Rotate The Power in Lebanon

In a previous article, Lebanon 2005, I talked about the problems Lebanon faces in the aftermath of the assassination of its former Prime Minister Rafik Elharrir. I then voiced concerns about the nature of the Lebanese people and if they will ever have the national integrity to create a country, a real country. In this article, I’m more of a pragmatist. I see hope in Lebanon’s problems by starting to reform the political system. This system was created primarily to navigate the various religious groups that make up the Lebanese social life and in some opinions was created to protect the Christians. It does not make sense anymore and it needs to be changed to create the new Lebanon that can survive and be a normal country. We still can not ignore the hard feelings each religious sect feels about its own group; in Lebanon the tribe or the religion loyalty is more important that the country itself even if the Lebanese pretends otherwise. The ideal solution for Lebanon as I have mentioned before is the Switzerland example but until the Lebanese people reaches such maturity, we need an interim system that preserves the rights of the different sects. The solution is to rotate the power at the helm, meaning the presidency, which is the most important symbol especially for the Christians as they have been giving the position since independence. The solution is for the parliament to elect a representative of each sect, Muslim, Maronite Christian, Shiite, etc for one six years term. Right now the parliament does this function but elects only a Maronite Christian. The rest of the positions in the government should be left to the elections and to the winning party personnel as in all democratic systems. The system now allocates the presidency to a Maronite Christian, the premiership to a Muslim Sunni, and the speaker of the parliament to a Muslim Shiite. This current system is unfair and unrealistic. The fact is that the majority of the population is Muslims contributes to the need to change the system. Having said that, Lebanon is kind of a unique system in the Middle East, almost, now Iraq looks like Lebanon when it comes to sects fighting over power, and Lebanon needs to relax the fears of the Christians from losing their privileges. Another issue is the presence of almost 300,000 Palestinians who live in Lebanon and where the idea of giving them citizenship status creates a nightmare for the Lebanese in general and the Christian Lebanese in particular. However I think that those Palestinians that most of them were born there need to have the Lebanese citizenship and needs to move on with their lives. Those people will not go back to their original land in Israel and Palestine and any way it does not make sense to keep talking about the right of return. Palestinians in the Arab world need to be nationalized with the citizenship of the country they live in.

The Begining of The End Of The Ba'ath In Syria

The Security Council resolution 1636 calling on the Syrian regime to cooperate with the UN special investigator regarding the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Al Harriri is not the beginning of the end of the Ba’ath Regime in Syria. The beginning of the end of that regime started with the fall of the other Ba’ath system in Iraq led by Saddam Hussein. Both branches of this ideologue party came to power in both Iraq and Syria almost in the same period. In Iraq in 1968 and in Syria in 1970. Both embody the same theory on how a group of people, well organized, not necessarily related to the majority of the country they are in can rule that country effectively. It's what I call the dictatorship of the few. In Iraq, a group of the minority Sunni that did not even belong to the elite sunnie ruled a country of a Shiite majority for almost 40 years; the same in Syria, where a group of a sect called Alawite, kind of a Shiite on the fringe, ruled the country of a sunnie majority. I do not think this would have been a problem had these parties ruled their countries in a democratic fashion or if they had reached power through democratic means. The similarities between the two Ba’ath regimes in Syria and Iraq are great. Both were chapters to this so called pan Arab party that was created by a Christian Syrian by the name of Michel Aflak. After the fall of Saddam, Things have changed for The Baath; it became a strange body in an area that is changing rapidly into open political systems though not yet fully democratic. The assassination of Rafik Al Harriri came to expose Syria and its military regime and helped to escalate the departure of its forces under domestic and international pressure especially from the United States. Recently the former Syrian vice president Khaddam who happened to be a Sunni Muslim defected to France and aligned himself with the banned Syrian Muslim Brotherhood which is a Sunni organization though they would never admit it, and created a front to topple the regime of President Bashar Al Assad. The exact way of the end of the Ba’ath regime in Syria is difficult to predict but the continuation of this regime as it is now is almost impossible. We just need to look at Iraq, though the end might not be similar.

The Business Peace of The Middle East

Let us try to put politics aside for a moment, if we can, in the Middle East and talk about resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to a larger extent the Arab Israeli conflict from a pure economic and pragmatic approach.

The whole premise of the prosperity of the United States did not come from its ability to resolve conflicts and differences between its people with their various ethnic and cultures but from its ability to create a net of mutual benefits, interests and well being among its citizens.

We, in the US, live together, work together, make money and prosper not necessarily because we have harmony between us but because it is in our best interest to do so. The whole rationale of the interstate commerce clause was not to create cohesiveness but to allow the free flow of goods and people across state lines to benefit businesses and consumers.

This helped to tear down the political and ethnic barriers that divided the country and was going to create two unequal nations within the USA. In the US example, economic benefits helped to create a better political process and smooth the transition into a more just society.

If it was not for the economic pragmatism, racial divide might have ended but through more violent means. Let us emulate the US model in the Middle East politics and focus on the tremendous economic benefits that would spread all over the place if peace exists.

The Middle East powers can put aside their conflict-minded approach to the Israeli Arab question and focus on how we can get prosperity to everybody and all countries including Israel and Palestine.

The economic logic demands that in order to have a flow of goods and people through the borders, we must ensure that all countries, entities including the independent states of Israel and Palestine have open but recognized borders, and that requires the immediate psychological drop of the words that Israel does not belong in the Middle East from the Arabic social political dictionary.

Israel in return, from an economic approach, should start recognizing the aspirations of the Palestinian people and start helping with the creation of a viable Palestinian state. Some said that good borders create good neighbors. It's true, we can have borders but we do not need to have walls and barriers.

The Middle East should now start moving from conflicts to cooperation, from struggle to prosperity. The three religions started in the Middle East. Now, it’s time for them to live in peace.

BMW and the loss of imagination

What happened to the well designed and sporty looking cars of BMW? Look at the 7 series and the 6 series and you can see what I’m talking about. I wrote before about the problems GM is having with their tasteless cars and now it seems that BMW is going through the same spill. Just have another look at the 7 series design that really shows, in the opinion of most experts and cars enthusiasts and not only me, the lack of coordination and taste. The back of the 7 series is so unimaginative that one wonders if the person who designed it is an engineer, an artist or just someone BMW brought from the streets of Munich and gave him or her a brush and paper and asked them to design their flagship car. Even after couple of years from realizing the mistake, and making changes to the posterior of the 7 series, the car still looks bad even worse. Now it looks like the Toyota Avalon. Before it was unique and ugly, now it's just very ordinary but less ugly. Take another look at the re born 6 series and its posterior reminds you of Chrysler cirrus 2000? The front of the 6 series is no better, it looks like the Z4! The only thing that BMW did not really experiment with was the 3 series, their bread and butter. The 5 series passed, in my opinion, and did not have the same craziness that the 7 and 6 had.

We are a regular country

Well, looking back now, starting from the beginning of the nineties, we have come to realize that we are a regular country, vulnerable to world events and a target to terrorists and later on to natural disasters, New Orleans 2005 and that we are not or were not ready to confront these issues because in most part we were not confronted with them in the past. In the early nineties we were struck by the first terrorist attack against one of our most important financial symbols and success, The Twin Towers, in New York. Most of us thought that this was an isolated attack due to our increased role and involvement in The Mid East policies or as a result that we have become the only super power after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Most of us did not realize that this attack was just a rehearsal to the worst that yet to come. Then, we did not focus on the home land security, we did not coordinate quick and effective response among the federal, state and local authorities, we were just islands within the big Unites States. We thought that because of the geography and history we were immune from attacks. We were and still are the strongest on earth, but mostly out side our boundaries. We did not look much inward. Then, came 9/11 with all it's disasters and we woke up to a new reality which is that we are a regular country, we can get attacked by terrorists, we can be vulnerable and we realized that we have joined the rest of world in this field. We still did not look much inward and we went, rightly so by the way, to both Afghanistan and Iraq and took care of the deranged political systems in both countries. We created a Home Land Security department and we realigned all the security organizations to make sure that we are ready in case another attack happens. But still, in my humble opinion, still did not really have a close look at our vulnerabilities inward until the New Orleans Natural Attack. We woke up and asked our selves what if what happened was not a natural cause but a terrorist attack... We looked and found out that we still live in islands when it comes to security, and evacuation. We just acted a little late and we were not prepared. We also found out that a large segment of our population lives like many areas in what we like to call Third World Countries, that they do not have hope or voice and that they are the forgotten people. We need to look more inward, empower FEMA, restore the cabinet level position to its director and align federal, state and local authorities to be ready to prepare, and secure us against all disasters. We knew in the nineties, at certain intelligence level, and not the most of us, that we are vulnerable but we did not act. We knew in New Orleans even more, we knew for sure 100% that a natural disaster was in its way and we did not act. We must act, and we must protect the home front inward as we try to protect the home front outward.

New Orleans 2005 and the Fall of the Mask

The devastation that happened and still happening in New Orleans, as we write now, shows the fall of the mask from all of us. The mask of racial tranquility and harmony. The facts on the ground are ugly and conscience's awakening. There are still hundreds of thousands of American who still live in a third world country circumstances that live within the greatest and the richest country on earth. People who for whatever reason, mainly the color of their skin, live on the far end of society, they are the forgotten people that we only hear of when disasters strike. We heard of them during the California and other states riots, and now we know that they exist because nature exposed them. We knew that devastation is in its way and we did not do much, at least something that we can talk about. We know the Gulf of Mexico, we know the Mississippi and we still could not build enough dams or enough gates, barriers, levees, I will leave the technical terms to engineers, to protect our people against natural disasters. We knew that there are tens of thousands of people who can not evacuate themselves, we knew everything but we just did not move. We did not have a strong proactive leadership, on all levels that would predict, plan and execute a methodical emergency plan. The pictures talk volumes of the rust that penetrates our body. Obviously most of those that could not move were in the minority and obviously those who counted them out or did not count them at all were our officials, local and federal. I was glancing at the international papers, Arabic and else and the whole world was at shock not at the disaster but at our “impotence” as the greatest country on earth to deal with it, prepare for it, minimize the damage and manage the destruction. But, still, amidst all this, America has a unique trend that it tries to be better, it tries to improve and correct. America with all it's institutions including it's free press does at least shed the light on the deficiencies of our society. It's always a great first step.

What is Jordan.. but Amman by Jamil Shawwa

The other day I was having lunch at a Middle Eastern restaurant in the DC area, in Virginia. While ordering the food, I came across a server who ‘happened’ to be from the Middle East and particularly from Jordan. Before knowing where he was from exactly, I asked him to tell me and he said Jordan, I then asked, from Amman? And he responded spontaneously by saying, of course, what is Jordan but Amman. The obvious explanation to his answer is that Amman is the capital, the biggest, the richest city so clearly he must be from there, where else. Beneath this simple direct answer lies a volcano of how the people in the Middle East feel about their countries and how the rulers have ruled in the past fifty years. Since the early fifties, all resources in the Arab world, the Middle East have shifted to the capitals of the Arab countries, the government, the financial power, the capital, etc. People from all over the respective countries started to migrate towards the capitals searching for better life. There cities, towns and villages did not have the resources to maintain them. Investments have shifted to the capitals and the very surrounding areas. The capitals became congested, crowded, randomly designed to accommodate the thousands and millions newly immigrants, case in point is Cairo-Egypt.
Cairo became a monster in random buildings and designs, by the way, the Arab world shares this problem with other countries elsewhere like Mexico, etc. The feeling became since the late fifties that if you want to succeed you must go to Misr, meaning Cairo, this is Egypt’s name in Arabic and also Egyptians refer to their capital as Misr. Nasser, Egypt’s leader then almost ignored all other parts of the country and focused on Cairo. The problem became bigger and bigger by time and now as the Egyptians try to expand outside the city, the solutions are very hard to implement. The concentration of power was one of the reasons that those leaders focused on the capitals. They wanted the capital to have the power to control the rest of the country. Another reason was the socialist model that many Arab countries have copied from the defunct Soviet Union. Again, the solution resorts in few words, democracy is one of them, the private initiative and the powers of the market. These solutions that are easy to talk about but difficult to implement, however the gate has opened and it has to be done in the near future. These solutions will overcome the void the Arab youth feel and will steer the focus into building rather than destroying.

Air France 309, and the making of the news

CNN was first, in The USA, to report the unfortunate accident of Air France 309 while landing in Toronto Airport coming from Paris. MSNBC was second, and then FOX, then the rest. What caught my attention in that coverage is that all, everyone, including so called aviation experts assumed that no one could survive such an accident, that the pictures are so clear and the precedents are there, a similar Delta crash twenty years ago, to back up those experts claim that there is no way that anyone survived. I, a no expert in aviation, felt that the plane looked as if it did not went to flames immediately, and that there was no immediate explosion. I kept watching to see how the news media either love to jump into conclusion, take short cuts, or just hungry for a juicy piece of news, unfortunately the possibility of no survivors, or all the above would cover the news. It's amazing how CNN brought an anchor by the name of Miles O'Brien who has some, or a lot, of aviation experience who swore on his ancestors grave that there is no way that there could be any survivors. He even brought a friend of his who was a Captain of US Airways to talk the same talk. Wolf Blitzer who was running the show then tried to make sense out of all this and tried to keep brining the Delta crash to show that he also knew what he was talking about. At the end, or just an hour after the coverage the truth came and that all passengers and crew survived this accident. Oh, poor news media, what a disappointment. No one dared to predict the possibility of survivors, at least not any of the ones I watched. Again, mediocrity in the coverage, not much gut to swim against the norm or the obvious, taking the safest and what I call just scratching the surface approach to news or things.

NASA, why?

What is happening to the Nasa Space Shuttle Discovery is the least to say weird. When NASA started the space program over 50 years ago, it seemed that it knew what it needed to do. The leaders of this great organization had vision, know how, means and most important they had leadership that set a business model, goals and structure to get the job done. What went wrong? Maybe the lack of competition made the people there go easy on the quality of the program, Russia is no more a viable competitor, Asia and Europe lag behind and most important no one has a similar shuttle program. To send a shuttle full of human beings, qualified scientists to space knowing that it is not perfect is a scandal. When it comes to such missions, everything must be examined, reexamined and perfect. On earth maybe we can tolerate imperfection, but out there, in the outer space, everything must be perfect. Instead of focusing on the mission, we are now focusing on how to repair the shuttle and prevent it from exploding in the space or when it comes down and enter the earth. This is a shame. It's a shame that we were better when we first sent Columbia to space and after over 20 years we are worse. Why? Maybe because of the reasons I stated above, probably the lack of leadership. We have political appointees that worry about cutting cost and taking risks rather than a methodological approach to our mission. Fix the problems at NASA by having experienced visionary leaders who have the knowledge or can acquire it. Leaders who can set the tone and the stage for a great space program. Kick out the short cuts and mediocrity from the program. Please review the Busboys article in my site for related information.

The BusBoys Culture

We live now and have been for quite some time in a culture I like to call the busboys culture. It is a culture where the principles in all fields step back and let the second, third or tenth tier employees run the show without the necessary experience or talent. Take the food, or the hospitality business as an example; a new restaurant is open, and the food is marvelous, the chef is either a chef-owner or a renowned talented cook, the place is clean, or maybe the owners seat you and take your order. Give this establishment a few months, if we are lucky, and go back to the same place, place is half clean, food is half cooked or tasteless, the renowned chef is no longer there or no longer cooks the food himself or at least supervise it, the owner, of course, lift for other projects. So who cooks? probably the bus boys, I’m using the term loosely and do not mean to hurt the feelings of the bus boys, but the meaning here is that half talented people run the show, again, I mean people who are not talented to do certain work or are not trained to do it. Though I believe in the field of cooking, you must, first and foremost, be talented to make the great tasty dishes and not necessary very educated. Like any artistic field, talents come first. I mentioned the food, maybe because I love a good meal, a tasty one. But again, look at every field, we hire the experts, consultants, contractors that set and do a job for us and then leave the same job to be done, mediocrity, by people who are not trained to do it. I worked for a company that the owner ran the show and did marketing campaigns that he did not share with any of his sales people that were suppose to get him the business. We are no longer, I’m talking now mainly small business, want to spend the time training or garnish the right talents. We have the bus boy mentality that anyone can carry on the job; it's just a matter of math not quality.

My Son...... From Daddy

My baby...

Look at him,

Keep looking,

He is alert,

..Curious,

Wondering

Observing,

Talking through the eyes,

Exploring,

Comforting

Supporting

He is my son.

Vienna, VA, 07/30/05

My Daughter....From Daddy.

My baby,


Look at her...

She is a person….

A character

A poem

A song

A potential


…..her name is my daughter


McLean, VA, 05/08/2004

The Royal Republics

The president of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, announced couple of days ago in a party gathering in Yemen that he is not going to run as a candidate for the presidency in next year elections. Amidst the shock of party activist, president Saleh continued to say that it's time for a newer generation, a youthful one, to run and rule the country. He also said that the rulers, he meant the Arabs; have to leave office before they are forced to do so. For many observers this gesture sounded like a real change in Arab politics. Well, it is, but a smart and clever maneuver on the part of President Saleh that probably will be followed by other Arab presidents. When president Saleh mentioned transferring the rein of powers to a new generation of Yemenis he was eying his Son who also happens to be the head of the republican guards and the Special Forces that basically protects the regime. President Saleh, probably, will have his party elect his son as its running candidate for the presidency, and probably if this happens, the son will win. President Saleh by this maneuver would prove to be a clever politician who while out of office will be in the office through his son. Also the president will protect his son while he, the president, is alive and lastly would ensure that his son will be elected again while he is alive. I talked briefly about this point in previous articles but thought to bring a fresh example of what I already have predicted that the Arab presidents are emulating the system of the monarchs and trying to create the royal republics where you have a republican for of government without a form a royal title or a formal inheritance system. Watch next for Mubarak of Egypt and Gaddafi of Libya.

kifaya and the Arab Grass Roots Movements

"Kifaya or Enough" is a small yet gaining momentum grass roots secular movement calling for change in Egypt. It is unique that it is the first time since a long time that a secular movement for a peaceful change is gaining momentum not only in Egypt but in many other Arab countries. Since the sixties and early seventies the calls for change have been owned to groups that called for a religious change the way they see it. The vast majority of the masses were and still are silent but Kifaya is gaining momentum. Kifaya depends on small and short yet much publicized strokes against the aging regime of President Mubarak of Egypt. They organize almost daily demonstrations with small number of people and they use poetic slogans to express their feelings, frustrations, demands and hopes. The Egyptians have been famous of expressing themselves politically by using jokes or poetic slogans. They found this method over the years safer than using direct statements calling for change. During one of Kifaya demonstrations that took place in the same time of a visit by US Secretary of State Condi Rice, demonstrators were shouting " give him a visa, give him a visa, and take him with you Condoleezza" they meant of course to take with her president Mubarak. Another poetic slogan says “wake up! You who are sleeping in Abdin-one of the presidential palaces- your rule is in the mud and dirt!" again they meant the president. The "virus" of Kifaya is spreading in the Arab world under other names, sometimes similar with the same simple idea to create grass roots movements that -they hope- eventually will change the status qua. The field in the Middle East is no longer lift to extremists, other groups and people across all sects and religions are going to the streets asking for change. They are not only asking for political change but also for economic change. Lady luck, I think, is on their side for one important reason, the times that we live in, the spread of democracy and most important thing the media, the satellite media that covers every where and sends it all over the world. The satellite news media has changed the Arab world forever. People know that even the smallest movement will be covered by somebody. The rulers, most of them so far, want to be appeared as tolerant to freedom of speech and demonstrators. They want to appear democratic.

Quality Control And World Politics

In business, we use the word QC or quality control as often as we use vending machines. Quality control and Root Cause Analysis are synonymous to modern and current business practices. The reason is to ensure that we are doing what we are supposed to do in order for us, businesses, to get the job done, and done right. I think we need to create such a mechanism in world politics and international relations. Quality control will help politicians to do a better job in understanding other cultures’ sociopolitical dimensions. In accordance to what I wrote in "Mission" many mishaps in world politics happen when we, people, politicians, etc, misunderstand a cultural dimension to a reaction or a decision from another party or country. The UN is a perfect world body that we can use as a pilot for this program. The whole world is at the UN and having a department that would filter and interpret information upon request would be a great first step. Of course I do not have all the answers as to how this QC would really help but I'm sure that if the political class in every country creates a mechanism for more intercontinental understanding to each other that this mechanism will help to reduce world conflicts. Each country should consider the rest of the world as it own customers , potential customers or prospects and accordingly should be more thorough and civilized to news and issues other wise the customer or customers would go somewhere else. In business, there is a famous statement, if we do not treat them well, someone else will" We also should apply root cause analysis to world conflicts and break down each conflict to it's smallest components to get to the root of the issue in place. This approach will not only help to prevent on going conflicts but will also help to reduce and diffuse future ones. Quality control can be applied to war zones and active conflicts. The approach would make us better conflict managers and reduce human and financial losses.

The New Role of the Armed Forces

Armed conflicts, as we know it, between countries are fazing out. The new armed conflicts now and in the foreseen future will be mostly between countries and armed groups or terrorists that want to change the status quo through armed struggle. We see it now between, almost, the whole world and Al-Qaeda militant group that ironically and loosely speaking has offices in many countries, or mountains. Before the Second World War we saw in Nazi Germany an armed militant organization seizing power, though through elections in the beginning, and turning the country into a state terrorist. I do not expect, at all, that Al Qaeda will seize power in a country and turns it to state terror organization although they were doing it in Afghanistan before the US intervention and under the Taliban regime. After World War Two, we witnessed terror groups such as the Japanese Red Army, Bader-Meinhof in Germany, and The Red Falangists in Italy who were defeated only when states saw their danger to the civilized world and the modern state system. These organizations claim a philosophy but believe in destruction as a way for change. Though in the above countries, those groups could easily have become political parties, with no terrorism of course, and pursued political agendas. However their purpose was not to be in the system but to destroy it. The examples above are for groups who did not want and do not want, in case of Al-Qaeda, to be a part of a civilized process for change, but as a hammer to destroy. Such organizations can not be handled through dialogue but through war. It happens now in Iraq and it happened in Afghanistan. We have to differentiate the above groups from other groups such as the PLO in Palestine and Argon in Israel, who used the armed struggle to free their countries. Once liberated, they turned to regular political process. Both used war to achieve independence and used what we describe now as terror in modern day language. But once independence is achieved or become achievable, they succeeded to make the transition. Other example is in South Africa, where Nelson Mandela was the head of what used to be called a terror organization. He went to jail and came out as the new president of the new South Africa and his party became the ruling party in South Africa.

Iran 2005, By Jamil Shawwa

Iran is a strange country in The Middle East. When I say strange, that is strange to the Arabs and from the Arabs. For thousands of years the relationship between the Persians and the Arabs has never been good. They invaded each other, mostly from the part of the Persians before Islam. After Islam arrived and spread all over the current Middle East and parts of Asia and Africa, Iran or Persia became part of the Islamic Empire. Persia contributed to the religion and then created its own sect, Shiite, with people in neighboring Iraq. The Shiites are those who believe that Ali, the cousin of Prophet Muhammad, should have succeeded the prophet as Islam khalifa and not the Prophets’ successor Abu-Bakr Al Sediq. A milestone in the political relations between the Arabs and the Persians came some thousand and so years ago when a famous Persian family known as Al Baramekah became political consultants to Amir Al Momeneen, the ruler, Haroon Al Rashid in Iraq. Al Rashid was the head of the Islamic empire and he employed Al Barameka to be his political advisers. Their influence spread all over and one of them, Jaafer Al Barmaki became Al Rashid Prime Minster. To make the story short, Al Rrashid felt their influence and got information that they were trying to take over the regime, then Al Rshid acted and executed them and by that he expelled the Persian influence from the Arabic political system. I think, since then, the doubts between these two, the Muslim sunnis Arabs, and the Muslim shiites persians became strenuous. In the modern, current, time, the relationship is the same, doubtful and suspicious. Iran during the Shah took over Islands that the United Arab Emirates proclaim as their own and never returned them back to the UAE. Iran under the Islamic Shiite regime continues on this policy. Iraq under Saddam invaded Iran to proclaim the area of Shat al Arab as its area and after 10 years of unexplainable, or explainable war, the situation returned between the two as it was before the war! Iran and the Shiite Arabs created a militant organization in Lebanon by the name of Hezbollah which took on itself to have a quasi army side by side of the Lebanese army. Hezbollah claims that its military wing is there to fight Israel and expels it from all the Lebanese territories. Iran wants, among other things some say, to be to Shiites as Israel was and is to the Jewish people. A Mecca where Shiite can get support and influence. The Arabs Shiite, to a great extent, are proud enough not to accept Iran's influence. However Iran has it's supporters among Shiites in Lebanon and Iraq, a little in Bahrain and maybe among the Shiite in Saudi Arabia. The Arab regimes did not help to cordon the Iranian influence among the Shiite Arabs.They, the regimes, have treated the Shiites as second class citizens and not as true Muslims or at least first class citizens like the rest. Going back few years, or a century, when Khomeini lead the Iranian revolution that ended the regime of Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, the Iranians sent signals that they want to export their revolution, of course, the Iranians are experts in scaring the Arabs, used these tactics to elevate their prestige in the area and to position themselves as the guardian of the Arab Shiite and maybe Islam as they see it. The main influence Iran has at this moment is through two streams, in Lebanon, the Hezbollah organization and in Iraq through Al Sistani, the spiritual leader of the Iraqi Shiite, or at least a big fraction of them. How the relations between these two Muslim powers, the Sunni Muslim and the Shiite Muslim, will evolve is something difficult to predict. But if history gives us any lesson it would be that these powers will not trust each other unless both of them become democratized, and I mean really democratic, and start to cooperate as regular neighboring states and not as two entities trying to have a win-lose situation. As for The relation between the USA and Iran which has also been strange, to say the least, it also could improve if Iran changes it's government format from combative to democratic. The Turkish example could apply to Iran where an Islamic government rules a secular system. The government in Turkey was elected and the people Can in an election oust it and put another party.

Jerusalem 2005

Jerusalem, the holy land , the land of peace, the heart of The Middle East, the heart of the Muslim world, the Jewish world and the Christian world. The capital of the State of Israel and the future capital of the State of Palestine, side by side of the state of Israel. What a city! Basically the whole world, almost, is there. Most people in the world have some sort of a stake in this great city. It is however meant to be under two dominant powers, the Muslims and the Jews. Before 1967, Jerusalem was under the Jordanian power, and then became under the Israeli power who later on annexed it as its capital. There is an Arab population in Jerusalem, Muslims and Christians besides the Jewish people. This city should continue to be open to everyone who wants to visit. I remember when I used to go and eat the knafa at Ja'afer in the old city or when I used to have a delicious piece or two of Riches Pizza and then getting an excellent cup of coffee and Strawberry torte at Max Cafe across the street from the Hamashbir. Having said that, peace will not survive in that area unless the Palestinians are given their share of the city. The Arabs there have the right to have Jerusalem as their capital as Israel does. Both people can administer their respective areas and all people can visit the holy places there. It was in the news that a group of religious Jews tried to go to Al Aqsa mosque area and were confronted by emotional Muslims who felt violated by that visit. The reaction was normal because the Arabs do not have any say in their city and because that part is occupied. If the situation was normal and both the Arabs and the Jews have their share and both rule their areas that situation would not and should not have happened. All religions should be welcomed to visit but not occupy or intimidate the other. If we do not respect the rights of the Jewish, Christians and Muslims people in the holy city, peace will not take place. It's time for all of us to act with civility and not hatred.

The Arab Republics

We talked about the Arab monarchies, now we will address the Arab republics. The Arab Republics are tasting the sweet flavor the monarchs have had for a long time, which is to pass the leadership in their countries to their sons. We saw it happening in Syria and we see signs of it in Libya and Egypt. In a perfectly normal democratic system, it's not abnormal to have the son of a president becoming a president. It happened here in The USA and it's ok to happen anywhere else. The only issue is to have a democratic free system that allows such a transition to happen by the free and transparent choice of the people. The late Syrian president Assad continued to deny until the end that he was giving the presidency to his son while everyone knew that the process was in action and just ready for the declaration. This system is deceiving and of course not democratic. It resembles a thief with the stolen goods trying to deny that he stole anything. The presidents know, maybe, that a free election, probably, will not bring their kids to power, they also might feel jealous from their counterparts the monarchs who can have their kids inherit the power without any fanfare, sort of. The solution is simple: Democracy. Create countries with institutions and elected bodies. Have the three branches of government applying the system of checks and balances. I foresee the French style governing as an example for the Arab republics where you have an elected president and an elected parliament. The head of the wining party in the parliament forms the government. The president governs with the support of his prime minister who is also elected. Neither can do the job in the French example without the support of the other. Personally, I prefer the US system but for some reason I see the French example closer to the Arabic mentality of governing.

General Motors

"What is good for General Motors is good for The United States". How far this statement has become from reality. The General is in a mess. They do not know where to go and in what direction. According to articles in car magazines and Fortune, GM is in great need to continue to reinvent itself, be more creative, more artistic in it's products lines. 

Basically it needs to make nicer cars with better quality. A great example of GM's failure is the Saturn brand. I have read that since it's inception, this division has been losing money, it did not break even and did not make a difference in competing with the Japanese cars. The question that begs an answer: Why? why it's still in production?? Another problem GM faces is that it did not reinvent itself in the way that Mercedes and BMW did. 

GM still belongs to the glory past of the fifties and the sixties. New generations and younger ones do not feel connected with this company as they do with BMW, Mercedes and even Chrysler with it's new lines of attractive cars. Look at an ugly example of GM's lack of imagination and artistic touch, the Aztec, I believe I have it spelled correctly. It is so ugly that I can not see how can anyone come up with such a car! GM needs to trim itself, be a lean company, close losing divisions and just hire someone on the helm that can grab it from the deep hole it put itself in and just be again be a great innovative organization.

The Arab Monarchies

Historically, the Arab Monarchies have played a stabilizing role in the Middle East politics. They have been the voice of reason and moderation in the midst of the nationalistic turmoil that engulfed the region in the fifties and the sixties. Then, the monarchies stood against Nasser of Egypt in his quest to overturn the Arab regimes into ones that embodied his version of Arab Nationalism. They also have neutralized the religious extremes by getting them under their tent and provided them with a legitimacy. They also were, specially in Saudi Arabia the voice of Islam to the world. At that time the Shiite power did not exist and Iran, the protector of militant Shiite was part of the western alliance. Now, time has come to evaluate the Arab Monarchies. In a time where democracy spreads , the Arab people have aspirations for freedom and human rights, and their is a need for The United States to ensure that the Middle East exports oil and not extremism, the Arab monarchies need to be developed. The most problematic monarchies are in the Gulf, the oil area, where a historic alliance between religion and politics has shown signs of ineffectiveness in the era of the Internet and the information age. Most of the fanatics that use Islam as an umbrella for their actions come from the Gulf and particularly from Saudi Arabia. In Saudi, there is a political and spiritual and social vacuum. There are frustrations and aspirations. Rich kids from will known families are drawn towards extremism because of the vacuum and the suppression they live in. The Kingdom can not continue with it's current alliance. It has to address the aspirations of it's people, it has to open up the place and start the steps towards a constitutional monarchy. This monarchy will continue to protect the Holly places in Mecca and Medina, and will continue to provide the moral leadership to it's people and to billions of Muslims around the world who come every year for pilgrimage. It's difficult to imagine Saudi Arabia opening up completely but it's imaginable to have a government that is accountable to a an elected body. In Jordan and Morocco I see steps and a momentum building up towards constitutional monarchy faster than the Gulf countries or in particular faster than Saudi Arabia. In Jordan, a final solution to the Palestinian question will provide a healthy ground towards that goal as well as in Morocco where a democratic North Africa will help the monarchy there to work towards full parliament accountability. I personally believe that the monarchies can survive the winds of change and very much so can be a great stabilizer in their upcoming fledging democracy. At some point those monarchies will resemble the one in England with a little more authority.
PS: For more relevant information check my previous article.

Why did we elect George W. Bush? One Year after..

We the American people have elected George Bush twice mainly for the same reason; he is one of us, a regular guy, no complications, not much polishing around to show off as someone he is not. We have defeated Al Gore in 2000 because, among other reasons, he came across as an elitist, and sometimes as a bully thinking that he deserves the position just because who he is and because of his career. He came across as a bully when he walked towards George Bush in one of the debates, he looked threatening and annoying. We did not like it. Bush came across in that debate as your regular all American guy that will do his best to protect his home from the enemies either at home or abroad. We also defeated John Kerry almost for the same reasons; as we did with Gore, add to the list being married to a woman that felt cold and disconnected. Remember how she forgot where she was, which state, and then made the face as if they are all the same to her. Kerry also sounded as a preacher more than your regular guy. Add to that his running mate, John Edwards that really did not cut it for him neither in the south nor anywhere else, and Kerry's association with the Hollywood crowd and ignoring the base. Bush managed to have a wide base of people ranging from the corporations to the regular Joe with six packs. He tapped into the religious feelings of the people, deep into their very souls. We also are at war and this is another reason that many people felt strongly the need to stick with their guy. Clinton before Bush came across as your regular guy. It is the persona that got these two elected and reelected. This is just an observation, it's neither a Republican nor a Democrat’s: We also did not like the fact that Kerry and Edwards were so ungracious that they mentioned Dick Cheney's gay daughter. It was a cheap shot.

Note: During the Democratic Party primaries, Time Magazine put Kerry on its cover and if I recall questioned whether or not he can win. I sent a comment on that cover to Time, was not published, where I gave my opinion on the cover and on Time covers in general. I said that the way Kerry paused show either he was constipated, did not like the Time photographer, he was looking at his wife or he knew that he is not going to win. Now you know why Time did not publish the comment.

The Great Transformation

The Arab countries should lead the Muslim world including the Arabs into the 21 Century mentality of cooperation, democracy, free market, the rights of individuals including women and minorities. As I mentioned in previous articles or thoughts, we should start from the very beginning, from the curriculums that are in our schools and universities. Those curriculums that focus on struggle and conflict as a way of life for our people rather than just recording history as it was, unbiased. The outlook to the world should be different, rather than being the victim and wait for help, we should stand as many Asian countries did , and before that Europe and The US, and create a political, social and business models that focus on the future. It all should start by creating grass root social movements that use peaceful means to achieve democracy. A real democracy with freely elected parliaments. The process started in Iraq, with all its deficiencies, and it should continue all over. Syria and Egypt probably will be next to start the democratization process. The Middle Eastern countries should not be afraid of the political movements that use religion as its mantra or slogan. As long as everybody agrees that changes must be achieved peacefully. Turkey is another example. The ruling party now is an Islamic party that does not want or at least agrees that it's possible to combine the beliefs of the religion with the requirements of the modern state. In Europe and the US we have seen conservative parties rule with strong faith background. The Republican Party in the US and the Christian Democrats in Europe. The most important is that we must embrace faith as a private bond between the individual and God, not to be imposed on others, and must guarantee the freedom of religion. Evil and extremism will continue as mankind continues. But it's possible to transform the society where extremism can no longer penetrate the disgruntled layers of its people; that extremism will continue to live on the fringes. Disgruntled people would eventually know that change is possible through the ballots and not the bullets. The bottom line is that the Middle East, the cradle of civilizations and the great three divine religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam should not be lift alone or labeled as the bad son. It should be included in the civilized world. It's the job of the Middle Eastern countries to ensure its place in the train of civility. Last but not least, both Israel and Palestine are integral parts of the new Middle East. The Middle Eastern countries should continue to be separate political entities but can cooperate and integrate policies, especially economic policies through institutions similar to that of the European Union.

TBN, Aljazeera, 700 Club and Almanar-Common Ground

The most common ground among the above news networks is one thing: Incitement. There job is to incite and not to inform and analyze. They of course report news, and they analyze the news but the main goal is to incite and play on the sensitive cords and the strongest feelings, which are religion and national emotions. Both Almanar and TBN represent some sort of a religion message. TBN, the spread of Christianity as they see it and try to convert as many people as possible and of course fund raising and collect money from the masses. TBN has been attacking Islam in every way possible riding the wave of individuals and organizations using Islam to commit acts of terror. Almanar's job, as the mouthpiece of the Iranian backed Lebanese militant party Hezbollah, is to spread hatred, incitement, and honestly making the great religion Islam looks bad in the eyes of the world. Aljazeera on the other hand tries to play both the religion and the nationalistic emetic. It preaches pan Arabism and Islam in the same time. It attacks most of the Arab regimes but it does not offer clear unbiased views of the news. It magnifies the chasm between the Arabs and the west but it does not try to bridge the gap. The thing is we do not ask these news networks to act as reformers but we ask them not to increase the hatred among their followers. TBN and the 700 Club of Pat Robertson job should not attack Islam in every occasion. They should instead to focus on the message of Christianity of peace and tolerance. Almanar should not attack the west, the Jewish but it should report the news and analyze. Aljazeera should take the example of CNN and become a professional news organization and not just a mouthpiece for hatred. The world is full of other examples but I chose those four organizations because of their prominence, if I can use this word, among their followers.

What if ?

What if ?
What if peace spreads in the Middle East. What if we teach our children to love thy neighbor, first, and foremost to love themselves. What if we work to live and enjoy life and not just to survive. What if we learn to love life. What if we thrive and work hard and smart and take vacations and travel. What if we negotiate our differences rather than having suicide bombers. What if we teach our kids to accept Israel as a state in the Middle East and to understand that the Jewish people have a state there that can live side by side with the state of Palestine and the rest of the Arab, Middle Eastern, Countries. What if we change our attitude, mentality from the mentality of every thing that comes from the west is evil, and the west is out there to get us to the mentality of prosperity and cooperation with everybody. What if we stop inciting in our media and just report the news as they are and then if we like to comment then we do that without stepping and ignoring the facts. What if we teach our kids the real Islam, the religion of tolerance and peace. What if we all stand against terrorism and those behind the terrorists. What if we tell all those disgruntled people to stop using this great religion, Islam, in acts and actions that far from it is true learning and beliefs. What if we have the chance to elect freely our rulers. What if we can create due process to our citizens. What if we stop terrorizing the people in our police stations. What if I can drive my car from the city I was raised Gaza all the way through Tel-Aviv and Haifa, Beirut, Damascus to Turkey and then to Europe. Alternatively, what if a family in Israel drives its car all along the Mediterranean to Casablanca and then through the ferry to Spain. What if?

The Palestinian Israeli Conflict

The Palestinian Israeli conflict can and will be resolved when both Palestinians and Israelis do the following:

1-Recognize as a matter of destiny the point of no return that both are destined to live together in that strip of land called Israel and Palestine.
2-Both countries must have viable and internationally recognized borders.
3-Both Israel and Palestine must move on and get over two issues: the refugees and the settlements. Both issues are bargaining chips to get to the final status for Palestine. The Palestinian refugees can not come back and the Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip must be redirected to settle inside the state of Israel.
4-Jerusalem should be an open city and a capital for both countries.

Lebanon 2005

Until recently, I continued to believe that there is a country called Lebanon. I mean by country, a government, institutions, people, defense forces, etc. But I changed my mind. Looking back at the history of this beautiful land, we can see that it's people have been famous of being merchants of services, all kind of services. This land called Lebanon has the best food in the middle east, the sexiest women, nicest nature, but it does not have a country! Since independence, Lebanon had two authorities, the formal one, the government, and a militia, that decided for whatever reason, to maintain an army parallel to the formal one. The current example is Hizbullah and the formal government. The Lebanese are famous of trade, they have been trading their country and their existence since the mid fifties to whoever pays more or protects more. The Lebanese people never found a common ground to agree on to form a country and government based on institutions; their system is based on strange formula to share power among the religious groups. They used to say, Lebanon strength is in it's weakness. This statement proved to be one of the most deceiving political statements ever created. Lebanon's weakness, and the fact that you can buy it's leaders, have wrecked this beautiful land and killed it's leaders, last, but maybe not least, Rafiq Al Hariri, the former prime minister, and a Sunni leader. Lebanon could have been the Switzerland of the East, both countries have different ethnic groups, Switzerland has even different languages, yet it managed to found a formula to exist as a country and gained an international recognition of it's unique status. In Lebanon everyone speaks the same language, Arabic, and they speak other languages. The Israeli Arab conflict has affected Lebanon since the start. Lebanon has couple of hundred of thousands Palestinian refugees in it's areas, some are militarized. Lebanon, more than any border Arab country with Israel, has been torn apart by this conflict, the Arab Israeli. From now on, to the unforeseen future, there is a piece of land in the middle east called Lebanon. One day this land might produce an example of a transparent democracy in the area.

Mission

This site will focus on making the news clearer to both Americans and Arabs. We will analyze the news and as much as we can, we will say why this media outlet or person said what they said or what they should have said or done instead. We will clear the misunderstandings that happen daily because we do not understand each others' culture and psychology. We will analyze the psychology behind the behavior or the news. Basically, we will strip the news to its smallest component and run a root cause analysis to get to the bottom line. Although the focus will be on open source news that affect both Arab and American audiences, nevertheless, we might analyze any piece of information from anywhere in the world. I will provide two simple examples from both the US and the Arab world on how news could have been better and smarter if put in its right cultural and psychological perspective. Both the New York Times and The Washington Post, two of the most respected newspapers in the US, kept referring to the former Iraqi president as Hussein, in their headlines. In fact no one in the Middle East or in Iraq ever referred to the former president as Hussein, but as Saddam. This , some might say, is a ridicules example, but it's not. It's so small but important in its dimension. Elakhbar, an Egyptian newspaper, put a cartoon the other day for a man, clearly a western or American from the way the cartoonist drown it, telling a friend that” he is going to Egypt to buy few votes in the upcoming presidential elections because he heard that in Egypt you can bought some people” this cartoon is a stereotypical of how the Arab establishment in general and not only in Egypt have injected the people of ideas that the west is out to get them. A little background here, Elakhbar considers that anyone or most candidates who will or might run against president Mubarak of Egypt are either traitors or easy for the west to buy. Moreover, it’s the fear factor that the political politburo in the Middle East have injected its people with against the west in particular.Now, hear this: fanatics are in part a product of that environment that I have just mentioned above. They are born hearing all sorts of stuff against the west, in government run TVs, papers, schools, movies, etc. When those brain washed individuals go out and commit crimes against humanities, Arab governments look around and wonder what happened?