As part of his eastern Canadian Universities' tour, professor of Political Science As'ad Abukhalil, known for his blog. “The Angry Arab News Service,” sat down with us at Ryerson University in Toronto, Canada to answer some of our questions about, the so called "Peace Process", western support for tyrants and dictators in the Middle East, the Occupation and destruction of Iraq and its people, the US's role in sectarian agitation throughout the middle east, theologocentrism, American support for fundamentalism, the social situation in Palestine, American endorsement of criminal warlords in Somalia, the Israeli lobby, media coverage of the war on Lebanon, and the so called liberal left. Here is a selection of some of the most notable questions and answers.

IAM: What do you see as the best way to move forward for Palestine in light of international calls for Boycotts, Divestments, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israeli apartheid?
As’ad: Well I think the idea of "to move forward" is anathema to me. Any of the language of the peace process I think is much more contrary to what it is intended for. I mean peace process for me is a process of destruction and devastation. I think it is very important that we try to empty the terminology from what is known in its common usage. So I think for us activists, about how to advance, one of the major challenges we have is to try to defy the rules and the parameters of debate that are being imposed on a global level. When we think about globalization, I mean it’s not only in economic terms, but also in terms of globalization of language, of the media, which is very destructive. Now I look at more than 370 so called independent Arab satellite television stations and yet more than 95% of them are dominated by the house of Saud, and I think the danger of that is that the United States can so easily dominate Arab media, decide what they cover on it and what they say. So I think for us we have to make sure that we are not, especially those of us living in the West, I think is what you are asking for, not to be intimidated because we are in a small minority and the mainstream is not only indifferent to our concerns, but actually hostile to our concerns. And the second danger I think is that the so called ‘liberal’ or the ‘lefty’ is not necessarily always friendly to our causes if anything. They want us to be subjugated, to them. I mean, we have to try to shape our own language and our own goals to the interests of the liberal white man; but it’s the white man nevertheless. I think that we have to insist that what we are talking about even if the language seems to be offensive to many is in fact comparable to the struggle again the apartheid regime of South Africa. And unlike Jimmy Carter’s book, I think we have to insist that it is apartheid not only in West Bank and Gaza but also inside Israel itself. 

IAM: What do you think is the best way to proceed with the BDS campaign itself?
As’ad: Well I think we have to try to get out of our Isolation. It’s very saddening over the years since I lived in the United States to see the extent to which the struggle over Palestine has become much more segregated. By that I mean that, you know, it’s mostly our faces, Middle Eastern looking faces that are there. We have to try to speak to potentially friendly voices on the left; I'm not talking about the liberals who will never be on our side, and who want us to compromise and make concessions that are alien to the very purpose of our struggle. But I'm talking about bridging the possible links with progressive forces that could be our allies. And I think this is rather hampered by the very conservative nature of many of our families who come from the Middle East, especially in issues dealing with gay and lesbian rights, minority rights, people of color, and things of that nature. And I think we have to challenge that very much. But it seems to me the campaign for divestment against apartheid is absolutely primary. And I think we have to coordinate it in a way as to mirror the struggle of the people over there in the Middle East. And I think after September 11th, things have become much difficult and the biggest challenge I see is that people after September 11th, I know more so in the United States perhaps than in Canada, are very intimidated. I know many Arabs who are now absolutely...literally afraid; I'm speaking about tenured professors who are afraid of speaking out after September 11th. We have to get out of that.

IAM: In Iraq, the US occupation brought with it the daily wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians. It is also well know that the US has supported sectarian policies in the country. So what is exactly happening in Iraq? Is it sectarian strife?
As’ad: I'm assuming the premise of your question excludes from the category of rational people George W. Bush, but I think we have to say that this was an administration that was intoxicated by what it thought was an easy victory in Afghanistan, only come to realize that not only they did not achieve a victory in Afghanistan, as we see with the rise of the Taliban, but we are also witnessing a tremendous deterioration of everything that this administration has tried to build. And this is why there is now a quest in earnest in Palestine and Lebanon for the destruction of our societies because the president is trying so hard to achieve a victory that long eluded him in Iraq. And of course this is why it is not a coincidence, not only in Iraq and that’s where we have to do a link, why is it that every place the Bush Doctrine has visited, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq is a society that stands on the verge of civil war. And it is not a coincidence. What is happening in Iraq, as you correctly pointed out, is that the administration built up its occupation and post-occupation policies on the premise of sectarian exploitation. And in fact you have to look at the report, the recent one, on Iraq by the international crisis group which talks about how the beginning was very sectarian in its premise, in its foundation, and that is the result of what’s going on. Iraq, the violence in Iraq today is a combination of things going on: there is sectarian warfare, there is ethnic warfare, but largely and mostly we have to underline under international law it is all has to be blamed on the foot of the colonial power in charge. This is a colonial war. There is an attempt to subjugate by force the people of Iraq. And the violence and the mayhem unlike what the second general, handpicked by the United States will say, is the responsibility of the colonizing power.

IAM: Doesn't the escalation of sectarian violence threaten US presence when it comes to American public opinion, or is that really an ineffectual concept?
As’ad: No, no, I think certainly it is threatening a lot of things, I think the results of the last American elections points out to the trouble that the administration is feeling, based on the debacle that is happening now in Iraq. And I think the administration knows that it is in deep trouble, but you have a very unusual president in the United States. We have somebody in his mind a very bizarre combination of stubbornness and deep ignorance of foreign affairs. That’s why it is so easy for him to disregard all the various advice that comes out to him, not only from liberal ranks but I'm talking about the advice of the so called Iraq study group. I mean he is capable of totally ignoring it because he has a religious self-righteous approach to foreign policy. And this is somebody who thinks he speaks to God.

IAM: What about Saddam's recent hanging? The increase in the number of US troops? What effects will these two developments have?
As’ad: I mean, to be honest with you, because, over the last year according to new estimates, something like 25,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war that was launched by the United States, I deliberately do not wish out of my respect for the innocent civilians of Iraq to dwell too much on the life of Saddam Hussein, the brutal tyrant. And I think we have to make that distinction. Having said that, the hanging of Saddam like every other aspect of this bungled occupation was also botched because this administration couldn't do anything, a simple as, you know, correctly putting Saddam on his trial on the various massacres for which he is responsible. Even that was butchered by this administration. Nothing went according to plan by them, and yet again, you know, they expedited his hanging assuming that it is going to make things easier for them. And then when it didn't, they then distanced themselves from it and said they did not interfere. Did not interfere? Why? Because according to the New York Times, they didn’t out of respect for the sovereignty of Iraq. You have got 150,000 troops in Iraq and they dare speak about the sovereignty of Iraq.

IAM: You once said that "It’s high time that Arabs are allowed to have their kooks, crazies and terrorists without having their religion insulted, just like the West has its cooks, crazies and terrorists, without having to turn to its religions for explanations". What did you mean by that?
As’ad: I always invoke the theory of theologocentrism in the book by Maxime Rodinson "La fascination de Islam". And yes I have said that, and I have said it repeatedly, and I was quoted saying it in the New York Times back in 1993, during the first bombing of the World Trade Centre. I think we as Arabs have to be able to not to get too defensive on these questions. I mean it’s not our objective to say there are no terrorists among us. No. You know there are individual Terrorists among us and we are entitled to have them. And I think it is important that we do not do what Arab and Canadian and American and Muslim organizations do which is to issue daily statements of condemnation because that only re-enforces the cloud of suspicion over our heads. And I think we have to assert our independence and our agenda and not fall victim to the kind of parameters that they want to force on us by virtue of us being Arabs or Muslims. It seems to me that, you know, just as Israelis or Americans, Presbyterians and Jews, have their share of terrorists, crazies and cooks, yes, us Arabs and Muslims have our share. But just as in the case of violence or crazies or terrorists in any other religion other than Islam, it is not linked to the religion of the person and it is not labeled as Christian terrorism or Jewish terrorism. The same should be applied to Islam, but that’s not the case because there is clearly an ideology of hostility against Islam and Muslims in the United States.

IAM: Western governments and media outlets offer immense support to the fundamentalist elements in Middle Eastern societies. You have pointed to, New York Times writer Thomas Friedman, as an example.  How do you describe this phenomenon?
As’ad: Well I mean, you made a reference to this widely read columnist, and his books are instant best sellers, even though I would like to stay in a good mood without having to mention Thomas Friedman, but I think it’s a very good case of the nature of foreign policy analysis, or what passes as foreign policy analysis here in the Western media. I think he is an example. He once wrote an article about Saudi Arabia and said all will be forgiven about Saudi Arabia, and this was my favorite argument by Thomas Friedman, only if they would do what they are told on the question of Israel. And you know what, they followed his advice. And this is why the so called Crown Prince Abdullah’s peace initiative which was endorsed by the Arab league is nothing but a Thomas Friedman initiative. And it was endorsed. And then they started their contacts with the Israelis which are going on in earnest this year and last year, all in an attempt to be forgiven for their sins by the United States. And of course the United States is more than willing to forgive all their violations of Human Rights and the beheading and the stoning that you do regularly in public squares if you follow the dictates of American foreign policy as the Saudi’s do. They are servicing their war in Iraq, and of course the Saudis are doing a great job helping the Americans in the instigation and aggravation of Sunni-Shiite sectarian warfare in the Middle East region.

IAM: What do you have to say about the “civil war” in Palestine?
As’ad: I don’t call it civil war in the case of Palestine. This is a classic case of an occupation, and there is the main resistance movement and then there are the collaborators. I think it’s an insult to the Palestinian people to refer to a well known paid collaborator like Mohammad Dahlan and his gangs as part of Palestinian society. This is somebody who is well known with his connections, and now he is servicing militias that are now being funded by the United States. The United States, this year alone, to create a militia for the puppet president of Palestine Abu-Mazen, have given 86 million dollars. They have given more aid this year than all the years combined since 1994 when the PA (Palestinian Authority) was established because they want to push the civil war in Palestine to its conclusion, hoping that their collaborators are going to prevail. But as in any case with the Palestinians, no matter how much the Zionists or their enemy or their friends try to prop up collaborators, they are not going to prevail. The Palestinians are way too aware about these things. In the 1930s, unfortunately, the Zionists did the same thing, and in 1937 to 1939, the Palestinian revolt did in fact did degenerate into internecine fighting because of the Zionists, and now we know from archives that many of these families which were fighting, just like the Dahlan gangs today, were on the payroll of the Zionists.

IAM: Some would argue that tremendous wealth, brought on by cheap labor, is the main reason behind what seems a morally and politically dormant society in the Gulf region. Do you agree?
As’ad: Well I must, friendly and amicably, object to some of the phrasing of your question because it sounds that it is insensitive to the people of the Gulf region; one, because there is in fact a very brave courageous dissident movements in all these countries combined. And I have known over the years so many courageous dissidents from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, people who defied the most tyrannical rules that exist in any place, like Saudi Arabia for example or Oman and so on, in order to press for their own rights and demands and so on. The second objection I have about the question is that yes, there is some dormancy among the population of the Gulf, but it exists elsewhere in the Arab world. Why should we pick on the people of the Gulf, when, what are we in Lebanon or Syria or Iraq, I mean Iraq is a whole problem, but like Egypt or Morocco, what are we doing aside from the occasional demonstration here or there. Also, the expatriates are from different countries, and they are there by contract and anybody who violates it, on any grounds, you know, they are immediately, summarily expelled from the country. But in the case of the Gulf, without a doubt, there is a very staunch unconditional endorsement of these tyrannies by the West, all of the West including China, based on oil, and they can do whatever they want. I mean look at the case of Dubai that is now being glorified in the Western press with very little attention to the horrendous labor violations that occur in that country. And the death, regular death, according to a recent study I saw for Human Rights Watch, of workers in Dubai.

IAM: Somalia has recently been reactivated as a front for US military aggression. Why?
As’ad: I would say that in the case of Somalia, it is an issue that is quite maddening. Here is yet another case of the Bush Doctrine interfering, visiting a society, and yet again pushed it to civil war. I mean as we all know, Somalia was split along warring factions, between on the one side the criminal warlords who basically terrorize the Somali population. And in order to put an end for this kind of situation and lack of security and order, a group of Islamic judges who have their own fundamentalist agenda, recruited really young Somali boys, people who are certainly not Al-Qaeda linked whatsoever. And they started their militia in order to have peace and order in their country and to kick out these criminal gangs. The United States decided to take sides. And in every case like Palestine or Lebanon or Iraq, the United States seems to have a clear sympathy for death squads and warlords. And in the case of Somalia, they decided to pick the side of the warlords. They did not want to intervene directly because probably they do not have enough troops, because they have so many colonizing projects around the world. So they sent in, in fact, the optimum proxy army (Ethiopia) into the country to prop up the warlords yet again. But it seems to me that based on Western reports, that the people of Somalia are already grumbling about the rules by the Ethiopian invading army, as well as the warlords who are back into their lives. And we also have to mention that the United States troops also seem to have a freehand inside the country. Bombings recently killed something like 70 bedouins in the name of fighting Al-Qaeda even though that there was no evidence that any Al-Qaeda terrorists were killed or even targeted.

IAM: You once said, and I’m quoting, “Reagan, Bush, and Clinton are the real powers behind the powers of the pro Israeli Lobby, much more than the particular leaders of that lobby”. What do you base that upon?
As’ad: Well yes, I knew that this view that I have is not popular. I’m in no way somebody who denies the existence of the Israeli lobby, of course it does exist, and I think now in Canada you are going to have your own Israeli lobby, very much like AIPAC we have in the United States. But, I think the notion that there is this all powerful lobby that decides American Foreign policy, does an Injustice not only to our analytic abilities but also to the reality of the responsibility of successive administrations. It also tends to undermine the very complicated process through which foreign policy is made in the United States. There are so many influences, there are so many layers of government and bureaucracies and departments of government and intelligence agencies, all participate…and multinational corporations, in the making of American foreign policy. And ultimately the decision is made by the president. So if we in the Arab world continue to blame it on the Israeli lobby, we basically turn somebody who is responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, like George W. Bush, into an innocent man, or a helpless victim of the machinations of the Israeli lobby. I mean it just doesn’t make sense to me. I have to say the Israeli lobby plays a very powerful role in setting the agenda, in formulating the language, of legislation in Congress, in dealing with the middle east, they put pressure on the White House, I mean of course they are influential, but they are not the only determinant of American Foreign policy in the middle east.

IAM: What did you think of North American news coverage of the latest war on Lebanon?
As’ad: Well I thought it was very appalling; in fact it was part of my agony having to watch all that from here in the United States. In 1982, I watched the Israeli invasion from there, under occupation, under the bombs of Israel. But to watch it here gives you another layer of pain and agony because you start to pay attention to the extent to which things are distorted, the realities are obfuscated, and an attempt is made to circulate and propagate Israeli propaganda agenda. It was very painful. It seems to me sometimes, that the reality, the places I know very well and intimately are unrecognizable by the treatment and the coverage here in the West. And I don’t like to show my pain to my enemies. I show anger, not sadness.

Footage of the full interview, as well as his lengthy lecture that addressed the Israeli war on Lebanon in detail, and the answer and question period, will all be available for download soon. Until then, we would like to thank Dr. Abu Khalil for his time, and thank all those that worked hard to make this interview possible.