6 - 12 December 2001
Issue No.563
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 6 - 12 December 2001 Issue No.563 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Cartoon by Ossama Qasim
Threats or promises
Sir- I find your periodical interesting but it is time for the Islamic world to exercise some serious self- criticism. The problem within the Islamic states is not caused by America or Israel or any other Western country. It is caused by yourselves. Projecting out, as the psychologists would say, the problems of your own society on others is a sure prescription for making them worse.The Islamic fundamentalists who are now reviled as insane or worse throughout the civilised world have caused you extraordinary problems. In order to solve them, you must be totally honest with yourselves. No more folkloric answers like that absurdity that Israel was responsible for the World Trade Center attack. Those delusional statements only make it worse for you.
As one who has travelled to Egypt and quite enjoyed the country, I can promise you I will not go back until you modernise your society and face reality. Unfortunately for you, I am in the majority.
Roger L Simon
Los Angeles, California
US
Freedom within
Sir- Mr Shukrallah ("Let's (all) go fly a kite," Al-Ahram Weekly, 22- 28 November) rightly points out a range of curtailments of freedoms occurring in many countries in the West. Nonetheless, such limitations on freedom, should be temporary (albeit measured in years).But consider that in Arab Muslim countries, including Egypt, such freedoms were never available in the first instance. We don't have to look at what happened in Hama, Syria to find out what happens if a voice of criticism is raised. Perhaps Mr Shukrallah should project his analysis inwards, to see how the voice of people can be heard in the society in which he lives. It is absent because they fear for their personal safety. That would be a start.
Sorl Leinburd
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada
Take a good look
Sir- A growing chorus of American and Israeli voices in your publication is demanding that the Arab world engage in some serious introspection. Such self-criticism is clearly warranted. However, those handing down this prescription may not care for the results, and they are badly in need of a dose of the same medicine themselves.Westerners demanding Arab introspection seem to expect that this will mean the adoption of their perspectives. However, a truly empowered and dynamic Arab public would surely demand not only stronger and more direct support for the Palestinians but also would raise serious questions about the level and role of America's military and corporate presence.
It would insist on using the region's natural resources in a very different manner. It would assert Arab national interests in a manner not seen in many decades and which has been regarded as threatening in the past. It would not, and could not, demand greater subordination to the interests of others.
Israelis and their supporters, who lead the calls for Arab introspection, are in no position to do so. Israeli society is engaged in an extended exercise in neurotic denial about the basic facts of its own brief history, which remain a largely repressed scene of national trauma.
Israel proceeds as if it had not violently wrested control and ownership of all its territory from the Palestinians. Worse, it is utterly blind to the nature of its relationship with the Palestinians living under Israeli military rule and the effects its actions have on the people it is abusing and killing.
In truth, Israel acts as a predatory, 19th- century colonial power toward the Palestinians, and yet it insists on seeing itself as democratic and equitable. Never, for the sake of its own future, was a society more desperately in need of introspection, not to mention a simple reality check.
Which brings us to the United States.
The whole world has a stake in American introspection, but we seem to be perfect postmodern subjects, incapable of even the most basic kind of historical memory.
Each international crisis is treated as if it had no context whatever, at least no context involving ourselves, which prevents us from learning any lessons from the past. Our current bout of wilful amnesia involves forgetting the role we played in promoting right-wing Muslim extremism in Afghanistan and throughout the Islamic world over many decades.
Americans denounce the "foreign invaders," in Afghanistan, but who sent them there? Who launched the first great global jihad? Whose massive covert war resulted in the collapse of all forms of civil society in Afghanistan, which led to the rise of the Taliban?
The most dreaded word in Washington is "blowback."
What we in the US are forgetting is the long history of American and British promotion of the most right-wing Muslim politics as a counter to socialism and nationalism in the Arab world. We call for democracy and openness in the Arab world, but our government steadfastly opposes everything that tends in that direction. We seem unaware that the contemporary Middle East is as much the product of our own meddling, and that of France and Britain, as it is of any local forces.
"I'm amazed that people would hate us," remarked President Bush, "because I know how good we are." A discourse that casts the American role in the world as simply "good" and acknowledges none of our own self- interested brutalities and exploitations is profoundly dangerous to the entire planet.
Arab introspection is urgently required, but given the current state of affairs, everybody needs a hard look in the mirror.
Hussein Ibish
Los Angeles, California
US
World citizens
Sir- Mustafa Kamel El-Sayed's words are well spoken ("Letter to an American friend," Al- Ahram Weekly, 22-28 November). Unfortunately, most Americans are pathetically uninformed about our foreign policy and the press remains overwhelmingly pro-Israel.Our press is filled with an enormous amount of incorrect information/half truths regarding the Middle East (and elsewhere). It's embarrassing to realise that too many Americans simply accept Safire, Friedman, et al as purveyors of truth. The attitude that "I read it in the paper and, therefore, it must be true" is all too pervasive in this culture.
However, I do believe that many Americans are trying to become better informed. The Internet has become an excellent vehicle for this and since 11 September many more people have searched for news sources other than the US press. It is my hope that the availability of information from sources throughout the world will enable us to become better citizens of the world. Articles such as Mr El-Sayed's enable us to read a different point of view, and in this there is hope that we can invoke changes in our foreign policy. Until then, I shall continue to recommend Al-Ahram Weekly and other international papers to my friends. Keep writing.
Elizabeth Bishop-Martin
US
Muddling along
Sir- Gamal Nkrumah's concern for American democracy and the spectre of McCarthyism (Al-Ahram Weekly, 29 November - 5 December) was an interesting read, and his airing of our shortcomings a welcome respite from the burdens of self condemnation.It is true, it seems to me, that our president and our attorney-general appear to be men of excruciating limitations and there is substantial concern and frustration and anger here in America over their attempts to shortcut our Bill of Rights and our Constitution under the guise of patriotism.
But we have suffered fools before and came through rather well. It will be no different this time. Democracy here is a messy, often wobbly, affair and is always made to revalidate itself, but the American people will not abide this foolishness for long.
As for our long history of injustices, which Mr Nkrumah seems to view as particularly egregious, no doubt many of these will continue as well. We are an imperfect government, like all the others. But no one should be under the illusion that these injustices exist here without great argument and struggle; and from time to time, we set things right.
Barry Moyer
Washington, DC
US
Cultural remedies
Sir- Concerning the column by Mr Mohamed Sid-Ahmed ("Dialogue, not clash of civilisations," Al-Ahram Weekly, 29 November - 5 December): I'm amazed after the conference on a dialogue of civilisations that Mr Sid- Ahmed has nothing to offer but the same old invalid diagnosis of the problem and failed, worn-out and discredited remedies.Roger McKinney
Tulsa, Oklahoma
US
Understanding frustration
Sir- This letter is for Mustafa Kamel El- Sayed. Thank you for your article published in a recent issue of Al-Ahram Weekly ("To an American friend," 22-28 November). In it you explained that Arabs do not hate Americans as individuals, but they do hate American foreign policy. You also stated that Osama Bin Laden (and, by extension, the attacks of 11 September) are "an inevitable product of US policy in the region," which "causes frustration and leaves no room for a reasonable dialogue with Arabs." You addressed your letter to "an American friend." Therefore, I am responding to your letter in a spirit of friendship, that is, with respect for your opinions and a desire to reach greater mutual understanding.The attacks of 11 September stunned us Americans. We could not comprehend why anyone would want to strike a place where 50,000 Americans go to work every day with two passenger jet airplanes loaded with fuel. The attack on the Pentagon and the thwarted attack on what apparently was meant to be the Capitol building in Washington may have been attacks on the American government. But how could we Americans interpret the attacks on the World Trade Center as anything but an act of hate against the American people? And we wanted to know: Why?
The fact that we had to ask this question left many of us embarrassed by, and even angry at, our enormous ignorance about the Arab world and the Islamic world more generally. We reacted by reading, listening, attending lectures and surfing the Web (this is how I and many other Americans found Al-Ahram Weekly). We have learned, as you correctly point out, that American foreign policy has contributed to anti-American sentiment. That policy has, at times, been carried out in an arrogant, biased and heavy-handed manner.
You mentioned the UN sanctions against Iraq as a source of Arab grievance. I am sure you know Saddam's history. His government waged a 10-year war against Iran, which resulted in over a million casualties. He has attacked his own people with poison gas. In 1991 Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait and threatened his other Arab neighbours. The United States led a coalition to liberate Kuwait. After the war, the UN imposed sanctions to ensure that Saddam would not develop weapons of mass destruction. Americans were certainly surprised to learn that many Arab people blamed the United States for the suffering of the Iraqi people: We believe that Saddam is responsible because he refuses to comply with the terms of the cease-fire. We are also surprised that Saddam's repression is not, itself, a source of grievance. No matter. Not only have the sanctions failed to work, but also they have engendered enmity in the Arab world. The sanctions system must be changed.
You also mentioned US policy in the Middle East. In particular, you describe what Arabs perceive as a double standard in American policy in the region, taking Arab governments for granted and supplying arms to the Israelis, which they turn on the Palestinians. First, I believe the United States also supplies Egypt with aid and arms. Second, the United States has done more than any other country to promote a resolution to the situation in the Middle East. This includes President Carter's work to achieve the Camp David accords and President Clinton's ceaseless, but failed, efforts to bring the parties to a settlement. I agree that the United States has sometimes turned a blind eye to Israeli violence against Palestinians. But Americans increasingly hear their cries. We were shocked and angered by the image of the Palestinian boy shot and killed by Israeli soldiers in the crossfire (just as we were by the double Palestinian suicide bombing at a Jerusalem mall a few days ago that killed so many).
Americans support the establishment of a Palestinian state. This is now an articulated government policy.
Thus, in the past months Americans have engaged in serious self-reflection to understand the Arab world better, to reflect on American foreign policy and learn how our actions may have contributed to the creation of persons so willing to resort to violence. Perhaps, now, it is time for Arab governments to reflect on how they may have contributed to the same creation.
As with other acts of war and terrorism, the attacks of 11 September were politics by other means. Al-Qa'eda has an international political agenda: To end United States involvement in the Gulf. But it also has an agenda for the Arab states. In his taped message of early November, Bin Laden said that Arab governments who support the United Nations had "disavowed what was revealed to Prophet Mohamed." This appears to be a challenge to the legitimacy of such governments.
People do not generally resort to violence to achieve political change unless they feel they have no other accessible political channels to do so. Arabs may do well to ask themselves what is the source of this political frustration and to consider what changes they might make to address it.
Thank you again for your letter, which I found to be thoughtful and measured in tone. I agree that Americans and Arabs need more reasonable dialogue. What forums can we set up to achieve this? I look forward to hearing from you.
John Storella
Oakland, California
US
Too high a price?
Sir- I regularly read the Internet version of your newspaper. Your editorials and articles are consistently opposed to the United States. While all properly note that the WTC tragedy is regrettable, that is where empathy for this country ends. American views on the meaning of the WTC attack are described by your writers as simplistic and incomplete. Were they sophisticated and complete, presumably Americans would have greater sympathy for the circumstances of Palestine; and, understanding this, Americans would change the way they treat Israel. The final step in this sequence would be that changing the way Americans treat Israel would bring a major benefit to the US: Homeland terrorism would disappear. In my view, this perspective is wrong, and the important thing for the Arab world to note is that the mistake it has made about Israel was repeated in the WTC attack. And what mistake is that? It is to punish those you oppose even when they are more powerful than you.As you are well aware, the Arab wars against Israel have not, on average, benefited the Arab world. Israel thrives while the Arab world does not. Rather than emulating Israel, Arabs attack Israel. The fact that Arabs pay a higher price for their aggressiveness never seems to be part of Arab analysis.
The same Arab reasoning is evident in the WTC attack. The US support of Israel was one of the reasons why the WTC was destroyed. But look at its consequences for Arabs and Islam: The Taliban have lost control of Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden is on. Is that a fair trade as far as the Islamic world is concerned? An Islamic country is overthrown and tens of thousands of Muslims are killed in exchange for the lives of 4,000 American innocents and two tall buildings? Perhaps so. But as you know, it may not end there. Syria, Sudan, Somalia and Iraq also risk attack once the matter in Afghanistan is resolved. Whatever the net benefit to the Muslim world was in the attack on the WTC, will it still be apparent if these other countries are also attacked by the US?
I would not be startled if Arabs said that the price they have paid in struggling against Israel and in opposing American interests either in language (as done by your newspaper) or in acts (destroying the WTC) is worth it. But let's look ahead at where we are likely to be going with this. I foresee a day when a new Bin Laden operating out of some Islamic country gets his hands on a nuclear bomb and explodes it in Washington or New York. I have no doubt that many Arab leaders would say they were appalled by what happened while their citizens celebrated in the streets. But the more important question to those in the Islamic world is this: What is the likely American reaction to such an event?
No one can say now what this country's response would be. However, I can speculate. I consider it likely that the country which attacked the US would be wiped from the face of the earth. Is trading New York for, say, the very existence of the people of an Arab country a worthwhile trade from the perspective of the typical Arab? It is this question that begs to be answered.
I do understand that editorial writers tend to echo the sentiments of their people. I do understand that there is little affection for America in Egypt and that accounts for much of the tone of your newspaper. But if no one finds a way to shape a different perspective on how the Arab world treats this country, there may be a very high price to pay -- not in America, but in the Arab world.
Alan Silberberg
US
Imagine peace
Sir- Al-Ahram Weekly be praised for offering us, American readers, an opportunity to read that which our biased press, especially the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek and their siblings, would lose business if they dared to print: the Chomskys, Saids, Ushers and colleagues...As for Mr Nkrumah's excellent report on neo-McCarthyism in the US (Al-Ahram Weekly, 29 November - 5 December), permit me to say that it is wrong to attribute the breaches of the Constitution and the fascist-type laws we now live under to the late senator of ill repute. They belong to the "intellectually challenged" (to quote a great contributor of yours) administration headed by Dubya Bush, whose "Enduring Democracy" is turning us into an "enduring citizenry." May I suggest... Ashcrofted Bushism?
However belatedly, "j'accuse" not only the intellectually challenged Dubya et al, but also members of his "coalition" against Afghanistan and his father's coalition against Iraq: they, and the Nobel-winning millionaire secretary-general of the UN, are not without responsibility in regard to the mess we are in. Had they insisted on negotiations instead of war, the terrible direct and indirect killing orgies in Cuba and Nicaragua, Iraq and Afghanistan, would not have taken place, and the UN would have returned to its golden age under the one and only Dag Hammarskold.
Of course, economically challenged Americans like myself are unable to imagine the consequences of peace in these places on Mother Earth, or on our fellow humans, especially those who live off "defence" -- note the word -- contracts, and the oil and arms business. Nor are we capable of imagining the consequences of such ideas as "justice in Palestine," whereby Christians, freethinkers, Muslims and Jews would live in peace on lands and in houses they legally own. What would happen, too, if the polite Saudis were deprived of the "protection" provided by the 70,000 Americans who are in the armed forces because there are no civilian jobs?
Abu Jaafar Al-Burgi
US
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page