Peace effort likely an illusion

Like every recent president preceding him, President Bush put on a showpiece of diplomacy at Annapolis where Israelis and Palestinians met in the presence of representatives from several Arab countries, the United States and others as witnesses to "peace talks."

Part of me wants to believe this is a bona fide attempt by the Bush administration to settle the conflict in the Middle East. However, the realist in me knows better. That part of me knows this is merely an illusion that has all the semblance of reality but when all is said and done it remains an illusion.

Indeed that nasty part of me tells me that:
The timing is rather strange. Why now? If the Bush administration was really serious about peace in the Middle East, it should have shown its care and benevolence a few years ago. Instead it gave multiple green lights and encouragement to Israel to bomb the dickens out of the Palestinians, as well as invade Lebanon and to drop cluster bombs that are to this day killing and maiming humans and animals alike.

How can there be peace when official Israeli policy promotes the building of settlements on confiscated Palestinian lands. Bush is fully aware because he is paying for the cost of construction. As things stand, there is no Palestine left out of which to make a Palestinian state.

The Bush administration attempted to starve the Palestinians into submission. Its position is: Those who recognize Israeli claims and conditions are "good Palestinians" because they will be satisfied with any crumbs handed them. Those who don't and are willing to stand up for their rights are terrorists. It just so happens that elections are proving they have more support than the Palestinians who are represented at Annapolis. Mahmoud Abbas, president of the U.S./Israeli-promoted and -financed Palestinian Authority, does not represent the Palestinians but only a small segment of them. What he gives away will not necessarily be accepted by the majority of Palestinians, who regard Abbas and the authority as mere domesticated Palestinians in the service of Israel and the United States.

Former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon indicated he is willing to talk peace but made it clear the talking can go on indefinitely. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is following the same strategy. But to maintain interest in talking, he increased the pot to include East Jerusalem. By doing that, the illusion of negotiations is kept alive. Yet in reality, Jewish settlements are encircling the city to ensure that no part of it will go back to Palestinians or a Palestinian state.

The issue of Palestine can't be easily settled. It is an issue of forcibly establishing one country at the expense of another and in the process, every part of the vanquished country will either be absorbed or discarded. Much of Palestine has been absorbed and the only part Israel is likely to discard is Gaza, and it will obviously be more than happy to see Gaza, the source of its current problem, ceded to Egypt. And in its continuing attempt at diluting the remaining Palestinian population, Israel will continue importing settlers.

Hamas, the major Palestinian actor, is not there. And it is not there because the Bush administration decided that since it doesn't recognize Israel, it is a terrorist organization. Saudi Arabia and most of the Arab world don't recognize Israel, so why don't they qualify for the same honor? Israeli and American interests may sometimes meet but certainly don't coincide. It needs a wise administration to realize that tiny countries should not be making foreign policy for a great power, but that is another story.

Finally, without Hamas there will be no peace. It is the pivotal missing ingredient. Is that by accident? I am sorry but no matter how much I fault my negative side for thinking bad, I think it has this one right.

U.S. Muslims can best disarm the Arab world's extremists

This week, a Spanish court passed jail sentences on seven defendants after finding them guilty of involvement in the Madrid commuter train bombings.

Three were sentenced to thousands of years in prison, but they will probably serve a maximum of 40 years. Most surprising was the acquittal of an accused ringleader of all charges.

I am surprised at the verdicts and strongly feel that if they are really guilty, they should have been dealt with more sternly for such a crime against humanity. What gives them the right to take innocent lives by hijacking my faith and subjugating it to this act of violence?

In such situations, I wish these trials were taking place in Saudi Arabia, where if found guilty, they would have to pay with their heads for murdering innocents. What did the Spaniards, who have usually been very sympathetic to Arabs and Arab causes, do to deserve such treatment?

I find it difficult to comprehend such behavior, let alone rationalize it. Indeed, I have come to loathe what these guys do and look with extreme suspicion at what they say.
The term in Arabic to describe this unfortunate state of affairs is "Jahilliya," which means a state of ignorance. Islam has supposedly come to lift people from this Jahilliya, yet these terrorists are using Islam to revert to a pre-Islamic state. And these nuts are not the only ones.

I watch Arabic satellite, and a program called "Zawaya," which means "corners" or "views," recently caught my attention. It deals with oddities in the Arab world and, believe me, there were more than a few. Few surpass the action of a Saudi who divorced his wife because he caught her alone watching a male presenter on television. He accused her of committing an act that didn't conform to religious practices. He equated her action with being alone with a male not related to her.

First, I think it is shameful that such people still exist, and second, I am happy for her that she got rid of that idiot. Women have no business being married to such fools.

What is the solution? Simply stated, there must be serious social and political revolutions and soul-searching. Arab society cannot continue to shrug off these atrocities because, in some instances, they are the norm, not the exception.

It also cannot develop with blind emulation of others. If Arabs want to change, careful selection of what is most beneficial and compatible with their societies must precede any emulation. Indeed, Arabs must ask themselves the difficult questions that relate to their faith, women, children and jobs. Change, while inevitable, is not easy and is usually accompanied by dislocations and uncertainty. Therefore, Arabs and Muslims must be willing to embrace change and not see it as a threat.

The mere fact that official and private Arab satellite media outlets are chatting about these issues and people are calling in to express their views is a good beginning. However, much more needs to be done.
Muslim Americans from the Middle East and other parts of the Islamic world have an important role to play in all this. They live in free and open societies that permit them to think and flourish in ways they have never done before. They have an important part to play as role models of tolerance, education and understanding.

Many Muslim Americans are devout, but they have also found a way to make their beliefs congruent with the societies in which they live. The mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters are well-educated. They work and interact with men not related to them, still maintain their dignity and don't have fingers pointed at them.

Indeed, Muslims in free societies are the best message to Muslims in not-so-free societies that there is no contradiction between being a Muslim and being modern and free.