FMC Blog: Free Speech Zone

Once again the Palestinian/Israeli conflict spirals out of control. However, this particular battle has produced circumstantial evidence that the conflict has become more dangerous than ever before. Unless a permanent solution is found soon, the violence may increase in severity until the conflict ends tragically. In the latest fighting, Israel has bombed the HAMAS controlled city of Gaza for the stated reason of neutralizing HAMAS and stopping them from firing rockets into Southern Israel. As of the date of this article, approximately 900 Palestinians and 15 Israelis have been killed. HAMAS' stated reasons for firing the rockets is to end the siege of Gaza by Israel which HAMAS alleges is preventing the free movement of people and goods and causing a humanitarian crisis. Israel denies the existence of a humanitarian crisis and refuses to end the siege of Gaza unless HAMAS recognizes Israel or is out power.

In general, what makes the Palestinian/Israeli conflict so dangerous is that half the world, (three billion people (Jews, Christians & Muslims)) are emotionally, historically and religiously attached to the land known as Israel/Palestine. This fact was demonstrated in the last few days as demonstrations erupted in more than 95 countries around the world.

Moreover, due to the affordability of satellite TV, in even the most underdeveloped countries, billions of interested people are exposed to 24 hour graphic coverage of this latest battle in Gaza. Western News stations like BBC and CNN no longer have a monopoly on reporting news. Many Middle Eastern TV stations have surpassed the reach of BBC, CNN and other western media.

As to graphic images, dozens of news stations like Aljazeera have been broadcasting live and prerecorded graphic images of Palestinian babies blown up into pieces by the Israeli military. One particular gruesome scene that was played over and over again was that of a three year old little girl with her heart protruding out of her body after a bomb fell on her house. Another station, Al Alam, repeated the scene of four dead babies who were placed next to each other in the same refrigerator of a morgue because of the large number of dead in Gaza. The graphic and often emotional coverage of this latest battle is inspiring the fury of the masses which in turn are putting enormous pressure on their governments to join the fight on the side of the Palestinians. This conflict is much more dangerous than most people realize.

For example, Egypt is receiving so much negative media coverage for not opening its border with Gaza that People throughout the Arab and Muslim world started calling for the overthrow of the Egyptian government and demonstrators attacked Egyptian embassies in several countries. The pressure on Egypt is so intense and ruthless that a shaken Egyptian president was forced to hold two press conferences to explain his government's position and to distance Egypt from Israel. Similarly, the friendly nation of Jordan came under so much pressure for not breaking diplomatic relations with Israel that King Abdullah held a publicity stunt in which he was seen donating blood for the people of Gaza and for the first time in recent memory he referred to Israel as the Enemy. Even the Saudi government was not immune from attacks and calls for the overthrow of the Saudi government. Media outlets repeated scenes of demonstrators burning the effigy of the King of Saudi Arabia with the Israeli flag wrapped around him for hundreds of millions of people to see. Saudi Arabia is perceived as a secret ally of Israel in the desire to destroy HAMAS and the refusal of the Saudi government to allow demonstrations against Israel only reinforced this belief. Whatever the truth, the Saudi government was so shaken by the attacks against it and the constant portrayal of the Saudi King rapped in the Israeli flag that the official Saudi media began publicizing Saudi efforts to raise money for the people of Gaza.

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is becoming extremely dangerous and can only be described as a ticking NUCLEAR BOMB. Currently, only Israel has nuclear weapons in the Middle East. But Iran may also go nuclear and if that happens the Arabs will try to do the same. Without a doubt, there is no conflict on earth that has the same global impact as the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Because of the potential for global instability, the entire world must do all it can to bring peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. The question is can this conflict be solved after many wars failed to end the conflict? The answer is YES but time is running out.

Currently, there are four proposals to the Israel/Palestinian conflict and three have been attempted and failed. The first is that the Israelis and Palestinians continue fighting until one submits to the other, a plan that has been tried and failed. The second is a plan where both people separate by creating two separate countries. This plan is referred to as the two state solution and all attempts to implement it have failed. The third is to divide the Palestinian territories and place them under the control of Egypt and Jordan. This solution has been tried (1948-1967) and also failed because it did not address the core of the conflict. The fourth solution is based on integration of both Israelis and Palestinians in one nation and is the only solution that has proven successful.

For the last 20 years the world has focused on the two state (two country) solution which has clearly failed. However, contrary to unanimous belief, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are to blame for the failure of the two state solution. The two state solution failed because the concept of creating two separate countries by dividing Israel/Palestine was and still is a difficult pill to swallow for Israelis & Palestinians. It is a fact that Israelis and Palestinians have religious, historical and emotional attachments to every square inch of the land that includes Israel and Palestine and neither side is eager to embrace permanent separation or "amputation" as described by Israeli novelist Amos Oz. Consequently, it is highly unlikely that permanent separation will lead to permanent peace.

In light of the above facts some may think that a solution is impossible. NOT TRUE. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict can be solved as long as both sides give up the notion that they deserve exclusive control and rule over Israel/Palestine.

In light of the attachments that both parties have for the same territory, the solution cannot be in separating but in finding a formula for living together. Many Israelis and Palestinians agree that Israel/Palestine is indivisible. Thus, the solution lies in uniting Israelis and Palestinians in one country while guaranteeing both sides equality and absolute security. What is being proposed here is the creation of two sovereign states similar to New York and New Jersey, joined together in a confederation to form one country.

To illustrate further, after occupying the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, Israel could have annexed those territories into Israel by providing the Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. Israel did not do this and instead chose to treat the West Bank and Gaza as part of Israel without granting the Palestinians citizenship, equality or political participation. Legally, Palestinians were and continue to have the same status as American blacks in the 19th century. Israel did not integrate the Palestinians into Israel because Israelis were afraid that the Palestinians may one day outnumber the Jews and vote Israel out of existence. While this is a legitimate concern, Jews and Israelis who fear equality for Palestinians assume that granting the Palestinians equality would lead to the destruction of Israel. This is a false assumption.

The world has produced many successful formulas for different people living together and sharing power and a formula can be found in this case. An example of a formula is the creation of a confederation of Israel/Palestine based on the principles of free trade and the free movement of labor and people. As to the national government, Israel and Palestine can each contribute 50% to the national parliament, a formula that would guarantee security, and eliminate political dilution from demographic changes and make certain that extremist become marginalized.

The above formula is an example that gives Palestinians and Israelis most of what they want while allowing both people to be independent and secure. Moreover, with this solution, Jerusalem becomes a non-issue and borders become less relevant.

As proof that integration can work, consider that Israel has one million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who are often referred to as "Israeli Arabs." It is important to note that they are not participating in violence. This is because Palestinians who are citizens of Israel have civil and political rights while the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have nothing.

Without a doubt most readers of this article will think that the author is naïve, idealistic, stupid, Zionists or trying to destroy Israel. We understand your beliefs. However, please ask yourself if Israel destroys Hamas or Islamic Jihad will there be peace between Israelis and Palestinians? Consider that Hamas was created in 1987. Before HAMAS was created, Israel fought five major wars and numerous other battles. Moreover, before HAMAS there were the PLO, Fatah, PFLP, PFLP-GC, 15 May Organization, Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades, Al-'Asifah, Arab Liberation Front, Force 17, Black Hand , Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - Special Command, Popular Resistance Committees, Popular Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Black September, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Doghmush, Omar Ben al-Khatib Warriors, Palestinian Liberation Army, Palestinian Popular Struggle Front, Palestinian fedayeen, Swords of Truth, Rejectionist Front, among other organizations. Today most of the above organizations have been destroyed or just vanished. However, the conflict has not ended as the above organizations have been replaced by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Holy Jihad Brigades, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Army of Islam, As-Sa'iqa, Tanzim, Al-Quds Brigades, among others. The point here is that even if Israel destroys HAMAS, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians would not be solved and it would only be a matter of time before a new group forms to replace HAMAS. Israelis and Palestinians must realize that what they have done for the last 70 years will never bring peace to either Palestine or Israel under the best of circumstances. Under the worst of circumstances this conflict may lead to an all out nuclear war where millions will die and this is no longer an exaggeration.

To summarize, Israel and its neighbors have fought numerous wars and no side has given up on their fundamental claims. For the last 20 years, both sides have tried to separate by creating two separate countries but this approach has failed because all sides have attachments to Israel and Palestine. The only solution that has a record of success is integration as demonstrated by the Palestinians who are citizens of Israel. If peace is not found then the day may soon come when the governments of the Middle East maybe overthrown by people who want to directly intervene on behalf of the Palestinians. If an uprising erupts throughout the Middle East then nuclear war may soon follow. Therefore, the choices are between total annihilation or equality for Palestinians and security for Israel. There are no other choices.

Warren Buffet recently said "I would rather be lucky than smart." As far as luck goes, Obama has been on the receiving end of unprecedented luck while McCain has been on the receiving end of the kind of luck that would make a grown man cry. I mean... when the economy reaches crisis mode within a few weeks of the presidential election and you (McCain) are aligned with the incumbent party... lady luck ain't smiling attchya.

However, the Obama phenomenon can't be explained with luck alone. Obama was doing well before news of the economic crisis--when the economy was just facing a slow down, lower home values and some foreclosures. When Bill Clinton won the presidency, he said "it's the economy stupid." In the case of Obama, "it is the economy and Iraq---stupid."

Recall that Obama gained credibility by opposing a war that turned into the most expensive military adventure in America history. It is no secret that most of the international community, including most of our allies, considered the Iraq war "unjustified." Unfortunately for McCain, as the war dragged on, more Americans became convinced that America entered the war under false pretenses and Americans began punishing republicans because of their unconditional support for the war.

Even more disastrous for Republicans is that until today Republican leaders, including McCain, have not conceded that the war was wrong and even more important is that McCain has not reassured Americans that the flawed thinking that led to the Iraq war would never happen again. Instead, McCain focused on the surge and the fact that his vision may have led to a more acceptable situation in Iraq. Without a doubt, thanks to McCain, the surge was a success but this did not impress Americans because Obama reminded them that the issue is not the surge, it is judgment and he had the judgment to oppose the war from the beginning. This is a powerful argument that McCain has not been able to answer to the satisfaction of most Americans.

Certainly, it would be difficult for McCain to admit that his support for the war was wrong. Fine... but then he needs to convince Americans that the thinking that led to the Iraq war would never happen under his presidency. He needs to further convince Americans that he believes in diplomacy above all else and not say anything that would even imply that he has aggressive intentions against any nation. It would be impossible for McCain to disassociate himself from President Bush unless he convinces Americans that he has no hostile intentions against any nation and that his focus is to strengthen America by growing the economy and saving people's jobs, homes and livelihood.

Without a doubt McCain's advisors would argue against such a change in McCain's rhetoric. However, it is not unheard of to change one's view on a major issue. Obama changed his view about drilling for oil when it became apparent that most Americans wanted drilling. McCain needs to also listen to the wishes of the majority of Americans, as he correctly did on the immigration issue, and understand that Americans question his judgment because of his strong support for invading Iraq. McCain needs to understand that Americans are angry about the war and apprehensive about their economic security. McCain's need to change people's perception of him has become even more urgent because an increasing number of Americans now believe that the current economic crisis is in part due to the cost of the Iraq war. It does not matter that this belief may be wrong because perception is reality.

It should be noted that I am not arguing that Iraq is a total failure. In fact, I believe that Iraq will bounce back and actually become a success story within a short period of time. Iraq has the people and resources to reinvent itself once security is established and all indicators are pointing to a success story in Iraq. The problem is that most Americans no longer care. All they know is that the Iraq war was wrong and that McCain was one of the main backers of the war. This is McCain's challenge.

No topic is more misunderstood than the price of oil and the oil industry in general. Most politicians and writers, who comment on the recent rise in the price of oil, its causes, and implications, simply have no clue what they are talking about.

The world is not facing an oil crisis and the price of oil is not exclusively determined by OPEC or any other organization or cartel. Today, every major oil producer, whether in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa or America can influence the price of oil.

The point of this article is that the United States is not facing a crisis, nor is it addicted to oil and the United States government should allow the free enterprise system to responds to higher prices rather than politicians or government bureaucrats who don't understand the energy market.

It should be noted that this is not the first time the world experienced high oil prices. The world initially experienced a sudden increase in oil prices in 1973 and again in 1981. As a consequence of the rise of oil prices in the 1970s and early 1980s, oil production became profitable all over the world and every country that had the ability to produce oil raced against time to increase production and explore for oil. By 1985, world oil production had increased so much higher than demand that the price of oil simply collapsed and the world experience approximately 20 years of dirt cheap oil prices.

As a result of cheap oil, production and exploration naturally decreased because available oil supply was substantially higher than demand and producing additional oil was not economically feasible.

Then China, India and Brazil, among other countries, decided they no longer wanted to be poor. China's economy has grown at a phenomenal and unprecedented 10% annual growth for 10 straight years. At no point in modern history has a large nation experienced such consistent and explosive economic growth. Add India to the equation and within a short period of time two impoverished nations with 2.6 BILLION people were suddenly able to put down their bicycles and pick their car keys. Predictably, demand for oil and other natural resources increased substantially.

Within a short period of time, India and China went from exporting oil to becoming major oil importers. Consequently, the excess global oil capacity, which once numbered eight million barrels per day, was reduced to two million barrels per day. That is correct; the world is still producing more oil than demand for oil. However, because supply is only slightly higher than demand, the market is constantly on edge. Thus, news of Hurricane Katrina, rebels in Nigeria or the nuclear dispute with Iran tends to make the market nervous because several nations produce more than two million barrels per day and the fear that anyone of them may face a disruption keeps the market on edge and invites speculators to invest in oil in the hope that demand for oil may rise faster than supply or a disruption in supply would push prices to the sky in which case, investors would reap enormous profits.

The problem of oil supply has been exasperated by western nations, including the United States, who refuse to allow drilling for additional oil. The refusal to allow additional drilling is interfering with the free market system from efficiently responding to high oil prices. It is absolutely irresponsible for the United States government to prevent the oil industry from producing oil anywhere and everywhere that oil maybe found and produced in an environmentally sound way.

Some argue that allowing additional drilling will only produce one million barrels of oil per day. (As if one million barrels of oil per day is insignificant.) What those people don't understand is that it is not the amount of additional oil the United States produces that counts; it is the amount of additional global capacity that makes a difference. Thus, one million additional barrels in the United States, one million in the Middle East and one million in Latin America will make a huge difference when added together if the end result is substantial excess oil capacity. Even if substantial excess capacity is not possible, continuous exploration and production is necessary to keep up with the additional demand from China and India. If western nations refuse to explore and drill for oil, then demand may one day surpass supply and the price of gasoline may reach $10 per gallon, a price that may damage the U.S. economy and cause enormous suffering for the poor of the world.

As to government intervention, the United States government should do NOTHING to artificially interfere with people's energy consumption habits. The government should get out of the way and let consumers and the free market respond to oil prices. Government intervention is more likely to cause additional problems than provide solutions. A case in point is the government mandated use of Ethanol which most experts credit for contributing to the global rise in food prices.

Over the last five years, the American car industry has responded to high oil prices by taking numerous steps to improve the efficiency of their automobiles. For example, GM, Ford and Chrysler began mass producing vehicles with cylinder deactivation technology whereby a vehicle switches from eight cylinders to four cylinders when road condition allow for such reduction in power and energy consumption. GM is near completion of the Volt, a new car that promises to take energy consumption to new lows. All car companies are now producing hybrids. The point here is that the car companies did not take the above mentioned steps because the government asked them to change, they began changing their cars when their consumers and the free market demanded more efficient cars.

As to other forms of energy, such as solar, wind, hydrogen, etc., the market and consumers should decide the extent of their use. The consumer will naturally begin using other forms of renewable energy once it becomes cost effective to do so. The fact is, oil continues to be the most cost effective and efficient of the available sources of energy. This is a fact that should not be denied for political reasons.

The conservative Arab Kingdom of Bahrain has appointed an Arab Jewish woman as its ambassador to the United States.

This is a remarkable example of traditional Arab tolerance and a sign that hostile relations between Jews and Arabs are beginning to subside. Throughout the last 1400 years Jews have had better relations with Muslims and Arabs than any other part of the world where Jews lived. Relations between Jews, Arabs and Muslims deteriorated in 1948 with the creation of Israel and the resulting Palestinian refugee crises.

Her Highness, Ambassador Huda Nunu, is a member of a small Arab Jewish community that numbers only 37 people. What makes this appointment even more remarkable is that the appointment was made by a conservative Muslim Arab state in the most conservative Muslims region of the world.

The Free Muslim Coalition congratulates the Arab Kingdom of Bahrain for its farsightedness and for its commitment to religious freedom and civil liberty.

While there is no conclusive answer to who killed former Pakistani prime minister Bhutto, so far the only claim of responsibility has come from an Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan, who posted the claim of responsibility on an Italian Web site. Al Qaeda posted the following message: "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat the mujahideen. (holy warriors.)"

Bhutto was an outspoken critic of Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamist groups. Consequently, Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups hated her for her rhetoric, for supporting secularism and for being a woman.

While we can't know for sure who killed Bhutto, on two occasions, Al Qaeda has also tried to kill Pakistani president Musharraf. This brings us to the state of emergency that was enacted by Musharraf in November to “defend Pakistan from extremists and terrorists.†At that time the United States and much of the world criticized Musharraf and pressured him to lift the state of emergency and to resign as army chief, a position he held alongside the position of president.

Currently, the only force that can keep Pakistan intact and safe from the terrorists is the Pakistani military. The Pakistani military and president Musharraf know better than any outsider what it takes to keep Pakistan from failing and falling in the hands of terrorists and extremists. It is a mistake for the United States or any other country to interfere in the internal affairs of Pakistan by pressuring the Pakistani government to take any action that Pakistan does not want to take. It should be left up to the Pakistani people to decide whether emergency rule stays or not, whether the president wears an army uniform or not and when and whether elections are held.

The wrong interference by the United States and the weakening of the Pakistani military's control over Pakistan may produce a repeat of the disaster that brought clerical rule to Iran. In 1979, the Shah of Iran was deposed when the military refused to back him and the country fell in the hands of religious fundamentalist who continue to rule the country until today. This must not happen in Pakistan. The United States needs to be more emphatic to the particular circumstances of Pakistan and not to pressure Pakistan to do anything that is a threat to the stability and security of the country. If president Musharraf abuses his powers it is up to the majority of the Pakistani people to stop him and not foreign governments. The Pakistanis have a long democratic tradition and are capable of protecting their rights and institutions. An example is when Pakistani lawyers took to the streets to demonstrate against the weakening of the judiciary.

While democracy is a great ideal, Pakistan is currently facing turmoil and the Pakistanis need a strong president, a strong central government and a strong military to keep order. This remains the case despite allegations that the Pakistani military has been infiltrated by extremist elements. The United States should take no action to undermine the power of the central government, the military or president Musharraf, who has been a great ally in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Currently, the Pakistani military has more than 100, 000 troops fighting extremists on the Pakistani/Afghanistan border at a minuscule cost to the United States.