Dialogue between the US and the Muslim world is important even if the US is a country/superpower and the Muslim world is divided and spread over at least 56 countries that are more in need of dialogue amongst themselves than with Washington.
A forum that allows Muslims to voice their views about the US military presence and wars in the Muslim world, and Americans to explain their policies and approach to the region, is welcomed, and Doha should be congratulated for hosting such forums.
However, considering that for decades Zionism and Israeli occupation have been the main points of contention between the US and the Muslim world, it is rather bizarre, even absurd, that the centre that sponsors the dialogue has been financially backed by a radical right-wing Israeli and managed by renowned Zionist friends of Israel.
Haim Saban is the ‘godfather’ (founder and chairman) of Brookings Saban Centre for the Middle East Policy – which explains the name.
By his own words, he is an Israel lover, friend and supporter of Ariel Sharon, who admires Israeli combat troops, considers Ahmadinejad to be a Hitler, and wishes one day to be Israel’s minister for public relations. (See Saban by his own words below, it’s a must read).
Although he left Israel many years ago, Haim maintains strong relations with Israel and its leaders. He is a major backer of the Israeli lobby, the American Israel Public affairs Committee (AIPAC), which runs a programme for hundreds of activists from around the US under his name – The Saban Leadership Seminar. Not the best credentials for bridging between Americans and Muslims!
Saban is also big financial supporter of Washington insiders such as the Clintons.
According to press reports, Haim Saban was the “Israeli agent” that Congresswoman Jane Harman was caught on tape telling that she would lobby the justice department to reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of AIPAC.
I personally doubt that, he’s far bigger than a mere “agent”.
Martin Indyk, who helped Haim establish the Saban Center and went on to direct it, is a former friend of AIPAC and director of the staunchly pro-Israeli think-tank, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).
Indyk was also responsible for a number of controversial (read failed) policies towards the Muslim world as National Security Director for the Middle East in the Clinton White House, including the policy of “dual containment” towards Iran and Iraq, and the failed peace process in Israel-Palestine.
The present director, Kenneth Pollak – a former CIA analyst- supported Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and later in Iraq.
A former National Security Council director for the Persian Gulf and South East Asia, he actually helped instigate the invasion of Iraq in his book “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq”.
Considering the centre’s management and that they represent all that is problematic about US-Muslim relations, how does the Saban Centre get away with managing dialogue between the US and the Muslim world?
That’s precisely why it distinguishes itself from the likes of the flagrantly pro-Israeli WINEP, AIPAC or JINSA (The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs).
The Saban Centre for Middle East Policy presents itself as mainstream think-tank, when there is nothing mainstream about it.
It invites Muslim leaders and scholars to speak and hires Arabs and Muslim “experts” and hosts “visiting scholars” from the Muslim world along with their Israeli “experts”, such as former heads of the Israeli intelligence services and the former head of military planning.
Politically savvy, but hardly credible for constructive engagement in such sensitive even explosive issue as US-Muslim world dialogue.
Imagine for a moment if a Saudi financed pro-Hamas think-tank runs US Jewish world dialogue. How credible would that be?
Excerpts from Haim Saban’s 2006 interview with Ari Shavit of the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz.
On his worries for Israel:
“… Israel does not worry me. Israel’s neighbours worry me … History proved that Sharon was right and I was wrong. In matters relating to security, that moved me to the right. Very far to the right.”
On Iran:
“The Iranians are serious. They mean business. Ahmadinejad is not a madman.
“When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five-and-a-half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that.
“Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It’s truly an existential danger.”
On the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran:
“Is there a higher price than two nuclear bombs on Israel? So they will fire missiles, all right then. Iran is not Lebanon, where you pinpoint specific targets: this bridge here, that building, half of that courtyard over there. In Iran you go in and wipe out their infrastructure completely. Plunge them into darkness. Cut off their water.”
“Would I prefer a defence minister who is capable of looking at a map and saying, ‘Half a division here, two divisions there, send the commandos from the north and let the navy hit from the south’? Yes, I would prefer that. Because to negotiate with management on behalf of the unions is a skill, but it’s a different skill from planning a war. In our situation, for all time, at least in our lifetime, we need a defence minister who has a thorough understanding of these subjects.”
On Israeli leaders:
“Sharon was a terrific prime minister. First of all as a human being. He’s a sweetheart. I would phone him and he would get back to me in five minutes. He didn’t get into, you know, games. And he had a realistic view of the situation.
“Bibi [Binyamin Netanyahu] did wonders for the economy. [Ehud] Barak’s understanding of security matters goes without saying. They both have a contribution to make. If Ehud could form a partnership with them that would not be accompanied by subversiveness, that would be fantastic.”
On entering Israeli politics:
“I would be very happy to be given an opportunity to be minister of public diplomacy… [apparently he had tears in his eyes at this moment during the interview]
About his relationship with Israel:
“More than love. Passion. A love that is passion…. When we approach Israel I always ask the pilots of my plane to let me sit in the chair between them. We don’t play ‘Heveinu Shalom Aleichem,’ but when I see the coast coming up my heart starts to go boom, boom, boom.”
On Israeli combat soldiers:
“I can’t handle combat soldiers: whenever I have any interaction with them, I cry. Really. I swear. I was in the north two months ago and Gal Hirsch [division commander during the war in the north who resigned shortly afterward] did a tour with us.
“When he spoke to us and explained what happened in the abduction [of two soldiers by Hezbollah] and what happened in the war, I looked at him and cried. I, as an Israeli, would not exist if not for people like that. I strut around like a peacock in America and say I am an Israeli-American.”
Source: Al Jazeera.com
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Muslimsvoice of America’s editorial policy.
To read more click:
An Obstacle to Better Us-Muslim Relations
