A recent CNN poll shows that 6 in 10 Americans believe that President-elect Barack Obama will change the country for the better. The CNN poll also shows that majority of Americans think, “it's likely that Obama will improve race relations, improve economic conditions, bring stability to the financial markets, make the US safer from terrorism, reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, reduce global warming, win the war in Afghanistan and remove US troops from Iraq without causing a major upheaval in that country.” In short, the public wants Obama to deliver on his promises.

This presidential election also saw Americans voting in record numbers. The enthusiasm was particularly marked among minority groups and first-time or occasional voters. In unprecedented numbers, American Muslims, like many others, worked tirelessly by knocking on doors, registering new voters and raising money. However, unlike others, the election season was bittersweet for American Muslims. They watched in utter disgust as the word "Muslim" morphed into a smear and a taboo. They were disappointed with Obama's tepid response to the vilification of American Muslims. Yet they chugged along realizing that standing at the cross roads of history they could not let their personal disappointments transcend the urgency for change.

The exit polls

Polls conducted by MuslimVotersUSA.com and American Muslim Task Force showed 9 in 10 American Muslims voting for Obama. Only African Americans voted at a higher rate for Obama. Additionally, survey results from MuslimVotersUSA.com showed a whopping 25 point increase in favor of Obama. In 2004 only 65 percent had voted for the Democratic candidate John Kerry.

Although 65 percent of voters identified themselves as politically “moderates” (23 percent considered themselves “liberals”), nearly 7 in 10 voted for a Democratic congressman and/or a Senator. The American Muslim community swung to the left in 2008. In states like Florida, Virginia and North Carolina, where Obama and the Democrats won by small margins, the American Muslims proved to be one of the key swing voting blocs.

Some concerns about the Obama transition

The MuslimVotersUSA.com poll showed that even in voting for Obama, 6 in 10 American Muslims expressed “reservations” about their choice. The absence of any American Muslim on Obama’s transition team is now causing some angst among members of the community. For a campaign that ran on a message of inclusiveness, this omission does not bode well for the future. Just as worrisome is who is on the transition team.

One name that has drawn sharp criticism is Sonal Shah. Shah is linked to the Indian Hindu militant group Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), which is described by Indian-American groups as openly supporting “the persecution and pogroms against the Christian and Muslim minorities of India.” Sonal Shah was national coordinator for VHP-America helping to coordinate relief for the victims of 2001 Gujarat earthquake. Although Shah has issued a statement stating that she does not “subscribe to the views of such Hindu nationalist groups,” she has not explicitly condemned VHP with whom, according to newspaper accounts, she was involved in a leadership capacity. Given the enormous expectations that Obama will lead a politics of a different kind, these early signs naturally elicit skepticism.

Perhaps no issue is more emotionally tugging to the American Muslim community than the plight of the Palestinians. The appointment of Congressman Rahm Emmanuel to become the new White House Chief of Staff renewed cynicism that the more things change, the more they remain the same in Washington. Emmanuel, who has dual Israeli and American citizenship, was in favor of the Iraq War and had famously chastised the Bush Administration for not being sufficiently pro-Israel. Emmanuel is the son of a member of Irgun, a militant Zionist organization that during 1931-48 was responsible for many acts of terrorism against the British and Palestinians. Emmanuel found himself in hot water when his father told an Israeli newspaper, “Obviously he’ll influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to be mopping floors at the White House.” Rahm Emmanuel later apologized for his father’s comments.

Foreign policy challenges

On domestic issues like the economy, jobs, health care and civil liberties, the aspirations of the American Muslim community are consistent with the majority that voted for Obama. On foreign policy, there are similarities and differences. American Muslims want US troops to withdraw from Iraq, but do not favor massive redeployment in Afghanistan. A military surge in Afghanistan is unlikely to have the same impact it had in Iraq, partly because the politics and terrain of Afghanistan are different from Iraq. Moreover, an increase in the US military presence will lead to more skirmishes across the border in Pakistan, further exasperating an already volatile situation there. Redeploying more troops to Afghanistan will undercut one of Obama’s central economic arguments that the monthly $10 billion expenditure in Iraq is better spent rebuilding America’s infrastructure.

The broad principles of Obama’s foreign policy goals rest on the premise that America continues to “lead the world” and that this leadership is conditional on “understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity.” In a policy document, Obama went on to say that “extending an outstretched hand to others must ultimately be more than just a matter of expedience or even charity. It must be about recognizing the inherent equality, dignity, and worth of all people.”

Extending a helping hand is likely to have a positive impact on America’s image. However, when Obama speaks about creating mobile development teams that, “that bring together personnel from the military, the Pentagon, the State Department and USAID, fully integrating US government efforts in counter-terror, state-building, and post-conflict operations,” some may perceive this as an indirect way of heavy-handed meddling. The idea, on face value, may be perceived as well-intentioned and good, but if the execution begins to resemble “nation-building” we may be back to square one, with American presence in the Muslim world once again fueling resentments. Much of what happens next will depend to execution, which will require broad-based and inclusive coalitions with American groups who have a stake in the stability of the Muslim world, particularly the Middle East.

On the most intractable foreign policy challenge, a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama promises engagement in getting both sides to reach an agreement. Judging by his overtures to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), however, Obama may not be much different from Bush. His silence on the continued expansion of Israeli settlements or the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza may have been good campaign politics, but will appear less statesmanlike once he is sworn into office. “Judging from the Arab media outlets," explains Souheila Al-Jadda, a Peabody award wining journalist and associate producer of Mosaic, "Arabs in the Middle East don't expect to see much change in policy towards the Middle East, particularly with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

The path to rebuilding America’s image and prestige in the Muslim world lies in assuring Muslims that Obama will live up to the standard he has outlined, “recognizing the inherent equality, dignity, and worth of all people,” including those of the Palestinians who continue to suffer under the longest running occupation in the world. Even before Bush 43 took office, US foreign policy has generally been myopic. It became dangerously unilateralist in the past eight years. Continuing support for dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world and ignoring the inherent dignity of the people in that region will neither make America safe nor respected.

American Muslims would like to see Obama develop a more coherent and holistic policy. One such initiative could be to create a détente in the Middle East by bringing all parties to the table in an effort to reach a grand bargain that will assure all people in the region a secure, prosperous and dignified life. Spreading democracy needs to be viewed as a means to this goal leaving open the real possibility that democracy in the Muslim world is unlikely to resemble that in Europe or America. A more practical goal should be the development of civic society in the Middle East, with institutions that the champion the rights of people without fear of government recriminations.

The long road ahead

It is premature to rush to any judgment about the trajectory of an Obama administration. In implementing his vision of a more inclusive, progressive and grassroots politics, if Obama were to rely on old Clinton hands like Emmanuel then American Muslims need not react in an adverse manner. Emmanuel may practice a brand of politics that is different from the aspirations of the American Muslim community, but he is also highly qualified for the position. If Emmanuel is executing Obama’s vision, then the fact that his politics differs from the aspiration of the American Muslim community, with respect to its Middle East agenda, is less of a problem. However, if the Obama administration, influenced by the ideology of the Emmanuels and Shahs veers off the road then many of those who gave Obama the mandate of change will once again come back empty handed from a political process that has in general been disappointing to them. Can Obama become a successful President by abandoning the very values he campaigned on?

Obama’s election is not the end of a road; it is only the beginning of a struggle for change. The future will require vigilance and organization. Without public oversight, the new Democratic majority now sweeping into Washington will become just as arrogant, just as corrupt and just as out of touch as the Republicans they have removed from office. Despite setbacks, the American Muslim community should use their new found enthusiasm to discover newer and better ways to engage in the American political process.

Like other minority groups, American Muslims will find the road hard. Many will slam the door on their faces. Many will cut-off the road they are treading on. The forces of divisiveness and discord will continue their drum beat of fear mongering. And yet, if they keep extending out, they will also find new partners, new allies and new friends. Only by sustained engagement can American Muslims help steer American politics away from the culture wars, which contributed to the demonization of Islam and Muslims during the election season of 2008.

I'm a little disappointed by Ahmed's detailing of US Muslims' desires on foreign policy. I think his line of thought that he claims represents American Muslim opinion accounts only for the interests of overseas Islamist political groups and not American interests and security. It is also too responsive; for example, he claims American Muslims do not favor a surge in Afghanistan, claiming the geographic and human terrains would doom such an effort. He even criticizes nation building notions (and such notion *are* problematic indeed).

But, what do American Muslims know about Afghanistan and how to defeat the Taliban there? Why not be more proactive and suggest a winning strategy that both safeguards Ahmed's adopted homeland as well as the interests of the *people* of his ancestral home? Of course we will find doors closed when all we do is shill for overseas interests WITHOUT suggesting workable solutions other than "Islam is the solution, akhi!"

The doors will be open only when the US sees us as safeguarding the national interest and not merely our own parochial and very narrow self-interests, if indeed what Ahmed says fairly represents the totality of American Muslim opinion on these issues.

Do the interests of the US and Israel always converge? No, they absolutely do not, yet that doesn't matter to the Israel-lobbying groups and no one would dare accuse them of placing Israel's national interest ahead of that of the US. This is not because what many assume to be some Jewish conspiracy (while its true that many neocons are Jews, but this is due to the fact that many intellectuals in the conservative movement tend to be Jewish, and rednecks tend to be pretty stupid) or because "the Jews control everything in America", and its even not mainly out of deference to the Zionist Christian right. It is largely because they know how to effectively mobilize their resources and exert political pressure which furthers their agenda, and this is done unreservedly and without fear of being labeled anti-American. The Polish-American and Indian-American minorities have also pushed for the self interests of their respective homelands, and their is nothing wrong with Muslims doing the same. The real problem for Muslims lies in that national identity and not religious identity is what powerfully mobilizes individuals to be more active in pushing policy agendas. This is unfortunate but it seems to be the truth. The only area in foreign policy where Muslim-Americans might possibly have some leverage is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Afghanistan and the war in Iraq are much more about military tactics. Yet the only thing Muslim Americans do about the conflict is complain about it and about the media bias...Well of course the media is biased and that is never going to change, this is just an excuse for not doing anything, anyhow the media should not even be a target anyways. This is because Americans has very little interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict and the ones who do have are fanatically, unthinkingly pro-Israel, for even lady redneck Sarah Palin- a woman who is proud to compare herself to a pit bull, and got a passport when she was like forty, has very clear foreign policy views when it comes to Israel. So their is basically no point in trying to shift the mass American conception of the conflict. However, there are still areas in which Muslims can have real impact, and that is in the newly resurgent left-wing organizations which have proven to be effective in pushing their causes. We should capitalize on the demoralization of the Right and bring attention to the Palestinian cause by seeking their alliance. The political landscape in the US, with its shifting demographics and left-wing government, provides a great opportunity to advance the ideal of a Palestinian state and it would be a great tragedy if Muslim-Americans, especially Palestinians, fail to seize it.

I hear what nadia86 wrote above, however I'd like to offer my point of view as a conservative, evengelical Christian. Really, until all of the hysterical media imagery after 9-11 ocurred, I never thought of Muslims in any sort of negative light, and always just thought of them as "other people of the book". It is true that a great many Evangelical Christians like myself are urged to "support Israel" from the pulpit, and yet, these days some of us are starting to think that maybe we have been sold a bill of goods in that regard. I must ask myself: what has supporting Israel done for my own religious faith in America? I have seen expression my Christian beliefs virtually outlawed across the nation. Joked about on TV. Maybe I am wrong, but it always seems to trace back to Jewish activists of some sort. What have I ever done to Jews besides absolutely nothing? Our children go to fight and possibly die in foreign wars so that the state of Israel might survive, but why should they? If God truly wants Israel to survive, they can survive without our help! I am feeling more and more that the reason we even went to Iraq was to save Israel from Saddam Hussein. Which got us in to this HUGE national debt we have, and certainly helped put our economy in the toilet. So, something about this whole situation is starting to stink to me! And, as usual, as American tax-payers, you and me, we are all handed the bill for this! Now, I am new to understanding this, but I am starting to learn that (apparently) some Jews are called Zionists, and they may be the ones responsible for this state of affairs (correct me if I am wrong). I vote Republican every single time, because I cannot stomach what the Democrats promote. I read just yesterday that either 7 out of 10 Jews, or 8 out of 10 Jews voted for Obama in the recent election. So if you support Democrat candidates, there you are in the same club with the Zionists, that makes sense? Supporting THEIR candidate? If you want us conservatives to work with you in politics, make yourselves known as supporting Conservative Republican causes! Now, please understand, I am NOT anti-jewish, but for some reason, a good number of them seem to be "Anti-ME!" So, if that is the case, I no longer have to support Israel do I? I guess I have been a fool for so long supporting something that comes back and sticks me in the back, but now that is over, And a lot of us Christians are starting to wake up to that, too. So please remember, things are not always what they seem. Maybe you have allies you are not aware of yet. Don't YOU be sold a bill of goods like I was! Please think about what makes common sense. Your enemies belive in "divide and conquer". Please don't be taken in by it! Thanks very much for letting me give my opinion.

>> Why not be more proactive and suggest a winning strategy that both safeguards Ahmed's adopted homeland as well as the interests of the *people* of his ancestral home?

Muslims seem to suffer from a schizophrenia don't we. Affirming that America is completely blameworthy but never respecting American right to promote its own interest.

Still, that belies the fact that America is serving its own interest at the cost of other countries interests. At many times, American foreign policy self-interest comes at the expense of large swathes of the human population. Its not a mutual interest that is being promoted. As a matter of fact, it is not possible to "defeat the taliban". There resistance is absolutely natural.

Are you implying imply that the American government is not actually unethical in its behaviour and it has no better options of action? That the American resource can only be mobilised effectively in the world through its military and economic exploits? I must say, that for an American, you expect very little (outside the current barbarity and sloth) from your homeland.

>> So their is basically no point in trying to shift the mass American conception of the conflict.

Most of Europe managed to shift its view on Israel based on the truth and activism. I think that American perception of the conflict is based on the media that Americans are exposed to. I also think that America is not a static idol that many people seem to make it out to be. It IS a nation that can respond to new ideas and learning. It's history is one of change and adaptation.

>> We should capitalize on the demoralization of the Right and bring attention to the Palestinian cause by seeking their alliance. The political landscape in the US, with its shifting demographics and left-wing government, provides a great opportunity to advance the ideal of a Palestinian state and it would be a great tragedy if Muslim-Americans, especially Palestinians, fail to seize it.

As a Palestinian yourself, I'd like to know what you think about a one state solution.

>> Which got us in to this HUGE national debt we have, and certainly helped put our economy in the toilet.

And is steadily sinking the rest of the world into a deep and ugly recession.

>>>>>>I read just yesterday that either 7 out of 10 Jews, or 8 out of 10 Jews voted for Obama in the recent election. So if you support Democrat candidates, there you are in the same club with the Zionists, that makes sense? Supporting THEIR candidate? If you want us conservatives to work with you in politics, make yourselves known as supporting Conservative Republican causes!>>>>


That is one of the biggest ironies of American politics, yet no one ever mentions it. The issue is fascinating, because after all the love and praised both McCain and Palin lavished on Israel throughout the campaign and especially during the debates, 78 percent of Jewish Americans voted for the Democratic candidate. This is not surprising at all, throughout history, the only time Jews didn't give Democrats the majority of their votes was in the 1920s when a Socialist (Eugene Debbs) received all their votes. The illusion that Republicans harbor every election cycle is that they will be able to peel away the majority of Jewish votes, what they don't seem to understand is that Jewish Americans have always been fundamentally liberal and always will be. This is due to a variety of reasons, one is a somewhat hostile attitude towards Christianity, yes this is a dirty secret, but anyone interested enough would detect this easily...Though I have to say, while I admire the strict Jewish belief in monotheism, one that is equal to that of Islam, the contempt so many Jews display for the figure of Jesus Christ (pbuh) is very insulting to me as a Muslim, and I can only imagine how it would make those who worship Christ feel....Another reason is that the vast majority of Jews are highly educated and this makes them even more liberal and the belief in the strict separation of Church and state is very much reinforced by this (this is no way anti-Semitic and neither is what you said Yank, these are merely sociological observations). Conservative Republicans see this, but what makes them turn a blind eye towards it is the fact that Evangelical Christians place heavy emphasis on the Old Testament and consider Jews to be the Chosen people even more than Jews themselves do. This provides great freedom for hypocrites like Abraham Foxman, who embrace Evangelical support of Israel yet turn around and support far-left legislation, Foxman-who is the head of anti-defamation league is not embarrassed of openly opposing the socially conservative policies of his Christian allies. So there is no hope of the extreme, irrational support of Israel ever eroding, and we Muslims should never count on that.


So it is very relieving that the Evangelical base which gave Bush his second term is slowly losing traction, yet the devastating blows the Republican party and conservatism suffered do not greatly please me as an Arab-American Muslim. Muslims, especially Arabs and Pakistanis used to always vote Republican for two reasons, because its the party of business and because we wholeheartedly agree with its social values. If I were old enough to vote in 2000 I would have definitely voted for Bush, and that's what the majority of Muslim-Americans actually did, and for good reasons, not just because Lieberman was on the other ticket. How could we have known that he would embark on wars that would cause the deaths of and humiliate so many of our people? So Muslims couldn't even fathom supporting Republicans this year, because for me personally, as a Palestinian, the Democratic social agenda and their support of the welfare state, don't matter anymore when I hear the Republican candidate comparing a well-respected Palestinian academic to neo-Nazism and all but worshiping the state of Israel. We Muslims didn't leave the Republican party, it left us.... And no, I don't support the one state solution because it is simply implausible and will never, ever happen, I'm a clear-eyed realist, at least that's what I like to tell myself.

Nadia, I agree strongly with most of what you say, just some commentary:

>>How could we have knownthat he would embark on wars that would cause the deaths of and humiliate so many of our people?

There would have been no wars without multiple, simultaneous and well-orchestrated Muslim attacks and resulting destruction of a rather large portion of America's largest city. Even if Bush all along wanted to get rid of Saddam, there's no way the Cabinet / Administration could have pulled it off without the rousing motivation that 9-11 gave provided.

And, I hate to harp on it, but in this case "our" people for me are other Americans since overseas Muslims haven't done jack s--- for me except try to boss me around and try to draw me away from my heritage so I can be a "good" Muslim. But, we've hashed that thread out to death already... However, I understand why you use that term and merely want to point out that I don't and perhaps a large portion of indigenous Muslims likely may not use that term, either.

Well, OmarG, it sounds to me like a lot of Arab and South Asian sheiks are trying to turn indigenous Muslims like you into one of "us", I think this is kinda funny, but I bet you know that they are well intentioned...And yes, when I said "our people", it might have had an ethnic element to it, especially when I think about the Iraqis, though Afghanistan is also painful, they just seem a bit more distant. Don't let them suppress your individuality! I would imagine black Muslims feel this too.

Ghulam, I happen to strongly believe that defeating the Taliban is in the interests of the Afghan people and future as well. It always has been; the only reason we fight them now alongside the successors of the Northern Aliance and the naturally anti-Islamist Pashtun tribes is because our interests coincide. Before, my government coddled the Taliban and courted them for commercial reasons.

Can you really tell me with a straight face that the excesses against all Afghans and straight-out haram behavior against women is a worthy price for the facade of security that they might temporarily provide? Do you really believe the only way for Afghans to be rulled is by the brutal compulsion of the Talibans' knives and Kalashnikovs??

Self-interest is ingrained into the human mind at a very deep biological level: the urge towards self-preservation. Because humans ARE the state, even nation-states will act this way. Altruism is not the answer nor do I think it is even currently feasible. It will take a massive cultural and physiological shift in humanity to move to an alternative, non-self-interested model of behavior.

>>Most of Europe managed to shift its view on Israel

To what effect? Germany sells advanced warships to Israeli, the French do nuclear business with Israel and the EU as a whole has not made a dent in any Israeli behavior whatsoever. Its easy to feel one thing but as long as Europe is morally bankrupt from acting against agressors, they will never have the leverage needed to change the Israeli state's behavior. So, all the activism is the same as time spent sitting on the toilet.

>>Self-interest is ingrained into the human mind at a very deep biological level: the urge towards self-preservation. Because humans ARE the state... <<

The American support of Israel does not fall under "Self-Interest" but "Corruption" that is built into the American system of governance. It is not in the self-interest of America to support Israel remotely to the point of what the US does. There is massive room for corruption in American politics, and this is one prime example of it. Americans like to pimp themselves as the best most democratic nation around the world. Well, best among world-wide corrupt governance is still corrupt governance, just less of it.

>> Ghulam, I happen to strongly believe that defeating the Taliban is in the interests of the Afghan people and future as well. It always has been.<<

Since you so tartly raise Islamic jurisprudence to make your case, in Islam, demolishing legitimate Government structures by gorilla fighting or revolutionary means, regardless of their level of corruption or abuse of power, is an act punishable by death. So as a Muslim, what your government did in removing Taliban on a whim is totally against Islam. So kindly stick to your pathetic theories of self-interest and try not to justify anything your government does by masquerading it as "islamic".

>> Do you really believe the only way for Afghans to be rulled is by the brutal compulsion of the Talibans' knives and Kalashnikovs?? <<

Did'nt hear you crying your bleeding heart out when supporting Saddam Hussein and a multitude of other brutal dictators against the best interests of their peoples over the years. Now all of a sudden you are in love with the Afghan people. You really do sound like Bush!!!!!

Allah subhanahu wa ta3aalaa says "al-Zulmu sharr min al-qitaal" = "oppression is worse than slaughter" which shows very clearly that it is preferable to fight than to tolerate oppression. The Taliban were an oppressive pseudo-government as is amply attested by many, many Afghans.

>>regardless of their level of corruption or abuse of power,

This is an old fiqh position which was logically derived by scholars of old; I suspect they were likely on the payroll of whichever widely disliked sultan was in power at the time. It clearly contradicts the Quran, which leads me to believe such fiqhi positions were products of corruption.

Saddam was a a--hole; 'nuf said and so are all other such dictators. Unfortunately, my government has in the past, and continues to believe that stability is better than overthrowing dictators. The aftermath of the Iraq war will surely convince the world that its better to tolerate petty tyrants than it is to confront them and accept genocide as the post-colonial Europeans states have consistently done around the world rather than fight it with force.

>> Arabs and Pakistanis used to always vote Republican for two reasons, because its the party of business and because we wholeheartedly agree with its social values.

Not surprising considering the political situations of both cultural groupings.

>> Ghulam, I happen to strongly believe that defeating the Taliban is in the interests of the Afghan people and future as well.

I could agree with you too. But that doesn't legitimize a war. Standing up to oppression in Islam is not the same as beating the oppressor at his own game.

Before we start a tirade about the failures of the Taliban, you seem treat the issue of American foreign policy with kid gloves. Are you aware of the extreme actions that your government has resorted to, to further its own economic, political and military goals around the world? It seems your unquestioning support for your government is mired by misinformation and an unquestioning loyalty. And to boot, you talk about fighting taliban oppression. What is your political expectation? That non-Americans accept their fealty and backwardness and allow the pillaging of the countries at the hand of a morally-superior United States?

>> The aftermath of the Iraq war will surely convince the world that its better to tolerate petty tyrants than it is to confront them and accept genocide as the post-colonial Europeans states have consistently done around the world rather than fight it with force.

This statement is mired in ignorance. And its a typical imperialist notion. Not only are your ignoring the direct role Europeans and Americans have played in supporting those regimes, you also ignore that the support came as natural extension of the benefits of accessing economies that are run by tyrants. You ignore further that your governments actually did more to quell truly democratic movements than they did to support them. You also seem to ignore that any sacrifice that comes from the West is the supposed sacrifice of mobilising its WAR machinery. Ironic that you would use terms like "oppressor" yet can't associate those terms with the oppression due directly to your governments actions. You actually believe that your government has honest intentions? That the imperialist United States isn't the oppressor, but that the local active Taliban are?

If you want to fight oppression, don't run around the world shooting poor people, start your fight in Washington DC. Easier to shoot the poor I think.

>>> We Muslims didn't leave the Republican party, it left us.... And no, I don't support the one state solution because it is simply implausible and will never, ever happen, I'm a clear-eyed realist, at least that's what I like to tell myself.

But to focus on your comment of the Republican party abandoning its Muslim support base, I think you're misunderstanding one simple truth about the party whose values you say Muslims share. The war as it happened was the natural outcome of those shared values playing out. The difference between liberalism and conservatism is that conservatism assumes human social behaviour must by necessity be governed by law.

Your "realist" solution actually plays into continued and perpetual conflict. I think my struggling country actually has alot to offer the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. After the instatement of a secular non-racial government, a truth and reconciliation commission was established that reviewed 20 000 cases of politically motivated aggressions. Blanket amnesty was granted to anyone who applied. The entire Defence force and government was transformed and our society has all but turned its back on racially and religiously divided country. I don't think its your "realism" that promotes your view, but rather your conservatism.

Ghulam, dude, I'm the Palestinian and I think I know what it is that drives my convictions on our situation...When it comes to politics I don't see reality through a rosy, conciliatory, all-is-well prism like you do, I stare at the hard truths straight in the face. This is the only way to understand the political landscape after so many disappointments. You are a dreamy wide-eyed liberal, that's fine in life, but not when it comes to the grim realities of Middle Eastern politics, we're way too jaded!.
There is a HUGE difference between the Palestinian question and what happened in South Africa, in fact, I wish the situations were similar but they are so not. Ours is an existential struggle, one where long-term periods of peace and stability are possible, but the basic struggle for dominance over the Holy Lands will remain-we will never fully embrace each other the way people in South Africa did. We have different identities and cultures and belong to different, not necessarily divergent, civilizations. I'm a conservative in that sense that I don't believe that much changes under the sun, we will always be different, and there's nothing wrong with, on the contrary, it's only natural. And about conservatism- well, it's not about government controlling your life, its about freedom, individualism and limited government. Traditionalism is also a component in the sense that it represents the very human desire for stability and a general weariness of radical frightening change. This doesn't mean that humanity doesn't progress, it does and it should, but these changes are gradual and eventually merge with traditions, a beautiful line from Emily Dickinson, "the truth does dazzle gradually" illustrates this, I think.

"Not surprising considering the political situations of both cultural groupings."

What is that supposed to mean? Not everything is simply cultural, I get the sense that some resent the cultural influence of Arabs on Islam, I may understand that, but the reality is that Islam and Arab culture are closely linked, whether people like that or not. Islam was born in the heart of the Arabian desert, culture and people. These are facts and I don't see the point in resenting them, Edward Said famously said, "I am an Arab, so I am a Muslim", even though he wasn't.

Wow Ghulam, you really read too much between the lines of what I wrote. I fully understand the sins of Western support of local tyrants. I also know that local tyrants are products of their own culture; they could not gain and then accomplish the very difficult maintenance of their power solely through external support. Whether

Anyway, the political and moral sins of Realpolitick do not give a blank check to local tyrants like the Taliban and does not prevent me from fighting them whenever and wherever I choose.

Nadia, this is partially true in the Middle East, but the beauty of Islam has always been how its accepted local cultural influences without compromising the 3ibaadaat or core moral principals. Classical and contemporary Islam, and even classical and modern Arab cultures are both substantially the products of Greek, Roman, Syriac, Aramean and Persian civilizations: the Damascus mosque is the same as ancient Roman architecture; the dome and arch came from pre-Islamic Persian architecture and the list goes on and on infinitely. Point is: Muslim cultures always have and always will influence each other and I like it that way; it makes life more interesting and gives different people a basis to get along: "Oh, cool you guys make Baklava, too but with rose water and not honey; cool!"

>> ... the political and moral sins of Realpolitick do not give a blank check to local tyrants like the Taliban ...

>> I also know that local tyrants are products of their own culture; they could not gain and then accomplish the very difficult maintenance of their power solely through external support.

If I told you that two weeks ago, your federal reserve implemented a bailout of a bank that will result in the deaths of 100million people whether through decrepid poverty or ensuing political instability, you'd pack up your bags and police the tyrants of consequence? That's the Realpolitik of your ultimate choice. You seem to lack an appreciation for scale in evaluating the conflicts and disproportionately place blame.

I have to read into what you say. Because what you affirm as the motivations of your choices are no more better informed than the rebels who are signing up to the Taliban mission. And again, those "local tyrants" are hardly more blameworthy than the men who "govern" your country.

I have to say is that I find you holding outsiders more to account than you hold your own people. It is a double standard. The products of American society/government/culture (you seem to be heaping all of them into one when it comes to the Taliban), can be said to be to be even more destructive than anything the Taliban could have dreamt of producing. Yet you're not holding your own people to account for their failings (because it doesn't affect you perhaps?). You have misgivings about other cultures and are blindly uncritical of your own. I don't see your behaviour any different to those local brothers who want to "help" you be a "good Muslim". I doubt any of them have taken up arms against the natives though.

What is your overall opinion of the Afghan people?

>>> I'm the Palestinian and I think I know what it is that drives my convictions on our situation...When it comes to politics I don't see reality through a rosy, conciliatory, all-is-well prism like you do, I stare at the hard truths straight in the face.

Fair enough, but as you've pointed out, the problem is the way people view each other, not necessarily the way things need be. BTW~Other Palestinians have different views. But what you're saying is that change is not possible (Obama fans would be very disappointed ;-)). I don't consider that any more realistic than perpetual conflict being reasonable.

P.S. South Africa actually reached very close to a second civil war. The relatively peaceful transition was an end result of political institution and civil action that originated from before even the first Jewish settlers started landing in Palestine. If you think that Jew and Muslim are irreconcileable, try Zulu and White settler.

I didn't say perpetual conflict or war, what I meant was perpetual tension and the impossibility of us fully accepting one another the way people in South Africa did. This isn't even mainly about religion or Muslim vs Jew, its about two very different cultures and identities, even the most liberal Palestinians, and there are a lot of them especially Marxists, will tell you that they don't feel completely at home amongst Israeli Jews...What you said is true, many support the one state solution, a bunch of my friends do too- but they don't know what they're talking about, they don't understand the Jewish Israeli psyche, those who do understand it will tell you that a crucial tenet is that Israel be, first and foremost, a Jewish state. There can exist an Arab community, but it must always be a minority (although that's changing with 1948 Arab community growing so fast ilhamdullilah). So the binational state may eventually come about naturally, but I know that they will do everything they can to stop that from happening.

>> What you said is true, many support the one state solution, a bunch of my friends do too- but they don't know what they're talking about, they don't understand the Jewish Israeli psyche..

One of the South African Apartheid governments closest allies (aside from the United States) was the state of Israel. White settlers in these three countries shared a very common understanding, their religious deliverance in these new lands. The average white teenager was instructed about the importance of South Africa as his fatherland, recognising the communist enemy, his personal role in transforming a barren country into a shining example of white christian supremacy. Whites were conscripted into the army, voted in white-only elections and were conscripted into the army. Generations of religious and ethnic division, dissolved in ten years. Socio-economically divided people of oppressor and oppressed alike have found a single nation political solution. In the 14 years since our first democratic election, the ideology has all but dissolved.

The notion of a Jewish-only Israeli state is a dogma/ideology that need only be dissolved in the way people live their lives. Palestinians and Arabs are the Israeli workforce and Israeli neighbours. Palestinians and Arabs are Israelis genetic kin. I believe that despite what you say about the Jewish-Israeli "psyche", the end of violence and a life of normalcy free of religious manipulation and political aggression is probably a basic need of majority of Israelis. The zionist notions would dissolve if the environment provided for these needs.

>> One of the South African Apartheid governments closest allies (aside from the United States) was the state of Israel. <<

WAS. Still is. What do you mean 'was'. Wake-up 'Professor'. And talk about the abuse of those people working in diamond mines and millions of people being let to die of AIDS by your 'oh so sophisticated' South African Government. You look like someone aspiring for a position on the Government. Which is just fine, but here on this web-site you do not have to 'put up the pretenses.' You can call a spade a spade here Ghulam.

>If you want us conservatives to work with you in politics, make yourselves known as supporting Conservative Republican causes!<

I don't know what conservative Republican "causes" are these days. The problem is that most of the present day Republicans are no better then the Democrats when it comes to Israel and its amen corner. They're all bought and paid for.

>Your enemies belive in "divide and conquer". Please don't be taken in by it! Thanks very much for letting me give my opinion.<

Thank you, yank. You're a true patriot. I wish some of the Muslims on the Obama kool aid had your backbone in saying it as is.