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!
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
As an American I am ashamed of my president
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.
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.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Obama’s promise of “Change” failed the test
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.
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.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
In search of a homeland--the keynote speaker and I
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.
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.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Hillary or Obama? It’s time to choose
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.
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.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
In search of a homeland--A conference
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.
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.
Friday, April 4, 2008
The sooner we 'cut and run' in Iraq, the better
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
