(Your Voice in a World where Zionism, Steel, and Fire have
turned Justice Mute)

INTERVIEW WITH LAITH SHUBEILAT:

WHY IS THE ARAB STREET SO PASSIVE?

Exclusive FAV interview with Laith Shubeilat ("Abu
Farhan"), Jordanian opposition leader.

Ibrahim Alloush conducted this interview, in
Amman, Jordan, on 2 March 2003. It was translated
to English by Muhammad Abu Nasr.

FAV: Laith Shubeilat "Abu Farhan", as an Arab, then
a Jordanian, opposition leader who is known for his
stances against tyranny and for his close ties with
the Arab opposition movement both in meeting
halls and on the street, the question that everyone
hears today on the Arab street and around the world
goes as follows:

"The whole world is demonstrating.  In dozens of
capitals and hundreds of other cities around the
globe people are taking to the streets to oppose war
against Iraq.  But we see no such movement in Arab
cities and capitals.  Yes, there are some
demonstrations here and there.  That fact can't be
denied. But we cannot say that the actions in the Arab
streets today, against the great dangers that threaten
the whole Arab Nation, are comparable even to what
took place at the beginning of the al-Aqsa intifada in
the year 2000, or to what happened in 1990 when over
a million marched in Morocco and hundreds of
thousands demonstrated elsewhere in the Arab World. 
What, in your opinion, is the reason for this stagnation
and passivity in the Arab street?  Is it due to
repression, or what?"

Laith Shubeilat: There's no doubt, no doubt that the
main reason is repression, the ban on gatherings and
on organizations.  Even organizations that are legal
and whose slogans are related to the aspirations of
the Arab Nation are now virtually fictitious
organizations.  The authorities and their agencies
repress and oppress them and crack down on anyone who
wants to get involved in these organizations.
Everyone knows now that even to associate with these
organizations, and to exercise one's constitutional
right to free expression through such organizations is
disapproved of.  They know that it can result in
losing one's job, or being thrown in prison.  So there
is now a gap between these organizations and the
people.

The people have good senses.  The masses are more
advanced than their leaders.  In places where
organizations have more freedom, or where the
organizations have deep roots, as is the case in
Morocco, for example, we find that it is possible for
people to go out and demonstrate, like the march of a
million people that occurred there a few months ago.
But in other places this situation does not exist.
The official Arab system, or rather the Arab state
regimes, have publicly exposed themselves.  All their
policies are now openly in the service of the
Americans and the Zionists.  It has become clear to
people that criticizing Zionism or criticizing
"normalization" of relations with "Israel" is treated
as if it were direct criticism of the policies of that
regime.  As the saying goes, "those with skeletons
in their closets soon start rattling".  The official
regimes in the Arab states understand that any
demonstration against Zionism or the Americans is just
a demonstration that carries within itself the seeds
of opposition to the policies of that regime.  So it
will do all in its power to repress it.

FAV: But Abu Farhan, should the people sit and wait
for permission from the government before they act?  I
mean if the people want to get democracy, if they want
to defend their legitimate Arab national interests or
even to defend their livelihood and welfare, can they
only do that when the regimes authorize it?  Yes, we
know that demonstrators aren't killed or imprisoned in
Europe and that the freedom to hold demonstrations
there is greater than in the Arab world. We all
recognize this. But what about the Arab street?

Laith Shubeilat:  In Europe the people don't act
alone.  There are organizations of citizens, of groups
and right-minded individuals, not necessarily
political parties, who oppose the aggressive policies
of their countries.  They begin with organization and
make enormous efforts over long periods of time in
order to spread their announcements and to prepare
marches.  Some of the marches that we have witnessed
recently have been under preparation for four or five
months.  It is a great success for their organizers
and they are unknown common people.

FAV: . . . So it's not a matter of magic.

Laith Shubeilat: No. It's not magic.  But in our case,
in the Arab world, we see the masses take action, but
it is in the nature of an outburst, not an organized
action.  And when the people explode, when they move,
it is not in opposition to the regimes alone, but in
opposition to everyone who claims to represent the
feelings of the masses.

FAV: So we can conclude now that the forces able to
set the streets in motion are absent and that the
problem is not the feelings of the Arab citizen.
Nobody doubts that the Arab citizen cannot oppose
himself. So the problem lies with the Arab opposition
movement?  Is this how you characterize the situation?

Laith Shubeilat: Yes. I'll give you an example.  A BBC
correspondent in Turkey, I think it was, said
yesterday that the latest opinion polls in Turkey
indicated that 94 percent of the people there are
opposed to the war.  The correspondent added that this
is an error and that he believes the true number would
be 100 percent, because, he said, every single person
he had asked in Turkey said he opposed the war.  OK.
If that is how things stand with the Turks, and they
are certainly not the ones most directly involved in
this issue, then how do things stand with the Arabs?
Have the Arab people become agents who work against
themselves?  The answer is definitely, No.  The
feelings of the Arabs are all against the Americans.
This is even true of the officials.  If you are
sitting alone with them and you ask them about this
they won't disagree with you when you say that the
Americans are the enemy and that America is the one
imposing what is being imposed.  [But there is public
silence.]  The problem is that the opposition movement
has accepted this "low ceiling" on freedom of
expression.  They have made this mistake since the
very beginning.  Many of us used to warn our
companions that any little concession you made in the
past will result in much bigger concessions being made
in the future.  And this is what has happened.  When
you remain silent about any transgression that
pertains to you; when you say, "I won’t do anything
about it this time", then the next time the
transgression will be greater.  When the
constitutional rights of the citizen are violated, for
example, or when public lands are registered as
belonging to officials, and when you find no party
that will issue a denunciation of that, then the
danger that arises from this is that everything in the
country is up for grabs.  When the country is publicly
robbed and nobody does anything, and they [opposition]
say that this is a sensitive matter, that will explode
the rage of the authorities if we pose it, then, what
comes after that?

For example, when the leaders of Hamas were expelled
from Jordan.  Hamas didn't have an operational program
in Jordan.  Everybody knows that. They were here under
the protection of the Arab and Islamic masses in Jordan. 
The purpose of expelling the leaders of Hamas was to
deliver a big slap on the face of the internal opposition
here.  It was not aimed at Hamas.  We told our companions
that this blow was aimed at us and that it is not
appropriate for us to make requests and to beg.  We are
the target.  They were hit while they were under our
protection, while they were our neighbors.  If we remain
silent over this assault on our neighbors, then there
will be future repercussions.  And they did indeed come. 
Now even a demonstration is subject to government
interference.  They even interfere with the slogans to
be raised.  They say, "you can’t carry foreign flags",
[to prevent demonstrators from carrying Iraqi or
Hizbullah flags] and things like that -- as if a flag
from another Arab country has now become a "foreign flag". 
The demonstrations, even those that are permitted, have
become jokes.  You see the government infiltrators who
raise slogans that appear to be in support of the
government while the protest is in reality against the
Americans, the Zionists, and against every government
that obeys them.

FAV: Thank you for that answer.  Yet you have still
not told me what we, as oppositionists, can do.  We
also have a responsibility as individuals.  What are
we to say to the opposition in our country and in our
Arab homeland? What must we, as oppositionists, do in
order to fill in the gaps in the Arab opposition
movement?

Laith Shubeilat: The Arab opposition flees from a
confrontation with the one whom it must confront.  Its
slogans . . .  It raises slogans against the Americans
and against the Zionists, and even this is almost
forbidden now.  Actually, the slogan that you raise in
your country must be one that opposes any party that
cooperates with the Zionists and the Americans.
Before we set demonstrations in motion, we need to
take a clear position in our thinking, we need a clear
declaration of such a position that analyses the
situation and puts everything in its proper place.
Every Arab leader should meet with his companions and
call things by their proper names in a clear
declaration that places the responsibility on that
country's government.  It must say to the government,
"you have betrayed the trust of the Arab nation.  You
have betrayed the trust.  You are no longer working
for the Arab endeavor.  Your activities are actually
serving the Zionist endeavor”.  If the great mass of
Arab [opposition] leaders had the courage to issue such
a clear declaration [each in his or her own Arab state],
just verbally, and if forty or fifty or
sixty leaders of the masses, and people with a
political reputation, signed it, this would be the
start of the battle.  Nobody could keep silent about
such a declaration.  Those framers and signers would
be repressed.  But when the repression of those people
begins, if they stand firm in defense of their
position, the mass movement will start to rally around
them.  But the mass movement today can't find any
leaders to rally around.  It's as if the leaders are
hiding behind the masses and their activities.  When
the masses speak today the leaders come and try to
take the lead in the movement, and then they go and
connive with the governments in order to water down
and stop such expressions.

FAV: Excuse me, Abu Farhan.  Here somebody might say,
"what about the big opposition leader Abu Farhan?"
Doesn't he bear some of the responsibility for this
situation that you are criticizing?

Laith Shubeilat: Yes, of course he bears his share of
responsibility.  But if you follow my activities over
the past few years, when the differences emerged, when
I became not only an opponent of the government but
also an opponent of the opposition, I was forced to
withdraw from political activity.  Of course I don't
withdraw from having a political opinion.  I can't
withdraw from my responsibility to issue a declaration
about the situation that I demand we confront.  I am
still demanding that my companions issue such a
declaration.  But I have withdrawn in order to
not continue to clash with them and to say that I am
right while dozens of them are wrong.  This is a
something that I cannot go too far with.  To that
end I was forced to quit organizational activity.  As to
becoming a deputy [in the parliament] or forming a
political party or something like that, the problem
there goes back to the reasons that I presented above
about the differences that have arisen with
companions, and because any organization that is
formed is penetrated from the outset by government
agents.  This does not absolve me of my
responsibility, as I said.  I am ready, as you see,
when I am asked for my opinion, and I don't avoid
giving my opinion.  If a satellite channel requests an
interview, I state my opinion clearly.  As you also
have seen, that makes me subject to the predictable
consequences.  But we would be in a much stronger
position if there were four or five of us together, or
six or seven together.  Then the supporters of the
regime would understand that there is a real movement
there because this would no longer be the movement of
an individual; it would be a movement of a group, all
of whom would want to bear their responsibilities.

FAV: Abu Farhan, I conclude from your words that the
core of the problem lies in the absence of organized
collective work.

Laith Shubeilat: Yes, of the necessary level.

FAV: Yes, organized collective work of the necessary
level, led by men and women of historical
caliber.

Laith Shubeilat: Yes.

FAV: I don't want to overburden you.  Therefore I
would like to ask you in conclusion a tangential
question.  It is not really tangential, because it
points to the shamelessness of the present Arab
situation, and to the absence of an Arab opposition.
The official Arab regime is absent.  The Arab
intellectuals who can pose questions clearly and
plainly are absent.  Recently a number of Arab
intellectuals have presented us with a petition
demanding that President Saddam Hussein resign.
Similarly, the delegation of the United Arab Emirates
at the Arab summit meeting (on 1 March 2003 in Sharm
al-Shaykh) tabled, I believe, the same American
demand.  Do you believe that this demand at this time
can solve the problem with the Americans?  Can it
prevent them from doing evil to Iraq and to us after
that?

Laith Shubeilat: Definitely not!  But I would like to
comment on the problem of the intellectuals. The
intellectuals in the world are not intellectuals if
they are divorced from the masses.  For this reason,
world culture, the innovators for the most part, have
been leftists.  By the left, here, I mean those who
align themselves with the poor, with the people; those
who confront the capitalist repressive organs, the
multinational corporations, the extreme right, the
conservatives, those who want to conserve the wealth
they have acquired from theft and plunder.  It is for
that reason that you don't see many intellectuals or
innovators or poets in America today.  Or at any rate
we don't hear much about them.  Although I would like
to mention here that the American First Lady had to
cancel the invitation that had been extended to a
number of American poets to come to the White House
last month because they wanted to recite poems of
protest against the war inside the White House itself.
But I say that an intellectual is not an intellectual
if he does not align himself with the masses.  Our
problem in the Arab world is that a person begins
poor, then he advances, the doors of official
employment are opened to him, he gets a job, a good
salary, and he gets access to the foreign funding that
flows in without measure through some nongovernmental
organizations in order to buy people.  So
this intellectual becomes a prostitute.  He
prostitutes the truth.  He dolls up vice to make it
look like virtue.  He attacks virtue and inflates the
benefits of vice.  For example, in the Maan incident
when the whole "right-wing, tribalist, conservative"
population of Maan rallied against the government to
attain their demands, the Party of the Democratic Left
issued a declaration against the people, against Maan.
We know that the left is supposed to represent the
people.  But if it does things like this, how can it
represent them?  Unfortunately this has become the
position of many of our intellectuals and journalists.
We have become like "orphans at the misers' table".
Let me give you an example.  There are prominent and
well-known Arabic newspapers about which everybody
knows who is funding them and how they lose tens of
millions of dollars every year to keep them running. 
They take the loss because they are bribing the
writers.  It has happened and there is nothing to
prevent others from doing the same.  Recently we have
witnessed an unprecedented and astounding phenomenon.
The head of the government sent funds along with
holiday greetings to a number of journalists -- in
amounts of thousands of Dinars.  This has never
happened before.  Information offices for countries
like Kuwait and others are being opened.  Their real
aim is to round up journalists, to seduce them, to
give them free trips, and so forth.  It is scary.
Today there is a polarization between injustice and
those who go along with it on the one side, and those
who stand firm with the poor people in the world, with
the oppressed. The world is no longer divided into Dar
al-Harb and Dar al-Islam as it used to be. [See note
below]   Today it is divided between the realm of the
arrogant and the realm of the oppressed.  Wherever
there are oppressed, every good religion (including
Islam) and every humanist doctrine attracts people who
rally around it against the arrogant.  They rally
together with the other good doctrines in support of
their social obligations to the international
community as they take a stand against injustice.  As
to the vile demand for the resignation of an Arab
leader, the only leader who stands firm in the face of
the Americans now, it exposes how bad the other Arab
leaders are and the intellectuals who sponsored that
petition.  It is as if they are saying that America
has the right now to demand the resignation of any
other leader in the Arab world.  In fact that is what
America is planning to do basically.  But this is a
double-edged sword.  It will not succeed with Saddam
Hussein, but we will see that it will be applied to
others.  It is, therefore, a demand that cannot solve
the problem with America.

Translator's note:  In traditional Islamic
jurisprudence, the world could be divided into the Dar
al-Islam or "Realm of Islam" where Muslims and other
protected religious communities lived together in
peace under a loose "constitution" of Islamic law; and
the Dar al-Harb or "Realm of War" which designated
territories that were not a part of the Muslim
community and from which war was a constant threat
(although peace treaties could be and were concluded
with states in the Dar al-Harb, when and where that
was possible).