IN THIS ISSUE
Over 20 Muslim Hoosiers from across the state of Indiana met with representatives of Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels to discuss issues that concern Muslim Hoosiers on December 8, 2006. The meeting was organized by the Muslim Alliance of Indiana (MAI) at the request of the Governor's office. A previously organized meeting in September by the Governor's office did not bring statewide attendance resulting in MAI being asked to assist in getting a larger representative group to the table. Eric Holcomb, Governor Daniels Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, spoke with Muslim Hoosier regarding their concerns and to discuss how the state could work with the Muslim community of Indiana.
MAI has worked with Governor Daniels staff since before his election when his campaign staff met with MAI leaders at the MAI Annual Iftar. It was at that meeting that Governor Daniels campaign staff promised greater access to Muslim Hoosiers should Daniels win office. At the Iftar ideas like an annual Iftar hosted by the Governor, a Muslim Day at the Statehouse and regular consultation was discussed. Governor Daniels since being elected has fulfilled each one of those ideas discussed at the MAI Iftar prior to his election.
At the quarterly meeting Muslims discussed various issues including the need for the Governor recognizing Eid, the need for the state to take advantage of Muslim talent, issues related to diversity, hate crime and civil right violations. Most importantly the Muslim delegation sought to learn how Muslims could help in making Indiana vibrant, safe and strong. "We believe that Muslim Hoosiers are making Indiana a better place every day through our hard work and civic engagement but we wanted to see how the Governor felt we could better assist Indiana," stated Shariq Siddiqui, Executive Director of MAI.
The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for March 2007. Organizations and communities interested in sending representatives should contact Shariq Siddiqui, Executive Director of MAI at siddiquisa@gmail.com.
The Muslim Alliance of Indiana (MAI) had a meeting with the Muslim community in Fishers on Friday, December 8, 2006, after isha prayer. The Executive Director of MAI, Shariq Siddiqui, discussed the need of Muslims to connect with each other as well as their political leadership. "The are over 280,000 Muslims in Indiana but unless we communicate and connect with each we can not have as great an impact," state Siddiqui.
"We appreciate the opportunity to present MAI and its activities to the Fishers community and hope that we can continue to meet with Muslim communities across the state," stated Dr Ibad Ansari, President of MAI.
The Fishers Muslim community promised to be more involved with MAI's activities in the future.
The Executive Director of the Muslim Alliance of Indiana (MAI), Shariq Siddiqui, visited Washington DC. The weekend long trip included consultation with national leaders about the importance of Muslim involvement in politics, an interview with Voice of America radio and television as well as attendance of the fundraiser for Indiana based nonprofit, ObatHelpers.
The ObatHelpers is an Indiana based nonprofit organization that raises funds for refugees in living on Bangladesh. The fundraiser raised $18,000 at the ADAMS Islamic center in Stirling, Virginia. ObatHelpers was formed in Indiana by GM employee, Anwar Khan, upon learning that there were over 250,000 stranded Pakistani's living in Bangladesh. With assistance from Indiana Senator Lugar and Governor Daniels Office of Faith Based Initiatives, ObatHelpers, are serving Muslims living in these camps.
ObatHelpers also provides meat to homes in the refugee camps on Eid aladha through donations of goat and cows from the USA. "Last year we supplied over 75 goats to the camps with families reporting that this was the first time they had an opportunity to have meat in their meal," stated Anwar Khan, President of ObatHelpers, "This year we hope to supply more animals through donations from the USA, insha Allah."
For more information about ObatHelpers please visit www.obathelpers.org.
M. Naziruddin Ali, General Manager of NAIT, Passed Away Friday, December 1, 2006 in Chicago
Assalamu Alaykum,
Br. M. Naziruddin Ali has joined his Lord. Inna lillahi wa inna ilaihe rajioun. May Allah cover him with His mercy and open the doors of Jannah to him.
A week ago, I was blessed to visit him in Chicago and spend some time with him. Little did I realize at that time that this would be my last meeting with him in this life. I did notice that he was weak and frail because of his sickness. His physical strength was in dramatic contrast to what I know about him for more than 32 years. But his spiritual strength was far more obvious even in his last sickness.
Br. Naziruddin was a committed Islamic worker. He worked as the regional representative of ISNA/MSA of US and Canada, then as a zonal representative and finally as the president of the organization. It was 2 years after he served as the president of MSA, 1978-79 that MSA of US and Canada was transformed into ISNA. His tireless service to the organization was very crucial at that time of the growth of our organization.
All this he did as a volunteer. The turning point in his life came when we approached him to take the full time position of a general manager of North American Islamic Trust in 1984. He had a stable job at an engineering firm in Chicago. He had been holding it for quite a few years. He had raised his family in Chicago and most of his relatives lived in Chicago. NAIT at that time was in Plainfield Indiana. It was a tough decision for him to make. I remember what kind of consideration he had in making the decision. He showed a high level of spirit of sacrifice in accepting the offer when we approached him. His paramount consideration was the best interest of the Islamic institution whose growth and development was very dear to him, literally dearer than the interest of his family or his personal convenience. He moved to Indiana and served there as the general manager of NAIT for more than a decade until it was moved to Chicago.
Islamic Institution building has gone through many ups and downs. There have been many trials and tribulations for brothers like marhoom Naziruddin. His commitment was unwavering and he withstood all that came with this experience.
I could see the light of iman shining in his face even though his physical strength was waning. I remembered the famous couplet of Allama Iqbal
nishanay mardi mumin ba to goyam
chu marg ayad tabassum bar labay oust
(Let me tell you the sign of a true believer You will see a smile of contentment shining in his face when he meets his Lord)
Br. Naziruddin has left a legacy of Islamic commitment that we need to emulate.
While all of us are grieved by his departure, we would like to offer condolence to his family and ask Allah to give them patience and tawfiq to keep his legacy alive.
Sincerely,
Sayyid M. Syeed
Ingrid Mattson's recent election as president of the Islamic Society of North America gave the organization headquartered in Plainfield a national spotlight it's never known.
The white, Canadian-born woman who grew up Catholic before converting to Islam in 1987 has appeared on CNN and NPR, been written up in The New York Times and was even mentioned in the "Feminist News" column of Ms. Magazine online.
But more than 100 days into her term, most agree it is still too early to tell whether Mattson can help American Muslims overcome the scrutiny and suspicion they've faced since 9/11, or to gauge how she may improve the role of Muslim women in U.S. mosques.
It's even unclear whether she can be much of a force in ISNA, an umbrella group for Muslim organizations that has always been led by men and seen primarily as the representative of immigrants from Asia.
Still, ISNA members are proudly holding up Mattson's election as proof that American Muslims are more open-minded about women's rights than they are credited for. It's also been heralded as a sign of generational change -- that Muslim immigrants who arrived as college students in the 1960s and '70s are passing the torch to Muslims who were born in the West.
Mattson, 43, says there is no getting around the fact that the election of a woman is a big step for ISNA.
"I need to now take the trust and the responsibility of the community and do something with it," she said.
In four years as ISNA's vice president, Mattson was heavily involved in a project to make mosques friendlier to women. She helped draft guidelines to that end, but it's unknown whether that'll lead to lasting change.
In many mosques around the country, women have obstructed views of the preacher, or they are limited to separate rooms with no view. More importantly, she said, women have little or no say in how mosques and community centers are run.
But the role of Muslim women is just one issue among many on Mattson's agenda. She also wants to bring younger Muslims into leadership positions at ISNA, and she wants local mosques and Islamic communities to act more professionally in their operations, in part through leadership training. She says communities must take more time to talk about the direction they are heading, rather than just plow along without planning.
Some outsiders have been heartened by Mattson's election but wonder if her ascension will lead to more progress for women.
Some, such as Rafia Zakaria, a Muslim writer at Indiana University who studies Muslims in the West, wonder if ISNA might tout Mattson's election without addressing problems like domestic violence in Muslim families.
"Yes, she has been elected," Zakaria said. "But there is a lot that needs to be done."
Other observers say ISNA needs to do more to broaden its appeal to black and Hispanic Muslims. Historically, ISNA's core constituency has been South Asian immigrants.
Aminah McCloud, a professor of Islamic studies at DePaul University, agrees that electing someone is one thing, but giving them the space to act is another. However, she is convinced that Mattson, whom she knew as a student at the University of Chicago and respects as an innovative scholar, is up to the challenge.
"If they think they have got a face that doesn't have a voice or strength behind it, then they have another thing coming," McCloud said. "She is very firm in her opinions, with lots of stuff to back them up. And she is not shy about expressing her opinion."
A devout child
Mattson was born in 1963 -- the same year that ISNA's forerunner institution, the Muslim Student Association, was founded to assist the new wave of college students immigrating to America from Muslim countries.
Growing up in Ontario, Canada, she lived one block from St. Mary's Catholic Church, her first spiritual home. She was so pious that she would walk to Mass even when her parents didn't go. But her fledgling faith didn't last.
"I was as devout as a child could be," she said. "But I lost that as a teenager and really just went off on my own."
As a college student at the University of Waterloo near Toronto, she studied philosophy and held no beliefs about God. Near the end of her studies, in 1986, she spent a summer in Paris as part of a study abroad program. There, she had her first encounter with Muslims, these from West Africa.
Their spirituality spoke to her, and when she returned to Waterloo, she began reading the Quran and peppering other Muslims with questions.
Mattson's conversion was completed the following spring when some Muslim women hosted a special ceremony for her.
She took a ritual shower that followed a prescribed order for cleansing the body, and then put on new clothes the women gave her. She recited the shahadah, the Muslim declaration of faith, in both Arabic and English: "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."
"It was very moving for me," she said.
Faith's identity
In 1987, Islam was well below the radar of most Westerners. Her family didn't quite know what to think.
"They didn't know any Muslims or anything about Islam," she said. "So it took some time. And when you are faced with something like that, explanation wasn't enough. They had to see the outcome."
Soon, Mattson was in Pakistan working at a refugee camp for Afghan women. There she met Amer Aatek, an Egyptian engineer who was working with orphans.
They were soon married and now live in Connecticut, where she teaches Islamic studies at Hartford Seminary. He is the primary caregiver to their two teenage children.
Mattson says her family -- which includes a sister who converted to Judaism -- has come to see her faith merely as part of her identity. Her dress is very conservative and typical of Muslim women.
She is never seen publicly without a head scarf, and her typical attire is an ankle-length skirt and long-sleeved jacket and blouse. The scarf, not worn universally by Western Muslim women, is simply something she views as a religious requirement, based on her own research.
Similarly, Mattson avoids shaking hands with men when possible. Of more concern to progressive groups is Mattson's position that women not lead ritualized prayers when men and women are together in the congregation. She simply says she is following the example of the Prophet Muhammad.
Level-headed leader
At Hartford, Mattson directs a one-of-a-kind Islamic chaplaincy program that trains Muslim clergy to work in hospitals, prisons, colleges and the military. But her role with ISNA has made her a national spokeswoman for Muslims.
Jane I. Smith, a colleague at the Hartford Seminary, said Mattson's calm level-headedness should make her a good representative for American Muslims.
"She has an ability to speak quietly to a situation that simply lays things out very clearly and puts the conversation on a cool, rational level and takes it away from some of the emotional overload that I think has happened with many of the conversations about Muslims since 9/11," Smith said.
That Mattson can do that with an American accent shouldn't hurt her efforts to build understanding between American Muslims and a public that -- in the post-9/11 world -- harbors more than a few suspicions about Islam.
"She can relate to American society," said Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, a Georgetown University professor. "She knows how to speak the language. She knows America. She knows Islam. She is very comfortable in both of them."
A wife, mother, professor and chaplain program director, Mattson took on the presidency of ISNA despite the fact there is no pay involved and it will require her to come to Plainfield about once a month.
At her first council meeting as president last month, Mattson sat down at a conference table as the only woman among more than 20 men on the board. She didn't hesitate to cut off others who were steering the discussion awry or to limit attempts to revise the day's agenda.
Mattson said ISNA must continue improving ties to people of other faiths. But she said it must go beyond the clergy to the laity.
As she settles into her challenging new role, McCloud said Mattson's tenacity will surprise those who challenge her.
"I think she will struggle with whatever is put in front of her," McCloud said. "But she usually wins most of those struggles."
Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, will take his oath of office on the Koran, not the Bible.
Although some have criticized the Minnesota Democrat's decision, his campaign manager cites historical precedent in describing it as a nonissue.
"Well, he will be the first to do it with the Koran," Dave Colling said. "But most members do not even take an individual oath with any book. Keith Ellison will be taking his oath in the chamber with the other members of Congress."
House members are sworn in en masse in the chamber, and no Bible or other religious document is used for the oath. However, several incoming House members use Bibles for their individual swearing-in, which is administered by the House speaker and takes place after the official group oath.
Mr. Ellison has been criticized by some Christian organizations and conservative radio host Dennis Prager, who say that even if the law allows him to take an oath on the Koran, he should adhere to what they call the historical tradition of taking the oath of office on the Bible.
"In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath," Mr. Prager, who is Jewish, wrote in an online column.
The American Family Association (AFA) posted an "Action Alert" on its Web site requesting that supporters urge lawmakers to pass a law requiring that the Bible be used in congressional swearing-in ceremonies. "What book will America base its values on, the Bible or the Koran?" the AFA posting said.
"The premise of the attack is false," Mr. Colling said, adding that Mr. Ellison has not refused to take an oath on the Bible, because his refusal would imply that such a requirement exists.
According to the Library of Congress, Theodore Roosevelt became the first and only president to take an oath without a Bible in 1901. In 1961, John F. Kennedy took his oath on a Catholic (Douay) version of the Bible. Several Jewish members of Congress have taken their oath on the Torah. Article VI of the Constitution specifies that "... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
In 2005, a North Carolina judge refused to allow a Muslim woman to take her oath on the Koran before testifying. Guilford County Superior Judge W. Douglas Albright cited state law in the case, which reads that oaths are to be made upon "Holy Scriptures," which analysts agreed is a reference to the Bible.
However, in 1997, a federal judge hearing a terrorism case in Washington allowed witnesses to make such an oath to Allah.
"This is a tempest in an Internet teapot," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Center for American-Islamic Relations. "With the rising level of Islamophobia in America, you have some people who see the empowerment of any Muslim as a threat to the Constitution. In reality, they should see the empowerment of such an individual as strengthening the Constitution."
Friday, Dec. 01, 2006
"The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer, and that's what the freedom of religion is all about."
- Keith Ellison (on his intention to be sworn in as the first Muslim elected to Congress by taking the oath with his hand on the Koran)
Contact Information: 612.522.4416
info@keithellison.org
WASHINGTON - Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's decision to take his oath of office on the Qur'an is stirring a debate among academics and conservatives, with some of them saying it's only appropriate to take an oath on the Bible.
The Minnesota Democrat says that the Constitution gives him the right to use the Muslim holy book, and that is what he intends to do on Jan. 4.
"Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath," radio talk show host and author Dennis Prager wrote in his online column this week. He said that American Jews routinely have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they don't believe in the New Testament, and that if Ellison refuses to do so, "don't serve in Congress."
But Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Constitution authorizes people not to swear their oath at all, protecting atheists and agnostics.
"Why would Muslims and others not be equally protected?" he wrote for National Review Online.
Ellison, who told the Star Tribune shortly after his election victory that he planned to use the Qur'an, was attending meetings in Washington on Thursday and could not be reached for comment, according to Dave Colling, his spokesman. But Ellison defended his plan to use the Qur'an, Islam's holiest book, in an interview with Abdi Aynte, a reporter from Minneapolis who writes for the Minnesota Monitor, an independently produced political news blog.
"The Constitution guarantees for everyone to take the oath of office on whichever book they prefer," Ellison was quoted as saying. "And that's what the freedom of religion is all about."
Ellison's decision drew support from one prominent conservative firebrand, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, who champions a fence along the border with Mexico and who says that unfettered immigration endangers American culture.
"He wants to take his oath on the Qur'an, that's fine," Tancredo said. "I think whatever you believe is necessary for you to uphold your obligations to the Constitution, that is fine with me."
In his weekly column, Prager said Ellison's act is "an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism." He warned that allowing Ellison to use the Qur'an could pave the way for a racist to use "his favorite book" to take the oath of office.
"When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization," Prager wrote. "If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9/11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim-Americans want to bequeath to America."
Ellison is the first Muslim in the nation, and the first black person from Minnesota, to become a member of the U.S. House. His campaign and election have attracted national attention because of his groundbreaking status.
Five years after 9/11 and with the ongoing raw debate about clashing civilizations and Islamic extremism, Ellison downplayed the role of religion in his drive for office. He nonetheless has acknowledged that his election has thrust him into position as a spokesman for Islam in the United States.
In the National Review, Volokh noted that two former presidents -- Franklin Pierce and Herbert Hoover -- didn't swear their oath but chose to affirm it.
He said that the Supreme Court has long held that Americans have the right to be treated equally, regardless of their religion, and that forcing Ellison to use the Bible would violate his rights.
"Letting Christians swear the oath of office, while allowing members of other denominations only to swear what ends up being a mockery of an oath -- a religious ceremony appealing to a religious belief system that they do not share -- would be [discriminatory]," Volokh wrote.
Said Ron Eibensteiner, former state Republican Party chairman: "It doesn't matter if he wants to be sworn in on the Qur'an; that's perfectly fine. We have in this country freedom of religion and free speech."
Tammy Lee, who ran against Ellison as an Independent in the Fifth Congressional District, agreed. "This country was founded on principles of freedom of religion. Our Constitution guarantees it, and as a newly elected member of Congress who's going to uphold the Constitution, he has every right to choose what religious traditions he wants to practice."
Radio talk show host Dan Barreiro said he has been "a bit bewildered" by the concern expressed, mainly on blogs, about Ellison's choice. The topic came up Thursday on his afternoon show on KFAN. "The general consensus I got was that most people were not terrified at the prospect that this was something that he might do," Barreiro said.
"Certainly there is no law that mandates that a person put their hand on a Bible as any kind of litmus test of their loyalty to the country," he added.
In 2003, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, who is Jewish, was sworn in with a Bible given to him by a priest who is a friend of the family. The late Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone, who also was Jewish, was sworn in in 1991 with a Bible from his wife Sheila's family.
Staff writers Joy Powell and Lesley Clark contributed to this report. Rob Hotakainen is a correspondent in the Star Tribune Washington Bureau.
Rob Hotakainen o rhotakainen@startribune.com
Thursday, Nov. 30, 2006
"The divisions which exist among Christians are a scandal to the world."
- Pope Benedict XVI (at a joint ceremony with the spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christian church, which split from Catholicism nearly 1,000 years ago)
Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2006
"We need mutual understanding among different beliefs and civilizations more than any time in history."
- Recep Tayyip Erdogan (the Turkish prime minister, to reporters after his 20-minute meeting with the pope)
Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2006
"Would it not be more beneficial to bring the U.S. officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical U.S. military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people?"
- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (the Iranian president, in a letter to the American people)
Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2006
"There's one thing I'm not going to do. I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is completed."
- President Bush (in an afternoon speech in Riga, Latvia, where he was attending a NATO summit)
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter is accusing Israel of creating an apartheid system in the West Bank and Gaza. The charge comes in his new book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."
The Nobel Peace Prize winner has been deeply involved in Middle East policies for the past three decades. As president he negotiated the Camp David Accords - which secured a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt.
In his new book, Jimmy Carter writes, "Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land."
Carter criticizes Israel for building what he describes as an imprisonment wall through the West Bank. He accuses Israel of strangling the residents of Gaza where the poverty rate has reached 70 percent and where the malnutrition rate mirrors countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. And Carter is critical of Washington's role. He writes, "The United States is squandering international prestige and goodwill and intensifying global anti-American terrorism by unofficially condoning or abetting the Israeli confiscation and colonization of Palestinian territories."
Some of the most vocal critics of Carter's book have been fellow Democrats. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously."
John Conyers, the incoming chair of the House Judiciary Committee, urged Carter to change the title of the book, which he described as "offensive and wrong."
Meanwhile, the nation's newspapers have largely ignored Jimmy Carter's book since its publication two weeks ago. The book hasn't even been mentioned in the news pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Boston Globe or Los Angeles Times.
Today on Democracy Now we are going to hear Jimmy Carter in his own words. On Tuesday night he discussed his book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" at an event in Virginia.
Jimmy Carter, former U.S. President, speaking November 28th, 2006.
AMY GOODMAN: Today on Democracy Now!, we'll hear Jimmy Carter in his own words. On Tuesday night, he discussed his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, at an event in Virginia.
JIMMY CARTER: Some people have said the title is provocative, and I accept that categorization, but I don't consider the word "provocative" to be a negative description, because it's designed to provoke discussion and analysis and debate in a country where debate and discussion is almost completely absent if it involves any criticism at all of the policies of Israel. And I think the book is very balanced.
Secondly, the words "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" were carefully chosen by me. First of all, it's Palestine, the area of Palestinians. It doesn't refer to Israel. I've never and would imply that Israel is guilty of any form of apartheid in their own country, because Arabs who live inside Israel have the same voting rights and the same citizenship rights as do the Jews who live there.
And the next word is "peace." And my hope is that the publication of this book will not only precipitate debate, as I've already mentioned, but also will rejuvenate an absolutely dormant or absent peace process. For the last six years there's not been one single day of good faith negotiations between Israelis and their neighbors, the Palestinians. And this is absolutely a departure from what has happened under all previous presidents since Israel became a nation. We've all negotiated or attempted to negotiate peace agreements. That has been totally absent now for six years. So "peace."
And then the last two words, "not apartheid." The alternative to peace is apartheid, not inside Israel, to repeat myself, but in the West Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem, the Palestinian territory. And there, apartheid exists in its more despicable forms, that Palestinians are deprived of basic human rights. Their land has been occupied and then confiscated and then colonized by the Israeli settlers. And they have now more than 205 settlements in the West Bank itself. And what has happened is, over a period of years, the Israelis have connected settlements with highways, and those highways make the West Bank look like a honeycomb and maybe a spider web. You can envision it. And in many cases, most cases, the Palestinians are prevented from using the highways at all, and in many cases, even from crossing the highways.
I'd like to make one other point. When Israel was founded back in 1948 by the United Nations, Israel was allocated 56% of what we would call "the holy land" between Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. After the wars, when the Arabs tried to destroy Israel, treaties were worked out, and Israel wound up with 77% of the holy land. 22% was designated as the West Bank, and 1% only, Gaza. So at the optimum case, as recognized by all the United Nations resolutions, Israel would wind up with 77% of the area, and the Palestinians only 23%, including Gaza and the West Bank. And remember that Gaza is on the sea coast, where the Philistines lived during the time of King David, and it's separated by 40 kilometers, about 30 miles, from the rest of Palestinian territory. So in order for a Palestinian to go from Gaza to the West Bank, they have to go through 30 miles of Israeli land, though that's just a geographical description.
This book is designed to restimulate the prospect for peace. And I'm going to just read three options that Israelis face. And I'd like to say at the beginning that none of them are completely acceptable to all Israelis. But for the last 40 years, a strong majority of Israelis have preferred to relinquish Arab land in return for peace. And this sentiment prevailed until the time when Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated by an irate Israeli who didn't like what Rabin and Shimon Peres had done at Oslo in negotiating a peace agreement for which they both received the Nobel Peace Prize.
Although a clear majority of Israelis are persistently willing to accept terms that are tolerable to most of their Arab neighbors, it is clear that none of the options is attractive for all of the Israelis. And these are the three options. First one has been discussed quite extensively and most persistently by the present prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, who presented this thesis quite early in his career as a young member of the Israeli parliament -- he's now the prime minister -- a forceful annexation of Palestine and its legal absorption into Israel, which would give large numbers of non-Jewish citizens the right to vote and live as equals under the law. So, a large sectarian nation involving both Israelis and Palestinians is this option.
This would directly violate international standards and the Camp David Accords, which are the basis for peace with Egypt. At the same time, non-Jewish citizens would immediately make up a powerful swing vote if other Israelis were divided. In other words, if Israelis, who now have a majority, were divided 60-40 or 50-50, as you could see, then if the Palestinians voted as a bloc, they would prevail in establishing the basic policies of Israel, if other Israelis were divided.
It would also maybe constitute an outright majority in the new greater Israel. This is because of demographic trends. The Palestinians have a much higher birthrate than do the Israelis, the Israeli Jews. In fact, in Gaza, which I describe, the Palestinian birthrate is 4.7% annually, which is the highest in the world. And that means that in Gaza at this time, half their citizens are 15 years old or less. Israel would be further isolated and condemned by the international community. So I think within 20 years or less, in a combined Israel and Palestinian land, the Arabs would actually have a majority, more than the Jews.
Second, a system of apartheid -- this is, remember, in Palestine -- with two peoples occupying the same land but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human rights. This is a policy now being followed, although many citizens of Israel deride the racist connotation, which I certainly don't imply, of prescribing permanent second-class status for the Palestinians. As one prominent Israeli stated, quote, "I am afraid that we are moving toward a government like that of South Africa, with a dual society of Jewish rulers and Arab subjects with few rights of citizenship. The West Bank," this Israel said, "is not worth it." And that's a majority -- that's the opinion of a majority of Israelis.
An unacceptable modification of this choice now being proposed is the taking of substantial portions of the occupied territory with the remaining Palestinians completely surrounded by walls, fences and Israeli checkpoints, living as prisoners within the small portion of land left to them. I think you can quickly see the unacceptability of both of those options.
There's only one option left, and that is withdrawal to the 1967 border, as specified in UN Resolution 242 and as promised legally by the Israeli government in the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Agreement and prescribed in the Road Map of the International Quartet. You remember, the Quartet consists of the United States and Russia and the United Nations and the European Union. Those four comprise a Quartet. And they have devised the latest proposal, known as the Road Map for Peace, which has been enthusiastically endorsed by President Bush, as you know. This is the most attractive option and the only one that can ultimately be acceptable as a basis for peace. Good faith negotiations can lead to mutually agreeable exchanges of land, perhaps permitting a number of Israeli settlers to remain in their present homes near Jerusalem inside Palestinian territory.
One version of this choice was spelled out in the Geneva Initiative. The Geneva Initiative is described in a separate chapter. I was involved, in some ways, in the preparation of the Geneva Initiative, and I was there and made the keynote speech in Geneva when this initiative was prescribed. But what it does do is work out a compromise between the Palestinians and the Israelis through which about half of the total Israelis who live now in the West Bank could stay where they are, and the others would withdraw, which would still leave the Palestinians with a contiguous -- that is, a constant -- area of land over which they could have a united government of Palestinians.
And also a part of that was a swap of land. Whenever the Palestinians would give up part of their land, where the large Jewish settlements are built, then the Israelis would give up an equal amount of land that might lie just west of Gaza or some parts -- relatively uninhabited parts -- of Israel. So it was a swap of land for land.
The other step was the right of return. This is a very important thing for Palestinians, none of whom would give this up. It's guaranteed in United Nations Resolution 194. The right of Palestinians to return to their homeland, or either to be compensated for their property if they can prove that they actually have title to that property. And a compromise worked out in the Geneva Initiative was, okay, the Palestinians can return, but they can return only to Palestine. They cannot return to Israel, the new nation of Israel, unless Israelis approve each application for return. But they would still be -- have available to them some kind of compensation.
And the third major issue -- I'm summarizing very quickly -- is the settlement of the property, about who controls or owns East Jerusalem. And this is covered quite extensively throughout the book. But a very good compromise was reached, where the holy places would be under the complete control of the Arabs, on the one hand, and the Jews, on the other, including the Wailing Wall and the adjacent land. And then the rest of East Jerusalem would be administered by a joint commission that would take care of housing and schools and garbage collection and water and electricity and that sort of thing. So it was a very good compromise. In my opinion, ultimately something very close to the Geneva Initiative described in this book is the only avenue toward permanent peace for Israel, with justice and peace for their Palestinian neighbors.
So the book is deliberately -- I wouldn't say controversial, but it's deliberately designed to be provocative, because, as I said earlier, in Israel and in Europe, these kind of issues are debated every day, in a most vehement way, particularly in Israel. Pros and cons, arguing back and forth, in the news media, television, radio, the major newspapers. Never, in this country, do you hear any of these issues proposed publicly by an elected member of the House or the Senate or in the White House or NBC or ABC or CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times. Never. And I think it's time for Americans to start looking at the facts about the Mid-East situation. And only then, and based on the knowledge of the facts, will we ever have a chance to move forward and consummate a peace agreement that would give Israel what they need and what they deserve -- permanent peace, recognized by their neighbors and all Arab countries and the rest of the world -- and the Palestinians to have their human rights, their land and a chance to have their own state, side by side, living in peace with their Israeli neighbors.
The word "balance" is one that's almost unacceptable in our country. If you had a candidate for Congress running either Democratic or Republican and they announced to the general public, "I'm going to take a balanced position between the Israelis and the Palestinians," they would never be elected. That's an impossibility in our country. But that doesn't preclude an incumbent administration from demonstrating with their own actions and words that they are concerned about Israeli peace, they are also concerned about peace and justice for the Palestinians. And that's what I did. It's what Richard Nixon did. It's what Ronald Reagan did after I left office. It's what George Bush, Sr. did. It's what Bill Clinton did. But it's not being done now.
There is a general feeling throughout the Arab world, throughout Europe, not even noticed in this country, that our present administration has not given any consideration, in my opinion, to the plight of the Palestinians. And you don't have to be anti-Israel to protect the rights of the Palestinians to have their own land and to live in peace and without being subjugated by an occupying power.
So I think that that is a proper approach. If it is impossible during the next two years of President Bush's administration for him to take that, to use your word, "balanced" approach, then as a fallback, it may be possible for the International Quartet to take that role. And that would obviously be the United States playing a major role, but not the only role, and for it to involve the United Nations and Russia and the European Union. And I think they could say, okay, let us orchestrate peace talks based on United Nations resolutions, based on the Camp David Agreement that I worked out, based on the Oslo Agreement, and based on the will of a majority of Israeli citizens, and based on the Road Map that we ourselves have prescribed.
By the way, every element of the Road Map has been adopted enthusiastically by the Palestinian side. None of the key elements in the Road Map have been adopted by the Israeli side. They have rejected all of them. And I have the actual action of the Israeli cabinet in the appendix to this book.
So, to summarize, the international group of leaders, the Quartet, could take strong action to implement the terms of the Road Map.
Thank you all very much.
To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.
MUSLIM ALLIANCE OF INDIANA is dedicated to empower Muslims through social engagement and developing awareness of public issues among Muslims and connecting 280,000 Muslim Hoosiers with the leadership.
To learn more about past activities and accomplishments, please visit at www.muslimalliancein.com
To be involved with MAI mission, please contact muslimalliancein@yahoo.com
To strengthen and disseminate the vision, please forward this message to others in Indiana or send email list to muslimalliancein@yahoo.com
This is intended for Muslim Hoosiers and friends promoting peace and harmony, mutual respect and making Indiana strong. If you want to be off this list, please advise.
Thank you.
