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

I am not much of a believer in conspiracy theories, but I have come to realize that when it comes to the Middle East, all bets are off.

It seems to me — and, by the looks of it, to many Arabs — that the current chasm between them and the West is more than just a consequence of 9-11. It has been five years since the attack on the twin towers, yet the war is still raging.

I fear that Samuel Huntington’s outlandish theory of the "clash of civilizations" is becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy and that the current flare-up between Muslims and Christians is merely another salvo in a war that started nearly 15 centuries ago.

I have no rational explanations, only irrational ones, for a perpetual war of this magnitude can only be the result of the irrational.

9-11 is looking more and more like the murder of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, which ushered in World War I. The event served as a pretext to engage in a conflict that will be remembered throughout history as a shameful episode in Western civilization.

Wars always leave a bitter aftertaste, and this one is no different.

First, the battle lines have been drawn, and the United States is perceived not as a liberator but as an aggressor and a bully. U.S. policy-makers refuse to believe Muslims see them as the new Crusaders. The United States has lost legitimacy, significance and influence in the region. It will not recover them anytime soon.

Second, rationalizing wars with democracy is a canard and a crime that rationalizes injustice. Democracy can never be i

المزيد

I have not yet finished "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," former President Jimmy Carter’s new controversial book on the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I can empathize with his sentiments and feelings of frustration and, in some instances, despair.

For many years, I have followed Carter’s views and work on the Middle East and was very surprised to see him accused of anti-Semitism by Zionist organizations around the globe. More dismaying was seeing him on C-SPAN subjected to foolish, hateful and ignorant verbal onslaughts.

Carter is right, and he honors Americans by being the first person of influence to have enough moral courage to speak the truth on the Arab-Israeli conflict and on the policy of apartheid and oppression practiced by Israel against the Palestinians. He is the first of his caliber to lift the veils that have intellectually suffocated America and alienated it from the Arab and Muslim worlds.

A question that echoed in America after 9-11 was "Why do they hate us?" Some of the responses given by many including President Bush were "they are jealous of us," "they are backward," "they hate democracy" or "they are hateful by nature." The truth is that neither the question nor the answers are valid, and if they didn’t have a valid reason to hate us in the past, they have more than enough reasons to hate us now.

Animosity between Arabs and America began with the creation of the state of Israel, but consecutive American administrations have kept it within bounds, never permitting it to get out of hand by giving the illusion that they were adopting a balanced policy. Yet it was evid

المزيد

By now, most people know that Sunnis and Shiites make up the two major sects in Islam, but very few are aware that Sunnis adhere to four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence: Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafii and Maliki.

These schools vary from the most conservative Hanbali to the most tolerant Hanafi. The Hanbali is the literalist school and, as such, promotes strict adherence to literal interpretation of the Koran and the Prophet’s sayings. An act that does not conform to either is regarded as out of the ordinary (bidaa), and in the Hanbali view all "bidaas" are acts gone astray (thalalah), and all thalalahs are destined for hellfire.

There is no room for conscious mistakes in the Hanbali tradition and even less in the Wahhabi sect that adheres to it. This tradition is very different from the one advocated by the Maliki school, which is predicated on knowledge. Imam Malik, the founder of the tradition, was a scholar of science, mathematics, logic, philosophy and jurisprudence. All these are reflected in the school’s teaching of religion and the concept of faith.

Indeed, while the Hanbali school leaves little room for initiative or novel interpretation, the Maliki leaves too much. What is clear, however, is that the Maliki school opposes religion as a burden and refuses the literalist tradition as a path. Intentions play a huge role in the acts of individuals; reason a larger role; and in some instances, attention to the general at the expense of the specific an even larger one.

Islamic jurisprudence is predicated on the following sources: the Koran, th

المزيد

I was delighted by the news that John Bolton was vacating his job as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at the end of this session. However, my elation was dampened by the state of affairs in the Department of State.

Bolton is merely a symptom of the disease that has engulfed the department. I never thought that such an important organization, pivotal for the well-being of the United States, would be permitted to drift so aimlessly. Intellectual paralysis seems to have rendered it effete, unable to meet the minimum of its responsibilities. When Colin Powell was edged out, many of State’s brightest minds decided to seek employment elsewhere rather than remain in such an intellectually barren environment.

Unfortunately, their skepticism appears to be well-founded. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has not proven to be stout enough to confront others in power, in spite of the fact that she has the president’s ear and confidence.

Indeed, from the looks of it Vice President Dick Cheney and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, among others, seemed to have worked together to isolate and limit her influence and the role of the State Department. I can’t think of one serious diplomatic initiative emanating from the department since Bush assumed the reins of power.

Limiting the influence of the only serious organ of American diplomacy has had a profound impact not only on the conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but also on America’s relations with the rest of the world. And while many Americans might not care about what goes on in Bhutan or Zimbabwe, they do need to care about what goes on south of the Rio Grande.

Within the past two years, we have seen the policies of many countries in Latin America sharply diverge from America’s interests. Anger at U.S. policies in the region and elsewhere solidified support for nationalistic candidates with an anti-Bush flavor. Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina are the major actors.

المزيد

President Bush was in Europe this week, drumming up NATO support for his wars in the Middle East, but he doesn’t seem to be making much headway.

The primary reason for this setback can be found in his remarks this week, which many in Europe find unacceptable. The president has vowed to remain in Iraq "until the job is complete" and victory is achieved.

Oddly, he is doing this at a time when U.S. allies are setting dates to withdraw their troops from the Iraq quagmire and the one in Afghanistan, where, to the chagrin of the Afghan government, the Taliban are on the rise again.

The Bush administration can be humored for any jingoistic outbursts, but it cannot be forgiven for losing sight of the larger picture, which will have long-lasting negative impacts on U.S. foreign policy. America has not only lost the war, it has undermined its influence in the Middle East.

It would be very difficult to find many people who sincerely believe in the objectives of the Bush administration. The war and potential fragmenting of Iraq has set the stage for a long, protracted period of instability. In the long run, it will give rise to a new militancy, radicalism and, ultimately, fundamentalism that will dwarf anything ever witnessed in the region. The world is in for a long bumpy ride, compliments of Bush.

One of the cardinal sins of political realism is the unnecessary loss of state power through military misadventures based on idealism. The Iraq war is a prime

المزيد

The Danish and Dutch governments following in the footsteps of the French government have decided to outlaw the wearing of the hijab by Muslim women in their societies.

What the final laws will look like is still a mystery and whether they will apply to all head covers or only the burqas is to be seen. These governments seem to believe that they have finally identified the Islamic symbol responsible for inhibiting the integration of Muslim immigrants in their societies. I believe these governments are wrong, but ultimately I have no quarrel with them venting their anger at the hijab.

Personally, I have little sympathy or understanding for Muslim immigrants who leave their societies and try to impose their values and culture on the new societies they adopt. If a Muslim woman wants to walk around looking like a tent, then she shouldn’t immigrate to Denmark but to Saudi Arabia where that type of behavior is not only expected but also encouraged. And for goodness sake, don’t ask for a driver’s license while refusing to have your picture taken.

Islam does not prohibit women from revealing their faces, and it has always been a woman’s personal choice. So I find it rather contradictory for her to be wearing a burqa in the first place.

However, I also find it rather silly of the Danish and the Dutch governments to be trying to pass such sweeping laws when they impact only a few women. Al-Jazeera and the BBC claim the numbers of Muslim women who wear these tents in both countries to be quite small. However, xenophobic laws might be designed to quell growing European Islamophobia, but in reality

المزيد

Americans and much of the world are asking, "How will the Democrats deal with the conflict in Iraq?" There seems to be an erroneous assumption that they can wave a magic wand and six years of miserable foreign policy will be washed away.

I have news for these optimists; this mess isn’t going away so easily. Consequences of the Bush administration’s dismal foreign policy agenda will continue to unfold and linger at horrendous political, economic and societal costs to the United States and the world for some time.

Bush is not willing to change the thrust of his foreign policy. It still will rotate around the "war on terror" and the usual bilge he has been feeding Americans and the world. To give up these issues would be tantamount to admitting failure. Foreign policy is the only arena in which presidents can claim undisputed competence, but this administration can claim neither a competent nor a successful foreign policy. And with his domestic agenda in shambles, there isn’t really much success to claim.

So how can the Democrats help America and, perhaps in the process, redeem Bush?

First, Democrats need to reject Bush’s attempt at confirming John Bolton, his recess appointee as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton is not a pleasant American-policy face at any international body, let alone the United Nations. This continues to be evident by U.S. isolation on the majority of issues that come up for discussions and votes. Appointing a U.N.-friendly face will go a long way toward soothing bad feelings toward the United States and beginning the reintegration of the nation in the global community and collective sec

المزيد

Bottom feeders never cease to amaze me.

I was reminded of that belief by the statements Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, Michael Rubin and David Frum made to Vanity Fair.

In an article in the magazine, these recanting neoconservatives broadside the administration for its failures in Iraq. These guys are under the illusion that they could extract themselves from the debacle they created like extracting strands of hair from dough.

"In honoring the noble you own them, but honoring the ignoble will merely turn them against you." This ancient Arab saying fits this ignoble bunch of neoconservatives. Even before George W. Bush came to office, the neoconservatives were instrumental in promoting the invasion of Iraq and turning the Middle East into an area of perpetual turmoil.

President Bush honored them, along with the other neocons, by promoting them to positions of authority and providing them access to his thoughts and ears. Not only did they give him tainted advice and, under the guise of security, prompt him to engage in an unjust war, they vigorously promoted it through their network in government, Congress and the media.

In promoting this catastrophic conflict, America’s interest was secondary. It is neither in America’s interest to have the Middle East in a constant state of turmoil nor to base policies on doofus terms such as the "axis of evil." And it certainly isn’t beneficial to America to promote a civil war in Lebanon, repression in Palestine or Israeli instructors arming and training Kurds.

This is legal terrorism, advocated and practiced by experts in ideological deception. Thes

المزيد

Napoleon Bonaparte is reputed to have said, "We can always stop ourselves on the way up, but never on the way down."

A few years ago we started the slide, and we haven’t stopped since. I suppose that every few decades the world goes nuts, but the test has always been how it redeems itself from its stupidity.

I never expected much from the Bush administration, but I did expect much more from British Prime Minister Tony Blair. It now seems that 3,000 miles of ocean make little difference between Bush’s and Blair’s governments; it’s the same rubbish, just a different face.

I have reached this conclusion after serving as an expert witness on a case dealing with political asylum-seekers in Britain. The British High Court has asked for an opinion on the British government’s policy of repatriating individuals seeking political asylum.

It now seems that to rid himself of what Blair sees as a nagging headache, he decided to send asylum applicants back to the countries they left. Many asylum-seekers, some of whom had been granted asylum in Britain, are awaiting the final decision to be deported to their countries of origin.

Blair’s government is justifying this policy by claiming that it had extracted written promises from the countries of origin of those detainees that no harm would befall them on their return. The first batch of deportees is made up of Islamists from Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Jordan. It is hardly mentioned that three of these countries have been implicated as willing participants in torturing Guantánamo detainees on behalf of the Bush administration.

To make matters

المزيد

Change is difficult, and it never takes place in a vacuum. It is always accompanied by altercations and transfigurations, and smart statesmen need to pay attention to these.

Listening to President Bush talking about the transformation of Iraq in his latest news conference convinced me he still doesn’t get it, even though all indicators are telling him he needs to make serious and radical adjustments to his policy.

The irony is that his stubbornness has prevented him for meeting any change halfway. And by not doing so, he has boxed himself in a corner and deprived himself of options for U.S. security and interests in the world. It is not difficult to see that he is neither convincing nor convinced of his new goals in the Middle East.

If I were one of Bush’s advisers, I would tell him the following:

First, Mr. President, you are fighting the wrong war. Your target is 600 miles to the east, in Palestine. Iraq is a sideshow of that conflict, which spilled onto the shores of the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. The potential of it growing into a catastrophe that will make 9-11 look like child’s play is very real.

Second, it is worth remembering the words of John Sheehan of the Society of Jesus, who once said: "Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can’t help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East."

America has more enemies there during your tenure than it ever had before, and while I am not advocating that America abandon Israel, I am advocating a balanced policy that takes into account that Israel has been an aggressor who is breaking every rule to vacate Palestine of Pa

المزيد