.

I just got news that ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America, was lobbying on behalf of SCHIP, the government-based child healthcare bill.

That is a huge mistake for ISNA. Not all Muslims support SCIHP and getting involved in such a political issue with no real connection to Islamic principles damages their reputation as a religious organization. While some would say that Muslims should support the SCHIP bill because we are for “insuring children,” we should remember that it is in the opinion of many that the harms of government run healthcare outweigh the benefits. For instance, government run healthcare can deteriorate the quality of healthcare eventually causing people to suffer. Something else, federal government run healthcare erodes the power of local communities. The raise in the cigarette tax can create a pottential dangerous black market for cigarettes and implicitly encourages smoking (to fund healthcare!). Lastly, lets not forget that the right to private property (the third of the maqasid or fundamental principles of the Islamic sharia after religion and human life) is an Islamic principle, and the Robin Hood stealing of people’s money by force to give to other people is something we cannot support in the private sector so why is this any different in government?

ISNA said this:

ISNA, a voice among the larger American interfaith community, has been working hard over the last few years to demand that the US government address and cover 4 million uninsured children. We met with numerous senators and congressmen to convey to them how negatively our faith communities felt about the lack of coverage for such a large number of American children.

I don’t get the logic? Of course, people have their right to argue for SCHIP but people don’t join or donate money to ISNA wanting their money involved in supporting legislation which they might be morally and politically opposed to! The FBI investigations into ISNA for giving to terrorism are also very fishy, although nothing has been confired yet, and will scare people off from donating to ISNA. People have a right to know where their money goes. I am not saying that people should fearmonger or malign ISNA which does so many good things, but if ISNA is really involved in

Share This

Juan Cole says concerning the latest pro-Israel resolution out of the Congress:

Still 5 representatives read it exactly that way and said ‘no,’ and 22 voted ‘present’ as a way of abstaining. These American politicians risk being targeted and unseated in 2010 by the israel lobbies. Could somebody please do up a page with their names and hotlinks to pages where donations can be made to their campaign funds? It is no good applauding their courage if we just stand by and let them be unseated by money coming from outside their states on behalf of a foreign power

Gladly… here is the list:

Answered “No”:

Kucinich

Moore (WI)

Paul

Rahall

Waters

—- ANSWERED “PRESENT” 22 —

Abercrombie

Blumenauer

DeFazio

Dingell

Edwards (MD)

Ellison

Farr

Grijalva

Hinchey

Johnson (GA)

Kilpatrick (MI)

Lee (CA)

McCollum

McDermott

Miller, George

Moran (VA)

Olver

Payne

Sanchez, Loretta

Stark

Watson

Woolsey

Share This

Seldom is one speech more polarizing than Obama’s speech to the Muslim world at Cairo. A 55-minute splendor of oratory, with over 6000 words, the longest of any of Obama’s speeches so far, the Cairo address touched upon a varied array of points – world peace, religion, America’s troublesome history in the Middle East, democracy, human rights, violent extremism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc.

A speech of 6000 words can elicit a lot of commentary. Suffice it to say that this Muslim American  cannot summarize my reaction to 6000 words in a few mere sentences. Moreover, I believe the speech can be separated into actual policy prescriptions, a so-called “Obama doctrine” per se, and its fundamental nonpolitical message. Yet what struck me most was not the speech itself but the extremely varied reaction to it, even within people of similar ethnic, political, and religious backgrounds.

Let’s start with American or Western reaction to the speech, which I believe on balance was more positive than negative. Among neoconservative foreign policy intellectuals and former policymakers (as opposed to radio talk show hosts or pundits) the same Bush crew that led us into Iraq, there has always been a strong Wilsonian pro-democracy streak, one which caustically criticized status quo realism. So it was interesting to view their response. Max Boot, John McCain’s former foreign policy adviser and a staunch neoconservative, actually praised the speech for upholding American values of liberalism and human rights in the region – saying the speech was essentially a “Bush speech,” in many respects.

More neoconservative intellectuals followed Boot’s lead in praising Obama’s speech, for instance McCain’s other foreign policy adviser, Robert Kagan, wrote in the Washington Post that Obama essentially revived Wilsonian diplomacy based in values, specifically the hypothesis that with idealist compassion nations can be convinced to in fact ignore their own national interests.

Yet, on the other hand, some of the greatest scorn on Obama’s speech was given by these same neoconservatives. Lee Smith, a fellow at the Hudson Institute and a writer for the Weekly Standard, wrote that Obama’s speech was in fact a shunning of idealism and return to status-quo realism and support for corrupt regimes. Instead of vociferously speaking out for human rights and liberalism, Smith wrote that Obama basically mushily gave credibility to radical Islam and strengthened extremists in the region. The black-and-white Cold War throwback mentality extends also to Christopher Hitchens who wrote in Slate that Obama’s speech apologized for U.S. policy, strengthened radicals, and bought into the Hamas narrative.

Amongst foreign policy liberals, most people supported

Share This

Share This

The results in the Lebanon elections were mildly surprising considering that most polls showed the March 8th coalition with a slim 1 or 2 vote parliamentary majority, while what happened was that March 14th retained the government.

However, it is best not to buy into American media narratives of the polls, even the NYTimes, which seem to be oversimplifying the results or even (as in the case of some liberal bloggers) concluding that Obama’s Cairo speech swung the balance. Moreover, the race was dominated by local politics and family ties in many ways, and was not as simple as the “Hezbollah versus the West” narrative that played out in Western newspapers. A little analysis shows otherwise.

Hezbollah ran 11 seats in this parliament, and won all 11, compared to the 14 they ran in 2005, due to redistricting reasons. Amal, the other main Shiite party a Hezbollah ally which is secular and non-Islamist, ran 15 last parliament, and this parliament won again more seats than Hezbollah.

The battle was not between Hezbollah’s party per se, and the pro-Western parties, but specifically the Lebanese elections were fought amongst the Christians between Hezbollah ally Christian General Michele Aoun (and lesserly known his Christian companion Sulieman Farenjieh’s Marada Movement) and the Phalange and Lebanese Forces parties. And they were specifically fought over two swing districts – Metn and Zahle mostly – which were basically deciders of the fate of Lebanon.

Michele Aoun did not campaign on a pro-Hezbollah, pro-Iran platform, and his supporters and voters mostly voted for him for reform and economic reasons. He pledged to “clean up politics” and named his coalition the “reform and change bloc.” However, it is undeniably true that whichever way Metn and Zahle swung would hold the cards.

The parliamentary majority of the March 14th coalition based on the 2005 elections was 72/56, and prior to the elections due to byelections, defections, and assasinations was 68/56 (with 4 independents). After last night’s elections, March 14th rules with a majority of 71/57, which actually is a net loss of one seat to the pro-Western coalition, and a pick up of 1 seat by Hezbollah’s ally with independents taking the rest.

The three districts where March 8th hoped to make pick ups, Zahle, Metn, and Beirut 1 were the nail in the coffin of their electoral hopes. Zahle and Metn are two of the most Christian districts in Lebanon, Zahle is a Roman Catholic stronghold while Metn is a diverse mix of Maronites, Orthodox, and a large and sizable population of Armenians. At 4:30 PM EST, the famous Lebanese political reporter and anchor Marcel announced that Zahle was swept 7-0 for March 14th with not a single upset for General Aoun’s party. When this was announced, LBC and the remainder of Lebanese networks declared a victory for March 14th (3 and a half hours before the BBC, CNN International, Al-Jazeera, or the NYTimes) which was obvious.

In the Metn district however, Aoun carried 5/7 seats with March 14th only carrying 2. This still meant a victory for March 14th due to the Zahle sweep, yet it was a far cry from the hopes of the ruling majority. In fact, one of the ruling majority’s winning MPs Michele Murr was in fact an incumbent who used to be a member of the March 8th bloc and defected. So March 14th did very badly in the Metn.

Why was this so? There are many reasons. It is partly due to the fact that the Armenian Tashnaq party could not secure enough government power in the case of a coalition with March 14th, while Aoun promised them cabinet posts, and hence their strong minority tipped the balance towards him. But this is only part of the story. Any true analysis of these elections has to look into voter behavior in the Metn and Zahle and understand why this overwhelmingly Christian district gave 5 of its seats to the pro-Hezbollah alliance. Exit polls given by the Lebanese network LBC said that 38% of Metn voters voted based on sect, 38% voted based on politics, and 91% voted for an entire list.

This shows a very highly politicized, sectarian Metn which strongly backed Aoun’s party whole heartedly, there weren’t many split ballots. Moreover, 67.89% of Metn voters had already selected their candidate over a month ago. Why Metn is such a huge Aoun stronghold, even after he signed an alliance with Hezbollah, remains to be seen. Aoun’s Hezbollah-allied party retained every single seat it was defending and picked up a seat in Metn, which is not good news for political stability and shows the country is still highly divided.

But it was overwhelmingly Catholic Zahle’s 7-0 sweep for March 14th that made the day. That coupled with a 7-0 sweep in Beirut 1 district, showed that Aoun could make no inroads amongst these voters like he thought he would. Why did Zahle and Beirut 1 remain behind March 14th? That is the big question of the Lebanese elections. I think it is partly local and family politics, but perhaps it was also a fear of Iranian and Syrian influence in the country.

In the coming days when more data comes out of Zahle and Beirut 1 we will be able to see why Aoun could not swing these seats into his bloc.

Yet, for all the talk of a “pro-Western upset” in Lebanon, it is clear that the Hezbollah-backed opposition actually gained a seat, and the parliament is as divided as it always was. Forming a government is going to be an extremely difficult matter, and the highly fractured coalitions on both sides may actually be crumbling and forming into new electoral alignments as is the norm in Lebanon.

Walid Jumblatt, a member of the March 14th alliance, has indicated that he wants to include Hezbollah in the cabinet, and others in the bloc such as majority leader Saad Hariri have also seemed to be open to this. Hezbollah has accepted the election results but seem to want some power in the next government, and so it is mainly the status quo for Lebanon and the same instability we’ve been seeing in the next 4 years. Nothing more.

Anyways, those are earliest thoughts.

Share This