Arab-American Activism

Panelists Discuss Bush Speech

Four distinguished panelists—two Americans and two Palestinians—discussed President George Bush’s long-awaited speech on the Palestine-Israel conflict at a June 27 luncheon at the Center for Policy Analysis on Palestine.

The first panelist, Ambassador Nicholas Veliotes, a former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs, said he was perplexed on June 24, the day of Bush’s speech, and, after studying it in greater detail, he was still perplexed. The speech showed the impact of 9/11 on the president’s thinking, Veliotes said: “He is seeing the world through the prism of 9/11.”

Veliotes said he wondered whether Bush’s vision for the Middle East is realistic or apocalyptic. Bush seems to be telling Arabs what to do, the ambassador noted: accomplish regime changes, leap into democracy in Palestine and overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussain. The problem, however, Veliotes said, is that non-democratic regimes in the Middle East are mostly friendly to America. If unfettered elections take place now, while TV screens are full of Israeli tanks shooting civilians, he warned, there will be a landslide victory for radical political parties. And then, he pointed out, the apocalyptic stage is set. The good news, however, Veliotes concluded, is that Bush’s vision for the Middle East has no chance to succeed.

Ambassador Philip C. Wilcox, Jr., president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, described the Bush speech as a radical departure in U.S. Middle East policy. Bush seems to have adopted Sharon’s view, he said, that Chairman Yasser Arafat and terrorism caused the Middle East conflict.

Wilcox had to agree with the pundits who were saying that Sharon couldn’t have written a better speech himself. The Israeli prime minister has always opposed a viable Palestinian state, he pointed out, and has dedicated his life to the settler movement. Sharon also has shown he can provoke violence at times of calm by assassinating a popular leader. Bush, Wilcox said, has gravely misjudged Sharon when he calls him a man of peace.

Bush’s vision for peace sets impossible preconditions that must be met before negotiations for a settlement can occur. Wilcox went so far as to say that Bush has abandoned the role of an even-handed intermediary and joined the Likud Party.

Terror has been a ruinous weapon for Palestinians, Wilcox added. Suicide bombing can’t be excused or condoned, but it can be understood. No Palestinian leader can restore order and end violence without an incentive—the possibility of a viable Palestinian state. Bush’s speech talked only about regime change, and seemed to give Sharon a green light to kill or hurt Arafat.

Wilcox concluded by recalling that former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin once said that he would fight terrorism as if there were no negotiations and he would negotiate as if there was no terrorism. The current prime minister will not negotiate as long as there is terrorism, Wilcox said, and when there is a lull Sharon will provoke new terrorism by causing more despair and suffering.

Hasan Abu-Libdeh, president of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, said that he had a different interpretation of the Bush speech. Perhaps it was wishful thinking, he explained, but he was more optimistic than the American panelists. He agreed that the speech seemed one-sided, gave no guarantees to Palestinians and even seemed to legitimize Sharon’s actions.

Abu-Libdeh described the grave situation in the occupied territories, where the people are suffering widespread poverty, hunger and desperation. Even if Palestinians did manage to achieve the required reforms, the visiting legistator said, he wondered if the U.S. and Israel would ever be satisfied. If Arafat is re-elected by his people, will the results be subject to a veto? With freedom of movement impossible due to the current closures, Abu-Libdeh noted, it would not be easy for any Palestinian to run for election.

He also invited American policymakers to visit the occupied territories to learn about how Palestinian suicide bombers are produced. “These are people who have lost all hope,” he said. “They have irreversible suffering and great disillusionment. Living in poverty, they are bound to not much care about their lives.”

Abu-Libdeh concluded by looking at the bright side. There now is a serious possibility that Palestinain reform will become a reality, he said. Palestinians want to put their house in order, and Bush’s speech now gives legitmacy to those who have sought reform for some time.

Chairman of the Political Committee of the Palestinian Legislative Council Ziad Abu Amr said that Bush’s speech overlooked the fundamentals of the Middle East conflict. The first fundamental is the occupation. Bush focused on the symptoms of the conflict, Abu Amr argued, instead of on the root cause—the occupation. The president should have started with how to end the occupation, Abu Amr stated, because 90 percent of the the problems would disappear if the occupation ended. Palestinians would be able to deal with the remaining 10 of percent difficulties, Abu Amr added.

The Bush administration’s relationship with Sharon is another fundamental problem, according to Abu Amr. Surely the president must know that Sharon’s agenda is to destroy Palestinian resistance capability and make them succumb.

The Bush administration is too cowardly to confront Sharon, Abu Amr charged. The Israeli prime minister doesn’t want to negotiate, he said, and Bush’s speech provided Sharon political cover and a green light to continue his policies.

Abu Amr didn’t place all the blame squarely on Israel and the United States, however. “If we had stuck to our agenda of reform and had been pressing Arafat, the world would have supported us,” he said. “We Palestinians didn’t do what we were supposed to do,” Abu Amr concluded. ”It is time for serious reform to salvage the situation.”

—Delinda C. Hanley

LAHC Arab American Scholarship Awards Banquet

The Lebanese-American Heritage Club (LAHC), known for providing social, cultural and athletic outlets for Detroit-area Arab Americans, presented more than 50 awards at its 14th Annual Scholarship Dinner on Friday, May 17. Customarily granting scholarships to students of Lebanese descent, this year the LAHC’s Arab American Scholarship Foundation arm broadened its scope of generosity to embrace candidates of all Arab nationalities. Corporations including the Ford Motor Company, PepsiCo, Bank One, DTE Energy and Armada/BP Oil sent students to the University of Michigan, Wayne State University, Henry Ford Community College and schools as far away as Florida.

Since its founding in 1989, the LAHC’s scholarship program has awarded over $500,000 in scholarships, promoting achievement among students in a wide array of disciplines, but offering special consideration to those candidates in the fields of journalism and mass communications. High school seniors and undergraduate students are selected on a variety of criteria, including academic standing, leadership qualities, demonstrated potential to succeed, and participation in scholastic and extra-curricular activities. Past recipients have found success in the fields of medicine, law, engineering, journalism, human services and business.

Held at the swanky and modern Ford Community and Performing Arts Center in Dearborn, the event drew over 800 attendees. The keynote address was presented by PepsiCo Chairman and CEO Steven S. Reinemund, while local Fox News reporter Sandra Ali presided over the ceremonies. Presenters included Ford crash safety specialist Hassen Hammoud, Ph.D., electrical engineer Alex Itawi, and entrepreneur Wajdi Abou Chakra. Eighth-grader Tonia Berry sang the National Anthem. In the words of LAHC president Salem Salamey, “Excellence in education and helping those who seek to advance human knowledge and to fulfill high and noble aspirations imposes on us a burden of civic and social responsibility that we at the Lebanese American Heritage Club will always strive to meet.”

—Roxane Assaf