The Daily Pulse blog is up and running, and we are looking for regular contributors to write columns on the pulse of the world. If you’re interested, please drop me an email.
Today, I’ve cross-posted The Middle East Pulse, a survey of editorials from the Middle East. these are fascinating points of view on Iraq, the constitutional process, the Gaza pull out, and even relgion, the wrath of God, and Hurricane Katrina.
Read, enjoy, and come to The Daily Pulse for editorials, letters, columnists, and even a place for you to add your own local points of view.
Jerusalem Post
This is an absolutely fascinating view on religion, defiance, and subjugation, written from a Jewish point of view. The writer begins with claims by some that Hurricane Katrina was just punishment for the sins of New Orleans, and weaves from there Karl Marx, Pat Robertson, suicide bombers, and Jacob sparring with angels. It is definitely a must-read.
Why Do Flood Victims Suffer?
Just a little over a month ago I visited the Gulf Coast states of Mississippi and Louisiana on a radio road trip across America’s Deep South. When I arrived on Bourbon Street in the French quarter of New Orleans, with its sex shops and year-round Mardi Gras drunkenness, I told my listeners, jokingly, that no doubt the Big Easy (as New Orleans is known) would one day be swallowed by the earth in some awesome display of the divine wrath. The joke became all too real in the terrible aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that devastated the Gulf Coast, leaving New Orleans submerged in a deluge reminiscent of Noah’s flood. …
WHAT IS at issue here is not just the rancid old chestnut of some religious people attributing natural disasters, like last year’s tsunami, as being the consequence of sin, but something far more insidious.
It was Karl Marx who famously argued that religious people are drug addicts whose barbiturate of choice is God. Far from being bold and courageous, Homo religiosus was a weak individual who used religion as a crutch even as his faith rendered him passive, feeble and subservient. Religion taught people not to challenge, but to submit. Not to question, but to obey. …
For many of the faithful, the closer they come to God, the more they become enemies of man. When a cataclysm renders tens of thousands of innocent people homeless, it is the victims who are guilty while God is always innocent. Perhaps these communities tolerated large homosexual populations. Maybe they allowed an abortion clinic in their midst. While God is perfect, man is inadequate. While God is righteous, man is sinful….
In Christianity grace is not achieved without the total surrender of the believer to Christ. Likewise, the very word Islam means to submit. But Israel translates literally as “he who wrestles with God,” the man or woman who is prepared to rattle even the foundations of the heavens in the name of life and justice.
Judaism gave rise to the defiant man of faith, the man who like Jacob spars with angels and defeats them. The Jew is a child of Abraham who went so far as to accuse God of injustice when the Almighty sought to the destruction of both the righteous and the wicked of Sodom and Gomorrah at once. …
The world today is replete with too many negative religious stereotypes that have gravely harmed the cause of faith. Secularists point to fanatical Islamic terrorists who blow themselves up as proof that religion is dangerous to the body. On the other side, they point to questionable comments, like that of Pat Robertson who last week inferred that the United States should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, as proof that religion is equally dangerous to the mind, causing one to suspend rational judgment in favor of the irrational and the idiotic.
What is finally needed, after thousands of years of religious unrest, is the defiant man of faith who believes that his principal religious calling is to defy the heavens in defense of human life. …
The writer is a syndicated radio talk show host in the US and the author, most recently, of Hating Women: America’s Hostile Campaign Against the Fairer Sex www.shmuley.com
Bahrain Tribune
This fascinating editorial begins by pointing out that the present Iraqi constitutional process is being forced upon the country at the end of somebody else’s gun. The proposed constitution is internally inconsistent on crucial matters (e.g. no law can supercede Islam vs. independent judiciary with power above it). But its ultimate conclusion is that the process is a sham, a debate taking place entirely within the Green Zone, without the participation of the Iraqi people. As such, it is merely a “fake representative process.” It also makes an interesting argument that in 1789, representative democracy was an exciting and radical idea, but today it is an old and staid idea, which should best be replaced by actual participatory democracy. Given the existence of modern technology and communications, is it really best to stick with a system created when it took one man days or even weeks to communicate with the capitol by horse or boat?
How to Avoid Civil War In Iraq
BETWEEN the idea and the reality falls the shadow of occupation. Whatever the parliamentarians in Iraq do to try to prevent total meltdown, their efforts are compromised by the fact that their power grows from the barrel of someone else’s gun. When George Bush picked up the phone last week to urge the negotiators to sign the constitution, he reminded Iraqis that their representatives – though elected – remain the administrators of his protectorate. While US and British troops stay in Iraq, no government there can make an undisputed claim to legitimacy. Nothing can be resolved in that country until our armies leave. …
Can anything be done? It might be too late. But it seems to me that the transitional assembly has one last throw of the dice. This is to abandon the constitution it has signed, and Bush’s self-serving timetable, and start again with a different democratic design. …
But when negotiations are confined to the green zone’s black box, the Iraqis have no sense that the process belongs to them. Because they are not asked to participate, they are not asked to understand where other people’s interests lie and how they might be accommodated. And when the whole thing goes belly up, it will be someone else’s responsibility. If Iraq falls apart over the next couple of years, it would not be unfair, among other factors, to blame the fact that Davis and Hart were ignored. For the people who designed Iraq’s democratic processes, history stopped in 1787.
Deliberative democracy is not a panacea. You can have fake participatory processes just as you can have fake representative ones. But it is hard to see why representation cannot be tempered by participation. Why should we be forbidden to choose policies, rather than just parties or entire texts? Can we not be trusted? If not, then what is the point of elections? The age of purely representative democracy is surely over. It is time the people had their say.
– Guardian Newspapers Limited
The Middle East Times (Cyprus)
This writer posits that the only reason Iraqis are “the enemy” is because America invaded Iraq, brutalized its people, and destroyed its infrastructure, all in a ploy to take over the oil fields. You can see from this just how much damage has been done to America’s reputation by Abu Ghraib, and our failure to repair the bombed-out water and power facilities. The Iraqis have less water and power than they did under Hussein, and the truth of the matter is most people judge the government, elected, dictatorial, or occupying, based upon the quality of their individual lives, and right now, outside the Green Zone, we are not looking good.
The Reality-Challenged Challengers to Cindy Sheehan
It is probably the fault of the media. Or maybe the failure of the public education system. Whosoever fault it is, the American citizens who have flocked to Crawford, Texas, to say that Cindy Sheehan does not speak for them, and to demand that Cindy stop giving aid and comfort to “the enemy”, know little about Iraq.
A couple of years ago virtually no Iraqis would describe themselves as enemies of the US. Iraqis welcomed Americans as tourists and as guests. Iraqis came to America to study as university students and maintained close ties with Americans and with their relatives in America. There was no enmity between Iraqis and Americans. …
The American military came to Iraq and brutalized, sodomized and humiliated the Iraqi people. That is what happened. And some Iraqis started fighting back against the illegal, brutal occupation, thus becoming “the enemy”. …
If not for oil the US Army would not be in Iraq, and the spectacular gamble to take over and control Iraq’s oil is not working, because Iraqis know that American success in controlling their oil is tantamount to colonial subjugation. Iraqis have been there and done that with colonial Britain and many would rather die than be subjugated. And so they fight on. …
Americans should get a grip on reality. If we were invaded we would fight till the invaders left. That is what Iraqis are doing and will continue to do until they drive us out. Then, after a period of healing, we can become friends once again. Our enemies in Iraq are enemies of our own making. Let us never forget this reality.
Stan Moore is a member of several falconry and ornithological clubs and organizations. Acknowledgement to Media Monitors Network (MMN)
The Middle East Times (Cyprus)
Hamas is hurting the Palestinian cause, this editorial opines. Three factors are important. First, Israel is unilaterally acting by pulling out of Gaza. Second, the Palestinian people actually had an election, and did NOT elect Hamas. Third, times have changed, and the Arab nations will not make war with Israel; therefore action against Israel is suicide, rather than tinder for a conflagration.
Time for Hamas to Shut Up
The Palestinians are on the verge of a great moment in their history as Israel pulls all its forces and settlers, unilaterally, out of Gaza making this part of Palestine free for the first time since 1948.
Nothing would be more irresponsible than actions to interrupt that historic moment by the various movements, particularly Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, and others like it that are out of control in Palestine. …
Therefore it was alarming to read an interview on August 17 with Hamas leader Mahmoud Al Zahar asserting in Asharq Al Awsat newspaper that:
“… shall never recognize a state by the name or its right to own a single inch in Palestine. This is what our Muslim religion dictates. Palestine is the property of Islam and Muslims. It is not, repeat not, owned by Palestinians or by Arabs. To say the least this is a highly unwise, almost criminal, kind of statement on so many counts.” …
This is 2005 not the 1960s and Vietnam. The world, Dr. Al Zahar, has changed. To be perfectly frank, the Arab world, let alone the Muslim world you talk about have pretty much walked away from any concepts of armed conflict with Israel. Syria has not fought for its occupied land one day since 1973. Lebanon’s Hizbullah is becoming a political party. And, Islamic suicide bombers, as you know very well, have now become a blotch on the name of Islam and Muslims everywhere. …
Liberating Palestine is now a matter of diplomacy. Even the United States now stands behind further withdrawals by Israel, through diplomacy.
Al Zahar and people like him should wake up or shut up. Stop inciting for the impossible. It is time to have the real interest of Palestinian people at heart. Most Palestinians do not wish to become martyrs. A lot of young kids want to have a future, jobs, liberty – a chance to live after years of suffocation.
Please keep your angel of death promises of blood to yourself.
Youssef M. Ibrahim, a former Middle East correspondent for The New York Times and energy editor of the Wall Street Journal, is managing director of the Dubai-based Strategic Energy Investment Group
Al-Ahram (Egypt)
This editorial, on the other hand, says the Gaza pull out is part of a scheme by Sharon to solidify the Israeli control of the West Bank. The problem with this sort of editorial is that, even if true, it is not necessarily relevant. Israel is a parliamentary democracy. If the people of Israel see that disengagement brings peace, they will insist on doing it some more, and if Sharon won’t do it, Shimon Peres will. This editorial is not about Israel, it is about Sharon. As such, it displays a mindset where the person in power IS the country, a monarchy, or a dictatorship. Israel is no such thing. In fact, it actually has greater power to replace its leaders than the United States, for there is really no mandatory election cycle- no confidence votes can be brought at any time. Any editorial entirely about Sharon is an editorial that simply does not understand, or that chooses not to understand, Israel itself.
Deconstructing Disengagement
Despite the smokescreen of his face-off with Gaza’s settlers, Sharon has not changed course from his war on the Palestinians, argues Azmi Bishara
Sharon’s disengagement plan opens as follows: “The State of Israel is committed to the peace process and aspires to reach an agreed resolution of the conflict based upon the vision of US President George Bush. The State of Israel believes that it must act to improve the current situation. The State of Israel has come to the conclusion that there is currently no reliable Palestinian partner with which it can make progress in a two-sided peace process. …
Sharon’s disengagement plan is a bid to sideline the roadmap. It is an attempt to pre-empt anyone else from taking the initiative to break the “stalemate” — a product of Israeli intransigence or, otherwise put, of the non-existence of a Palestinian partner prepared to accept Israeli dictates for a permanent settlement — and compel the US, if only to improve its PR in the region following the occupation of Iraq, to pursue the roadmap as it was originally devised. …
Sharon clearly prefers a prolonged interim agreement with limited Israeli concessions to a permanent settlement with the Arabs. Like Henry Kissinger, he subscribes to the belief that a long-term “no war” solution is more realistic than permanent peace agreement. To Sharon, permanent peace is only possible not when the Arabs recognise Israel as an existing reality but when they recognise the historical right of Jews to establish that state. In other words, the Arabs are effectively required to accept Zionism and until they do concessions are only valuable to secure interim agreements and should, therefore, be handed out very parsimoniously. …
What happened since? The first Intifada dragged on and then Jordan unilaterally disengaged itself from the West Bank and Gaza. King Hussein lifted the carpet from under the Labour Party option of restoring the densely populated areas in the West Bank to Jordan. In an important article in Yediot Aharanot of 12 August 1988 and in a press conference held a week later, Sharon threw down the gauntlet to the Labour Party, challenging it to unilaterally annex to Israel those territories that would not have been handed to Jordan in a territorial compromise and to hand what was originally to be conceded to Jordan to the Palestinians instead. The territories he had earmarked for this option, which was intended to pre-empt the Palestinians from venturing one of their own on the ruins of the Jordanian option, constituted 42 per cent of the West Bank plus Gaza. If, since then, the PLO had taken the place of Jordan in the Oslo accords, this was a reality he inherited from Rabin. If he now speaks in terms of a Palestinian state instead of autonomy, his concept for Palestinian statehood differs from his concept of Palestinian autonomy only in that the former grants the Palestinians control over their domestic security and provides for a semblance of sovereignty. And, if today he is disengaging from Gaza, this, too, was an attempt to seize the initiative under new regional and international circumstances. The most salient of these are Washington’s wholehearted backing of the Likud position since 11 September, the US occupation of Iraq and the second Intifada. None of these have altered the fundamentals of Sharon’s design.
Jerusalem Post
This is less an editorial, almost a prayer, for relief from the ravages of Hurricane Katrina. It is also a prayer that the victims’ neighbors will be there to bring aid and comfort to the homeless, injured, and bereaved. Amen.
After the Tempest
Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom is not alone in sending condolences and sympathies, on behalf of the State of Israel, to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Our sympathies, too, are roused for all those affected.
After all, who can remain numb to the devastation that this most violent of storms has wrought, and continues to wreak, throughout the southern United States? Katrina has blown winds of unfathomable fury and poured surging waves of water that have overwhelmed New Orleans and its environs. The mammoth storm has swallowed entire city blocks, utterly destroyed countless homes and businesses, cut off electricity to vast stretches of land and sent millions of people fleeing in search of safe haven, far inland. …
Disasters have a way of bringing out the worst in some people, as the lootings and violence in the flooded streets of New Orleans has already shown. But disasters also have a way of bringing out the best in most of us, which is why the story of this hurricane can still be a hopeful one. Young men and women are struggling together to evacuate the stranded, to strengthen the levees so that they can resist Katrina’s floodwaters, and to treat those who succumb to the sweltering heat.
Once the tempest has passed, there will be other tests. Katrina’s victims will need drinking water, they will need shelter, they will even need simple compassion – in short, they will need a stronghold in the day of trouble. Let us hope their neighbors answer that call with all the goodness that God has invested in them.
The Jordan Times
Should the Iraqi parliament have dissolved on August 15, after failing to draft a constitution? That seems to be the Shiia position, though nobody knows that here in America. And you know something interesting? From a legal point of view, they might be right. If they are, Iraq should have new, and perhaps more representative elections and start the drafting all over again. And if they are right, everything that happens from here on out has truly questionable legitimacy. This is why I like looking at foreign papers- they give me information and points of view that simply never make it into the bland corporate American press, even on issues of great importance to Americans.
Constitution will Not Create Viable, Unified, Iraq
Iraq’s new constitution will not create a viable, unified Iraq. Indeed, if this document is approved in the referendum due to be held by Oct. 15, it could precipitate the fragmentation of Iraq.
There are three main reasons why the constitution poses a danger to the existence of Iraq. First and foremost, it has been imposed by the US as an occupying power. The document is seen by Washington as a means of creating the impression there is progress in the political process the US initiated after it toppled the Baathist regime. …
Second, the document was drawn up by separatist Kurds and Islamist Shiites with narrow ethno-sectarian agendas and no broad national vision.
The Shiites, dominated by SCIRI and Dawa, insist that Islam should be the official state religion, Islamic law must be “a fundamental source of legislation”, and “no law can be adopted which contravenes the agreed tenets of Islamic law”. Due to the third provision, civil and personal rights laid down in other sections of the constitution are limited by Islamic law as interpreted by conservative Islamic scholars….
Third, the provisions of the constitution could lead to squabbling and ultimately civil strife over Iraq’s oil resources which lie in the north and south. The document stipulates that revenues from existing depleted and damaged oil fields should be transferred to the central government and dispersed according to need. Areas deprived of revenue during the period of Baathist rule would be compensated for a fixed period. But the constitution is deliberately vague about earnings from new fields which could boost Iraq’s known reserves by 40 per cent and dramatically increase output and revenue. Both Kurds and Shiites have left vague the provision dealing with new fields because they expect to control the country’s main oil resources and benefit exclusively from their revenues. …
Opponents of Shiite-Kurdish dictation, including former secular Shiite Premier Allawi, anti-occupation Shiite radical Muqtada Sadr, religious and secular Sunni leaders, women and the heads of the country’s minorities, argue that the constitution should not be put to referendum. They say that once the Aug. 15 deadline was passed, parliament should have dissolved itself and called for new elections. They believe that new elections could produce a more representative national assembly because Sunnis, who boycotted the January poll, are prepared to participate. But since new elections would deprive the Shiite-Kurdish coalition of dominance, these parties oppose fresh elections.
This means that opponents of the constitution have to step up registration of voters for the referendum with the aim of securing the constitution’s rejection by two-thirds in three provinces. Sunnis are a clear majority in the four provinces but need the backing of Christians and Turkomen and of Sadr in Baghdad to secure the necessary two thirds. If the constitution’s opponents fail to defeat the constitution in the referendum, the Sunni-led insurgency is likely to gain fresh recruits from other communities, escalating the war of attrition in Iraq.
The Daily Star (Lebanon)
Iraq will not move forward until the people of Iraq embrace the democratic process and renounce violence. That is the opinion in this editorial. Of course, that is ALWAYS the point of view of the majority, but rarely the point of view of a minority in fear of the majority. The minority can only surrender armed struggle when they can trust the majority to protect their rights and liberties. That is the trade-off, and it has yet to happen in Iraq.
Change in Iraq Will Come from Defining the Morally Acceptable
The question seems to just keep coming back. How will the United States ever leave Iraq? Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently said that the insurgency could last as long as 12 years. That’s not what the Bush administration promised a world skeptical of a sea change in Iraq. …
There needs to be an ideological assault on the notion that it’s okay to kill innocent people. Bombing schools, voting booths and police stations has somehow become “socially acceptable” in certain circles in Iraq. Courageous Iraqis are taking a vested interest in reforming their country, but they are so far from enjoying reasonable security that it’s hard to imagine how things will ever change. …
If and when there is a change in the violence in Iraq, it will most definitely begin with a redefinition of what is socially and morally acceptable. …
This is exactly the message Iraq’s president, Jalal Talabani, needs to be sending: the individual is more powerful and has more credibility when he or she engages in the democratic process and respects the basic principals of humanity.
Justin H. Schair is a graduate of Hofstra University where he edited The Chronicle, the university newspaper. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with the Common Ground News Service.
Al Jazeera
This writer opines that the Gaza pull-out was a victory for Hamas and a defeat for Sharon. It is rather long, so follow the link for details, including a description of what he believes was Sharon’s plan to assassinate all effective Palestinian leadership. It is a fascinating point of view, particularly given the more common belief in the Arab press that the pull-out was part of Sharon’s master plan to consolidate the West Bank forever as part of Israel.
After Gaza: Hamas’ Victory?
Amid the controversy whether the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was a victory or a catastrophe, it seems important to review the circumstances that surrounded Ariel Sharon’s pullout decision.
Actually, the circumstances had not been advantageous to the man, who came to power in 2001 as a result of Israeli desperation to stop al-Aqsa Intifada (the Palestinian uprising provoked by Sharon’s visit to al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000). …
I have no doubt that the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza was in fact a victory for the Palestinians and not a victory for the political program of Sharon.
It is true that Sharon has his own goals, which is to consolidate the settlement process in the West Bank, and it is true that the man has his strategic plan to establish a Palestinian state in Gaza, linked by three or four cantons in the West Bank.
But that is not necessarily what will happen, and those who managed to force Sharon into the Gaza withdrawal can still destroy this plan and force a similar withdrawal from the West Bank.
Yasir al-Zaatra is a Jordanian writer. The article has been translated from Arabic.
The opinions expressed here are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera.
Gulf Times (Qatar)
in Qatar, they are willing to ask the questions the American press dare not ask- why is New Orleans gone, and who is responsible? Why were warning about hurricanes ignored, and money funneled elsewhere? We, too, will have to ask these questions eventually, but in today’s climate, the chances of them getting answered remain slim. It is truly unfortunate that the greatest press freedom and inquisitiveness now comes from Qatar, not New York or Washington D.C.
New Orleans the Victim of Negligence
The sight of a major American city gradually vanishing beneath floodwaters, while the authorities are seemingly powerless to do anything about it, has undoubtedly shocked and astonished people around the world.
The disaster will not, however, have come as a complete surprise to the people of New Orleans, the Federal Government or experts in US geography and meteorology. The only uncertainty was when catastrophe would strike. …
The question of why successive US governments ignored the likelihood of this disaster happening has been asked in the past and will be asked much more insistently in future.
The murder of 3,000 people in the New York World Trade Centre was sufficient to justify the expenditure of some $200bn in Iraq, on very dubious grounds. So why wasn’t serious action taken to protect New Orleans when it was known that up to 100,000 American lives were at risk there? Why didn’t Homeland Security include securing New Orleans? Was it because there is more political mileage in warfare than in civil defence works? …
The Peninsula (Qatar)
The Iraqi constitution, as drafted, only guarantees civil war. Concession must be made to the Sunnis, or the process must start all over again. That, at least, is the opinion of this editorial, and perhaps the writer has a greater understanding of the situation than Fox News or the Wall Street Journal.
Last Minute Offers Needed to Win Over Iraq’s Sunnis
IS IT better for Iraq if its bitterly controversial draft constitution is approved by a national referendum? Or would the country have a greater chance of stability if the text were voted down, in the hope of writing a better one next time? …
The choice is a nasty one. Iraqis can stick to the US-scripted timetable, even though perhaps a fifth of the country appears to loathe the draft that has been so painfully stapled together. Or they can scrap the text and try to find a new version that does a better job of glueing the country together – with all the risk that they will fail, and will shatter momentum and confidence in doing so.
The best outcome would be a “third way” – that enough compromises are proferred before the referendum to make the text more acceptable to all groups than it now is. That is not impossible. But you wouldn’t put much money on it – although offering aggrieved groups money may be one of the few things that the US can still do to tilt the probabilities. …
…The worst case now is that Shi’ite and Kurds force through their constitution, without concessions, in the teeth of Sunni opposition. That could give the insurgency endless life.
The next-best case is that Sunnis organise themselves – and persuade voters to brave the violence – to defeat the constitution legitimately.
That would be nerve-racking. It would mean that Iraq would hold elections at the end of the year to pick an assembly to write a new constitution. It would start the whole process again. But it would still be acting within the legal framework laid down by the US, even if the timetable had long gone.
Yemen Times
The only remaining rationale for America’s invasion of Iraq is democracy’s power over terrorism, a questionable, but possibly valid, theory. It might ultimately work, but only if it empowers moderates and minorities.
Can democracy defeat terrorism?
The Bush administration provided three major rationales for going to war in Iraq. Only one remains at all credible: the need to transform the Middle East through democratization and thereby undercut support for terrorists. But does this argument really have any more basis in reality than the administration’s previous claims of an “imminent” threat from weapons of mass destruction or Saddam Hussein’s alleged support for al-Qaeda? …
Democracy, however, is more than just elections. It also requires tolerance of minorities and respect for individual rights, as well as the development of effective institutions for resolving political conflicts in divided societies. If this occurs in Iraq, it may provide some post hoc legitimization for the war.
But such an outcome remains in doubt. In the short run, the invasion of Iraq has created an intensifying insurgency and incipient civil war. The presence of foreign troops creates a stimulus for nationalist and jihadist responses. The future of Iraq, not to mention democracy there, remains uncertain at best. …
But, in the longer term, the slow, steady progress of democratization can provide a sense of hope for moderates, creating a plausible vision of a better future – the essence of soft power – that undercuts the message of hate and violence promoted by the extremists. Democratization can surely help remove some of the sources of rage that fuel terrorism, but it is only part of the solution.
Joseph S. Nye is a professor at Harvard University and author of Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2005.
