 |
 |
DECEMBER 1999, pages 117-119 Arab American Activism
Joseph Zogby, lawyer son of Arab American Institute president James Zogby, spoke Sept. 13 at the Middle East Institute on Arab-American participation in U.S. politics. Zogby used his experiences at the Department of State as an example of Arab-American participation in government. Appointed in September 1998 as special assistant to Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs Martin Indyk, Zogby was criticized in the spring of 1999 for articles he had written before joining the State Department by Mortin Klein, the extremist head of the Zionist Organization of America. Klein demanded that Zogby be removed from his post, calling him “Anti-Israel,” “Anti-Semitic,” and “Anti-American.” The attack quickly mushroomed, with the New York Post and New York Daily News , both strongly Zionist newspapers, picking up Klein’s comments and running them as news. Zogby said he was personally hurt by the attacks, but saw them as part of an agenda to apply a rigid pro-Israel litmus test on U.S. Middle East policy and policy-makers, and to exclude Arab Americans from government posts. Despite Klein’s attacks, Zogby was offered a promotion and an extension of his one-year appointment at State. He declined it to accept his current position at the Department of Justice. Zogby said he had learned a great deal from his time at State, and hoped that his co-workers had learned from him. He cited one senior political appointee who, after a speech by Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, mocked Arafat’s accented English. Zogby confronted her about it, and she apologized, he said, adding that there will be heightened sensitivity when more Arab Americans are included in the process. Zogby commented that he was disappointed with American Jewish leaders for their unwillingness to come to his support and that of Salam al-Marayati, an Arab-American Democratic Party activist in Los Angeles who was unfairly attacked by Klein after he was appointed to a committee to investigate the causes of terrorism. While many Jewish Americans told Zogby privately that they were on his side, he said, their public silence allowed Klein to be the sole voice of the Jewish community. Calling on the Clinton administration to keep its promises of greater inclusion, Zogby said the Arab-American activist community still has no access to power. Three million strong, and with the greatest internal cohesion ever, Arab Americans demand a place at the table, Zogby said, because they have earned it. —Hugh Galford
As Palestinian poet and University of Michigan Professor Anton Shammas introduced the famously articulate Dr. Hanan Mikhail-Ashrawi, he suggested, perhaps not wholly in jest, that she might someday be the president of Palestine. The suggestion was warmly received by the hundreds who came to hear her at the Rackham Auditorium of the University of Michigan on Oct. 15. The event had an awesome, perhaps unprecedented, list of sponsors, including the University’s Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies, Center for the Education of Women, Center for Russian and East European Studies, College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, Department of History, Department of Near Eastern Studies, Department of Political Science, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies, Institute for Research on Women and Gender, International Institute, Office of the Provost, Program in Comparative Literature, Women’s Studies Program, and the Palestine Catastrophe Committee. Listening to Ashrawi, one is immediately captivated by her ability to articulate the issues that have confronted the Palestinians since 1948. The lack of articulation of the Palestine problem is perhaps almost as responsible as mainstream U.S. media bias in favor of Israel for skewed American public perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. (A bias that, fortunately, has largely disappeared in Europe and elsewhere in the world.) “Strength comes from the people,” said Ashrawi. “It is dangerous when one side internally believes it is powerless.” Ashrawi, a frequent critic of the Palestinian Authority (PA) while simultaneously maintaining regular personal contact with Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, was referring to the perception that the Palestinian negotiators negotiate from a position of complete weakness. “We say no settlements or there will be no peace process,” said Ashrawi. “They build settlements and the Palestinians renegotiate and renegotiate.” Laying out the “Requirements for a Lasting Peace in Palestine/Israel”—as the lecture was titled—Ashrawi said the most essential ingredient for peace is justice. Other requirements for a lasting peace include: implementation of international laws; clearly defined objectives; a roadmap with incremental steps; and the principles of parity, mutuality, and reciprocity. Ashrawi also mentioned the importance of third-party involvement but was clear in her impatience with the U.S. role from the outset. “The peace process was redefined at every step of the peace process to meet new Israeli demands,” Ashrawi recalled. “The PA became a hostage to the peace process. The peace process was dependent on the good behavior of the Palestinians, with the Israelis sitting in judgment.” Ashrawi pointed out that peace cannot be achieved in a timeframe. It takes time, particularly since the mentality that Israel has the right to oppress has to change. When Ashrawi was asked by an audience member to discuss her view about oppressive policies of the PA, she responded: “It is unforgivable. We cannot superimpose policies on our people. We are doing to ourselves what was done to us.” Ashrawi ended her speech by discussing the idea of a bi-national state—a suggestion advocated by many Palestinian intellectuals, including Dr. Edward Said. Neither the Palestinians nor Israelis will be able to permanently establish separate states, Ashrawi said. Ultimately, they will have to merge and form a one-person, one-vote democracy in order to survive. —Sherri Muzher
Frank Anderson, former chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Near East and South Asia Division, spoke on Sept. 14 at the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine in Washington, DC on the role of U.S. intelligence in the Middle East. Anderson, who retired after 27 years as a career CIA officer, began with a simple description of how the CIA functions. Established by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency was to be the principal repository of all intelligence information, Anderson said. “It was to be the agency which conducted all clandestine collection of intelligence abroad.” The provision that has allowed the United States to expand into more controversial activities, Anderson said, is the line in the Security Act that says “the CIA may from time to time conduct other such activities related to intelligence that the National Security Council may from time to time request.” Falling under this catchall phrasing are three broad missions of the CIA, Anderson said. First is the clandestine collection of intelligence, that is, the stealing of other governments’ secrets. Second is the conduct of counter-intelligence, detecting the theft of U.S. intelligence by other governments. Third are covert actions and special activities encompassing all methods of statecraft, from diplomacy and economic assistance to propaganda and the use of military force. The CIA, Anderson continued, will be called upon to engage in these activities when the United States does not want to be identified as the actor. The agency also operates under a set of laws which demands a presidential directive or finding that grants specific authority to the CIA to engage in covert operations. “So, it becomes a little less surprising that when Palestinians and Israelis have difficulty getting along with one another, the agency may be called upon as a third party. This is very definitely an arena in which it is difficult for an ambassador to act,” Anderson said. A CIA agent, on the other hand, can be engaged with both sides in a dialogue of what ifs, without committing his own or their national authorities. The CIA, Anderson said, has been involved with the Palestinians for quite some time. In the early 1970s senior officials of the Palestine Liberation Organization, specifically Fatah, made two decisions, Anderson stated. One was to condemn terrorism as counter-productive. The second was to gain the recognition of the United States, through interaction with CIA officials in the region. The Palestinians portrayed this newfound relationship with the CIA as diplomacy, through which the PLO was accorded legitimacy by the United States as the governing body of the Palestinians, and its strategic goals were acknowledged. The U.S., through the CIA, made it appear that Americans were involved in intelligence collection, and not a liaison agreement, Anderson explained. “In this context, a lot of diplomacy was achieved and relationships were built.” Simply put, “Palestinians wanted diplomatic dialogue and recognition and the Americans wanted intelligence,” Anderson said. “This was achieved through the CIA.” During the question-and-answer period, founder-president Jerri Bird of the Partners for Peace organization alleged CIA involvement in the torture of Palestinian-Americans in Israeli prisons. We have proof, Bird said, of two U.S. district attorneys and a CIA official accompanying a Palestinian Authority officer to the prisons. Without directly answering the question, Anderson responded, “If there was any CIA involvement in the torture of American citizens, it was illegal.” —Sadia Razaq
SIDEBAR Open Letter to Yemen’s PresidentA group of concerned Yemeni Americans are circulating for signatures a letter to Yemen’s president asking him to restore freedom of the press in Yemen. Readers, both Yemenis and non-Yemenis, who are concerned about press freedom and wish to add their signatures to the letter are invited to contact Abdul-Wahab Alkebsi at his Maryland telephone number, (301) 983-4311. Following is the full text of the letter: H.E. Ali Abdullah Saleh Dear Mr. President: We, the undersigned: academics, scholars, journalists, lawyers, and concerned Americans, wish to express our profound concern about the closure of Al Shoura newspaper and the deteriorating conditions of freedom of the press in Yemen. We recognize that Yemen has made significant strides toward liberalization in the past several years, including the expansion and propagation of the press. It is unfortunate, however, that many journalists and writers are subject to a coercive policy that limits their freedom of expression, as documented by Amnesty International and the Committee to Protect Journalists. Of particular concern to us is what indeed appears to be an officially sanctioned policy to create fake newspapers bearing the names of opposition newspapers as a pretext to impose a ban on them. We understand that is what actually happened in the case of Al Shoura, one of the most popular newspapers in Yemen. The issue of press freedom concerns us very deeply as it touches upon the fundamentals of universal human rights. We are, therefore, troubled to see these very basic rights violated by the Yemeni authorities. We believe that the practice of closing newspapers, however critical of the government they may be, bodes ill for the development of a sound political system in Yemen. We also believe that such an action by the government creates a climate of repression and an environment ill-suited to the free exchange of ideas. It has a chilling effect upon the citizens of Yemen, and we believe it to be contrary to freedom of expression in the country. At this stage, you have a moral duty and an historic responsibility to avoid that darkening prospect. We respectfully urge you to take immediate steps to ensure that the ban on Al Shoura is lifted, and that all coercive measures against the press are discouraged and renounced. Name |
|
|