The Current Discussion:Israel celebrated its 60th birthday last week. Will it survive to celebrate its 100th?

Israel is not sustainable as an exclusivist Jewish state that thrives on the continued dispossession of Palestinians and on territorial colonization – except, that is, through perpetual American aid and military wars.

The history of the conflict has not been solely defined by Israeli military supremacy, but also by all forms of Palestinian resistance. From the outset, Palestinians did not submit to a fate of forced exile, displacement and occupation: The establishment of the state of Israel was also the beginning of a Palestinian movement to reclaim a collective people’s identity.

Continue »

Before getting into a serious discussion about engaging Hamas, several points of principle have to be clarified.

First, Hamas should be recognized and dealt with as a legitimate and elected representative of the Palestinians people.

Second, the US and other Western governments have no right to boycott or impose a blockade on the Islamic Resistance Movement or any Palestinian group.

Third, neither American nor Israeli officials have the right to determine Palestinian representatives in general or at the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, in particular.

And fourth, Israel should be subject to the same conditions that the world demands from Hamas and Palestinians as preconditions to engaging in the so-called peace process.

As the situation stands now, we are witnessing a "process" that has turned into a farce and serves only as a façade to cover continued Israeli colonization of Palestinian lands.

Continue »

If progress is to be made in the Middle East, the U.S. and Israel must first acknowledge that Hamas is not the problem. The Israeli occupation and impunity are the problem.

Israeli aggression and violations of Palestinian human rights started long before Hamas was even born. Israel has always dealt with the Palestinians as a population that has to be controlled, subdued – even crushed. We may disagree with Hamas’s ideology, but it has gained legitimacy through its resistance to an occupying force, and through fair elections.
Elected representatives of Hamas are as legitimate as President Mahmoud Abbas. But the world, led by the U.S., has chosen to deal selectively with the elected representatives of the Palestinian people and has resorted to its usual acts of collective punishment, bombing and killings. Israel claims that rockets propelled from Gaza are a justification for disproportionately unleashing its advanced military arsenal.

Continue »

The Current Discussion: With Castro gone, will Cuba become America's 51st state?

The assumption that with Fidel Castro gone Cuba could become America's 51st state is in itself a vindication of the Cuban leader's position towards Washington.

The U.S. has never accepted Cuba an independent entity – yet it has also never looked at it as part of its sovereignty. In America’s view, it’s nothing more than a tiny island that has rejected its “subservient place” as dictated by the tyranny of geography. Pre-revolutionary Cuba was never respected in the least as a country of vibrant people with aspirations, hopes and dreams of their own. Post-revolutionary Cuba was subjected to hostility, suffocation, constant intimidation and even aggression by its northern powerful neighbor.

Continue »

As a self-proclaimed secularist, I oppose all impositions of religious-institutions. But I also resent the attitude of superiority that many Western, and even some
Arab, secular liberals have adopted towards conservative Muslims.

Hijab is not the litmus test for liberalism – let alone democracy.
Social and religious imposition of hijab on women is a violation of their personal choice and liberty. But banning hijab, even if women wear it by choice, is another form of violation and repression.

It is especially abhorrent when some Western and Arab liberals raise hell about the hijab while spontaneously endorsing repression and human rights violations of so-called secular governments.

It is ironic that some Turks do not question the way the Kurds have been treated and the questionable role of the domination of the military in a democratic society, while they fiercely protesting the lifting of the ban on the hijab.

Continue »

The Current Discussion: In the future, global prosperity will present more of a threat than poverty, according to a recent Post op-ed. Is this just rich-American rhetoric, or is the world really getting too prosperous for its own good?

I do agree with Michael Gerson's concluding remarks that learning to live with challenges posed by growing world prosperity is better than the alternative of challenges posed by rising poverty.
However, I do not agree that the world has reached a point of a crisis of rising prosperity.

The rising billions -- if they are indeed billions -- of prosperous populations around the world do not automatically mean decreased poverty. Advanced technology and a globalized market place had allowed millions to join the ranks of the affluent classes, but it is also pushing a bigger number toward abject poverty.

Continue »

From Kenya to Iraq, the prevalence of tribalism is a symptom of the destruction of modern state structures, weakened or absent democratic institutions, and manipulation by local and external forces.

The destruction of the modern state in Iraq, after years of a punitive blockade and an American invasion and occupation, has propelled tribalism as substitute for a coherent state. It is true that the executed President Saddam Hussein did use tribalism as an instrument, but both the British in the South and the Americans in the center of Iraq have also pursued the old colonial strategy of creating tribal clientele for the occupation.

In Kenya, where tribalism is deeply rooted and was not diminished by the modern state, disillusionment with elections fraud and with Mwai Kibaki (a man who promoted himself as the people's champion) have triggered a regression to tribal fault lines.

In Jordan, the state issued special electoral laws to undercut the power of political parties and to foster tribal affiliations to undercut the opposition. In fact, the manifestation of modern "democracy" is based on institutionalizing tribalism, ethnic differences and sectarianism --a crime a committed by both Western occupying powers and national leaders.

Continue »

The Question: Is Christmas a bigger event in your country than it was ten years ago? Is this a sign of Westernization or just commercialization?

I live in a predominantly Muslim country, but my family hails from the old town of Bethlehem. The Church of the Nativity has been my family's church for hundreds of years. For us it is not only the site of the birth of Jesus but the venue of dozens of family weddings, christenings and communions. To many in the West, Bethlehem is simply a biblical town. Very few make the connection with the town's people, the Palestinians. When Israeli forces besieged Bethlehem in 2002, Palestinian fighters, mostly Muslims, took refuge in the church.

The Western world knows by heart all the Christmas carols, but it did not pay much attention then to the plight of the town, its people or even the church, bombed by the Israeli army. I was not in Bethlehem that year, but kept calling my family to make sure they were fine. My uncles, aunts, and cousins would reassure me that they were safe, although they were homebound and afraid to get close to the windows for fear of Israeli snipers. But they would all ask me the same question: What will happen to our defenders, the fighters in the Church of the Nativity? Many families were involved in smuggling food into the church, and their hearts went out to the fighters when they finally surrendered. Today Bethlehem remains under siege, strangled by an oppressive apartheid wall.

Continue »

The Question: The producers of the movie "The Kite Runner" had to evacuate three boy actors from Afghanistan because they were involved in a scene portraying homosexual rape. Who's at fault here: the movie producers who exposed the boys to danger, or the Afghan culture that threatens them?

It is a tough question: There is a fine line between respect of local traditions and norms, and
submission to extortion of extremist forces. However, in most cases resentment of certain Western
attitudes may reflect more resentment of Western policies - in the case of Afghanistan what many see as
Western occupation - than certain behaviors. It is imperative that Westerners show sensitivity in
how they carry themselves in conservative societies. (That same rule also applies to Arabs or any foreigners
visiting Western societies.) Even locals who pursue a more liberal lifestyle must tread cautiously in their milieu. Even for people like me, it is a constant struggle between my belief in a more open social life and my own more conservative ambiance. Change is a long process and shocking people's sensibilities could backfire.

It is also important to realize that Western lifestyle is not necessarily synonymous with civilized behavior. It is a complex issue since some Westerners carry an inherent condescending attitude reflecting conscious and subconscious colonialist beliefs. The controversy regarding filming of the rape scene, using local boy Afghan actors is a very particular example, though.

Continue »

I disagree with David's basic assumption that America's intervention aims at fostering democracy in Pakistan. But I do agree with his conclusion that America should take its hands off Pakistan. It is sad that both Musharraf and Mrs. Benazir Bhutto are still trying to prove, each in his /her own way, that he/she can best serve America's interests.

The true heroes of democracy are the lawyers who have braved the army and police brutality to protest the imposed martial law. These lawyers -- unlike most Pakistani leaders vying for power -- did not ask or care about America's permission. They are true nationalists and defenders of the rule of law. They are an inspiration to independent forces for democracy and progress everywhere.

But I doubt that the U.S. will get the message and allow Pakistan and its own people to forge a better future. It is evident from U.S. envoy John Negroponte's visit to Pakistan that Washington sees Musharraf's loss of control as a severe blow to U.S. interests.

If Washington decides to drop Musharraf and endorse Bhutto, instead of supporting power-sharing between the two leaders, it will still not bode well for Pakistan. It is time for Washington to stop trying to control the political process by supporting leaders only if they adhere to its destructive policies.

Continue »