Days Of The Messiah: A Middle East Adventure Novel

To co-ordinate or to dictate!

The summit meeting between Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas scheduled for today was postponed to a future but not specified date. The meeting has already been postponed once before, but in pre-meeting discussions the negotiators had failed to come to an agreement on what could be achieved in the summit.

Israel's position--as the trainee is told in the CapitalOne commercials airing in the USA--seems to be that "the answer is always NO. '' No to any further request from the Palestinians. No arms or ammunitions to Palestinian Police; No release of prisoners; No withdrawal from any more cities in the West Bank and No to Hamas participation in the elections. Sharon having barley survived the challenge to his party's leadership, is having to focus on dealing with more pressing internal politics. For the next few weeks he will need the vote of the dissenting members of his party to pass the budget and to get approval for a number of ministerial appointments. The impression that he is giving further concessions to the Palestinian, is of no use for him internally.

At this point, Sharon could reasonably argue that the withdrawal from Gaza was a significant concession, and until the Palestinian Authority comes up with a reciprocal move, equal to the demand of "dismantling the terror infrastructure'' then they should not expect anything more from Israel.

The problem with this strategy is that Israel's position will be seen as a validation for the fear that "Gaza first,'' is "Gaza last'' and that Israel will drift back to its policy of unilateral moves. Still, President Abbas does not mind the delay in the meeting with Sharon as he has other things to worry about. Internally, the Gaza strip remains on the verge of imploding as the Palestinian Police tries to assert itself against the different armed groups. Next week Abbas is scheduled to travel to the US for a meeting with President Bush. Abbas still needs to convince Bush that his commitment to fighting terrorism and establishing the rule of law in the areas under his control is actionable beyond good intentions. Another topic that should come up in their discussion is the question of the armed Palestinian militia in Lebanon. The US would like these militia disarmed as demanded by the United Nations resolution that forced Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon. Abbas will try to convince Bush that the Palestinians can not disarm outside the larger context of refugee re-settlement back to Palestine and especially Gaza. The fact that Al Qaeda is denouncing Abbas on the Internet should help Abbas' standing in the US. If Abbas can strengthen his relationship with Bush and increase Palestinian coordination with the administration then that will bode well for the talks with Israel in November. By then Sharon's major challenges in the Israeli Knesset should be over and he might be more open to co-ordinating rather than dictating.

The Rise and Fall of the Israeli Right

Within a few hours the Likud's central committee will convene to determine the future of its leader Ariel Sharon. Sharon, who joined the Likud in 1977 was the main reason behind its winning 40 seats in the Knesset. The committee's vote is not expected until Monday but the fact that the most popular politician in Israel today is in a close fight for the support of his own party, is an indication of the deep divisions that have rocked the Right wing of Israeli politics.

Sharon's trouble began when he decided to withdraw Israel's soldiers and settlers from Gaza. There are many theories to explain Sharon's decision but what is indisputable is that his decision was a political and religious earthquake for Israel and Jews. Sharon, who for years has claimed that the settlements in Gaza were as vital to Israel as Tel-Aviv, is seen by many in the Likud as betraying the principals that have guided Israel's Right for almost a century.

Historically and philosophically, the Right in Israel is traced back to Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the charismatic leader from pre-state times. Jabotinsky rejected the British Mandate on Palestine as well as the British decision to divide Trans-Jordan area from Palestine and establish the Hashemite Kingdom on it. The assertion that the "Jordan has Two Banks,'' signifies a Jabotinsky's claim for the area east to the Jordan river and not only to the totality of Palestine itself. Jabotinsky's militant and extremist ideas were rejected by the majority of the Jews and he later resigned from the Zionist Movement and established his own organizations, both political and military, that became know as the IZL. Jabotinsky died in 1940 but his path was continued by his protege Menahem Begin.

Following the establishment of Israel in 1948, Ben Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, made sure that Jabotinsky's followers had little power militarily and politically. He ordered a ship filled with arms destined to the IZL sunk, and he refused to include their political party Herut in his government's coalition. For about twenty years, the Herut was not regarded as an acceptable partner in the governance of Israel.

The Right's political reprieve came just before the Six Days War, when a national unity government was formed in preparation for the upcoming war and Begin became a minister in it. Then on the heal of the turmoil in Israel following the 1973 war the Right began gaining more support and the Likud party was formed in a coalition of Herut and other parties, which Ariel Sharon's party, Shlomzion, joined later.

In 1977 Menahem Begin, became Israel's prime minister. Ironically, one of the first issues that Begin had to deal with was the peace initiative by Anwar Sadat that required Begin to agree to the removal of settlers from Sinai. Thus the party that ideologically called for the expansion of Israel was the one to re-affirm the 1948 boarders with Egypt and remove its settlers from Sinai.

In the and during the Madrid peace talks, Yitzhak Shamir, who inherited the Likud's leadership from Begin, planned to move as many as half million settlers to the West Bank so it will be impossible for Israel to ever leave it. In response to that policy President Bush senior refused to guarantee loans to Israel that it sorely needed to absorb the large immigration from Russia, a decision that lead to the fall of Shamir's government. Following the elections, Rabin of the Labor party became the Prime Minister and he soon entered into peace with the PLO and made the division of the land a reality.

Now, Sharon who has accepted that the land must be divided, is fighting for keeping Israeli control over blocks of settlements, Jerusalem, and for his own version of a Palestinian state. Whatever the central committee's decision is of on Monday, the ideology of the Israeli Right has already lost. There is no longer right wing in Israeli politics when it comes to the land; there is only in general terms, far right, center and left. On the far right remain those who hold to the dead idea of controlling all the land and the Likud without Sharon would fall into that category. The center, where the majority of the Israeli public seems to be, are those who accept that there is no choice but to give up most of the West Bank but who are not willing to go all the way. On the left are those who support the Geneva Accord and call for a full division of the land in agreement with the Palestinians. Hamas: The Line Between Order and Chaos

With the withdrawal of the last Israeli troops from Gaza a few days ago, we had a unique glimpse at a society suddenly freed after years of constraints and confinement. A first expression came as crowds poured into the abandoned settlements. For weeks the Palestinian authority was talking about an orderly and secure transfer of territory from Israeli to Palestinian control. Fortunately, at least, the order and security were maintained as long as the Israel's were present and their withdrawal was relatively peaceful without clashes and needless bloodshed.

Once the Israelis were gone, Palestinian policemen, militants and civilian spectators joined in a first wave of marching on what was left of the settlements. With the morning light, the celebrations moved West and South. Large crowds headed toward the beaches that for years were for the exclusive use of the settlers or were made off limits by the military. To the south, emotional crowds overran segments of the fence separating Palestinian Rafah from its twin city, Egyptian Rafah, to meet with family members that they had not seen for years, and evoking memories of the fall of the Berlin wall.

During the last four years, the Gaza strip was a place of militant anarchy. Opposing the Israeli army, Palestinian militants from mainstream and splinter groups roamed freely. Now the Palestinian Authority is faced with the challenge of controlling these groups. The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, has promised that within the next few months and leading to the Parliamentary election in January, he will establish security and the rule of law in Gaza. This appears to be a tall order.

I want to digress a little here by saying that, personally I like Mahmoud Abbas. I think that I like him because he is an antithetical Arab leader. He is not flashy, he is not an orator, he even wears my favorite style of hats, baseball.

Abu Mazen, as Abbas is called (meaning the Father of Mazen, after the Palestinian custom of taking the name of one's first born son,) has a congenial demeanor, and the image that he reflects is one of intelligence and dignity. After his election earlier this year, tall banners with his pictures were draped around the city of Gaza, in the usual Arab glorification of their leaders, but these seem to have disappeared. He does not come across as the kind of man who would be comfortable with leader worship that aflicts other Arab presidents. Unlike most other Arab leaders of his generation, Abbas is well educated and holds a law degree and a Phd in History. Abbas has announced that he will not be running for a second term either. And since he had resigned once as Prime Minister for Arafat, power does not seem to be his fix.

Abu Mazen's commitment to peace is deeply rooted and he advocated negotiations with Israel long before Arafat was willing to. From talking to Israeli leftists in the seventies, to leading the Palestinian negotiation team for the Oslo accord, and through the final status principles understanding known as the Abu Mazen-Beilin plan, his commitment to finding a final agreement to the conflict has been unwavering. The fact that he is a refugee from the 1948 war, indicates a remarkable realism and historical acceptance of the establishment of the State of Israel. Mahmoud Abbas was the one who signed the peace agreement with Israel on behalf of the PLO, but he was left out of the Nobel Prize awards that went to Arafat, Rabin and Peres. He might yet prove that he is most deserving of that prize. All in all, Abbas has the making of a good leader, but could he be the right leader at the right time for the Palestinians?

After hie election earlier this year, Abu Mazen was able to get commitments from the major Palestinian organizations to keep the occupied territories ''quiet'' so as not to disturb Israel's disengagement plan. For the most part the agreement held, and Abbas' challenge now is to transform this agreement into more meaningful steps to minimize as much as possible violence and terrorism as conditioned by the Road Map.

Abbas the pragmatists has so far committed himself to moving forward with small steps. Israel has been pushing Abbas to confront the militants but it is obvious that at this stage he does not have the military power, the political support and probably not even the personal will to do so. His government is trying to get the large militant groups, like Hamas, who are well disciplined, to agree to keeping their weapon's out of sight. It is expected that government forces will soon move against the smaller and local splinter groups who lack wide support among the Palestinians. The large number of militants in Gaza who belong to Abbas' own organization, Fatah, are expected to toe the line easier than Hamas.

Finding employment for the militant is becoming one critical aspect in their willingness to give up their arms. High impact economic development projects are needed to alleviate the chronic unemployment rate in the strip. A a number of projects funded by oil rich countries have been announced. In addition, many other countries are interested in moving forward with economic development as well.

The main challenge for Abbas remains with Hamas. In the last few days Hamas did all it could to exploit the Israeli withdrawal and to represent it as its own victory. Hamas militants have been displaying their arms at will during the celebration. When it became evident that Hamas arms were on display, Abbas was forced Abbas to boycott a main event planned by the Palestinian Authority.

Advancing the negotiations with Israel is Abbas' best bet for political support. Abbas' preference is to reach a final status agreement with Israel and use that as the political cover for any confrontation with the militants. But at this point, Israel is unwilling to discuss final status issues, or even to move forward with any further concessions until they can judge Abbas' actions in Gaza.

Eventually, Abbas might find himself trapped in a catch 22 situation. He would not be able to move against the militants without showing what concessions he can get from Israel, while Israel will not be willing to give any concessions before he takes actions against the militants. If Abbas reaches such a point, I think that he would rather resign, and leave military confrontation to the younger generation of Palestinian leaders.

Meanwhile, the Israel military is waiting for any serious provocations from Gaza militants. It is expected that Israel will respond with significant force, especially if Israel reaches the conclusion that Abbas is not dealing with the militants to its liking. It might be hard to imagine, but Israel could make life much, much worse for the Palestinian now than it could when it had control over Gaza.

One would hope that the Hamas leaders will decide to invest more in the political process of upcoming elections and rebuilding Gaza, instead of driving it into civil war and further disintegration.

September 11 Aggression: The Fundamental Lesson

One of my dear fiends is a September 11 victim. His brother was a military officer who died when the Pentagon was attacked that day. My friend came over for dinner last week and he mentioned with excitement that he and his family were invited to meet with the Dali Lama. He told me that the Dali Lama will be visiting Sun Valley, Idaho and his itinerary includes a commemorative September 11 service with a message of healing to the families of that day's victims.

The Dali Lama, a Noble Peace Prize laureate, is a victim of aggression himself. His country is occupied, his culture is under attack and he lives in exile, but his message is of non-violence, peace and spiritual strength. I think that it is remarkably fitting on September 11, when politicians will be giving their usual messages, that the Dali Lama will be giving America a message of compassion and inner healing. It is the highest respect we can offer the victims of aggression everywhere.

Undoubtedly, many lessons were learned on September 11, 2001. On that day the world did change. For many Americans the world became divided: those who are with America against terrorism and those who are not. The war on terror became a prism to view and judge governments. But this is a flawed lesson: a self-serving one that has been easily manipulated in servitude of ulterior schemes. There is another lesson of 9/11 that is more fundamental. It rejects terrorism and the targeting of civilians; it reject moral or religious justifications for violence. It teaches us that violence is fundamentally evil. I don't say that as a pacifist, for I believe that there are times when violence is necessary. I supported the attack on Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and their cruel regime that corrupted their religion and nourished terrorism. But we must acknowledge that because it is fundamentally evil, all forms of violence need to be curtailed.

Once we accept that violence is evil then we can understand the necessity of being extremely scrupulous in its exercise. As it says in the Bible "for they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind;'' that's the effect of violence. Once violence is unleashed, there is no telling where and how its effect will be manifested, nor can we predict how those subjected to this violence would perceive and react to it. Experience indicates that violence begets violence, and the resultant vicious cycle is hard to contain or break.

A reader sent me the following comment on an earlier post concerning Palestinian militants, "can you blame them [?]they have been subjugated by [I]srael for years." And my answer is: do I blame them for sending an 18 yr old boy to blow himself up in a bus or an eatery filled with human beings? And my answer is unequivocal. Yes. It is evil. There can be no moral justification of such behavior. It is a behavior that is rooted in hate, despair and corruption of religion.

But by rejecting this behavior, in no way do I excuse the violence that has been inflicted on the Palestinians. There are no privileged victims, nor are there lesser victims, be they Palestinian, Jewish, American, or Iraqi.

The attacks on New York and Washington, came in the midst of the second intifada when Israel and the Palestinians were in an all out war following the collapse of the peace talks. Israel's supporters in the US used these attacks to influence the Bush administration's policies towards the conflict in the Middle East. Among those who worked hard to lobby the Administration was Rudi Giuliani, the former mayor of New York.

The strategy, adopted by Israel's supporters and used by Giuliani, was that there was no moral equivalence between the actions of the Israeli military and the Palestinian militants. They argued that Israel must have America's unyielding support and is justified in its actions, for Israel as the American policy states today "has the right to defend itself.''

I do agree with Mr. Giuliani that there is no moral equivalence between the actions of Israel and those of the Palestinians, because the equivalence is an immoral one. To denounce the evil of the Palestinians while ignoring the evil of military occupation, summery assassinations, settlements and the separation wall, as Israel supporters in America widely do, is nothing more than selective morality. Selective morality is self-righteous, self-serving, and regrettably, has been a hallmark of American politics.

One poplar tactic advanced by pro Israel individuals in the US to generate sympathy and support for Israel is to perform a relative statistical conversion from Israel to US population. The last time I saw this tactic it was done by George F. Will, one of the leading conservative thinkers in America, in an essay published in Newsweek. This is how this argument goes: in the four years of the intifada there were about 1000 Israeli victims. If we calculate the percentage of these victims from the 6 million people in Israel, and apply it to the larger population of the United States, then the number of victims becomes about 50,000 people. The aim of this tactic is to solidify in the reader's mind the enormity of Israeli suffering and give justification for Israel's actions. Obviously, this is a powerful tactic.

But what Mr. Will fails to mention to his readers is that applied to those killed by Israeli forces the same statistical comparison results in about 190,000 people dead on the Palestinian side. But this part of the argument is of no interest to Mr. Will, for in his selective morality the Palestinians can not be regarded as victims, there is no violence committed against them, since they are only the purveyors of violence.

In the name of protecting our civilians and "taking the fight to where the terrorists live,'' we unleashed a devastating amount of violence on Iraq. But the victims of our violence are not acknowledged nor counted. American dead are civilian heroes. Iraqi dead are described with the morally bankrupt term, "collateral damage,'' which does nothing but deprive them of their humanity. The readily available excuse that "we don't target civilians'' can in no way absolve us from responsibility for the death of these civilians.

Similarly, military actions, wars and general acts of violence committed by governments and their security services that effect civilians and innocent people are as evil and repulsive as terrorism and should be repudiated as such. Violence can not be condoned or condemned based on limited self-serving reasons including diplomatic convenience and economic consideration.

Following September 11, America was hurt, scared and angry. Our choice was to use violence, to exercise evil, and in Iraq it was exercised unimaginatively. Now we bear the consequences of our actions. We can not claim the moral ground for fighting evil, when we ignore the evil committed by us, our friends and other friendly governments.

In the words of the Dali Lama "We are at the dawn of an age in which extreme political concepts and dogmas may cease to dominate human affairs. We must use this historic opportunity to replace them with universal human and spiritual values. And ensure that these values become the fiber of the global family which is emerging.''

Reconciling Israel and Muslim Countries

Last week a small political storm erupted in Pakistan following the public meeting between its foreign minister and Israel's foreign minister. Islamist members of the Pakistani parliament walked out in protest and small demonstrations took to the streets. In reaction, the Pakistani government denied that the meeting represented any significant shift in its policy towards Israel. It maintained that Pakistan would not recognize Israel before the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Of all the major Moslem non-Arab countries, Turkey is the only one that has diplomatic relations with Israel. The relationship between Israel and Turkey used to be much closer during the time when the military ruled Turkey, but it had cooled off significantly in the last few years.

In contrast, of all the Moslem countries, Iran stands out with its vehement antagonism towards Israel. Ironically, Iran, a non-Arab country, which does not have any boarders with Israel, is the only country that Israel regards as posing significant strategic danger. Israel sees Iran's nuclear activity as a direct threat to its existence. As a result, the American Israel Public Affairs committee, Israel's main lobbying group in Washington, has long been active in "raising awareness'' in the United States of Iran's nuclear ambitions and the need for an American military response.

The Islamic animosity to Israel can be divided into two separate, though interdependent factors: political and religious. The political factor is usually the more apparent and familiar one. Most Moslem countries in solidarity with the Arab countries initially refused to recognize Israel. Since the development of the peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbors the reservations toward Israel have lost much of their reasoning. But with the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory, it would be difficult for these countries to get their Moslem populations to accept diplomatic relations with Israel.

This leads to the second factor and that is the wide anti-Jewish sentiment in the Moslem world, especially among fundamentalists. These sentiments reach beyond the rationale of the political conflict between Israel and the Arabs. The origins of these anti-Jewish feelings go back to the time of the Prophet Mohammad and are based in some of the events that accompanied the emergence of the first Moslem State.

At that time, there where three Jewish tribes with some military and financial powers in Medina, the city where the Prophet came for refuge, and which he later turned into the center of his political power. The majority of the Jews in Medina did not recognize the prophetic calling of Mohammad and remained, for the most part, passive in the military conflict between the Moslems and their enemies.

It seems that Mohammad was disappointed at the Jewish apathy towards his message, which is a continuation of the monotheist traditions of Judaism and Christianity, and he became suspicious of their military and economic powers. Eventually, a series of conflicts developed between Mohammad and each of the three Jewish tribes with escalating dire consequences for the Jews. In Moslem traditions, and supported by a number of anti-Jewish references in the Quran, the responsibility for the conflicts are laid squarely on the shoulders of the Jews who are seen as traitorous to the Prophet and the Moslems.

It would seem absurd that events that took place over 1400 years ago between the early Moslems and some Jewish tribes would have a direct effect on the relationship between Jews and Moslems today. But fundamentalist Moslems do refer to these events and do mix them in their antagonism towards Israel to the extent that it becomes difficult to distinguish the political from the religious. Anti Israeli sentiments are easily wrapped within anti-Jewish and racist rhetoric.

Ironically, this ambiguity and interdependence between the political and the religious factors are exploited by some pro Israel groups, to deflect valid criticism of Israeli policies.

I believe that this convolution of the political and the religious fuels terrorism and extremism. It is necessary for Israel to find common ground with Moslem countries, as it has with Turkey. It is also beneficial for the peace process that Moslem countries to be engaged with Israel. Remarkably, in defense of the meeting between the Israeli and Pakistani foreign ministers, Pakistani officials did declare that this meeting was encouraged by the President of the Palestinian Authority, in hopes that a dialogue between Pakistan and Israel would facilitate more Israeli flexibility in the peace process.

In the case of Iran, its pursuit of nuclear know-how is based on its national security priorities. Threats of military action and sanctions will only heighten these concerns and drive Iran to further entrenchment in its position. Granted, Islamist Iran has expressed strong anti-Israeli sentiment from its inception following in the tradition of its founder Khomeini. But the idea that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would serve Israeli or American interests is more than short sighted. Such an attack would expose the American troops in Iraq to Shiite retributions that could easily dwarf the current insurgency. In addition, Iran would attack Israel with its missiles and it could very likely to get Hizbullah in Lebanon involved in military actions, this might end up involving Syria as well.

The neo-conservatives who thought that going into Iraq was the way to change the Middle East, would welcome an all out war with Syria and Iran, but I doubt that the American people would see value in additional wars against Moslem countries.

I believe that peace between Israel and the Palestinians and Syria as well, is the only way to defuse the Iranian threat to Israel. With a resolution of the political justification for animosity towards Israel, the religious one would loose its edge, and the road would be wide for Israeli-Muslim reconciliation.

The Art of the Possible and the Folly of Over-reaching: A Model of Middle East Politics

In the last few decades, a number of critical events stand out as turning points in their historical significance. Most of these events, unfortunately have been acts of over-reaching; where the decision makers take actions that breach the boundaries of what the region is willing to tolerate. The results of these actions have been an inverse of what was intended. Obviously, not every event in the Middle East has a historical significance, but in essence most events can be judged as whether they reflect realism and accommodation to the region's natural historical development or whether they push and defy that process. Granted, it is almost impossible to determine before hand the end results of one's actions but that does not prevent our judgment of possible outcomes and reactions.

Here is a brief review of some significant events for illustration.

Syria in Lebanon: For over a decade Syria had virtual control in Lebanon through political allies, an intrusive military presence and meddling intelligence services. When the legal term of the the Lebanese President came to an end last year, Syria demanded a constitutional change to allow the President another term. To assure this demand, the Syrian president Al Assad, summoned Rafik Al-Hariri, then the prime minister of Lebanon and bullied him into acceeding to Syria's demands. Al Hariri did Syria's bidding and then resigned. Meanwhile, Syria's crude heavy handedness inscensed many in Lebanon and prompted France to cooperate with the US in passing a UN security council resolution demanding Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon. Rafik Al Hariri was assassinated a few months after and Syria could not avoid being implicated in that act. Following the assassination, a wide and popular protest movement swept over Lebanon and it was coupled with International outrage and pressure. Syria had to quickly resort to a humiliating withdrawal from Lebanon.

The US in Iraq: The misguided assumptions and estimates which plagued America's planning for the war in Iraq, and the management of the country afterward are well documented. At the heart of these decisions lie two over-reaching strategies, the first was the decision to reinvent Iraq from scratch, which started with the dismissal of the majority of the Iraqi Army, and continued with the debathification of the civil services. This resulted in widespread Sunni resentment and an inflammation of the insurgency. Second, a grandiose vision that Iraq could accommodate American military presence and be a focus for change in the Middle East, specifically, its neighbors, Iran and Syria. This has resulted in a tighter cooperation between Syria and Iran and their covert support of the insurgency. At the present both countries see no interest in stability in Iraq and benefit from keeping the American army overstretched and on the defensive.

Clinton's Camp David Peace Conference: President Clinton, who was deeply involved throughout his presidency with the Oslo peace process, wanted to leave the White House with the ultimate historical prize of delivering peace between Israel and the Palestinians. To do so he "invited'' the parties to a conference for final status agreements without proper planning or having an accepted draft of an agreement. Instead of getting his coveted Nobel Prize, Clinton was flanked by an arrogant Israeli leader determined to force the Palestinians to deal on Israel's terms, and a reluctant Palestinian President who, did not have a clear idea of what he wanted nor what he could sell his people. With his wife running for the senate in the New York State, Clinton had no choice but to blame the failure of the peace conference on the Palestinians. The result was the second intifada with its savagery that almost put an end to the possibility of peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Israel's War in Lebanon: There are many troubling similarities in Israel's misadventure in Lebanon from 1982-2000, and Americas war in Iraq. Originally, the Israeli Prime Minister Menachim Begin, told the Israelis that the invasion of Lebanon was a limited measure of self-defense to remove the threat of attacks on Israel by PLO fighters and their long range weapons. But in reality, Begin and his defense minister Ariel Sharon had a much more ambitious plan aimed at reshaping the Middle East. Eventually, Israel occupied large parts of Lebanon and its capitol Beirut. Under the threat of Israeli tanks, the PLO was expelled from Lebanon and a new Lebanese President was appointed; who Israel hoped to sign a peace agreement with. Israel's house of cards in Lebanon collapsed following the assassination of the President of Lebanon and the revenge massacres that followed. A popular Shiite insurgency evolved in Southern Lebanon and became Hizbullah, which with Iranian and Syrian assistance vexed and battled Israel with suicide bombers and road side bombs. Israel withdrew unilaterally from South Lebanon, in what is seen as the first ever Arab victory against the Israeli army and what became a source of inspiration to the Islamist Palestinian resistance in the West Bank and Gaza.

Nasser and the Six-Days War: Israel's surprise attack on Egypt in 1967 came as a reaction to a number of reckless pronouncements and actions by Egypt's president, Jamal Abd al-Nassir. Nassir was aware that neither his army nor Syria's were in any shape to win a war with Israel. Still he embarked on showmanship that Israel could only interpret as signs of an eminent war. Israel then took the initiative and attacked Egypt, then Syria and Jordan and took control of the Gaza, the Golan Heights and the West Bank.

In contrast to these events, there are some examples where a measured and realistic decision making has resulted in remarkable opportunities in the Middle East.

Sadat's 1973 War: Anwar al-Sadat was realistic in his evaluating of the limited military capabilities the Arab armies had against Israel's. He had abandoned the idea of the destruction of Israel and wanted to find a way to initiate a peace agreement with it. To do so he initiated the well prepared and minimalist attack to cross the Suez canal in 1973. This limited success allowed him the strategic opportunity to offer peace to Israel four years later, and eventually led to the general Arab realization that peace with Israel is inevitable.

This years' Elections in Lebanon: Following the withdrawal of the Syrian armies, the Lebanese were able to engage in new elections that on the surface seemed open and democratic. But at its core, Lebanese politics is based on a historical system of sectarian divisions, mandates and balances that has limited validity in the population's current distribution. Still the old agreement remains successful because it is what's possible to maintain civil discourse and unity within Lebanon's fractured society.

Israel's withdrawal from Gaza: Israel's settlements project in the occupied territories has been based on zealous religious and nationalistic sentiments without any rational consideration of its costs and benefits. After many years of denial, Ariel Sharon came to the realistic conclusion that Israel's presence in the Gaza strip was a dead end. The withdrawal has now opened new opportunities for a realistic management of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and could restore the possibility of peace that was shattered with the collapse of Clinton's Camp David conference.

Looking ahead:

The Middle East remains a dangerous and fluid place and many of its principals will have to commit to actions that could be dangerously over reaching or that flow in measured natural development. Here are some things to look for.

1- The Israeli right: The Likud party in Israel is scheduled to convene its central committee next month, with the most likely result of removing Ariel Sharon as a prime minister and bringing forth early elections. The Israeli right is yet to abandon the dream of Greater Israel and the subjugation of the Palestinians. The actions of the Likud party promises to shake up the political map of Israel. Will the general Israeli public take a cue from Gaza and support further removal of settlements for peace?

2- Hamas: The Palestinian Islamic Resistant movement is, I believe, at a cross roads. The Palestinian Authority is pressuring it to abandon its military and terrorist actions, to join the PLO, and participate in the upcoming elections in January. Hamas still calls for the destruction of Israel and regards any peace agreement as only a stage towards that larger goal. This maximalist position can not help the Palestinians gain International support, which they critically need. If Hamas does not cooperate with the PA and moderate its activities then violent confrontations among the Palestinians and between the Palestinians and Israel are inevitable.

3- The War in Iraq: The vote on the constitution in October is another milestone that the Bush administration has been eagerly anticipating for but the results now look less than rosy. What would the Bush administration's new approach be following the vote and under the shadow of American mid term elections next year? Would it stick to the lofty hope of a democratic Iraq to transform the Middle East, or will it start looking for a regional, uglier but more realistic exit strategy with possible cooperation with Iran and Syria? How will the Shiite react to a possible torpedo of the Constitution by the Sunnis, and the prospect of more deadly attacks against them? How long are they willing to take the beating before they resort to widespread revenge, leading to civil war that the Sunnis can not possibly afford?

4- Egypt and Democracy in the Arab World: The re-election of President Mubarak to a new term is certain. With Mubarak playing the helpful role of the big Arab brother in Palestine and in smoothing things out with Israel, it is doubtful that the democratic movement in Egypt will have any significant support from the International community at this point. Will the President of Yemen remain true to his promise of not running for re-election next year and become one of the rare Arab Presidents who gives up power willingly? How long will the Baathist regime in Syria holdout against meaningful political reforms? How far will the King of Jordan lead his country on the promised road of constitutional Monarchy? And many many other questions! Stay tuned.

The Challenge of Iraqi Federalism.

In President Bush's statement welcoming the draft constitution submitted to Iraq's National Assembly, he declares that this draft came "with consensus reached on most provisions through debate, dialogue, and compromise.'' The word "most" is very important here because it is an attempt to overlook the disturbing reality that the Sunni members of the draft committee had refused to accept it. The main point of the Sunni objection to the constitution seems to be the provision of Federalism. Iraq's constitution is unique in the Middle East in its recognition and incorporation of the Kurd's rights as a separate people within the state. The Kurds who are generally a persecuted minority in Turkey, Iran and Syria, have achieved a remarkable position in Iraq. The fact of the matter is that this recognition was won by the Kurds, through years of struggle against Saddam and after many painful sacrifices. Thus they should be commended for their achievements. But the question that the Sunnis are asking themselves is can Federalism be good for them? It seems that from the Sunnis point of view, the Shiites jumped on the Federalism bandwagon demanded by the Kurds, for sectarian benefits and not for the purpose of the unity of Iraq. It is interesting that Muqtada al-Sadr has rejected the constitution as well, probably because it leaves his main Shiite supporters in Baghdad, and on the outside, while his rival Shiite groups walk way with the rich provinces in the south.

In my opinion federalism is dangerous for Iraq for the following reasons:

1- It poses the danger of validating the sectarian division between Sunnis and Shiite and gives it the same status of ethnic division. The Arab unity of the majority Iraqis is thus destroyed. This spills trouble for neighboring Arab countries like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia that has large Shiite minorities.

2- Federalism is a destabilizing factor. Iraq is already torn by civil strife, the occupation, tribal, ethnic and religious loyalties. A constitution should be one that rises above these divisions. But by adopting Federalism which is ultimately based on these divisions, this constitution fails to bring unity to Iraq. In addition, the Kurds might eventually push for independence and self-determination, especially if they are able to control the province of Kirkuk. But that will only lead to further destabilizations in the region. Turkey objects to independent Kurdish area, and is very antagonistic to the idea that the Turkmen of Kirkuk would come under Kurdish control.

3- Ultimately, Federalism might come down to a question of money and the distribution of oil revenues. The final version of the constitution is much more moderate in the demand for allocation of money to the provinces and it states that the oil belongs to all Iraqis. Although, it empowers the legislature to enact "temporary'' laws that gives certain provinces preferential allocation of money. Once again it would be easy for the Kurds and Shiite to come to beneficial agreement on the expense of the Sunni provinces.

An alternative for federalism is to give the Kurds an autonomy in their areas, except for the province of Kirkuk and to build the rest of Iraq based on the unifying Arab culture that joins Sunnis and Shiites.

Why is Hamas bad for the Palestinians?

Hamas considers Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza strip as a victory and a justification of its militant strategy, but in reality Hamas and its strategy, are as bad to the Palestinians as the settlers are bad for Israel. Both are the two sides of the same coin. Each refuses to accept the validity of the other side, by claiming the land to be holy to their religion only. Both are religious nationalist groupss that claim to be doing the work of God, while the fruits of their efforts are hate and violence.

Hamas is bad for the Palestinians because in its ideology and world view it rejects the necessity of political compromise and dogmatically holds to the maximalist position of the destruction of the State of Israel. Hamas regards any development in the peace process as only a step in its "stages approach'' to the destruction of Israel.

Emotionally, Hamas' position might be accepted by a large segment of the Palestinian population who had suffered for decades at Israel's hands, but realistically, most Palestinians understand that it would be impossible to defeat Israel militarily, and that the continuation of the conflict is not in the their best interest.

The struggle over the West Bank and Jerusalem will be a much harder than that over Gaza. The Palestinians desperately need the support of the international community, financially, diplomatically and morally. They will not be able to garner that support with suicide bombers and Qassam missiles on the loose.

Mahmoud Abbas understand this and has demonstrated that when he called on the Palestinian militants not to react to the latest Israeli military action in Tol Karem where innocent bystanders and children were killed.

For decades the Palestinians have tried violence as their mean of resistance, it is time for a different approach. It is understandable that the Palestinians do not trust Sharon nor his designs on the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The wall and the expansion of the settlements are acts of violence against the Palestinians. But at this moment in their history, violence can not be answered by violence, they need to be more sophisticated and deliberate.

It would be best if Hamas joins the PLO, thus tacitly accepting Israel's existence, prior to its participation in the upcoming election for the legislative council. The elections are expected to be a political clash between Hamas and Fatah, the main secular Palestinian movement. At the moment, neither Hamas nor Fatah are interested in a military confrontation, but such a clash might become inevitable if the peace process does move forward to the point of final status agreement, and Hamas refuses to abide by it.

There are considerable signs of fatigue on both sides for the continuation of meaningless violence, except for those who continue to cling to religious nationalist outlook that would only bring more violence and destruction.

The Evil of the Settlments Continues.

Enigma, is the best word that describes Prime Minister Sharon these days. No one seems to know what his real intentions are, nor if he really have ones for sure.

Evacuating Gaza was impressive process. Within a few weeks, when all the Israeli army leaves, a large number of Palestinians will have a new experience living without Settlers or Israeli Army.

But the big question now is what will happen in the West Bank? Israeli statistics that was just released indicated that the number of settlers in the West Bank increased by over twelve thousand during last year. That's more than all the settlers that were evacuated from Gaza.

At the same time, Israel revealed its plans of virtually cutting the West Bank in half by building the fence around the settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim and other smaller ones, and taking over more of Palestinian lands.

Sharon, the father of the Gaza settlements has yet to learn from his dead end adventures.

True Israel has the power to keep building the illegal and immoral wall and keep destroying Palestinian lands, unity, agriculture and livelihood, but eventually this will lead to one thing and only one thing, Hamas and its terror.

Everyone is waiting to see what will Sharon decides next, to move on with the peace process or continue with unilateral moves. A couple of days ago Shimon Peres said on Israeli TV that it is time to move on to final status talks with the Palestinians. And that as long as the peace process continues then labor will support Sharon. Internal Israeli politics don't bode will for Sharon though. So maybe to keep his job as long as he can, we will see more positive moves from Sharon.

Or maybe the encouragement will come from Bush, with his "staying the course'' policy in Iraq leading us down another dead end street, maybe Bush will want to have some positive news from the Middle East by working harder on the Palestinian issue. One can only hope.

Religious Nationalism and America's wars in the Middle East.

During a lunch break in Lagos, Nigeria I asked a Nigerian associate about his religious affiliation. When I found that he was a Moslem who had converted to Christianity, our discussion became involved and it touched among other things on the interaction of religion and politics in Nigeria. Sitting at our table was another co-worker from Scotland who seemed flabbergasted by our discussion. From his Western secular background a discussion of religion was uncomfortable. But for me and my Nigerian friend, who came from cultures where religion is at the heart of one's identity our discussion was fundamental to our understanding of each other.

I grew up in Nazareth, Israel's largest Arab city. I was born into a Christian family but many of my friends and neighbors were Moslems. I was in high school when the Islamic revolution took place in Iran and Khomeini came to power. I remember having discussions with a Moslem classmate during recess time, touching on the rise of Islam in Iran. My classmate was becoming "religious'' and he felt deep pride in the new found power in Khomeini's mobilization of Islam. Ironically, we were attending a Christian private school, sponsored by the Southern Baptist Convention that President Carter is affiliated with. Carter's troubles with Khomeini and his supporters was the beginning of Americas tumultuous relationship with Fundamentalist Islam.

A revival of Islamic fundamentalism spread through the Middle East in the late seventies and it flourished in the eighties in reaction to repressive Arab regimes and disappointments at the failures of Arab nationalism. At present, in large part due to Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network, Islamic fundamentalism has become a familiar issue but it remains a baffling one for secular Western culture that sees religion as a private matter. This is evident at the surprised reaction to the fact that the four suicide bombers in London were all born in England. But as I already saw in my Arab classmate's pride with the Iranian revolution, Islamic Fundamentalism is in essence a pan Islamic religious nationalism. Furthermore, the roots of religious nationalism lie in Biblical monotheism and it exists among Jews as well as Christians as well.

In a recent article published in the Weekly Standard, David Gelernter, declares that "George W. Bush's worldwide war on tyranny is the quintessence of a biblical project--one that sees America as an almost chosen people.'' And that it fits well with a long tradition where some "Americans saw the great push westward as fulfilling the Lord's plan for the United States, modeled on Israel's settlement of the holy land.''

When Moses lead the Hebrews tribes out of Egypt into the desert pursuing a promised land, and gave them religious edicts, he established the foundation of religious nationalism which represents a unity between God's people, land and law. Religious nationalism demands total devotion to God's laws and it regards the land as a sacred gift from God.

Religious nationalism is intended to supersede all other identities and historically it took a considerable time to develop. To establish the Hebrew's religious nationalism, Moses lead them in the desert for forty years, until the first generation died out. With the death of Moses, Joshua, lead the Hebrews in conquest to establish the physical boundaries of their religious nationalism. Similarly, Moslem religious nationalism developed over a number of years. When the Prophet Mohammad established Islam, he saw himself as following in the tradition of the Biblical prophets. Mohammad rejected the idea of a chosen people and instead formed the concept of "Umma,'' or a Nation of Islam, a universal unity of Moslems. Mohammad used the identity of Umma, to unify his followers and to nullify their divisive tribal allegiances. The Quran and Mohammad's teachings became the basis for Islamic law known as Sharia. Following Mohammad's death, his followers embarked onto an ambitious land conquest that extended from North Africa to the Middle of Asia. Within these physical boundaries, Islam religious nationalism developed thus unifying the land with the Umma and the Sharia.

Unlike Judaism and Islam, Christianity initially developed as a universal spiritual message, that saw the Kingdom of God in spiritual terms. The establishment of a physical one was left to the future return of Jesus Christ. But with the adoption of Christianity by European kings and the rise of the Papacy, Christian religious nationalism emerged. Initially, this nationalism fueled the Crusade wars in the Holy Land that lasted for about 200 years. Later this energy was directed Westward and into the discovery of the new World.

The Biblical model of chosen people and sacred land has long been used to interpret the development of America and its policies by Fundamentalist Christians in their attempt at forming Christian nationalism. Within the Bible they found justification for taking over Indian lands and for slavery. They adopted conservative political positions and shaped them in Biblical terms. Today they actively promote laws and policies that in their view are consistent with America as a chosen land, to the detriment of the separation between Church and State.

The 9/11 attack on America has intensified the feeling of Christian nationalism. Very early in the "war on terror'' President Bush called it a Crusade. He refrains from using this term now, due to its wide negative implications among Moslems. But for Moslem Fundamentalists America's wars in the Middle East are nothing short of Crusades.

Viewing international conflicts from a religious perspective only exaserbates and intensifies them as has happened in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Initially this conflict was a struggle between two secular national movements over the same land. But in the seventies it has transformed into a religious one as Fundamentalist Settlers driven by Jewish religious nationalism began moving into the West Bank and Gaza and taking over Palestinian lands. Christian Fundamentalists in the United States saw these settlements as another milestone toward the return of Jesus Christ and used their political influence to support them. At the same time, the Islamic nationalist movement developed in the West Bank and Gaza to resist the Israeli occupation. For about twenty years now, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been in essence directed by these religious groups. Underneath all the diplomatic activities and peace talks and conferences, the depth of the conflict, the hate and the violence has been dictated by the convictions of religious nationalism.

In the 80s, it was the Russians' invasion of Afghanistan that rallied Moslem's Fundamentalists and gave Moslem nationalism its modern rise. Today, Iraq is playing that same role. Just as then, Moslem Fundamentalists are pouring in to fight for the sanctity of Moslem lands. President Bush's attempt at transforming the invasion of Iraq from a defensive measure in search for weapons of mass destruction to a "quintessence of a biblical project'' for changing the Middle East, as his base of fundamentalist Christians sees it, does not bode well.

It is obvious that America's invasion of Iraq was done with little preparation and understanding of what would come after. And it seems that our strategy today is based on wishful thinking of what might happen in the future and on a shaky dream that Iraqi democracy will transform the Middle East. In this strategy our actions are dictated not by our real interests but whether the segmented tribes, peoples, and sects of Iraq can agree together on a unified version of Iraq. What is needed is a more realistic exit strategy. Iraq should not be an American "biblical project'' but an Islamic and a regional problem. It would be admirable if the Iraqi's could achieve a form of democracy. One that is similar to Lebanon's system of religious sectarian checks and balances would probably be the most that can be achieved. But America should be willing to consider even a less favorable outcome, which at this point seems more realistic.

The Messiah is Not Coming

A sign on the Post office of one of Gaza settlements read, "Closed, awaiting Redemption.'' That Gaza settlement was evacuated with all the other settlements in the Gaza strip and a token ones in the West Bank.

For a week the Israeli TV had shown in dramatic photography and detail the evacuation of the mainly Religious Jewish settlers who refused to evacuate on their own. Just a week before the evacuation one religious Jew was shown planting tomatoes and declaring with all assurance that he will be here to harvest and sell and get return on his costly investment. Well obviously he will not.

Many speculations are taking place on the rift that might have been created between the Religious Zionist settlers and the State of Israel. This was dramatically demonstrated by the video of a Rabbi spitting at the Israeli flag that was prominently displayed on the special uniforms worn by the army evacuation units. A more fundamental rift that one will have to wonder about is the disappointment that those zealots must have now that their redemption did not come about. How will, all those who stood up in front of TV cameras and declared without hesitation and equivocation that the disengagement will not take place and that Jews will live in Gaza for ever, deal with lack of divine support?

"Days of the Messiah'' is an ideological framework that confuses modern Middle Eastern historical events with Biblical images and apocalyptic prophecies. Those religious settlers who refused to accept the impeding evacuations are living in this ideological/religious fantasy. Hundreds if not thousand have died and the lives of tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands, Palestinian and Jew alike, have been aversely effected by the irrational and deadened decision of moving Jews into densely populated Palestinian areas. And if as Jesus said, "by their fruits ye shall know them,'' then these settlements were nothing but an expression of Evil.

In my Novel "Days of the Messiah: Pharaoh'' I examine the roots of this ideological outlook and its antagonism towards the process of peace in the Middle East. Unlike in my novel, and to the relief of those who care for peace in the Middle East, there was the absence of a serious presence of American Evangelical fanatics during the evacuation. Just a few months ago there were some claims that thousands of American Christians are planning to come and join with the settlers. None of that did happen. Hopefully this might indicate a moderation in their fanatical adherence to the Days of the Messiah outlook.

The news agencies today carried reports that Pat Robertson was calling for the assassination of the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. I am sure the Palestinians would be more than happy if Pat Robertson would direct his evil form of Christianity somewhere else in the world.

Paying for Peace and War in the Middle East

On July 20th the US Congress approved the Berkley-Crowley amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. This amendment, among other limitations, restricts the President's ability to provide direct aid to the Palestinians, even when he has determined that it is in the national security interests of the U.S. to do so. According to its own press release the Zionist Organization of America boasts that it has "worked closely with key lawmakers, helped initiate, promote and pass these new restrictions.'' This organization is the main Jewish Organization in the US that supports extreme right wing views in Israel. It is the only major Jewish group in the US that is against Israel's withdrawal from Gaza.

Since his election as President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas was worked hard to move the Peace Process with Israel. He has condemned violence and terrorist acts without equivocation or hesitation. And is working closely with American army representatives to reform his security forces to combat violence and restore the control of law. Ironically, American aid to the Palestinian authority is currently under the most limitations of any aid program in the world. At a time when President Bush needs to work quickly and flexibly to support Abbas, the Congress moves to restricted his actions. Just last week the Secretary of State found it necessary to alter her schedule and visit the Middle East to offer support to President Abbas' confrontation with Hamas militants.

Due to the Congress' restrictions, President Bush's economic help to the Palestinians stands at $50 millions dollars earmarked for investment in the grossly underdeveloped Gaza. On the other hand, Israel is now preparing a request of $2.5 Billion dollars assistance package from the US to pay for removing the settlements from Gaza and for their relocation and related development in Israel. For decades now, the official policy of the United States has been that Israeli Settlements in the occupied territories are counter productive to peace. For decades Israel has ignored this American policy and has spent billions of dollars in the occupied territory, compliments of the US Congress. Now Arik Sharon has decided that the Gaza settlements were a mistake, and he is asking the American tax payers to pay for their removal. But he continues to build and expand the settlements in the West Bank, against the expressed wishes and repeated calls of the Bush administration. Is it not time, that the US Congress tells Israel enough is enough on settlements. No money should be allocated and sent to Israel, until Israel stops all its settlement activities. That would be a clear signal that the Congress is fully behind the president as he tries to advance his Road Map for Middle East peace. Stoping all settlement activity is Israel's basic requirements under the Road Map. Israel has yet to adhere to its obligation. When the Congress is willing to pay for building the settlements and then for their removal, while putting unreasonable restrictions on helping the Palestinian Authority, it is sending the wrong message to Israel and is undermining the Presidents' influence in that region.

Reconciling Israel and Muslim Countries

Last week a small political storm erupted in Pakistan following the public meeting between its foreign minister and Israel's foreign minister. Islamist members of the Pakistani parliament walked out in protest and small demonstrations took to the streets. In reaction, the Pakistani government denied that the meeting represented any significant shift in its policy towards Israel. It maintained that Pakistan would not recognize Israel before the establishment of a Palestinian state. Of all the major Moslem non-Arab countries, Turkey is the only one that has diplomatic relations with Israel. The relationship between Israel and Turkey used to be much closer during the time when the military ruled Turkey, but it had cooled off significantly in the last few years. In contrast, of all the Moslem countries, Iran stands out with its vehement antagonism towards Israel. Ironically, Iran, a non-Arab country, which does not have any boarders with Israel, is the only country that Israel regards as posing significant strategic danger. Israel sees Iran's nuclear activity as a direct threat to its existence. As a result, the American Israel Public Affairs committee, Israel's main lobbying group in Washington, has long been active in "raising awareness'' in the United States of Iran's nuclear ambitions and the need for an American military response. The Islamic animosity to Israel can be divided into two separate, though interdependent factors: political and religious. The political factor is usually the more apparent and familiar one. Most Moslem countries in solidarity with the Arab countries initially refused to recognize Israel. Since the development of the peace process between Israel and its Arab neighbors the reservations toward Israel have lost much of their reasoning. But with the continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory, it would be difficult for these countries to get their Moslem populations to accept diplomatic relations with Israel. This leads to the second factor and that is the wide anti-Jewish sentiment in the Moslem world, especially among fundamentalists. These sentiments reach beyond the rationale of the political conflict between Israel and the Arabs. The origins of these anti-Jewish feelings go back to the time of the Prophet Mohammad and are based in some of the events that accompanied the emergence of the first Moslem State. At that time, there where three Jewish tribes with some military and financial powers in Medina, the city where the Prophet came for refuge, and which he later turned into the center of his political power. The majority of the Jews in Medina did not recognize the prophetic calling of Mohammad and remained, for the most part, passive in the military conflict between the Moslems and their enemies. It seems that Mohammad was disappointed at the Jewish apathy towards his message, which is a continuation of the monotheist traditions of Judaism and Christianity, and he became suspicious of their military and economic powers. Eventually, a series of conflicts developed between Mohammad and each of the three Jewish tribes with escalating dire consequences for the Jews. In Moslem traditions, and supported by a number of anti-Jewish references in the Quran, the responsibility for the conflicts are laid squarely on the shoulders of the Jews who are seen as traitorous to the Prophet and the Moslems. It would seem absurd that events that took place over 1400 years ago between the early Moslems and some Jewish tribes would have a direct effect on the relationship between Jews and Moslems today. But fundamentalist Moslems do refer to these events and do mix them in their antagonism towards Israel to the extent that it becomes difficult to distinguish the political from the religious. Anti Israeli sentiments are easily wrapped within anti-Jewish and racist rhetoric. Ironically, this ambiguity and interdependence between the political and the religious factors are exploited by some pro Israel groups, to deflect valid criticism of Israeli policies. I believe that this convolution of the political and the religious fuels terrorism and extremism. It is necessary for Israel to find common ground with Moslem countries, as it has with Turkey. It is also beneficial for the peace process that Moslem countries to be engaged with Israel. Remarkably, in defense of the meeting between the Israeli and Pakistani foreign ministers, Pakistani officials did declare that this meeting was encouraged by the President of the Palestinian Authority, in hopes that a dialogue between Pakistan and Israel would facilitate more Israeli flexibility in the peace process. In the case of Iran, its pursuit of nuclear know-how is based on its national security priorities. Threats of military action and sanctions will only heighten these concerns and drive Iran to further entrenchment in its position. Granted, Islamist Iran has expressed strong anti-Israeli sentiment from its inception following in the tradition of its founder Khomeini. But the idea that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would serve Israeli or American interests is more than short sighted. Such an attack would expose the American troops in Iraq to Shiite retributions that could easily dwarf the current insurgency. In addition, Iran would attack Israel with its missiles and it could very likely to get Hizbullah in Lebanon involved in military actions, this might end up involving Syria as well. The neo-conservatives who thought that going into Iraq was the way to change the Middle East, would welcome an all out war with Syria and Iran, but I doubt that the American people would see value in additional wars against Moslem countries. I believe that peace between Israel and the Palestinians and Syria as well, is the only way to defuse the Iranian threat to Israel. With a resolution of the political justification for animosity towards Israel, the religious one would loose its edge, and the road would be wide for Israeli-Muslim reconciliation.

L I N K S	L I N K S	L I N K S
Qantara--A Bridge to Islam	Support Sanity	The Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace
The Geneva Accord	Peace Now Movement	HAARETZ Newspaper English Israel
The Daily Star -English Lebanon	Flags and Countries Info	The Christian Science Monitor
Kol Israel Links Page	Al Ahram Weekly--English Egypt	Sabeel, Palestinian Christian Movement
Taayush, Arab Jewish Partnership	Sojourners Magazine	Electronic Intifada
Sudan Tribune	Israeli-Arab Issues Site and Links	World Press Review
Ariga	Churches for Middle East Peace	Al-khyal Publishing
daysofthemessiah blog	The Guvnor Times	Promote Your Website for Free
Books, authors and readers reviews	Autographed By Author - The Internet's largest gathering of autographing authors	Bookhitch.com


DAYS OF THE MESSIAH
A novel by Ehab Abunuwara