مدونة د. منصور عمر الكيخيا * Dr. Mansour Omar El-Kikhia Blog

 Palestinians recently held their first local elections since 1976, and the results cannot be comforting to the Bush administration or Mahmoud Abbas, America’s candidate in the Palestinian presidential election to succeed Yasser Arafat.

 At stake were 360 seats to the local councils of 26 districts with 150,000 eligible voters. Sixteen percent of the seats were reserved for women.

 Arabs of East Jerusalem were denied a vote. Israel prevented them from participating along with Palestinian candidates with strong stances on self-determination and the right of return.

 The 26 districts were assumed to be safe districts for Arafat’s organization Fatah. However, Fatah won control of only 14 councils. Hamas, the newcomer, won nine councils and shared power with Fatah in two others. Other Palestinian factions participated in the process, but with little success. Also, seven Palestinian prisoners of conscience who ran for office from Israeli prisons were elected.

 Hamas leaders decided to boycott the presidential election but participate in the local ones. The elections served as an important gauge of its support among the Palestinian rank and file. By securing local strongholds, the organization has made the leap from a clandestine resistance movement to a legitimate political party.

 What makes matters more interesting is the international dimension of the issue. As a result of Israeli pressures, the Bush administration has placed Hamas on a list of terrorist organizations. It arrested its supporters, froze its assets and the assets of any charity in America thought to be supporting it.

 The organization does not recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state and considers all Israelis "intruders and occupiers." Many in the Arab world do not condone some of its tactics, but they do see the organization as a legitimate response

المزيد

 Christianity is not an easy faith to comprehend. It is difficult enough to come to terms with the divinity of Jesus Christ, let alone the concept of the Trinity.

 But perhaps the most baffling aspect of Christianity is its ability to serve as a basis for the political concepts of idealism and realism. The former represents the true nature of Christ and the latter the nature of the state, man’s most successful fabrication.

 Christianity teaches the concept of original sin that led to human eviction from heaven. Jesus, according to Christian doctrine, died on the cross for humanity. Therefore, humans are in a permanent state of sin until they accept Jesus as savior.

 Realists take the concept a little further. They maintain humans are sinful by their very nature. Hence, they kill, steal, take the Lord’s name in vain, covet the neighbor’s wife and do what the rest of the commandments forbade them to do.

 Therefore, they cannot be trusted to voluntarily do right. If they find an opportunity to further their individual power and interest, they will.

 Realists believe states, like humans, face the same forces of evil, deception, mendacity and self-interest. To them states exist in a state of nature, and should not expect to find goodness in the actions of other states, because they are self-serving, power-seeking, arms-loving entities propelled by self-preservation at the expense of others.

 Idealists, on the other hand, are closer to Christian thought. They adhere to the thoughts of Saint Augustine, who believed in original sin but was more accommodating to humans. He taught that humans commit sin but are not sinful by nature. Indeed, according to him institutions, such as the family, clan, tribe and community among many others, can have a rehabilitative influence.

 Idealists have always used Augustinian thought to promote international cooperation. Institutions can also rehabilitate states on that level. Hence organizations such as NATO, the United Nations, OPEC, the European Union and the Internatio

المزيد

 My interest in President Bush has somewhat waned during the past few weeks. He, unfortunately, reminds me of King Louie — the one in Walt Disney’s "Jungle Book."

 Both are seeking greatness, yet neither is able to achieve it. Indeed, the harder they try, the more remote their goals appear.

 Observing this administration resembles watching cartoon characters in action. A central concept to every cartoon movie is "the suspension of disbelief." We, therefore, accept flying elephants, walking on air or singing baboons as normal.

 Few of this administration’s actions do not involve suspension of disbelief. Its many self-serving responses to the 9-11 tragedy; the unprovoked attack on a nation not at war with the United States; the fabrication of a global war that promotes terrorism rather than eliminates it; severing relations with longtime allies and friends; and the suggestion that an axis has three points are a few examples of such actions.

 This government’s biggest success was, of course, securing a victory in the national election when the majority of Americans doubted the administration’s ability to deal with the war, the economy or the environment.

 An administration that was not particularly moral won by running on a slogan of "moral values." Many in the world are intrigued at the inability of Americans to see past the façade into the true nature of their government.

 Last week, Bush’s nominee to the position of secretary of homeland security withdrew his acceptance. Bernard Kerik, a former New York police commissioner and a protégé of former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, was nominated for the position Tom Ridge vacated. Bush apparently was unaware of his nominee’s connections to a company suspected of mob ties, as well as his financial and administrative improprieties. An alert president in tune with his administration should have known these things before singing the praises of such an individual.

المزيد

 I find myself in total agreement with the Bush administration on the need to revamp the United Nations, but that is where my agreement with this administration ends.

 The United Nations and its predecessor, the League of Nations, epitomize the vision of President Woodrow Wilson. Nothing would please internationalists more than to witness the growth and realization of that vision.

 The idealist Wilson had great difficulty convincing a Republican Congress of his nonconventional wisdom. In 1919, his views were far more revolutionary than any existing ideology, including Marxism. They called for global transparency, outlawing war, self-determination and peace.

 None of these goals sat well with the Republicans in Congress, who fought all his requests and ultimately voted to reject the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations. The United States was the only power capable of filling the political vacuum created by World War I. By not joining the league, it doomed the organization to failure and the world to war.

 For the past half a millennium, realists have dominated world affairs, and, hence, nations are selfish and self-aggrandizing. They accept only rules and agreements that serve their national interests.

 Opportunities to reshape the world are rare, but when they do come, they require an understanding of events that shape life. Even the ancient Greeks understood that. When they studied politics, they also studied unrelated subjects, including astronomy, medicine and geometry.

 Certain elements of Wilson’s vision can still be discerned in the brainchild of yet another idealist, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his United Nations.

المزيد

 Last week, leaders of the Iraqi Sunni minority requested the postponement of the January Iraqi elections. The Bush administration would be well-advised to heed that call.

 Iraq has a population of 25 million. A little less than 60 percent follow the Shiite sect of Islam. The remainder are Orthodox Sunni Muslims and Christians, who are about 4 percent of the population.

 As things stand, the outcome of the coming elections is a foregone conclusion. When the elections do take place, the Shiites will, by virtue of their numbers, dominate all elected political bodies. The Sunnis are divided between Arabs and Kurds. More than 95 percent of Iraq’s 3 million Kurds are Sunnis. During Saddam Hussein’s rule, Sunni Arabs and Kurds formed a counterbalance to the Shiite majority.

 Since the Iraqi revolution of 1958, consecutive military regimes have promoted secularism. Baghdad is a multi-religious and multi-ethnic city where Kurds live alongside Shiites, Sunnis and Christians. Iranian Shiite fundamentalism, until the American invasion, had been opposed by Iraqi society and government.

 The U.S. invasion resuscitated reactionary forces, epitomized by individuals such as Muqtada al-Sadr, as well as separatist sentiments advocated by Kurds. Some Iraqis oppose reaction and separation.

 Al-Sadr gained notoriety by opposing the United States, and the Kurds gained animosity by blindly supporting the United States. Half of Iraq’s Kurdish population lives and works in the Sunni triangle, and many Arabs and Turcoman live in areas that the Kurds claim. Currently, more than 150,000 Iraqis are displaced from their homes in northern Iraq by Kurdish fighters. This is a problem that will not vanish anytime soon.

المزيد

 In 1945, the United States emerged as a global political and economic power. As a result, it assumed the responsibility for developing and managing the world’s political and economic structures.

 In an era of nuclear proliferation, where power is difficult to measure, America continues to be a phenomenal military power. Perhaps only one or two nations can remotely approach its military prowess.

 Also by virtue of its market size and resources, it continues to be an economically powerful player as well. And, while there is little doubt that U.S. governments will continue to invest heavily in military power, the same cannot be said when it comes to economics.

 Case in point is the Bush II administration, which appears to be following in the economic footsteps of the Herbert Hoover administration. The incompetence of this administration has been evident in politics and will prove no less evident in economics. Why? Because this is an administration that talks a great deal about history but seems to have learned nothing from it.

 Few in this administration seem to realize America could not afford to go to war in 1990 without a variety of contributions from other nations.

 Currently, America is involved in yet another global military campaign on a shoestring budget. America cannot pay for expanding this war without incurring larger deficits that will undermine an already weak domestic economy.

 This state of affairs is a culmination of political and economic changes that took many years in the making. By the 1970s, the post-war, gold-based economic system collapsed, energy prices soared and America’s economy was internationalized. Most important, other nations stopped accepting valueless dollars and demanded a share of the U.S. economy in the form of IOUs (treasury bills).

المزيد

 Champagne bottles popped all over Israel at the news of Yasser Arafat’s demise last week. Many in the Jewish-American community, as well as their supporters in the United States, also rejoiced and joined the celebration. Arafat was blamed for violence against them.

 Supporters of Israel in the U.S. media displayed the greatest exuberance. Their articles, comments, interviews and editorials reminded me that cowardice, sloth and mendacity are still very much alive. I have rarely seen such an outward display of hate for a person and a people.

 In referring to Arafat, a Sacramento talk-show host wrote in the Sacramento Union that "the fires of Hell are burning that much more brightly for his having been spawned." The hatemonger was overjoyed, as though the keys to the gates of heaven or hell were in his hands. The author saved his best for the Palestinians, whom he described as a cruel pile of camel manure. In his deluded mind, there are no Palestinians.

 Had I or any other writer called Israelis just one of the derogatory terms used to describe Arafat, Palestinians or Muslims, my editor’s phone would not stop ringing.

 It is strange that supporters of Israel in the U.S. media give themselves the right to demean my race, culture and faith. There is a limit to how much one can endure of such diatribes.

 Bill O’Reilly of Fox News went out of his way to show how "stupid" the "slug" was for not taking the offer made by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Making the rounds on his show and others were President Clinton’s former Middle East envoy, Dennis Ross, and Martin Indyk, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Clinton’s Middle East adviser at the National Security Council.

 Ross pushed Arafat to make him accept Israeli conditions for peace. When the pushing turned into coercion, Arafat publicly suspended the talks and accused Ross of partisanship and of turning into both the judge and the opponent.

 Ross now heads the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

المزيد

 The Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat died in a Paris hospital this week of causes that baffled doctors. However, few people seemed interested in his illness, and many eagerly awaited his demise.

 Politically, the Nobel laureate died a long time ago. He retained the Palestinian leadership far too long and, in the process, he stifled the Palestinian resistance. His ineptitude and often bad judgment gave rise to Israeli audacity, American hostility and Palestinian religious radicalism.

 All these, combined with his dictatorial tendencies, ultimately cost him the respect of many of his people, as well as his adversaries.

 Yet in spite of all his setbacks, his 40-year struggle against the loss of Palestine, Israeli occupation and the repression of his people earned him the title of Mr. Palestine.

 Also, in spite of what the Likud Party and the Bush administrations claim, posterity will not view him as a terrorist but as a nationalist freedom-fighter.

 The question now is what impact his death will have on the peace process between Israel and the Arabs.

 The majority of Palestinians began to doubt Arafat’s ability to confront the Israelis a long time ago, and as Israeli repression increased, many of them switched allegiance to organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

 This makes it very difficult for Mahmoud Abbas and Ahmed Qureia, the Bush administration choices for Palestinian leadership. Abbas was the second in command of the PLO, and Qureia is the current prime minister. Neither is popular. Both are seen as stooges for the U.S. administration and in free democratic elections, both will lose.

المزيد

 The Middle East is drifting toward chaos, and only international involvement can stymie the slide. That was the gist of a report Kieran Prendergast, undersecretary-general for political affairs, made to the U.N. Security Council.

 I beg to differ with Prendergast’s assessment. I propose that the Middle East already is in chaos. International involvement, not the lack of it, has been the major source of perpetual chaos in the region.

 Years of European colonial occupation and abuse fragmented the region and left it without the necessary political social and technical ingredients to run itself.

 French occupation lasting 130 years didn’t help Algeria. Its neighbor, Libya, lost more than a million souls to fascists. When it finally emerged from 40 years of colonialism, its population was 99.6 percent illiterate and its infant mortality rate exceeded 45 percent.

 Next door in Egypt, the British supported and defended a corrupt feudal monarchy for more than 70 years. In the process, they undermined every popular movement calling for democracy, freedom and civil society.

 The 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and 1975 civil war in Lebanon are wonderful illustrations of delayed reaction to bad policies. The British chopped Kuwait out of Iraq, and the French carved Lebanon out of Syria. Iraq tried to regain Kuwait first in 1958 and would have succeeded were it not for Egypt preventing the attempt.

 In Lebanon, the French instituted a system of representation based on religious affiliation, thus guaranteeing perpetual conflict.

 Lebanon has not had a census since 1935. A census would reveal that Shiites are now a majority and, hence, have the right to the presidency in place of the Maronite Christians, who were a majority in 1935.

المزيد

 I voted this week at one of the local libraries, along with a host of people who, like me, consider the activity to be a privilege and a duty.

 The process didn’t take more than half an hour, and although my vote might do little to change the political picture, it did give me personal satisfaction. Freedom is a rare gift with an expiration date that only unhindered voting can extend.

 While standing in line, I couldn’t help thinking about my birthplace. I had never voted before coming to America, and even though Libya, the country of my birth, did have a constitutional monarchy, I was not old enough to vote. When I did reach voting age, Libya was under a dictatorship that not only prohibited voting, but also considered any party creation or affiliation treasonous and punishable by death.

 On Dec. 24, 1951, Libya became independent after four years in the trust of the United Nations, which also furnished it with a new constitution tailored by U.N. High Commissioner Adrian Pelt. The constitution instituted a federal system comparable to the United States. The major difference was that there was a king instead of a president.

 Libyans elected all representatives to the Lower House of Congress and half the Senate. The king appointed the remaining senators. The Libyan Supreme Court initially had an Egyptian and an American serving on it for lack of trained Libyan personnel. It served the same function as the U.S. Supreme Court.

 With few exceptions, suffrage was a right for all voting-age Libyans. There were no princes or princesses, only a king and a crown prince. The king, who on more than one occasion offered to abdicate in favor of a republic, outlawed nobility titles.

 The system was not perfect and had to adapt to the Libyan milieu, but it functioned well enough to give Libyans the ability to govern themselves without interference.

 However, what fascinated me most was the degree to which Libyans competed for elected office. Most Libyans were illiterate, and though they knew the candidates, they could not read their names on the ballot boxes. To circumvent the problem, each candidate was assigned a color and people voted for the color rather than the person.

المزيد