- delayed trial. It did not prevent Maher Arar from being
deported to Syria to be tortured! More monitoring of Canadians at large
will not prevent crime.
As I listened to your guests and the Senators questioning them, one
very real concern was left hanging. What is the definition of
terrorism? None of you could define it. Is it something which creates
fear, chaos, and the threat of loss of life, liberty and freedom of
rights? Some might suggest that the anti-terrorism laws themselves are
creating those conditions. Some would suggest that the invasion of Iraq
caused them. Is terrorism the word used to describe an act by
individuals against individuals? Is the word "war" used if those
individuals have the backing of a government?
The senate being the court of "sober second thought" in a democratic
nation, ought never to have reacted emotionally to another country’s
demands. If we are serious about being a nation of free people, we
ought to rescind Bill C-36 and Bill C-7. We must not implement the
proposed new cell phone and internet intrusions, via invasion of
privacy laws. We ought to ensure that we screen individuals wishing to
enter Canada; make certain that their passports are valid and not
obtained through illegal means. The issue brought up regarding people
arriving in Canada who are "undesirable" and present a potential
problem of deportation back to a country that will torture them, should
never occur. The solution seems quite simple. Pre- approve their
entrance through the Canadian Embassy in the country of origin.
The tone of the meeting indicated that the restrictions being imposed
on Canadians is to protect one special interest group while sacrificing
the rest. Where are the Catholic, Baptist, Muslim and
non-denominational groups? The legislations implies a government
attempting to harness people’s emotions. If a crime is committed it
should be investigated. The motivation for the crime should not create
more weight. If a person is murdered, the loss of life is the issue,
not whether they were hated. The perpetrator should be arrested,
charged, stand trial, and if found guilty, be sentenced appropriately.
The restrictions presented in these Bills are creating victims of us
all!
We can continue to create laws to restrict and prisons to hold our
citizens, or we can cease this insanity now. We can lead on the world
stage and help to eradicate the hate behind violence, vengeance,
retaliation and threats to world peace. We help feed the planet, help
raise the standard of living for all people. We can insist that
countries sign treaties for non- proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and stop funding the war machines. We can insist that all
nations adhere to the World Court and reintroduce the notion of
equality. If we refuse to look at the root causes of chaos, which are
inherently greed, lust for power and control, we will never be able to
legislate enough to end the suffering in the world. If we refuse to see
the sick, the homeless and the hungry around us and address the cause
of these unnecessary conditions, we cannot call ourselves a civilized
society. If we continue on this path of stripping people of their
liberties in the name of a false sense of protection, we will become
like our neighbors to the south, with a huge percentage of its
population (especially non-whites) living in cages! That is not the
society that Canadians desire.
I urge you as the body of sober second thought to recommend that
Parliament return Canada to the true north, strong and free! Rescind
the laws that bind us! Our war vets made the supreme sacrifice so that
we might live free. As the Chair stated in her opening presentation,
anti-terrorism legislation was created in the heat of emotion after
9-11. No rational decision ever comes from reacting to emotion.
Acknowledging this error and reinstating the freedoms granted to us by
past-generations’ acts of patriotism, is the right thing to do. There
is no real indication that these laws that bind are preventing acts of
terrorism, but they are terrorizing Canadians!
I thank you for the opportunity to express my deep concerns and look forward to a favourable response in support of democracy.
Yours truly,
Catherine Whelan Costen
http://www.canadianactionparty.ca
(Catherine Whelan Costen is vice-president, communications Director and
candidate for the Canadian Action Party. This letter was edited for the
Friday Bulletin.)
New Iraqi Constitution Will Lead to Country's Partition by Salim Lone - The Guardian -- Oct. 14, 2005
Just 36 hours before voting began in the referendum on the
constitution, Iraq's parliament finally added a clause indicating that
the new charter would be "a guarantee for the unity" of the country.
But even if the referendum held this past week approves the proposed
constitution, this clause will do nothing to prevent Iraq having one of
the weakest central governments in modern history, and possibly
splitting up as a nation.
Many had feared that would be the outcome of the Anglo-American war and
occupation. Others had actually planned for such an outcome.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union 15 years ago and Saddam
Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, partition had been seen by U.S.
hardliners as the surest way of weakening the most powerful Arab state
not in the American camp.
The constitution cedes almost complete territorial control and
authority to the regions of the three principal communities. This
includes oil revenues, which would put Arab Sunnis at a big
disadvantage, since almost all the oil is produced in Shia and Kurdish
regions. The constitution also prevents former members of the Ba'ath
party, to which most Sunnis belonged, from holding public office. The
document will alienate yet more Sunnis, and be another impediment to
Iraqis working together again.
The constitutional process had promided a fresh opportunity to address
the central issues in Iraq -- the raging insurgency and the
accompanying terrorism triggered by the occupation -- by making a
serious effort to reach out to Sunnis. But not only was this
opportunity not taken, so dominant have sectarian interests become that
the Shia- and Kurd-dominated parliament made a crude effort to ensure
passage of the constitution by, in effect, negating whatever Sunni
referendum votes might be cast. The UN secretary general's quick and
public intervention led to an embarrassing reversal.
Early markers on the road to the weakening and Balkanizing of Iraq were
the devastating first Gulf war, the imposition of sanctions, and the
western- backed creation of Kurdistan in northern Iraq. The nation was
also seriously weakened when Shias, at the end of that 1991 war, heeded
the elder President Bush's call to rise against Saddam. He ruthlessly
suppressed the revolt, killing tens of thousands, and creating bitter
Shia hatred.
After the 2003 war, America reorganized Iraqi political life along
sectarian lines, with a governing council whose membership comprised 12
Shias, five Kurds, five Sunnis, one Turkoman, one Assyrian and one
Chaldean. At the same time, the U.S. worked systematically to eliminate
all Saddamist (which meant Sunni) influence from national life. The
majority Shias were picked to hold the reins of power, and their fealty
to U.S. goals in Iraq was to be further assured by the prospect of a
constitution that would offer them an oil-rich autonomy similar to the
Kurds. Little did the Americans know that the Shia rank and file would
be as fiercely opposed to the occupation as the Sunnis were.
Most Iraqis have continued to resist categorization into sectarian
groups. It is remarkable that they have withstood the enormously
destructive terrorist attacks by Sunni extremists -- and other,
generally unreported, killings of Sunnis by Shia and Kurdish militias
-- without descending into all-out civil war.
Indeed, American and British occupation officials have regularly raised
the alarm about the spectre of civil war, without even a hint of
recognition that religious extremism and terrorism were spawned by
their invasion and the sectarian occupation policies. At the same time
Iran, which Bush and the neocons loathe, has a major foothold in Iraq
since many of the new Shia leaders have close links with their
co-religionists to the east.
>From the beginning of the occupation, the U.S. has consistently
portrayed each new milestone towards Iraqi "sovereignty" as being vital
to undercut the insurgency; this includes steps such as the creation of
the interim government under Ayad Allawi, the January elections, the
formation of the transitional government in April, the adoption of a
new constitution, and theis past week's elections. In practice, each of
these attempt to legitimize the institutions of occupation enrages more
Iraqis, and the level of violence increases.
As well, each post-occupation government has proven itself incapable of
achieving anything meaningful, and enjoyed little trust from Iraqis.
After British tanks smashed into a Basra police station last month,
killing Iraqis and freeing prisoners, prime minister Ibrahim
al-Jafaari, lost considerable domestic support because he failed to
criticize Britain when he appeared at a press conference with the UK
defence secretary, John Reid. It is hard to imagine such weak
leadership taking the necessary bold steps towards a solution to the
crisis, which must include initiating negotiations with the insurgents.
Only an end to the universally unpopular American occupation will
provide hope for ending the nightmare in Iraq. It is a severe
indictment of the UN security council members, and of other powers and
Muslim countries, that they are making no efforts to propose
alternative strategies which might succeed in curbing this ruinous,
globally destabilizing war and occupation.
(Salim Lone served as director of communications for the UN mission in
Iraq immediately after the 2003 war. This article was edited for the
Friday Bulletin.)
* * * * *
"I keep hearing on the news that this past Saturday (Oct 15) was a
relatively 'peaceful' day in Iraq. I hate to spoil CNN's euphoria over
the vote on the referendum, but 5 soldiers and a Marine were killed by
IEDs on Saturday. I wonder if the families of those tragically slain on
the 'peaceful' day are celebrating the turn-out on Saturday?"
Cindy Sheehan
Impressions of Palestine -- 1948 and Today by Khaled Mouammar - Special to the Friday Bulletin
I returned to Toronto on September 14, 2005 after spending 10 memorable days in my homeland, Palestine.
I traveled all over the northern part of the country during that
period. What struck me most was the beauty of the country with its
hills, plains and mountains, and its close resemblance to the
topography of Southern Lebanon.
My plane landed in Tel Aviv and my destination was my hometown,
Nazareth, 125 kilometres away. We drove north and passed many Jewish
colonies that were built after 1948 along the Mediterranean coast. Many
of their buildings looked alike and were strung in rows mirroring
soviet-style architecture, and hence painful to look at because they
were out of place.
We then veered inland towards the northeast and the scenery and
architecture changed dramatically. My son-in-law told me that we were
now in the Triangle region (Al-Muthalath) whose population is 78
percent Arab. We passed many Arab towns with beautiful homes nestled
against the hills and in harmony with their surroundings.
The largest Arab town in the Triangle region is Um El-Fahm. It played a
central role at the start of the Second Uprising [Intifada] which began
in September 2000. When the inhabitants of this town rose up in defense
of the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosques in Jerusalem after Ariel
Sharon desecrated them in October 2000, Israeli police killed three of
its residents. More recently, on September 15 2005, a rally attended by
70,000 people was held in the town to defend the Al-Aqsa mosque from
Zionist plans to destroy it.
Finally, we approached Nazareth which is located in the Lower Galilee
region. The Galilee region spreads from Nazareth to the Lebanese
borders and its population is 51 percent Arab. Nazareth is situated
among the southern ridges of the Lebanon Mountains on the steep slope
of a hill, about 30 kms from the Mediterranean sea, and 22 kms from the
Sea of Galileee (Bouhayrat Tabaria) and about 8 kms west of Mount Tabor
(Jabal El- Tabar), at an elevation of 400 metres. It is the largest
Arab city in the region and has a population of 70,000, 40% of whom are
Christian and 60% Muslim.
The twin pillars of Jewish immigration and Jewish settlement are what
underpin the Zionist national project. The strategy of building Jewish
colonies on high ground, next to Palestinian towns and cities that
existed in 1967, has its antecedents in 1948 Palestine and is
exemplified in Nazareth. Perched on a hilltop overlooking Nazareth, is
the colony of Natzrat Illit (Upper Nazareth) which Israel built in 1957
and populated it with a Jewish majority. It began as a settlement of
300 people and now totals 35,000 -- largely Jewish immigrants from
Europe, America, and North Africa.
Natzrat Illit has prevented Nazareth from expanding to accommodate the
natural growth of its population. Natzrat Illit, with half the
population of Nazareth, owns three times the lands allotted to Nazareth
and this is reflected in its wide streets and spacious parks. Like
other cities in the Occupied West Bank, Nazareth is ringed by a highway
that prevents it from expanding beyond its current borders. Nazareth’s
development has also been impeded through municipal underfunding --
Arab municipalities receive one quarter of the funding of Jewish ones.
All of the government offices, including courts, are located in Natzrat
Illit. And there are no cinemas, clubs, or shopping malls in Nazareth,
which forces people to spend their money in Natzrat Illit or Haifa,
which is 40 kms away. These government policies and practices have
stunted the economic growth of Nazareth. It is no wonder then that
municipal politicians in Nazareth frequently complain about how their
town is treated by the Israeli government; this is a result of
institutionlaized racial discrimination by the Israeli government
against its Arab population.
Notwithstanding all these obstacles, Nazareth is a lively Arab city and
Nazarenes are proud of their Arab tradition and culture; you seldom
hear Hebrew spoken here. This is a city where churches and mosques
stand side by side and the sounds of the Mu’azzin and church bells
produce a harmonious melody. The Basilica of the Annunciation, where it
is believed that the angel Gabriel appeared to the Virgin Mary to
announce the coming of Christ, stands next to the Shihab El-Deen mosque
which contains the tomb of the nephew of Salah El-Deen El-Ayyoubi who
liberated Palestine from the Crusaders.
Six kilometres away from Nazareth lie the ruins of the Arab town of
Saffouree [or Sepphoris] which was the biggest centre in pre-1948
Palestine. The town was destroyed in 1948, its lands confiscated by the
State of Israel, and the Jewish colony of Zippori erected in its place.
The inhabitants of Saffouree fled to Nazareth and now inhabit that
city's Safafera neighbourhood, overlooking their fields below. You can
only imagine the anger and frustration these people feel when they look
every day at their lands and are unable to return there, simply because
they are Christians and Muslims.
The second largest Arab town in the Galilee region is Shafa’amr, with a
population of 30,000 made up of Muslims, Druze and Christians. It was
here, in September 2005, that an Israeli soldier shot and killed 4
Arabs (2 Muslims and two Christians) and wounded 25 others on a bus.
The soldier emptied his Uzi gun and was attacked and killed by the
citizens of Shafa’amr before he was able to reload it. Ironically, the
State of Israel now intends to prosecute the people who killed the
terrorist soldier. The government also refuses to pay compensation to
the families of those killed, because Israeli law only allows
compensation for Jewish victims of terror.
The Galilee region is dotted with beautiful Arab towns nestled against
its hills and amid numerous square miles of planted olive trees. In the
Middle Galilee we came across the towns of Arrabe and Sakhnin, which
were the birthplace of Land Day. It is held annually on March 30 in
commemoration of six Arabs killed by Israeli security forces in 1976
during mass protests against farm confiscations in the Galilee.
Some 5,000 acres of Arab-owned land between the Arab villages of
Sakhnin and Arrabe were confiscated. These areas were classified by the
Israeli Government as "closed military zones" and were later heavily
developed for Jewish Israeli housing. Local leaders called for a
general strike and protests; at the end of the day, six people were
dead and 100 injured. An imposing solemn monument stands in Sakhnin for
those 6 martyrs.
I was struck by the majesty, beauty and expanse of the occupied Syrian
Golan Heights (Mortafaat Al-Joulan), an area nearly as large as the
occupied West Bank. Of the 100 villages that existed prior to 1967,
only five remain standing. The rest were obliterated from the face of
the earth by Israel as if an atomic bomb had been detonated on them.
Only 10,000 Druze Syrians -- compared to the original population of
200,000 -- remain in the occupied Golan Heights.
The largest town in the occupied Golan Heights is Majdal Shams, which
in Aramaic means "tower of the sun." It sits 1400 metres above sea
level and its inhabitants are proud Syrian Arabs. A large statue of
Sultan Basha El- Atrash (a Syrian resistance hero who fought French
colonialism) stands with outstretched hand on a pedestal in the town's
central plaza. A Syrian flag placed in the hand of the statue flutters
defiantly. Engraved on the pedestal are two lines in Arabic by the
Tunisian poet Abu El-Qassem El- Shabi that translate as:
"If one day the people desire freedom and life, then inevitably destiny
will comply -- And inevitably darkness will melt away, and inevitably
the chains will be broken."
The Arab citizens of the occupied Golan Heights are proud Syrians and
they have refused to acquire Israeli citizenship or serve in the
Israeli army. Residents of Majdal Shams gather every weekend at the
outskirts of the town and through megaphones exchange greetings and
news with their relatives across the valley on the Syrian side.
Haifa, whose population is 15 percent Arab, is the jewel city of 1948
Palestine. It lies by the Mediterranean sea and hugs Mount Carmel which
rises to 200 metres in height. The Arab population is located mainly in
the old section of the city in the Wadi Nisnas and Wadi El-Saleeb
(Valley of the Cross) neighbourhoods.
Akka (Acre) is the most charming city in 1948 Palestine. It was long
regarded as the "Key of Palestine," on account of its commanding
position on the shore of the broad coastal plain that joins the inland
plain of Akka, and so affords the easiest entrance to the interior of
the country. One third of its population of 50,000 is Arab and they
live mainly in the Old City.
The Old City of Akka has been declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO.
In 1750, Daher El-Omar, the ruler off Akka, utilized the remnants of
Crusader walls that were built in the 11th century as a foundation for
his walls. They were reinforced between 1775 and 1799 by Al-Jazzar
Basha and survived a two-month siege by Napolean’s army in 1799. Most
of these Old City walls still stand and many buildings dating back to
the Ottoman period can be found within them. The Old City, with its
ancient market, mosques, and beautiful restaurants by the sea is a
favourite destination for many visitors and makes one’s visit here
truly memorable.
The Arab minority of 1.4 million in Israel comprises 20 percent of the
total population. Notwithstanding their isolation from the surrounding
Arab countries and their neglect by most Arabs, they were able to
maintain their cultural identity and consider themselves part of the
Arab Nation. Their attachment to the Palestinians of the West Bank and
Gaza was strengthened after 1967 and they began identifying themselves
as Palestinians. I believe this was one of the main reasons Israel
built the Apartheid Wall -- to prevent the emergence of a unified
Palestinian national consciousness.
My trip to memorable sites of 1948 Palestine was a very moving
experience. During my visit I kept wondering how different things would
have been today if the Zionist aggression and colonialism of my country
had never happened. Palestine is a unique country; it lies in the heart
of the Arab world and combines some of the natural beauty with the holy
places of all three monotheistic religions. This is why it has always
been coveted by foreign powers.
I left Palestine convinced that one day the nightmare brought about by
Zionism and colonialism will come to an end. The Arabs of 1948
Palestine are clinging to their identity and land -- especially in the
hinterlands, and in the centre and north of the country -- and their
numbers are increasing. They more than ever identify strongly with
Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza, as well as those of the global
Diaspora. The Jewish colonists, for all their bombastic claims to love
the land, mainly live along the Mediterranean coast and many of them
hold dual citizenship.
The Palestinian quest for justice is unshakeable. A greater number of
people are realizing that peace in the Middle East -- and ultimately in
the rest of the world -- cannot be achieved until the racist ideology
that guides the Apartheid State of Israel is replaced with an inclusive
ideology where Muslims, Christians and Jews have equal rights and
responsibilities and where the 5 million Palestinian refugees around
the world can return to their homes and property.
No force on earth can prevent a people so determined to seek and to reclaim their justice and freedom.
(Khaled Mouammar is a Palestinian Christian and former president of the
Canadian Arab Federation. This article was slightly edited for the
Friday Bulletin.)
George W. Bush's Suicidal Statecraft by Zbigniew Brzezinski - Tribune Media Services International -- Oct. 13, 2
Sixty years ago, Arnold Toynbee concluded, in his monumental "A Study
of History," that the ultimate cause of imperial collapse was "suicidal
statecraft." Sadly for President George W. Bush's place in history
[and] ominously for America's future, it has lately seemed as if that
adroit phrase might be applicable to the policies pursued by the United
States since the cataclysm of 9/11.
Though there have been some hints lately that the administration may be
beginning to reassess the goals (so far defined largely by slogans), of
its unsuccessful military intervention in Iraq, Bush's speech of Oct. 6
was a throwback to the more demagogic formulations that he employed
during the presidential campaign of 2004 to justify the war that he
himself started.
That war, advocated by a narrow circle of decision makers for motives
still not fully exposed, propagated publicly by demagogic rhetoric
reliant on false assertions, has turned out to be much more costly in
blood and money than anticipated.
It has precipitated worldwide criticism, while in the Middle East it
has stamped the United States as the successor to British imperialism
and as a partner of Israel in the military repression of the Arabs.
Fair or not, that perception has become widespread in the world of
Islam as a whole.
More than a reformulation of U.S. goals in Iraq is now needed, however.
The persistent reluctance of the administration to confront the
political background of the terrorist menace has reinforced public
sympathy among Muslims for the terrorists.
It is a self-delusion for Americans to be told that the terrorists are
motivated mainly by an abstract "hatred of freedom" and that their acts
are a reflection of a profound cultural hostility. If that were so,
Stockholm or Rio de Janeiro would be as much at risk as New York.
Yet in addition to New Yorkers, the principal victims of serious
terrorist attacks have been Australians in Bali, Spaniards in Madrid,
Israelis in Tel Aviv, Egyptians in the Sinai and Britons in London.
There is an obvious political thread connecting these events: The
targets are America's allies and client states in the deepening U.S.
military intervention in the Middle East.
Terrorists are not born but shaped by events, experiences, impressions,
hatreds, ethnic myths, historical memories, religious fanaticism and
deliberate brainwashing. They are also shaped by images of what they
see on television, and especially by their feelings of outrage at what
they perceive to be a brutalizing denigration of their religious kin's
dignity by heavily armed foreigners. An intense political hatred for
America, Britain and Israel is drawing recruits for terrorism not only
from the Middle East but from as far away as Ethiopia, Morocco,
Pakistan, Indonesia and even the Caribbean.
America's ability to cope with nuclear nonproliferation has also
suffered. The contrast between the attack on the militarily weak Iraq
and America's forbearance of the nuclear-armed North Korea has
strengthened the conviction of the Iranians that their security can
only be enhanced by nuclear weapons.
Moreover, the recent U.S. decision to assist India's nuclear program,
driven largely by the desire for India's support for the war in Iraq
and as a hedge against China, has made the United States look like a
selective promoter of nuclear weapons proliferation. This double
standard will complicate the quest for a constructive resolution of the
Iranian nuclear problem.
Compounding U.S. political dilemmas is the degradation of America's
moral standing in the world. The country that has for decades stood
tall in opposition to political repression, torture and other
violations of human rights has been exposed as sanctioning practices
that hardly qualify as respect for human dignity.
Even more reprehensible is the fact that the shameful abuse and/or
torture in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib was exposed not by an outraged
administration but by the U.S. news media. In response, the
administration confined itself to punishing a few low-level
perpetrators; none of the top civilian and military decision-makers in
the Department of Defense and the National Security Council who
sanctioned "stress interrogations" (torture, in other words) was forced
to resign, nor to face public disgrace and prosecution. The
administration's opposition to the International Criminal Court
retroactively now seems quite self-serving.
Finally, complicating the sorry foreign policy record are war-related
economic trends, with spending on defense and security escalating
dramatically. The budgets for the Department of Defense and for the
Department of Homeland Security are now larger than the total budgets
of most nations, and they are likely to continue escalating even as the
growing budget and trade deficits are transforming America into the
world's no. 1 debtor nation.
At the same time, the direct and indirect costs of the war in Iraq are
mounting, even beyond the pessimistic prognoses of the war's early
opponents, making a mockery of the administration's initial
predictions. Every dollar so committed is a dollar not spent on
investment, on scientific innovation or on education, all fundamentally
relevant to America's long-term economic primacy in a highly
competitive world.
It should be a source of special concern for thoughtful Americans that
even nations known for their traditional affection for America have
become openly critical of American policy. As a result, large swathes
of the world -- be it East Asia, or Europe, or Latin America -- have
been quietly exploring ways of shaping closer regional associations
tied less to the notions of trans-Pacific, or trans-Atlantic, or
hemispheric cooperation with the United States. Geopolitical alienation
from America could become a lasting and menacing reality.
That trend would especially benefit America's historic ill-wishers or
future rivals. Sitting on the sidelines and sneering at America's
ineptitude are Russia and China -- Russia, because it is delighted to
see Muslim hostility diverted from itself toward America, despite its
own crimes in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and is eager to entice America
into an anti-Islamic alliance; China, because it patiently follows the
advice of its ancient strategic guru, Sun Tzu, who taught that the best
way to win is to let your rival defeat himself.
In a very real sense, during the last four years, the Bush team has
thus been dangerously undercutting America's seemingly secure perch on
top of the global totem pole by transforming a manageable, though
serious, challenge largely of regional origin into an international
debacle.
To be sure, since America is extraordinarily powerful and rich, it can
afford, yet for a while, even a policy articulated with rhetorical
excess and pursued with historical blindness. But in the process
America is likely to become isolated in a hostile world, increasingly
vulnerable to terrorist acts and less and less able to exercise a
constructive global influence.
Flaying away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming
"I will stay the course" is an exercise in catastrophic leadership. But
it need not be so. A real course correction is still possible, and it
could start soon with a modest and common-sense initiative by the
president to engage the Democratic congressional leadership in a
serious effort to shape a bipartisan foreign policy for an increasingly
divided and troubled nation.
In a bipartisan setting, it would be easier not only to scale down the
definition of success in Iraq but actually to get out -- perhaps even
as early as next year. And the sooner the United States leaves, the
sooner the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis will either reach a political
arrangement on their own or some combination of them will forcibly
prevail.
With a foreign policy based on bipartisanship and with Iraq behind us,
it would also be easier to shape a wider regional policy that
constructively focuses on Iran and on the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process while restoring the legitimacy of America's global role.
(Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy
Carter. This article was slightly edited for the Friday Bulletin.)
How the Red Cross / Red Crescent Is Helping in Pakistan
The Canadian Red Cross, with the support of the Canadian Government,
has sent 12,000 thermal blankets to be distributed by Red Cross and Red
Crescent workers in the earthquake zone. The International Red Cross
Red Crescent Movement has quickly mobilized to get relief supplies into
the area.
In the first few days, emergency teams were sent to Pakistan to support
Red Crescent relief operations in the affected areas. These teams
include experts in logistics, shelter, disaster relief coordination,
telecommunications, health, water and sanitation and information. A
100-bed Red Cross field hospital is to be set up in Muzaffarabad,
Pakistan.
Pakistan Red Crescent Society (PRCS) teams continue to lead the search
and rescue effort in Islamabad and elsewhere in Pakistan, where
thousands remained trapped in the debris of collapsed buildings.
Hundreds of volunteers have been mobilized to help with rescue efforts,
and to carry out needs assessments in Manshera, Balakot and Batagram in
the North West Frontier Province as well as in Rawalakot and Bagh in
Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
Their efforts are being hampered in the worst-hit area by destroyed
roads and bad weather. Three truck loads of tents, blankets, food and
medicines have already been distributed in Manshera and Balakot, and 11
more truck loads of tents, blankets, food and medicines are being
dispatched.
Email Feedback
Dear Dr. Elmasry,
CIC is doing a great work for the community in Canada under your able
leadership. Recent earth quakes in Pakistan, and in neighbouring
countries and the incident of Tsunami has left hundreds of thousands
Muslim children orphan. Damaged buildings, bridges and houses will be
built again, but the children -- if went to wrong hands and are not
taken care properly -- would be a big, big loss for Muslims.
To create future Lawyers, Scientists, Doctors , Engineers etc. we all
have to make some organized efforts in this regard. May be your
organization can create an awareness and bring other people /
organizations to look into this issue seriously.
Regards,
Malik Haamid Iqbal
