 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
|
| I N S I G H T -------- Residue in Beirut Hania Mourtada Testing Americana James Grime Chinese Intentions Shimpei Ara Abandoning Ideology Antonio Fabrizio After Mumbai Blasts Charlie Duerr Sex And Soccer Phillip Wellman An Ally Of Sorts? Molly Nixon Forgetting Africa Krzys Wasilewski |
Confrontational ideologies take root amongst the marginalized
By Hania Mourtada
Posted: Aug 15, 2006
History has left us with a grave legacy. It is a legacy of widespread distrust, backstabbing nations,
grand imperialistic ambitions and most of all extreme polarizations. Because we still carry the heavy
weight of this legacy which consists of a cluster of unresolved political ‘concerns’ and opposing
worldviews, we are veering off towards an era that will continue to foster antagonisms.
At this juncture, it seems pretty reasonable to think of the Middle East as a ticking time bomb. As to why
this is the case, some would have us believe that it is simply because a few Middle Eastern tyrannical
regimes have suddenly taken it upon themselves to support grim fundamentalist leaders who relish
‘blowing up’ those who they deem as ‘the infidels’. Thus in a flash, our world has yet again become
dangerously polarized.
There are those who like to proclaim that holy wars are being waged against the West (to be exact, the
United States) because of the values it endorses and even because of the privileges it enjoys. Then
again we have the considerable Muslim and Arab masses who feel their self-worth is slipping away
owing to Israel’s aggressive policy in their region.
Is the world really still waging holy wars in the 21st century? The answer is no to anyone willing to take
a deeper look at history.
When addressing the current clash between East and West, one must think less in terms of ‘cultural
clashes’ and more in terms of actual legitimate grievances. At a time when revolutionary Islamic
figures such as Al Zarqawi and Bin Laden keep cropping up on our TV sets making inflammatory
speeches about the “evil West”, hiding behind one-dimensional concepts such as “Islamic Fascists”
and religious fanaticism is certainly handy for the current American government and its allies. But all
the same, it does not really account for the problem. It is an overly simplistic view of the world that
allows the Bush administration to play out its interests in the Middle East and to carry out its
“democratizing experiments” which translates for the overwhelming Arab population as “making the
zone more accommodating for Israel”.
Moreover, these constant (and rather opportune) denouncements on the part of Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have ultimately led people to believe that Islam is practically
equivalent to Tyranny. (In the same way most Arabs tend to blur the line between Jews and Zionists.)
Is it fair to Muslims worldwide to see themselves categorized as prospective fascists?
Of course there is no denying that there is a good deal of religious fanaticism gaining momentum but
we should steer clear of grouping all Islamist militants under the one banner of unreasonable blood
hounding terrorists. There are those who attack to implement their ideology. Their tone is bullying,
their targets random and their ultimate goal is to enforce their dogma on others.
And there are those who put up a fight against the looming “aggressor”. Their tone is cynical, their
targets carefully calculated and their ultimate goal is self-preservation against what they perceive as
an “expansionist enemy state”. Hezbollah falls under the second category for the masses in the
Middle East. It even has Sunni and Christian supporters. If anything, Israel’s recent and relentless air
raids on Lebanon have made Hezbollah all the more persistent in putting up a fight and all the more
popular.
The undeniable reality of the Lebanese Shiites being brutalized over and over again throughout the
last couple of decades because of their unwavering support for Hezbollah raises a few questions
about terrorism. Israel’s endeavor of dismantling the “Party of God” once and for all came as a defying
and fierce assault on the whole of the southern community. There is no overlooking the facts and
figures that have arisen out of the July War. A thousand killed, a million displaced and for the most part
Shiites. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is resorting to a strategy of intimidation and coercion into
submission but it is a strategy ill-fitted for the well-known fiery spirit of the Shiites of Lebanon. This
major section of the Lebanese population has been ‘meddled with’ well before Hezbollah even
appeared on the political scene.
For the South, Nasrallah has always been and will remain a ‘freedom fighter’. He is a man who
addressed their needs and pains when the rest of the Lebanese community was busy making
economic progress and turning its back on their misery. When the South is being targeted it is pretty
easy for the rest of Lebanon to worry about economic regress and damaged infrastructure and thus
to blame Hezbollah for inciting “the monster”. But then again they’re not the ones being buried under
the remains of their own homes.
How can Israel hope to live in peace when it adopts a policy of mass destruction every time it feels a
tiny bit violated? If they really want to live in peace they might as well wipe off generations of would-be
Hezbollahians. I will even go further and wonder if that is not what is being exactly done at this very
moment. The world chooses to succumb to Israel’s politics of victimization because of such whimsy
statements as those of Iran’s Ahmadinejad, all the while ignoring that surrounding nations do have
their reasonable and valid demands.
When Nasrallah captured the two Israeli soldiers, he did so for a clear purpose. He embarked on this
wager to obtain the upper hand in his negotiations for the freeing of Lebanese prisoners.
(Remember?) Israel could have easily adopted his proposed negotiations through a third party if it
was really after the two prisoners. Instead it went after the ego of a whole entity, crushing those who
dared support Hezbollah. And it did so with US-manufactured weapons while at the same time
pointing accusing fingers at Iran and Syria for supporting Hezbollah.
In the western media the balance is always tipped in favour of the US-Israeli take on things yet every
once in a while we get to hear the informed voices of a few dissenters such as English Parliament
member George Galloway or American linguist and thinker professor Noam Chomsky. Their often
muffled assertions which are highly critical of American foreign policy let us know that Arab dissent is
indeed being taken into consideration by some in the west.
We must remember that confrontational ideologies take root amongst the marginalized, the trodden
and the ones whose plights are left unaddressed by the international community. There are two types
of hostility: manifest and dormant. The latter is often reactionary and a response to deeply rooted fears.
Whether these fears are sound or not is the heart of the problem. Most residents of the Middle East
look at Israel as an offensive state, not a self-protective one. They have their suspicions concerning its
long-term plans and these suspicions are especially heightened with talk of a “new Middle East”
circulating around.
America wasn’t always a hated country. There was a time when American idealists such as President
Woodrow Wilson made Arabic opinion favourable towards America. When the King-Crane
Commission was sent to Damascus in 1919 to investigate the wishes of the Arab people, they
requested American patronage, if any was to be established in the region. Gives us something to
think about.
### ### ###
Hania Mourtada is a Global Affairs Intern, The Atlantic Affairs.
By Hania Mourtada
Posted: Aug 15, 2006
History has left us with a grave legacy. It is a legacy of widespread distrust, backstabbing nations,
grand imperialistic ambitions and most of all extreme polarizations. Because we still carry the heavy
weight of this legacy which consists of a cluster of unresolved political ‘concerns’ and opposing
worldviews, we are veering off towards an era that will continue to foster antagonisms.
At this juncture, it seems pretty reasonable to think of the Middle East as a ticking time bomb. As to why
this is the case, some would have us believe that it is simply because a few Middle Eastern tyrannical
regimes have suddenly taken it upon themselves to support grim fundamentalist leaders who relish
‘blowing up’ those who they deem as ‘the infidels’. Thus in a flash, our world has yet again become
dangerously polarized.
There are those who like to proclaim that holy wars are being waged against the West (to be exact, the
United States) because of the values it endorses and even because of the privileges it enjoys. Then
again we have the considerable Muslim and Arab masses who feel their self-worth is slipping away
owing to Israel’s aggressive policy in their region.
Is the world really still waging holy wars in the 21st century? The answer is no to anyone willing to take
a deeper look at history.
When addressing the current clash between East and West, one must think less in terms of ‘cultural
clashes’ and more in terms of actual legitimate grievances. At a time when revolutionary Islamic
figures such as Al Zarqawi and Bin Laden keep cropping up on our TV sets making inflammatory
speeches about the “evil West”, hiding behind one-dimensional concepts such as “Islamic Fascists”
and religious fanaticism is certainly handy for the current American government and its allies. But all
the same, it does not really account for the problem. It is an overly simplistic view of the world that
allows the Bush administration to play out its interests in the Middle East and to carry out its
“democratizing experiments” which translates for the overwhelming Arab population as “making the
zone more accommodating for Israel”.
Moreover, these constant (and rather opportune) denouncements on the part of Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have ultimately led people to believe that Islam is practically
equivalent to Tyranny. (In the same way most Arabs tend to blur the line between Jews and Zionists.)
Is it fair to Muslims worldwide to see themselves categorized as prospective fascists?
Of course there is no denying that there is a good deal of religious fanaticism gaining momentum but
we should steer clear of grouping all Islamist militants under the one banner of unreasonable blood
hounding terrorists. There are those who attack to implement their ideology. Their tone is bullying,
their targets random and their ultimate goal is to enforce their dogma on others.
And there are those who put up a fight against the looming “aggressor”. Their tone is cynical, their
targets carefully calculated and their ultimate goal is self-preservation against what they perceive as
an “expansionist enemy state”. Hezbollah falls under the second category for the masses in the
Middle East. It even has Sunni and Christian supporters. If anything, Israel’s recent and relentless air
raids on Lebanon have made Hezbollah all the more persistent in putting up a fight and all the more
popular.
The undeniable reality of the Lebanese Shiites being brutalized over and over again throughout the
last couple of decades because of their unwavering support for Hezbollah raises a few questions
about terrorism. Israel’s endeavor of dismantling the “Party of God” once and for all came as a defying
and fierce assault on the whole of the southern community. There is no overlooking the facts and
figures that have arisen out of the July War. A thousand killed, a million displaced and for the most part
Shiites. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is resorting to a strategy of intimidation and coercion into
submission but it is a strategy ill-fitted for the well-known fiery spirit of the Shiites of Lebanon. This
major section of the Lebanese population has been ‘meddled with’ well before Hezbollah even
appeared on the political scene.
For the South, Nasrallah has always been and will remain a ‘freedom fighter’. He is a man who
addressed their needs and pains when the rest of the Lebanese community was busy making
economic progress and turning its back on their misery. When the South is being targeted it is pretty
easy for the rest of Lebanon to worry about economic regress and damaged infrastructure and thus
to blame Hezbollah for inciting “the monster”. But then again they’re not the ones being buried under
the remains of their own homes.
How can Israel hope to live in peace when it adopts a policy of mass destruction every time it feels a
tiny bit violated? If they really want to live in peace they might as well wipe off generations of would-be
Hezbollahians. I will even go further and wonder if that is not what is being exactly done at this very
moment. The world chooses to succumb to Israel’s politics of victimization because of such whimsy
statements as those of Iran’s Ahmadinejad, all the while ignoring that surrounding nations do have
their reasonable and valid demands.
When Nasrallah captured the two Israeli soldiers, he did so for a clear purpose. He embarked on this
wager to obtain the upper hand in his negotiations for the freeing of Lebanese prisoners.
(Remember?) Israel could have easily adopted his proposed negotiations through a third party if it
was really after the two prisoners. Instead it went after the ego of a whole entity, crushing those who
dared support Hezbollah. And it did so with US-manufactured weapons while at the same time
pointing accusing fingers at Iran and Syria for supporting Hezbollah.
In the western media the balance is always tipped in favour of the US-Israeli take on things yet every
once in a while we get to hear the informed voices of a few dissenters such as English Parliament
member George Galloway or American linguist and thinker professor Noam Chomsky. Their often
muffled assertions which are highly critical of American foreign policy let us know that Arab dissent is
indeed being taken into consideration by some in the west.
We must remember that confrontational ideologies take root amongst the marginalized, the trodden
and the ones whose plights are left unaddressed by the international community. There are two types
of hostility: manifest and dormant. The latter is often reactionary and a response to deeply rooted fears.
Whether these fears are sound or not is the heart of the problem. Most residents of the Middle East
look at Israel as an offensive state, not a self-protective one. They have their suspicions concerning its
long-term plans and these suspicions are especially heightened with talk of a “new Middle East”
circulating around.
America wasn’t always a hated country. There was a time when American idealists such as President
Woodrow Wilson made Arabic opinion favourable towards America. When the King-Crane
Commission was sent to Damascus in 1919 to investigate the wishes of the Arab people, they
requested American patronage, if any was to be established in the region. Gives us something to
think about.
### ### ###
Hania Mourtada is a Global Affairs Intern, The Atlantic Affairs.
| (c) 2006 New Criterion Foundation, London |
| Security. Ideologies. Multiculturalism. |