What can we do?

Here we reproduce most of an article by Jenna Fernandes in The Brandeis Hoot, Friday September 16, 2005, with [commentary.]

Salameh Nematt, Washington Bureau Chief of Al-Hayat International Arab Daily in London, gave a talk... entitled “Hope, not Hate," focused on the “long-term strategy for improving relations between the West and the Islamic world....”

He began his talk with a diagnosis of what he believes to be the cause of radical Islamic terrorism. He calls it not a religious problem, but a political problem, saying “religion is used to promote political goals.” [This is exactly what we also conclude. It also happens to be what rid South Africa of Apartheid!] He stresses that Islam does not permit killing innocent people, but that “people created their own ideology.”

He attributes the rise of Islamic militancy to a failure of seculars in the Arab world. He described the rise to power of “literally families” who create “autocracies, dictatorships and regimes” which cause mass bloodshed and oppression.

These regimes are powerful enough to crush any secular opposition, but they can’t shut down the mosques. Nematt says the mosques then become the only “form of political protest.” [This is spot on.]

Because the dictatorships are often supported by the West, the Arabic people see Europe and America as “in collusion” with the regimes; providing financial, military and technological support.[Bin Laden's behavior reflects this. See: Walter Russell Mead -- GOD AND GOLD - Britain and America, and the Making of the Modern World.]

Nematt criticizes US relations with the power structure in the Middle East, saying “the President receives dictators and treats them as his friends.” He [Nematt] also accuses the West of “wanting their friends in power” and taking advantage of Middle Eastern oil, stating “pricing is being manipulated by the US” at the expense of the Arabic people in order to please the American people.[This could not be more true.]

This criticism also extends to the media, who do not cover “what is really going on in these countries,” singling out New York Times journalist... Thomas L. Friedman ’75.

He says this is the reason extremists have exported terrorism, citing the effect the deaths of 3,000 Americans had on 9/11, while the 300,000 people Saddam Hussein buried in mass graves went unnoticed, saying “just because you didn’t see it on CNN doesn’t mean it didn’t happen....”

Nematt goes on to talk about the feelings of mainstream Arabs, saying that most don’t agree with the extremists, but sympathize. He urges the American people to pressure the government and the media to expose scandals in the regimes in order to convince Arabs that Americans are on the side of the people. [Spot on again!]

Nematt sees terrorism as a “sign of desperation of people who could not express themselves,” adding that this is “not a justification, but an explanation.” He says radical Islamists wish to “punish Americans for the support of corrupt regimes.”

He adds that extremism is the product of a lack of democracy and freedom, and therefore supports the war in Iraq. [It is also a cause] He declares that by invading Iraq, “Bush did something good without intending it.” Referring to Saddam Hussein, who is blamed for the deaths of 1 million people, he says “Bush actually found the weapon [of mass destruction] and neutralized the weapon.” [Hussein] He makes the claim that “Bush is going to go down in history as the one who brought democracy to the Middle East.”[We can only hope he is right. He overlooks Turkey, which has achieved a measure of democracy all by itself. He must also assume the American electorate agrees with Administration expansionist policies, which is doubtful.]

He does, however, find fault with the way the war has been handled. He says partisan politics “has done damage” to the effort as well as European dissent. He places most of the blame on the surrounding countries, alleging they send terrorists to Iraq to undermine the democratic project. [This is true, but does not excuse the gross misdeed of deception perpetuated by the Bush Administration, nor the gross bungling immediately after Hussein fell.]

As evidence, he points out that while all the suicide bombers dying in the name of Palestine have been Palestinian, 90% of suicide bombers in Iraq are foreigners. He adds that “the insurgency is not a genuine nationalist resistance” and that “Iraqi nationalists and Iraqi opposition are in the government.” [This is an important point of real consequence. But in a sense it is a detail: The real conflict is between civilizations and in that sense the resistance in Iraq is an insurgency. Iraq is merely a battlefield of our choosing.]

He [Nematt] believes the war was necessary because it is the moral responsibility of the US to “help people get rid of dictatorships.” At minimum, he says, we have to stop backing dictatorships and “have standards” for human rights and free media and “apply them.”

Also speaking at the event was Professor David Gil of the Heller School for Social Policy and Management, who took a more critical view of the US. He stressed that before we can spread democracy, “we have to democratize ourselves.” He spoke of terrorism as “not the initiation of the problem, but a reaction.” He also pointed out that “we were cooperating with [Hussein] when it seemed to suit US interests.” [Spot on]

Organizing the event was Sayeda Haq, a graduate student in Heller. She said the event was sponsored by Americans for Informed Democracy (AID), which, according to their informational flyer, is a “non-partisan, student-led organization working on more than 250 university campuses to raise global awareness and promote discussion of the US role in the world.”

---

[This article contains forward looking commentary from people with enough experience in and with the Arab world to know what they are talking about independently of the US media. Some of the peaks:

• “religion is used [by terrorists] to promote political goals.”
• These regimes are powerful enough to crush any secular opposition, but they can’t shut down the mosques. Nematt says the mosques then become the only “form of political protest.”
• Nematt sees terrorism as a “sign of desperation of people who could not express themselves,” adding that this is “not a justification, but an explanation.” He says radical Islamists wish to “punish Americans for the support of corrupt regimes.”
• “the insurgency is not a genuine nationalist resistance” and that “Iraqi nationalists and Iraqi opposition are in the government.”
• Professor David Gil of the Heller School for Social Policy and Management, who took a more critical view of the US. He stressed that before we can spread democracy, “we have to democratize ourselves.” He spoke of terrorism as “not the initiation of the problem, but a reaction.” He also pointed out that “we were cooperating with [Hussein] when it seemed to suit US interests.”[This is both intellectual- and moral- dishonesty of high order. What can we expect?]

---

What can we expect? This needs some amplification. In one sense "what can we expect" is limited by our knowledge, experience and insights into same. And that is all we can expect. Most of us can only visualize from our own base--what is in our heads. For that reason, we have trouble understanding Islam. We simply cannot imagine ourselves walking in their shoes. By the same token, they have trouble understanding us, and our ways. In effect, each side suffers from "Projection," a hang-up describing such behavior. In one sense Projection is indeed a defense mechanism, but in another sense, it is merely a lack of a sufficiently broad experience.

With this in mind, what can we and our visitors reasonably expect? How does this sound?

• Each side can set about learning what each does not know about the other.
• Listen attentively; allow what is said to be heard. As learning about the other progresses, ask questions when they occur--as they surely will in honest dialogue.
• Stop and think after each turn in the road. Let each new piece of information incubate a bit before responding.
• Each voice his/her feelings/opinions/thoughts/deductions/inductions honestly and openly with integrity.
• Do these things in search for deeper insights into the human condition and governance.

Is a new world possible? We believe so. See Dialogue. One can only hope the next administration sees the light and establishes new directions and policies accordingly. We see Obama as having such a breakout possibility. As much as we admire Clinton and McCain, each is still in the rut of Washington group think dependent on lobbyists representing the Military-Industrial-Complex--that an earlier great president warned us against.