Iraq not Eye-raq, please

Iraq not Eye-raq, please

Ghassan Rubeiz /December 20, 2006

Despite the deluge of information on the Middle East in the US media Americans remain baffled and confused about basics in politics and culture. It is my guess that most Americans do not know that Kurds are generally Sunnites, that Iranian are not Arabs, that Arabs are not necessarily Muslim and that the Shiite-Sunnites divide is largely political rather than religious.

Americans need blame-the-victim theory to justify the crime of occupying Iraq and destroying it. Nowadays, a popular US blame-the-victim theory is “Islamofascism”. There is a growing media movement portraying Arabs and Muslims as fascists. Muslims are being portrayed as the modern day followers of Hitler and Mussolini. Jihad is being equated with terrorism. National resistance in Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon is confounded with the organized crime of Alkaeda world.

Arabs and Jews are Semites, and yet hate crimes against Arabs are not considered a form of anti-Semitism. US Christian scholars have anointed themselves as experts on Islam. Islam is increasingly being connected with end-of-time American Christian theology. The difference between Islamic and Christian chauvinism has disappeared.

In the Middle East Arabs engage in a similar process of demonization of the West, especially America. Arab anti American and anti Jewish bashing is obscene. But there is a difference of some significance between Arab and American prejudice. Biased Arabs tend to see the Devil in America, as a political system, not in Americans as people. In contrast, Americans see the devil in Arabs, not in their political systems. The implications of this difference for policy planning are important.

At the roots of prejudice are ignorance and fear. I am amused how culturally distant Americans experts are from the Middle East. Their ignorance shows in cultural basics. Take for example the symbolic and irritating mispronunciation of Arab names. When talking about “Eye-raq” experts mean Iraq. When referring to “Eye-ran” they mean Iran. This is especially true among military consultants who tend to show little sensitivity to culture in politics.

More on language and policy. Iraq was an ailing but unified state before our invasion. Now Washington experts describe Iraq as territory of “rival Shiites, Sunnites and Kurds”. US occupation fragmented Iraq by undermining its security and sovereignty. Our policy makers wonder about the causes of Iraqi ethnic and sectarian fratricide. Civil wars are political phenomenon; they are not caused by sociometric differences among communities. No society is too strong to divide tribally when the economy is shattered, national security is eliminated and systems of law and order are abolished.


Americans want to learn the facts about the Middle East but the political establishment is threatened by inconvenient realities. The popular Arabic Channel Aljazeera launched its English language program in Washington DC last month to express the voice of Arabs in the US. Regrettably, Aljazeera is having a hard time airing its programs on American cables. The embargo on Aljazeera is phenomenal. Even Israel allows Aljazeera to broadcast its programs on its soil, but the US media empires consider this Arab Channel too dangerous for Americans.

Experience counts a lot in policy planning. US policy makers tend to have minimal experience in the Arab world. America invaded Iraq with a goal to democratize it by force. But Americans had little knowledge about its language, history, culture or sentiments. US experts do not know Arabic; they have few friends in the region; and when they visit the Middle East they are sheltered in first class hotels or in US Embassies that look like military camps.

American policy makers seek biased advisors who tell them what they want to hear. Neo conservative Christian Arabs explain Islam to them. Jewish advisors tell them how Arabs feel and think. The few Americans who have solid knowledge and insight about Arabia are labeled “Arabists”.

Arabists are now marginalized. The Iraq Study Group is trying to revive the Arabist role in US politics but the chances of that happening are slim. In only two weeks the Hamilton Baker Report (ISG) has been marginalized by a hostile US media campaign that portrays the region as a jungle, its politicians as unreliable and its culture as violent. If the Arabist Baker says let us talk to representatives of the region in Syria, Iran and Turkey, the neo cons are alarmed: How can we talk to people who are crazy and criminal? The White House rebuked Congressman Nelson for his recent fact finding visit to Syria. Former President Carter is being targeted daily to discredit his revelations about the American policy in the Middle East.

Political perspective on Iraq help people screen the flood of information they receive daily. Many Americans still see Iraq war as a victory in the making. They believe that it is just a matter of time before Iraq is straightened out. On December 20 our President said additional troops are needed to do the job. Those who disagree with Bush believe that intervention in Iraq was a big US mistake and the US should pull the forces out. But still few Americans consider the US invasion and occupation as a crime against human rights of a people and culture. Until Americans realize the depth of the Iraq debacle and the root causes of US hegemony around the globe the range of reflection on the Iraq tragedy will remain narrow and superficial. The view of the Middle East from Washington is out of focus.

Author’s email is grubeiz@adelphia.net. His blog is .

Political Islam

Moslems not Islam behind political turmoil:
Lecture at PBCC/Lake Worth, FL December 12, 2006

As a Christian Arab, I do not feel well qualified to interpret political Islam. But I do it because there is a growing need for interfaith civility. I observe that too many Americans are falling victims to mass media disinformation about Islam.

Has televangelism invaded the secular media in America? First I worried about the radio and TV of the conservative Evangelicals. Then I worried about Channel Fox. Now I worry about a CNN’s popular evening program that claims to alert society to the alleged danger of living with fellow Arab and Moslem Americans. Increasingly Arab conservative Christians are set up by overpowering anchor men to act as TV experts on Islam using alarmist theology and simplistic politics to explain the Middle East. Perhaps the largest American industry today is the manufacture of 9/11anxiety.

Any time I lecture about the Middle East the audience tends to ask questions about Islam and violence. I inevitably have to explain that Islam does not produce Moslem behavior. I add that socio political conditions in which Moslems live produce this behavior. I would also claim that the same is true for Christians, Jews and for adherents of other religions.

To illustrate I would explain that Moslems in Spain lived in harmony with Christians and Jews for seven centuries. I refer to a wonderful book written by a Yale professor, Maria Rosa Menocal, titled The Ornament of the World. I would refer to liberal ecumenical religion scholars such, as Karen Armstrong, to show that interpretation of the scripture is more important than the text itself. I would point to the existence of fundamentalism in all three monotheistic communities and cite examples of terror in non Abrahamic religions.

I would try to show that moderate and conservative Moslems are in sharp conflict about Islam just as Christians are in conflict over Christianity in American society. In the US God is now highly politicized. Americans are split about the theology of human sexuality and foreign relations and Arabs are split on the theology of politics and democracy building.

I would take a historical approach and show how Christianity had taken eighteen centuries to terminate wars of religion, albeit not totally. I would point to Ireland where Catholics and Protestants did not fight for God, but for power and opportunity.

I would add that it is political leaders who opportunistically assume religious roles in order to mobilize people with symbols of religion. I would recall my experience when I spoke in Northern Island about the civil war in Lebanon to an international conference of reconciliation. The local Irish audience expressed so much affinity with my interpretation of religion and politics. It is in Ireland where the expression “religion is often a badge to identify the enemy” was coined.

Islam, Christianity and Judaism meet as sister religions around the personage of Jesus. While all Moslems venerate Jesus and his mother Mary ( Mariam in Arabic) most Jews would also respect Jesus as a Jewish reformer.

In reality there is no generic form of Islam, a world of over a billion people. There are immense variations in the practice of Islam and in its interpretation. There are Shiites and Sunnis. There are moderate Moslems and fundamentalists and tolerance waxes and wanes at different cycles of history. There are the moderate Sufis of the Middle Ages and the modernist Ibadis of today’s Oman in South East Arabia. There are secular Moslems, and in contrast, there are Moslems who confuse secularism with atheism.

In the past most Moslems lived the faith of the oral and moderate tradition. This form of existential Islam is more open for social change. Many people learn their faith at the dining table or through conversations with their grandmothers. But there are those who live literally by the book and those who do not even read the Koran or frequent the mosque.
Today the written scripture has become too important in shaping Islam and Christianity.

Islam has five basic pillars: witness to Muhammad as the last messenger of God, daily prayer, doing charity, fasting a month a year and visiting the Ka’ba in Mecca, the place of origin of the faith. Leaving the two tenants of the pilgrimage and the orientation to Muhammad, the remaining three pillars, prayer to one God, charity and fasting are also fundamentals in Christianity and Judaism.

There is much flexibility in practice of worship. Most Moslems do not visit Mecca but they do not disqualify as Muslims when they can not afford international travel. God is Supreme; he has no partners. Muhammad is a messenger of God but he is not divine. Moslems can not understand why Christians conceive of the divine in three dimensions. This complication in Christian theology for Moslems is what they consider Ishrak, a sort of confusion that diminishes divinity.

God is always present in the mind of Moslems. Whenever one mentions God one says subhanahu wa ta’ala, praise be upon him. When you mention Muhammad you say salla lah alayhi wa sallam. When you start your day, begin a journey, embark on a challenging task you call upon his name: bism illah. The expression “praise the Lord” for Christians and “bism illah” are equivalent.

Perhaps Islam and Christianity are best differentiated around the construct of the Divine, God vs. Allah. Islam is Unitarian and Christianity is Trinitarian. Moslems have a sharp distinction between the Divine and the human; the relation between the two domains is the Koran, the received holy word. Daily Moslems pray that there is only one God: in Arabic, la ilaha illa llah. Every Moslem hears this verse several times a day in a chant from the minaret. The result is comforting; it is mesmerizing.

There are so many features in theology and worship that are common among the three sister religions. The three faiths are challenged to abide by the Ten Commandments. When in late November, Pope Benedict XVI prayed with Turkish Imams in a local mosque he demonstrated that the two religions are in contact with the same divine source. For all “three” life is sacred. For all, killing one innocent person is a crime against all humanity.

Today, not all are active in interpretation of the scripture. In modern times Christians and Jews tend to live in political climates that allow believers to reinterpret inconsistencies in their scriptures. The growing human rights revolution may have served the believers to think through their beliefs along universal values.

In contrast, interpreting the Holy Koran today is not very free politically. Moreover, the Koran for many Moslems is eternal like Jesus is for strict Christians. One can not easily change these foundational dogma features either in Christianity or in Islam.

Christians have taken centuries to soften the meaning of the concept of “son-of-God” through use of analogy in relating Christ to God. Moslems have so far been too slow in evolving dogma and adapting it to challenging societal conditions.

Moslems today live in politically restraining, educationally limiting and economically disadvantaged countries. But from their angle, many Moslems are not eager to emulate Western Christians whom they consider to be non spiritual and imperial.

Religion plays an integrative as well as a disruptive role in society. Perhaps, the dominant side of religious life can be positive. Think with me. In societies where the state is unable to deliver basic human services to people religion may play a major role in facilitating social order. Without religion people in the third world would go out of control and revolt.

And poor people do rebel, but not enough, considering the magnitude of human suffering in most regions of the world. No wonder Marx cynically opined that religion is the opiate of the masses. But on the whole the comforting and integrating function of religion is not dulling to the intellect.

Religion and social traditions can provide good will among people in the worst of conditions of living. Today you can walk at night in the congested streets of Cairo or New Delhi without being afraid of being mugged.

But often collective religious sentiments can lead to societal rupture. Religious mobilization is increasingly becoming a political tool to organize communities desiring societal change.
The majority of Moslems live in societies of economic contrast, autocracy and foreign intervention. In such conditions, the modern state is absent; loyalty to the government has eroded. In fact it has never been strong. The state tends to control its population with force, not with a social contract.

In many Moslem countries people tend to see their government as an enemy. In a society that is weak in civil structures, such as unions, political parties and social agencies the mosque becomes the organizer par excellence. If nationhood is weak, if ideology is thin, how does one get people to unite across family and tribal loyalties? Politicized religious indoctrination provides societal glue to face a national threat; too often that threat is an oppressive political regime and/or its foreign allies.

Poverty, tribalism and autocracy alone do not explain resurgence of political Islam. In the Arab world Muslim politics has gained strength in recent times. Failure of Arab identity to dominate Arab political organization is not easy to explain. Arabs have always been ambiguous about whether they are Muslim first or Arabic first. In times where Arab identity and nationhood were strong, during the fourties through the seventies, political Islam was controlled. Since the 1980’s the cultural identity of Arabia has been declining is favor of Muslim identity. The creation of a Jewish State in the late forties in the heart of Arab land, increased manipulation of the Christian west in the region and the organizational failure of the local secular party system may partially explain the waning of secular politics in the Arab world.

In Moslem countries where the state has managed to create a relatively decent relation with its citizens political Islam is either moderate or weak. Turkey is an example of a Moslem country where the State is respected by the people. In Turkey, there is active civil society, poverty is not obscene and the army is vigilant and sensitive to people’s symbols. Malaysia, Tunis, Jordan, Bahrain, Mali, Senegal, Indonesia and Morocco are other examples where political Islam is moderate and where political violence is limited. India, a democracy of one billion people, has a large Moslem population that is peaceful.

The future of political Islam is not easy to predict. There are no easy fixes for governance of third world countries. Moslems will continue to experiment with various ways to improve their societies. So far, for political reform religion has been the most familiar but not necessarily the most creative avenue of positive social and political reform.


The author’s blog is aldkkani.blogpsot.com. His email is grubeiz@adelphia.net.

Is the ISG another 9/11 Commission Report?

Is the ISG another 9/11 Commission Report?

Ghassan Rubeiz December 7, 2006



The Iraq Study Group that was released on December 6 was surprising in its boldness. It offers good advice to US policy makers: change the course, reach out to Iran and Syria, pull out in 2008, pressure Iraqis to improve security, governance and national unity and approach the Middle East countries collectively. The authors recommended improved training to Iraq armed forces and conditional support to enhance local responsibility. The ISG called for establishing an International Support Group that would include all stake holders within the region and outside it. Finally and perhaps, most importantly, there was a request for the revival of the buried Arab-Israeli peace process.

The report is expected to shock the US President and test his ability to process a new and sobering message on his misadventure in Iraq. He would need pastoral counseling to swallow his pride and start rethinking.

The strongest threat is to the right wing legislators who do not know what to do with such “inconvenient truth” about the Middle East. Neocon lobbyists have turned furious at James Baker for leading the ISG into breakthrough policy. Frank Gaffney, president of the neoconservative Center for Security Policy accused Baker (one of the leaders of the ISG) of anti-Semitism. William Kristol, a crusader for the US invasion of Iraq, called the ISG report a “disguised surrender”. His Weekly Standard has launched an op-ed campaign to discredit a report that leaves Israel worried about its image as a leader in psychological warfare against Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Muslim world.

The Jewish state has been following a short sighted path of unilateralism in dealing with occupied territories that it should return to a future Palestinian state, to Syria and to Lebanon. Similarly, Arab terrorism has made Israel’s case for procrastination on peace easier.

Since September 11 Israel has been on a political high. The terrorist tragedy has alienated Arabs from the White House and created an arena of warfare between Arabs and Americans. Israel had thought that it had an open field and ample time to dictate policy on Palestine in a political climate that confused Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with international terrorism. The Jewish State has gone ahead with rapid annexation of occupied territories and suppressed Palestinian and Lebanese revolt with brutal force, in the name of security and war on terror.

But wise friends of Israel, like Congressman Chuck Hagel, former President Jimmy Carter and former distinguished Senator George Mitchell have been calling on Israeli politicians to realize that Palestine can not be pacified through air power, annexation, settlement building, exclusion walls and with smart diplomacy in Washington.

Most Israelis dream peace but their politicians practice war. About a third of Israeli society is embarrassed about the policy of their government and about two thirds are ready to trade peace for land. Ironically, but understandably, perhaps more Israelis than Palestinians fundamentally wish for a lasting peace. But the proportion of Israeli killing of Arabs is several times higher than Arab killing of Israelis. Yet Arabs carry the image of the “killer” and the Israelis carry the halo of “peacemakers”. We count on Channel Fox and other conservative media to perpetuate the myth that Western democracies are wired to be peace makers.

The fate of the ISG report, despite its courage, may not be better than the 9/11 Commission Report that raised high expectations but reaped minimum fruits. The country is of two minds about the Middle East. There is so much misunderstanding of the culture and politics of this region that stand in the way of the ISG. The neocons will do their best to lead Americans to believe that a confrontational and unilateral approach to the region is right. Regrettably, they argue, that for Arabs the language of force is second only to Arabic.

In this crossroad stage of foreign policy that the ISG provides the Arabs can either help or hinder future diplomacy. In fact, Arabs can “help” neocons by continuing their negative rhetoric and their fratricidal domestic wars and by not controlling religious fanaticism.

Arabs and Iranians may wish to respond creatively to this new opportunity of improving relations with America. It would be unwise for Middle East diplomats and policy makers to misread this rare opportunity of possible dialogue and rapprochement with Americans.

Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians may want to coordinate a new diplomatic offensive with America. Putting pride and rhetoric aside the Arabs and Iranians may desire to negotiate all issues on moderate terms with the US.

Could Iran soften its rhetoric against Israel in order not to give this regionally isolated state a chance to become paranoid about its future security? Could Iran and Syria support Hamas and Hezbollah to be flexible in their domestic politics?

Would Iraqis realize that the IRS is behind their national unity, albeit conditionally? Reconciliation and fair resolution of inter Iraqi issues is crucial if aid from the international community is to continue in the urgent rebuilding of Iraq.

If the peace process is opened up with Israel the Palestinians must be unified and ready. It would be prudent for Hamas to soften its stance and hasten the creation of a new government that would challenge Israel to exchange land for a lasting peace. There seems to be irrational rhetoric about recognition of Israel’s existence, a regional super power that holds 10,000 Palestinians in jail and can hunt political enemies like ducks.

In contrast, Syria today seems to need no incentives to be rational in its negotiating with Israel. The current government is eager to start the Golan-for-peace dialogue, if only Israel could respond.

Would the Seniora government in Lebanon appreciate the ISG report and change its course to listen better to the opposition? Will this state put its national security first and the international tribunal second? If America can swallow its pride about Iran and Syria, may Lebanon do the same?

In sum, the IRS recommendations will not be applied unless the Arabs and the Iranians reciprocate the initiative. Within US society there are not many friends for the Arabs and Iranians. Out of exhaustion and fear of quick-sand politics American realist bipartisan policy makers have admitted failure in their approach to the Middle East. The ISG will take time and serious effort to make its way to the American hearts and minds. Opponents of the ISG are very powerful. They are mobilized to prove that their distrust of Arabs and Iranians is justified. May the Middle Eastern people turn the tide to make peace for their region a win-win game. True friends of Israel would also agree that peace is not a zero sum game.

Author’s blog is aldikkani.blogspot.com and his email is grubeiz@adelphia.net.

War of words in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine

War of words in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine
By: Ghassan Rubeiz / The Arab American News

In Iraq cruel societal disorder is at a peak; in Lebanon civil disorder is about to start and in Palestine the two-state solution is becoming a mirage.
Desperate for a solution to the U.S. quagmire in Iraq, policy makers are now in a game of semantics about this country's war. In this game, politicians ask if Iraq is in a civil war, or a political war.
Looking for a face-saving rationale for an American exit, Democrats tend to label the Iraqi quagmire as a civil war. Those Republicans who are still allied with the U.S. government's policy say "no, we are in a new phase of the war.” Most Democrats argue that if there is a civil war there is no further justification for U.S. involvement in a conflict that should be ended by Iraqis themselves.
The issue is not simply "stay the course” or "cut and run,” depending on the status of the war now. Regrettably, Americans do not seem to be willing to assume their full responsibility for their waging a cruel war on Iraqi society. By going after a dictator without planning, the U.S. has committed many grave mistakes for which there is no honest assessment yet. U.S. troops have stayed too long, dismantled the Iraqi security system, left borders un protected and created an opportunity for the formation of local and international militias.
The fact that the militias are partly aligned on a sectarian basis (Sunni /Shi'i) and partly on an ethnic basis (Kurdish/Arab) is evidence that religion is not the overriding factor in militia formation. Political power, oil revenues, organized crime, tribal rivalries and community security divide any society that is robbed of statehood: sovereignty, a strong army and a functioning economy.
Leave the semantic game. Iraq is not in a state of civil war. The Shi'a and the Sunni are not so different ethnically, religiously or socially. Arab identity, language and intermarriage are strong cementing societal factors. What then explains the so-called sectarian killing of Shi'a by Sunni and vice versa?
First, it is important to observe that much of the militia killing is committed by thugs on both sides. It is a war of thugs (who benefit from a power vacuum and easy access to resources) against innocent civilians who are becoming hostage to sectarian grouping. Second, the Sunni violence of the insurgency against Shi'i communities is partially a strategy of punishing politicians for not rebelling against the "foreign” occupation. On both sides killing is not religious; it is a political strategy, albeit cruel and counter productive.
An honest reassessment of Iraq would lead the U.S. to change the course of its foreign policy. The report of the Iraq Study Group that is expected to be released in early December is a first move in the right direction.
In Lebanon, the war of words is also now in play in the analysis of the escalating political crisis. Oversimplifying the situation, Western media tend to portray Lebanese politics as a struggle between pro-Syrian and anti-Syrian parties. In the so called "pro-Syrian coalition,” Hizbullah, General Aoun's party and other opposition groups are lumped together. Similarly, in the "anti Syrian” coalition Prime Minister Siniora, a large segment of the Christian community and the Druze leader Walid Jumblat are fused together.
Syria emerges in this analysis as the mother of all evils in the Lebanese domestic conflict. Since Syria has a bad reputation worldwide, maybe for valid reasons, any Lebanese party that is anti-Syrian is automatically favored. Pro-Syrian Lebanese are inaccurately positioned on the wrong side of a media-created and -sustained battle between "evil and goo.d”
The Syrian branding of Lebanese politics is misleading because the primary identification of Hizbullah is not with Syria or Iran. Hizbullah is focused on gaining political power for its Shi'a community in a country whose power is arranged along an outmoded and problematic sectarian formula. Hizbullah's second aim is protection of the country from Israeli forces that are still active inside Lebanese territory and within its air space. The fact that Syria provides support for Hizbullah, and that Hizbullah reciprocates, may be a temporary marriage of convenience. The same relation exists between Hizbullah and Iran. The important point is that Hizbullah is a national movement that is ideologically anti-Western, socially bent and religiously motivated. But Hizbullah has lost some of its sectarian fervor and it is increasingly moving in an ideological direction. Its alliance with the secular Aoun is an indication that reform-minded Arab Christians and Shi'a have found a formula to reform Lebanon along a secular approach. Other approaches of Christian politics in the past have weakened the status of pluralism. Leaving Hizbullah alone in its political struggle would reduce its inclination to demilitarize in the foreseeable future.
A more objective conceptualization of the Lebanese crisis would reveal that both sides of the current conflict need to accommodate to achieve national unity, reinforce security and bring about radical political reforms.
A third war of words is now raging in the Palestinian context. Former president Jimmy Carter has just introduced a provocative book on Palestine under Israeli rule. Carter's "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" is starting a hot and needed debate about the harshness of the occupation. The book argues that by annexing 1967 Palestinian land and taking away the civil rights of Palestinians Israel is behaving like South Africa during apartheid. Is Israel democratic or apartheid?" Carter asks. The much neglected Israel/Palestine debate in this country would make Americans better realize the severity of the occupation. However the war of words over apartheid vs. no apartheid may lead nowhere. If the debate is stuck in a linguistic moral framework the impact of the discourse will soon expire. Hot moral debate about Israel has never in the past led to conclusions because Arab society is full of moral problems, albeit unrelated to the Palestine issue. The debate on Palestine should focus on how to promote peace, how the U.S .should avoid siding with one nation against the other and how to facilitate a lasting justice for all sides.
Categorical moral analysis about the civil war in Iraq, about Syrian branding in Lebanese politics and about apartheid in Palestine oversimplify the fundamental issues surrounding these three current crises in the Middle East. Iraq is a war of thugs, not a civil war. Lebanon is essentially in a domestic power sharing conflict that becomes regional and international to the extent that the Lebanese are afflicted with poor leadership. Whether Palestine/Israel is an apartheid system or not is hard to answer. Moral arguments have their limits in reaching practical political solutions to the crippling and enduring conflict. One of the major barriers to peace negotiations is the tendency for each side to claim to be on the right side of morality, history or religion. Semantics may obscure analysis.
The writer is an independent Arab American commentator