My World

A letter to Dr. Kaukab Siddique

2010-10-23T09:52:00.000-07:00

(An abridged vesion, prepared by the editor, was published in The Philadelphia Inquirer on Monday, November 1, 2010, under the title "Denying truth about Palestinians and Israelis")

Dr. Siddique,
Assalamu Alaikum,

Yesterday, Friday October 22, 2010, I read the Inquirer article “Lincoln professor stands by anti-Israel talk.” I was not surprised by the reaction to your exercise of free speech which is guaranteed to us citizens by the Constitution. But it seems to me that the extreme right of our fellow citizens is adamant in denying the truth about the abuse of the Palestinians and the Palestinian lands by the Israelis. Not only that but they also wish to deny us as Muslim Americans and as Arab Americans our rights as citizens of this great country of ours. You see them daily in different forms on television and you read them in the newspapers vehemently attacking our faith.

Look no further, the above quoted title, let alone the content, of the above quoted article shows the bias, against Muslims and Palestinians, of Mr. Roebuck, the Inquirer staff writer, and his editor. If he or his editor wanted to be fair he could have chosen any of the following titles: “Lincoln professor [explains the Palestinian / Israeli relationship].” “ … [exposes the Israeli abuse of the Palestinians and their land].” “ … [talks about the Palestinian suffering by the Israeli military occupation.” “The extreme right winger chides a Lincoln professor for telling the truth about the Israeli policy and practice against the Palestinians.” And so on and so forth.

We must continue to yield our voices to the truth, because it is the right thing to do. That what attracted us to America and that what will keep us as proud Muslims and proud Americans.

The least I could do is to let you know that I admire your courage, and I pray for your safety and your sanity.

Respectfully,
Mahmoud S Audi
draudiphd@yahoo.com

Obama’s vision raises hopes in Mideast talks

2010-09-27T17:35:00.000-07:00

(This post is a revised and reduced version of the next post. The title is the making of the editor of the Delco Daily Times. This version is published in the said newspaper on Wednesday 22, 2010)

By
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi

The negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians had been orchestrated by the internal politics of the United States and Israel, and by denying leverage for the Palestinians. But the current round of talks may be different because of President Obama’s vision, and because the issues for a settlement have already been discussed and the different views have already been tabulated. Now is the time to start to compromise.

However, the fate of the current negotiations might have already been written, and failure has already been stacked on top of previous failures. Nevertheless, there is hope that some agreement will have been produced by the time the talks are concluded. The genuine resolve of President Obama would have been the prime mover to get results.

Because it’s believed that the security of the United States will be vastly improved by settling the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, he started to work on the issue immediately after he became president. If he were a typical president, he would have left tackling the thorny problems of the Middle East to the last few months of his administration, but because of his deep convection of the seriousness of the problem, he pushed the parties to start the negotiations as soon as he could, and continued, although we are in the shadow of the campaigns for the mid-term elections. The momentum is on his side, because he has already tackled successfully a number of thorny issues; and adding one more does not look to be far to achieve.

Obama knows how frustrated and skeptical the Arab and Muslim worlds are, and how deep their conviction that the United State does in the Middle East what Israel wants it to do, disregarding the genuine security needs of the United States and the safety of its people. To start repairing that image he travelled and lectured in Ankara, Turkey, and in Egypt, at the Al Azhar University, a thousand years old university, in Cairo, and promised the Arab and the Muslim worlds that he would help solve the vexing problems of the Middle East by pushing the two parties to work and never to give up.

One of the basic and most difficult issues on the table is the issue of the Palestinians in the Palestinian diaspora. Their main concentration, though, is in Gaza and the West Bank, in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordon, where most of them have lived in refugee camps, which have become shanty towns, sustained by the United Nations rations and other needs. There are many Palestinians in Europe, Canada, and the United States. They are citizens of these Western countries and they have enjoyed their rights as equal citizens with the citizenry of these countries.
The Palestinians want to go to their homes, businesses, orchards, and farms. But Israel has vehemently refused to let them back, because of the fear that they potentially would become athe majority in Israel.

Here is where an ingenious solution must be found. Many of the Palestinian leadership in Gaza and in the West Bank, including Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, are from these refugees who want to go home; so they understand the plight of their countrymen.

Jordan had given the Palestinians who crossed the river Jordan in 1948 coded citizenship, but the refugees who crossed the river in 1967 do not have that privilege. In Lebanon, the Palestinian Christians were given Lebanese citizenships, some Muslim Palestinian refugees in Lebanon bought citizenships, some were asked to change their religion or the sect of religion they had belonged to, to get citizenship.

In Syria the Palestinians have been given all civil right including working in the government, but no political rights.

In Iraq, the Palestinians had been given some help to stand up on their feet and to start working, but they did not have any political rights.

Many Palestinians would like to go to their homes at any material cost, others who are educated in the manners of Western Civilization and have become enchanted with the concepts and applications of freedom and democracy would refuse to accept anything less than full participation in a democratic state.

Still, I believe a large number of Palestinians would accept generous reparations and stay permanently where they are now. So the right of return and other options could also be included in a fair-enough formula.

So in practice not all Palestinians will return permanently, and the return of the reduced number of Palestinians would not risk the Jewish Israel if that is what the Israelis want.

The other issues include the Jewish settlement in the Palestinian land, the mutual security and the borders of the two states, and the fate of Jerusalem. These issues are not as difficult as the issue of the right of return of the Palestinians, and on the negotiation table, there are lists of would be fair solutions.
Finally, Hamas should be part of the peace process. This organization had won the American and European monitored 2006 election in the West Bank and Gaza. Fatah lost, and unlike Al Gore in 2000 who ceded the results of the presidential election to George W. Bush, it wanted to annul the victory of Hamas.

There is not much difference between Fatah and Hamas in their objectives. And calling Hamas a terrorist organization is merely a political label to justify punishment.

Hamas must be in the mix for the peace process to have a chance to succeed. And for the Palestinian State to fulfill its obligations toward the desired peace treaty, it must be democratic in a Western content.

The Palestinian / Israeli negotiations of September 2010: The Obama Factor

2010-09-04T14:18:00.000-07:00

By
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
The negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians in the past had been orchestrated by the internal politics of the United States and Israel, and by the lack of leverage to support the Palestinians. But the current round of talks, between the two parties may be different because of, what I call, the Obama Factor, and because the issues to be discussed have already been discussed and the different views are already known and tabulated. Therefore the time now is ripe to get into a serious compromising stage.
However, the fate of the current negotiations might have already been written, and failure has already been stacked on top of the other failures. But I could discern that there is a sliver of hope that some issues will have been agreed upon by the time this round of talks is concluded. This will have been accomplished mainly because of the genuine determination of President Obama.
Any success of the current round of talks would be attributed to the President of the United States. It is believed that the security of the United States will be vastly improved by settling the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. If Obama were a typical President of the United States, he would have left tackling the thorny problems of the Middle East to the last few months of his administration. But he is different, and without his deep convection of the seriousness of the problem, we would not have the negotiations starting now, in the shadow of the campaigns for the mid-term elections.
Besides the security issue of the United States, Obama had promised and he would try hard to deliver what he promised. It is a matter of being truthful, which is a rare commodity with politicians. He promised while campaigning that he would tackle tough issues if he were elected. He is the President, and he has already tackled successfully a number of thorny issues facing our country.
Obama knows how frustrated and skeptical the Arab and Muslim worlds are, and how deep their conviction that the United State does in the Middle East what Israel wants it to do, regardless of the genuine security needs of the United States. So when Obama lectured in Ankara, Turkey, and when he lectured in Egypt, at the Azhar University, a thousand years old university, in Cairo, he gave a word of honor to the Arab and the Muslim worlds and he promised that as President of the United States, he would help solve the vexing problems of the Middle East.
So if the parties to the negotiations agreed about something substantial, Obama would have pushed the parties to act and pushed them again not to give up, because he has given the world around them and beyond them a promise that he would do, what he will have done, to put a strong footing to a well founded edifice of ever lasting peace in the Middle East.
One of the basic and most difficult issues on the table for compromise is the issue of the refugees: the problem of the Palestinians in the Palestinian diaspora. These Palestinians are everywhere in the world. But their main concentration is in Gaza and the West Bank, and in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordon, where most of them lived in refugee camps, which have become shanty towns, sustained by the United Nations rations and other needs. There are many Palestinians in Europe, Canada, and the United States. They are citizens of these Western countries and they enjoy their rights as equal citizens with the citizenry of these countries.
The Palestinians want to go to their homes, businesses, orchards, and farms. Israel says no way, because they would potentially become a majority in Israel. What would the negotiators do? Many of the Palestinian leadership in Gaza and the West Bank, including Mahmoud Abbas, are from that crop of refugees, so they understand the plight of their countrymen. Jordan gave coded citizenship to the Palestinians who crossed the river Jordan in 1948 and shortly afterwards, but the refugees who crossed the river in 1967 do not have the citizenship privileges.
In Lebanon, the Palestinian Christians were given Lebanese citizenships, some Muslim Palestinian refugees in Lebanon bought citizenships, some were asked to change their religion or the sect of religion they had belonged to. In Syria the Palestinians were given all civil right including working in the government, but no political rights were given to them. In Iraq, the Palestinians had been given some help to stand up on their feet and start working, but they did not have any political rights. Many Palestinians would like to go to their places at any material cost, others who are educated in the manners of Western Civilization and have become enchanted with the concepts and applications of freedom and democracy would refuse to accept anything less than full participation in a democratic state.
Still, I believe that a large number of Palestinians would accept generous reparations and stay permanently where they are now. So the right of return and other options could also be included in an agreed upon formula. Israel has to agree to the human rights concept of the issue. But in practice the return of the reduced number of Palestinians would not risk the Jewish State if that is what the Israelis want.
The problem of Jewish settlers in the Palestinian land which has been occupied since 1967 should be the least prickly of the thorny problems. Minor swaps of equal quality lands to accommodate some of the settlers who would provide additional security to Israel must be acceptable to both sides. But usurping Palestinian land by extremist Jewish squatters or modern day Jewish cowboys, should not be tolerated. Historic Palestine has never been and should never become the Wild, Wild West of America.
In my opinion, peace should be the best tool for the security of every party to the conflict, specially the minority party and the weakest of the parties. But if those among the Israelis who believe that force provides peace and security, they must be convinced that perpetual wars have not and will bring neither security nor peace. Peace should be based on solid foundations, which would make the two parties work together for their mutual security.
Peace based on fair claims is the best way for the security of Israel, unfair and unjust peace will take us back and not forward. Israel must invest a lot to earn the love of the Palestinians, and Palestinians should learn to stop hating the Israelis. Instead, they should learn and practice to love their neighbors.
Security through loving and wishing your neighbors well might be too slow in coming. So during the initial implementation of the terms of a peace treaty, International forces including Americans might be used as long as they are needed to observe the implementation and progress of the process.
Also, the fate of Jerusalem should be easy to settle. East Jerusalem is part of the West Bank that was occupied in 1967 along with other parts of the city, so it is a Palestinian city and the Palestinians Should have the right to make it the capital of their State. However, if the Israelis insist on keeping Jerusalem united, then both the Israelis and the Palestinians must be allowed to claim it as the capital of their States, and they should work out the details of the operations of two governments of one city, albeit a holy city to the three great monolithic world religions.
Finally, Hamas should be part of the peace process. Hamas won the American and European monitored 2006 election in the West Bank and Gaza. Fatah lost, but not like us here (I am thinking of Al Gore in 2000), Fatah wanted to annul the surprise victory of Hamas. My hunch is that Hamas would still win an election if we conduct a monitored election now in the West Bank and in Gaza.
There is not much difference between Fatah and Hamas in their objectives. And calling Hamas a terrorist organization although the militants of Hamas have never attacked us is merely political.
Hamas must be in the mix for the peace process to have a chance to succeed. Our President or his Secretary of State must make an announcement inviting Hamas to be part of the peace process in any agreed upon manner. The Palestinians to implement a meaningful peace treaty must vow to be fully democratic. Who governs depends on the ballot boxes not on inheritance of one sort or another.

Capitalism, Socialism, Health Care, and Patriotism

2010-03-17T19:43:00.000-07:00

By

Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi

Contrary to what some may write or say, there is no conflict between capitalism and socialism. But some television and radio talk show hosts, and some newspapers columnists, continue to frighten descent but ill informed Americans, by the ghoul of socialism. The examples are abundant; socialism and capitalism have worked together in America, in Europe, and throughout the world, for many decades. Grant you, the terminology need elucidation.
Socialism is an economic system where the production and distribution of wealth is owned by the community—in a democratic system of government the elected representatives constitute the community. In this context, community, democratic government, and elected government are interchangeable.
Next, the economic system where the dictatorial government owns the production and distribution of wealth is communism. In a communist country a powerful dictator or political party imposes its will on the people it governs.
In the context of the health care industry, the word “wealth” in the previous paragraphs could be replaced by the word “health.” In the United States, most of the healthcare management entities are owned by corporations. Medicare and Medicate, although they are run by the government, the corporations manage the delivery of the services, for a monthly premium. Corporations may remain reasonable, and continue to operate profitably; they may fail to deliver the services, and the people get hurt; or they may become greedy and corrupted with fraud, and fail miserably. A democratic government comes to the aid of the people when a corporation fails. It regulates the operations of the failed corporations, and it subsidizes services if they are essential to the health of the people and the health of the country. This might become a social program.
But the socialism that still frightens people goes back to the Marxist theory (socialism leads to communism) of the nineteenth century; armed with this theory, Linen and his Bolshevik cohorts forcefully toppled the government and usurped power in Russia, in 1917; and the almost immediate spread of communism in countries around Russia, in Asia and in what had become Eastern Europe frightened people all over the world. That fear is still lingering in the minds of some.
The countries aligned themselves in one of two camps: the communist camp led by the Soviet Union and the capitalist camp led by the United States. Those alliances did not calm the people. Instead, the fear was exacerbated during the thirties, the forties, and the fifties of the last century. There were serious discussions, besides fear mongering in Western Europe and in the United States.
The discussions in the United States turned into condemnations. They generated a lot noise and fury and many individuals and groups were labeled un-American and persecuted. In the United States the fear came mostly from the inside rather than from the Red menace in the outside. And McCarthyism (after Sen. Joseph McCarthy) is to blame. The constitution which guaranteed our freedoms and liberties and fair trials was effectively shelved.
Now we live in a different world: the experiment of communism had failed. And the Marxist theory was proven wrong, when the communist Soviet Union fell crumbling. Capitalism survived, and the corporations won: the production and distribution of wealth are in their hands. And in the health care industry, the health care of the people is in their hands.
Unfortunately, corporations (driven by profit motives) of the health care industry have failed. The community (the elected government) must intervene to protect the interests of the people. The health care reform proposal advanced by President Obama, developed for that purpose, would regulate the health care industry and provide assistance to those who may need it. It is not another social program; because health care corporations would remain in charge of managing the system. They would still sell health care insurance to the public. The Obama proposal is not an invention: Democratic governments (communities) of the West have always subsidized necessary programs (including health care) for the well being of their people.
Congress and the president have worked for more than a year to get a fix for system. They produced two bills. It is important to note that the Republicans in the two Houses did not vote for either of the bills, not a single soul did. The casual observer would notice that they have been obstructionists. Their leadership does not want to support every Obama initiative. They want him to fail—an un-patriotic motive—and they think they can do it by defeating his initiatives, and by saying “No” to his agenda.
When the president urged them to participate, they made unreasonable demands, such as scraping the year-long work of Congress, and start all over again—a delaying tactic. To me and to other casual observers, they seem that they cannot accept the fact that they are the minority in both houses of Congress.
They have been working hard to defeat the Obama health care proposal. The health insurance corporations have recently intensified their efforts, and millions of dollars have been spent on advertising. The battle is raging, and the winner is not yet known. An amazing thing to observe is the Republicans are united in their attempts to defeat the proposal. But the Democrats are not united for passing it.
After a number of attempts, the president realized that the Republicans are not serious about working with him. So he recently started campaigning and organizing to pass the bill. They have supporters too, and they have intensified their campaign, too. They have supporters with deep pockets like the Republicans. They are advertising heavily in targeted districts. As I see it, both the Republicans and the Democrats are working not necessarily for the health care proposal or against it, but for what would happen in the 2010 and 2012 elections, and how either party can influence the outcome by what they do now. Unfortunately, this is American politics.
The health care reform bill may not help me. It is more likely that my health insurance premiums would increase. But my advocacy for a health care bill has not been for my personal benefit. It is for helping poor Americans find health care when they need one. It is patriotic to help others who need help to remain healthy. A healthy nation is a prerequisite for a strong and secure nation. It is patriotic to carry arms and fight for the country, it is also patriotic to carry a big heart and help the nation remain healthy.

Dick Cheney: Preemptive Warrior

2010-02-04T20:13:00.000-08:00

Also published as an Opinion, on Wednesday, March 10, 2010, in the Delaware County Daily Times (www.delcotimes.com) under the title ‘Peace is just a word in the dictionary’

By

Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is a master in the use and the defense of pre-emptive wars, in making new enemies out of potential friends, and in increasing the current enemies. He seems to believe that our superiority and our economic dominance would best be served by perpetual wars.
Peace is just a word in the dictionary; it must be used sparingly, because it is the refuge of the weak, so people like him think. He seems to use the preemptive war doctrine, not only in the defense of our country, but also in defending himself in the political and personal arenas. Such application of the later aspect of the doctrine is evident in his ongoing attacks against President Barack Obama and his administration.
There is no doubt in my mind that he despises the President partly because his way of leading this great country is different from his. But his continued attack, which includes diminution of the president, is a preemptive war against Obama and the Democrats.
The attacks are vicious and frequent; his wife and his daughter are part of his offensive. Also his abrasive pronouncements are the feed which the imbecile hosts of a number of radio and television talk shows consume. They get the cue and run with it. They parrot what he says and, using their imagination, they stretch and spin it in many different permutations.
The former Vice President is doing what has not been done before: a former vice president attacks a sitting president. It is important to state he is not doing it because he is bitter that his political party lost two major elections—the 2006 midterm election and the 2008 Presidential election.
He is not doing it because Obama and his administration are ending the war on Iraq or because they will be closing the war in Afghanistan soon or because they are closing the infamous torture prison at Guantanamo Bay or because they are processing the trials of the Guantanamo prisoners in civilian courts upholding our values, which are the pride of our uniqueness, and denying the enemy one of its propaganda tools.
If we say that the former vice president has been attacking the president out of bitterness for the loss of his party, then we can infer that politicians are loyal to their political parties, but we know from many examples they are not loyal to their parties. If a politician had belonged to a party that did not give him what he wanted, he would switch to another party, or he would create his own party. Exhibit 1: Sen. Lieberman of Connecticut. Exhibit 2: Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Exhibit 3: Sen. Strom Thurman of South Carolina. Exhibit 4: Former President Ronald Reagan of California. Exhibit 5: a large group of southern Senators switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party when the wind of change had come to the South.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, when the elections were done, some media personalities and politicians were adamant about investigating the alleged illegal war on Iraq, the uncompetitive awarding of contracts, the torture of detainees at the Guantanamo Prison.
No one doubts, if we are attacked we will respond in kind regardless how big or how small the attack, we will win without the suspension of International Law and the disabling of our moral values and legal procedures.
The noise demanding the appointment of commissions to investigate the allegations was getting louder and louder. Cheney knew where the winds were blowing, so he started his preemptive war against Obama and his administration.
The media loved it. They covered the attacks and got busy reporting, analyzing, and the progressive politicians denounced his pronouncements and his press releases. They did not have the extra time or space to handle the pursuance of investigating the allegations and his role in the Presidency of George W. Bush.
The media normally give priority to new happenings. Thus, in these days you do not hear the voices calling for the investigation of the abuses of power by Cheney during the Bush administration.
So far the former vice president has won the preemptive war against President Obama and his administration. The problems facing the president and his party are overwhelming. The Democratic congress and the Republicans have not been helpful.
Practically, it is wise to let the forgone forgo and focus on the issues of today and tomorrow. History will treat the Cheney matter better.

The Joe Lieberman enigma

2009-12-15T15:52:00.000-08:00

By

Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi

To understand senator Lieberman of connecticut, it is helpful to know where his loyalty lies. It is not where it is normally expected to be. It is not to the people who elected him to represent them and to stand for the interest of their state, in the Senate; it is not to the Democratic Party which gave him the Chairmanship of an important senate committee, even though he had campaigned against their presidential nominee, Barak Obama, in 2008; it is not to America and its standing as the greatest country on Earth: its economy is second to none; its military is ready for peace and ready for war; and its moral compass lights the way for the rest of the world.

His loyalty is to himself, for his own grandiosity and promotion; to the health insurance companies and to the drug maker corporations; to the continued occupation of the Palestinian land by the Israeli military; and to perpetual wars against Islam and Muslim countries.

His stand as the king maker (a boost to his egocentricity) in the debate of the Health Reform bill is as expected to exact concessions as a price for his needed and deserved vote. The gain is not necessarily to benefit the people who had elected him to represent their state.
One way to deal with such an egomaniac is for the timid leader of the Senate to exercise some leadership and tell the Senator that he would strip him of the Chairmanship of the committee which he loves so much; he would not be supported by the Democratic Party in Connecticut; and the annual billions of military aid to Israel would be reduced.

But Lieberman has been around for a long time. He knows how to abuse our democracy. He might also be working on a long term strategy. As a starter, we know that he had campaigned for the Republican nominee, McCain, against the Democratic nominee, Barak Obama, and he spoke at the Republican Convention of 2008 encouraging voter to vote for his long time ally to defeat Obama and the Democrats. He is one of the most aggressive senatorial supporters of the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian land and the oppression of the Palestinian people. Unlike Obama he is a war monger and his finger is always on the trigger—such a person is a trigger happy maniac.

Obama made it clear during the campaign of 2008 that if elected he will give diplomacy a chance; he will respect the United Nations and its institutes; the United States will abide by the protocols of the Geneva Convention on the conduct of wars and the treatment of war prisoners. And after he won the election he made it clear that Islam is the not the enemy, and Islam is not to be feared, by his speeches, in Cairo, Egypt and in Ankara, Turkey, and through a reporter interview for a television station in an Arab country, among other venues.

He also promised the Arab and Muslim leaders that he will work hard to help solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This cannot be achieved without convincing the Israelis that the ways of peace are more beneficial to them and to all the other parties: the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Arabs and Muslims, the United States and the West, and for World peace. Israel with its military might and military superiority will not budge. The only entity in the world that might have the chance to move Israel to reason is the President of the United States. This weapon is very simple and might be very effective: let the leader of the Senate tell the senator that the President would reduced the military aid to Israel, if he does not cooperate. Lieberman and his elks in the Senate might be able neutralize such as a potentially effective tool.

Lieberman also knows that Obama, unlike other presidents, is a hands-on president, especially on the major issues of his presidency. Lieberman knows that he cannot influence Obama to change policy, as he had influenced other Presidents including Clinton and W. with such a relationship what is left to Lieberman to protect Israel from possible modification of the US policy toward the Middle East, is to become the obstructionist we have seen.

This is what he hopes to accomplish. Defeat the health reform bill and all other major initiatives of the President, to declare the failure of the Obama presidency, and to make him easy to defeat come 2012. Then celebrate a new incompetent president (the Republicans have smart people among them but they do not get nominated) who will be handled by right wing ideologues.

Lieberman pays lip service to America but his stance on basic issues shows the real face of the senator from Connecticut. I do not need health reform for myself. But I am for it if it will prevent people from dying because they are poor, or prevent them from experiencing catastrophes in their lives, because they cannot afford the ever expensive medical care in this great country.

The Afghanistan Plan: My Version

2009-11-29T18:16:00.000-08:00

By
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi

The President will soon announce his plan for Afghanistan. He will talk about his objectives, in the landlocked country, and his strategies to achieve these objectives. The pronouncement will be limited by his desire to please his supporters, and to minimize the impact of the objections of his political adversaries. Unfortunately, most of the discussion will be heated. The demagogues of the media will have a free field day, the pundits will spew their wisdom for the world to ponder, and the disinterested will also contribute to the noise.

So I write about Afghanistan: about what should be our objectives, and how we could achieve them. My knowledge of the culture and the political history of that part of the world have influenced what I have written.

The following should be our objectives.

• The primary goals of our focused and renewed attention to Afghanistan must be the security of our land and the security and safety of our people, wherever they might be.
• The creation, with contributions from friends and allies, of conditions in Afghanistan that will not permit the reestablishment of training camps for individuals and groups who think that violence is the only means of solving their problems with us.
• The establishment of conditions, in the urban and rural communities of Afghanistan, to help them develop their economic infrastructure, such as water supplies and sewage systems, roads and electricity, agriculture and industry, as investment in their future.

Our security depends on our vigilance and our strength; it also depends of the weakness and understanding of our enemies. In my opinion, our security depends on the ability of each of us to stand guard of his or her community against those who want to keep us busy worrying about the next attack on us and on our land. It also depends of our confidence to offer our friendship to those who may think that we are their enemy; let them know that we mean no harm to their peaceful living.
The creation of the humongous Department of Home Land Security has not been the answer. The security needs of the different communities are more likely to be different than the same. But there is a basic need to all of them: each knows best itself and how to protect itself or what it needs to protect itself from human and natural disasters.
The structure of the different departments and agencies of the government before they became components of the Home Land Security Department was more efficient than the current huge multilayered bureaucracy. Each local community needs to protect itself against manmade and natural menaces. They all need, always current, communication systems for simultaneous and instantaneous exchange of intelligence and other information. They need unified codes of communications and unified training in aspect that are relevant to their communities. Moreover, those communities which are at risk more than others, but they do not have the means to protect themselves should be helped. The independent revitalization of all the security departments and agencies along with the installment of qualified leaders and other qualified personnel would produce a more efficient and less expensive structure than the recently established Homeland Security Department.
Our security also depends on those who think that the only way to treat their problems with us is violence. That attitude, rightly or wrongly, is reinforced by what some of us do and what that some say. For examples, there are crowds among us who incessantly say that we decide and the rest of the world must listen. It may be true that the world listens when we speak, but we should also know that the world might react, to what we do or say, in ways that might be harmful to us.
We can reduce the threat of our declared enemies by behaving in a more responsible and mature ways, and not necessarily by killing them. Giving them hope and respecting who they are religiously and culturally might help. But saying to the peoples of the world that they are either with us or against us, and they are with our God or against our God does not help. We should have the inclination to assume and act on the assumption that the world is our friend, although we know that parts of the world are closer to us religiously and culturally than the other parts. That fact should not matter. Humanity is the more encompassing scope than the other yard-sticks.

Yet in every religion, every culture, every ethnicity, every country, every city and every tribe, there is a small group who do not follow the rules of the law. Instead, they use the tools of democracy, such as the freedom of speech, to agitate the people to highjack their governments and convert it to a tool to achieve their selfish and unpatriotic political goals. In none democratic countries, such small groups use arms and other suppressive measures to highjack their governments and change them into tools for achieving power. Let us not judge peoples by what the small groups do.

There are many things that we could do to woo people to our side. But the most potent among them is the empowerment of the United Nations. There are many conflicts in the world, and as its acknowledged leader we must understand them, and understand the opposing points of views. We must not take sides. We must allow the community of nations to work to resolve these conflicts and we must support this community by endorsing and supporting its resolutions. We must regularly remind ourselves that we alone were the main driver to create the United Nations, with the main purpose to resolve peacefully international conflicts. In my opinion, our neutral stand between conflicting parties will reduce the number of our enemies considerably. No other foreign policy will pacify our enemies than the stance of neutralism in our foreign policy.

The second objective is the security of Afghanistan. Simply, the Afghanis must be responsible for the security of the Afghanis and their country. To do this they need help. Help would come if the Afghanis show inclinations to accept modern understanding of their ethnicities, their culture, and their religion. They must learn how to take what improves their lives from the West, and use it as their own. They should also be willing to teach, from what is in their own culture, the West and the rest of the world about what enhances the life and the dignity of the individual. They must also understand that their destiny is peace among themselves, and among their neighbors, and they should learn from us and from others, by example, how to be tolerant.
The creation and adaptation of that paradigm will not and must not be our job in that remote and rocky country. From the security point of view, our job is to train the Afghanis to secure their communities and their borders, and to prevent the use of their land to house and train those who want to harm us. For that object we do not need more American troops in Afghanistan, on the contrary, we need less American troops. We will need 50,000 of American military personnel who in Afghanistan will be focusing on defending themselves, and training the Afghani military and police forces.

For that job, we should give the government of Afghanistan one year to recruit enough police and military personnel. Then we will train them, arm them, and discover and promote leaders among them. Then our military forces will withdraw for good from that troubled land.

Also, the government of Afghanistan will be encouraged to develop its own flavored democracy. We will educate them about democracy and freedom and how freedom strengthens the creativity and the productivity of the people, and how democracy makes people believe that they own their country which makes them more willing to bear arms to defend it. We will not indoctrinate them into our form of democracy and our brand of freedom.

We will tell the government of Afghanistan about the dire consequences of allowing the military training and indoctrination of would be our attackers.

The third objective of the Afghan plan rises from our humanity and our desire to help them rise from the ashes of war and destruction, and live in a peaceful land. That requires the creation of developmental programs to help the people in securing their lives and lively-hood. If the process is successful we could eliminate the killing of people by our bullets, and reduce the exposure of our personnel to being killed by angry bullets. Reaching this end, however, requires, for example, helping the Afghani farmers develop their farms by introducing improved agricultural technologies and knowhow, and introducing new agricultural products. Beyond that, we need to help them develop markets for their agricultural products.

The same approach would be applied toward creating businesses, we should support locally created businesses, and encourage the development of needed projects. We could educate them in such fields by teaching them the ways of the industrial West.
Schools and training programs of all kinds including technical and arts schools should be developed. Students should learn the ways of agriculture, industry, and technology along with culture and religion. They should also learn how to respect the religions and cultures of other peoples.

Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
Retired professor
22 South Springfield Rd / C-2
Clifton Heights, PA 19018
Email address: draudiphd@yahoo.com
Home phone: 610 626 7494
Cell phone: 484 574 1937

President Obama and His Middle East Politics

2009-06-20T08:44:00.000-07:00

By

Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi

I voted for Obama last November because he was the better of the two candidates: he understands multiculturalism; he can visualize problems and figure out alternative solutions to them; he understands that no government can obscure reality forever; he understands that our power stands for good and not for evil; he believes (I guess) as I do that God is a God of good and evil is His enemy; he understands that the weak needs the strong to defend him and preserve his rights; the respect of others is not a gift for good behavior, it must be part of our nature, and part of our values. We respect both and talk to both: those who like us and those who do not like us but earnest about peaceful exchanges.

He went to Cairo, Egypt, and talked to the Arabs and Muslims; he went to Ankara and Istambole, Turkey, before that, and talked about the same things. He talked in Europe too, and mobilized the World to work (as I see it) for peace and love among nations. He talked about democracy and freedom, and he talked about the sacrifices that need to be made to achive these and all value related goals. I have enjoyed reading his words, and rejoiced the poetry in them.

Speeches are nice and necessary, but actions ring louder: I want to see Israel stop desecrating the Palestinian land and the holy Christian and Muslim religious sites. I want to see them stop planting concrete while building settlements that transformed Israelis into militant settlers. I want to see Israel be realistic and start to negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians the withdrawal and the security concerns of both peoples, not the security which Israel claims, and not the security which is an excuse for continued occupation, continued building settlements, and continued land grapping: The security that is achieved by peace treaties that are guaranteed by the United Nations and the big guns of the East and West. I want Israel to repatriate the Palestinians who had been scared out of their homes and lands.

Our previous policies have succeeded in dividing the Iraqis into religious sects and political factions. I want our government to disengage with Iraq and give the Iraqis the chance to reunite, like us in the United States, to protect their territories and their people. I want us to listen to the Iraqis and to be good friends to them. I want us help them heal the wounds and close the gushers that our previous polices had created that drained their blood.

Our policy in Afghanistan was wrong from the beginning. We completely ignored history. We also underestimated the difficulty of achieving the unrealistic goals. Our technology and our brave men and women in the armed forces did what they could do. But some of us wanted them to be supermen. They are human beings, and the technology they and others had created had its limits. Stop the operations of our troops inside Afghanistan, and demand from the government that we had created, to form a unity government that represents all the people. The government would be responsible for all activities on its soil. The government would prohibit the creation of militant groups to attack other people.

Our policy toward Pakistan destabilized an ally. The Pakistanis must be left alone to solve their own problems. They had delivered and they will deliver any person whom we think plotted or would plot military attacks against us. Do not ask the impossible from the people of Pakistan. Encourage them to unify and make peace with India. Encourage them to solve the poverty problems of their own people.

The recent history of Iran is vivid in the minds of the Iranians and their leaders. British petroleum companies discovered petroleum in Iran before its discovery in any of the neighboring Arab countries including Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In the early fifties of the last century the democratically elected government of Iran, lead by Prime Minister Musaddaq, nationalized the petroleum industry. The result of that action set the Western intelligence services to create street demonstrations and concocted schemes to disqualify the prime minister. The conspiracy succeeded. The prime minister was removed from office and the Shah was reinstalled as king. In 1979 when a real, albeit religious, revolution wanted to remove the same shah and establish democracy, the Western countries stood with the shah against the revolution.

Mistrust of the West is in the living memory of the Iranians. They see the West as deadset against their Islamic revolution. With this historic package in the background it will be extremely difficult for the Obama administration to make the Iranians trust him or trust any American or British government. The use of military force against Iran, as it has been promoted by local extremist groups and foreign governments will exacerbate the currently bad situation.

However, we can take the word of the Iranian government (we are strong to take that risk) that its nuclear power program is dedicated to peaceful applications only, such as generating electricity. Then we should work on the Israelis to dismantle their nuclear military program, because it would be the justification of the Iranian government to have a military program of its own, to balance the nuclear program of the Israelis. As Americans we must understand that as long as Israel is at war with the Palestinians and others, and as long as it has an active nuclear military program, some country sooner or later would take that as justification for developing its own military nuclear program.

I know that what I have suggested as desired actions are not easy to do. But I want us to declare in nice and committed words that we intend to do them, but in order to accomplish such feats we need to work through the labyrinth of politics. We are a democracy, we are the oldest working democracy in the world, imperfect as it is, it is a blessing which keeps reforming itself. In such democracy interest groups flourish. Some of them ignorantly or willingly seem to be working against our values, our global interests, and our leadership of the World.

Let us pray for the safety of our president, so that we may see how much of his enchanting words would deliver solid results.

Gaza truce, death, destruction, then what?

2009-02-02T12:49:00.000-08:00

By Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi

On Saturday, December 27, 2008, Israel, outraged by the Palestinian rockets, and driven by electoral politics, took to the sky over the Gaza Strip and, in the manner of “shock and owe”, produced more dead, destruction, pain, bitterness, hate, and terror. The majority of the1.5 million Gazans were terrorized.
Also outraged by the Israeli air to ground smart missiles and artillery targeting schools filled with pupils and civilians seeking shelter, mosques filled with civilians seeking God’s protection, houses occupied by civilians.
Yielding to international pressure, and internal political environment, Israel accepted a truce on Saturday, January 19, 2009, and withdrew its troops and military equipment from the Gaza Strip. The Gaza government accept one week truce to give Israel time to withdraw and end the blockade.
Then what? A truce is a pause between wars, or an opening for conflict resolution, and peace. The GG and Israel had a six months truce that started in June 2008. The Palestinian GG had been able to reduce the number of rockets that were fired from GS to southern Israel from hundreds in May and June, 2008 to less than 20 during the subsequent four months—some of the Palestinian resistance groups refused the truce. The GG did manage to control most of them.
During the same truce, the Israelis stopped all major bombardments in GS, but they did not lift the land, see and air blockade of GS, and it did not stop the killing of prominent Palestinians civilians, including academicians. The blockade has crippled the G economy, and prevented any development of GS. It also suffocated and starved the people. Smuggling was the only means that kept them alive. The smuggling business flourished.
The killing and the destruction will not end the suffering of neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis. On the contrary, the dead left behind people who grief for the loss, and that grief will not go away.
Many Israelis and many Palestinians believe in the two-state solution as an end to the cycle of violence. But to achieve this end the commitment of the United States to it is essential. No other country can do it. Israel awes its strength to the generosity of citizens of the USA. Palestinians trust the US because they believe that, if committed, it can deliver. The Jimmy Carter, former president of the US, model is instructive. He was able to conclude peace agreement in 1979 between Begin, the hawkish prime minister of Israel, and Sadat, the dovish president of Egypt.
Can George Mitchell bring peace between the Syrians, the Lebanese, and the Palestinians on one side and Israel on the other side? Speaking in the name of president Obama, who charged him with the mission, he can do it. But the intervention of the President is crucial. I believe president Obama will do that, and he would be effective. However, the role of Obama would be most forceful during his second term as president. He would have had learned from Jimmy Carter who lost the election for a second term, mostly because of his dedication to the cause of peace in the Middle East and his involvement in the process of creating it.
Similar process could achieve peace between Israel on one side, and Syria and Lebanon on the other side.
But when it comes to Palestine, the story is different. Israelis believe that they can with their local superpower status grab the land of the unarmed Palestinians. At the same time, there are Palestinians who believe that they can establish a democratic state between the river (Jordan) and the sea, thus erasing the dream and the reality of more than sixty years, of Jews to live in their own State in Palestine.

Mr. Mitchell here is the first step you should try:

Peace without disavowing the dream of a larger Israel is not possible, and without accepting Israel as an independent Jewish state is not acceptable.
George Mitchell has these two desired goals to make them unwanted. They are impediment to peace. A document should be prepared which includes these two negative principles and all the positive principles and signed between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the president of the United States, and the other members of the quartet. The contents of this document should be publically announced.

the second step: You do not make peace with those whom you like, it is in the package. You make peace with those whom you do not like.

A warning: the easiest way to fail, Mr. mitchell, is to exclude major players in the politics in the area! Include Lekud and Hamas, but do not include the Neo Cons! these do not want peace, they want dominance.

The Gazan

2009-01-27T13:50:00.000-08:00

(On Dec 27, 2008 Israel started a war on Gaza. Under international pressure it stopped the war on January 19, 2009. More than 1300 Gazans had been killed, more than half of them are civilians. This poem written on January 27, 2009 is for remembrance of those who died.)

The child has died
But a child is born to live,
Not to die
His mother has also died
when he has died
But mothers live to mother
Not to die
He is in a picture
She is in the picture too
Blood on his face
And on his hands
Blood is all over her
Her feet are blood covered too
The father is in the picture
He is standing
With blood on him everywhere
His mouth is crying and wailing
Like mothers cry and wail
The frozen picture shows
His red hands and arms are waving
Up in the air
His eyes seek the sky
The frozen picture shows
God! I turn to you, to know
Why do children and mothers
With blood on their faces die
I’d trust you, like always
If you help me know

No! The conflict between the Arabs and the Jews does not go back centuries

2009-01-03T22:25:00.001-08:00

(Also published in the Delaware County Daily Times, Thursday, January 15, 2009, p17)

By Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi

Misguided or misinformed, journalists, TV news reporters and anchors, politicians, and innocent lay people, to dismiss the current egregious assault on Gaza as something not to be worried about, have been saying,that the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis “goes back centuries.” It does not. In fact, the Arabs and the Muslims, and the Jews had been the best of citizens of the Arab and the Muslim worlds, including the centuries they had lived together in peace and prosperity in Spain, where they had also suffered together the pains of the Inquisition.
Here, from memory, are some major chronological events and pointers to support the premise of this article:
• Both the Jews and the Arabs are the children of Abraham and they both belong to the same ethnic tribes, the Semites.
• When the Jews fled Egypt with Moses they invaded Palestine and established short lived kingdoms in the conquered land.
• When the Persians expanded their empire to the Mediterranean Sea, they dispersed the Jews away from Palestine. Some of them fled south into the Arabian Peninsula.
• As the Persian Empire weakened, some Jews returned to Palestine and lived in rebuilt and short lived kingdoms.
• During the first century A.D., the Romans dispersed the Jews from Palestine after they had conquered the land east of the Mediterranean Sea. These Jews have become the ancestors of the current European Jews, Arab Jews, Persian Jews, Indian Jews, and other Jews.
• At about seven hundred years after the birth of Jesus, Prophet Muhammad was called upon to carry the message of Islam from God to the world.
• Christian Arabs, Jewish Arabs, and pagan Arabs lived together in Yathrib (the current Saudi Arabian city: Medina). The three communities welcomed Prophet Muhammad when he and his followers fled their home town: Mecca, because his tribe and other Arab tribes refused to accept Islam and vowed to kill the Prophet and his followers. The pagans have converted to Islam, and most of the Christians and the Jews kept their religions; they have become the People of the Book.
• The Prophet of Islam wanted to establish alliances with the two communities to fend against the pagans of Mecca who might invade Medina, but the Jews wanted an exclusive pact with the Prophet and he yielded. However, soon afterwards conspiracies against the young religion started to spawn. They were discovered and eliminated. But they continued. This led the Prophet to declare that there would be no place for the Jews and the Christians in the city. Some of the Arab Jews and the Arab Christians went to what is now known as Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq.
• Later when the Muslim Empire spread throughout the land, the Jews and the Christians went wherever their Muslim cousins and brothers went. They had become among the elite of the Muslim world. Many of them became leading artisans and intellectuals.
• In later centuries the Jews of Europe had become the objects of persecuted in their own countries. They had been despised and put to trial in Christian countries from Russia in the east to France and Spain in the west. They had also been despised in Christian America.
• There were highly publicized trials of Jews in Christian Russia and in Christian France in the nineteen century. That led to a conference of prominent Jewish leaders in Switzerland. The conclusion of the conference was the establishment of Zionism, a political movement, in 1898. The grand goal of the movement is the establishing of the Kingdom of Israel from Egypt to Iraq.
• That year, that conference, and that decision put the Arabs and the Zionists on a collision course that continues to produce violence in that area and in the world.

Another Gaza Massacre as of Saturday, January 3, 2009 – Equivalent Statistics

2009-01-03T15:42:00.000-08:00

Since Saturday 27 December 2008, the Israeli piloted F-16s has dropped hundreds of tons of explosives on Gaza, killing hundreds of men, women, and children without discrimination. The number killed is about 500--about 125 of them were civilians. The total killing is equivalent to 100,000 US citizens, and the civilians killed are equivalent to 25,000 US citizens. The 2000 Palestinians killed by the Israeli war machine is equivalent of about quarter million Americans.
Do you see the travesty, are you outraged? Cry out loud, assert your humanity, stand by the weak and feed the hungry. Cry loud enough,to let the President hear you.

The Suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza

2009-01-03T09:18:00.000-08:00

The late Edward Said was a prominent Arab American. He was for decades a distinguished professor at Columbia University, New York. For a while he intellectually participated in framing the plight of the Palestinians. He was born in Palestine and spent most of his life in the USA. He recently died of cancer in New York City.
The suffering of the Palestinians and the current focus on slaughtering the Palestinians, destroying their homes, schools, mosques, in Gaza is not new. Edward Said wrote the following in August 2002, which I received via email from The Friends of Sabeel—North America. “Sabeel” is an Arabic word which means “The Way.” It is the voice of the Palestinian Christians. Sabeel has friends all over the world and they include Muslims and Jews.
"Every Palestinian has become a prisoner. Gaza is surrounded by an electrified fence on three sides: imprisoned like animals, Gazans are unable to move, unable to work, unable to sell their vegetables or fruit, unable to go to school. They are exposed from the air to
Israeli planes and helicopters and are gunned down like turkeys on the ground by tanks and machine guns. Impoverished and starved, Gaza is a human nightmare.

Hope has been eliminated from the Palestinian vocabulary so that only raw defiance remains.

Palestinians must die a slow death so that Israel can have its security, which is just around the corner but cannot be realized because of the special Israeli "insecurity." The whole world must sympathize, while the cries of Palestinian orphans, sick old women, bereaved communities, and tortured prisoners simply go unheard and unrecorded. Doubtless, we will be told, these horrors serve a larger purpose than mere sadistic cruelty. After all, "the two sides" are engaged in a "cycle of violence" that has to be stopped, sometime, somewhere. Once in a while we ought to pause and declare indignantly that there is only one side with an army and a country: the other is a stateless dispossessed population of people without rights or any present way of securing them. The language of suffering and concrete daily life has been either hijacked or so perverted as, in my opinion, to be useless except as pure fiction deployed as a screen for the purpose of more killing and painstaking torture - slowly, fastidiously, inexorably.

That is the truth of what Palestinians suffer."

Edward Said
August, 2002

Obama isn’t perfect, but what’s the alternative?

2008-10-26T15:11:00.000-07:00

(Published in Delaware County Daily Times, on Saturday, October 25, 2008)

By Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi
Times Guest Columnist

What does U. S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., mean when he says “My country first?”
Is he sincere, does he really mean it? Let us see. If one puts his country first, he would listen to his country. How does one listen to a country? Who represents a country? The answer is as clear as a full moon on a pitch-dark sky: The people talk for their country.
So the question that begs a quick and clear answer is, does McCain listen to the people? Hardly. McCain listens mostly to himself and revels in admiring what he hears. He is desperate to win and he makes enemies of his opponents in the process.
The glaring example of him not listening to our country is the Iraqi war. He hasn’t listened to the people of America, and he hasn’t listened to the Iraqis, and he hasn’t listened to our friends and allies. The people want us to pull out our troops from Iraq and spare the lives of our brave men and women in uniform, and the civilian victims of the war, and spare billions of dollars that have been bled from our economy. So his claim that he puts his country first is bogus!
In his current campaign for the presidency of America, he had focused, almost exclusively, on his opponent’s lack of experience and trashed him frequently with the “Not ready to lead” epithet until he selected his own nominee for vice president—a person whose credentials on answering questions are lacking, and whose idea of debate is not to debate, but to blurb whatever she had crammed during the night before the debate.
At his age (72), he can easily pass on at anytime, yet the person whom he had chosen to succeed him lacks real experience in governing much more so than his opponent. What do we call that? How about hypocrisy? His inconsistency and stubbornness is amazing. It seems to me McCain thinks that whatever he does or says is the right thing to do and to say, logic and reasoning could take a hike.
His demeanor and rudeness amaze me. During the first presidential debate he accused his opponent of being naïve. He also slugged him with “he does not understand,” and its derivatives many times. A polished politician does not do that. Instead he would let the listeners come to the conclusion, by putting his experience to action.
Who of the two candidates is better qualified to know the difference between the words "tactic" and "strategy?”McCain thought of these words as military terms only. His opponent must not be allowed to use them. In fact, his opponent was right.
Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy without further endangering our troops. In McCain’s case we can say we developed a strategy to win the war at any cost, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy.
Here is one more note about the debate. McCain never looked at his opponent (he was perhaps afraid to get charmed) and he never looked at the audience. Instead he looked at the moderator as if he was seeking his approval and his encouragement. That was a poor debating tactic to support a strategy of winning the debate!
Since my high school study of the history of Western Europe and my college freshman study of Western Civilization, I have admired Winston Churchill as the leader who saved Western Europe from the ambitions and travails Germany. But reading “Churchill, Hitler, and 'The Unnecessary War,' "by Patrick J. Buchanan, I came out with a different picture about Churchill.
Churchill was a racist and a White Supremacist. He had been the cause of all evil that beset the World during more than five decades of the 20th century. I know McCain is not racist, but he admires Churchill, and I hope he would not emulate him if he will become our president. The United States can always defend itself; unlike Britain who needed our help for its survival during two world wars. Yet his cry, “Victory at all cost,” worries me because of the language McCain uses when he talks about the war on Iraq, and the wars which he might wage if he becomes our president.
His age is not a problem unless he makes it one. People of his age are usually wise and less vindictive, calculating and less impulsive, steady and less erratic than younger candidates. Nevertheless, McCain, based on my observations, and from reading his book “Worth the Fighting For,” is driven by only one force: a desire to achieve the next higher goal for his life.
I am worried about his way of making decisions. He acts on the bases of instincts and hunches--no further consultation and assessment. Scientists use instincts and hunches too, but they use them as a first step. They move on to prove or disprove their guesses.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is far from perfect, but he seems more capable than his opponent of looking to the future rather than the past.
Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi, a retired professor of engineering, lives in Clifton Heights

Bankers as Sophisticated Beggars

2008-10-14T11:36:00.000-07:00

The Quotation:

“Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. were told [by the US Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson] they would each get $25 billion; Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co., $20 billion each (plus an additional $5 billion for their recent acquisitions); the Goldman Sacks Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, $10 billion each, with the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. and State Street Corp. each receiving $2 to $3. Wells Fargo will get $5 billion for its acquisition of Wachovia Corp., and Bank of America the same amount for its purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc..”
--- The Philadelphia Inquirer, Tuesday October 14, 2008
(Based on report in The New York Times)

The Comment:

Let us say that Corporations run the world, and banks run corporations. Wall Street is the playgrounds of the banks. Then, the small business owners and the middle class folks are objects that are screwed on the playgrounds.

Let them fall back to what they had been before the monetary inventions: Bankers. Let them fall back to banking and eliminate the gambling aspect of Wall Street: no financial derivatives, no financial instruments, no manipulating innocent people out of their pants, and no nonsense.

The bankers invented these so called instruments to facilitate sucking it to uninitiated ordinary people. Let them give back the millions they have had collected in salaries and bonuses. The banks that are mentioned in the above stated quote are internationals: they are connected by the rays of the sun as it moves around earth (scientifically speaking the earth moves around the sun) from the morning to the next morning, and on again.

Let banks do banking, and let banking be banking, and not horse race on horse race runs.
As a tax paying concerned citizen of this generous country, I want to know when will the bankers pay us back our money, and what is the interest we would be collecting.

Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.
10-14-2008

For progress, tranquility, and peace, I will not vote for McCain on November 4, 2008

2008-10-06T16:45:00.000-07:00

By Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi

(1)

What does U.S. Sen., John McCain mean when he says “My country first”?
Is he sincere, does he really mean it? Let us see. If one puts his country first, he would listen to his country. How does one listen to a country? Who represents a country? The answer is as clear as a full moon on a pitch dark sky: the people talk for their country.
So the question that begs a quick and clear answer is “Does McCain listen to the people?” Hardly. McCain listens mostly to himself and revels in admiring what he hears. He is desperate to win and in the process, he makes enemies of his opponents.
The glaring example of him not listening to our country is the Iraqi war; he hasn’t listened to the people of America, and he hasn’t listened to the people of Iraq, and he hasn’t listened to our friends and allies. The people want us to pull out our troops from Iraq and spare the lives of our brave men and women in uniform, and the civilian victims of the war, and spare billions of dollars that have been bled from our economy. So his claim that he puts his country first is bogus!

(2)

In his current campaign for the presidency of America, he had focused, almost exclusively, on his opponent’s lack of experience, and trashed him frequently with the “Not ready to lead” epithet, until he selected his own nominee for vice president—a person whose credentials on answering questions are lacking, and whose idea of debate is not to debate, but to blurb whatever she had crammed during the night before the debate.
At his age (72), he can easily pass on at anytime, yet the person whom he had chosen to succeed him lacks real experience in governing much more so than his opponent. What do we call that? How about hypocrisy? His inconsistency and stubbornness is amazing. It seems to me that McCain thinks that whatever he does or says is the right thing to do and to say, logic and reasoning could take a hike.

(3)

His demeanor and rudeness astonish me. During the first presidential debate he accused his opponent of being naïve. He also slugged him with “he does not understand,” and its derivatives, many times. A polished politician does not do that. Instead he would let the listeners come to the conclusion, by putting his experience to action.
Who of the two candidates is better qualified to know the difference between the meanings of the words "tactic" and "strategy"? McCain thought of these words as military terms only, and therefore he has ownership of them. His opponent must not be allowed to use them. In fact, his opponent was right.
Our strategy is to withdraw from Iraq, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy without further endangering our troops. In McCain’s case we can say we developed a strategy to win the war at all cost, and we use tactics, such as sending more troops to the war theater, to support that strategy.
Here is one more note about the debate. McCain never looked at his opponent (he was perhaps afraid to get charmed) and he never looked at the audience. Instead he looked at the moderator as if he was seeking his approval and his encouragement. That was a poor debating tactic to support a strategy of winning the debate!

(4)

Since my high school study of the history of Western Europe and my college freshman study of Western Civilization, I have admired Winston Churchill as the leader who saved Western Europe from the ambitions and travails of Germany. But reading “Churchill, Hitler, and 'The Unnecessary War,' "by Patrick J. Buchanan, I came out with a different picture of Churchill.
Churchill was a racist and a White Supremacist. He had been the cause of all evil that beset the World during more than five decades of the 20th century. I know that McCain is not racist, but he admires Churchill, and I hope he would not emulate him if he becomes our president. The United States can always defend itself; unlike Britain who needed our help for its survival during two world wars. Yet his cry, “Victory at all cost,” worries me because of the language McCain uses when he talks about the war on Iraq, and the wars which he might wage if he will become our president.

(5)

His age is not a problem unless he makes it one. People of his age are usually wise and less vindictive, calculating and less impulsive, steady and less erratic than younger candidates. Nevertheless, McCain, based on my observations, and from reading his book “Worth the Fighting For,” is driven by only one force: a desire to achieve the next higher goal for his life.
I am worried about his way of making decisions. He acts on the bases of instincts and hunches. No further consultation and assessment. Scientists use instincts and hunches too, but they use them as a first step. They move on to prove or disprove their guesses.

(6)

I share my conclusion with that of Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who wrote on Wednesday, October 1, 2008, U.S. Sen., Barack Obama, D-Ill., “… is far from perfect, but he seems more capable than his opponent of looking to the future rather than the past.”

McCain Should Have Shown Wisdom

2008-08-14T11:13:00.000-07:00

By Mahmoud S. Audi

I understand the plight of a country and its people when it is invaded and occupied by a more powerful country, and its overwhelming war machinery. I understand it, because I am close to what has been going on in the Middle East, for more than sixty years, where only the military noise is heard, and diplomacy has been in a coma. I pray for the day when countries of armada military powers, to consider their neighbors as partners in prosperity, and not as masters and followers. This is not likely to happen soon.
So the United States as the greatest military and economic power in the World, should practice wisdom, and activate its moral power, which is the strongest ever, in its dealing with the Russian invasion of Georgia.
On a personal level, my heart goes for the terrorized Georgians, but as the President of the United States I should maintain active neutrality. I would not sit on my laurels while the fighting is going on. Instead, I would ask both sides to halt the fighting. Insist that they do stop the fighting without threatening, and without intimidation, send diplomats to convince both sides to stop while acknowledging the legitimate claims of each side of the fighting.
McCain demonstrated his thirst for … ; seemingly wars are his means of solving problems. When he went to the media microphone and said that he was speaking on behalf of all Americans, he made a mistake, he was presumptuous. His aids should remind him, that there is a sitting president (whether we like his policies or not) who is given the authority to represent us. You may or may not become president. Also, “We are all Berliners!” that is JFK’s sentence in Berlin, but he was president. McCain rushed to say “We are all Georgians!” first he does not have our authority to say that, second as an American, I want a president who would not take sides, instead, he would retain the position of a credible active mediator.
Mr. McCain, take it easy. Do not rush when you are talking, wait and think, when answering a question, look at the person who asked the question. Do not rush when you are walking. You seem to be out of breath; it's not worth it. Who knows we may be able to hear some wisdom rushing from your mouth.

The Supreme Court—yes to “habeas corpus”—Scalia and Roberts were wrong!

2008-07-14T09:28:00.000-07:00

By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.

I started writing this article soon after the US Supreme Court passed a landmark decision, on Thursday, the 12th of June, 2008. But I couldn’t finish it because I needed the time to plan for my overseas vacation. Now I am back and free from the jetlag syndrome, I am ready to write, to inform, and to challenge you with my opinions.
In essence the Supreme Court ruling says no, to the suspension of the habeas corpus—the release of a person from unlawful constraint. Our government has been trying to exclude the detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison from the benefits of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court, in effect, said, five judges in the Majority and four in the Minority, no, to the government, you can’t do that. My opinion on this matter is very simple, although I am not writing to say that, because my knowledge of legal matters is as good as the knowledge of Judge Scalia about engineering matters. I am writing to show that Justice Scalia whose intellect and judicial prowess I respect and Chief Justice Roberts were wrong.
Justice Scalia was one of the four in the Minority Justices, which included Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Alito and Thomas, offered one of the two Minority opinions. The other Minority opinion was written by the Chief Justice himself.
The Chief Justice said that the decision of the Majority represented “overreaching” and left the court open to “charges of judicial activism.” Mr. Chief Justice, please read what Justice Scalia said. Let me help you. He said that the decision was not based on principle “but rather on inflated notion of judicial supremacy.” Is this a judicial statement or a political attack on the Majority Justices? Also read what he said: “the nation will live to regret what the Court has done today.” This could not be the judgment of a Justice of the Supreme Court. Instead, it sounds like what prophets say and do, or what the politicians say to frighten their constituents. Scalia prophesied that “devastation” and “disastrous consequences” from the decision of the Majority. This is the voice of an alarmist, not a Justice of the Supreme Court.
We need justices who are not prophets and who are not politicians. We need Justices who read the constitution, understand and apply it. We need Justices who leave the political work to the politicians but make sure that they do not break any law. We need justices who worry about the legality of the legislations of the legislators, and leave the worry about our security to the executive branch of our government.
On the other hand, what did the Majority say? Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the Majority opinion. He said “The laws and constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” So, extraordinary times, like the attacks on 9/11 do not necessarily require suspending our laws. Instead, these times require vigilance in applying the laws, and preserving the constitution.
Going back to the decision, which gave the foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison “constitutional rights to go to federal courts to challenge their continued detention,” and see if it makes sense. Well, our current government has anointed itself as the promoter and guardian of democracy and freedom throughout the world, specially the world from which these detainees had come from. So, why not start by applying what we preach to the people we have been holding as prisoners for a very long time. Give them the constitutional protection which we all enjoy, and be magnanimous. If our government applies what the Supreme Court has decided, and treats these detainees with our grace, then it may improve—probably a tiny bit—its credibility in the world.

On the 2008 presidential campaign: Obama went with the Majority ruling; he wins a point; McCain went with the Minority Justices; he lost a point! Please do not ask me about the total score; I keep losing my score book!

Senator McCain—thanks for the invitation

2008-06-11T14:52:00.000-07:00

By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.

Last night, Tuesday, June 10, 2008, when I returned home from my weekly social with SPS, I checked my telephone answering machine, and found that a McCain campaigner had left a message for me at about 8:30 P.M.; it is an invitation to attend a town-hall meeting at the Constitution Center, downtown Philadelphia. The invitation also says that I could bring my family and friends with me, besides I would be allowed to ask the Senator from Arizona any question, I might have. I felt the invitation came too late, but I immediately thought that it was an opportunity I shouldn't miss. I would have the chance to shake hands with a probable next president of the United States. I might also be able (not in a million) to ask the question that might influence the policy and modify the unjust standing of the United States in the Middle East. I went to bed with this thought on my mind.

When I woke up this morning, Wednesday (6-11-08), it was already 8:30 A.M. the town-hall meeting would start at 9:30 A.M. and therefore there is no way that I could make it to the hall. I need at least half an hour to take a shower and dress, and I need at least forty minutes to get there because of the multi-stops and traffic lights. So I decided to sit down and write the questions I would have tried to ask the candidate—the Republican presumptive nominee—any of them, if I would have the chance.

Question 1:

Do you believe that Islam is a religion, to which at least one quarter of the population of Earth adheres, worthy of respect as Christianity and Judaism?

Question 2:

Do you agree to work with the United Nations to define terrorist acts, terrorist individuals, terrorist organizations, and terrorist countries?

Question 3:

Would you accept the results of internationally observed and certified elections although you may not like them?

Question 4:

Do you believe that God loves all of his children equally, and all of us are the children of the same God?

Question 5:

Do you accept that the nuclear ambition of Iran is not the problem, but weakening Iran and balkanizing it is the goal? Do you also accept that Darfour was created to weaken and balkanize Sudan?

Question 6:

Do you know that there are human beings called the Palestinians? If your answer is positive, do you know that they have been living in misery--and recently collectively imprisioned by security walls surrounding their towns and villages-- because of our unjust policy toward Palestine and Israel?

Question 7:

Do you accept the fact that the United States is the greatest, country on Earth, economically, militarily, and morally, and we should demonstrate that to the world, by our behavior?

Question 8:

Do you know that you and I have one thing in common, other than being citizens of the same country, and other than our unparalleled love to this country?

Mr. John McCain, I am registered Independent, but I have a Medal of Merit from the late President Reagan and I was a member of the Task Force for his reelection. So on because of belonging to no party, but based on my discovery of the candidates and their stands on principles and issues, I do vote.

The rules committee of the Democratic Party—Obama wins, Obama loses

2008-06-01T10:22:00.000-07:00

By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.

I watched, on television, some during the day on Saturday, May 31, 2008, and the rest after midnight, most of the deliberations of the Rules and Bylaws committee of the Democratic Party. The issue was the resolution of the problem that was created by the Florida and Michigan Democrats when they decided to hold their primaries at times different from those the committee had assigned. The numerical results are already known and published in the newspapers, but what went on during the meeting was a demonstration that race matters.

The African-American supporters of Obama were passionate and poetic, when they questioned the supporters of Clinton. I could see their passions in the tones of their voices and the gestures of their hands and on their faces, and the near absence of civility in the words of some of them. Even the African-American supporters of Hillary were not passionate enough for her, because their real passions were with Obama. Some of the uncommitted super delegates are really committed; their passions gave their secret real status away; for possible political gains, they chose to claim they were uncommitted.

If I were an African-American I might have behaved in the same manner. It is their awareness of their history in the United States that made them who they are today. It is always there; their personal failures and triumphs, and their collective failures and triumphs are always there.

However, the members of the Rules and Bylaws Committee should have blinded theselves to the differences among them and behaved more, like fair arbitors, and behaved responsibly in their deliberation; they did not do that, and their bias was crystal clear. They are thirty bright and experienced individuals who ought to have worked for the common good of their party. But they failed. The supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton sounded more reasonable, more responsible and more respectful of their colleagues and of their witnesses. They were also passionate, but most of them did not show their feelings.

By the action of the committee, Obama won delegates who did not vote for him, because his supporters were louder, aggressive, and more passionate. However, he won votes, but he would lose the election; he will not become president.

If the Senator and his supporters had shown some magnanimity, he could have easily unified the party, and considerably advanced his chances to win the election in November 08. No one should have felt that the deliberations were unfair. This is what he should have done. He should have given all what Hillary’s camp had asked for. Had this happened, Obama would still have more committed delegates than her, but the uncommitted delegates would see in him the unifier they wanted, and would have given him their votes, and their support: a winning combination.

But now I believe that most of the uncommitted delegate would still commit to him, few will continue to fight. Political games will overwhelm the media and the count down will start and continue until McCain wins in November 08.

In Search of a Homeland—Israelis for peace

2008-05-28T10:07:00.000-07:00

By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.

For a year in the early 1970s, I was the president of the Arab Students Association at Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York. The University had Arab students from a number of Arab countries including Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Tunisia.
By attending the Friends of Sabeel—North America, conference “In Search of a Homeland: The Quest for Place and Peace in the Middle East” at Villanova University, on April 25 and 26, 2008, memories of a politically proactive year came to my mind.
The relationship between the recent conference and the year of a distant past and the now 84 year-old Uri Avneri, the Israeli peace activist, whom I had met in that year, when he and I were about 36 years younger are the subject matters of this post. The more general notes would refer to the intersection of my life routes, that far in the past year of activism, and the recent Christian conference at Villanova University.

-1-

Governor Rockefeller of New York appointed in 1968 to the Senate Charles Goodell, to finish the term of the assassinated Senator Robert Kennedy. In the early 1970s that term was coming to an end. The senator was campaigning for a full term of his own, in the Senate. He came to Syracuse University. The Chapel was full. Four of us, from the Arab Students Association, were there. We sat where the available seats were, in the back, but we listened.
He began his partisan speech and continued until he came to the point to appease some in the audience. He said, in effect, that the government spends our tax money left and right, but it does not help Israel to defend itself against Naser (the President of Egypt and the President of the short lived United Arab Republic) who threatens to through the Jews to the sea.
During the question and answer period, I raised my hand to ask a question. When he picked me I said (in effect) you claim that Naser said he would throw the Jews to the sea, can you give me the exact quote, the date, and the place, when and where did Naser say that he would throw the Jews to the sea? He asked me to give him my name and address and he would send that information to me. I told him that he would not be able to do that, because it is a lie. On his way out of the Chapel others, from the Arab community, and I talked to him about the same subject. I remember this episode of my life every time I look at a picture where I appear with him. The Senator was not elected, and I vehemently deny any responsibility! Early in my life I learned that in America, the cradle of modern democracy one could express his political views without fear of retributions.

-2-

Also during this year, I received a telephone call from Khalidi, a physician at the Syracuse University Hospital, who was an active member of the Arab community. He suggested that we invite an Israeli peace activist who was on a lecture tour in the United States. The doctor said that the community would contribute toward the expenses. I told him that I would call him back in the evening and talk with him about the matter.
Later I understood that Noam Chomsky, a moderate Zionist, and a renowned linguist, and an anti-Vietnam War activist was the main sponsor of the speaker. Years later I learned that the speaker I had invited was the leader of the Israeli Communist Party. He was Uri Avneri.
When I finished talking with the doctor I went to Ms Torrelli, the International Student advisor. I told her that we, the Arab Students Association, wanted to invite an Israeli speaker to campus (I intentionally used the nationality of the speaker) and we need your help. She was excited as I expected and within less than a minute she said that she could contribute $200. I told her that I would talk with her about the details later in the week.
I called each of the members of the Arab Student Association executive committee and discussed with each of them the details of the activity. In the evening I called the doctor and told him how much we could contribute, and we wanted the community to help with the balance. He agreed and we talked about the rest of the details.
On the day of the lecture I went to the Airport, picked him up and brought him to a packed lecture hall in the Maxwell School of Government. I introduced him to the audience, and he followed by given an outstanding lecture. At the end he had numerous questions, which he wrote on a yellow pad, before he answered them. The audience was also balanced. Many Arabs, more Jews, and a majority of Christians attended the event. We congratulated ourselves, and I took Uri Avneri to the Airport. Ms Torrelli did not get what she was expecting, and here is the last act of the story:

Few weeks passed, the Israeli Students Association invited a Canadian Zionist to give a talk. Ms Torrelli covered the expenses. The location of the lecture was on my turf— in the main auditorium, of the Edwin Link Engineering Building—my office was in the basement. Six members of the Arab Student Association (including I) were there. They made about half the audience. The essence of his presentation went as follows: Palestine was a land of swamps with no population, and the Zionists came and reclaimed the land and settled in it.
When the speaker finished I asked him if he were an Israeli. He said he was Canadian. I asked him about how many times had he been to Israel. He said few times. I asked him if he saw any swamps that had been reclaimed. He said no. I asked him if he would allow me to tell him what did the Zionists do in Palestine. He said okay. I went to the blackboard and wrote the name of the village of my birth, and how did the Zionists change it. There activity was a failure.

-3-

During the same period, the late Israeli Yitzhak Rabin, a former Prime Minister of Israel, and a former Ambassador of Israel to the United States, planned to visit Syracuse University to address the community about the needs of Israel, among other stuff. We got the news, and sat out to prepare posters to protest his visit. Salwa was very active in this and other efforts of our Association. One of the posters, I still remember, one of the posters read ‘Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free,’ Salwa was a none; she knew her Bible. The visit was cancelled. There was a rumor that the Security Department of the University was afraid, violence might break out. The posters were trashed. Few weeks after the cancellation, unannounced, Rabin appeared at the Chapel. I called members of the executive committee, and told them about what happened; four of us were able to attend the speech. The Chapel was full.
He said many things, but one thing remains in my memory, that tells me a lot about the mentality of the Zionists, and their dreams. This is approximately what he said. Israel is a small poor country that needs your continuous help to defend itself. When he left Egypt, good old Moses, instead of turning right to the oil rich land, he turned left to Palestine a poor land. He did not elaborate. But what he meant was clear, and the audience laughed.
Fundraising from individuals, organizations, and governments, for Israel is a daily activity in the United States, and Western Europe. They say they need to pay to maintain the torch of freedom and democracy in the Middle East glowing. But the reality is different. Palestinians have been displaced, their homes demolished, their lands raped, their villages and towns encircled by high walls, they are being imprisoned and starved. All of that and more have been done in the name of democracy! There are many books that have recently been written about Israel and Palestine. The former president, Jimmy Carter’s book is one example.
Fundraising for the Palestinians is illegal in the United States.

-4-

There are Israelis who believe that the Israel policy toward the Palestinians is bad for the Palestinians and bad for Israel because and it tarnishes the image of Israel abroad. Some of them are peace activists.
Jeff Halper was one of the speakers at the conference. He is the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against [Palestinians] House Demolitions. As the conference pamphlet notes, he was a nominee for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize. The topic of his presentation was ‘Reframing of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A View from the Ground.’
He is an Israeli-American activist, a professor of anthology, an author and an internationally known speaker. He had taught at universities in the United States, Israel, and other countries. He has published two books and numerous articles. I met him at the conference and told him about myself, and my village in Palestine. I bought his book ‘An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel. I promised him, I will read it once I finish reading the latest book by Bill Moyer:
The thrust of his lecture was about the framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There is the human rights framing, the historical framing, the Israeli Zionist security framing. The contents of the lecture was creative, and it cast some interesting light on the different aspects of the problem and the tools needed to reframe the issue and make other understand.
He also talked about the different solutions of the problem: the two states solution, the Israel plus and Palestine minus solution, the one democratic state solution, and the confederation solution.
When he talked about peace activism in Israel he put the pictures of four Israelis on the screen. One of those was Uri Avneri. That was the connection between the time in the early 1970s and the Sabeel conference about 36 years later. The speaker told me that Avneri was still alive and still active at 84 years old.
Another Israeli-American speaker at the conference was Marc Ellis who is the director of the center for Jewish Studies at Baylor University, Waco, Texas. His presentation focused on the after math of the Israeli creation in 1948. He argues against the current political policies, which are based on the Jewish vulnerability, and calls for Jews to seek justice for all. Justice for the Isalelis and justice for the Palestinians. Justic now! Justice now!

As an American I am ashamed of my president

2008-05-16T11:13:00.000-07:00

By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.

At the 60th anniversary of the creation of the state of Israel, the President said in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) what no president of any country should have said. I am a proud American, but like many Americans, I am ashamed of this President. What he had said did not rise to the level of greatness of the American people, and did not rise to the level of dignity the President of this great nation should demonstrate.

He is so adamant in trying to dictate to history his shallow and unrealistic view of the World that no one can stop him from continuously trying. Even his attempt at fortune telling would not help—he claimed to see, by looking into the future, an image of the Middle East that reflects his childish understanding of history. He does not know that even false prophets will not accept him among their ranks!

I was expecting my president to stand in the Israeli Knesset and say I am here to congratulate you and to congratulate the Israelis and the Zionists for your defeat, around sixty years ago, of the unarmed and unorganized Palestinians. The tanks, the airplanes, and the training provided by the British and others helped. But, now it is time to reconcile and to live in peace with your neighbors. One state, two states, it does not matter, peace matters. Now is the time for serious negotiations (you have already exhausted all delaying tactics) with the Palestinians. The support of future American Presidents, Congresses, and other governments, may not come readily.

His infamous speech insults Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, and peace loving peoples of the World, including many great Americans, and some Jews. The speech ignored their feelings either because of the speaker’s ignorance, his lack of tact (diplomacy), or because he decided to ignore them, and treat them like dirt. In any case, he created more enemies, when he should have worked to make friends among all the people including them.

Obama’s promise of “Change” failed the test

2008-05-05T18:26:00.000-07:00

By Mahmoud S. Audi

The core theme of Sen. Obama’s campaign for the nomination to run for President of the United States is “Change.” He has been repeating, nearly daily, that without changing the way the government in Washington runs, and changing the politicians who have been in Washington for a long time (in his estimate, more than six years), nothing will change. And he is the only presidential candidate, he claims, who should be trusted with the mission to affect the desired change: change the way the government is run, change the way we treat other countries and other peoples of the world, and the way we get into wars. He seems to believe that he has a monopoly on “Change,” and probably wishes he could protect the word by copyrights registration.
Observing Obama and reading his memoir, I came to believe that he is another politician with less than six years experience in the United States Senate. A true proponent of change would be inclusive in treating the different peoples of the world, and would not change the fairness principle as a result of the influence of lobbies.
A number of tests could be run to assess the seriousness and the credibility of Obama in the area of changing our foreign policy. I chose one test that is of most interest to me, and to many people of Earth; unfortunately, not to many of us in the United States. The lobbies stifle the undesired truths, and they do not allow us to face the daily trials and tribulations of suffering people. That problem is the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
In these days, the Jewish community and other Americans, are celebrating the 60th birthday of Israel, and claim that its creation “… is one of the biggest success stories of modern times.”
At the same time the victims of the creation of Israel, the Palestinians, are mourning the Naqbah (the catastrophe) that befell on them when Israel was created. For sixty years the Palestinians have been suffering from the absence of justice in the Holy Land.
I know that it is in the tradition of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (along with other religion) to help the poor and protect the weak. But our government in its lack of wisdom, and because of the influence of the Israeli Lobby in Washington, chose to stand with the militarily mighty and tread on the back of the weak. The war on the Palestinians has been going on for more than a century; the war on Iraq is still young. So, logically, Obama, the self proclaimed prophet of change, should, in addition to ending the war on Iraq, should also work on bringing a just resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli problem. Is there a sign that he might do that if he becomes President? No, but there are signs that he would be worse than Bush.
On Wednesday, April 16, just before the 08 Pennsylvania Primary, Obama met with the Philadelphia area Jewish leaders. I read an account of the meeting in the Philadelphia Inquirer. In that meeting he said everything the leaders wanted to hear: a typical politician—NOT AN AGENT OF CHANGE.
He said that his links with the Jewish community predate) his entry into politics (he was perhaps referring to the Jewish activist who gave him his first community organizer job), and would extend beyond his campaign. At the United Nations he would continue to veto any resolution, which Israel would not like, and he is for the security of Israel, but against the right of return of the Palestinians to their homes. He also said that he disagrees with former President Jimmy Carter who is pushing hard for a solution of the problem. I wish he said something positive to the peace loving peoples of the world and to the Palestinians who are longing for peace in Israel and Palestine.
He failed the test. He is just another politician, with little experience, and who puts a lot of work to compose his speeches.

In search of a homeland--the keynote speaker and I

2008-05-01T12:00:00.001-07:00

A conference (some speakers called it retreat) of two days, April 25 and 26 was held at Villanova University. I had attended most of the two days. In this article, I am trying to introduce you to the keynote speaker, and what I have in common with him.

The Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek was the keynote speaker of the two-day conference. The title of the speech was “The quest and the crisis: What Americans can do?” It is about the quest for peace in Palestine and Israel, and the current crisis due to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the oppression of the Palestinian. It is about the Naqbah (catastrophe) which befell on the Palestinians (Christians and Muslims) in 1948, sixty years ago, come May 15. It is about the biblical and other claims of the Zionists about Palestine, and the claims of the Palestinians that can be support by biblical text. And it is about enlightening of the American Christians about the plight of the Palestinian Christians and their Muslim brothers and sisters. It was a brilliant and a well-argued address that added considerable to my knowledge. I will try to get a copy of it once I join Sabeel.
The Rev was born in Beisan, an inland village of Galilee, Palestine. I was born in Az-Zeeb, a costal village of Galilee, Palestine. He and I are probably of the same age. We were both small children, of the same age, in 1948, when the Naqbah took place. For fear of massacres that took place, my family fled Palestine to Lebanon and we became, and remain, refugees. Naim and his family wanted to stay in Beisan, but the Zionists moved them to Nazareth, further to the east. He spent his childhood in this biblical city.
He earned his BA degree at Hardin-Simmons University, Abilene, TX, in 1963. I earned my BE degree at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, in 1965. He earned his Master of Divinity degree at the Church Divinity School of the Pacific, Berkley, CA, in 1966. After four years of working in Saudi Arabia as an engineer, I immigrated to the United States in 1969, and earned my M.Sc. in Aerospace Engineering at Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York. The Rev returned to Galilee and started his ministry after he was ordained priest in the Episcopal Church. Later he became the Canon of the Episcopal St. George’s Cathedral in Jerusalem. In the 1980s he returned to the United States to earn a doctorate degree at San Francisco Theological Seminary. He returned to Jerusalem and started a career in theology that included the founding of Sabeel Liberation Theology Center. His activity on behalf of the Palestinian Christians and their Muslim brothers and sisters brought him world recognition and several honorary doctorate degrees and other distinction awards. I earned my Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering degree at Syracuse University in 1974. I taught, published, and engineered, until I became a full professor. That was the highest achievement of my career.
I did not have the chance to talk with the Rev, but I hope to meet him in Beisan or Az-Zeeb, and in the love of God, every thing is possible.

Hillary or Obama? It’s time to choose

2008-04-21T09:33:00.000-07:00

Published in Delco Daily Times, on Monday, April 21, 2008 under the title shown above.

By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.

U.S. Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y., believes she has the experience to make the tough decision if the telephone rings, after midnight, in the White House.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., believes he has the judgment superiority to make the right decision, if the telephone rings.
Ordinary citizens know presidents do not make decisions in this manner. Instead, they consider and discuss problems with advisors, and others before a decision is made.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to examine the relationship between experience and judgment, and to shed some light on the merit of the claims of the candidates.
Dictionaries state experience is the accumulation of knowledge, or the learning of skills, from participation in events and activities. Judgment is the formation of an opinion, after consideration and deliberation. Beyond these definitions, the quality of the output, the judgment of the deliberation depends on the experiences of the participants. This truism underscores the relationship between experience and judgment. I acknowledge the relationship is not simple.
To help you understand what I am trying to say, simply note that experience and judgment are like trees and their fruits. Experience and judgment are neither apples, nor oranges; they are apples on apple trees, and oranges on orange trees. To wit, judgment depends on experience, figuratively, as fruits depend on the plants, and the trees that carry them.
Clinton claims she has the experience to perform the duties of president starting on her first day in office. Her years of experience in public service, including eight years as the first lady, qualify her for the job.
On the other hand, Obama claims that he, as a community organizer, and a civil rights attorney, has learned to differentiate between right and wrong. That kind of learning helped him conclude, before the war on Iraq started, that invasion was wrong.
On the other hand, Obama’s experienced opponent, Hilary Clinton, failed to produce, with her experience, a similarly acceptable result about the unpopular war. This is not to belittle her experience. On the contrary, experience is valuable in every field of human endeavor.
The problem is not what is experience and what are its benefits, it is the politicians, who are notorious for making irrational decisions. When a president stands in congress and uses patriotism and its language in presenting a case, he assures himself of enthusiastic applause, energetic standing ovation, and exciting march of the flock behind him.
For fear of stigma, rarely does a member of congress stand against a call to show patriotism, even when the member is not adequately convinced of the virtue of the case, and when his hunch tells him that the justification for war, for example, on Iraq was based on falsehood.

Further, experience is an indicator of the extent of learning, and the capacity to produce a well-reasoned judgment, or a plan of action. Theories inform us that learning is a process that goes through observations (collecting data), analyses, and generalizations. Internalization, and building new mental structures, or expanding existing ones follow, to complete the learning process.
Learning is not always easy; the ease and the speed of learning depend on the experience of the learner. An experienced person finds it easier to acquire new knowledge, and to absorb it faster, than a less experienced individual.
How experienced a president or those who aspire to become president should be? The constitution ignores this matter. At the time of the founding, only the elite held high positions in government, although the constitution does not spell that out. Today an idiot could become president of the United States as long as he or she is born in the U.S., thirty-five years of age or older, and wins the election.
For that reason, it is imperative that in addition to their own learning and their own experiences, presidents and leaders of all walks of life, should seek the services of advisors, consultants, and subordinates whose experiences, put together, widen and deepen the experience of the leader.
The impression that the experience of a person depends on his or her age, may not be true. An active younger person could become more experienced than an older less active one. Also, the younger person would be more likely to use the Internet, to enhance and accelerate her or his learning, than the older person.
To emphasize, experience and judgment are not to be compared to each other; they depend on each other. In a free situation, where politicians speak their minds without fear, better experience produces better judgments, but freedom may be claimed even when it does not exist, or when it is disabled. When experience and freedom to use it coexist, one can still produce bad judgments. In this situation the mistakes must be taken as learning opportunities.
Finally, neither the experience nor the judgment of the candidates should be our influencing criteria for electing a nominee, or a president. Similarly, age, gender, race, and detailed plans of promises should not be significant factors. Instead, we should pause virtual questions, to each candidate, and try to answer them ourselves.
Some of the questions are: like these. Do we trust the candidate to work for us fulltime once we put her or him in the Oval Office? Would she or he focus on finding solutions to the problems that beset us, the people? Would he or she learn from his or her mistakes and the mistakes of others, in the world? Would she or he be more inclined to solve problems peacefully, or she or he would tend to seek personal glory through wars? Would he or she seek to lead the world through love, instead of fear? Would she or she protect us from the greedy and powerful among us?
I am still thinking about questions and answers. I haven’t finished yet, but when the time comes, I will vote.

In search of a homeland--A conference

2008-04-12T14:05:00.000-07:00

By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.

It is the main title of a two-day conference that will take place at Villanova University on April 25 and 26, 2008. I have just sent my registration card and the fee to the organizers. There will be one keynote speaker, and six other speakers, in addition to seven workshops, and a panel discussion. The topics will cover various aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian problems, including historical perspectives and current affairs. The main organisers are the "Friends of Sabeel--North America." Sabeel is an international peace movement started by Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land. At the end of the conference, I will write impressions, and personal thoughts about the issue, and how I relate to them.

The sooner we 'cut and run' in Iraq, the better

2008-04-04T05:16:00.000-07:00

This article was published in the Delaware County Daily Times, Monday, July 17, 2006.

By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.

We say, we had free elections in Iraq. All ethnic and religious groups participated. The Iraqis formed a unity government.
We say, we will step down when the Iraqis step up. The Iraqis are building security forces. The militias will disarm. We say sectarian clashes will subside. We say, soon we will hand them the matters of their country and its security and say goodbye to them.
We say count on us, we are forever your friends. Call us if you get in trouble. We are forever allies. We say the Iraqis will live in freedom in a democratic system of government.
We wish what we say is real. But, it is not. It is a dream. Our democratically elected government is dreaming. When you are dreaming you can hardly hear the words of wisdom, and you can hardly see the truth.
When you are dreaming, and the dream brings you happiness, you want to dream more. The government is in a bind. We want to stay the course. Telling the truth about the quagmire we are in, and our need to bring the troops safely home, calls for statesmanship, and honest leadership, not impotent politicians. The sad matter, which scholars and novices acknowledge, is that in the final analysis we will “cut and run.”
We wish the dream comes true, but reality prevails. I haven’t seen in person or talked to any Iraqi in more than 14 years. But, I met a number of Iraqi professors from most universities of Iraq at the “1992 International Renewable Energy Conference.” They were from the north, the center, and the south of Iraq.
We talked about the first American invasion of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Many of them said they disliked Saddam, they wanted more freedom and more democracy, but they hated the British and the Americans. Saddam is an Iraqi dictator, the product of the Iraqi situation. Eventually, the Iraqis would remove him. But the British and the Americans are colonial foreign invaders. These professors spoke for the Iraqis.
Iraqis like most Arabs believe that the West has never given them a chance to grow as independent strong nations. They got educated in London, Paris, Rome, and Berlin. They learned about nationalism of the late 19th century from Europe. They learned fragmented Germans united into one nation, one country. The independent city-states of Italy united into one nation.
The Arab scholars returned to their home countries and started nationalistic movements as contrasted with the religious status quo. They allied themselves with Britain and France and fought with them during WWI. The West deceived them. Instead of independence their lands were colonized. The mouths of the Arabs are still bitter from the suppressive actions of the West against their aspirations.
The Arabs were awakened again in the 20th century. The Muslim Brotherhood movement was getting stronger in Egypt on a daily basis, during the ‘30s and ‘40s.
Western educated Arabs started political parties modeled after West European political parties. The Ba’ath party was one. It started in Damascus by a Christian Arab educated at the Sorbonne, France. Their goal was to unite all the Arabs under the banner of Arab nationalism, not Islam. Their efforts culminated in the rise of Naser in Egypt. He persecuted the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and adopted the Arab nationalism movement as the means of uniting the Arabs. The West fought Naser until his demise. The irony is he used the American Constitution to model a constitution for the United Arab States. With the disappearance of Naser, the Islamic movement started rising again.
Saddam was one of the inheritors of Naser on the Arab seen. He wanted to carry the banner for Arab nationalism. He opened the borders to all Arabs who wished to work in the oil-rich Iraq.
When the Islamic revolution came to power in Iran, many national and Islamic Arabs hailed the rise of Islam in Iran and became strong supporters. It seemed with the religious euphoria at its peak they would overrun the lands to the west until they reached the Mediterranean. The West did not like it, and Saddam, whose country would be the first to be overrun, did not like it either.
With One million Iraqi soldiers, western intelligence and weaponry of all kinds including WMDs, and money from the Arab Gulf states, and about ten years of war, Saddam was able to stop the Iranian Islamic revolution inside its borders. Saddam became a hero to the West, and a villain to the Islamic movements all over the world. But the United States and Great Britain soon forgot. The Iraqis are mainly Arab nationals, Kurdish national, minority Iranian Shiites, and other minorities. The Arab Iraqi nationals are the majority. They include the Shiite Arabs, the Sunni Arabs, and the Christian Arabs.
A minority of the Kurds and a minority of the Iranian Iraqis will align themselves with the majority Iraqis. The other Kurds will never stop dreaming of an independent Kurdish state. The other Iranian Iraqis have their loyalties in Iran, not necessarily because it is Iran, but because it is a Muslim state, and they are devout Muslims.
If we can understand the bitterness of the Arabs and Muslims against the West, in particular against Britain and the United States, then we can conclude that sooner or later all of them will turn against us. Our current Iraqi allies will become our latest Iraqi enemies. To be a national is to refuse any kind of occupation, under any name.
Yes, sooner or later we will “cut and run.” The sooner we recognize this situation the better we will be. But this administration will never do it. If we cut and run we will become stronger, because after that we will not go to war unless it is constitutional. Our great constitution contains all the safeguards if we follow it.

The experience of Hilary Clinton versus the judgment of Barack Obama

2008-03-26T04:42:00.000-07:00

By
Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.

Hilary Clinton believes she has the experience to make the tough decision, if the telephone rings, after midnight, in the White House. Barack Obama believes he has the judgment superiority to make the right decision, if the telephone rings. Ordinary citizens intuitively know that presidents do not make decisions in this manner. Instead, they consider and discuss problems with advisors, and others, before a decision is made.
Nevertheless, it is instructive to examine the relationship between experience and judgment, and to shed some light on the merit of the claims of the candidates.
Dictionaries state that experience is the accumulation of knowledge, or the learning of skills, from participation in events and activities. Judgment is the formation of an opinion, after consideration and deliberation. Beyond these definitions, the quality of the output, the judgment, of the deliberation depends on the experiences of the participants. This truism underscores the relationship between experience and judgment. At the same time, I acknowledge that the relationship is not simple. To help you understand what I am trying to say, simply note that experience and judgment are like trees and their fruits. To choose a frequently used fruits, experience and judgment are neither apples, nor oranges; they are apples on apple trees, and oranges on orange trees.
To wit, judgment depends on experience, figuratively, as fruits depend on the plants, and the trees that carry them.
Clinton claims she has the experience to perform the duties of president starting on her first day in office. Her years of experience in public service, including eight years as the first lady, qualify her for the job. On the other hand, Obama claims that he, as a community organizer, and a civil rights attorney, has learned to differentiate between right and wrong. That kind of learning helped him conclude, before the war on Iraq started, that invasion was wrong. The majority of Americans, after five years of carnage, denials, and false claims, still believe that the war on Iraq has been wrong from the beginning.
On the other hand, Obama’s experienced opponent, Hilary Clinton, failed to produce, with her experience, a similarly acceptable result about the unpopular war. This is not to belittle her experience. On the contrary, experience is valuable in every field of human endeavor. With experience farmers cultivate their lands more efficiently, engineers build better machines, mothers provide better care to their offspring, employees improve their productivity, and politicians learn what roads to follow, and which to abandon.
The problem is not what is experience and what are its benefits, it is the politicians, who are notorious for making irrational decisions. When a president stands in congress and uses patriotism and its language, in presenting a case, he assures himself of enthusiastic applause, energetic standing ovation, and exciting march of the flock behind him. For fear of stigma, rarely does a member of congress stand against a call to show patriotism, even when the member is not adequately convinced of the virtue of the case, and when his hunch tells him that the justification for war, for example, on Iraq was based on falsehood.
Further, experience is an indicator of the extent of learning, and the capacity to produce a well reasoned judgment, or a plan of action. Theories inform us that learning is a process that goes through observations (collecting data), analyses, and generalizations. Internalization, and building new mental structures, or expanding existing ones follow, to complete the learning process.
Learning is not always easy; the ease and the speed of learning depend on the experience of the learner. An experienced person finds it easier to acquire new knowledge, and to absorb it faster, than a less experienced individual.
How experienced a president or those who aspire to become president should be? The constitution ignores this matter. At the time of the founding, only the elite held high positions in government, although the constitution does not spell that out. Today an idiot could become president of the United States as long as he or she is born in the US, thirty-five years of age or older, and wins the election.
For that reason, it is imperative that in addition to their own learning and their own experiences, presidents and leaders of all walks of life, should seek the services of advisors, consultants, and subordinates whose experiences, put together, widen and deepen the experience of the leader.
The impression that the experience of a person depends on his or her age, may not be true. An active younger person could become more experienced than an older less active one. Also, the younger person would be more likely to use the Internet, to enhance and accelerate her or his learning, than the older person.
To emphasize, experience and judgment are not to be compared to each other; they depend on each other. In a free situation, where politicians speak their minds without fear, better experience produces better judgments, but freedom may be claimed even when it does not exist, or when it is disabled. When experience and freedom to use it coexist, one can still produce bad judgments. In this situation the mistakes must be taken as learning opportunities.
Finally, neither the experience nor the judgment of the candidates should be our influencing criteria for electing a nominee, or a president. Similarly, age, gender, race, and detailed plans of promises should not be significant factors in the process. Instead, we should pause virtual questions, to each candidate, and try to answer them ourselves. Some of the questions are like these. Do we trust the candidate to work for us fulltime once we put her or him in the Oval Office? Would she or he focus on finding solutions to the problems that beset us, the people? Would he or she learn from his or her mistakes and the mistakes of others, in the world? Would she or he be more inclined to solve problems peacefully, or she or he would tend to seek personal glory through wars? Would he or she seek to lead the world through love, instead of fear? Would he or she protect us from the greedy and powerful among us?
I am still thinking about questions and answers. I haven’t finished yet, but when the time comes, I will vote.

Stability in Iraq: How far is the U.S. willing to go?

2008-03-18T04:52:00.000-07:00

This article was published in the Delaware County Daily Times, Monday, September 17, 2007.

By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.

The picture of what is going on in Iraq is getting bleaker every day. The plethora of reports is making it murkier and the average citizen is confused. Most of the contents of the reports is true, but incomplete. The opposing parties underscore what supports their claims, and the public does not have the time or the background to sieve through mounds of reports and newspaper articles.
It is true some provinces of Iraq and some neighborhoods of Baghdad are enjoying an improved level of security. It is also true that the killing did not stop, and the loss of lives continues. It is true more insurgents are killed or captured, but it is also true more of them are still conducting deadly attacks. The information from the field is limited and it is manipulated to produce the most desirable outcome: sound bites and slick television commercials.
I am a bicultural, bilingual American. I understand the social paradigm, the politics, and the culture of my country of choice. I equally understand the social paradigm, the politics, and the cultures of the Arabs and the Muslims. So, when I hear politicians (and self anointed intellectuals), and when I read newspapers articles, I understand where the speaker or the writer is coming from. I understand the sounds of demagoguery, the mistakes of the ignorant, and the malice of those who have axes to grind.
I am driven by a desire to promote understanding and to bridge the gap, or narrow it, between the two worlds, so my children and my grandchildren live in peace and harmony with their neighbors in this great country.
The President could announce an end of our military mission in Iraq and inform Iraqis of our plans to withdraw the troops from their country. But neither the current President nor the next (even if he or she were a Democrat) would make the announcement, and inform the Iraqis of his decision.
A different approach would be for Congress to stop financing the war. But this wouldn’t happen regardless of which party controls Congress. A Democratic Congress would fear being labeled as weak on defense. A Republican Congress would not do it because it is the party (dominated by the Religious Right) that took us to this pre-emptive war. The extremists do not want to end the war, they want to expand it to include Iran and Syria.
The third possible way to end the war depends on action by Congress. It is true that Congress may not have the volition to do anything on its own about the war, but if there is a national cry, similar to that which helped end the Vietnam War, Congress may respond. Members of Congress would scurry to align themselves with the public and, perhaps, use the power of the purse to end the war.
A fourth eventuality is for our troops to withdraw in defeat. Our valiant soldiers do not deserve a shameful end to their sacrifice. But if the current situation (lack of security, electricity, water, jobs, and abundance of self centered politicians) does not improve, the insurgency would become stronger. Iraqis would join the freedom fighters for a patriotic goal: To liberate their country from the foreign occupiers.
The fifth possible action is for the President to attack Iran and nuke its nuclear and other military facilities. This action would not end the war; it would intensify and prolong it. At the same time he or his proxy would attack or perhaps occupy another part of Syria. Thus creating a dream security belt from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean. The expansion would not end the war, but it sure would extend it for decades to come.
A last possible option to end the war is to nuke Iraq from north to south and from east to west, as a former Marine told me, on the morning of September 11, 2001. This would not happen. The President may lack wisdom, as his political adversaries claim, but he is not a Nero, either.
The only option that makes sense (saves lives and capital) is to plan and execute the withdrawal of our troops, orderly and safely. But, the government, its loyal political pundits, and the allied spin junkies warn us of impending disasters.
They say the Iraqis would fight each other in a full scale and bloody civil war. The whole Middle East would be destabilized. The anti-American forces would rejoice in victory and put up their sails and follow us, to harm us, in our own homeland.
It’s scary. But remember that the Vietnam War took so long because of the scare of the domino theory and its effect on the citizenry.
Here is the more likely scenario. When the military forces begin to withdraw, the violence would increase, but soon (in about six months) it would subside because the majority of the current violence is directed against the coalition forces, the mercenaries, the collaborators, and the beneficiaries of the war.
Once the foreign forces leave Iraq, that violence would dwindle. But the fighting among the militias would rage in the streets and in the neighborhoods of most Iraqi cities. It would mainly be on land grapping and sectarian cleansing.
However, the end of the mayhem would come at the hands of a military unifier—a dictator, who could have been one of those trained by the Americans, not to become a dictator, but to create and preserve peace and tranquility. The new ruler would be supported and aided by Iran, but he would not establish an Iranian type theocracy. Instead the military would rule for a while. Then a limited democracy might be initiated, and in a decade or two, democracy might take hold.
On the other hand, if the United States intervenes to stop the new dictator, a situation like the one in Lebanon might arise and Iraq would become another State in the Middle East perpetually divided and dangerously unstable.

Democracy follows if you give them love

2008-03-13T14:25:00.000-07:00

This article was published in the Delaware County Daily Times, Saturday, May 6, 2006.

By Mahmoud S. Audi, Ph.D.

Pre-emptive wars against potential enemies, democratization of undemocratic and unfriendly governments, and the spread of freedom throughout the world, have been foreign policy goals of our government. One may argue whether this policy depicts our benevolence or our arrogance. Others may wish an aggressive policy to feed the poor, cure the sick and protect the week. The policy of invading a country to democratize its politics and to free its people must be challenged to preserve our own democracy and freedom.
Why would a superpower wage a preemptive war against a country with limited means of defending itself? The claim of stopping a war before it starts is unsubstantiated. In reality the war would be a war of aggression, occupation, domination and colonization.
For democratization of tyrant governments and for spreading freedom, we must have a more realistic approach. It does not take a rocket scientist to know wars do not democratize rotten systems, but antagonize the people living in that system. Freedom will not canvas the lands and hatred may spread, instead. Facing reality, one can see the current practice of our government needs modification.
But who am I to question the conduct of our government? I am just an immigrant who came to this country in search of peace, happiness and freedom. I must say that I am satisfied with what I have achieved, and I have enjoyed being an American. And as so, I feel empowered to voice my opinion.
Do we really need a preemptive wars policy? I say no. During the Cold War we did not have such a policy against the Soviet Union, which was the only union of countries that had the capacity to inflict horrendous destruction and pain on us. But, we were prepared and ready to strike back with immeasurable destruction and bane. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War, and the threat of what remained of it has been considerably diminished.
We are wooing China and India in becoming our trade partners. They will not be our enemies in the foreseeable future. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are our allies. The Europeans are our allies too. There is no fear of attacks against us from these countries.
We are left with many underdeveloped and poor countries that are ruled, in most cases, by undemocratic governments. Would these countries attack us for any reason? Do they have the capability to hurt us? The answer is no.
A more reasonable assumption to is that the self appointed rulers would seek to keep their people fed and quiet, to stay in power. They would not achieve that by attacking a superpower. Many believe attacking or invading any country in a so called pre-emptive war would hurt our pride and tarnish our image as a country of laws, not a country of rulers. Again, preemptive wars, if used by other countries, will spark chaos. The world will return to its pre United Nations era, during which the rule of the jungle prevailed.
We learned in school (Maslow’s Theory of needs and motivations) that people have needs to satisfy before they aspire to power that might be begotten from democracy. They want to stay alive. They need food, air, and water. They need to be safe from physical and psychological harm. They need affection and belonging. Then they may need democracy so they may feel important and strong.
It is hard to convince people that democracy is good for them if they were hungry, if they feel insecure, or if they feel unloved. Democracy will not have any chance to hold If people do not have a shelter to protect them from the elements of the weather, and if they do not have basic protection against predators.
They need jobs. They need to learn how to farm their land efficiently. They need factories to add value to their natural resources. They need health care to protect them against simple and pandemic diseases. They need love. If we give them love, they get their basic needs with it.
Democracies are fortresses that protect the dignity of man. Their foundations must go deep to the bedrock of the land. We must love them and make them grow to want democracy. Patience is required. Building democratic communities is not like building a car on an assembly line.
Also, which democracy do we wish to export to other countries? Is it the democracy that was the foundation of our country, or a democracy that might keep these democracies open to outside meddling? Is it the democracy that produces a government of the people, for the people, by the people, which sounds nice, or some other form of government that may be more efficient?
Alex de Tocqueville, a 19th century French historian, enlightened us about our own democracy and warned us against its vulnerability in the face of corruption. Democracy is not uniform but is a range with shades and colors. There is a French democracy, and English democracy. There are underdeveloped countries that seem to have different forms of democracy. Do we shun them because their democracies are different from ours, or do we try to understand their governments, and encourage them to keep developing their democracies until they mature?
What is wrong with tribal democracy? I wish scholars study tribal democracies and inform us of their strengths and weaknesses. A locally developed democracy based on local tradition and culture may be more effective than a totally imported democracy.
Democracy where individuals have a say in the making of their governments and in the functioning of its institutions is a blessing to the people who embrace it. But for our democracy to flourish in foreign soil it needs solid foundations. That foundation is love. The best way to democratize a country is to love its people, instead of dividing and colonizing them. It is better to love them and help them obtain their basic needs for survival. If we do that for them, some will love us, and they may trust us. Then, with time, democracy will follow.

Please take a minute and tell me what think.

About me

2008-03-12T10:26:00.000-07:00

Mahmoud S. Audi

Education: Bachelor of Engineering, the American University of Beirut, Lebanon

Master of Science (Aerospace Engineering), Syracuse University, New York

Ph.D. (Mechanical Engineering), Syracuse University, New York

Experience: Professor of Engineering, 24 years;

Professional Engineer including design of HVAC systems, 10 years;

Science and Math teacher, 6 years.

Publications: About 40 professional articles

A book on Solar Energy (Arabic)

Organized a conference on renewable energy "Renewable Energy: Research and Applications" and Edited its 2-volume proceedings

What am I doing now: Consulting and writing. I have written opinion newspaper articles about culture, politics, and religion, and I will continue to do so, as a civic duty. My articles present points of view from a different angle.

I have finished writing the first draft of a memoir Teaching and beyond: My Diary about Teaching, Living, and Traveling in Saudi Arabia. I am looking for an agent or a publisher.

Email address: draudiphd@yahoo.com or audi.mahmoud@gmail.com

To Google (or yahoo) me, write one of the following in the search field (box)

["Mahmoud S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.
or, ["Dr. Mahmoud S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.
or, ["M. S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.
or, ["Dr. M. S. Audi"] without the brackets, but keep the quotation marks.