Seoul, South Korea, March 23, 2004

 No GSM service, No English

As soon as an outsider arrives in South Korea you notice two things. Barely anyone speaks English and there is no GSM roving signal. Both are simple examples of the recent history of the isolation of South Korea from the rest of the world. This is not because of lack of technological sophistication of this far east country. On the contrary it is one of the more advanced technological countries. Its cell phone system is almost entirely domestic. S. Korea and Japan are the only developed countries that have a non GSM service. The educational system in Korea is also very well developed. High school students study from 8am till 9pm and then go home and study. The rumor in Korea is that High School students rarely get more than four to five hours of sleep. Travel and connections with the rest of the world is also rather new. Koreans were not allowed to travel outside south Korea until 1987.

South Koreans have a love hate relationship with both the United States and with Japan. They can’t deny the role that the US has had in saving their country from the onslaught of the northerners and their protection of the country every since the Korean war of 1950. Koreans in the south are also clearly financially benefiting from their special relationship with America which has had tens of thousands of troops on their peninsula ever since. But one can’t help but get the feeling that in South Korea there is a strong anti American feeling. Although they want its military protection, South Koreans feel the US has been around way too long and that it has made it more difficult for better relations with North

Korea. The feeling with neighboring Japan is much sharper. While in many ways the two countries are similar, the 35 year brutal occupation of their country by Japan which ended when Japan surrendered to America at the end World War II remains very sensitive to most Koreans. South Koreans also feel that America handpicked a number of

South Korean Borders with the North, March 24, 2004

Visiting the DMZ

We arranged to join a group of tourists to make the trip to the northern border of South Korea. The demilitarized zone between the two Koreas is under UN control in an area called Joint Security Area (JSA) since we entered from the south, the Americans and south Koreans where in charge. There are limitations of who can come to this area. Our south Korean colleagues who had invited me were not allowed there.

After an hour drive from Seoul we reached a check point where we our passports were supposed to be checked. I wanted to compare this checkpoint with the one I usually go through with the Israelis. There was no comparison. The US soldier in charge was joking about how the soldiers handpicked to this area are paid less than those stationed in the south of south Korea because of the standard of living. I had the same impression all day, with US soldiers acting relaxed. One asked to drive us around, was reading a novel as he waited for us to return to the bus.

What was familiar was the way tour guides try to use the fact that they have a captured, largely ignorant audience under their control to push through their version of propaganda.

The funny thing was that the guide kept on using the word propaganda in reference to what the north Koreans were doing, “like notice those propaganda villages,’ or look over at the mountain to see the propaganda sign etc. At one time the guide was telling us a bout a far away sign and summarized its contents by saying it was an anti American sign. Playing ignorant, I asked the guide whether the anti US sign was in southern Korean territory or in the northern one. She looked at me rather confused and insisted it was in the north.

The most amazing site during the entire visit to the DMZ was that of South Korean literally meters away from the north soldiers near the border. Standing in a powerful pose, these soldiers with helmets and sunglasses are frozen with clinched fists. Interestingly the northern soldiers, while standing still didn’t reflect that uptight getting ready for battle pose that the southern soldiers reflected.

Like all tours we were taken for a ride, financially. After we were finished with viewing the sites and locations out tried to sell us the pictures of those of us in the bus stuck inside a nice brochure about the location. The price about $25. We were unable to bring the price down and in the end we were bought the souvenir brochure. The bus driver also made a stop at a gift shop where we were told prices inside this US military zone are tax-free. Yet one more gimmick to get us to spend money, which we did.

Seoul, March 25, 2004

Never met an Arab

Today was the day for my lecture. In the morning I was taken to the Honkyoreh newspaper for an interview and lunch with the editor. He gave me a nice silk tie and we talked about objectivity in media. When one journalist asked me why I write for a right wing Israeli paper (the Jerusalem Post) I told him that I write wherever anyone asks me to write as long as they don’t change my words. I explained to them that this Israeli paper wants to show some kind of balance by having me write for them. They  thought this was nice but were surprised when I suggested that they publish articles for someone from North Korea.

My lecture was scheduled in the evening but we had an early meeting at a local café with the moderator of the lecture and a translator. When I met him I discovered that I was the first Arab that he has ever met in his life, even though he said he was a poet and that he is well read on the Middle East conflict. He explained to me how their country was  living under pro US dictators for years and that until 1987 when they had the first democratic elections, most South Koreans were not allowed to leave the country.

Since I had to speak through a translator, we agreed that I need to cut a lot of my 4,000 word speech. By the time I started speaking I had cut my speech by more than half because I realized that I will put people to sleep. When the moderator introduced me I was shocked one more time by the fact that most of the 300 Koreans that attended the lecture, like my moderator had never met an Arab in their lives. They had been shocked to hear about the assassination of Sheikh Yassin, because among other things, the Sheikh had written an article in their magazine. The question and answer period went on for a long time. One particular man stood up in the back and said that he sells products to an Israeli importer who told him that what he buys in Korea is mostly for the Palestinian market. He wanted to know why there was problems since this Israeli clearly was doing good business with Palestinians. I explained to him the situation, the fact that we are stuck to buy things from Israeli importers because we have no independent ports and the Israelis are allowed much more freedom to move around.

Another said that when he was in school his teacher had told them that during the 1967 war American Jews went to fight for Israel but Arabs did not. He said that this was a well known story by all Koreans. I explained that my relative who was studying medicine in the US did return to help with medical expertise but that few Palestinians were living in America.  A young man stood up and said that he and friends had created a solidarity group with Palestinians. He asked what Koreans could do to help Palestinians. I gave them a few details and then suggested that they boycott products made in Israel. This seemed to have resonated because afterwards I was told by many that they were touched by my talk and that they plan to work on supporting Palestinians including boycotting Israeli products.

Seoul March 26, 2004

Since the Bronze Age

Before leaving Seoul we made a last minute shopping visit. We were recommended to go to the mall next to World Cup Stadium. As promised this was a big mall with lots of things to buy, but like all of Korea almost no one to speak English even among those in the information desk and in the check out counter that says “for English speaker.” When we returned I found a message to call the Korean Broadcasting Corporation (KBC). An Arabic speaking Korean answered and wanted me to appear on their weekly radio program. I was interviewed by an Egyptian journalist who kept on talking (off the microphone) about how beautiful Korean women were. I discovered that the KBC broadcasts in 120 language in various formats including short wave and internet streaming. After the interview they gave me a book about the history of Korea written in Arabic. I started leafing the book only to discover that only a short portion of the books talks about the present. The book talks about the country’s five thousand year history going back to the bronze age.

We learned a lot about the current problems in South Korea. Our friends insisted that the trouble facing the president were not serious. Nightly candle light demonstrations were taking place against the group of parliament members who are trying to impeach the president over a small problem. The minority government was unable to stop the impeachment but everyone was hoping that the Supreme court would stop the impeachment in June. Meanwhile parliament elections were scheduled for mid April and the polls showed that the president’s party was expected to make major gains.

Bangkok, Thailand, March 27,  2004

Driving on the left and riding tuk tuk

On the way back to the Middle East we made a three day stop in Bangkok, Thailand. This was rather interesting and much different than Korea.  Upon arriving in Bangkok one notices that this country even in March is hot and humid. Thailand has also been affected by the British who ruled this part of the world. Cars drive on the left and English is spoken much more than in Korea. Shopping is king in Bangkok. A visit to the local shopping mall can yield almost any product you can imagine, whether original or imitation. In addition to the malls, Bangkok is full of street shoppers. In fact an important part of life in Bangkok takes place in the streets. In addition to street vendors, you can see plenty of food carts that serve anything from dried foods, to hot food, from fish products to meats and of course soups of all brands. No matter at what hour you walk the street there will be someone eating, drinking or sleeping. Late at night dogs stand guard protecting the stalls of their owners.

A big tourism item in Bangkok is massage parlors. The ones near our hotel were specialized in feet massages. They also features glass fronts, maybe as a sign to the public not to confuse them with other kinds of massage parlors.

Transportation has various forms. In addition to taxis, buses and trains, Bangkok has the famous tuk tuk vehicles. They are three wheel open cart drawn by motorcycles. They are inexpensive and maneuver well in traffic jams. But the noise and smoke that they emit make them useless except for short trips.

Everyone has told us that textile and especially silk is rather inexpensive in Bangkok. We were sent to a specialized silk company named Manhattan Company and ended up buying a table runner and a silk shawl. We later discovered when we went to the malls that we were again taken for a ride by the smooth talking salesman.

Before leaving Bangkok we wanted to do some sight seeing and were recommended a tour of Buddhist temples. The temples features gold statues of Buddha in various sizes and  positions (standing, laying down) was very fascinating, but the heat was so overwhelming that we decided to cut the trip short and returned to the hotel after seeing two temples.

Thailand seems to be having major problems in the largely Muslim south. While we were in Bangkok the investigation into the disappearance of a prominent Muslim human rights lawyer was capturing the headlines. The government had decided to spend $300 million in projects in the poverty stricken south, but this apparently didn’t convince many of the governments’ lack of genuine interest to the conditions of the Muslim population that lives in the south. While we were in Bangkok, we heard news about an explosion in the south. The prime minister decided to cancel an international trip and headed to the south to try and deal with the problems there.

March 30, 2004

Home sweet home

After eight days in Korea and Bangkok we were happy to return home. Our trip back to Amman was rather uneventful. The Royal Jordanian flight was full of passengers trying to return to major locations in Europe and America.

The far east is clearly an interesting part of the world which few Arabs seem to have paid much attention to. For most Arabs it is rather a virgin undiscovered territory, its people low key and easy going. If given a chance many Arabs will enjoy its rich culture and its shopping opportunities as great as those in major European capitals.

There is no doubt that Sheikh Yassin will be remembered for some time for his role in creating and leading the Islamic Hamas movement in Palestine . Yassin has taken a relatively weak branch of the Egyptian founded Muslim brotherhood and made it a power to reckon with. In order to do that, he had to deviate from the traditional political mode of the Brotherhood. The Muslim brotherhood in most Arab countries is relatively moderate and usually refrains from using arms against the ruling powers.

Yassin’s idea was to give the movement some recognition by stepping outside the usual work of religious awareness and philanthropy by moving more into resistance activities. Hamas which stands in Arabic for the Islamic Resistance Movement first appeared during the first intifada. By the second year of the intifada, the Israelis who at one time was hoping that the Islamists could be an alternative to the PLO realized that the movement was getting out of control. Four hundred of its members were deported to South Lebanon . This was a terrible Israeli mistake. In South Lebanon , the 400 activists were the focus of the Arab and international media as well as the censuring of the UN Security Council. The deportation also allowed key members of the movement to connect with the Lebanese Islamic resistance. Among those deported that became well known among Palestinians was Dr. Abdel Azziz Rantisi a pediatrician who quickly rose to become the spokesman of the deportees.

Under international pressure the Israelis were forced to allow the Palestinians Islamists back to their homes. This meant gave new life to the movement and introduced a new weapon, suicide attacks.

The signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 placed the radical wings of the Islamic movement in trouble but the movement was saved from extinction shortly thereafter when a Jewish settler decided to shoot at Muslim worshippers in Hebron killing 29. The Palestinian territories erupted in anger, but to many people the strongest response came from Hamas who carried out a suicide attack against Israelis.

As peace negotiations went up and down so did Hamas. No leader emerged for the movement until the Israelis botched up an assassination attempt against the head of the political bureau of Hamas in Jordan Khaled Mashal. The Jordanian security forces caught two Israeli spies who tried to poison Mashal and threatened the Israelis that they needed to immediately provide an antidote to save Mashal’s life and they needed to exchange the two Israeli spies for sheikh Yassin, who had been in an Israeli jail.

Yassin’s release gave the movement a major boost and from then on and until his assassination on March 22 became a symbol for the Islamic movement. Although he has not had an official operational position, his opinion is known to have a lot of weight. Leaders close to the Islamic leader consider him a moderate among the Islamic movement. He was behind a three month hudna or truce with Israel and he was publicly quoted more than once calling for a restriction of the attacks against to the occupied areas. But almost every time that he has made such a public call, Israeli security forces have assassinated one of Hamas leaders thus rendering the call for a truce useless.

In the past few months and as Ariel Sharon was on the record as in favor of a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza , a question arose as to what would happen once the Israelis leave. One was the way Palestinians would interpret this withdrawal. The fear was that Palestinians would consider it a victory and would continue attacking Israel until it similarly left the West Bank . The second problem expressed by the US and others was the worry that Hamas would fill in any vacuum that would be created once the Israeli army withdraws.

To counter the first problem, Israeli troops carried out an unusually aggressive campaign against Palestinians in Gaza . They wanted to leave a clear signal that once they leave, they will be leaving from a position of strength rather than weakness. In February alone 27 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli army. In March and prior to the attack on Sheikh Yassin 42 Palestinians were killed in Gaza .

Refusing to go down quietly like lambs taken to the slaughter, Palestinians responded in two ways. They wanted to remind Israelis that Palestinian blood is not cheap and at the same time they wanted to send a clear message that they are willing to deal positively with the idea of Israel leaving Gaza .

When the killings of Palestinians in Gaza became too much to take, two Palestinians from both the Islamic Hamas movement and Aqsa Brigades who are close to the secular Fatah movement (headed by Arafat) carried out a suicide attack against the Israeli southern port of Ashdod killing 10 Israelis.

The joint attack between the Islamists and the mainstream Palestinian movement was meant to send a political message. This message was also publicly expressed by no other than Sheikh Yassin who said that the Islamic movement has not plans to challenge the Palestinian Authority in Gaza once the Israelis leave.

This represented a problem for the Sharon government who felt that their worst dreams were becoming true. Palestinians were refusing to lay down quietly allowing the Israelis to have the last word and at the same time the moderate voices seemed to be winning within Hamas as they seem to be cooperating with the Palestinian Authority in making sure that when the Israelis leave no chaos will take place.

Killing a person like Yassin obviously required, and as later was confirmed, the approval of the prime minister of Israel . But more than that it required the approval or at least the lack of opposition from the American government. The Bush administration had been very supportive of Sharon and his get tough actions against Palestinians because they mirrored what America wanted to do in its war against terror.

Sharon who is due to visit Washington in April to sell the Americans his plans to withdraw from Gaza, knew that he needed to be able to deliver on his plans and he needed the approval of many of his right wing partners who were starting to attack him as being soft on Palestinians by agreeing to withdraw from Gaza without an agreement. All these problems would be solved by the assassination of Yassin.

No doubt that the plan to kill Yassin had been drawn up for some time. What was needed was the right timing and the proper political conditions. The conditions from Sharon ‘s point of view seemed right, the timing came in when after the joint attack in Ashdod .

The violent death of Yassin has removed a strong and respected leader who can say no to radicals within his group. Now with Abdel Azziz Rantisi taking over the movement in Gaza , it is unlikely that a moderate point of view will be given a chance to appear. Rantisi has been opposed to any truce with the Israelis, thinking, as the experience of South Lebanon has shown, if there is enough attacks against Israelis, they will leave on their own. The record of the past few years seem to favor the strategy of Rantisi. The unfortunate reality is that if true, this will mean many more Palestinians and Israelis will be killed and injured before people of good will shall interfere and stop this senseless bloodshed. Now it seems the only way to stop the cycle of violence will be the direct interference of a major western power, most likely the US . But in a hotly fought presidential election year, few expect that such US interference is likely until after the November poll. Until then we have to be ready to expect more of the same.

It is often said that there is a time for everything. The meaning of such a saying is that when it is the time for war those who believe in peace should shut up. It is certainly difficult to talk when the sound of canons (and in our case apache killing missiles) drowns any other noise. But it can be just as easy to argue that at the height of intolerance, murder and anger voices of reason are even more needed to speak.

I am confronted with this dilemma as the assassination of the spiritual leader of the Islamic Hamas movement Sheikh Ahmad Yassin has shocked Palestine, the region and the entire world.

Before talking about peace it is important to set the record straight on a number of issues that seem to be lost in the daily bombardment of news bulletins and breaking news headlines.

Unlike the impression that the Israeli propaganda machine and its supporters in the West might imply, Palestinians don’t occupy any other people’s land but are rather occupied by Israel. The Palestinian actions, which are sometimes wrong by human standards are not taking place internationally but are focused in any other country but the source of this occupation.

The illegal Israeli occupation has continued for over 37 years and has been accompanied by an aggressive campaign to settle Jews in Palestinian land in contravention to international law and specifically the fourth Geneva Convention.

Palestinians, both moderates and militants have repeatedly expressed willingness and readiness to negotiate and sign a cease fire agreement. In fact on more than one occasion Palestinians have declared unilateral cease fire agreements and a hudna (truce) only to have the Israelis attack and breakup any chance for a peaceful resolution.

The international community, specifically the quartet, has produced a comprehensive place, the road map, which was accepted fully by the Palestinians and rejected in deed by the Israelis in the form of the continuation of the settlement activities, the illegal building of  a wall on Palestinian land, the refusal to return to the September 2000 lines and the continuation of assassinations and killings of Palestinian civilians.

No official Palestinian individual or group has been involved in carrying out any attacks on Israelis, certainly none have made such an admission, while the Israeli government has publicly boasted of extra judicial killing and assassination of people, destruction of homes and trees.

In the case of the assassination of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin one is puzzled about its intention. This paraplegic religious leader had no operational role in the Islamic group’s military wing. In fact, more than anyone in his group he has been a source of moderation rather than extremism. On numerous occasions he has called for a hudna or truce and he has been known to have been involved in recent weeks in an effort to deescalate the present conflict. What does his killing mean then?

It means that the present Israeli attempts to dictate a solution will continue for some time. It means that the Israelis continue not to be interested in peace and security- not unless the other side surrenders which is unlikely. And it also means that the Israelis continue to oppose the road map in deed as well as in word and will clearly continue to ignore the will of the international community.

If this is the case, what should people of good will do?

The worst thing would be to allow all this to defeat the voices of reason. People should not excuse the wrong no matter which side committed it. We all need to refuse the attempts to generalize everything. We must insist on the need to stop the bloodshed. We must insist on the refusal of violence as a means of solving problems and the call for peace and justice. It might seem far away but this not the time to allow the radicals on both sides to hijack the process for the rest of the population. It might appear to be the time for war, but we must insist that it is the time for peace.

For years whenever the PLO’s executive committee met, astute observers paid more attention to what happens the day before. Usually before important meetings of the PLO, crucial all night sessions of  the central committee of Fatah take place to set the framework for the more public PLO sessions. This traditional, in a slightly different form, has continued after the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority and the elections of the Palestinian Legislative Council. On the eve of the meetings of the Palestinian Legislative Council scheduled for Wednesday the 10^th of March, the Fatah caucus in the PLC met at the shelled out offices of the Palestinian president. Arafat, who is also the secretary general of Fatah called for the meeting to coordinate who will be the next speaker of the Palestinian parliament. The importance of this positions has added value because in the sudden absence of the president of the PNA, the speaker of parliament becomes president for a 60 day period until new elections can take place.

Arafat as well as Fatah leaders and PLC members were clearly unhappy with the performance of the current speaker, Rafiq Natsheh and seemed to be in favor of supporting the candidacy of Rawhi Fatouh, who used to be deputy speaker during the reign of Ahmad Qurei and has become minister of agriculture since.

What seemed to have tipped the balance in Fatouh’s favor was his geographic affiliations. Fatouh a resident of Gaza was said to be favored because of the possibility that Israel withdraw from the Gaza Strip and because of the general feeling among Gazans that the prolonged stay of Arafat in Ramallah has swayed Palestinian politics (and money and appointments) to the West Bank. Apparently during the reconciliation between Arafat and Muhammad Dahlan, the issue was raised and Arafat promised to rectify the perceived imbalance. On the other side of the usual Arafat balancing act was the need to fulfill the political demands of the young Fatah cadres who have been complaining for some time that they also have been left out. Muhammad Horani was therefore picked as the Fatah candidate for deputy speaker.

The meetings of the PLC didn’t pan out exactly as planned. Sure enough Rawhi Fatouh did win the top position in the Palestinian parliament, but not before an unexpected competition from fellow Fatah member Nabil Amr who won 15 votes with 5 blank votes and 51 votes for Fatouh. Amr the former minister of information during the short Abu Mazen administration has been a vocal opponent to the policies of Arafat and their tactics. Speaking to reporters outside the PLC before the session, he announced that he is planning to run for the office of speaker. He said that the days in which positions are taken by consensus are over. The Palestinian parliament alone has the right to decide who its leaders are, he said. Another MP making the rounds before the session was Hassan Khreisheh an opposition candidate from Tulkarem who heads the human rights committee in the PLC.

While the head to head elections of two Fatah members was new in Palestinian politics, the real surprise was the number two spot which independent MP Hassan Khreisheh won beating the Fatah choice of Mohammad Hourani. The independent daily Al Ayyam called this victory in a front page story “a huge surprise.” What is surprising about it is that an avid anti Arafat young human rights advocate who received 44 votes must have gotten many Fatah MPs to vote for him.

The fact of the secrecy of the voting played a key role in allowing members of Fatah to express their real feelings away from the scrutiny from fellow members. The fact that this voting was held not long after the convening of the Fatah Revolutionary Council is an indication of important below the surface changes that are coming up to the public view.

Changes in Fatah can also be seen in the report issued by the political committee of the Fatah Revolutionary Council which was printed in full in the daily Al Ayyam on March 9. It calls for an immediate ceasefire, rejection of attacks on civilians, the need for focusing on dialogue with Israelis, that resistance should take the form of  civil and popular protests, the need to insist on pluralistic democracy based on the separation of powers and the application of the rule of law for  all and the independence of the judiciary.

The 18^th clause in this report reflects clearly the duplicity of positions and opinions within Fatah: “Fatah suffers from the multiplicity of spokespersons. These divergent opinions have caused disruption of Palestinian and Arab public opinion, while the present situation requires a single unified position and a single spokesperson who can explain the official movement’s position regarding all issues whether they be local, international, political or security related.” The statement continues that the rebuilding and reform of the movement on democratic basis “will require the convening of party conferences which is the only way that will guarantee discipline in the party both in words and in actions.”