|
 f
all the questions, perhaps the most delicate is, What do Arabs in
general really think of all this? But this question, though delicate,
is of utmost importance.
The Western
media have long been skittish about reporting Arab public opinion.
It’s almost impossible to find out what is in the Arab press:
For that you have to go to specialty places like the Middle
East Media and Research Institute. If an Israeli extremist hiccups,
it’s reported in all the major American papers the next day,
along with editorial denouncements. Arab extremists can write virtual
Mein Kampfs — and no one notices, or is too polite to
mention it.
This is, among
other things, a subtle form of racism, because it entails treating
Arabs as children, not really responsible for what they say, or
needing protection from the broader judgment of the world. Those
who really respect Arab people listen to what they say, and
do not make excuses for them.
I hereby provide
a speck of evidence that some would dismiss as “anecdotal” —
a popular putdown when you’re made uncomfortable by what someone
is reporting. I know an Egyptian woman, very well educated, widely
traveled — about as “Westernized” and “liberal” as you can
get in Arab society — and she e-mailed me to tell me, essentially,
that Osama bin Laden, even if he really existed, couldn’t
have planned and carried out the attacks of Sept. 11, it must have
been you-know-who: the Jews, or, more specifically, the Israelis,
the Zionists. The father of terrorist Muhammed Atta has said the
same thing — It couldn’t have been my son; it must have
been the Jews. The father is a distinguished Cairo lawyer.
A bereaved
dad, of course, you can understand. Others are harder to make excuses
for, even if they have been swimming in official lies all their
lives.
It’s difficult
to say which is the more revolting: those in the Middle East who
accept the obvious fact that Sept. 11 was the work of Arab terrorists,
and rejoice over it; or those who do not accept the obvious, and
blame the Jews.
There is a
swell belief running around the Middle East, and it is finding currency
here at home, too, among certain Arab-Americans: You see, not only
did Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, plan and execute the
attacks, they warned Jews — 4,000 of them, in fact (this is
a very precise lie) — who were in the buildings to give them
time to escape. As a colleague of mine mentioned, this is what is
known, throughout history, as blood libel. And it has horrible consequences.
The Western
media are getting bolder about reporting such things, although they
are still shy. They would rather cling to the view, and purvey the
view, that the bin Ladenites constitute a tiny, tiny sect, with
the vast majority of Arabs deploring their acts. If this were so,
it would be a tremendous comfort. But reports from all over the
Arab world provide reason for concern that it is not so.
Here is Prof.
Fawaz A. Gerges, a Middle East scholar at Sarah Lawrence College,
writing in Monday’s New York Times. Fresh from a conference
in Beirut, he reports, “Compounding the discrepancy between American
and Middle Eastern perspectives is a genuine skepticism about the
culpability of Muslims in the terror attacks. Engrained suspicions
raised by Muslim opinion makers reflect deeply held sentiments among
the general public.
“Many
Middle Easterners with whom I spoke advanced conspiracy theories
to explain what had happened. A Christian director of a Western
bank in Beirut claimed that only ‘international Zionism possessed
the means and the will to undertake this hideous act.’ These
nonsensical views are held by both the man on the street and some
in the intelligentsia. It remains to be seen whether the pitilessly
aggressive statements by Mr. bin Laden and Al Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman
Abu Ghaith will erase such beliefs among the Muslim public.”
Gerges goes
on to say, “Those individuals who did accept the culpability of
the Arab perpetrators usually drew a comparison between the terror
attacks on America and shortsighted, unjust American policies that
have alienated and antagonized most of the rising social classes
in the region. In short, they believed America has reaped what it
sowed.
“Most
of the participants, who represent the pulse of mainstream Muslim
public opinion, strongly cautioned their governments against joining
the American coalition on terrorism and warned that people would
oppose any sustained military assault on a Muslim country, including
Afghanistan.”
And so on.
Gerges writes with extreme delicacy — almost grudgingly —
but, despite himself, he conveys the truth of the matter. And remember,
he is writing largely about “the cream of the crop,” the elites,
those who attend conferences.
In keeping
with his type, Gerges argues that America must do more to assure
the “Arab street” — and the conference halls, apparently —
that we mean no harm, except to terrorists. In one especially remarkable
sentence, he complains that “American embassies in the Middle East
have long been impenetrable castles separated from the local communities.”
Gee, wonder why that is. How many of our ambassadors and other diplomats
have been killed over there — including Amb. Cleo Noel, on
direct orders from Yasser Arafat? How many presidents of the American
University of Beirut have been killed?
Not impenetrable
enough, evidently.
Our very worst
fear is that radical Islam will prove the new Communism, with which
we have to be at war, whether cold or hot, for decades to come.
If the United States acts decisively now, “ending” (as Paul Wolfowitz
says) or dissuading those regimes that support terrorism or are
inclined to do so, we could deter or drastically shorten such a
war — would “do future generations a favor,” as the president
says.
In the present context, it would be wrong not to mention a brilliant
and chilling piece in the October Commentary magazine: “Oslo:
The Peacemongers Return,” by Norman Podhoretz. The piece was written
before 9/11, but it is all too relevant. It includes long quotations
from the Arab press, obtained from the aforementioned Middle East
Media and Research Institute, and it is far from an optimistic piece:
but it rings terribly true. It asks the question (if I may interpret),
When we will come to terms with what our enemies are saying, and
vowing to do to us, and, in fact, doing to us? The piece is not
available online, but is worth any effort to get. For decades, Podhoretz
has been teaching uncomfortable truths about the Middle East and
other subjects, and now, more than ever, he is must-reading.
Now is not the time for finger-pointing, we are told, and that’s
undoubtedly right: But we should not shrink from learning lessons,
and the USS Cole ought to be revisited, as often as necessary.
The feelings of President Clinton and his foreign-policy team are
not, at this point, the foremost consideration. The response to
that terrorist attack on an American vessel — or an act of
war, if you prefer — was, essentially, nil. Those who did it,
boasted about it. They composed poetry and sang songs about it!
And they paid no price. The (nearby) Yemeni government did not,
apparently, even feel a pinkie of American pressure. The incident
was all but swept under the rug. And, really, it was just a few
sailors, so far away. More than that had been killed at Khobar Towers,
by Iranian-sponsored terrorists. Who cared, ultimately? How many
Americans even knew?
No wonder our
enemies felt emboldened to carry out yet greater attacks. A colleague
reminded me of a French saying: “Appetite comes with eating.” Success
in terrorism prompts more — and more daring — terrorism,
and it is now incumbent on the American military to make the terrorists
pay beyond their worst nightmares. It’s not simply a question
of revenge; it’s a matter of deterrence.
The haunting
question has been raised: What do we owe the dead? What do we owe
the dead of Sept. 11, and the dead on the Cole, and all the
others over the years? Vernon Walters, the retired general and diplomat,
gives the only acceptable answer: That it not be allowed to happen
again. That is the true and worthy goal.
In the continuing debate over whether our support of Israel is to
“blame,” both sides make excellent points, and both are, of course,
right: Yes, they hate us because of Israel. Yes, they would hate
us regardless. We are the “Great Satan” ; Israel is the “Little
Satan.” Satans all around.
I am reminded
of another “incident” of state-sponsored terrorism, or rather, another
act of war against the United States, mistakenly characterized as
terrorism: the “Iranian hostage crisis,” in which the government
in Teheran — basically — held our personnel captive for
444 days (until January 20, 1981, when Ronald Reagan took the oath
of office). The Iranian Muslims, in their fevered denunciations
of us, didn’t much mention Israel; they didn’t exactly
bleed for Palestinian refugees. They just hated the fact of the
free West, led by the United States.
It could be
that, more than 20 years later, we are paying for our ineffectuality
in Iran, too. And in Lebanon. And so on.
Yet another question to be considered is that of the massive aid
the United States has been giving to Arab governments and societies
over several decades. People in all times and places occasionally
bite the hand that feeds them. Could there be an element here of
resenting, hating, and turning on one’s helper?
To rephrase
the question, If Washington cut off Arab nations entirely, or significantly
lessened its largesse, would the “street” (or the conference rooms
or the editorial offices or the faculty lounges) hate us more?
As many have pointed out, the U.S. military has saved, or endeavored
to save, Muslim lives in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Balkans,
and elsewhere. One does not expect an outpouring of gratitude, but
the fanatical detestation is mind-boggling to many, and ought to
be.
Reading about the calling up of the National Guard, and watching
them go off to war, my wife, ever alert, couldn’t help making
a political point: All those who dumped on Quayle and George W.
for serving in the National Guard — are they so contemptuous
of the Guard now (not that they themselves, in most cases, did as
much as the men they scorned)?
Many readers have written to ask, What to read? What books do you
recommend to further one’s understanding of the Middle East?
Herewith a
few suggestions: Anything by Bernard
Lewis, dean of Middle East scholars — Semites
and Anti-Semites is particularly brilliant, and illuminating.
Then, anything by Elie
Kedourie, hometown, Baghdad. Then, a book by a friend and colleague
of both Lewis and the late Kedourie, NR senior editor David
Pryce-Jones: The
Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs (touted in
this space before).
Also: Martin
Gilbert’s Israel:
A History, Conor Cruise O’Brien’s The
Siege, Fouad Ajami’s Dream
Palace of the Arabs, and a book about Saddam Hussein’s
Iraq by Kanan Makiya entitled, perfectly, Republic
of Fear.
That should
hold you.
A dip into the mailbag: In response to a previous item concerning
“racial profiling,” a reader contributed this bit of family history:
“I am a second-generation Italian-American. Sometime after my 40th
birthday, when going through the papers of a deceased uncle, I discovered
a document showing my family to have been victims of racial profiling.
It was a letter from the FBI, addressed to the eldest English-speaking
male, written shortly after the end of the Second World War, informing
him that he could now pick up my family’s radios, cameras,
and hunting rifles from FBI headquarters in Manhattan. These items
had apparently been seized at the outbreak of the war.
“My uncle
fought with distinction in both the European and Pacific theaters,
as did his younger brother. My father (the baby of the family) wasn’t
old enough to participate (though he did join the National Guard
a decade later when he was of age). One of my mother’s uncles
served with the OSS behind enemy lines.
“Never
once, in my entire life, did I hear a complaint from any member
of my family about the actions taken by our government. They felt
no affront, demanded no compensation, in fact believed it to be
reasonable and prudent behavior in wartime. Similarly, I feel no
intrinsic right to reparations for real or imagined wrongdoings
against my ancestors. Had the U.S. done less, I venture to say,
we would have been disappointed. The issue is one of common sense
versus foolishly exposing the country to danger — not one of
prejudice.”
An unorthodox
view, indeed. Another reader sent the following: “Forget racial
profiling: Do national profiling. Almost none of the terrorists
were American citizens, and I doubt if very many people who take
the time and trouble to become naturalized citizens have terrorist
intentions (though I’m sure there are exceptions). When I cross
the border to the States [from Canada], I have my ID and birth certificate
ready, and I politely answer all questions put to me. I am asking
to come into their home, and I don’t feel they are obligated
to let me in if they have a reason not to, just as my neighbour
doesn’t have to invite me into his backyard pool if he chooses
not to. If you are a guest in a country, act like one or get booted
out.”
Finally, in
response to my assertion that Colin Powell is “the luckiest man
alive” — because he has a chance to correct the mistakes he
made in the Persian Gulf — a reader writes, “I had always thought
that title belonged to Ringo Starr.”
|
