IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New WashPost editorial - "The Arab Paradox"
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40473-2001Oct10.html|The Arab Paradox]

Thursday, October 11, 2001; Page A32

ARAB NATIONS, including those considered allies of the United States, have been struggling with their response to the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan. If their contortions were not so familiar they would be hard to understand: After all, Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization are sworn enemies of the Egyptian and Saudi governments, which in turn depend on the United States for their security. But it took Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak three days to choke out a statement supporting "measures taken by the United States to resist terrorism"; and even then he coupled it with a parallel demand that Washington "take measures to resolve the Palestinian problem." Meanwhile, Mr. Mubarak's longtime foreign minister, Amr Moussa, now the secretary general of the Arab League, prompted first Arab states and then the 56-nation Islamic Conference to adopt a resolution yesterday opposing U.S. attacks on any Arab country as part of the anti-terrorism campaign -- a position that offers cover to Iraq's Saddam Hussein.
In effect, Mr. Mubarak and Mr. Moussa are backing both the military action of the U.S. alliance and the political position of Osama bin Laden, who on Sunday claimed that unjust American policies in Israel and Iraq justified his acts of mass murder. The world, Mr. Moussa said, needs to address the "causes" of the terrorism, and he suggested that a United Nations conference might be the best forum. There's little doubt what he has in mind: After all, Mr. Moussa only a couple of months ago led the attempt to hijack the U.N. conference on racism and revive the libel that "Zionism is racism."

Behind this contradictory rhetoric lies one of the central problems for U.S. policy in the post-Sept. 11 world: The largest single "cause" of Islamic extremism and terrorism is not Israel, nor U.S. policy in Iraq, but the very governments that now purport to support the United States while counseling it to lean on Ariel Sharon and lay off Saddam Hussein. Egypt is the leading example. Its autocratic regime, established a half-century ago under the banner of Arab nationalism and socialism, is politically exhausted and morally bankrupt. Mr. Mubarak, who checked Islamic extremists in Egypt only by torture and massacre, has no modern political program or vision of progress to offer his people as an alternative to Osama bin Laden's Muslim victimology. Those Egyptians who have tried to promote such a program, such as the democratic activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, are unjustly imprisoned. Instead, Mr. Mubarak props himself up with $2 billion a year in U.S. aid, while allowing and even encouraging state-controlled clerics and media to promote the anti-Western, anti-modern and anti-Jewish propaganda of the Islamic extremists. The policy serves his purpose by deflecting popular frustration with the lack of political freedom or economic development in Egypt. It also explains why so many of Osama bin Laden's recruits are Egyptian.

For years U.S. and other Western governments have been understanding of Mr. Mubarak and other "moderate" Arab leaders. They have to be cautious in helping the United States, it is said, because of the pressures of public opinion -- the opinion, that is, that their own policies have been decisive in creating. Though the reasoning is circular, the conclusion has been convenient in sustaining relationships that served U.S. interests, especially during the Cold War. But the Middle East is a region where the already overused notion that Sept. 11 "changed everything" may just turn out to be true. If the United States succeeds in making support or opposition to terrorism and Islamic extremism the defining test of international politics, as President Bush has repeatedly promised, then the straddle that the "moderate" Arabs have practiced for so long could soon become untenable. Much as it has valued its ties with leaders such as Mr. Mubarak, the Bush administration needs to begin preparing for the possibility that, unless they can embrace new policies that offer greater liberty and hope, they will not survive this war.


Emphasis added.

Very well said, IMO. I hope people are paying attention to these issues as much as they're paying attention to "public opinion" in places like Pakistan and Indonesia.

Cheers,
Scott.
New PingPingPingPingPing!
This is the kind of thing I've been screamin' about - we support monsters, who spawn monsters of their own.

What, do you think I was just talking about Israel?
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
New Yeah, like there's much of a choice.
He who refuses to fight with monsters gets eaten.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New It's not that at all...
Part of US policy is to support factions in these regions that the US can control (which is in the nature of US self defense, these regions control critical resources).

To do that, we support individuals who would put US interests ahead of the interests of their own people (ie: they're traitors at the core). Furthermore, they must use methods that are strong enough and ruthless enough to halt advances of individuals in their own countries that would represent their countries interests (rather than the US's).

In short, we do it to ourselves, and we're not likely to stop anytime soon.
New OT: Congrats on getting your picture back.
That white box was annoying...
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
New If you want to scream...
you should have asked the screamer to do it for you :-) .

It may be even much deeper than that. Two days after the September 11 attacks, I brushed off an old book I read circa 1993 from one of my favorite authors and absolutely favorite futurists... Alvin and Heidi Toffler. The book is entitled War and Antiwar... I think the gentleman/woman on this page has presented a decent synthesis of how this can apply now.

[link|http://www.ict.org.il/articles/infowar.htm|http://www.ict.org..../infowar.htm]

Beyond the rhetoric of First and Third World countries there is an underlying pattern and First/Second and Third Wave cultural clashes will become increasingly more frequent and blur the lines between traditional "national and/or religious lines". How far "we" will go depends on how you and I might define "we". Coming back to the global village (the Third Wave "society"), we will increasingly clash with First Wave societies because our fundamental goals are even more different than between 1st and 2nd and or 2nd and 3rd Wave...

This may be so much pseudo-intellectual garbage... But it is in this garbage pile that I have begun to root around for a few easy answers... Whatcha thinK?
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer

"God is dead"
Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead"
God

"Nietzsche has an S in it"
Celina Jones

"Putting the fun back into funatic"
New Re: easy answers
see sig
For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong
H. L. Mencken, Mencken's Metalaw
     WashPost editorial - "The Arab Paradox" - (Another Scott) - (6)
         PingPingPingPingPing! - (inthane-chan) - (5)
             Yeah, like there's much of a choice. - (marlowe) - (2)
                 It's not that at all... - (Simon_Jester)
                 OT: Congrats on getting your picture back. - (jb4)
             If you want to scream... - (screamer) - (1)
                 Re: easy answers - (Silverlock)

The website with matched socks.
115 ms