Philadelphia Inquirer - Democracy is more than just voting

Sun, Jul. 23, 2006

It seems a distant memory now, but only a year ago, the Arab Middle East appeared poised for a democratic transformation. Even some of Washington's harshest critics grudgingly conceded that an "Arab Spring," inspired by American support and intervention, had began to flower. Change was indeed coming to the least democratic region in the world.

Lebanon had seen a "Cedar Revolution," with massive popular protests forcing Syria to loosen its grip and pull its troops out of the country in time for new elections. Egypt's seemingly eternal president, Hosni Mubarak, announced he would allow other candidates to compete against him in the next election. Kuwait finally agreed to let women vote and run for office. And Saudi Arabia opened the polls for municipal councils. The world took notice when Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt described what he called "the start of a new Arab world."

"The Syrian people, the Egyptian people," Jumblatt noted, "all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

If so, someone quickly rebuilt much of it. Today, such optimism is not much more than a memory. Little more than a year after the Arab Spring, the blossoms are wilting in the summer heat. Israel and Hezbollah trade bombs, missiles and threats of all-out war, while the impotent government of Lebanon looks on, the country's army a sad irrelevance.

Iraq has a parliament but also chaos. In the Palestinian Territories, elections brought to power Hamas, a radical Islamic organization considered a terrorist organization by most Western nations. In Iraq, secular parties barely registered in elections against much better-organized religious parties. There, too, the sword looks mightier than the poll.

In Egypt, a questionable election turned members of the Islamic Brotherhood into the second-largest bloc in parliament. The government has indefinitely postponed the next elections, and repression is again the order of the day. For democracy advocates in Cairo, euphoria has given way to something bordering on despair.

"The country is falling apart in front of our eyes and we can't do anything about it. It's like watching a train wreck." That's the mood according to one progressive Egyptian, known by his blog name, SandMonkey.

Not that pushing for democratic change in the Mideast was itself a mistake. After all, the Mideast's entrenched autocracies produced staggering economic, educational and political stagnation in the Arab world. They turned the region into a lab for extremist ideology spreading around the globe like a toxic oil spill. When government does nothing for its people and forbids participation in any organization except the mosque, fundamentalism by definition becomes the only alternative.

America's mistake lay in stressing elections while ignoring other indispensable elements of democracy. That let sly regimes trick the United States (again) into fearing that democracy would inevitably bring extremists to power.

Instead, America - and the world - should push for the basic requirements of democracy, the freedoms without which elections don't really mean very much: political parties, a free press, freedom of assembly, an independent judiciary, and other elements of civil society and human rights.

Beyond that, no democracy can survive with assorted militias using force to pursue objectives not shared by the elected government. As Lebanon painfully demonstrates, a government needs more than democratic elections to establish its credibility and authority. An essential requirement for a functioning sovereign state, as philosophers and political scientists have long noted, is that the government must have a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.

A government that claims to rule, while armed militias it cannot control run amok, risks becoming a bystander in the kind of chaos and instability we now see in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Iraq. When militias take their orders from another government and foreign forces enter the scene, the will of voters becomes collateral damage - no matter how heartfelt the excitement on election day.

Elections alone are not enough. When I asked Alhamedi Alanezi, a Saudi, if he ever participated in political activities, he told me he would do it "only if I wanted a little time to myself, away from the family, in a prison cell somewhere." Alanezi recently moved to London, where he writes the blog The Religious Policeman.

Iraq was unique, since the alternative to elections was keeping an American-appointed government in power. Elections were the only way to begin building a new system. But, just as in the rest of the region, years of political repression meant that only religious organizations have had the chance to promote their views. Hardly surprising, then, that they did so well in the polls.

Arab regimes have long argued that allowing people to vote would bring radicals to power. To prove this, countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia made sure any democratic test brought gains only to extremists. The most egregious example was Mubarak's imprisonment of his progressive opponent Ayman Nour. Nour, a liberal who challenged Mubarak for the presidency last year, today languishes in jail on trumped-up charges.

Democracy activists say they value and need America's help. Most - not all - think the Iraqi war was a terrible way to force democratic change. America, they say, should be firm and supportive, but it is the countries themselves that must take the lead.

Despite the reverses, it's not all brushfires and wilted flowers along the path to democracy. In some places, the United States has applied pressure in just the right spots.

I reached Lulwa al-Mulla, a democratic activist in Kuwait, during an unforgettable election day in the emirate. For the first time in history, women could run for office and cast their vote. Exhilarated and proud as she watched women streaming to the polls, she told me, "We fought for our democracy." Americans, she said, proved extremely helpful - not only by freeing Kuwait from Iraqi invaders in 1990, but also by pushing for women's rights and helping with democratic training and education.

The region remains in desperate and urgent need of change. Accepting entrenched dictatorships will not help. Democracy remains the only solution. The last year proves only that achieving it will require much more than simply calling voters to the polls.

 

San Francisco Chronicle - Arab Blogs Fight for Reform

Publ Sunday. July 9, 2006

(see the article in the SFChronicle's Site)

For a brief moment this week, two days after Palestinians kidnapped 19-year-old Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit, and just a few hours before Israel launched a major incursion for his release, an item of seemingly promising news flashed across computer screens throughout the world. The radical Islamic group Hamas, the headlines proclaimed, had at last decided to grant ''implicit'' recognition of Israel's right to exist. Hamas, which runs the Palestinian Authority government, had always proclaimed its goal of destroying Israel. Had the extremist group suddenly changed? The headlines wishfully indicated that is exactly what had happened. That interpretation, however, was more than premature: It was patently incorrect.

With developments in the Middle East as distressing as ever, a world hungry for good news latched on to the announcement that Hamas and Fatah, the bitter rivals of Palestinian politics, had agreed to the so-called Prisoners Document, marking a possible new beginning for peace. Commentators called it a major breakthrough, and many, including Palestinian leaders, suggested that international sanctions against the Hamas-led PA could soon end. Perhaps the sides would now tiptoe to the peace table.

Even now, with Israeli tanks in Gaza, one still hears both Western and Arab commentators perpetuating the growing myth that Hamas has recognized Israel.

The document, written by Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, offers a stunning display of vagueness on what some perceive as concessions, combined with absolute specificity on points that Israel has consistently rejected over years of negotiations. Nowhere does it announce recognition of Israel's right to exist. The closest it comes is saying the Palestinians seek to achieve freedom, ''including the right to establish their independent state with al-Quds al-Shareef (Jerusalem) as its capital on all territories occupied in 1967.'' That suggests the possibility of two states. But it is not a real departure for Hamas.

Hamas -- whose charter acknowledges Israel by saying, ''Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it'' -- had already offered a long-term truce if Israel would withdraw to 1967 lines. Its wishes to destroy Israel after the truce were never hidden.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah had threatened to call a referendum on the document, unless Hamas agreed to it, while Fatah and Hamas gunmen were shooting at each other and Palestinians teetered on the verge of civil war.

This week, the impending Israeli incursion, and the real threat that Hamas would lose power, persuaded its leaders to sign. But Hamas spokesmen promptly and unequivocally declared that they were absolutely not conceding Israel's right to exist.

The document steps back from negotiating positions that brought Israelis and Palestinians closer in pre-Hamas days. It demands Israel's return to pre-1967 lines, whose strategic vulnerability both sides knew demanded redrawing. And Israel, of course, would never completely withdraw from Jerusalem. Both sides also know that Israel will not fully agree to the so-called right of return to Israel proper by all Palestinian refugees, which the document demands. That would mark the end of Israel as a Jewish state, amounting to demographic suicide. Israelis see this as another ploy to annihilate it. Compromise positions on the issue had emerged at Camp David.

With Hamas -- considered a terrorist group by the European Union, the United States and Israel, among others -- in control of the legislature, foreign donors stopped the gushing flow of cash to the PA. They demanded three conditions before aid would resume. Hamas would have to recognize Israel's right to exist; accept previously signed agreements with Israel and renounce violence. The agreement does little to address these fundamental issues.

Far from renouncing violence, it enshrines the Palestinians' right to continue resistance ''in various means,'' presumably including suicide bombings against civilians. Just days ago, a top European Union official visiting the region described the document as a ''step forward.'' But, she added, it is not enough to satisfy the conditions for renewed aid.

So, as much as we would all like to see a glimmer of hope for peace, this document is not the place to find it. Even if Shalit is released and Israeli tanks roll out of Gaza; even in the unlikely scenario that the situation returns to where it stood before this awful new chapter, the two sides would still have no basis for new negotiations. This document fails on basic points. It does not end the violence. And, most importantly, it does not tell us that Hamas has decided to give up its intention to destroy Israel. Without that precondition, there's hardly a point to peace talks.

Did Hamas Recognize Israel?

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/
opinion/14944297.htm

Published 7/1/06
For a brief moment this week, two days after Palestinians kidnapped 19-year-old Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit, and just a few hours before Israel launched a major incursion for his release, an item of seemingly promising news flashed across computer screens throughout the world. The radical Islamic group Hamas, the headlines proclaimed, had at last decided to grant ''implicit'' recognition of Israel's right to exist. Hamas, which runs the Palestinian Authority government, had always proclaimed its goal of destroying Israel. Had the extremist group suddenly changed? The headlines wishfully indicated that is exactly what had happened. That interpretation, however, was more than premature: It was patently incorrect.

With developments in the Middle East as distressing as ever, a world hungry for good news latched on to the announcement that Hamas and Fatah, the bitter rivals of Palestinian politics, had agreed to the so-called Prisoners Document, marking a possible new beginning for peace. Commentators called it a major breakthrough, and many, including Palestinian leaders, suggested that international sanctions against the Hamas-led PA could soon end. Perhaps the sides would now tiptoe to the peace table.

Even now, with Israeli tanks in Gaza, one still hears both Western and Arab commentators perpetuating the growing myth that Hamas has recognized Israel.

The document, written by Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, offers a stunning display of vagueness on what some perceive as concessions, combined with absolute specificity on points that Israel has consistently rejected over years of negotiations. Nowhere does it announce recognition of Israel's right to exist. The closest it comes is saying the Palestinians seek to achieve freedom, ''including the right to establish their independent state with al-Quds al-Shareef (Jerusalem) as its capital on all territories occupied in 1967.'' That suggests the possibility of two states. But it is not a real departure for Hamas.

Hamas -- whose charter acknowledges Israel by saying, ''Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it'' -- had already offered a long-term truce if Israel would withdraw to 1967 lines. Its wishes to destroy Israel after the truce were never hidden.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah had threatened to call a referendum on the document, unless Hamas agreed to it, while Fatah and Hamas gunmen were shooting at each other and Palestinians teetered on the verge of civil war.

This week, the impending Israeli incursion, and the real threat that Hamas would lose power, persuaded its leaders to sign. But Hamas spokesmen promptly and unequivocally declared that they were absolutely not conceding Israel's right to exist.

The document steps back from negotiating positions that brought Israelis and Palestinians closer in pre-Hamas days. It demands Israel's return to pre-1967 lines, whose strategic vulnerability both sides knew demanded redrawing. And Israel, of course, would never completely withdraw from Jerusalem. Both sides also know that Israel will not fully agree to the so-called right of return to Israel proper by all Palestinian refugees, which the document demands. That would mark the end of Israel as a Jewish state, amounting to demographic suicide. Israelis see this as another ploy to annihilate it. Compromise positions on the issue had emerged at Camp David.

With Hamas -- considered a terrorist group by the European Union, the United States and Israel, among others -- in control of the legislature, foreign donors stopped the gushing flow of cash to the PA. They demanded three conditions before aid would resume. Hamas would have to recognize Israel's right to exist; accept previously signed agreements with Israel and renounce violence. The agreement does little to address these fundamental issues.

Far from renouncing violence, it enshrines the Palestinians' right to continue resistance ''in various means,'' presumably including suicide bombings against civilians. Just days ago, a top European Union official visiting the region described the document as a ''step forward.'' But, she added, it is not enough to satisfy the conditions for renewed aid.

So, as much as we would all like to see a glimmer of hope for peace, this document is not the place to find it. Even if Shalit is released and Israeli tanks roll out of Gaza; even in the unlikely scenario that the situation returns to where it stood before this awful new chapter, the two sides would still have no basis for new negotiations. This document fails on basic points. It does not end the violence. And, most importantly, it does not tell us that Hamas has decided to give up its intention to destroy Israel. Without that precondition, there's hardly a point to peace talks.

Iraq and the War of Ideas

(see the article in the Miami Herald's Site)


Published June 20, 2006

Somebody told President Bush not to gloat about the killing of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the psychopathic head of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Even as he made his hush-hush trip to Iraq last Tuesday, President Bush kept to the carefully calibrated message of optimism without boasting. It must be hard. You can almost see him clenching his jaw as he tries to hold back the cheers in order to sound thoughtful, sober and restrained speaking of that rare achievement, a desperately needed military and intelligence victory by American forces.

The president, however, should loosen up a bit, and take this opportunity to take another rare and desperately needed move: Throw Donald Rumsfeld a party -- a thank-you and good-bye party.

In fact, the White House should play up the recent victory and celebrate by dumping the secretary of defense and shutting down that gift to al Qaeda propaganda, the shameful and counter-productive prison at Guantánamo Bay.

Send Rumsfeld out under the banner of a new beginning now that Zarqawi's dead and Iraq has an elected government. Claim the world is safer and we no longer need the prison or the secretary. But take action now.

The war against Islamic extremist terrorism and its ideology requires strategic thinking on two fronts. One front is military. There, Zarqawi's death marks an undeniable success. The other front, at least as important as the first, is persuading the masses, the people who are trying to decide whose ideology to support, that the United States stands for something more desirable, more humane, more legitimate than what Zarqawi, bin Laden and their followers are offering. The Bush White House has all but ignored that crucial part of the war.

It's time for America to reclaim the hilltops of human decency.

A military victory like the killing of a man like Zarqawi, charismatic, blood thirsty and operationally ingenious, should be followed by a quick effort to maintain the offensive. American forces, we are told, conducted dozens of raids against other al Qaeda operatives in Iraq immediately after the hit on Zarqawi. The Iraqi people celebrated, and U.S. troops slapped high fives.

It's not surprising, however, that the United States had to quickly deflect any emerging rumors that Zarqawi might have been shot after being captured. That's because many around the globe, and probably the majority in the Arab and Muslim worlds, are ready to believe the worst about America. That is the direct result of policies implemented by the White House and the Pentagon.

Besides the killing of Zarqawi, the other big stories from the war front are the suspected massacre of Iraqi civilians by U.S. Marines at Haditha, and the suicide of three prisoners at Guantánamo. The Haditha atrocities, if proven true, trace straight back to Rumsfeld's anything-goes policies. So did the horrors at Abu Ghraib.

At one point, it looked like the American people, and their government, felt that what happened at Abu Ghraib was so outrageous, so intolerable, that the most severe punishment should come upon those responsible. Rumsfeld, grilled in both the House and the Senate, dramatically declared, ''These events occurred on my watch, and I take full responsibility.'' We know what came next: Nothing happened to Rumsfeld. The White House handled the incidents as a fluke, the misbehavior of a few stray individuals. Regardless of what the speeches said, the message to the rest of the world was that America wasn't all that ashamed after all.

America should be deeply ashamed, and I believe the American people indeed are. They also should be embarrassed that an American official called the suicides at Guantánamo ''a good PR move.'' The worst regimes in history have a track record of detaining individuals and imprisoning them indefinitely without charging them or putting them on trial for their crimes. The United States is right to fight against terrorism. But if America continues these practices, it will never reclaim its respect, prestige and dignity.

Congress would gladly write the laws required to imprison and try terrorists with some form of due process.

Winning the war against Muslim fanatics who stop at nothing, and opening the way to democracy in the Middle East, requires showing the millions who are watching that there's a better way than the seventh century Islamic theocracy of Bin Laden, or the king, emir or president-for-life formula that has kept the people of Middle East in a state of tragic, combustible stagnation.

So, Mr. Bush, let Rumsfeld leave on a high note. Tell him, ''Thanks for your work. Time to retire.'' And, for the sake of America's principles, dignity and its standing in the world, shut down Guantánamo. It's a perfect time for a new beginning.

Frida Ghitis writes on world affairs.

Frida on NPR Talk of the Nation

Click on link below or copy and paste to your address bar to reach the NPR page. Then click on the "Listen" icon

http://http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5479014

Searching for a silver lining

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/
14670995.htm

By FRIDA GHITIS

While Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert discussed his ''convergence'' plan with President Bush in Washington, and Palestinian gunmen from competing factions fired their weapons at each other in the Gaza strip, an intelligent Dutch observer of international events told me, as part of a torrent of criticism of American policy, ``The mess in the Middle East will take many years to undo.''

That conclusion hardly merits stopping the presses, but let's pause for a moment, anyway, and consider the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Just how far have the prospects for a peaceful settlement retreated over recent months and years? After all, that desert land with only an occasional cloud has a way of concealing its silver linings far in the horizon.

When Palestinians went to the polls in January, it seemed like a hopeful step. Then results brought deep disappointment to the peace camp on both sides. The democratic ideal appeared to have backfired, as Palestinians elected Hamas to lead their government. When it comes to making peace, Hamas says exactly where it stands. According to its charter: ''Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.'' And just in case this leaves any room for confusion it adds, ``Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time.''

On the Israeli side, a new prime minister has just taken office promising to unilaterally draw the borders of Israel. His plan is to uproot most settlements from the West Bank, as his predecessor Ariel Sharon did in Gaza, but with one major difference. He plans to keep the country's three major settlements, and even add to them some of the population of the smaller ones.

The plan has drawn bitter criticism from all sides. How can Israel set its borders without negotiating with Palestinians, cries one group. Another argues that Israel will make itself less secure by leaving the West Bank open to the chaos that now engulfs Gaza.

The internecine fighting in Gaza, if you listen to the European perspective, is largely the fault of Israel and America. Palestinian tensions, this argument goes, are boiling over directly as a result of the pressure from the unfair cutoff of aid by the West, which has left more than 160,000 employees of the Palestinian Authority without a paycheck since March. Among those employees are thousands of armed men, angrily walking the streets of Gaza with Kalashnikovs slung over their shoulders. The rifles inevitably come off the shoulders.

No silver linings so far.

But consider this: A survey by Near East Consulting showed that 69 percent of Palestinians support a peace agreement with Israel. That stands in sharp contrast to the Hamas vow to never surrender its stated goals. More than 65 percent of Palestinians said that Hamas should not maintain its position on the elimination of Israel.

On the Israeli side, 62 percent of the people in a survey by the British-Israeli BICOM organization said they believe that a majority on both sides holds moderate views but extremist minorities are blocking a solution.

Democracy has not had a chance to take root on the Palestinian side. For now, the rule of the gun carries more sway than the views of the common people. If that changes, however, and if the authorities truly listen to the will of the majority, the government's priorities will look very different. When asked what the priorities of Hamas should be, only 3.3 percent said, ''fighting the occupation.'' Another 3 percent said, ''implementing Islamic law.'' Those two are at the top of Hamas' agenda. The top concerns of the people are ending the chaos and creating jobs.

The fighting between Hamas and Fatah may prove to be nothing more than a dispute over the spoils of power. But it could be much more. Palestinians need to decide what their priorities are. Deciding to accept the existence of Israel is no easy matter, and it may well take Palestinian-on-Palestinian fighting to reach a national decision.

Israelis, too, had to fight each other to make some tough decisions in their history. If Palestinians genuinely decide to negotiate and abandon their dream of destroying Israel, Israeli majorities will force their leaders to make equally tough decisions.

Sure, it may take years to undo the mess in the Middle East. But history slowly laid the crucial groundwork of public opinion. We know what the people want, and the people really are ready to live side by side in peace.

Now, doesn't that merit stopping the presses?

The Globalist: The Dutch PR Problem

http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=5337

SQUINT through the thick clouds of smoke in Amsterdam’s Café de Jaaren and you can almost see the anguish floating over the newspaper-strewn tables.

With their foreheads resting heavily on their hands, Amsterdammers are gravely reading the latest news about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali affair.


Hirsi Ali is the controversial Somali immigrant who became a fierce critic of Islam’s treatment of women — and of Europe’s acceptance of repressive and intolerant Islamic traditions in their midst.

Resignation

She became a member of parliament, endured continuous death threats and lived in hiding. Then, last week, she resigned her seat in parliament after the Dutch immigration minister, Rita Verdonk, declared her citizenship invalid.

A television program had brought attention to lies in Hirsi Ali’s asylum application. She had already confessed to those lies years earlier, saying she was trying desperately to flee an arranged marriage.

Citizenship ruling

The citizenship ruling may now be reversed — both Parliament and the Prime Minister ordered Verdonk to find a way for Hirsi Ali to remain Dutch. Even so, she is now moving to Washington, where she is sure to become a superstar.

The latest news for readers in the café comes from the always-bland Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, who somehow managed to keep a low profile while the nation simmered.

Balkenende has now spoken: He is worried, very worried, he says, about the harm to the Netherlands’ image caused by the Hirsi Ali affair.

Dutch intolerance

Newspapers all over the world have carried editorials mercilessly skewering this manifestation of Dutch intolerance. The time for action has come.

Dutch ambassadors around the world have now been ordered to get to work at counteracting this alarming assault on the traditional Dutch standing as international paragon of all that is good and tolerant.

Avoiding conflict?

Holland has long basked in its self-image as a bastion of tolerance, and it has done an impressive job of spreading that image around the world.

Sure, the Netherlands is the land of gay marriage and legal prostitution and coffee shops listing varieties of marijuana on their menus. But the truth about this country is that, above all, it is a nation that cannot handle conflict.

If people want to smoke a little pot, why fight them? If gay couples want to get married, it’s their lives. If the Nazis want to deport a few thousand Jews, who are we to stand in their way?

Little more than a fantasy

Instead of worrying about the national image, Balkenende would do well to look into the national spine. Dutch values appear to be hiding inside a self-image that is little more than fantasy — a fantasy the world has accepted without challenge.

Consider the story of Anne Frank. The Dutch have somehow managed to shine in the warm glow of the Anne Frank story. A line of visitors permanently snakes around the corner from the house on the Prinzengracht where the young Jewish diarist, a refugee from Germany, hid from the Nazis.

Most visitors think of the Dutch as her saviors. But they forget the end of the story. Anne Frank, like more than seventy percent of the country’s Jews — the greatest percentage in Western Europe — was sent to her death, betrayed by her neighbors.

Seven guilder

The Dutch, who still see their WWII history through as a heroic fantasy of resistance, did in fact resist in small numbers. But they also provided Western Europe's largest contingent of volunteers to the Waffen SS.

The Dutch have not proven particularly brave at standing up for their principles or defending anything or anyone who made them uncomfortable.

When the news surfaced that the Dutch government was stripping Hirsi Ali of her citizenship, turning her into a stateless refugee, my Dutch friend, an adult child of Holocaust survivors, told me, her voice cracking with anger, “Nothing has changed from when they would turn in a Jew for seven guilders.”

Submission

If you think it’s a stretch to conflate the Hirsi Ali saga with the Holocaust ponder for a moment the unspeakably selfish and cowardly behavior of Hirsi Ali’s neighbors.

In 2004, the short film “Submission” was aired on Dutch television. The film, written by Hirsi Ali and directed by Theo van Gogh, was an attack on Islam’s treatment of women. Nothing ignites Hirsi Ali’s passions more.

Dangerous protest

Having herself endured genital mutilation and a forced marriage, she cries out that practices such as these must be stopped, particularly in the West.

The Dutch, who still see their WW II history through as a heroic fantasy of resistance, in fact resisted in small numbers.

The film also ignited her enemies, who promptly assassinated van Gogh, pinning to his body a note warning that Hirsi Ali was next on the assassination list.

The authorities knew the threat was real. She went into hiding, moving constantly and growing miserable in the process. Finally, she found a place in the Hague, where she said she was finally happy, despite having to share the apartment with security personnel and having no personal life.

Eroding property values

Her neighbors protested, saying the presence of a threatened woman eroded their property values. Besides, they argued, they felt unsafe living near her.

After all, someone wanted to kill Hirsi Ali. They felt endangered and inconvenienced. The neighbors went to court and a Dutch judge agreed with them, ordering Hirsi Ali to vacate her home in four months.

The entire nation felt endangered and inconvenienced by Hirsi Ali. That’s why she has to leave. She stood up for the principles of an open, secular, liberal democratic society when other members of that society refused to face them. Then they blamed her for the threat.

Prophetic cartoons

When Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad sparked riots, the media outlets, as most others around the world, decided not to publish the cartoons.

She disagreed. “The cartoons should be displayed everywhere,” she argued. Muslim radicals, she said, constantly say Christians and Jews are inferior. They demean and attack women, gays, and other religions. Then they demand reverence for their beliefs.

The West, she said, must stop turning the other cheek. Hirsi Ali insists that we must “defend the right to offend.” That approach is exactly the opposite of the preferred way of doing business in the Netherlands.

Path of least resistance

Here, the path of least resistance is one of going along, risking as little as possible, not making a lot of waves. Immediately after the announcement that she would lose her citizenship, a poll found 80% approval for the decision.

When the decision raised international criticism, the number dropped to about 50%.The Dutch hold many easy, uncontroversially high-minded ideals and courage-free convictions.

They like to send cash to the poor and help feed the hungry. But they hate conflict. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a 21st century example of the cold hearts and cartilaginous spine that sent more than 70% of Dutch Jews to their deaths in the 20th century.

Holland’s problem is not one of public relations. It is one of nerve, spine and, most of all, heart.

MiamiHerald.com | 05/01/2006 | Bin Laden, al Qaeda losing support in Muslim world

MiamiHerald.com | 05/01/2006 | Bin Laden, al Qaeda losing support in Muslim world

It looks like campaign season is in full swing in the heart of the terrorist world. In just the last two weeks we have heard from Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al Zarqawi and Ayman al Zawahri. Maybe it's election year. Maybe al Qaeda is about to hold primaries, and the ads filling the airwaves come from the candidates with the best fundraising machines, while the other candidates are working on their yard signs, roadside bombs and suicide belts.

Al Qaeda is going through a leadership crisis, and the tapes play a part in a furious political campaign. The tapes all carry the old standards about the evil crusaders. The wicked Zionists and even a Hindu-Zionist-Crusader alliance for a new geopolitical twist. But beneath the jihadist rhetoric, there are ''vote for me'' slogans playing in the background.

For years we've heard from the Bush administration claims that al Qaeda is ''on the run,'' because we're ''smoking them out'' and they're ''desperate.'' Despite being on the run, smoked out and desperate, they have continued blowing themselves up, along with hundreds of children, mothers, fathers and other assorted innocent civilians.

Slaughtering civilians may pass for success in the world of terrorists, whose peculiar theology holds that God rewards those who inflict suffering on the living. Success by the terrorists, however, started turning Muslims against al Qaeda very soon after September 11.

If al Qaeda played by democratic rules, Osama bin Laden would have been elected leader of the Muslim world on September 12. In my travels through Muslim areas in the first couple of years after 9/11, I saw bazaars filled with bin Laden T-shirts and heard Muslims, young and old, rich and poor, speak admiringly of the man. Al Qaeda, however, has not done a good job of holding on to its popularity.

Jihadist attacks against civilians in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia, Jordan and, of course, Iraq, left a trail of heartbreak through the Muslim world and started turning Muslims everywhere against the group and its leader. A 2005 survey by the Pew organization showed support for terrorism and for bin Laden dropping precipitously among Muslims from the levels recorded in 2003. In some countries, bin Laden still held sway, but almost everywhere Pew looked it found support for bin Laden and his methods sliding steadily.

Terrorists, obviously, don't rule by democratic mandate. And even if their popularity ratings reach sub-Bush levels, they can still inflict much harm. Terrorist recruiters do extremely well in certain demographics, notably among psychopaths. That helps boost the blood flow, but it turns away popular support. And global jihad does require some degree of popular support. That's where Zarqawi and bin Laden have their problems.

When Zarqawi, one of the top recruits from the psychopath demo, started videotaping himself hacking the heads off his hostages, al Qaeda's popularity in Iraq began declining. Jihadists had hoped Iraq would become the epicenter of their new caliphate. But Zarqawi's tactics turned the Iraqi people fiercely against him and his movement. Bin Laden's deputy, al Zawahri, told Zarqawi to cool it in Iraq. And Zawahri was very possibly demoted.

Word began to spread that Zawahri had lost the leadership of al Qaeda in Iraq. A tape from al Zawahri, released on April 13, has the Egyptian doctor praising the ''beloved brother'' in Iraq; a clear political endorsement. But then came word from bin Laden, who has become so quiet lately that many wonder how much he even matters any more.

Bin Laden knows that his broad popular support comes from portraying the struggle as one against the West. The self-anointed defender of downtrodden Muslims spoke against international efforts to stop the genocide of Muslims in Darfur. An international force to stop the killing, he said absurdly, would constitute an assault on Islam; anything to stoke the party base and fire up the masses against the West.

But the Muslim masses are beyond getting fired up by al Qaeda. Bin Laden ''praised'' Zarqawi for taking a lower profile in Iraq. That sounds like a serious demotion for the man who aspires to succeed bin Laden as the next leader of the movement for a new caliphate.

Campaign season is on. The polls show overall support for al Qaeda dropping. But, as in every primary, the key vote comes from the party base. Even with low poll numbers, these committed activists can -- and will -- set off deadly fireworks.

Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/20/2006 | An 'un-Sharon' response to attack

Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/20/2006 | An 'un-Sharon' response to attack

The moment a suicide bomber exploded in downtown Tel Aviv on Monday, Israel's government began considering its response. Even as the children of one of the victims, murdered in front of her entire family, were desperately calling out to her dead body, Palestinians began bracing themselves for Israel's retaliation, and world leaders prepared for yet another escalation of the conflict.

Then came Israel's surprising decision: For now, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his cabinet decided, Israel will limit its response and not launch a military attack against Hamas.

Israel has made it clear that it considers the Hamas-led Palestinian government responsible for the attack that killed nine people. Under its international commitments, the Palestinian Authority must do all it can to stop terrorism. Hamas, however, whose stated objective remains the destruction of Israel, declared that the Passover bombing was fully justified. Since Hamas came to power three weeks ago, Israel has stopped scores of would-be terrorists, including 11 caught at the very last minute. Hamas says it will not work to stop Palestinian suicide missions, or "martyrdom operations," as they are known among proponents of that barbaric practice.

Still, an all-out attack by Israel would risk derailing a process that is already in place and could well lead to the collapse of the Hamas government. Perhaps Hamas will manage to hold on to power. But Israel is calculating that the chances of success through different means are worth a try.

If Israel responded as it did in the days of Ariel Sharon, the attention of the Palestinian people and the international community would shift, as it always does, from the terrorist attacks to the suffering brought by Israel's retaliation on the Palestinian population. Governments in Europe and moderate Arab countries would cry out for an end to the "cycle of violence." So, here's the cycle, broken. Olmert is now officially his own man, testing the un-Sharon approach.

Israel is precariously walking a high wire with Hamas. The hope is that the governing party in the Palestinian legislature will collapse without bringing down the Palestinian Authority. The last thing Israel wants is to see the Palestinian Authority disappear and suddenly find itself responsible for all services in the West Bank.

Despite highly publicized announcements that Hamas will receive tens of millions from Iran, Qatar and perhaps Russia, the Palestinian government is in excruciating financial straits. And Israel, for a change, stands with the international community rather firmly lined up behind it.

Already, the European Union has cut $600 million a year in aid. The United States has slashed $400 million, and the list goes on. Japan, Canada, even Norway say they will not give money to the Hamas government, even though all parties, including Israel, say they will continue to provide humanitarian support bypassing Hamas. The Arab world, despite its rhetorical support, has mixed feelings at best about Hamas. Some money has been promised but none delivered.

On the ground, Hamas' grip on the situation is tenuous. More than 140,000 armed men on the Palestinian Authority payroll have not received their March wages. They regularly storm into Palestinian government buildings, shooting their AK-47s. A few leading Palestinians have already called for Hamas to accept defeat, step down, and call for new elections.

Hamas, however, remains defiant. Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh proudly declared: "We will eat cooking oil and olives." The crowds initially cheered, but the truth is that Palestinians don't support Hamas' intransigence. In a recent poll, 78 percent said they want talks between the two sides to resume.

Hamas knows how to fire up the crowds, but its political positions are out of step with the population. More important, its tactics so far have produced discontent and hardship among heavily armed militiamen, and have brought the Palestinian territories to the edge of civil war.

Instead of sending out bulldozers after the bombing, Israel revoked the residency permits of three Hamas members of the Palestinian parliament who live in East Jerusalem. The day after the attack, while mothers, children, husbands and wives of the victims took their loved ones to be buried, one of the Hamas legislators, Ahmed Atoun, reacted angrily to the news that he would have to leave Jerusalem. "This is an unfair, criminal decision," he ranted.

Israel wants the Palestinians, with the help of the international community, to see just how far Hamas stands from the path to peace and a better life for the long-suffering Palestinians. It's worth a try.

Frida Ghitis: Religious text, political agenda

Frida Ghitis: Religious text, political agenda

What a fabulous coincidence. Or maybe not. Just in time for Easter, Passover and the movie version of "The Da Vinci Code," we learn of a fascinating discovery, an ancient text that could begin to accomplish what no image consultant would dare to attempt: transforming the biblical figure of Judas Iscariot from villain to hero. The text may or may not prove historical or religious "fact." It does, however, present a potent reminder that the powerful started using religion for political gain long, long before Evangelical Christians joined the Republican Party.
Not surprisingly, the so-called Gospel of Judas -- claiming that the much-maligned disciple of Jesus was following his master's instructions when he turned him in to authorities -- has sparked a flurry of criticism and denial.

The more interest the public shows in the ancient story in the crumbling papyrus, the more we will see the church and its minions declare the document is a forgery, an irrelevancy, or maliciously misleading. For a preview of what's to come, look at the shelves of books refuting "The Da Vinci Code," a work of fiction clearly deemed threatening by those who derive power from religious dogma.

The Judas story, as Jews sitting at their Passover celebrations know painfully well, played a central role in promoting a version of Christianity that spawned catastrophic anti-Semitism. The writers, and especially the editors of the Christian Bible, had an understandable interest in discrediting the Jews. And turning Judas into the archetype of the untrustworthy, despicable Jew played perfectly into that plan.

Christian attitudes toward Jews and Judaism have changed enormously in recent decades. But in the early days of Christianity, the mere existence of Jews who refused to accept Jesus as the messiah of the Bible stood as a challenge to the legitimacy of the new faith, especially because Jesus gave his message to the Jews, and his followers believed him to be the Messiah of the Jews.

The power and persuasiveness of the new faith depended on convincing the doubters that the people who insisted on calling themselves Jews were not only wrong, they were evil. And Judas became the character chosen to play that part when the story was told for mass consumption.

When the Romans executed Jesus, the Jews took the blame. Not just some Jews, all of them, for generations to come. That made sense. The perceived threat to the power of Christianity came not from the Jews of the first century, but from the survival of Judaism. The Romans crucified Jesus, but hating today's Italians for it would be ridiculous. Besides, it would serve no useful political purpose.

Instead, the story of Easter and the Passion plays it inspired became the spark that ignited massacres of Jews through the centuries all over Christian Europe. Even Adolf Hitler reveled in the 1934 performance of a Bavarian Passionsspiel, calling the play a "convincing portrayal of the menace of Jewry."

The orgy of mass murder directed by Hitler found willing followers among the millions who had grown up hearing that Jews were "Christ killers." After the European Holocaust, Christianity awoke to the destructive power of that calumny. Gradually, the church has revised its anti-Semitic dogma, and Christians and Jews have forged strong bonds.

With Christianity firmly established, the church itself feels little threat from the existence of a few million Jews. Anti-Semitism, of course, has not died. And the biblically inspired, Qur'an-fortified caricature now thrives in the Muslim world. Again today, political leaders are using religious texts to bolster their political agendas, and again those texts include anti-Semitic rants.

The discovery of this new portrayal of Judas, the loving and loyal disciple, as the experts tell us, echoes the views of the so-called Gnostics, early Christians who had a different view from that promulgated by the political leaders of the church. The editors of the New Testament decided which gospels, which versions of the story of Jesus, to include in their Holy Book. Dozens of original gospels are said to have been written, but only four were chosen to become the foundation of Christian dogma. They became the basis for political decisions over centuries to come.

With Easter, Passover -- and an election year -- upon us, it's a good time to remember that politics and religion have always created a potentially disastrous combination.