The Gaza Survivor and His Message

The word "orphan" refers to a person who has lost his or her parents. "Widow" or "widower" refers to one who loses a spouse.

But what word exists for one who loses a child? Especially three.

And what can we call someone who loses three children in a war but is not bitter and goes on promoting reconciliation?

Perhaps the most tear-jerking true story I have heard recently is the one of Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish, an Arab-Muslim doctor (OBGYN) in Gaza who works in Israeli and Palestinian hospitals. He and his family live in the Jabalia Camp in Gaza, Palestine (his parents are from the area near the Harat Shikmin ranch that is now occupied by the Sharon family). Last September 16th, Dr. Abuelaish became a widow as his wife succombed to leukemia. Exactly 4 months later, on January 16th, Dr. Abuelaish lost 3 of his 8 children to a tank shell in the Gaza war (the Israeli IDF has acknowledged shooting it as they suspected a militant hideout). During all of this time (and prior to the loss of his wife), the doctor was promoting reconciliation between Palestine and Israel. On the fatal day in January, Abuelaish was about to be interviewed by Israeli TV to give a first-hand account of the war (reporters were not let in) when the bomb hit. The moments afterward are documeted on TV (This is the raw segment).

Since that tragedy, Dr. Abuelaish made a conscious decision to make lemonade out of lemons. He came to the U.S. to speak to various groups. I saw him last Monday night at the "Peace Cafe", which is at the restaurant "Busboys and Poets" in Washington DC (the cafe is run by Ari Roth of the DC Jewish Community Center and Andy Shallal, a Iraqi-born American citizen and owner of Busboys). The event was sponsored by "Americans for Peace Now". (I also heard the audio of an event he was the speaker at on the following day.)

I forgot my cell phone, so I don't have any pictures of the event. Dr. Abuelaish is not too tall, a bit stocky, clean-shaven, and well-dressed. He speaks fluent Hebrew and his English is pretty good. In his message, he spoke of how he felt that this tragedy was divine fate (though it was "man-made"), with the message that he needs to pursue the message of reconciliation (he does not like the "vagueness" of the word "peace"). So he showed us pictures of Gaza, pictures of his children on the beach (they wrote a message on the sand as though they foresaw their own death, he said). He wishes to make something positive that is bigger than the tragedy itself. His main point was that prior to working out specifics of a policy or agreement, the two sides must truly begin to understand the "humanity" of each other (and he sees himself doing his part to fulfill that role, calling on others to take action to do the same). Finally, he said that he will establish a Foundation for Women's Health in his children's name, as it is "time for women to be the decision makers" in the world.

His speech reminded me of one I saw just a year ago at my nephew's graduation from Northeastern U in Boston. The main speaker was a student whose mother, a psychologist, was murdered 3 months prior. The student spoke of looking ahead and "making lemonade out of lemons".

I briefly spoke to Dr. Abuelaish afterwards about his work (I shared some personal stories about some life challenges). He was so kind and gave me his business card. I understand he is nominated for a Nobel Prize, so if he gets it I can call him personally - really cool!

If we only had more role models like Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish....

Thanks for reading.

Update 05 June 2010: I've been in recent contact with Dr. Abuelaish, he's safely in Canada working and teaching at a University. His philosophy has not changed. He has a website dedicated to a fund he has established to promote the advancement of women
Update 21 August 2011: Dr. Abuelaish was kind enough to send me a signed copy of his book: "I Shall Not Hate". I'm reading it now and will comment in a future post.

Mid-East Blues and Hopes

There is so much mixed news coming out of the Middle East these days, and it's happening rather quickly.

First, President Obama sent New Year's greetings to the people of Iran, a strong gesture indicating a desire to change the animous relationship to one of mutual respect. We are not appeasing their government's development of the Bomb, nor are we condoning their government's support of Hamas and Hezbollah (my Iranian friend tells me that the people there were "hands off" on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute until the recent Gaza war). Ahmadinejad and Khameini responded by saying that they want actions rather than words. It'll be interesting to see what Obama's next step in this chess game is: will he offer diplomatic relations? This can have a bearing on the Iranian elections in June. I hope that the Reformists unite behind one candidate (I prefer Moussavi), since the Principalists will only have Ahmadinejad (see PressTV for their media coverage of the election). By the way, I've been blogging on PressTV to explain my support for the both the warming of relations and for Israel.

The Israeli events are more sobering. The new administration stated that the peace process "has reached a dead end". FM Lieberman does not want to be held to any time commitments. My worry is that there are now more walls being built, and the more you build the more you have to tear down. Unless you are prepared for a perpetual war. Obama, on the other hand, wants to move quickly, as he sees this issue as one that affects the U.S. and other democracies (e.g. the price of oil). So, while I'm OK with measures Israel takes to protect its own people (such as the recent testing of anti-missile hardware - which Obama supports), I'd really push the Netanyahu administration to resume serious talks with the Palestinians. Otherwise, U.S. foreign aid for offensive weapons will be endangered. As I've always stated, everyone wants the same thing in the end - peace - but we have to find the win-win way to get there.


Thanks for reading

Laissez-Faire Is Now Laissez-Failed

One fun aspect of writing letters to newspapares is when one of their regular Op-Ed writer gives you an opening in their articles to comment.

Just about a month ago I published my blog entry entitled "Tradeoffs 101" where I spoke of the need to understand the "win-lose" dynamics of political decision making.

Then, last week, Charles Krauthammer published his op-ed in the Washington Post called "Obama's Ultimate Agenda", his lament of the increase of government authority under President Obama. OK, I thought, time to incorporate my earlier post into a letter to the WashPost.

I had fun with this one, especially the end. Poor Krauthammer is, I think, clutching at straws. Also, I got in my dig at those who lament "socialist redistribution of income" by pointing out that they, too, have policies that redistribute the other way. Can't income just be income? (the argument that cap gains cuts spur employment is bogus: first, how do we know the investments produce American jobs? Certainly investing in gold, short-selling, or job-reducing mergers and acquisitions doesn't. Second, if we really wanted to reward those who create American jobs, why not do it directly to employers who do exactly that, who can then pass those rewards down tax free to their investors?)

Here's my letter, published April 8th, 2009 in the Washington Post:

Charles Krauthammer lamented the "radical extension of the welfare state" because of the latest proposed "government intervention" in health care, education and energy.

As I'm sure Mr. Krauthammer knows, government intervention is not new. Lincoln intervened in the free-market system to end slavery. Child-labor laws, antitrust laws and minimum-wage laws are other examples. Lowering capital gains tax rates below the tax rates on wages also redistributes income to the non-producing rich.

Our collective decisions must be based on their practicality and their morality. Almost every one of them has tradeoffs -- someone wins, someone loses. A "free" market does not mean a morally responsible or equitable market, so we need checks and balances to get to the fairness level we collectively decide on. That is our democracy.

My difference with Mr. Krauthammer is where we draw our lines. I believe (especially for health care, education and energy) more in a just, partly regulated market than in the dogma of laissez-faire libertarianism.

The editors took out another example - the battle of the current budget between Obama and McCain. McCain's proposal is a win for the high-bracket taxpayer. We're not sure who loses because I have not seen the details of his budget and therefore what exactly gets cut (that's typical Republican way). Obama's budget will provide more jobs, but there will probably be a tax cost down the road (or higher inflation). For now I'll go along with Obama, since I have not heard any better ideas.

Thanks for reading.