Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Gatestone Institute" <list@gatestoneinstitute.org>
Date: May 17, 2013 3:36:07 AM GMT-06:00
To: bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com
Subject: Gatestone Update :: Khaled Abu Toameh: Fatah's Drive Against "Normalization", and more
Reply-To: "Gatestone Institute" <list@gatestoneinstitute.org>
In this mailing:
- Khaled Abu Toameh: Fatah's Drive Against "Normalization"
- Harold Rhode: The U.S. Role in the Sunni-Shi'ite Conflict
- Edward S. Beck: Growing Threats to Academic Freedom
Fatah's Drive Against "Normalization"
Send
Comment
Share: 
Be the first of your friends to like this.
The Fatah activists who are threatening Palestinian teenagers for talking to Israelis and playing football with them are the same people who claim, at least in public, that they support the peace process with Israel. But how can there ever be a peace process when anyone who meets with an Israeli is immediately denounced as a traitor? It is worth noting that most of these denunciations are coming form the "moderate" Fatah, and not from Hamas.
While Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was meeting in his office in Ramallah with Shelly Yacimovich, chairwoman of Israel's opposition Labour Party, his Fatah faction was busy threatening Palestinians who meet with Israelis.
That Abbas continues to meet with Israelis on a regular basis in Ramallah does not seem to bother Fatah.
Nor does Fatah seem to be bothered that Palestinian security officers work closely together with their Israeli counterparts in the West Bank. That is called "security coordination" between the Palestinians and Israel.
But when Palestinian youths are invited to meet with Israelis as part of an interfaith dialogue project, Fatah is quick to issue denunciations and threats.
When Palestinian and Israeli teenagers are invited to play football together as part of a project to promote peace and coexistence, Fatah is also quick to react.
But Fatah has no problem when Abbas or any top Palestinian official meets with Israelis.
Nor does Fatah have a problem with some of its senior representatives carrying Israeli-issued VIP cards that grant them various privileges that are denied to most Palestinians, such as permission to enter Israel and avoid waiting at Israel Defense Force checkpoints.
Palestinian youths from Hebron, though, who met with Israelis near Bethlehem to share their problems and insights have been forced to issue a statement distancing themselves from the meeting.
Following threats from Fatah, which condemned the event as a form of "normalization" with Israel, the Palestinian participants claimed that they had been "misled" regarding the true goals of the meeting.
This claim was clearly issued because of the "anti-normalization" campaign waged by Fatah over the past few years. This is a campaign that -- in the context of "peace" and "coexistence" projects that are often sponsored and funded by the European Union and the U.S. -- aims at banning meetings between Israeli and Palestinians.
The most recent victims of the anti-normalization drive are Palestinian boys and girls who committed the "crime" of playing in a football match against Israeli teenagers. When pictures of the match appeared in the media, Fatah rushed to issue threats against the Palestinian players and those behind the tournament.
Organizers of the "anti-normalization" campaign, most of whom belong to Abbas's Fatah faction, have been boasting that, in recent years, they have succeeded in thwarting dozens of planned meetings between Israelis and Palestinians.
But Fatah has not condemned its own leader, Abbas, for meeting with Yacimovich and other Israelis.
The real problem here is that Abbas himself has not come out against Fatah's campaign of intimidation and threats. By remaining silent, Abbas in fact appears to have endorsed the "anti-normalization" campaign -- at least so long as its does not affect him personally.
The Fatah activists who are threatening Palestinian teenagers and youths for talking to Israelis and playing football with them are the same people who claim, at least in public, that they support the peace process with Israel.
But how can there ever be a peace process when any Palestinian who meets with an Israeli is immediately denounced as a traitor? It is worth noting that most of these denunciations are coming from the "moderate" Fatah, and not from Hamas.
It now remains to be seen how Fatah will react if and when U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry persuades Abbas to return to the negotiating table with Israel. Will Fatah condemn Abbas for advocating "normalization with the Israeli enemy" when he sits at the negotiating table? Or will Fatah continue to go only after Palestinian boys and girls who just want to have fun and play football?
Related Topics: Israel | Khaled Abu Toameh
The U.S. Role in the Sunni-Shi'ite Conflict
With Allies Like These...
Share: America should back only pro-American forces who do not privately finance or publicly promote hatred against the U.S. It is in America's interest to rid the Muslim world of the Islamic fundamentalist forces whose goals and actions are inimical to American and Western interests; not to cozy up to them.
You might think that what the United States should be doing in the Sunni-Shi'ite conflict -- in which it has no theological stake -- is working to eliminate all forces in the Muslim world, whether Sunni or Shi'ite, who want to bring down the U.S. You might also think that what the U.S. should not be doing is looking the other way when countries it calls allies -- and wealthy individuals from those countries -- support, with both money and arms, forces who kill U.S. soldiers and citizens.
At present, this is not what is happening.
Today we appear to be supporting the Sunnis against the Shi'ites just about everywhere, and have sided with the Saudi and Bahraini governments as they repress their Shi'ites. When the Americans were in Iraq, the administration went to great lengths to develop a "Sunni strategy," while seeming purposefully to overlook the small problem that the majority of Iraqis happen to be Shi'ites. The U.S. openly frets about Syria's murderous government, which is allied with Iran, while again disregarding the irritant that most of the Syrian opposition is composed of Sunni fundamentalist factions – frequently more at war with each other than they are with Bashar al-Assad -- and who are outspokenly and viciously anti-Western. Why should we in the U.S. support these Sunnis -- backed by our supposed Turkish, Saudi, or Qatari allies, against the Shi'ites and their allies -- when both they and the Iranian-supported Shi'ites are equally anti-American and anti-Western?
At the moment, nevertheless, our most bellicose self-declared adversary in the Muslim world is the fundamentalist Shi'ite regime of Iran. (Of course, this does not mean that all Shi'ites are adversaries.) There are, however, many Sunni states -- say, Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- which, although we call them allies, continue lavishly to bankroll forces who hate America and the principles for which it stands just as much as the Iranian Shi'ite mullahs do -- just far more stealthily. These states are plainly not allies.
When the Islamic terrorist regime in Iran eventually falls, as it probably will, we shall then have to tackle the problem of our so-called Sunni "allies," who are also doing everything in their power to support the Sunni forces trying to bring down America. These Sunni "allies" dedicate far more of their resources to destroying Western culture than the current Iranian government can. In the long run, they are therefore at least as dangerous to America and the West as is the Iranian regime.
Ironically, America and many Western governments seem to have an enmity towards the Shi'ites, possibly, in part, stemming from Islam being taught in Western universities from a Sunni point of view. We are taught that Shi'ism is heterodoxy -- not the "true" Islam -- and consequently not really "legitimate." It should not be particularly surprising, therefore, that so many government experts in the Middle East and Islam – both in the U.S. and abroad – refer to Shi'ism as the "terrorist branch of Islam" -- which is the equivalent of alleging that all Catholics in Northern Ireland were members of the Sinn Fein, the Irish terrorist group that tried to expel the British from Northern Ireland.
As an example: when, just before a meeting with the UK Foreign Minister in the 1990s, a Middle Eastern Sunni leader brought with him a Western-educated, Western-oriented Shi'ite advisor, a British aide told the Minister to keep in mind that the advisor was a Shi'ite. Although this might have been a disinterested observation, according to witnesses in the room it was not. Worse, the British aide had apparently not even been embarrassed to voice his remark in front of his Shi'ite visitor.
Such occurrences, though minor, play into the Shi'ites' worst fears, of which Western policy-makers seem unaware. Shi'ite history is filled with examples of how Sunnis slaughtered Shi'ites since the beginning of Islam 1,400 years ago. Shi'ites are, therefore, constantly looking for protectors to hold the Sunnis at bay. Consequently, the Shi'ites could be potential U.S. allies. We would not have to be anti-Sunni; we could just stabilize the situation in the Gulf by keeping the Strait of Hormuz open to help all countries in the Gulf export oil and gas.
Even earlier, when the Shah was in power, Western prejudice against Shi'ites was widespread. The U.S. and its Western allies usually accepted at face value, unquestioningly, the (Sunni) Saudi and Bahraini government views, blaming the Shi'ites among them for "terrorist actions" in the Gulf. No one ever even investigated whether or not these allegations of Shi'ite terrorism were true.
Later, when Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, oppressed his Shi'ites -- who, as in Bahrain, form the majority in Iraq -- the West looked the other way. And when, after the Kuwait war, President George H. W. Bush encouraged Iraqis to overthrow Saddam, and Iraq's Shi'ites revolted against Saddam -- who then brutally crushed them in the south -- the U.S. did not even criticize him.
Before the Iraq war, some American bureaucrats were expressing then deep reservations about U.S. intervention. They claimed it would empower the Shi'ites, upset our Sunni Arab allies, and then add that Iraq was keeping Iran "in check." Iraq, however, never kept Iran "in check." What ended the Iran-Iraq war was Khomeini's conviction in Iran -- after the Vincennes-Iran aerial bombardment -- that America had decided to intervene on the side of Iraq. A week later -- telling his people that stopping the war was poison but that, for the survival of Iran, it was necessary to swallow it -- Khomeini called for a ceasefire.
Imagine if the Iranians were convinced that the U.S. was serious now...
*
As Iran is the largest and most powerful Shi'ite country in the Muslim world -- and, until the recent liberation of Iraq, the only country ruled by Shi'ites -- it is only natural that Shi'ites everywhere look to Iran for protection and support against the ancient oppression they suffered at the hands of the Sunnis. Moreover, many of the world's Shi'ites who live outside Iran, as about three quarters of them do, speak of the dilemma they face. While they look to Iran for support against Sunni oppression, they say they wish Iran would stop claiming to speak for them. [1] Further, in countless conversations with them, many also say they wish Iran would stop trying to interfere in their affairs.
What the non-Iranian Shi'ites really think about the Iranians – by which they mean Iranian Shi'ites - can be deduced from the Arab Shi'ite proverb: "When you break open the bone of a Persian [Iranian], sh*t comes out" -- meaning that because the Iranians tried to "Persianify" Shi'ites -- and destroy their non-Iranian culture -- Iranians cannot be trusted.
*
As for what is happening among Iran's Shi'ites, many -- as seen in their failed uprising of 2009 -- do not support their present terrorist government. It appears that a large number of Iranians would like nothing better than to have the Iranian regime replaced by one that could get along with the outside world. What Iranians say they most want is an end to their misery under this regime and an end of their country being thought of as a pariah state. While of course we cannot know the future, conversations with people inside Iran, especially after the riots against the government, give us reason to hope. Unlike the Egyptians, who voted in the Muslim Brotherhood, the Iranians have already experienced the rule of Islamic fundamentalism. If a new Iranian government could be pro-Western, regime change could be a win-win for both Shi'ites and the West.
*
Sadly, Western officials often claim that Iraqi Shi'ite political and religious leaders - both political and religious are spies for the Iranian government. Some probably are; but what many Western officials appear not to understand is that because the Shi'ites justifiably fear the Sunnis, the Shi'ites are likely to support any Iranian government -- especially a new one. Many of the fathers and grandfathers of these so-called "spies" had excellent relationships with the closest American ally in the region, the Shah; when these "spies" are asked if they would support a change of regime in Iran, they usually say they would like nothing better. Further, they often add that the Shah, although not without faults, had emphasized his country's Iranian rather than its Islamic Shi'ite identity, while the Mullahs, instead, have been trying to minimize -- if not smother -- Iran's Iranian identity in favor of their Shi'ite one.
If Iran had a new regime that emphasized its cultural identity as opposed to its religious one, we could then turn our attention to pressuring our Sunni "allies" not only to cease their stealth jihad against the U.S., but also their abysmal treatment of their own Shi'ite population. There are a number of ways prepared and available, although not yet ready, understandably, to be publicly disclosed.
A non-expansionist cultural Iran – as opposed to a transnational Shi'ite one -- would at the very least remove the excuse our Sunni "allies," especially the Saudis and Bahrainis, give the U.S. as the reason they repress their Shi'ites: they would no longer be able to scare the U.S. by invoking a looming Iranian aggression and anti-Americanism. They doubtless fear that if Iran were to become less of a threat to the world at large as well as to them, they would risk losing the support of their allies in the West. So as long as the present anti-Western Iranian regime is in power, the Sunnis feel assured that we will be at their side to help them defeat a powerful Shi'ite Iran. We, of course, seem to have no idea – or not to mind -- that we are being used as pawns in their unending conflict.
Regime change in Iran, in favor of almost any other government, would also liberate Iraqi, Bahraini, and other Shi'ites from the religious and cultural domination of the Iranian mullahs, and enable them to start looking to the West as the natural partner and "protector" they historically have sought.
*
Although there are currently violent clashes throughout the Middle East -- with Sunnis and Shi'ites killing each other in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan -- the U.S. would be wise not support one side against the other. Any preference would only embroil the U.S. in their unending internal conflicts and be detrimental to U.S. interests. Given the innate suspicion Middle Easterners have of the U.S. and the West, whichever side the U.S. is helping, the other side will most certainly accuse the U.S. of "actually" helping the other side. That fight is no-win.
Instead, we should be pursuing United States' policy goals: protecting the Gulf oil routes and eliminating the terrorists our "allies," of any stripe, support. As a global power, the U.S. is engaged in that region by default, backed into acting as reluctant policemen to prevent autocratic groups and undemocratic nations from filling the possible vacuums there.
*
From its history and from what we can deduce, Iranians by and large go with the strong horse. If the rulers do not demonstrate the will or the ability to do what is necessary to keep themselves in power, their populace will gravitate towards strength. If the situation in Iran is to change, not only must Iran's nuclear weapons program be eliminated, but therefore so must its government's ability to retain its rule.
No one, naturally, can guarantee what will happen with Iran's nuclear program, but a government that looked inward to its country's internal reconstruction and technological modernization, neglected for 34 years, would no longer necessarily be a threat to its neighbors. It might possibly also be more amenable to the international community's demands in order to get the desperately needed American and Western support to rebuild its infrastructure.
The mullahs most assuredly know that as long as they strive to attain weapons of mass destruction, the outside world will not be willing to help them rebuild their country. In Iran, there are apparently passionate debates on whether the pursuit of nuclear weapons might bring down on them the wrath of the West. Even though many Iranians would like the prestige of being in the "nuclear club," they recognize that the price for attaining it could be the destruction of their country.
*
After the Iranian problem is solved, it is urgent to begin seriously addressing the forces in the Sunni world who privately, and sometimes even publicly, encourage anti-U.S. and anti-Western values while at the same time aggressively funding forces antagonistic to the West and building fifth-column communities there. Wahhabis -- most notably Saudis and Qataris -- who claim to be among our closest allies in the region, are the major funders of much of the anti-Western activity in Europe, Turkey, and the U.S., especially of groups that have the same terrorist goals as al-Qa'ida. We should demand that our supposed "allies" stop these actions against us at once.
Now, however, given the regime ruling Iran, these "allies" have little problem re-directing our attention away from the terrible treatment they mete out to the Shi'ites, as well as to us.
America should back only pro-American forces who do not privately finance or publicly promote hatred towards the U.S. It is in America's interest to rid the Muslim world of the Islamist fundamentalist forces whose goals and actions are inimical to American and Western interests; not to cozy up to them.
The more we show that we are prepared to expend every effort to do so, as we did in the successful 2006 surge in Iraq, the more Muslims of all types are likely to support the U.S.
Another way, of course, to end U.S. involvement in the never-ending internal battles of that region, would be to develop alternative sources of energy, especially as they become more economically feasible to extract; to find new methods of mining the enormous quantities of energy in other parts of the world, and to develop other types of energy apart from oil and gas. Then the Middle East and its religious and political quarrels could happily retire into quiet insignificance.
[1] For more on Iran's involvement in the affairs of non-Iranian Shi'ites, see, "Lebanese Shiite leader: Iran does not represent all Shiites, wants to use them". See also, "Yemenis suspect Iran's hand in rise of Shiite rebels", "The Shia Factor for the Stabilization of Afghanistan: Iran and the Hazara," and "Iran and the Shi'ite Solution."
Related Topics: Harold Rhode
Growing Threats to Academic Freedom
Share: Hawking's behavior is based on inaccurate, biased information. If he has insightful thoughts about resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issues, let him come and share them. Stating them at the conference is the way for them to have impact.
Two recent developments within the academic community have signaled a serious, new level of escalation of hostility towards academic freedom and integrity: the recent announcement of Stephen Hawking to withdraw from presenting a keynote address at a gathering of leading world figures in Israel and the resolution by the Association of Asian American Studies to boycott Israeli academics. Unfortunately, this highlights, in both instances, scholars swayed more by propaganda than facts, and growing attempts to stifle academic freedom of enquiry.
Recently, in a series of conflicting reports, it turns out that Stephen Hawking, after an invitation to deliver a keynote address at a conference in Israel, backed out at the last minute after yielding to pressure from the British Committee For The Universities of Palestine (BRICUP), a longstanding group outspokenly not "for the universities of Palestine", but resolutely against the universities in Israel. This group has been advocating boycotting Israeli academics and universities in Britain since 2004. After what appears to be a significant targeting of the 71-year old Hawking, he caved in and sent a letter to Israeli President Shimon Peres, stating that he was withdrawing his participation in the "Facing the Future" conference, "based on advice from Palestinian academics that he should respect the boycott." A statement issued by the University of Cambridge clarified the confusion of conflicting reports as to whether his pull-out was based on poor health or anti-Israeli sentiments.
Several weeks ago, in what can only be described as a departure from its academic mission of scholarly purposes -- and from academic integrity as well -- the Association for Asian American Studies passed a resolution to: "honor the call of Palestinian civil society for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions; and to support the protected rights of students and scholars everywhere to engage in research and public speaking about Israel-Palestine and in support of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement."
Among the reasons they cite are: 1) they are an organization which is "dedicated to the preservation and support of academic freedom and of the right to education for students and scholars in the U.S. and globally"; 2) the AAAS "seeks to advance a critique of U.S. empire, opposing US military occupation in the Arab world and U.S. support for occupation and racist practices by the Israeli state" and 3) AAAS "supports research and open discussion about these issues without censorship, intimidation, or harassment, and seeks to promote academic exchange, collaboration and opportunities for students and scholars everywhere…."
In calling for boycotting some to promote opportunity for all, the document is antithetical to the moral and ethical principles of academic freedom, as well as inconsistent. It is visibly driven by radicalized extremist propaganda and by a complete disregard for understanding either the actual history of the region or that such boycotts have been denounced as a matter of academic protocol for many years by outstanding scholars of all disciplines, including many Nobel Laureates. The AAAS has put itself in the unenviable position of sinking to an unprofessional level by succumbing to propaganda and polemics rather than moving the narrative towards constructive resolutions that might further the cause of peace. It is simply lazy academics, in which searching for the truth is displaced by sloganeering that tries to create the perception of fact.
This growing assault on academic freedom and integrity will require that university scholars of honesty and senior status forcefully speak out against these counterproductive resolutions and the scholars who support them, and publicly renounce them. As a matter of policy, morality and ethics, these resolutions, when presented, ought to be investigated for accuracy and, if necessary, opposed.
As peer review is the currency of the academic world -- only peers in the academy can sway the discussions and actions of their colleagues – counterarguments need to be based on universal academic principles that guide the academic profession, not on the politics of the moment. Academics earn the right to academic freedom because of universal principals adopted by the profession, not from a small, but loud and boisterous group of extremist academics with axes to grind. Thorough scholarship deserves to be adopted; slipshod scholarship, polemics and propaganda deserve to be identified and deconstructed.
Hawking's response needs to be countered on academic principles: it is based on inaccurate, biased information; serves no useful purpose in the cause of peace and diminishes the marketplace of ideas that the conference provides. If Hawking has insightful thoughts about resolving the Palestinian-Israeli issues, let him come and share them rather than succumb to the pressures to boycott intellectual exchange. If he has insights about the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, stating them at the conference is the way for them to have impact.
The AAAS resolution simply runs counter to the academic precepts AAAS proclaims it embraces. How can its proponents endorse a boycott of one set of academics when they unequivocally state that they are for the rights of ALL students and academics to research, study and be educated. This is precisely the flaw in the academic boycott tactic: it defeats the academic precepts that underlie the entire academic world.
Although many might face opposition for demanding the truth, statements issued by the American Association of University Professors and Scholars for Peace in the Middle East re-affirm that commitment to the facts, truth and freedom of academic inquiry, and to denouncing those who engage in academic boycotts. Academic boycotts serve no constructive academic purpose and usually end up engaging in discrimination based on national origin -- antithetical to the precepts of human rights and principles of civil rights law.
Finally, it is time that all academics of integrity strive to create statements and campaigns that encourage academic freedom and cooperation -- especially among peoples who have historically been in conflict -- to develop new opportunities for peace and abundance in our increasingly interconnected world.
Edward S. Beck is Professor of Counselor Education and Psychology (Retired); President Emeritus, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East; Past Chair, SPME Task Force on Boycott Divestments and Sanctions.
You are subscribed to this list as bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com.
To unsubscribe, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_unsubscribe.php
To edit your subscription options, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_edit.php
To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Print
No comments:
Post a Comment