Arab-Latam bid for a diverse world,

By Lucia Newman, Latin America editor
The Moors invaded and conquered much of the Iberian Peninsula in 711AD.

By the time they were driven out of Granada in 1492, the Arabs had left an indelible racial and cultural imprint.

Both the Spanish and Portuguese languages have a marked Arabic influence.

Yet when the Spanish and Portuguese crossed the Atlantic to conquer America, the close connection with the Arab world was somehow lost as the new colonies fought to establish their own identities.

More than five centuries later, the arrival of South American heads of state in Doha, Qatar, to attend a presidential summit with Arab leaders is a conscious effort on each side to rediscover the other and forge a relationship that is seen as long overdue.

For Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the president of Brazil, it is a priority.

"It is imperative for the countries of South America to establish a real understanding with the nations of the Middle East, with the Arab world, so that we can establish not just a commercial relationship, but a political and cultural relationship, so that we can be free of the ties and decisions of the so called rich countries," he said in an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera.

Common ties

The effort to find common ground with the Arab region reflects Latin America's changing priorities.

In the last eight years, the political map has changed radically, with every major South American country, except Peru and Colombia, now being led by a left or centre-left government.

From Venezuela' fiercely anti-American president, Hugo Chavez, to Chile's and Brazil's more moderate leaders, all are staunch proponents of a multi-polar world, not dominated by a super power nor a bloc of industrialised nations.

"Ten years ago it would have been impossible to think of a meeting like this between the Arabs and Latin America or South America," Chavez said.

"It is now that the left-wing movements have managed to obtain political power and lead governments in Latin America, that this possibility has opened, because before our governments would always kneel before the US state department," he said.

Limited links

While they are on opposite sides of the globe and have very different cultures and political structures, the two regions share a common colonial experience.

Given the changing global political and economic map, South America and the Arab region are attempting to join forces, so their voices carry more weight, especially in multi-lateral forums such as the G20 group of leading industrialised nations.

South America's powerhouse, Brazil, is counting on Arab support to help push its candidacy for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council which, if successful, would give the Arab region an ally in a strategic arena.

The South American-Arab Leaders' Summit was the brainchild of the Brazilian president, who hosted the first such meeting in 2005 in Brasilia.

At the time it was little more than a declaration of good intentions to strengthen ties, yet it was as significant first step.

"Our relations with [the Arab world] were very limited, very small ... we had a trade balance of $8bn with the Arab world, and after that meeting, after that initiative of our government, our trade balance has climbed to $20bn," Lula said.

Something similar has happened in Argentina where, in just three years, exports to the Arab region have jumped from $1.8bn to $4.5bn, according to Sattam Al Kaddour, the secretary-general of the Argentine-Arab Chamber of Commerce.

Arabian origins

It should not be so surprising.

There are up to 20m Arabs and descendants of Arabs living in the region, most of them in South America.

In Brazil alone, there are an estimated 10m. About 8m of them are Lebanese - more than in Lebanon itself.

Argentina has an estimated 3.5m people of Syrian and Lebanese origin. Carlos Menem, Argentina's former president, is the son of Syrian immigrants.

Neighbouring Chile has the largest community of people of Palestinian origin outside of the Middle East, the vast majority Christian Palestinians who migrated from Beit Jala and Bethlehem.

The first exodus occurred in the mid-19th century, when Palestine was ruled by the Ottomans.

After the foundation of Israel in 1948, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians lost their homes, many Christian Arabs followed their ancestors to the Americas.

The majority went to Chile, where the mountains and Mediterranean climate of Santiago's central valley seemed familiar.

Today, many Chilean Palestinians are prominent members of the business and political community.

Nevertheless, despite the large number of South Americans of Arab origin, the direct contact between the two regions has been limited.

It was not until last year that the first direct flight between a South American city (Sao Paulo) and an Arab country (Dubai) was inaugurated.

Trade benefits

So, why has it taken so long?

Celso Amorim, the Brazilian foreign minister, said: "Until now, both regions used to always look towards the United States or towards Europe, but never towards each other.

"The unprecedented push to bring the two regions closer is being applauded, especially by the South American business community.

"The potential here is unimaginable because, if we look towards the Arab world as a whole and Latin America, we see that the economies of the two regions compliment each other perfectly.

"In the Arab region they have large deserts and a very dry climate, and in Latin America we have green, fertile soil and 26 per cent of the world’s fresh water supply," Al Kaddour said.

The balance of trade so far is in South America's favour.

"The food export sector is the most important right now because the Arab region is a big buyer of food products and South America, especially Brazil and Argentina, are countries with a large agro-industry," Al Kaddour said.

It is hoped the second South American-Arab Leaders' Summit in Doha will give a push to the new found relationship.

The widespread sympathy for the Palestinian cause in South America, especially after Israel's recent war on Gaza in which more than 1,300 Palestinians were killed, should contribute.

Venezuela and Bolivia went as far as to expel the Israeli ambassadors in their countries, and Chile and Brazil issued strong condemnations during the Israeli attacks on Gaza.

"It is very interesting to exchange views between Arab and South American leaders, to establish accords, no?" Chavez said.

"The most important thing, though, is the geopolitical relationship. I think this is the beginning of a path that we are building, in the construction of a multi-polar world."

Source: Al Jazeera

UN watchdog condemns war on Gaza

A resolution condemning Israel's military offensive in Gaza has been adopted by the UN Human Rights Council.

The non-binding resolution, approved in Geneva on Monday, said Israel's operation had "resulted in massive violations of human rights of the Palestinian people".

More than 900 Palestinians have died during the fighting, many of them women and children, and a further 4,100 have been wounded.

At least 25,000 have been displaced due to the ongoing bombardment, but are unable to flee the overcrowded territory as crossing points remain closed.

The resolution, drafted by Arab, Asian and African countries, called for an international mission to be sent immediately to the Gaza Strip to investigate Israel's actions.

It also called for an immediate end to the "launching of the crude rockets against Israeli civilians" by the Palestinian factions.
Israel launched its operation on December 27 after a ceasefire with Hamas ended a week earlier, stating its objective was to target the Palestinian faction's infrastructure and bring an end to the firing of homemade rockets into southern Israel.

'Fairytale world'

Fewer states than expected supported the resolution, which passed by 33 votes to one, with 13 abstentions. The US, not a member of the council, took no part in the debate.

Israel dismissed it as one-sided and reflecting the "fairytale world" of the 47-member council.

The text of the document said the council "strongly condemns the ongoing Israeli military operations ... which have resulted in massive violations of human rights of the Palestinian people and systematic destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure".

The resolution was opposed by Canada while European countries, Japan and South Korea abstained.

The resolution was backed by, among others, Russia, China, Argentina and Brazil.

During a debate on the resolution, Pakistan, speaking for the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), denounced what it called Israel's "unrestrained use of force, killing of innocent civilians" and violation of UN havens.

At least 40 people died last Tuesday when the UN-run school they were sheltering in was hit by Israeli fire.

'Massive violations'

All European Union countries abstained and Canada voted against the resolution.

Rupert Colville, a spokesman for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, told Al Jazeera: "In the end they [the UN] passed the resolution, it was not unanimous. I would not say it was that heated, at the end of the day there were still differences of opinion.
"Many states praised the Palestinian delegation for the flexibility they had shown in the negotiations, but they could not quite reach a consensus."

Speaking in the Gaza Strip, John Ging, head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) operations in Gaza, repeated his call for an immediate end to the fighting.

"I say now, to all politicians, here in Israel and internationally, you have an obligation to the ordinary people in the name of humanity and all that is civilised, we need to stop this now. Those who help will never be forgotten.

"Israel is responsible for its own actions and it is very clear to us that there are a lot of actions in this conflict that will need to be fully investigated independently and internationally.

"Those who have been killed and injured, those who are innocent, deserve accountability."

Peter Splinter, Amnesty International's representative at the United Nations in Geneva, backed the call for an investigation, saying "there must be a full accountability for war crimes".

"Evidence of war crimes is presenting itself each day," he told Al Jazeera.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a former UN secretary-general, added his perspective on the situation, saying the assault on Gaza "is a present the Israelis gave to the fundamentalists".

"It will reinforce extremists, fundamentalists, all over Arab countries and even inside Israel," he said.

Boutros-Ghali was headed the UN from 1992 to 1997.

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

Open Letter to President-elect Obama By Dr. Abdel-Fattah Mady

I write this letter to the US President-elect, Barack Obama, as a Muslim and Arab, believing that it expresses the feelings and aspirations of most Muslims and Arabs. My ultimate sincere aim is to convey to the new president insights into what the real problem in the Middle East is, how the majority of Arabs and Muslims feel toward US foreign policy and how the United States should modify this policy to restore American credibility in the region, reduce anti-Americanism, and achieve a real and complete peaceful solution. It is a time when soberness and candor are more necessary than ever before.

The Problem of Israeli Occupation
Mr. President,
Many peoples in the Middle East believe that the core problem in the region is not a dispute among two nations on borders or territories as the American administration started describing the Israeli-Arab conflict in the 1990s.

The problem is the Israeli occupation of Arab territories in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. It revolves around the longest, ongoing occupation in the recent history. An occupation which has engaged, in practice, grave breaches of international law, including colonial settlements, extra-judicial assassinations, "authorized" torture, house demolitions, extended curfews, destruction of agricultural land and civilian property, deportations, use of civilians as human shields, and other forms of collective punishment and repressive measures that have failed to bring "security" to Israel over the last 60 years.

The previous American administrations claimed that the problem is that Arab countries oppose a peaceful settlement with Israel and that Israel is defending itself against Arabs. Mr. President, please ask your aides to provide you with three important documents:
1. The Saudi-inspired peace plan adopted by the Arab Summit in Beirut in March 2002, which called for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967 in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel. Israel rejected this plan and your predecessor never tried to push Israel to consider it.
2. Documents officially and publicly announced and published by the Israeli government which show Yitzhak Rabin's addresses to the Israeli Knesset on Oct. 27, 1994, and May 29, 1995 (during the Oslo process in 1990s) that contrast with UN resolutions 242 and 338 and the Oslo Accords.

Further, you need to see documents published by several Israeli human rights organizations which provide empirical evidence indicating that (a) under Rabin's government, the growth of the Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories was greater than it had been under the previous "hard-line" Likud government of Yitzhak Shamir; (b) during Ehud Barak's tenure (18 months), the number of settlers grew by 12 percent; and (c) between Sept. 1993 and Sept. 2001 the number of West Bank settlements (excluding East Jerusalem) increased by about 90 percent. (Yehezkel Lein and Eyal Weizman, Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank, B'Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights, May 2002, p.12).
3. A set of scholarly studies and testimonies before Congress which highlighted the issue of Israel's use of American-made weapons and possible Israel violation of US laws, especially the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) and the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (AECA). AECA specifies that American-supplied weapons may only be used for "internal security" and "legitimate self-defense purposes" and that American weapons cannot be transferred to a third country without US approval.

As many Human Rights organizations reveal, the Israeli army uses American-made weapons to suppress Palestinians under occupation. Furthermore, charges were raised in the Congress in 1982 and 1992 about the possibility that Israel transferred US arms or technology — without US permission — to Iran, China, South Africa, Chile, Ethiopia, and other countries.

US Protection of Israel
Mr. President,
In that region, it is widely believed that the United States is not only responsible for what is taking place, but also is undermining the Middle East peace process and jeopardizing the stability of whole world. The occupation forces — which violate many UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, the Hague Convention, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — are militarily and economically backed by the United states.

Around the world, countries as well as international and Israeli Human Right organizations have condemned Israel's aggressive policies. Only the United States has opposed almost all UN Security Council resolutions that are critical of Israel. The United States not only provided diplomatic protection in the UN organs (more than 40 American vetoes since October), but also increased its economic and military aid to Israel.
People in this part of the world are intensely aware that US policy in the Middle East is based on double standards. While the United States supported UN resolutions in the cases of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, East Timor, Rwanda, Kuwait, and Iraq (and suspended all licenses and approval concerning the export of defense articles and services to Yugoslavia, Indonesia, and Rwanda), it did not support UN resolutions when it came to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead, in spite of Israeli violations, the United States kept on increasing its aid to Israel. It is easy to provide numerous examples of double standards.
The conflict has affected not only the Palestinian and Israeli peoples and the stability of the region, but also the interests of the American people, especially in light of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and popular anger in the Arab world directed at US foreign policy.

Also, many American intellectuals have begun to write about the cost of American support for Israel. On April 21, 2002, former President Jimmy Carter wrote in the New York Times that American aid to Israel is approximately $10 million daily. In the Christian Science Monitor article published on Dec. 9, 2002, economist Thomas Stauffer estimates that since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion.

Resistance is not Terrorism
Mr. President,
Many people in Arab and Muslim countries believe that it is not accurate to judge Palestinian and Lebanese resistance to Israeli occupation the same way we judge the terrorist attacks against America. Peoples under occupation have the universally acknowledged right of legitimate resistance of the foreign occupation.

They are doing exactly what the Europeans did with the Nazis in Europe or the Africans did in their struggle against Apartheid in South Africa. The previous administration made US foreign policy in the region identical to that of Israeli right-wing extremists, whose vital goal is to make Israel's conflict with the Palestinians synonymous with the US war on terror.
Previous US administrations kept on talking about conditions generating terror in Arab and Islamic countries, citing dictatorship, poverty, and other cultural factors. Some of these might be true. Yet what is missing in US thinking is the feelings of frustration and anger shared by millions of Arabs and Muslims as they witness how Israeli occupation forces humiliate and suppress the Palestinians, and how Israeli laws and regulations officially discriminate against the Arab minority inside Israel.

Of course, frustration, injustice, and anger pushed those who lost their beloved relatives or suffered from the destruction of their homes to react to Israeli aggression by sacrificing their lives, the only way they find possible to confront their oppressors, who are armed with the most sophisticated war machines.

Blind bias towards Israel and Washington's double standards policy pave the way for more violence and extremism in the Middle East, and also make the United States' call for domestic "reform" in Muslim and Arab countries sound suspect. Undoubtedly, there is a strong correlation between US policy toward Israelis and Arabs and the feelings and grievances of Arab and Muslims around the world.
Mr. President,
People in this part of the world will never give up their right to self-determination, to return to their land, and to live peacefully and freely. They seek a just, comprehensive, and peaceful solution, which protects their rights. A solution that will also secure the region, protect US interests, and restore its credibility as a mediator.

A solution that should involve the end of occupation in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Syrian Golan Heights, and Lebanese Shab'a Farms, and the elimination of all racist laws, regulations, and policies toward the Arab minority inside Israel.

It is now up to you, Mr. Obama, to diminish the harmful, disastrous impacts of the previous US administrations' policies towards the Middle East and work vividly for the interests of US people.

Dr. Abdel-Fattah Mady is an assistant professor of political science at Alexandria University, Egypt.

American Muslims continue to engage in politics and are beginning to have more impact than before. By Muqtedar Khan

…all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

-- , United Nation (1786).

In this presidential election cycle, American Muslims became a subtext of American politics that exposed the profound religious bigotry embedded in some segments of American society.

A few months ago, some unscrupulous activists were sending emails claiming that Barak Obama was secretly a Muslim and in spite of repeated denials, often vehement ones, by the Obama campaign, for a long time nearly 10% of the country believed in them. The main assumption behind this tactic was that for some the mere possibility that Obama was Muslim was sufficient to discredit him.

The irony of this episode during the campaign season is that the cads who were claiming that Obama was secretly a Muslim were banking on the existence of religious bigotry amongst McCain's supporters. The subtext of this tactics: We have many bigots in our society let us exploit this reality by spreading lies about Obama's faith.

Another episode highlights the persistence of prejudice. At a campaign event, John McCain took the microphone away from a supporter who was saying that Obama was an Arab and said "No, ma'am. He's a decent family man [and] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign's all about. He's not [an Arab]."

McCain's answer was more distressing than the sentiment of his ignorant follower. The gist of his reply appears to be that Obama is not an Arab; he is a decent family man and a citizen. The subtext of his answer: Arabs are foreigners, indecent and have no family values; and since Obama was a decent fellow he could not be an Arab.

So why do some in a party that has been served so well by Arab Americans like John Sununu, a former governor and current senator from New Hampshire, and Spencer Abraham the former senator from Michigan and co-chairman of the Republican Party (there are many more examples) fear and disapprove of Arabs? Well the subtext is: For some Arabs are ok as long as they are Christians; it's the Muslim ones who are unacceptable.

This is such a shame. But fortunately the Republican Party's afflictions are not mainstream anymore. America has changed significantly and for the better.

Most Americans know that the bipartisan 9/11 Commission report not only exonerated American Muslims of any connections to the attacks on 9/11, but also did not see them as a future threat at all. Several studies have found American Muslims to be typical examples of mainstream, upwardly mobile, middle class Americans, who far from being suspect are an asset to this nation.

American Muslims continue to engage in politics and are beginning to have more impact than before. In the past two years, Americans have elected two practicing and openly Muslim Muslims to the U.S. Congress; Keith Ellison from Minnesota's fifth district and Andre Carson from Indiana's seventh district.

Zalmay Khalilzad is currently the U.S.' ambassador to the United Nations and has in recent years served as the U.S. ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan. Fareed Zakaria, who like Khalilzad is also a Muslim, is now a major voice in America's political discourse. And Kareem Khan, who won a Bronze Star, and a Purple Heart, was martyred in Iraq while fighting for America.

They are all American heroes; extraordinary, each one of them. They show that in elected office, in government bureaucracy, in the military and in civil society; American Muslims are fighting the tide of Islamophobia, overcoming prejudice, and finding their rightful place in society.

General Colin Powell in his endorsement of Obama's candidacy, said: "'I am also troubled by - not what Senator McCain says - but what members of the Party say, and it is permitted to be said: such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian; has always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, "What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?"

No General Powell. There is nothing wrong with that. I am a Muslim, and a proud one at that.

Subtext: I voice my thoughts freely, boldly, and frequently. And like you, I too will fight to keep this country free – free from prejudice, free from xenophobia and free from intolerance.

Source : IslamOnline

Interview by Andrea Bistrich: Karen Armstrong (4)

So why aren't religious people compassionate? What does that say about them? Compassion is not a popular virtue. Many religious people prefer to be right rather than compassionate. They don't want to give up their egos. They want religion to give them a little mild uplift once a week so that they can return to their ordinary selfish lives, unscathed by the demands of their tradition. Religion is hard work; not many people do it well. But are secularists any better? Many secularists would subscribe to the compassionate ideal but are just as selfish as religious people. The failure of religious people to be compassionate doesn't tell us something about religion, but about human nature. Religion is a method: you have to put it into practice to discover its truth. But, unfortunately, not many people do.

Islam and the West

Discussing Western ideas of justice and democracy in the Middle East, British foreign correspondent of The Independent, Robert Fisk, says: "We keep on saying that Arabs ... would like some of our shiny, brittle democracy, that they'd like freedom from the secret police and freedom from the dictators-who we largely put there. But they would also like freedom from us. And they want justice, which is sometimes more important than 'democracy'". Does the West need to realize that Muslims can run a modern state, but it is perhaps not the kind of democracy we want to see?

As Muslim intellectuals made clear, Islam is quite compatible with democracy, but unfortunately democracy has acquired a bad name in many Muslim countries. It seems that the West has said consistently: we believe in freedom and democracy, but you have to be ruled by dictators like the shahs or Saddam Hussein. There seems to have been a double standard. Robert Fisk is right: when I was in Pakistan recently and quoted Mr Bush-"They hate our freedom!"-the whole audience roared with laughter.

Democracy cannot be imposed by armies and tanks and coercion. The modern spirit has two essential ingredients; if these are not present, no matter how many fighter jets, computers or sky scrapers you have, your country is not really "modern".

The first of these is independence. The modernization of Europe from 16th to the 20th century was punctuated by declarations of independence on all fronts: religious, intellectual, political, economic. People demanded freedom to think, invent, and create as they chose.

The second quality is innovation as we modernized in the West: we were always creating something new; there was a dynamism and excitement to the process, even though it was often traumatic.

But in the Muslim world, modernity did not come with independence but with colonial subjugation; and still Muslims are not free, because the Western powers are often controlling their politics behind the scenes to secure the oil supply etc. Instead of independence there has been an unhealthy dependence and loss of freedom. Unless people feel free, any "democracy" is going to be superficial and flawed. And modernity did not come with innovation to the Muslims: because we were so far ahead, they could only copy us. So instead of innovation you have imitation.

We also know in our own lives that it is difficult-even impossible-to be creative when we feel under attack. Muslims often feel on the defensive and that makes it difficult to modernize and democratize creatively-especially when there are troops, tanks and occupying forces on the streets.

Do you see any common ground between Western world and Islam?

This will only be possible if the political issues are resolved. There is great common ground between the ideals of Islam and the modern Western ideal, and many Muslims have long realized this. At the beginning of the twentieth century, almost every single Muslim intellectual was in love with the West and wanted their countries to look just like Britain and France. Some even said that the West was more "Islamic" than the unmodernized Muslim countries, because in their modern economies they were able to come closer to the essential teaching of the Koran, which preaches the importance of social justice and equity. At this time, Muslims recognized the modern, democratic West as deeply congenial. In 1906, Muslim clerics campaigned alongside secularist intellectuals in Iran for representational government and constitutional rule. When they achieved their goal, the grand ayatollah said that the new constitution was the next best thing to the coming of the Shiite Messiah, because it would limit the tyranny of the shah and that was a project worthy of every Muslim. Unfortunately the British then discovered oil in Iran and never let the new parliament function freely. Muslims became disenchanted with the West as a result of Western foreign policy: Suez, Israel/Palestine, Western support of corrupt regimes, and so on.

What is needed from a very practical point of view to bridge the gap? What would you advise our leaders-our politicians and governments?

A revised foreign policy. A solution in Israel/Palestine that gives security to the Israelis and justice and autonomy to the Palestinians. No more support of corrupt, dictatorial regimes. A just solution to the unfolding horror in Iraq, which has been a "wonderful" help to groups like Al-Qaeda, playing right into their hands. No more situations like Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay. Money poured into Afghanistan and Palestine. A solution to Kashmir. No more short-term solutions for cheap oil. In Iraq and in Lebanon last summer we saw that our big armies are no longer viable against guerrilla and terror attacks. Diplomacy is essential. But suspicion of the West is now so entrenched that it may be too late.

Interview by Andrea Bistrich: Karen Armstrong (2)

Could you specify the political reasons that you identified as the chief causes of the growing divide between Muslim and Western societies?

In the Middle East, modernization has been impeded by the Arab/Israeli conflict, which has become symbolic to Christian, Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists and is the bleeding heart of the problem. Unless a just political solution can be found that is satisfactory to everybody¸ there is no hope of peace. There is also the problem of oil, which has made some of these countries the target of Western greed. In the West, in order to preserve our strategic position and cheap oil supply, we have often supported rulers-such as the shahs of Iran, the Saudis and, initially, Saddam Hussein-who have established dictatorial regimes which suppressed any normal opposition. The only place where people felt free to express their distress has been the mosque.

The modern world has been very violent. Between 1914 and 1945, seventy million people died in Europe as a result of war. We should not be surprised that modern religion has become violent too; it often mimics the violence preached by secular politicians. Most of the violence and terror that concerns us in the Muslim world has grown up in regions where warfare, displacement and conflict have been traumatic and have even become chronic: the Middle East, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir.

In regard to the Arab-Israeli-conflict you have said that for Muslims it has become, "a symbol of their impotence in the modern world." What does that really mean?

The Arab-Israeli conflict began, on both sides, as a purely secular conflict about a land. Zionism began as a rebellion against religious Judaism and at the outset most Orthodox rabbis condemned Zionism as a blasphemous secularization of the Land of Israel, one of the most sacred symbols of Judaism. Similarly the ideology of the PLO was secular-many of the Palestinians, of course, are Christian. But unfortunately the conflict was allowed to fester; on both sides the conflict became sacralized and, therefore, far more difficult to sort out.

In most fundamentalist movements, certain issues acquire symbolic value and come to represent everything that is wrong with modernity. In Judaism, the secular state of Israel has inspired every single fundamentalist movement, because it represents so graphically the penetration of the secular ethos into Jewish religious life. Some Jewish fundamentalists are passionately for the state of Israel and see it as sacred and holy; involvement in Israeli politics is a sacred act of tikkun, restoration of the world; making a settlement in the occupied territories is also an act of tikkun and some believe that it will hasten the coming of the Messiah. But the ultra-Orthodox Jews are often against the state of Israel: some see it as an evil abomination (Jews are supposed to wait for the Messiah to restore a religious state in the Holy Land) and others regard it as purely neutral and hold aloof from it as far as they can. Many Jews too see Israel as a phoenix rising out of the ashes of Auschwitz-and have found it a way of coping with the Shoah.

But for many Muslims the plight of the Palestinians represents everything that is wrong with the modern world. The fact that in 1948, 750,000 Palestinians could lose their homes with the apparent approval of the world symbolizes the impotence of Islam in the modern world vis-à-vis the West. The Qur'an teaches that if Muslims live justly and decently, their societies will prosper because they will be in tune with the fundamental laws of the universe. Islam was always a religion of success, going from one triumph to another, but Muslims have been able to make no headway against the secular West and the plight of the Palestinians epitomizes this impotence. Jerusalem is also the third holiest place in the Islamic world, and when Muslims see their sacred shrines on the Haram al-Sharif [the Noble Sanctuary, also known as Temple Mount]-surrounded by the towering Israeli settlements and feel that their holy city is slipping daily from their grasp, this symbolizes their beleaguered identity. However it is important to note that the Palestinians only adopted a religiously articulated ideology relatively late-long after Islamic fundamentalism had become a force in countries such as Egypt or Pakistan. Their resistance movement remained secular in ethos until the first intifada in 1987. And it is also important to note that Hamas, for example, is very different from a movement like al-Qaeda, which has global ambitions. Hamas is a resistance movement; it does not attack Americans or British but concentrates on attacking the occupying power. It is yet another instance of "fundamentalism" as a religious form of nationalism.

The Arab Israeli conflict has also become pivotal to Christian fundamentalists in the United States. The Christian Right believes that unless the Jews are in their land, fulfilling the ancient prophecies, Christ cannot return in glory in the Second Coming. So they are passionate Zionists; but this ideology is also anti-Semitic, because in the Last Days they believe that the Antichrist will massacre the Jews in the Holy Land if they do not accept baptism.

Do you think the West has some responsibility for what is happening in Palestine?

Western people have a responsibility for everybody who is suffering in the world. We are among the richest and most powerful countries and cannot morally or religiously stand by and witness poverty, dispossession or injustice, whether that is happening in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya or Africa. But Western people have a particular responsibility for the Arab-Israeli situation. In the Balfour Declaration (1917), Britain approved of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and ignored the aspirations and plight of the native Palestinians. And today the United States supports Israel economically and politically and also tends to ignore the plight of the Palestinians. This is dangerous, because the Palestinians are not going to go away, and unless a solution is found that promises security to the Israelis and gives political independence and security to the dispossessed Palestinians, there is no hope for world peace.

Arabia Desert

Arabia Desert inhabited by nomadic tribes in Akkadian called Aribi, often invade neighboring countries, such as Arabia Felix and Mesopotamia, which they sometimes gain victory. To understand the isolation that is known as a person without a history of hard work is required, however they are known as a camel rider in the century to the ninth or ten before Christ (BC). In 250 BC the various tribes of Arabia began to move toward Levant. Tribe noted that the tribe is Qedar and Nabatu the road to the area Edomit, Moabite and Jews. In the Parthian and the Roman period, several dynastic grip on the city in Arabia Syam (France) and Iraq. The city is among other Palmyra, Emesa, Edessa, Hatra, Chacene and Gerrha. Meanwhile, modern people generally think that the population of Arabia as the Arab Peninsula, experts in ancient history often refer people with the name of their tribe directly. This merupakjan which is very important to find people who are indeed Arab.
Petra Arabs living between Egypt and Mesopotamia, which finally set the odyssey of them as a way of life, build some of the city. The main people in this region and the Nabasia people are Petra as their capital. The oldest reference to the Arab people can be found in the Book of Genesis Gospel, where Arab traders buy and sell children with Josep Jacob. References in the report found other war King Assyirian Salmanasser in 853 BC and a report about a kingdom called Aribi, mentioned from Tiglath-Pileser III (745 - 727 BC) to the front and the followers of Asssyrian to mid-second century ketujuah. Then, by Arab kings Babilonia be caused to bow Nabonidus, which create a relaxing oasis theme, and reached the capital Yatribu (Medina). According to Greek researchers, Herodotus, the Persian king Cambyses is not occupying the Arab attack on Egypt 525 BC. Its successor, Darius I did not mention in the Arabic inscription Behistun from the first year of reign, but note them in the end. This shows that Darius is only part of the area subjected Arabia. There are no instructions that indicate loyal or not loyal to the king of Persia. After the Macedonian king Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire between 335 to 323 BC, part of Arabia which left more or less autonomy for centuries. In 106 CE (M), the Jordan Arabia related to the province as the Roman empire under the power of Trajan. There are few cities in this province from north to the medical, Adraa (dara '), Dion, Gerasa (Jerash), Philadelphia (Amman) and Aila (Aqaba). During the Roman period, and the historian Josephus Strabo with the free use of the word jumble Nabasia with the Arab kings and vice versa Nabasia known as the king of the Arab kingdom and they are known as Arabia. But this is only the suitability to become the Province of the Kingdom of Nabasia Arabia, which include the Empire Rowawi. Although, the control of sea routes by Himyar very convincing. At the end of the third century, the king Samir Yuhar unify Yemen. He was considered important enough to negotiate with the king kestaraan in the Persian Empire.