13 - 19 December 2001
Issue No.564
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 13 - 19 December 2001 Issue No.564 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
Cartoon by Ossama Qasim
Christian fanatics
Sir- As a Muslim living in Canada, I was shocked by the comments made by Christian leader Franklin Graham. Mr Graham called Islam "wicked" and "violent" on the first day of Ramadan. In a report aired on NBC Nightly News, he stood by remarks he made about Islam last month at the dedication of a chapel in North Carolina. At that event, Graham said: "We're not attacking Islam but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the Son of God of the Christian or Judaeo-Christian faith. It's a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion." In the NBC report, Graham said: "I don't believe this [Islam] is this wonderful, peaceful religion."Mr Graham's comments could be ignored, or considered normal and part of discriminating treatments we, Muslims in the West, faced after the September attack. But the preacher is considered to be one of US President Bush's closest friends. He is a Christian leader and a religious man who works in the religious establishment. He lacks knowledge, and spreads hatred.
I urge you to take action regarding his attitude.
Mohamed Bassiouni
Ottawa
Canada
Melting marbles
Sir- Thanks for running Tahsin Bashir's insightful commentary on the current controversy concerning Samuel Huntington's clash of civilisations thesis ("The clash of understanding," Al- Ahram Weekly, 29 November - 5 December).Bashir's essay is a needed reminder to all participants -- be they of the West, of Islam, or of other cultural traditions -- that cultures are vast and dynamic enterprises. They are not like solid glass marbles that collide and displace each other. Cultures rich in history and variety are not monolithic and they are not immune to outside influences, however salubrious or detrimental such influences might be. The respective sagas of Christianity and Islam are evidence enough that all manner of cultural, social, political and religious expression find root in multifarious communities touched by these grand traditions. And at many levels of conscious and unconscious social interaction, cultural notions and ideas are learned, and shared. New ideas are adapted on some occasions, while at other times they are rejected outright.
Fundamentalist intolerance can be found in both Christianity and Islam; and one can find, as well, proponents of reason, love and toleration in both traditions. As a Roman Catholic of Irish working-class background, I share Bashir's hope in the triumph of cultural sharing and interaction over the distressing notion of cultural collision and strife. Please thank Bashir for his splendid essay.
Joe Martin
Seattle, Washington
US
Necessary antidote
Sir- I discovered your newspaper while reading the French weekly Le Point, which I bought on my way back from a trip to Kazakhstan. It was cited in a piece about media reaction around the world to the bombing of Afghanistan.At the same time I was reading two books by Arab writers: Naguib Mahfouz's Cairo Trilogy and Amin Maalouf's Les Croisades vues par les Arabes. In the third volume of Mahfouz's trilogy, Al-Ahram is mentioned by name.
I just want to express my admiration for your publication. I read it every morning, here in the Isle of Skye, off the west coast of Scotland, before I head to work at a college where I lecture in Scottish Gaelic. It has further opened a world to me that I first encountered as a boy in Canada where I grew up in a working-class community of North Edmonton and became friends with two brothers whose family had just emigrated from Lebanon at the outbreak of the civil war.
Especially during these dark days of December, when Israel is pursuing the outrageous policy of bombing Arafat to get at Hamas and at the same time throwing itself yet again into the role of victim with its good buddy, the Excited States of America (a country most Canadians don't have any real love for, at least not this Canadian), it's a necessary antidote to log on to Al-Ahram. On the BBC even, the Hamas attacks are referred to as "Palestinian atrocities" (as though the entire Palestinian people lobbed the bomb) while Israel's bloody "state" response is termed an "Israeli operation." My God, the mind boggles at such rampant manipulation.
At any rate, from one man in the Isle of Skye, thank you for your site, your writing, and your cogent logic.
John MacPherson
Isle of Skye
UK
Violent reactions
Sir- Jonathan Cook's article "Sharon takes aim" (Al-Ahram Weekly, 6-12 December) is totally off base. For once, think of your own welfare and of Jordan's and the repercussions that might occur and stir up your own "undesirable elements" such as those Israel and the United States are faced with now in battling terror. Allowing Arafat to continue using violence to achieve his political objectives threatens Egypt and Jordan -- US allies and the only Arab nations formally at peace with the Jewish state -- more than it threatens Israel.If, through continued incitement of the Arab masses, Arafat is able to lure the leaders of these two nations into his war against Israel, not only will their armies be defeated and their countries devastated, but they will almost certainly be removed from power. And they know this. Love and protect your country, protect your region, stop publicising stupid ignorance on the Web promoting hate and lies.
Yusef Abu Nassar
Los Angeles, California
US
Human bomb
Sir- I found a link to your Web page on msnbc.com for years I have been a critic of US foreign policy and its apparent blind support of Israel. Since 11 September my opinion has changed, not because over 4,000 people were killed in the span of one hour, but because of the response of the Arab-Muslim community throughout the world. I keep hearing: "This is a tragedy, but maybe America must re-evaluate its position on the Middle East," and "I hope Americans don't rush to judgement like they did in Oklahoma City."I am forever prejudiced against Arabs. I will always be suspicious of them. I am suspicious of anyone who is willing to die in the name of God. There is enough religion in the world to make men kill but never enough to make them love. When millions of Jews were being exterminated during World War II, the Jews were not planting bombs in commercial German airlines. Even during the revolutionary war, the Americans did not try to blow up buildings in London to force England out of America. Until the suicide bomber mentality is dead and buried, the Middle East will always be full of anger, misery, and death. To think that they (the terrorists or, as you would call them, martyrs) will force America out of the Middle East is a joke. Americans are too arrogant for that ever to happen. You will live in the Third World for ever. Open up your eyes.
Paul Kimbiris
US
Left, right
Sir- Now that I've had time for my anger to cool a little after the 11 September attack, and after having read wide-ranging viewpoints from a variety of Arab, European and American media, I'm able to perceive some general patterns in world opinion. I think they are particularly relevant following the votes in the UN and in Geneva concerning Israel.Concerning the Middle East, the world is divided into two camps: pro-Israel and anti-Israel. On the pro-Israel side are the US, Israel, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. On the anti-Israel side is the rest of the world. But the US is divided, also. Many in the US are anti-Israel, as you have noted in your magazine by printing articles from anti-Israeli and anti-American writers such as Edward Said and others. But US foreign policy is pro-Israel because the majority of its citizens are pro-Israel. Europe tends to be anti- Israel, but a minority of its citizens are pro- Israel.
Since this division over Israel cuts across national boundaries, is there any unifying theme that characterises it? I think so. It is the century- old battle between Left and Right, Marxism vs Capitalism. In the US and Europe, the Left and the anti-Israel crowd are the same, and the Right and the pro-Israel group are identical. The Arab world, and most of the rest of the world, absorbed Marxism from the Soviets during the Cold War and still cling to neo-Marxist ideology. The left hates Israel as much for its defection from Marxism as it does for Israel's alleged mistreatment of Palestinians.
In war, the political Right in the US sees a moral distinction between accidentally killing civilians while targeting the enemy's military [and intentionally killing civilians]. The Left sees the acts as morally equivalent, and it is this attitude that allows the Left to indict the US and Israel as terrorists and murderers. This attitude also encourages the Left in the US to justify the 11 September attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.
The American Right places a great deal of importance on equality of opportunity through democracy and free trade, which is one reason it supports Israel; the American Left emphasises equality of results and views democracy and free trade as evil tools of Capitalism, a view that helps it maintain the high temperature of its hate for both Israel and the US. The Right hasn't always remained true to its ideology, and, out of hysterical fear of Marxism, has used the Left's methods and overthrown legitimate governments in the past, in Iran, for example. But the American Left has remained amazingly consistent: Capitalism is evil; the US represents Capitalism, therefore everything the US does is evil.
The American Left has adopted a deconstructionist view of history, which means that [its adherents] see history as immaterial or even deny that history exists. For them, nothing happened in the Pacific during World War II except that the US dropped the atomic bombs on Japan. However, the American Right sticks to a traditional view of history and remembers the years in which Japan raped China, Burma and the Philippines and the estimates that one million US soldiers and 12 million Japanese would die in an invasion of Japan. They also remember that Japan refused to surrender even after the first atomic bomb fell.
In the Middle East, the Left thinks history began with the Oslo peace accords and the first Intifada; for them, nothing happened before. But the Right remembers the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, in all of which, except 1967, Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbours for no reason. In 1967, those same neighbors had prepared to attack but Israel beat them to it. Then, through the '70s and '80s, only Egypt would sign a peace treaty with Israel and Arafat persisted in terrorism.
Today, neo-Marxist ideology reigns in all the nations of the world except the US (it's a strong minority in the US), Israel and Japan. Concrete evidence of this fact is found in this week's vote in the UN and in Geneva, and it is also the reason the US refuses to submit its sovereignty to the UN. The American Right hates the UN for its strident promotion of Marxism. The Left loves the UN and looks to it as the model for a one- world government. The Right would like to see the UN get out of the US and move to someplace like Khartoum.
Left and Right are separated by their views on truth, also. The Left sees reason and truth as tools of the powerful Capitalist elite. Truth is subjective and each culture has its own truth; no culture has a monopoly on truth. Its concept of history is related to this view of truth. The Right sees truth as an object to be pursued, desired and upheld, though it can sometimes be elusive.
So if Arabs feel frustrated that they don't understand the US and that the US doesn't seem to listen to them, it may be because the Arab world lacks a viable political Right, leaving the Left with a monopoly on opinion. With a stronger Right, Arabs would have someone to spar with internally and would then understand the US better. The US has about 100 years of experience in the Left/Right debate, most of it intense and ugly. (Actually, only about half of the US population, equally divided between Left and Right, can discuss the issues. The other half lives in blissful ignorance.)
But what Americans have learned from the ongoing Left/Right debate is that you don't try to change the hard core on either side; it's impossible because the assumptions concerning history, truth, and guilt are far too different ever to be reconciled. The battle is fought over the undecided middle, because if you can swing just a few of these in your direction, you can win elections and have some power. With that power comes the right to define who is a terrorist and who isn't and who gets bombed and who doesn't. Currently, the Right holds a slim majority in the US and is exercising its power. The Left is just as frustrated as the Arabs.
Roger McKinney
Tulsa, Oklahoma
US
Ramadan riddle
Sir- What Jewish atheist has saved more Islamic lives than all the mullahs and imams in the world combined?Answer: Jonas Salk, inventor of the vaccine against polio.
Roger Simon
US
Better world
Sir- I teach public relations in the US and read with interest Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa's excerpts on the clash of cultures. I agree with much of what he writes.Some points I think worth raising for your readers:
1. Islam has for over a decade been the fastest- growing religion in the United States. I do not know that this has changed since 11 September. Nor do I know whether this trend, and its implications, are widely considered by my country's policymakers, or by leaders elsewhere in the world for that matter.
2. Many "Americans," Jewish Americans among them, disapprove of Israeli conduct in many areas, a fact not widely commented upon in the Western media.
3. I believe that ignorance remains the greatest barrier to peace and happiness that man will ever know. Of course, I am a college professor and may be forgiven my professional bias.
When I tell my students of Arab Islam's gifts to the West -- of its role in the first European Renaissance, or of its contributions to mathematics and cartography -- well, my students have heard nothing about that before.
When I read of the limited curriculum offered by the madrasas in Pakistan, I grow similarly alarmed.
We will not see ourselves to a better world this way.
But when I tell students what my father told me, about how US pilots broke off air combat against the Nazis in the skies above Italy during World War II, so that they would have ammunition left with which to strafe Arab caravans... then my students are shocked.
All civilisations seem to produce young men willing to die for a cause. I suspect that this has always been true, and it remains the glory and the tragedy of our species. How often have these sacrifices later proven senseless and avoidable? Let us work so that the next generation of young men face a world that asks them to sacrifice less than their lives.
The clash between civilisations is also a clash within civilisations, as Moussa seems to suggest. In the current world situation there is great peril, and great opportunity. There is so much more in common among the children of Abraham than alien among us. So much simple misunderstanding, I believe.
We can fix these problems. In that I have faith.
Russell Barclay
Quinnipiac University
Hamden, Connecticut
US
The other side
Sir- I am a Canadian woman currently living and working in Ramallah, Palestine. As the events of the past few days have shocked and horrified the world, I would like to offer the perspective of someone actually living here.I lived and worked in Tel Aviv, Israel for two years before I moved to Ramallah. During that time I came to understand the fear which is caused by the random suicide bombings within the Green Line. However, I have been living in Ramallah for one year, and now can also understand the fear and suffering caused by the occupation that the Palestinians have been living under for 34 years.
I am much more afraid here than I ever was living in Tel Aviv, where I was surrounded by cafés, nightclubs, beach parties and carefree people. Here in the West Bank, I am witness daily to the same terror as the Palestinians: verbal, emotional and physical abuse at the checkpoints, F-16 and Apache attacks, strict closures trapping me in Ramallah, tanks, shelling, settler violence, etc.
There are no cafés, nightclubs or parties in Ramallah -- Palestinians have spent their evenings for the past year in their shell-damaged homes fearing the next attack, trying to comfort their children who are paralysed with fear because their schools were also shelled earlier that day, or comforting their neighbour, whose son was one of the five young boys in Khan Younes. His body was blown into a thousand pieces when he kicked an Israeli tank shell that hadn't been detonated.
Before forming an opinion of the Palestinians, I ask that each person living in North America keep in mind that Palestinians are living under a brutally violent occupation; that we as a people cannot understand this kind of daily terror.
Having lived in both societies, I firmly believe that peace is possible. I also believe that the media have a large role to play in creating an environment in which peace is fostered and hate is not fuelled. The job of the media is to report in a fair and unbiased manner about the events in a conflict situation. It is then the reader's job to formulate an opinion for him/herself based on fact. In the last few days, I have seen little in the media which would allow the reader to formulate his/her own opinion; I have seen very little comment and analysis on the speeches we have heard from representatives of Israel and Palestine.
In Ariel Sharon's address to his nation, he claimed that God will avenge the blood of the Israeli victims. Perhaps this is true, but the avenging I see comes from Sharon and the IDF. Sharon is not God. I wonder why nobody pointed this out after his speech? Why was there no debate sparked about this by the journalists? Why are people accepting what is said without question?
The people who choose what is represented in the media are not God either, and it is not their place to make judgements on the situation, only to report the facts and ask questions that stab at the heart of the matter. I ask that the people who choose what is to be placed in the newspapers or on the television live up to their linguistic responsibilities, choose their words and labels carefully and consider the implications of their claims. Present an argument that allows the public to decide for themselves their own interpretation, instead of relying on the current "terrorism" rhetoric to make a dollar. I ask that the people in the media demand linguistic definitions from the people they interview: What is terrorism? What is occupation? What does this mean and why does this happen?
I make one final plea to the Western media: cease focusing on the gore and horror of conflict and credit the audience with some intelligence; reach to the roots of the conflict and start asking difficult questions, start demanding explanations from the interviewees about their actions, about their people's actions. Only when we start asking the difficult questions, refuse to accept the current patterns of behaviour, and stop legitimising the violence by glorifying its shock value, will we be able to call attention to alternative methods of struggle.
The Palestinians will continue to resist the occupation, and the Israelis will continue to enforce it until we, the international community (of which the media are part) demand an end to 34 years of repression. Peace will never be achieved through violence, so please place less emphasis on the violence and look deeper into the real issues so some real solutions can be identified.
Sky McLaughlin
Ramallah, West Bank
Palestine
© 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