24 - 30 January 2002
Issue No.570
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 24 - 30 January 2002 Issue No.570 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
At the roots of legitimate anger
It is not the world that changed after 11 September, but the US's perception of it, writes Mona Makram Ebeid*
For the past few months, on and off, an astonishingly relentless and minutely organised media campaign in the US has been more or less pressing the Israeli vision of the world on the American reading and viewing public with practically nothing to counter it. Its main themes are: Islam and the Arabs are the true causes of terrorism; Israel has been facing such terrorism since it came into existence; Arafat and Bin Laden are one and the same; most of the US's Arab allies -- especially Egypt (the recipient of $2 billion in aid) and Saudi Arabia -- have played a clear negative role in sponsoring anti-Americanism by allowing their media to spread hatred and support for terrorism and maintaining corrupt, undemocratic societies. Underlying the campaign, as the right-wing media keep reminding Americans, is the strong suggestion that Iraq must be attacked next, and indeed that all Israel's enemies in the region must be brought down.
Lost in the misinformation is a simple reality: Bin Laden is not the Arabs or Islam. If we look back at history, furthermore, we can see that Arab and Muslim societies have often rejected the intellectual and political impediments imposed on them by dictators who ruled in the name of faith. That was a good part of the reason Ataturk made his regime so anti-religious after the Ottoman Sultanate crumbled. That was also why Nasser, in the 1950s, set off an anti-colonial, anti-monarchist and often anti-conservative revolution throughout the Arab world. As a result, Britain, France and Israel launched a war against him. Eisenhower saved him, but Nasser continued to militate against both Israeli aggression and conservative Islamic regimes, trying to make Egypt a model of secular nationalism for other Muslim states and wrestling with cross-currents of religious traditionalism and modernity.
By 1967, the US had made its choice: it backed Israel and the oil-rich Islamic regimes. Nasser's humiliation in the Six-Day War ultimately became the humiliation of secular nationalism in the Arab world. Radical Muslims taught the masses that the reason for their defeat was that they had strayed too far from God's path (more or less the same kind of sentiment that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell expressed after the US suffered the tragedy of 11 September), with the result that today many regimes have ceded the fields of culture and re- education to their Islamist opposition in order to buy some political peace. As for terrorism, Egypt suffered from terrorist attacks long before anyone else. But it never considered that these constituted Islam; it considered them as terrorism and dealt with them accordingly, after terrible drawn-out fights that pushed the country to the brink.
Interestingly, it is both the terrorists and the Israelis who would like to force the US to cast its allies adrift, forgetting that Washington has two strategic reasons to desire good relations with Cairo. The first is a need for Egyptian cooperation in the war against terrorism. The second is stability in the region. In the war against terrorism, Washington has a right to expect all the help it can get -- and, indeed, does receive, in matters of intelligence for instance. Egypt, its ruler and its people know all about Islamic militancy: they have been dealing with it rather effectively since Islamists assassinated President Sadat. It is tragic-ironic, incidentally, that almost the same people who assassinated Sadat 20 years ago engineered the attacks on the Twin Towers in September.
In any case, there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism. There are Muslims who happen to be angry and frustrated, and terrorists who happen to be Muslims. That distinction makes all the difference, and I firmly believe that America has no desire whatsoever to be seen as a country that is engaged in a showdown with a billion Muslims. A struggle against Islamist fundamentalism does not justify contempt and hostility for Islam as a whole; nor does it justify a refusal to recognise the importance of a dialogue with Islam. In fact, hostility only reinforces the position of the Islamic fundamentalists. There is legitimate anger and genuine frustration in the Arab world that offers fertile ground for terrorists to exploit. That is why it is so important for all of us, as an international community, to address the roots of this anger and frustration.
As for stability in the region, President Mubarak sounded the alarm some time ago regarding dangers posed by terrorists, but such warnings generated very little response, adding to the feeling that the US is not sensitive to Egypt's problems. For instance, every day that Egypt remains stable, it is doing the world an enormous favour: its 65 million people, its pivotal role in safeguarding stability in the Middle East, its independent judiciary, help make the world a more secure and prosperous place instead of being a source of problems. And instead of saying "thank you, Egypt," the US demands: "why aren't you doing better in this or that area?"
It is true that when confronted by threats, often the price to be paid is repression, a retreat from democratic practice even as the cultural basis for democratic pluralism is being laid. For when you silence and repress not just the extremists but all aspects of civil society, you are not allowing moderate voices to develop and grow. Even in the US today, confronted by threats, the government is trying to short-cut the law -- which again is extremely dangerous.
On the other hand, the US has rarely cared much about liberal democrats in Arab societies and has often worked against them. During the Cold War, Washington favoured Islamic fundamentalists as a bulwark against communism, and showed total indifference to Arab culture and concerns. So the field has been wide open for media-savvy demagogues like Bin Laden to exploit satellite broadcasting, playing on Muslims' fears and disappointments and heightening their righteous anger.
Whatever clash we are facing is a clash of ignorance. That is what we need to confront. The US, however, does not see things this way. As it moves into the second phase of its war, it is determined to confront what it defines as terrorism -- or rather, what Israel defines as terrorism: Iraq, Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad... the forces expanding beyond Afghanistan. This is a matter of grave concern to all of us in the region. Anticipation of US or US-backed Israeli military attacks on Lebanon, Syria, and possibly Iraq is driving regimes in the region to maintain some distance from the American-led coalition. No Arab leader is likely to accept a US- sponsored attack on an Arab state in the face of predictable Arab public pressure, and so the coalition against terrorism will collapse. Meanwhile, both Palestinians and Israelis risk ending up the victims of this tragic game. The former stand to lose their national and political institutions, while the latter could inherit a political adversary both more militant and less controllable than their present antagonist under the banners of Hamas. At stake today is the immediate future of the peace process, but also its long-term survival. Only the US can provide a visionary statement about the future and a sustained diplomatic presence on the ground.
The war on terrorism has brought a new dimension to globalisation: a common response to a global threat. But just as there is an alliance against terrorism, there needs to be an alliance against poverty. Only then will the international community be able to grapple with the complex ethical, social, political and military questions raised.
* The writer is a former member of parliament and currently professor of political science at the American University in Cairo. Above we publish excerpts from a lecture she delivered at the Middle East Institute, Washington.
© 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