Islam without Ulama’s Fatwa

Yet, if Indonesia is consistent in emulating Saudi’s standpoint, there will be more prohibitions. The Shias may be exterminated since “according to official Saudi teachings, Shias are a Jewish conspiracy (p. 151). Furthermore, radical mass organizations would not be allowed to exist in Indonesia if Indonesia constantly copies Saudi and other Arab countries. Look at this paradox: in fact, Hizbut Tahrir that is anti-democracy and anti-nation state, can only exist and develop in democratic European countries and –don’t forget- in Indonesia!

You may think that Islam will be developed well within free and democratic western countries; therefore, Muslim communities in these countries will demonstrate the enlightened and civilized face of Islam. Before you think so, it is better for you to reconsider Irshad Manji’s proposals. Just exactly because she was concerned on the unhealthy development of Islam, she spoke up and wrote about ”The Trouble with Islam Today” in the form of an open letter.

From the sociological perspective, it is quite reasonable that in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria, the violent Islam (Manji called it desert Islam) has been widespread due to its alliance with tribalism, although we should not always justify that. But how come it arrive in Europe and North America? And what about South East Asia?

In fact, Manji watched this astounding reality in Toronto, Canada. She was stunned: “I was nauseated. Whatever the culture in which Muslims lived, be it rural or digital, and whatever the generation, whether symbolized by a 1970s mosque for immigrants or by a media-connected city for the new millennium, Islam emerged as desperately tribal. Did we ever need a reformation.” (p. 30).

Manji was serious about the urgency of Islamic reform, since she was about to lose her own faith in Islam. Besides the necessity of ijtihad, reform also requires incessant criticism and self-introspection, instead of making excuses. “Reform isn’t about telling ordinary Muslims what not to think, but about giving Islam’s 1 billion devotees permission to think.” (p. 36). That is what she expected from the Muslim society today.

She was fortunate for having the luxury and privilege to criticize Islam since she lived in a country that supports freedom and openness. She refused to remain silent despite of receiving many terrors and intimidations from her Muslim fellows. She took silence as her enemy, particularly the silence of the moderate Muslims over the prevailing Islamic extremism.

Manji declared herself as a Muslim Refusenik, which refers to the Soviet Jews who championed religious and personal freedom under the communist Soviet Union’s regime. “I am a Muslim Refusenik. That doesn’t mean I refuse to be a Muslim; it simply means I refuse to join an army of automatons in the name of Allah.” (p. 30)

Manji’s talent of being a refusenik was apparent since her very young age, when she criticized the unfair and inhumane Islamic doctrines. She profoundly admired ijtihad, the Islamic freethinking ethos. Nevertheless, the gate of ijtihad has been closed -and that is exactly what the fundamentalists wanted- throughout determination of many onerous prerequisites that impedes the implementation of ijtihad.

Manji believed that ijtihad does not need many requirements. The only thing Muslim need is the sensibility for justice and humanitarian values. She asserted: “Look, we don’t have to be prize-winning intellectuals or ulamas to exude the spirit of ijtihad. We need to express our questions about Islam openly. And we’ve all got questions cached away in our consciences.” (p. 67).

The aptitude and proficiency of raising critical and radical inquiries about Islam becomes the magnet of this book. Manji will disappoint people who want to find instant answers or strict guides about Islam. She only led Muslims to employ the most neglected and abandoned gift from God, namely reason. Sometimes, even the Islamic explanation from the progressive Muslim figures would seem absurd and groundless before Manji’s critical questions.

One of them is Jamal Badawi, a renowned Quranic scholar. He confidently interpreted the Quranic verse “Women are your fields. Go, then, into your fields when you please”, as a defense of foreplay. This analysis sounds enlightened and progressive.

However, Manji investigated further the words “when you please”, doesn’t that qualifier give men undue power? Which paradigm does Allah advocate –Adam and Eve as equals, or women as land to be plowed on a whim? (p.35)

Manji raised many radical and brilliant questions in this book. Not answer, question only. Isn’t brilliant question (husnus su’âl) half of knowledge (nishful ‘ilm) just as being taught in pesantrens?

Manji analyzed that Islam plane is not directed toward the safety zone of tolerance and human rights. The plane was hijacked! Exactly like Mohamed Atta did it on 11 September 2001. Who hijack it? Manji implicitly said that petrodollars is campaigning the desert Islam among many Muslim countries.

The desert Islam is encroaching on Afghanistan, Sudan, and Pakistan. Manji was also concerned upon the invasion of desert Islam on Southeast Asia and said, “local cultures are now being ignored in places such as Indonesia and Malaysia because they are seen as insufficiently Islamic (meaning Arab)”. Quoting V.S. Naipaul, she affirmed: “…that no colonialization had been so thorough as the article of Arab faith that everything before (it) was wrong, misguided, heretical” (p. 141). We do think so!

Manji observed that, “those distant from the desert didn’t steer the general direction of Islam. Arabia did.” (p. 146). She might be inaccurate and exaggerating in this matter. However, let us regard it as a warning alarm. The results and victims were there. Pakistan is halfheartedly leaving the lion’s mouth as if crocodile is waiting to swallow it soon!

Therefore, it is relevant to question what did middle-class Muslims in every Muslim country do in facing the global virus of desert Islam. In Pakistan, “Most allowed themselves to go with the flow of brutal fundamentalism” (p 127). They rolled out the red carpet for extremism and threw away the tolerant Islam initiated by the founder of their country, Ali Jinnah.

For this reason, Manji suggested the urgency of asserting non-Arabian Islam in many Muslim countries. She wondered why non-Arab Muslims who were 87% in number must be inferior to the Arab Muslims who were only 13% out of the wideworld’s Muslim population. In Indonesia, this irony is reflected by the mind-set of Indonesian Ulama Council and many Islamic groups who submit upon the fatwa of Saudi and OIC countries in the matter of Ahmadiyah.

Yet, if Indonesia is consistent in emulating Saudi’s standpoint, there will be more prohibitions. The Shias may be exterminated since “according to official Saudi teachings, Shias are a Jewish conspiracy (p. 151). Furthermore, radical mass organizations would not be allowed to exist in Indonesia if Indonesia constantly copies Saudi and other Arab countries. Look at this paradox: in fact, Hizbut Tahrir that is anti-democracy and anti-nation state, can only exist and develop in democratic European countries and –don’t forget- in Indonesia!

Manji observed the similar hypocrisy among Muslim communities in Europe and United States, in which they demanded freedom to practice intolerance despite of the fact they breathed the air of freedom and tolerance. Considering Manji’s reasoning, Indonesian Muslim must assert toward our Muslim fellows in Arab: This is a democratic country, Seikh! Please stop telling us about “the right Islam”, furthermore guiding us on how to treat Ahmadiyah!

Along the rejection toward desert Islam, Manji suggested Muslims to strive for universal bright achievements of human civilization. According to Manji, “...Islam is potential of being an expedient and humanitarian religion. It is us, Muslim community, who must have the courage to change”. It is the support for Islam’s adaptation with the positive values, which is the core of Manji’s criticism in this book.

Manji “is not a self-hating Muslim waging a vendetta against Islam” (p. 234), as many has accused her. It is true that she had a bad experience about Islam. But it did not remove her faith in Islam, and all she wanted is simple: “If Islam is flexible, then it can adapt for good and not for ill, right?” (p. 22).

This book stimulates anyone who search for challenge in his or her faith. It calls Muslims to exercise their consciences based on direct communication with God, instead of practicing Islam as dictated by certain ulamas. The prologue of the book written by Khaleel Mohammed, Imam and Professor in San Diego State University, United States, described it well. “If Muslims listen to her (Manji), they will stop listening to people like me, an imam who spent years at a traditional Islamic university.”

I think, the kind of Islam that Manji has been yearning for is Islam without ulama’s fatwa. If many Muslims were as critical and brilliant as Manji, they would no longer need anymore fatwa from the ulama.

Selengkapnya......

Soft Power for the Islamic Movement

If Islam were superior, why isn’t there any Muslim country which is progressive and leading in terms of education, technology, culture or economy? Many of Muslim countries were even black-listed because of their poor appreciation upon women and human fundamental rights, the fragility of government bureaucracy and corruption. In the academic level, none of the Islamic universities were listed as the international highest standard. Definitely, these complex social matters cannot be solved by yelling “Allahu akbar” and scapegoating the west.

Violence has been widespread in Muslim regions ranges from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia. Terror, bombing, coercion, abduction, and destruction were rampantly committed and indicating a horrifying escalation. This seems to verify several theses saying that Muslim world is the world of violence and barbarism, and Islam is religion that produce violent texts and export militant-terrorists across the globe (Edward Said, Covering Islam).

Because of this phenomenon, the image of Islam as religion of peace, tolerance, and uphold civility began to become overcast. The Islamic slogan as “rahmatan lil alamin” and “peaceful religion” is less popular than the ongoing violence and vandalism committed by radical Muslims in wider part of the world.

It is true that sometimes, the process of western media’s report and the opinion of (some) western orientalist, politician, religious figure, and scholar in general were unfair. They will directly point their fingers and associate any violence with “the nature” of Islam as a violent religion whenever it occurs in the Muslim countries. But when the very similar violence takes place in non-Muslim countries (such as Israel, North Ireland, Eastern Europe, Soviet Union, China or Latin America) they have never associate it to particular religion. When Muslim terrorist attacked WTC and Pentagon on 11 September 2001, many began to find the Quran to check out the relationship between Islam and global terrorism.

The political and religious observers were busy researching the roots of Islamic terrorism. Bernard Lewis book, What Went Wrong? which examined the historical roots of terrorism and violence within Islam became the reference for “anti-Islamic” group to support their argument about Islam as “violent religion”. Books of Angel Rabasa, a political analyst in RAND Corporation, especially on “global terrorist network”, were often quoted in printed medias. On the contrary, when George W. Bush government attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, Muslims were not that enthusiastic in buying Bible to find the Christian doctrine on war and terrorism.

Several explanations is available behind the increasing violent phenomenon in the Muslim world today. The social gaps between Muslim and non-Muslim, the East and the West, becomes a factor. There is a deep economical gap between the barren “muslim world” and the welfare “western world”. In the cultural aspect, we also see “western culture “ domination is infiltrating the Muslim world. Technological advance become the main determinant of this cultural domination. Muslim regions have to consume an alien cultures which were “smuggled” throughout TV, movie, internet etc. While in the political aspect, the US infiltration, domination and pressure (as the western symbol) upon the “third word” regions is becoming more apparent.

This fact drives the “multicultural liberal” group to divide the world into two extreme categories namely “the oppressors” which is represented by West-Christian-Jews (mainly US) and “the victims” which is represented by Muslims. This oppression annoyed several “narrow minded” Muslims and incited them to act violently. In other words, violence can be observed as a “reflection” of their fear as well as their cultural and political incapability to face the domination, hegemony and penetration of the global western culture. Thus, to justify their violent actions, they exploited the Islamic text, doctrine, tradition, history and discourse as the theological justification over their brutal actions. They also misinterpreted the doctrine of jihad as an offensive acts against the so-called “enemies of Islam”.

What we often hear from the Muslim fundamentalist is that they did so for the sake of “defending God” and “the establishment of Islam”. They took confrontation and violence as the only path to demonstrate the Islamic supremacy and power as a religion which is superior to everything (ya’lu wala yu’la alaih). On the contrary, the persuasive, peaceful and nonviolent movement is regarded as a form of cowardness and inferiority.

This is definitely a ridiculous and apologetic paradigm. If Islam were superior, why isn’t there any Muslim country which is progressive and leading in terms of education, technology, culture or economy? Many of Muslim countries were even black-listed because of their poor appreciation upon women and human fundamental rights, the fragility of government bureaucracy and corruption. In the academic level, none of the Islamic universities which were listed as the international highest standard. Definitely, these complex social matters cannot be solved by yelling “Allahu akbar” and scapegoating the west. Those yells and blames were like an Indonesian proverb “buruk muka cermin dibelah” (ugly face and the mirror is shattered).

In the future, Muslim societies need to reformulate a brilliant, peaceful and civilized strategies for the Islamic movement. Violence only gives Islam a bad name and increases the tension between Muslim and non-Muslim. Violence will breed another new violence and it will afterward entrap humankind in the “vicious circle” of violence. Violence is also against the fundamental spirit of Islam as “religion of peace”. The word Islam according to The Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic means “submission, acceptance, and reconciliation” (upon God’s will) and also “peace, salvation, security, and welfare” (Cowan, ed. 1976: 425-426). Violence is also not the best resolution to solve the problems of the Muslim countries, including Indonesia (Abu-Nimer, Nonviolence and Peace Building in Islam).

Thus, the Islamic movements must prioritize soft power approach throughout the mediums of culture, knowledge, education, diplomacy, and political tools which were carried out by nonviolent means and cross-civilizational dialog (Nye, Soft Power: the Means To Success in World Politics). In order to actualize “soft power” strategy and approach, several NU intellectuals in the United States and Canada have established Komunitas Nahdhatul Ulama Amerika Serikat dan Kanada (Nahdlatul Ulama Community of the United States and Canada). This establishment aims to bridge the tension and gap among Muslim & non-Muslim and also to solve the problems of Islam and humanity.

Selengkapnya......

Ahmadiyah’s Controversy in Indonesia — Vying for an Authority

The whole furor and controversy over Ahmadiyah sect is just a parcel of a larger dynamic in the Indonesian politics. Over the last ten years after the unleashing of democratic movement in Indonesia, one development stands out to be worthy of our analysis, namely the radicalizing trend among Muslim society. This trends manifested in various form, including the vigorous campaign launched by Islamists to adopt and implement sharia or Islamic law. The entire campaign to dissolve Ahmadiyah, to me, cannot be analyzed separately from this larger trend.

Looking at Indonesia solely through its constitution, you cannot help but to think that it is a modern state whose facade is not so different from the United States or Western European countries. All basic requirements you need to create democracy are meticulously met by Indonesia, ranging from free and fair election, protection of basic civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of association, to a robust civil society–every thing, you name it. Indonesian press is now entitled a relatively full freedom to publish whatever it thinks fit to put on its page, including, of course, criticizing the way government officers conduct public affairs–something that is hardly to happen in the previous regime.

Indonesian constitution lends also a full protection of religious freedom. Theoretically speaking, people are free to exercise their freedom to embrace any religion, faith, mazhab, and denomination of their choice. You are free to be Muslim, Christian, Hindus, Budhist, Confucian, and so forth. As a Muslim, you are also free to be Sunni or Shi’i, as well as free to affiliate with any Islamic organization you think fit to express your way of being Muslim.

But constitution is not the best lens to have a glimpse into the nature of any state and society, since it is only what Indonesia’s adage says “hitam di atas putih”, a mere ink on a paper. What is more important is to look at how that ink materializes into reality, and to what extent state policies live up to the lofty ideals espoused in the constitution. If this is the stick by which you judge Indonesia, I am afraid that it fails, particularly with respect to religious freedom.

The recent phenomenon is the whole furor over what is considered as a “deviant sect” in Islam called Ahmadiyah. The problem of Ahmadiyah has been around since early on even before Indonesian independence. This sect that was groomed in Pakistan came to Indonesia in 1925, and it spurred a controversy right away as it did anywhere it spread. This sect made a claim that raised the eyebrow of Muslim, namely that its founder is a new “prophet” that came after the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims who adhere to mainline Islam believe in the finality of prophecy in Islam. Ahmadiya’s doctrine on prophecy runs at odd with this doctrine. To say that new prophet possibly emerges is as odd to Muslim ear as to say that Jesus is not resurrected on the third day after his crucifixion to Christians.

From its early stage of its introduction to Indonesia, many Muslim scholars objected to the doctrine of Ahmadiyah, although Ahmadiyah should be credited with its good work to introduce Islam to the rank of Muslim intelligentsia in 30s in a way that resonates with Modern mind-set. Bung Karno, the first Indonesian president, befriended many intellectuals and activists who are either member or sympathetic to Ahamdiyah’s version of Islam. The first “official” translation of the Quran into Indonesian language conducted under the auspice of Ministry of Religious Affairs in 60s was pretty much influenced by Ahmadiyah’s writers. In nutshell, Ahmadiyah has successfully made an inroad into the Indonesian Islamic discourse through its committed missionaries and propagandists.

Throughout President Suharto’s rule (1968-1998), Ahmadiyah still enjoyed a full freedom to conduct its proselytizing activities which seems to be robust and aggressive as it is the case anywhere. In early 80s, the first “fatwa” or religious edict was being issued by the Indonesian Council of Ulama (MUI) in which this sect was for the first time officially deemed “deviant”. However, the edict didn’t go far as to demand the government to intervene to dissolve the movement.

The crucial shift occurred after reformasi (political reform) that followed the downfall of Suharto and his regime in May 1998. A series of attacks on Ahmadiyah’s mosques and its member escalated right after the issuance of a second fatwa by MUI on July 29th, 2005 in which Ahmadiyah is again labeled as deviant sect. However, the fatwa took different course this time. It was followed by a massive campaign conducted by radical and fundamentalist Islamic groups to press for the dissolution of Ahmadiyah as an organization and movement. There are certain groups that are worthy to be singled out as “engineers” of this campaign, namely Hizbut Tahrir, FUI (The Forum of Islamic Umma or Community) and and FPI (Front of Islam’s Defender).

The campaign succeeded to achieve its goal, marked by the issuance of the Joint Ministerial Decree (Surat Keputusan Bersama, known as SKB) in June 9th, 2008. The decree falls short of fulfilling the demand of radical Islamists to dissolve forever the Ahmadiyah movement. It mandates instead to freeze the proselytizing activities of Ahmadiyah, particularly its doctrine of prophecy. As noted by many observers, the decree is quite ambiguous. The question that is left un-addressed is whether the Ahmadi people are still free to conduct their religious activities in their mosques and madrasahs.

No matter how you interpret the decree, the fact remains the same: the government seems to fall into the trap set up by the Islamist groups that seem to be exerting its role recently in the Indonesian political landscape. By all means, the decree is evidently at odd with the constitution that insures the freedom of religion and faith.

How do we interpret this recent development as it unfolds in the case of Ahmadiyah?

Ahmadiyah is not a major and mind-boggling issue for Muslim rank-and-file. Of course, Muslim believe that the Prophet Muhammad is the final prophet. However, many of them won’t roll in anger if somebody in the corner of Islamic world show up and claim to be a new prophet. They will certainly object to that claim, but will never ever run into an amok simply because of that minor issue. If the course of event proceeds in the opposite direction, something must have gone wrong in one way or another!

The whole furor and controversy over Ahmadiyah sect is just a parcel of a larger dynamic in the Indonesian politics. Over the last ten years after the unleashing of democratic movement in Indonesia, one development stands out to be worthy of our analysis, namely the radicalizing trend among Muslim society. This trends manifested in various form, including the vigorous campaign launched by Islamists to adopt and implement sharia or Islamic law. The entire campaign to dissolve Ahmadiyah, to me, cannot be analyzed separately from this larger trend.

The main actors in this campaign are obviously Islamist groups such as Hizbut Tahrir, FUI and FPI. Hizbut Tahrir is worth mentioning here. I venture to claim that Hizbut Tahrir is the only group that has the highest stake in this campaign for a simple reason, namely to gain a credibility and credential in the eye of Indonesian Muslim who are mainly Sunni as an “Islamic voice”. Hizbut Tahrir has been confronted with resistance and political repression throughout Muslim countries, particularly in the authoritarian monarchies in Middle East. Indonesia is the only country where it finds a fertile soil to thrive. The first international conference of caliphate (Islamic global state) was conducted in Jakarta on August 2006. After its kicking out from UK on the allegation of its involvement in London bombing in 2007, Hizbut Tahrir sought an alternative base to launch its global movement to establish the Islamic caliphate. Where else does it fit better than Indonesia?

Ahmadiyah issue is also being politically exploited by other Islamist groups to earn reputation as an “authority” that deserves the respect of Muslim society. There are two major Islamic organizations that represent Islamic moderation in Indonesia, i.e. Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah. However, the image of “moderation” is looked upon with deep suspicion by other Islamic groups, especially the Islamist and radical ones. Moderation, in their eye, amounts to being playing into the game of Washington. It is incumbent upon these groups to wrestle the authority to speak about Islam from these two moderate organizations.

In other words, the entire debate on deviant sect in Islam is not something that has a merit on its own, but rather a proxy for differing Islamic groups which vie for an authoritative position as the sole “voice” of Islam. What is regrettable is that Indonesian government slipped or deliberately let itself trapped in this dangerous game. As stated in the constitution, the Indonesian government is tasked with only one thing, i.e. to respect and guarantee the right of all its citizens to exercise their freedom to embrace any religion and faith of their choice. The state has no stake whatsoever in delineating what is “straight” and what is “crooked” with respect to religious doctrinal debate within any community![]

Selengkapnya......

Obama, Gaza is Waiting for Messiah!

Obama’s readiness and ability to use the momentum will deliver double outcomes: the positive image of the US will restore and the seeds of radicalism and terrorism will lose its justification. Quoting Irshad Manji, Obama have to prove that the US is rather a non-fulfilled expectation than the main villain in the Middle Eastern turmoil.

Israeli’s withdrawal from Gaza prior the inauguration of the new president of the US indicated that they did not want this event to take place along with heating situation in the Middle East, and thus the first presidential speech will consist of denunciation against them. This strategy succeeded since Obama did not even mention anything about Gaza tragedy. Indeed, Obama said to have a new approach to the Muslim world, and we can only wonder how the implementation would be.

Surely, he will be more focused on US internal issues in his early administration despite of the fact that foreign policy will also be one of the US concerns. Therefore, many observers recommend to not being optimistic on Obama for solving the inherited problems from his forerunner (Iraq war, Guantanamo bay prison, financial crisis), and the old Palestine-Israel conflict. What can Gaza expect from Obama?

Mandate for Obama

Gaza tragedy urges Obama for not turning his face from the main issue: final solution for Arab-Israeli conflict. A public opinion poll conducted by the Centre for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan tells that 84,5% of the Jordanians believe that the US’ image will improve along with the end of Palestine-Israeli conflict, the unity of Iraq, and comprehensive evaluation to the policy of war against terrorism.

The poll, which is conducted in November 2008, identifies the main issues in the Middle East namely Palestine-Israel conflict, Iraq war and the impact of war against terrorism. Fifty seven per cent of respondents think the U.S. president-elect will help his country portray a more positive image in the Arab world (http://www.alquds.com, 15 Jan 2009). Although this poll did not comprehensively represent the opinion of Middle Eastern people, the number indicates hope and mandate for Obama to solve the six decades of conflict in the Middle East.

A survey conducted by Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in Ramallah and the Harry S. Truman Institute at the Hebrew University of 1270 Palestinian and 600 Israeli respondents implicitly advised Obama to not administrate the way Bush did. Bush has neglected the Palestine-Israeli peace process and even seeded radicalism and terrorism (http://www.alquds.com, 16/12/2008).

In this survey, majority of the Palestinian (57%) and half of the Israelis (49%) want the US to play a more active role in moderating the conflict. Half of the Israelis and half of the Palestinians think that a more active American involvement will be effective and successful, whereas the other half splits between the skeptics and the extremes, expecting it to have no impact or to fail in any condition.

Interestingly, nearly two-thirds of the Palestinian respondents think that the US intervention will benefit Israel, while thirty five per cent of the Israelis think that it will benefit Palestine. Many of them (39%) believe that it will benefit both parties. This large percentage helps Obama to regenerate the peace efforts expected by both parties. Although the percentage was obtained before Gaza invasion, the poll is regularly conducted and the result is quite stable in the last three years.
Both Palestinians and Israelis are hungry for final solution to the conflict. And yet, throughout Bush’s administration, this became more complicated and there was no momentum to develop the peace efforts.

Carry on Clinton and Arab Peace Initiatives

Post Gaza tragedy, Obama is expected to dive in the peace efforts soon. Obama’s readiness and ability to use the momentum will deliver double outcomes: the positive image of the US will restore and the seeds of radicalism and terrorism will lose its justification. Quoting Irshad Manji, Obama have to prove that the US is rather a non-fulfilled expectation than the main villain in the Middle Eastern turmoil.

Obama will only have to carry on the previous two initiatives of peace. First, US former President Bill Clinton’s initiative in 2000 that is strengthened by Geneva’s initiative (2003). Both initiatives concern: (1) final borders and territorial exchange between Israel and Palestine, (2) Palestinian refugees, (3) the status of Jerusalem, (4) a demilitarized Palestinian state, (5) security arrangement, and (6) end of conflict.

Second, the Arab Peace Initiative that is a quite radical solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It offered: (1) Arab recognition of Israel; (2) full normalization of relations with Israel; (3) Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories (West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights); (4) the independent Palestinian state. Meanwhile, the matter of Palestinian refugees will be solved according to UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

US’ plan to leave Iraq for Afghanistan might be appropriate since there were their enemies: Osama bin Laden and Alqaidah. However, the key issue is how to revive Arab-Israeli peace initiatives after being eight years dormant and was neglected by Bush administration. The question is this: can dying mothers and children of Gaza laid their hope on Obama? This is the call for Obama.

Selengkapnya......