Is your violence more evil than mine?

Most Americans are not ready to see similarities between Arab and American religious fundamentalism, and they are not ready to see a connection between American excessive state militarism and Middle East indiscriminate violence.

When I argue with American audiences that it is not only the Middle East that is plagued by religious intolerance and the violence associated with it I am distanced one notch from my audience. When I point out that the televangelical media dominate the air waves with messages of intolerance, I move another step away from my listeners. I risk further misunderstanding when I state that the US and Israel commit immense state violence under the law, whereas organized groups in the Middle East commit immense violence outside the law.

Part of the problem of cross cultural communications on the topic of violence is related to the fact that we have no reliable ways of figuring out which type of violence is more obscene or more evil than the other.

A few examples illustrate how difficult it is to measure the intensity of evil in acts of violence. The Muslim-to-Muslim gang murder of innocents in Iraq is an extreme example of evil. Think comparatively. How violent was the spread of a million Israeli cluster bombs in south Lebanon last July? The suicide bombings by Islamic Jihad in Israel are cruel. Again look elsewhere. Where on the scale of evil do you place the act of the US occupation of Iraq and the ensuing destruction of the country?

In my talks, I find my way back to my audience, inch by inch, as I discuss examples of indiscriminate violence and oppressive intolerance in the Middle East and condemn it with passion. I talk about suicide bombings that victimize non-combatants in Iraq and Palestine. I cite the hateful rhetoric that emanates from shady clerics that hijack Islam with Jihadist sermons. I deplore the bigoted religious education in fanatic Islamic schools. Slowly, I find my audience giving me back the eye contact I look for. I express regret that some Islamic countries do not offer full religious freedom to their citizens, whereas the Koran clearly requires of Muslims not to force spirituality on people. I explain that it is regrettable that some Muslim countries do not allow the construction of churches. I refer to the seventh century example set by Caliph Mu-a’wiyah who rebuilt the great Church of Edessa at his own expense after it was destroyed by an earthquake. By now I have my audience back. But people love simple answers to complicated questions. So when I try to interpret in political terms the growing violence that rages in the Middle East it is not easy to pass the message.


To challenge my Western audience to imagine the agony of the people of the Middle East I list the many ways in which Christians have expressed their harsh violence to Islam and the Muslim world. I begin with the conflict of theologies.


For centuries, there has been a silent but provocative war of theology between the West and Islam. Christians in the US may have to be reminded that while Islam considers Christianity and Judaism to be sister religions this interfaith recognition is not reciprocated by Christianity or Judaism towards Islam. Traditionally, Christians do not expect Muslims to go to heaven. Charismatic American churches increasingly act like merciless, exclusive, insurance agencies that sell to Christians, and only Christians, policies of affluence in the present life and paradise in the afterlife. The way to heaven is paved with stones of hope for an end-of-time return of Christ, a return that celebrates a holocaust prepared for non-believers. A religion that celebrates such massive collective punishment to the majority of the world population must register a high score on the Richter scale of violence.

Beyond theology, US violence is expressed directly through warfare. Middle Easterners see the US as an invader of their land. Arabs see the Iraqi occupation as an American massacre. The Muslim world regards Israel as a satellite state of the USA. Arabs perceive Lebanon as being under the influence of the US. They fear plans of a future attack on Iran.

Muslims have their own version of history. They interpret the military support that Americans gave to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s as an attempt to defeat the first Islamic revolutionary regime, Iran. In the region, Israel is viewed as a product of a Judeo-Christian alliance against Islam. The presence of American troops in the Gulf States is regarded as a Christian presence that spells future trouble for the Muslim world.

Americans must stop looking at Islam as a conflicted faith that is need of reform. Americans should not offer Western solutions to Muslims. They should rather look at the Muslim world as a region in political conflict with the West and seek ways to work out solutions that are negotiated by the two sides.

While the manifestation of violence and its intensity may vary from one country to another or from one culture to another, it is difficult to weigh the morality of violence objectively in each society. The best we can do is to listen to the narrative of the other side and to learn how to deal constructively with the challenge. To blame the religion that is on the other side of the fence as the cause of all trouble is a seductively simple framework. This attitude offers an easy exit from taking responsibility. Comparing religions on their capacity to elicit violence is a dead end; this comparison can only add fuel to international tension.

The way we perceive evil in others is fundamental to the way we go about achieving personal and global justice.

The Moral in Imus - Rutgers Story

April 17, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida



Arabs and Muslims in America can draw some lessons from the Imus affair.

Last week Imus risked starting a wild fire of black rage against white America. His repulsive three-word phrase was a grave insult to honorable, young black women. The majority black American women in the Rutgers University team that Imus targeted represent all American black women.

The Imus curse generated a tsunami reaction from the black community and the reaction resonated in the wider society. Afro-Americans have been for several centuries the most vulnerable community in the US. Today, Caucasian Americans hold a large reservoir of guilt about white racism in America. What is this dormant guilt about?

The guilt is about, among many other issues, a punitive system of law and order that incarcerates too many young black men leaving too many black women to support their families in neighborhoods that lack adequate social services and cultivate multi- generational poverty.

Moreover, as American troops continue their mission in Iraq black men (and other minorities) are recruited in disproportionate numbers for the battles abroad. This war has left behind too many black women as single parents attending to children in difficult social circumstances. And here comes Don Imus, who with his selective audience represents affluent white American society, labeling a group of black feminine role models with insulting terms.

With his callous and brutal cuss words Imus rubbed salt into a deep ethnic social wound.
Now, with the war in Iraq pulling down the status and morale of America and sapping its resources, the country needs all its communities united. This is no time for opening a new chapter of domestic rage in civil rights.

American business leaders quickly saw the ramifications of the wild fire that Imus almost casually started and they contained it by firing the perpetrator. In contrast to the blacks in this country, the compassion index for Muslim American victims of slander is low. They are regularly exposed to shame or hate speech. For no good reason, daily stories in radio shows, TV programs, films and print media present the image of Arabs as being a backwards, angry people. The pain inflicted on Muslim American community by show hosts like Don Imus, Bill O’ Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter deserves more attention from wider society. If the compassion index for Arabs had been a notch higher, Glenn Beck, the leading scorer of Muslim slander, would not be on CNN tonight.

Muslims are not well protected from public prejudice in America not because they lack strong personalities such as Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson or because they lack strong legal defense agencies like NAACP. American Muslims are not well “protected” because they are not perceived as vulnerable.

Europeans may be more compassionate than Americans toward their Muslim minorities because Muslims there are seen as the down trodden. The reaction to the incident of the Danish cartoon of the Prophet is similar in dynamics to the Imus story. Across Europe, the satirical image provoked outrage and controversy on issues of censorship and free speech.

Muslims of America, unlike Muslims of Europe, are on the whole educated and employed in comfortable positions. They do not project the image of vulnerability.
But Muslims should realize that public indignation and censorship are not aroused merely by the substance of hate speech. The media tend to cater to the local taste of its public. Since Muslims are not too “popular" in America, the media are simply reflecting the Muslim image and caricaturing it to satisfy readers or listeners.

Muslims should not expect a dramatic change in their exposure to American media slander until American attitudes about Muslims change for the better. The media mirror personal attitudes of people they entertain and inform.


The Muslim population is increasing in the US, in Europe and around the globe. The Americans’ psychology of prejudice toward their Muslim minority is underlined by fear for the future of the white majority. Many Americans are simply afraid of Muslims, here and abroad, but they do not admit this fear and they hesitate to work creatively to bring about better cultural, religious and political understanding. Similarly, while Muslims admit that the political systems in their countries of origin are regressive, they are reluctant to organize for creative political reforms.

The essential conflict between the West and the Muslim world is attitudinal. The Muslims expect the West to celebrate cultural variants rather than to fear diversity. The West expects the Muslim world to adapt to social change rather than to fear modernity. Visionary leaders from all sides are badly needed to inspire transformation.

There is a moral in the Imus story for all ethnic groups of American society. The first lesson is that Muslim advocacy should focus on enhancing the image of its people in American society. Work with national networks of American media is important. Efforts to introduce more Arab and Muslim culture into America are crucial in reduction of prejudice. The recent emergence of Middle Eastern stand-up comedians in mainstream media, such as Comedy Central, is a hopeful sign. The new Arab American National Museum in Dearborn, Michigan, is a significant contribution of inter communal relations. Exchange of music, art, literature and humor can help put a human face on Muslims and Arabs. America’s Diaspora Muslims should reflect more authentically on their level of integration into the larger society and take better advantage of their relative freedom to address autocracy in the “old country”.

Arabs and other Muslims should look for new modes of bridge-making between America and the Muslim world. American Muslims are the future ambassadors of America and the future facilitators of international peace.

Peslosi's vision on road to Damascus

Pelosi’s vision on road to Damascus

Ghassan Rubeiz
April 11, 2007


On the road to Damascus last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not experience a conversion, as St Paul did two millennia ago. But the media attention to Pelosi’s visit was as dramatic as a miracle: the US Speaker of the House spends three hours tete a tete, with the president of Syria, visits the local mosque and covers her hair with a scarf in respect of cultural norms. It is a political miracle, given the current social distance between Damascus and Washington.

The Zionist lobby watches the event with anxiety. US friends of Israel are still trying to recover from President Carter’s “conversion” on his road to Jerusalem. Carter’s conversion was revealed in his latest book: Palestine: Peace not Apartheid.

The White House rebuke of Pelosi for her recent visit with President Bashar al-Assad reflects the Administration’s poor understanding of Syria’s strategic position in the region. Criticism of Pelosi’s visit came from expected and unexpected sources. Even the relatively liberal Washington Post labeled the event “foolish”.

These critics lectured Pelosi on Syria’s negative record of human rights, on Assad’s “failing” regime, and on her lack of coordination with the State Department and the Israeli government. And there were other themes of recrimination.

Supporters of Pelosi’s adventure in Damascus counter with parallel and relevant thinking. They are mindful of the vulnerable US human rights record in the region. The US has violated international law in invading Iraq, has ignored the rights of the Palestinians to regain their Occupied Territories and has meddled unfairly in Iran’s domestic affairs since the scandalous Musadak episode of the 1950’s.

These backers of the visit do not believe that isolating Syria through UN Resolutions, imposing US sanctions, and treating Syria as a “terrorist” state have worked to restrain Syria. On the issue of coordination with the State Department, Pelosi has followed what the Iraq Study Group (ISG) Report recommends. The ISG is a presidential bi-partisan task force that has advised dialogue with Syria, Iran and all major parties in the region. The Group Report argues soundly for shifting US foreign policy from disciplining difficult regimes to understanding them and dealing directly with their issues. And on the matter of loyalty to Israel, Pelosi’s record is clear: unconditional support of the Jewish State. In fact, US friends of Israel who commented negatively about the Damascus visit are insulting Pelosi’s intelligence by assuming that she is delving into international politics that are too complicated and too tricky.

In her short tour of the region, Pelosi was learning first-hand about the area’s priorities. She must now appreciate the cost of neglecting the Middle East peace process. In Damascus, the House Speaker expressed the US concern about Syria’s lack of cooperation in Iraq, in Lebanon and in Palestine. She also probed the possibilities of reviving the peace negotiation between Israel and Syria.

In anticipation of her trip, Pelosi may have pondered the following streams of hope: If Syria and Israel establish peace the Middle East would experience a political and social revolution, equivalent to the liberation of Eastern Europe. If Syria exchanges the Israeli occupied Golan Heights (a 460 sq mile area, rich in water, on the border of four countries: Syria, Israel, Lebanon and Jordan) in return for normalization with the Jewish state, the Palestinian/ Israeli conflict could experience a peaceful breakthrough. If Syria becomes a peaceful and rejuvenated state, it would contribute to the moderation of Hezbollah in Lebanon and to the moderation of Hamas in Palestine, as both resistance organizations have pivotal connections in Damascus. Iran would never be the same in the Arab world if Syria, its closest ally, establishes peace with Israel. And finally, an allied Syria would cooperate in the search for a solution to Iraq’s instability.

Despite its important position in the region, Syria, like all other Middle East regimes, is under economic and political pressure, domestically and externally. Rapid demographic growth, weak industrialization, heavy defense spending, and mismanagement of governance are among the domestic challenges. Lack of foreign investment and economic sanctions from the US continue to affect this country’s reduced opportunities.

Pelosi’s visit was based on the reasonable assumption that Syria badly wants to change. Indeed, Syria desires to ameliorate its sagging economy, its limited political alliances and its relations with its neighbors, particularly Lebanon and Israel. And not surprisingly, it wishes to open its closed system of governance.

Pelosi’s visit was based on the equally clear assumption that Israel badly wants to change its status as an occupier of foreign land and as a state rejected by its neighbors.

There is no moral innocence in the Arab- Israeli-US triangle of relations. In treating Syria as an ethically untouchable state, placing it on the axis of evil, the Bush administration is regrettably taking the moral high ground without justification.
If the Middle East is to change for the better, relations between Syria and Israel have to improve; and the sooner the better. Speaker Pelosi believes that the war on terror can not be won without the cooperation of the Muslim world. Her visit to Damascus was based on the diplomacy of inclusion.

Palestinians command when they unite

When Palestinians unite they command
April 4, 2007.

The Palestinians are now better positioned than before in deciding their future. In recent weeks the two rival Palestinians factions, Hamas and Fatteh, united in a national reconciliation cabinet. With unity and non violent struggle the Palestinians have unlimited potential.

The two parties formed a new government that offered Israel a truce and expressed respect for past PLO-Israeli agreements. They also showed signs of willingness to recognize Israel once the Jewish state defines its borders, eases the burden of occupation and responds humanely to the right of return of the Palestinian refugees. The Israelis have so far rejected the new Palestinian government and its agenda. The political and economic siege on the Palestinian community continues. A harsh occupation, illegal settlements and a wall of punitive isolation extend and expand.

Last week, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the Arab states renewed a peace offer to Israel. The Arab proposal exchanges normalization of relations with the Jewish state for restoring “1967 borders”. The renewed Arab peace plan asks Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967 (Gaza, the West bank and East Jerusalem) and from the Golan Heights in Syria. More significant, the Saudi initiative includes an important pre-requisite for a political settlement: the return of Palestinians refugees to their homeland. But in the Riyadh declaration, the “right-of-return” term was phrased with some ambiguity to allow compromise. The compromise means programming a brighter future for Palestinians living in camps without overwhelming Israel’s demography.

In a short period of time the dynamics have changed in the peace process. For the last seven years Israel, claiming that there is no serious “partner” on the Arab side, has been distancing itself from peace negotiations. Now the Palestinian partner, backed by the Arab states, is ready to tango, but Israel seems to have twisted ankle.

Despite the hesitation, the latest word from Israel is that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is now willing to meet with the heads of Arab states to discuss peace. Olmert is being dragged to the peace table. Israel is examining the significance of the new Palestinian/Arab landscape: Palestinian unity, a diplomatically softened Hamas and Arab unanimity seeking normalization. Never before have Arabs articulated peace terms with such harmony and reason.

One would hope that with US support Olmert would seriously explore the Arab peace offer. Since its creation, Israel has been situated in a culturally alien regional environment. It will take a strong leader to transform a crippling Jewish fear of its milieu (and the constantly changing conditions of the region) to a position of trust in partnership with Palestinians and the wider Arab community.

In response to the Riyadh peace plan Israel claims that the right of return of Palestinians to their homeland is “ridiculous, as it would change the Jewish character of the nation”. The Zionist state ignores the recent Arab flexibility on the refugees because its leaders are much divided on this issue. Israel should take note that the concept of “return of refugees to their homeland” could, in principle, mean “return to a future Palestinian state”. Financial compensation and a program of economic empowerment for the refugees could play a key role in the restitution process.

There are already in the record of debate some useful ideas for dealing with the predicament of Palestinian refugees. In 2003 a group of politicians representing both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict negotiated a framework for peace which was called the Geneva Accord, the Geneva Initiative or Draft Permanent Status Agreement. This extra-governmental (private) initiative provided creative guidelines for the future of the displaced Palestinians and the Israeli settlers. The Draft proposed that Israel recognize some moral and financial responsibility for the suffering and displacement of the Palestinian people. In the Geneva Accord only a fraction of the Palestinian refugee population would be allowed to return to pre-1967 Israel and only a fraction of the settlers' communities would remain in the West Bank.

The peace activists of Geneva were clever in postulating that Israel’s acknowledgement of Palestinian displacement of 1948 and 1967 wars would represent a reconciliation breakthrough, with far reaching political implications. The reconciliation process would have to start with admission of wrong doing and by sharing responsibility for the future of five million displaced Palestinians and five million residents of a future Palestinian state.

When Israel acknowledges the wrong doing it has committed against the Palestinians over the past six decades it is likely to encourage other accomplices to take responsibility in the Palestinian tragedy. Following Israel’s lead, the West as well as the Arab world should join in the process of assuming responsibility for the plight of the Palestinians.

When viewed in business terms the peace plan that Riyadh offered to Israel last week is a bargain: 78% of the land goes to Israel and 22% goes to the Palestinians. Israel continues to argue for so called “defensible borders” beyond the 1967 limits. But protecting borders, through space, walls or superior militarization would never assure safety to Israelis in the absence of a climate of understanding and mutual acceptance between the two conflicting sides.
For how long will this Arab peace offer be valid? Israel should aggressively pursue the new peace offer, or risk being a hostage of insecurity for a very long time. Today the terms of peace are more equitable, the Palestinians are more ready for compromise and the Arabs are backing up Palestinian conditions. The (Jewish Daily) Forward has the following to say: “The Saudi plan contains risks for Israel, but those are risks that Israelis are capable of navigating. The greatest danger right now is that a genuine opportunity for peace will be lost. The Saudis are taking an enormous risk in exposing themselves to hardliners as Israel’s advocates. They need encouragement, not abuse” (March 30).

If Palestinians can maintain their unity Israel will soon have to think of withdrawal on reasonable terms of peace. And as history shows, Palestinians can only unite for long through peace oriented resistance. The stronger the unity is among Palestinians the shorter will be the period of waiting for Israel to end its oppressive occupation.