Middle East peace requires real courage from both sides

Middle East peace requires real courage from both sides

By Ray Hanania

On the eve of a long-hoped-for meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, members of the Hamas terrorist organization killed four members of the Israeli terrorist settler movement.

The murders of the four settlers took place at Kiryat Arba in the West Bank where settlers have celebrated the memory of Dr. Baruch Goldstein, the American Jewish mass murderer who killed 29 Palestinians while they were praying at the Hebron Mosque. Amazingly, he wore an Israeli military uniform and the mosque was under the control of the Israeli army.

Talk about an inside job.

This act of terror is more than just a reminder that violence takes place on both sides – yes, Israel settlers kill Palestinians, too. It should remind us of the objective of extremist Palestinians and extremists Israelis, which is to block the peace process.

The extremists have been encouraged by Netnayhau who has been hesitant to give up his drive to take all of the land of the Palestinians in the West Bank and convert them in to illegal Israeli settlements. He has refused to really freeze settlement expansion and despite a minor hold on some insignificant “outposts,” the settlements continue to expand with new construction and more settlers.

Abbas has been trying his best to embrace peace, demanding only that Israel stop expelling Palestinian homeowners from East Jerusalem, which is located in the Israeli occupied West Bank and is a Palestinian majority. Israel has been building homes for settlers in East Jerusalem while demolishing the homes of Palestinian families there for the past decade.

The problem facing both Netanyahu and Abbas is a political problem. And the question is, do they have the courage to do the right thing? Do they have the courage to stand up to the fanatics in their own community and confront the growing anger from the moderates who are pulled apart by violence, failure, and the actions of the other side?

We know what the peace agreement is. Two states. Israel closes some settlements and gives the Palestinian lands in Israel in exchange for the illegal settlements that it keeps.

East Jerusalem is divided not by a wall but by sovereignty with people able to travel throughout the Holy City. The Jewish section though falls under Israeli control and the Palestinian sections, three quarters of the city, come under Palestinian control.

The Palestinian refugees are addressed with real options, not false promises of returning to lands they will never see. Relocation to the Palestinian State. A fund to support their development. An apology and acknowledgement from Israel for that country’s role in intentionally taking their homes, lands and destroying their villages in 1948, an event that took place more than 62 years ago.

Most importantly, an internationally recognized border is drawn between Palestine and Israel that for the first time in history gives Palestine the power of international law if Israel breaks its agreement. Sovereignty gives Palestinians a power they have never had. They have always been the outcast in every international debate about their situation. Their non-sovereignty status has allowed Israel to do all the talking and direct all the action. Israel’s violence has been defined as “defense” while Palestinian violence has always been defined as “terrorism.”

A peace accord would change the power balance to fairness.

Palestine could continue to prosecute crimes as could Israel. Palestine could continue to push for more humanitarian treatment of Palestinians seeking to be compensated for lost lands and homes taken by Israel and so could Jews seeking to be compensated for lost lands and homes in the Arab World.

But if Netanyahu has the courage to stand up to the fanatics in Israel who are beating the drums of hatred and rejection, he could go down as one of the most influential Jewish leaders in modern human history.

If Abbas can push ahead and let go of Palestinian injured ego and pride, he could become the most important Palestinian leader, eclipsing the Hamas terrorist organization which claims power only on the basis of their ability to murder Israeli settlers and civilians and to threaten violence.

In peace, Hamas would slowly disappear. Their power would vanish. It is only in conflict that Hamas has power. And, it is only in rejection that the Israeli settler fanatics -- who murder innocent Palestinians all the time without even a mention in the mainstream American news media – find power. The settlers would disappear as a violent extremist force, too. And that is good for Israeli politics.

Take away power from the fanatics and the extremists on both sides by doing the right thing. And the right thing is for Abbas and Palestine and Netanyahu and Israel to return from their meetings in Washington D.C. with President Barack Obama by holding up an agreement for the world to see.

Make the peace now. Address the details we’ve been haggling over later. We know there will be fights over the line “dividing” Jerusalem. We know there will be fights over which lands Israel must surrender in exchange for the keeping the illegal settlements like Ariel and Gilo.

But we also know that failure means a future of far more violence than what we have witnessed over the past six months. From the attack on the civilians on the Gaza flotilla to the attack on the settlers at Kiryat Arba.

It’s a simple choice. Peace. Or, violence.

(Ray Hanania is distributed by Creators Syndicate. He writes a column every Wednesday for the Jerusalem Post and regularly for PalestineNote.com. He can be reached at www.RadioChicagoland.com.)

Jerusalem Post/Yalla Peace: A peace plan Obama might embrace

Yalla Peace: A peace plan Obama might embrace
By RAY HANANIA
13/04/2010 The Jerusalem Post

What can the US president offer? Attitude. A tough, strong and undeterred approach to peace.

President Barack Obama will reportedly offer his own peace plan to Palestinians and Israelis. Although the two sides have been working on peace for nearly two decades, nothing has succeeded.

There are too many people who oppose peace – Hamas and religious fanatics on the Palestinian side, and some settlers and religious fanatics on the Israeli side.

They don’t want peace because they each believe they can get it all if they can just keep the conflict going.

So what can Obama offer that hasn’t been offered? Well, he can offer attitude. A tough, strong and undeterred approach to peace. Obama can tell both sides to shake hands the way former president Bill Clinton did in 1993 on the White House lawn with Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin – an event I witnessed firsthand.

I’VE OUTLINED my own peace plan. It’s a part of my PR stunt to run for Palestinian president, but my real goal is to run for the Palestine Legislative Council from east Jerusalem. It’s simple, and detailed on my YallaPeace.com Web site.

Basically, draw the boundary roughly on the 1967 borders. Israel keeps most of the settlements, and gives Palestine land mass equal to land annexed from the West Bank.

The Palestinian refugee issue is resolved using the rule of reason not the rule of law. Refugees would surrender the “right of return” in exchange for financial compensation from an international fund and resettlement in the Palestinian state or assimilation into the Arab countries where they now reside.

Both sides would apologize to each other for the past and embrace this vision of moving forward.

Also on the table for discussion is my plan (which the Financial Times “borrowed,” to put it nicely) requiring Israel to take back some refugees, based on how many settlers remain in West Bank settlements. “Refugees for settlers” is a concept that needs to be explored.

The Arab countries, too, would work with Israel to compensate Jews who lost lands and homes as a result of the conflict. (How Palestinians and Jews “lost” land and property is irrelevant in this discussion. It doesn’t matter if they left voluntarily or were forced to flee.)

The status of citizenship would remain the same. But Jews who wish to live in Palestine could do so and retain Israeli citizenship for voting purposes, although they must abide by Palestinian laws. Jews should be permitted to live in any area of Palestine, including Hebron.

The same for Palestinians. Refugees who “return” to Israel under the “settler-refugee exchange program” would be given Palestinian citizenship. And, Palestinian citizens of Israel could receive dual citizenship too, living by Israel’s laws. Settlers in settlements not annexed by Israel and surrendered to Palestine would be given the same option to keep Israeli citizenship.

It’s worth exploring at a higher, more detailed level.

The Old City of Jerusalem would be shared, with Israel taking the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall and Palestine taking the Armenian, Muslim and Christian Quarters. There, Palestine can establish its capital alongside Israel’s, which would be recognized by all.

The West Bank and Gaza Strip could be linked by an underground subway, or by an air corridor of shuttle flights.

The Arab world would normalize relations with Israel, and each would open embassies in each country. Palestine would be a non-military nation for the first 20 years, and would eventually partner with Israel to form a Palestinian-Israeli military, even creating merged Palestinian-Israel police.

Maps that exist today would be replaced with maps that show both country names and boundaries.

NOW, WE all know that violence will not disappear. The fact is regardless of whether it is peace or not, violence will continue, though it will be diminished considerably.

Extremist Jews and extremist Arabs will continue to sabotage the peace plan just as they undermined the Oslo Accords, but once there is peace, the major flash points will end.

Laws would be adopted to ban hate speech, and while Israelis and Palestinians can continue their own different narratives of history, a Palestinian–Israeli commission would be formed to forge a common consensus of a “peace history.” Eventually, both Israeli and Palestinian children would learn the two different narratives and the consensus peace narrative to help improve relations.

Israel would work with Palestine to create a major port in the Gaza Strip to develop an economic engine for commerce and international trade. A fund would be created that would provide grants to encourage Palestinian and Israeli cooperation to create businesses together.

Both countries will join a commission of conciliation in which grievances and failed promises are discussed. The US and several Arab countries would send representatives.

Finally, on the Palestinian side, we would also have to reengineer the existing election system. Right now it does not work. The process should be changed to permit political parties to hold primaries to elect their candidates, who would then run in a general election.

The winner of the election would not be the candidate with the most votes, but the candidate who receives 50 percent plus one vote of all votes cast.

Admittedly, this is my “anti-Hamas election rule” to prevent a radical minority from holding the entire country hostage with not a majority vote but a plurality vote. Only political parties that embrace nonviolence and the peace process could participate. Those that refuse can be shown the door.

I believe, and many other Palestinians and Israelis I have met believe, that this plan is doable. It requires both sides to make concessions, each difficult in different ways.

It’s a simple plan with simple rules. Palestinians and Israelis need peace badly, and they need it now.

It’s just an idea, but one that best encompasses most of what both sides would accept.
Obama can’t make everyone happy. But with a good peace plan, he can help make both sides safe.

Named Best Ethnic Columnist in America by New America Media, the writer is a Palestinian-American columnist and peace activist. He can be reached at www.YallaPeace.com

What Arabs and Muslims hope for from President Obama's speech tonight

American Arabs and Muslims on hopes for Obama

By Ray Hanania

President Barack Obama tonight delivers his State of the Union address, as he rounds the end of his first year in office.

I brought the topic up on my radio show “Radio Chicagoland”and also discussed it on NPR and a few other programs around the country.

What are Arab and Muslim Americans expecting from Obama? And what do they hope for?

Obama is from Chicago, so he is a familiar face to me where I have covered politics as a journalist for more than 33 years. We always knew he was inspirational as a speaker, but we also knew that his inspirational chatter doesn’t always deliver in legislation.

He was a so-so member of the Illinois Senate, close friend of several slippery Chicagoland Arab American activists and as a U.S. Senator, he was a celebrity more than an effective leader driving through important legislation to help his state, Illinois.

But everyone wants inspiration, especially after the tragedy of eight years under former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney – who I call “the anti-Christ” in my standup comedy routine, reflecting his vicious policies that have driven America into near economic ruin. Of course, to be honest, that is very unfair to the anti-Christ.

Obama delivered inspiration. Sometimes that’s all we need to restore confidence, hope and rejuvenate our efforts towards justice.

But there were problems and many Arab American especially recognized those problems right away.

No one pushed Obama to “get tough” with Israel, but Obama did it demanding that Israel’s rightwing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (who could change, maybe) that the expansion of illegal settlements must change.

Well, we all know how that car crash ended. Netanyahu snubbed his nose at Obama and he is still expanding illegal settlements, undermining Middle East peace and fueling continued conflict there.

But it was Obama’s speech to the “Muslim” World that set off many Arabs. The Middle East conflict is NOT a Muslim issue, although Muslims are a large part of the conflict. It is a secular problem involving Arabs who are only a small percentage of the World’s Muslim community. In fact, Arab Muslims are a minority in the Islamic World just as Christian Arabs are a minority in the Arab World.

So when Obama, who has experience in the Muslim World and a Muslim father, characterized his speech as being to the “Muslim World,” many secular Arabs were concerned that maybe Obama doesn’t even understand the fundamentals of the Middle East conflict. So, how can he resolve the problems there?

It’s not a unique problem for Obama. It is an American problem. When the nation’s first daily Islamic radio program launched several years back, it received national media coverage.

When the nation’s first daily Arab radio program launched two years later,  the media ignored it.

Worse in all this are Obama’s non-Middle East troubles.

How can you expect President Obama to resolve the Middle East conflict when he can’t even control his own party of Democrats? Nor can he get even a fundamental package through to give universal healthcare to all Americans, something most other world nations that don’t claim to be the “leader of the Free World” offer to their own citizens.

It is, after all, only Obama’s first year. But it is a good lesson in the damage one can cause by giving people expectations that are too high and maybe unreasonable. Unreasoned expectations, apparently, are the fruit of inspirational speeches.

What does he need to do? Listeners to my radio show, Arabs and mainstream Americans across the board seem agreed on this:

He can put his foot down and challenge Israel’s Netanyahu. Freezing settlements is a simple act that Israel could easily do if the government there genuinely supported peace.

Obama could also get tough on the rebels in the Democratic Party and among Republicans in districts with strong Democratic votes.

Why did Obama allow U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman to retain his perqs and committee chairmanships after Lieberman torpedoed Obama’s health care reform legislation? Lieberman opposes “government run healthcare” in the United States, but not in Israel a foreign country where Lieberman spends most of his Senatorial efforts to help.

Obama should get tough. Legislators who refuse to support his programs should be punished, not rewarded or allowed to retain their leadership positions.

But the bottom line is this. Despite all of his failings, Barack Obama is a far better president than Bush ever was.

And in American politics, it is not about “who is the best.” Politics is sadly only about “who is better.”

-          - Ray Hanania hosts America’s only morning daily Arab American radio show, www.RadioChicagoland.com. This column first appeared at PalestineNote.com

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize and that puts world's evil on notice

President Obama’s genuine desire for peace earns Nobel Peace Prize
By Ray Hanania

President Obama’s first call in coming to office was to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. He then made an epoch speech to the Arab and Muslim world to repair the damage caused by his rightwing and narrow-minded predecessor President George W. Bush.

Obama has pushed the Israelis to force them to accept peace based on returning Arab lands, even though the Israelis have surrounded the wagons and have allowed Israel’s most racist elected official, foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman to become their spokesman. In fact, Israel’s Lieberman is the new face of hate in the world.

He is shifting from the illegal American war and occupation in Iraq to the genuine fight against terrorism and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

And Obama has vowed to the American people that despite this country having wasted hundreds of billions on politically motivated wars driven by oil money greed, he will fight to make their own country a place where every American will be guaranteed the right to adequate healthcare, something most Americans now lack.

You don’t even need to read the announcement from the Nobel Committee explaining why they have given this year’s Peace Prize to President Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama is more than just a president seeking justice. His name has come to symbolize a movement of change. Change from a past driven by racist bigotry and hatred to a future of justice where the Rule of Law actually has relevance and justice is based on issues of principle and fairness, not on partisan political influence.

Israel is not just a “Jewish State” in Obama’s eyes, but a nation that must also abide by the Rule of Law. Hypocrisy has no place in Obama’s administration, which is why his words have placed special notice on Israel which has more nuclear weapons than any other power outside of the United States and Russia. And yet Israel refuses, like Iran, to abide by the International rules seeking to limit and monitor and inspect nuclear weapons.

Although Obama has not achieved any of his mighty goals, the fact that he has set them is what earns him the special honor. It takes a real courageous man in this world to stand up to the forces of hatred and bias to advocate for fairness for all.

Obama’s policies may or may not achieve their stated goals, but they have already changed the dynamics of one important region of the world in the Middle East.

The Nobel Peace Prize award will put a special pressure on Israel to stop pretending that it supports peace. It throws cold water on the face of Israel’s arrogant and reticent society that it cannot pretend to seek peace and embrace politics and politics of racism, apartheid, bigotry and war.

Israel cannot pretend to support peace and continue to occupy the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and continue to imprison 1.4 million civilians in the world’s largest and most oppressive prison system called the Gaza Strip.

Israel cannot claim the right of defense when it is in offense against justice, the Rule of Law and peace, and it cannot hide behind lies it perpetrated through the manipulation of a friendly international media to assert that Hamas started the Nov. 2008 war. In fact, everyone knows that Israel started that war for one reason, to exact punishment on Hamas before Obama could be sworn in as president.

For the first time in World History, the facts are clear and all of the crimes in this world have been placed together shoulder-to-shoulder. Israel’s phony claims of being the victim when it is in fact the aggressor and oppressor are exposed.

Barack Hussein Obama is what the late great President John F. Kennedy is said to have been but could never become. He is the light of hope that might open the door to a world that is genuinely at peace and where all men and women are created equally and where the concerns of the poor are as important as the concerns of the wealthy.

As an American and a Palestinian Arab Christian, I am proud of this year’s choice for the Nobel Peace Prize, and in a way I feel a special part in that award as if the peace prize has been awarded not to just one man, but to an entire world of people who have not completely given up on hope.


(Ray Hanania is an award winning columnist and Chicago radio talks how host. he can be reached at www.RadioChicagoland.com.)

Understanding Israeli public opinion and President Barack Obama

A recent poll in Israel reports that only 4 percent of Israelis there believe President Barack Obama is "pro-Israel" and that more than 51 percent believe he is "pro-Palestinian." Although the question is a little misleading. It is do you believe Obama is "more" pro-Palestinian or "more" pro-Israeli.

When you ask it like that, the question numbers go in the direction the pollsters want. But then, what does "more" really mean?

In this case, it could mean we finally have a president who looks at the issues rather than the campaign war chest and fundraising and the votes. Maybe Obama really is interested in pushing both the Palestinians and Israelis to reach an agreement.

Why would Israelis think Obama is "more" pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli?

Well, maybe some thought that he was Israeli since he shares his first name with Israel's foreign minister and former prime minister Ehud Barak. They just assume anyone with that name is going to be "more" pro-Israel.

On the other hand, if you look at the issues, Obama has asked Israel to abide by international law and stop the expansion of the illegal settlements, which is not something that is "too much" to ask, although his insistence on asking Israel to abide by Israeli law is "more" substantive than his weak-minded predecessor George W. Bush who went along with whatever the Israeli lobby put on his tiny plate.

Asking Israel to "compromise" in exchange for peace with the Palestinians does put President Obama in a special place.

Putting the interests of the United States above the interests of Israel or any other foreign country, does make President Obama different from any of his predecessors.

Making fairness a criteria in the Palestine-Israeli peace process does make President Obama "more" special than any of his predecessors, including President Bill Clinton who during negotiations in 2000 between Ehud Barak and the late President Yasir Arafat pretended to be Israeli and pushed his own agenda.

President Obama is not pushing his own agenda. He's not in anyone's back pocket. The Israeli lobby in the United States must be besides itself wondering what the heck is going on.

But if being fair, just and dedicated to genuine peace means that "more" people might think you are not on their side, then maybe that's the price someone in this country should finally pay if the United States is going to continue to insist on being the sole arbiter of the so-far elusive Middle East Peace.

-- Ray Hanania

www.RadioChicagoland.com

Obama names new communications team -- no Arabs

President Obama names new communications team – no Arabs included
By Ray Hanania

It's hard to fight anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bias in the mainstream news media, let alone in mainstream society, if no one wants to help.

Being Arab is a double-edged scimitar. Everyone knows you are a problem from all the media coverage given to the Middle East, terrorism, narrow and usually racist stereotypes, but few Americans turn to you to ask for help. So the problems never get resolved. They only are exacerbated by the continuing ignorance and lack of education.

President Barack Obama apparently is no different. This week, he announced a slew of communications appointments to strengthen his outreach to the minority and "new media" community. Most of the appointments were rewards for battles fought during the election. None of them are American Arab or Middle Eastern in heritage.

Click here to read the list.

Well. At least they included us in the press release for distribution.

There are African Americans, Hispanics, Asians. All kinds of folks and backgrounds. I couldn't find one American Arab in the list. That's too bad. There are more than 90 American Arab publications in the United States, according to monitoring we do at the National Arab American Journalists Association (www.NAAJA-US.com). It has been growing since many papers shutdown immediately after the racist backlash that began after Sept. 11, 2001 when crime took on a chiseled-in-rock face.

I think it contradicts the President's claimed message that he made when he appeared on al-Arabiyya Satellite television in the Middle East. The station is one of several Arab and English language news broadcasts that reach not only Arabs in the Middle East but Arabs in America. So we saw and heard his effort to "reach out" to the Middle East and tell them how much he cares. Cares, but not enough to give American Arabs appointments or roles in his government yet. not enough to respect veteran American Arab journalist Helen Thomas at a recent news conference when she asked a very pointed question and he dodged it somewhat embarrassingly for Thomas.

Thomas rightly pushed Obama during his first press conference, after he pulled the wool over al-Arabiyya's eyes and the Arab World, was about the hypocrisy regarding nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Everyone, including Obama, denounces countries like Iran that are working towards nuclear weapons, but mumble and avoid discussing the 200-plus nuclear weapons Israel has which are outside of International scrutiny and monitoring.

She asked Obama about the "so-called" terrorists in Pakistan, making the point that the claim of terrorism is often thrown own recklessly for political reasons rather than reality. And he avoided any reference to her question that raised reporter's eyebrows "Do you know of any countries in the region that have nuclear weapons?"

She may be 80 years old but she is not stupid.

Obama responded with a lot of blah, blah, blah that began "With respect to nuclear weapons, I don't want to speculate ... " But he avoided noting that Israel has nuclear bombs. And when she tried to follow up, he just ignored her, looked at his card which listed "approved" journalists to select at the press conference and moved on back to the mainstream fantasy world understanding of the Middle East.

But that's unusual for Thomas. During the Bush regime, Thomas was often snubbed and openly insulted by the late Tony Snow, who many said carried hateful views of American Arabs and Muslims. When Thomas asked about the the Israel-Lebanon ‘Summer War,’ Snow ignored her questions that focused on hypocrisy in the Bush policies, and once thanked her for her “Hezbollah view.” He then accused her of "hectoring," which I think was more of a slam against the mainstream media that sat there and kissed Bush's ass during many press conference involving the important and ignored Middle East issues than it was of Thomas, who is a true journalist in the spirit of the Watergate Era that drove many like myself into this unfulfilling profession that continues to fail to live up to its great promises of fairness, objectivity and "just the news."

Maybe the Arab World will wise up. Or more likely, maybe it won't.

(Ray Hanania is an award winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. He can be reached at www.RadioChicagoland.com and by email at rayhanania@comcast.net.)