MICHAEL MIRLISS
Staff Writer
Samuel Huntington, who predicted the “clash of civilizations,” has been getting much mileage out of his theory post Sept. 11. Naturally, the phrase is used in the West, not as an objective evaluation of the world climate, but as a euphemism for “the barbarians want to destroy our blessed civilization.”
These analysts were thrilled with the recent Islamic uproar over those Danish cartoons, making their familiar cries of Islamo-fascism at their intolerance of a free press. This was ample evidence that the secular West and mainstream Islam are incompatible, right? Islamists really do hate U.S. freedoms.
A look at the facts, however, shows that the Danish cartoonists had a clear objective to provoke, as evidenced by their tour of Egypt in which they paraded the newspaper cartoons and more unpublished material, portraying the prophet Mohammed as everything from a terrorist to a pedophile.
Denmark’s government is run by ultraconservatives and anti-Arab sentiment runs rampant in the land of this war-on-terror ally. The cartoons were not perceived as a few cartoonists expressing themselves, but quite justifiably, as another Western attack on all that Muslims consider sacred. And while this was allowed by the European free press, Holocaust and Armenian genocide denial are not. They seem to recognize the importance of prohibiting the provocation of certain groups, but not Muslims.
This kind of hypocrisy runs rampant in the United States as well. Those politicians who hail the Islamic “rejection” of the free press as an indication that they “hate our freedom,” are the same people who seek to pass sedition laws on the home-front, limiting freedom of speech in wartimes.
Some keen observers still remember the Christian reaction when Martin Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ,” hit theaters in 1988. Not only were there mass protests throughout the United States and Europe, but a theater in Paris was burned to the ground, killing one person. To understand why the Muslim protests became so violent, it is necessary to revisit the roots of the so-called “clash of civilizations.”
Muslims perceive the United States as having precipitated a war on the Arab world that began many years ago. This perception is not without merit. In 1958 President Eisenhower questioned the “campaign of hatred” against the United States. The answer came back from the National Security Counsel saying, “In the eyes of the majority of Arabs, the United States appears to be opposed to the goals of Arab (secular) nationalism.
They believe the United States is seeking to protect its interest in Near East oil by supporting the status quo and opposing political or economic progress.” In the late 50s, they “hated” the United States for blocking democracy and development.
Flash forward to the War on Terror.” The U.S. government’s apparent aim in fighting these wars has little to do with reducing the threat of terror. Take the case of Syria, which is on the United States list of states sponsoring terrorism. In 2004 the Bush administration imposed further sanctions on the nation despite the admission that Syria had not been implicated in terrorist acts in many years and had been cooperative in providing the United States with intelligence on al-Qaeda and other such groups.
Why the sanctions then? The answer lies in how quickly Clinton was prepared to take Syria off the list if they agreed to U.S.-Israeli peace terms. The priority here is the continued backing of the Israeli occupation of Palestine through economic support, or lack thereof, in Syria’s case.
Even more evident was the invasion of Iraq and former U.S.-backed dictator, Saddam Hussein, which U.S. intelligence agencies had warned would increase the risk of terror.
The National Intelligence Agency reported that “Iraq and other possible conflicts in the future could provide recruitment, training grounds, technical skills and language proficiency for a new class of terrorists who are ‘professionalized.’” Indeed, 5 percent to 10 percent of the foreign insurgency had no prior record of association with terrorist groups.
The ongoing U.S. economic relationship with the Saudi royal family is another telling aspect of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The arrangement provides for the flow of oil and money to the West while domestic human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and impoverished citizens in the region are ignored. It’s not surprising that 16 of the 20 terrorists involved in Sept. 11 hailed from Saudi Arabia. This country, led by an ultra-fundamentalist regime, has been a breeding ground for terrorists for many years, but that doesn’t prevent the United States from doing business with them.
The answer to why Middle-Eastern Arabs hate us doesn’t have much to do with Islamic fundamentalism. Suicide terrorism expert Robert Pape argues that al-Qaeda-style terror is “a product of a simple strategic goal: to compel the United States and Western allies to withdraw combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula and other Muslim countries.”
They may be right, based on the fact that this is exactly what bin Laden and followers espouse, consistently condemning any Muslim who would attempt to conquer new lands. Case in point, bin Laden and his U.S.-funded terror group deserted Russia after the Soviets had retreated from Afghanistan in the late 80s
This civilization is not comprised of a “backwards” people who hate our freedom and Western culture, but a people who feel wronged by the only remaining world super power and want their grievances addressed.
After Sept. 11, a vast majority of jihadis viewed al-Qaeda as a dangerous fringe group, but the Bush administration decided that rather than tap into that sentiment, they would forcibly change unfriendly Middle-Eastern regimes. In doing so, the United States proved to be bin Laden’s most “indispensable ally” by legitimating al-Qaeda’s contention that the U.S. was at war with all Arabs and further radicalizing the Middle East. There are a few reasons why the cartoons caused such a violent uproar.
With the West at war with Arabs, dehumanization of the enemy is seen as an attempt to rationalize violence against them. If they are just terrorists or just uncivilized barbarians and not complex human beings, then why not clash against their civilization and ignore their legitimate demands? In protesting, Muslims were fighting against the stereotypes that allow Western powers to violate their human rights.
04-13-2006