It was the invitation of a lifetime. I was invited to the United States for 10 days as a voluntary participant of the International Visitor Program. As a journalist, my mission was to learn, observe and absorb as much as I could from my surroundings — from normal people in the street to professional academics, politicians, and yes, even people I disagreed with such as the columnist Thomas Friedman. Our schedule was tight and our being there couldn’t have been timelier. The Middle East was in crisis and I believed that it would be exciting to make the trip under those circumstances.
Imagine the unanswered questions and the many issues that I — and the other journalists — wanted clarified regarding US policy in the Middle East. Our world — the Arab world — changed dramatically on Sept. 11. Many of us found that we were looked upon as terrorists. We sought a deeper level of understanding, an explanation for the deterioration in relations and most of all, a face to speak to or a voice to listen to, away from the media and the big screen. Even more, American journalists also needed to be understood. As we sat in roundtable discussions, many questions were raised about why 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. Many of us in turn asked why so many Americans thought that that fact alone, even if true, meant that our country harbored terrorists. In the end, there was no consolation for either group.
Outside the meetings, we sat in restaurants, chatted in cafes, talked to some friendly Americans who overheard us speaking Arabic. We also bought the New York Times or the Washington Post and read the latest on what was happening in the Middle East.
Americans were intriguing; people were witty, quick to speak their minds, outgoing, friendly and to the point. When we went to a fast-food restaurant or a cafe, customers were quick to state their orders because, aside from being organized, there was no time to waste, no time to ask questions. Signs and explanations were posted everywhere for everyone to read.
One Sunday afternoon in Washington, D.C., one of my colleagues and I visited the National Museum of Women in the Arts. The entrance was packed with men, women and children who were spending part of their weekend looking at paintings, sitting in groups discussing special presentations and famous artists. Others consulted books to get additional information. Education, in other words, was an integral part of their normal daily routine.
There was also the need by Americans to learn about the "other" and many were very ignorant of the Middle East. Some were controlled by their own mindsets, pointing out there was no hope in the Middle East and that Arabs failed to understand the threat of terrorism. There were also those who believed that other concerns were just as important as the battle against terrorism. Either way, Americans were debating among themselves about what was needed from them and from us. There were of course politicians on TV and, as in many countries, most were narrow-minded and blurted all the usual nonsense. On the other hand, academics at the universities we visited were the most interesting. Professors gave us facts and fresh opinions which we hadn’t heard before — such as student complaints that after Sept. 11, freedom was threatened in the US as a result of America’s war on terror and its military strike against Afghanistan.
Generally though, after Sept. 11, Americans seemed more nervous — understandable, given the current situation. When we spoke Arabic, we sensed curiosity from most people around us — not hostility but curious interest. Some even asked us what language we were speaking and were genuinely interested in hearing what we thought. There were a few uncomfortable situations where we often found ourselves wary of speaking Arabic; sometimes we got unpleasant looks but nothing came of them. It was obvious during my time in the US that Americans were very aware of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A demonstration supporting the Palestinians in Eugene, Oregon was followed by one in Washington, D.C. supporting Israelis against what was called "terrorism." People I ran into constantly asked me about the Middle East and often made predictions about how things would surely escalate further.
Our fears boiled down to the same thing: fears for personal security. The Arab world, however, has far more knowledge of that kind of insecurity. We Arabs have been hit hard by the Israeli Army: Egypt and South Lebanon invaded, the Golan Heights taken from Syria and parts of Jordan annexed by Israel. Americans fear that Arab "terrorists" in Palestinian-occupied territories will somehow end up in the US and therefore the Palestinians are being marginalized.
It was an obsession, first by us, and now by them, to dwell on the security of the Middle East and its effects on US regional policy. While we were accused of focusing exclusively on the Palestinian cause and ignoring our own internal problems, the American media bombarded us with lengthy discussions on how — they thought — "terrorism" in the Middle East should be fought.
I began to wonder if perhaps we were dwelling too much on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while ignoring some other relevant issues. I then decided to take on a new role, to analyze our own situation critically before looking elsewhere. But everywhere I chose to look, every news item I analyzed, every discussion I had, was related to the Palestinian intifada. There was too much injustice, too much pain, and too little comfort. I grieved for the Palestinians and believed more firmly then ever, after my trip to the US, that the situation was worse than ever in regard to how most Americans perceive it. Never in history has a nation experienced such horrors while being watched by the international community which allowed crimes against humanity to be committed over and over. The facts are that America helped an occupying power create itself, by building bridges, sending warplanes, consenting to Israeli requests. "You just want us to twist Israel’s arm," we were told when a colleague asked about the role the US should play in putting pressure on Israel. But what about the US rejecting, even vetoing, the presence of an international observation body in the occupied territories? When will the US government begin to listen to and heed international criticism of its role in the Middle East? It did seem that with every problem we tackled, a score of others bubbled to the surface.
In the Third World, we must slowly and surely persuade people to adopt global values. The question is how can we journalists convince our people that despite the conflict, the US is a model worth following? The poor are first interested in satisfying basic survival needs. So the Palestinians’ right to a homeland, food and clothing are the No. 1 priority. The middle and upper classes, on the other hand, are able to be more philosophical — people should seek to better themselves, the quality of the educational system, the need for political reform, and a positive human rights record. How can we deal with these overlapping issues that are a challenge to many in the Arab world? When the Saudi government supported a plan to raise $85 million for the Palestinians, most journalists wondered whether it was intended to elevate Palestinian "terrorists" to martyrs. At every level in the US, the threat of terrorism was debated.
Indeed when I visited an international school in Seattle, Washington, one of our colleagues asked the students what they would feel like if a country seized a huge chunk of land from America. How would Americans react? What would they do? A student quickly replied, "Do you mean the Jews have no right to a homeland?" "Aah!" I exclaimed to myself. There was no winning. It was in their history books and their minds that the Jews had been promised Palestine.
I was reminded of Grace Halsell, an American writer based in Washington, D.C., who explained that Christians in America were from childhood brought up on the idea of a Jewish state named Israel. She wrote, "I was one of those. I grew up hearing of a mystical, allegorical, spiritual Israel. This was before the modern political entity appeared on our maps. I attended Sunday School and watched an instructor pull down maps of the Holy Land. I grew up on stories of a good and chosen people who fought against their bad ‘unchosen’ enemies."
How can one begin to explain to young students who are not yet aware of the real world, about occupation, revenge and history repeating itself. That whether or not the Jews were promised Palestine is now unacceptable and irrelevant. For the Bible and Torah to discuss the promised land of Israel is one thing but to use it as a means of wiping out another people’s history and gaining political power is another and altogether more serious matter. I, for one, still cannot understand how an Israeli civilian can live peacefully in a house that he knows once belonged to a Palestinian who was driven from it. That same Israeli then cries to the world that Israel is under threat. Is there worse terrorism than that?
We should look at the lobbies in the US. When I compare AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee) to the ADC (American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee) there are vast differences. AIPAC’s Deputy Director of Foreign Policy Issues, Dr. Keith Weissman, is responsible for Middle East issues, such as the peace process, the future of Jerusalem, US-Iran policy, US-Turkey relations, radical Islam, Middle East-Eurasian energy issues, the Arabic media and the region’s politics and economics. He also "helped develop the history curriculum guidelines currently used in California’s public high schools," according to the International Visitor Program booklet. Sadly, however, the ADC’s only goal was to "defend the rights of people of Arab descent and promote their rich cultural heritage... it offers counseling in cases of discrimination and defamation and selected litigation in the areas of immigration," as well as "promoting a more balanced US Middle East policy and serving as a reliable source for the news media and educators." Not really competitive, is it? Why?
By the end of the trip, I had reached several conclusions. That the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a battle, a win or lose game. It is not a battle between democracy and corruption, as some call it, because if this were the case, Israel’s majority-rule and domination would win since in essence, democracy means the rule of the people by the people. This translates into meeting the demands of the Palestinians: the right of return for refugees, more political maneuvering, greater transparency, prosperity, and hence more influence around the world.
David Ben Gurion said, "The old will die and the young forget." He was reassuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians would not return. Not so now, Mr. Ben Gurion, for we are "not pro-this people or that," as Desmond Tutu once said. We are "pro-justice, pro-freedom. I am anti- injustice, anti-oppression."