Let the West Make Peace With Islam First

Arab News ^ | 3-1-04 | Dr. Mariam Al-Oraifi

[SJackson]

Every time there is some kind of policy proposal or strategic vision for the Middle East region, it becomes a controversial issue here. The reason is that people in the Middle East see things differently from what the West envisions for them and believe that Western governments do not fully understand their political culture. This is usually followed by accusations of conspiracies and allegations of neoimperialism to subdue the region to serve the West’s economic interests and impose its political hegemony.

Recently, the United States proposed a Greater Middle East Initiative in reaction to the last 2002 UN Arab Human Development Report, which sets forth the roots of Arab underdevelopment: A deficit of freedom, lack of women’s empowerment and educational backwardness. Observers in the area perceive this new US initiative as resembling the Helsinki accord, signed in 1975 by 35 nations including the US, Soviet Union and almost all European countries. Helsinki was designed to recognize disputed post-World War II borders and establish a mechanism for settling other disagreements to improve security and promote cooperation. The Western countries then believed that by protecting human rights and encouraging freedom, they would instigate the demise of Communism in the East.

The Bush administration wants to introduce the new initiative to minimize the appeal of Islamic fundamentalism, which is spreading. The United States has made it clear it does not want to “go it alone” but would like the collaboration of EU countries. It indicated it would try to lobby for support during the NATO and G-8 summits in June. Yet the Europeans view the initiative with skepticism. They insist that it should not be dictated to them but rather presented, in agreement with the parties concerned, within the framework of a security partnership in support of reform and democracy. They also believe that political change and reform cannot progress in the Middle East without settling the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The initiative produced conflicting reactions in the Greater Middle East. Some believe that this is a continuation of what the Americans started in Iraq but through peaceful means. Others argue that it is more like a US-sponsored neocolonialism and that Washington is trying to involve Europe only to guarantee UN and global support.

People in the region acknowledge that other countries have surpassed them in development; they lag behind in economic productivity and have not been able to move ahead with political reform. However, they insist that the blame is not solely theirs but should also be placed on US policies in the Middle East over the past decades.

Throughout the second half of the 20th century, numerous wars were fought in the Middle East, ignited directly or indirectly either by West European states or the United States. The 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars were related to the Arab-Israeli conflict which cost human lives, drained resources, and left the region with economic difficulties, crushing deficits and arrested development. The countries involved directly in these wars were Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. But the Gulf countries took part indirectly by funding military programs or imposing the oil embargo. Then, there was the 1975-1989 Lebanese civil war, the US-sponsored Mujahedeen fighting against the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the 1978 Iranian uprising against the Shah’s regime, the 1980-1988 Iraqi-Iranian war, the first Gulf War and, last but not least, the second Gulf War and the US occupation of Iraq. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Apart from these major wars, there are numerous other conflicts such as the Algeria-Morocco dispute over the Sahara desert, the Pakistani-Indian conflict over Kashmir, the Algerian civil war, the north-south war in Sudan, the Yemen war, border disputes between several Gulf states, the Eritrea-Ethiopian war, the Somalia war. All this had its impact on the greater Middle East as a whole.

Not only did it traumatize families with the loss of lives of loved ones, it also devastated many others psychologically, their feelings of anger and hostility exacerbated by depression and humiliation.

Muslims in times of crisis tend to turn to God and His Holy Book looking for salvation. This is probably a reason for the surge in conservatism in most of the countries in the Greater Middle East area including secular Turkey. The greater the interference or pressures from the West on these countries — whether peacefully by encouraging reform and democracy or militarily by invading them or economically by imposing sanctions and isolation — the more people turn to fundamentalism. This can eventually turn into militancy, as was the case in Iran during the Shah’s regime, leading to the Islamic revolution.

Ideally, defending freedom, encouraging political reform and ensuring human rights are all popular demands that should come from within. They are not strategic goals for countries from without. If the United States and the West seek security partnerships with the Greater Middle Eastern countries and propose economic cooperation in the sincere hope of achieving progress and prosperity there, shouldn’t the West make peace with Islam first?

— Dr. Mariam Al-Oraifi is a Saudi academic.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[MrBambaLaMamba]

End terrorism, kill terrorists.

[2banana]

Let the West Make Peace With Islam First

Let's try all out war first. You know, carpet bombing, invasions, taking of the natural resources (oil fields), flattening cites, killing anyone or anything that stands in the way. It worked for Germany and Japan...

[thoughtomator]

That sounds like a good idea. Let's make peace with Islam, the old-fashioned, enduring way - by complete and total destruction, followed by unconditional surrender, and a reconstruction of those nations based on the principles of liberty and freedom for all.

[tet68]

Islam must first make peace with itself.

[duckbutt]

to sort of paraphrase the Prez - "they started it - - we're going to end it."

[Auntie Dem]

Ideally, defending freedom, encouraging political reform and ensuring human rights are all popular demands that should come from within.

Well allright then, as long as you arabs keep your terrorist values "within" we won't mess with you. The minute you take them "without" we cut off your head. Fair enough?

[Howie66]

I've got a good idea. Let those people in charge of countries like Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia get their collective heads out of their arses and get the radical elements of Islam under some semblence of control. If they fail to do so, then it will be up to US to put them under control. The best method that I can think of is to kill them....their hearts and minds will follow.

[Congressman Billybob]

Based on how world events are going, here's how the "West will make peace with Islam:" The military leaders of the West will shake hands with the survivers of the Muslims, in the rubble of Mecca. That's the ticket.

It may be possible that some "Islamic scholars" recognize the self-imposed reasons why their natiuns are so backward. But it is not possible for any such person to state those reasons, in a public forum in any of those nations.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Don't delay. Do it now.

[xusafflyer]

"Throughout the second half of the 20th century, numerous wars were fought in the Middle East, ignited directly or indirectly either by West European states or the United States. The 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars"

So its our fault that your pathetic countries attacked Israel on your own and got your butts handed to you..interesting.

[Stopislamnow]

"Throughout the second half of the 20th century, numerous wars were fought in the Middle East, ignited directly or indirectly either by West European states or the United States. The 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars were related to the Arab-Israeli conflict which cost human lives, drained resources, and left the region with economic difficulties, crushing deficits and arrested development."


Every single time there was a arab-israeli conflict, arabs started it. Arab dictators have ruled those backwards arab countries. Arab dictators have squandered thier country's riches(oil), corrupt, tyrannical, murdering, conniving arab dictators. In some cases, Islamic arab dictators.
Islam is just as much to blame as those same arab dictators for the decrepit condition of thier countries, the poverty, and the fanatacism of its peoples.

Passing the buck on to the west for thier own 12th century vision of daily life is hilarious and sad and gets repeated over and over by the leaders and powers that be in the arab world.

Islam needs crushed, and these arabs aren't gonna let up on israel until a few cities and a few million arabs get annhilated. Period. They respect power. The only downside is thier "victim" mentality will just grow and they'll whine for a few more thousand years.

The sooner it happens, the better off the world will be.

[Happy2BMe]

"This is usually followed by accusations of conspiracies and allegations of neoimperialism to subdue the region to serve the West’s economic interests and impose its political hegemony."

Since when did Islam start drawing from Communist China for diatribe against the United States?

[RightthinkinAmerican]

A "recycled" rant that I just posted to an anti-Bush geek on another site:

The hypocrisy is what eats at me the worst. Kerry publicly supported a premptive attack on Saddam in 1997, under Clinton. Now, when it's politically convenient to jump on the accusatory Bush basher bandwagon, everyone forgets that.

Our historic allies have shown their true mettle. They have shown that they are there if they need us, but forget about us if it's financially convenient for them. They all had Billions in cheap oil, military, and other contracts with Saddam, and had the nerve to accuse us of "blood for oil". They were willing to allow Saddam to continue shedding Iraqi blood to keep getting cheap oil for themselves. THEY are the ones who sold out morally for money from Saddam, but no one seemed to notice that.

Our fault for deteriorating relations with other countries? When you were in High school, did you do whatever the other kids did, just to fit in? No matter what? Pot? Stealing? How 'bout if your crowd had wanted to take money from an injured old lady you found lying on the sidewalk? Can't be the outcast, now! Can't be the unilateral "go it aloner". Your friends say "if you don't, your not our friend anymore". Which is more important - going the path of least resistance to "fit in", or doing what's right - even when it's an unpopular decision and causes you to lose friends? Friends who maybe aren't worth having as friends anyway.

Well - I'll tell you - I didn't drink or smoke pot or any of that stuff in high school, and I didn't fit in. It was lonely at times, but I left high school with my dignity intact - I wasn't acting like someone I'm not. Maybe you don't think those things are bad, maybe you did them, and I don't care, They weren't right for me and I stayed true to my beliefs. I was "uncool" but didn't have a bit of trouble looking in the mirror.

Bush is man enough to do what he thinks needs done for the country's safety, and does it knowing full well that he'll take a lot of heat for it.

Clinton was a spineless waffler, and Osama would have been dead long before 9/11 if he hadn't been. He himself admits that his biggest regret of his presidency was that he knew on one occasion where Osama was, and could have sent a cruise missle in, but Osama's wife was there and Clinton didn't have the stomach (my choice of words) to do what needed done. How many wives were in the World Trade Center? I went there last weekend and saw the devastation for myself. I say that any America haters who would likely THINK about anything comparable should be dealt with swiftly, harshly, and if necessary - unilaterally - before they have the chance. We won't be popular, but we'll be safe.

[Rudder]

The greater the interference or pressures from the West on these countries — whether peacefully by encouraging reform and democracy or militarily by invading them or economically by imposing sanctions and isolation — the more people turn to fundamentalism

Intervention as well as isolation are both opposed in this piece. So it would seem the writer has painted himself into a corner: if we assist them they hate us and if we leave them alone they hate us. All the while, they are regressing backward in time and becoming---save for oil---nothing but a bunch of bloodthirsty thugs with no redeeming qualities. In the short run, if the Arabs don't get their act together, we will suffer their wrath and they ours. In the long run they will become extinct.

[blam]

"Let's try all out war first. You know, carpet bombing, invasions, taking of the natural resources (oil fields), flattening cites, killing anyone or anything that stands in the way. It worked for Germany and Japan..."

Sign me up!

[teletech]

These Islamic fanatics really believe they are in a war they can win.

[atomicpossum]

Not only did it traumatize families with the loss of lives of loved ones, it also devastated many others psychologically, their feelings of anger and hostility exacerbated by depression and humiliation.

Oh, PLEASE! I am sick to death of hearing how 'humiliated' Middle Easterners feel and why I should be concerned that they should feel good about their figurative 'manhoods.' If you want to be treated like adults, act like adults.

Face up to your backward societies. Face the fact that most of your governments are corrupt, inept, or both. Face the fact that your tribalist traditions keep you from worthwhile accomplishments. Face the fact that hatred of the West is just a way for your leaders to keep the populace looking at someone else rather than themselves, the real source of all their problems.

All you're overlooking is that it's the West that has given you the technology and oil money that should have allowed you to develop advancing societies, but you remain, socially, a thousand years out-of-date, ruled by tin-pot dictators who collude like bazaar-merchants to keep themselves in power.

[45Auto]

Islam is at war with itself; it has been from its beginnings. As a religion it is very young. It has not gone through enough "growing pains" in order to reform itself, like another major religion did. The reformation saved Christianity (no, I don't want to debate this point) and allowed it to move forward in peace and harmony with not only non-Christians, but with those of other faiths as well. Islam desperately needs a reformation of its own; if it cannot do so, then the next 50 years are going to be the worst, most troubling and disastrous in its history. I won't hazard a guess as to how many of its adherents will be taking a shortcut to Allah; but the choice is clearly with Muslims themselves and the message is simple: get your crap together, or suffer the consequences. Only a John Kerry presidency could postpone the inevitable.

[Iberian]

They are historical "martyr types" by nature. Uck them