Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April/May 1999, pages 115-118

Arab-American Activism

Author Milton Viorst Discusses Libya at MEI

Noted author Milton Viorst discussed “Libya, the Lockerbie Dilemma and the Future,” March 2 at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC. Viorst explained that last November, some Libyans in positions of power wanted to explore the possibility of a return by Libya to the international community, which led him to embark on a trip to the region and an interview with Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi.

Viorst entered Libya by land from the Egyptian border, as the international travel embargo prevents any direct flights into Libya. After he and his Libyan guide entered the country, Viorst noted that contrary to the widely held belief that Libya is functioning poorly under the sanctions, the city of Benghazi, which up until 10 years ago was almost non-functional, is bustling.

Viorst related that, before his trip, he visited U.S. State Department officers concerned with Libya to get their views on the current state of affairs within Colonel Qaddafi’s homeland. What he learned is that the U.S. government has not remained actively apprised of conditions there. In fact, he said, the U.S. no longer takes Libya seriously because it does not constitute any sort of strategic threat to the United States, and it has not participated in the sponsorship of terrorism since the early 1990s.

Viorst recounted the history of U.S.-Libya relations since the rise to power of Colonel Qaddafi in a 1969 coup, which was primarily of an anti-imperial nature. Beginning in 1981, military clashes between the United States and Libya began to occur because of disagreement over where Libyan territorial waters began and ended. These clashes escalated into full-scale U.S. air raids on Libya after the U.S. concluded that Libyan intelligence agents were responsible for the La Belle discothecque bombing in Berlin, in which two U.S. servicemen and a Turkish woman died.

One of those killed by the U.S. air attack on Qaddafi’s residence in the Libyan capital of Tripoli was Qaddafi’s adopted infant daughter, a tragedy which Viorst said still colors Qaddafi’s views of the United States.

After the U.S. raids, Viorst said, came the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988. The two Libyans accused of the crime now are at the center of an offer by the United States and Great Britain to have them stand trial in the Netherlands under Scottish law. Viorst also discussed the downing of a French UTA airliner over Niger in 1989, at a time when Qaddafi was angry at French intervention in his war with Chad.

Viorst recounted how, in 1991, the United Nations imposed an embargo on international air travel to and from Libya, which was in addition to the 1986 economic sanctions imposed upon Libya by the United States.

The U.S. journalist said the location of his interview with Qaddafi in an old tent in the middle of the desert with herds of camels milling about was much in keeping with the Libyan leader’s pledge to live austerely.

In an allusion to Qaddafi’s mysterious injury several months ago, Viorst said that the Libyan leader still was walking with a crutch. He characterized Qaddafi’s demeanor as distant but courteous.

In response to Viorst’s question as to whether Libya had changed course since its days of open antagonism against the United States, Qaddafi stated that it was the U.S. which had attacked Libya and not the other way around. When Viorst asked whether Libya had committed acts of terror, Qaddafi said that that was in the past.

Regarding the bombing of the UTA civilian airliner, Qaddafi said that this occurred at a time of war in the region, that the Soviet Union had shot down a Korean passenger jet and that Israel had shot down a Libyan passenger jet over the Sinai peninsula, both in times of conflict, and that these issues were now in the pages of history where they belong.

Continuing his line of questioning, Viorst next posited to Qaddafi that while the downing of an Iran Air commercial airliner by a U.S. Naval ship which thought it was under attack had been an accident, the Lockerbie incident was definitely terrorism. Viorst said that Qaddafi’s answer to this was that it was interesting that when a military power uses missiles to destroy civilian aircraft, this is not considered terror, but when a poor nation uses explosives and small bombs to do the same thing, it is thought of as terror.

Viorst told the MEI audience that power within Libya is diffused, with two groups vying for control. These he characterizes as the technocrats/bureaucrats, who are well-educated, and the tribal, patriarchal, anti-modern group, from which terrorist actions come, according to Viorst. He stated that tension is growing between the two sectors, with Qaddafi keeping one foot in each camp, which helps explain his vacillation on the issue of extraditing the two Lockerbie suspects out of Libya for trial.

Viorst stated that while the Libyan leader’s power is less than absolute, this was by his own decision, and that Qaddafi is still very much the man in charge. He summed up Qaddafi’s personality as having his head with the technocrat sector and his heart with the traditionalists. It is Viorst’s sense that Qaddafi will give up the suspects for trial, as that is where the future is.

Viorst said that the embargo on Libya has worked, if the object was the infliction of pain on the Libyan economy. Under the terms of the embargo, Viorst noted that Libya can import and export food and export oil, which the Europeans buy in quantity. The one problem with the exporting of oil is that the U.S. embargo forbids the importation of oil field equipment, which is keeping Libya from modernizing its pumping and transportation operations.

Summing up, Viorst said that the reason the U.S. is so hard on Libya compared with its policy on many other nations is a case of the trap of “moral grandeur.” He compared U.S. Libyan policy with U.S. policy regarding Fidel Castro and Cuba, which Viorst called a situation where the United States does not know how to get out of an old policy.

—Michael S. Lee

Dr. Hala Maksoud Inspires Arab-American Students

On Jan. 27, 1999, Dr. Hala Maksoud, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) in Washington, DC, spoke to over 60 students, faculty and guests in the Rotunda Dome at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. Dr. Maksoud discussed the importance of college campuses as the pillars of academia, where the free flow of ideas can exist. She urged a stronger presence on campuses in political discourse—which, as she notes, usually excludes the Arab-American community. Dr. Maksoud brought with her a sense of urgency, pride, and enthusiasm that spread among the students and guests attending the lecture.

In general, Arab Americans are wealthy, well-educated (on average, four years more education than the U.S. average), and have 4 percent more entrepreneurs than the American average. These statistics should transfer into respect and effort to correct stereotypes, as well as fighting discrimination in the workplace and challenging discriminating laws in the United States, she said.

Dr. Maksoud discussed aspects of the stalled Arab-Israeli peace process. While Israel destroys all hopes for peace by building settlements, destroying homes, and continually violating human rights, she pointed out, the United States—through the use of taxpayers’ dollars—continues to support Israel. Israel is planting the seeds of conflict by changing the demographics of Jerusalem, which is both the integral city of the Middle East and a collective trust for the future, she said, and by proceeding with the agenda of robbing Palestinians of hopes, dreams, aspirations, and the basic human right of self-determination. In the face of this, she said, Arab Americans cannot remain idle.

Dr. Maksoud described the Middle East as “a source of pain”—not only in the West Bank and occupied territories, but also in other parts of the region. United Nations Resolution 425 calls for the withdrawal of Israel from southern Lebanon, but 20 years later no action has been taken.

Iraqi children are dying of malnutrition, while the entire population is struggling through semi-starvation in chaotic conditions, she pointed out. Improving medical conditions and water sanitation is critical in order for the Iraqi people to survive, but the economic infrastructure in Iraq has been destroyed.

Therefore Arab Americans must support the lifting of the economic sanctions—not as “Arabs” or as “Americans,” but simply as “humans.” Why should innocent human beings be penalized in Iraq while others, in Israel, flaunt their defiance of human rights and United Nations resolutions? she asked. Recent developments in the Middle East challenge Arab Americans as never before, just as do the challenges they face in the United States, where they are victimized by accusations of terrorism.

This “guilt by association” is degrading and spreads the belief that Arabs have a monopoly on terrorism, she said. As a result Arab Americans pay the price of terrorism as a community in terms of harassment and propaganda. And this is harmful and degrading when elected officials accept such misinformation.

The United States is made up of a diversity of cultures, Dr. Maksoud pointed out. The Arab heritage is an integral part of this mosaic, stemming from the world’s greatest philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists, among others. It is the Arab-American challenge to inform society, to play a role and lead in public policy. She concluded by challenging the eager university students who attended her lecture to take personal responsibility for the role of Arab Americans in American society.

—Dina M. Tamimi

Hanan Ashrawi speaks at NAAA-Sponsored Arab-American Forum

Hanan Ashrawi addressed “Challenges Facing the Palestinians in 1999” on Feb. 1 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC. Her brief speech focused on Israeli elections and the declaration of a Palestinian state on May 4, 1999.

According to Ashrawi, Palestinian statehood is “not an issue subject to negotiation.” She therefore criticized pressure on Palestinians to postpone the declaration of a state until after Israeli elections. Just because Israel has delayed the peace process does not mean that the Palestinians should delay their exercise of sovereignty, she pointed out.

The Palestinians are “not willing to engage in an open-ended process with no timetable,” she said. If there is a postponement of the May 4 declaration of a Palestinian state, it must be on the basis of a definite commitment. A postponement based on anything less would strengthen Binyamin Netanyahu and the Israeli right by demonstrating the success of extremism and the politics of obstructionism.

Since Netanyahu’s election in 1996, more Palestinians have died at the hands of Israelis than vice versa. Infringements on the basic human rights of Palestinians began with the Declaration of Principles in 1993 and have worsened with all subsequent agreements, Ashrawi said.

When asked if she preferred the Labor or Likud Party, Ashrawi responded that just because Likud seems to dissolve the Israeli-Palestinian partnership, this “does not mean that Labor is God’s gift to peace.” She noted, however, that the Labor Party is more capable of making commitments, though they may be abstract. The Labor Party wants “peace,” she said, but what kind? Ashrawi expressed fear that if the Labor Party comes to power this spring, the Palestinians may feel pressure to accept whatever they are offered.

Ashrawi urged Palestinians not to succumb to intimidation. The worst thing that can happen, she said, is for Palestinians to lose their sense of self. She urged her fellow Palestinians to work on strengthening governmental institutions in order to develop a real system of democracy.

She also criticized U.S. pressure on the Palestinian government. “The United States must support Palestinian rights and statehood without manipulating reality,” she concluded.

—Samia El-Mahdi

Middle East Peace and Justice Group Forms in Iowa City

Following a hiatus of a few years eastern Iowa residents are reorganizing a Middle East Peace and Justice Group. If the initial response is a gauge for estimating success, good things should soon follow. About 80 people braved a late winter snow storm on the evening of Feb. 9 to attend an organizational meeting at the historic Old Brick building in Iowa City.

Featured speaker Sara Reschly of Mount Pleasant, Iowa spoke of her experiences with the Christian Peacemaker Team in Hebron [see March issue of WRMEA, pages 17-18]. Her talk focused on the issue of home demolitions in the West Bank. “Wherever I speak, people are appalled to hear that an American ally (namely Israel) can be involved in such a large-scale human rights abuse as this to deprive ordinary Palestinians of a simple roof over their heads,” she explained.

Home for a month’s furlough, Reschly has been speaking to numerous church groups in southeast Iowa. “I am impressed that Iowans have such a strong concern for justice issues,” reported Reschly. “It gives me hope.”

The formal presentation developed into a lively conversation with audience members sharing their own stories. “I think what Sara is doing is great,” said Hussam Husseini from the University of Iowa Palestinian Organization. “She is an American working for and helping others see the truth about our conflict.”

For those interested in future meetings of the Iowa City group, contact Darrel and Sue Yeaney by phone: (319) 354-7877 or e-mail at: <sue-dy@avalon.net>.

Why organize such a group? Darrel Yeaney answers, “The basic purposes of an Iowa City group for Peace and Justice in the Middle East is to build local solidarity and support for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, to deepen our knowledge, understanding and friendship between one another, to overcome prejudice and stereotyping based on religious, racial or national differences, and to devise constructive methods of peacemaking and political advocacy (speaking truth to empower) on behalf of justice in the region.”

—Dr. Fred Strickert