America vs. The Narrative
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN New York Times Op Ed, November 29, 2009
What should we make of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who apparently killed 13 innocent people at Fort Hood?
Here’s my take: Major Hasan may have been mentally unbalanced — I assume anyone who shoots up innocent people is. But the more you read about his support for Muslim suicide bombers, about how he showed up at a public-health seminar with a PowerPoint presentation titled “Why the War on Terror Is a War on Islam,” and about his contacts with Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni cleric famous for using the Web to support jihadist violence against America — the more it seems that Major Hasan was just another angry jihadist spurred to action by “The Narrative.”
What is scary is that even though he was born, raised and educated in America, The Narrative still got to him.
The Narrative is the cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11. Propagated by jihadist Web sites, mosque preachers, Arab intellectuals, satellite news stations and books — and tacitly endorsed by some Arab regimes — this narrative posits that America has declared war on Islam, as part of a grand “American-Crusader-Zionist conspiracy” to keep Muslims down.
Yes, after two decades in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny — in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, post-earthquake Pakistan, post-tsunami Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan — a narrative that says America is dedicated to keeping Muslims down is thriving.
Although most of the Muslims being killed today are being killed by jihadist suicide bombers in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Indonesia, you’d never know it from listening to their world. The dominant narrative there is that 9/11 was a kind of fraud: America’s unprovoked onslaught on Islam is the real story, and the Muslims are the real victims — of U.S. perfidy.
Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11, partly to send a message of deterrence, but primarily to destroy two tyrannical regimes — the Taliban and the Baathists — and to work with Afghans and Iraqis to build a different kind of politics. In the process, we did some stupid and bad things. But for every Abu Ghraib, our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders.
The Narrative was concocted by jihadists to obscure that.
It’s working. As a Jordanian-born counterterrorism expert, who asked to remain anonymous, said to me: “This narrative is now omnipresent in Arab and Muslim communities in the region and in migrant communities around the world. These communities are bombarded with this narrative in huge doses and on a daily basis. [It says] the West, and right now mostly the U.S. and Israel, is single-handedly and completely responsible for all the grievances of the Arab and the Muslim worlds. Ironically, the vast majority of the media outlets targeting these communities are Arab-government owned — mostly from the Gulf.”
This narrative suits Arab governments. It allows them to deflect onto America all of their people’s grievances over why their countries are falling behind. And it suits Al Qaeda, which doesn’t need much organization anymore — just push out The Narrative over the Web and satellite TV, let it heat up humiliated, frustrated or socially alienated Muslim males, and one or two will open fire on their own. See: Major Hasan.
“Liberal Arabs like me are as angry as a terrorist and as determined to change the status quo,” said my Jordanian friend. The only difference “is that while we choose education, knowledge and success to bring about change, a terrorist, having bought into the narrative, has a sense of powerlessness and helplessness, which are inculcated in us from childhood, that lead him to believe that there is only one way, and that is violence.”
What to do? Many Arab Muslims know that what ails their societies is more than the West, and that The Narrative is just an escape from looking honestly at themselves. But none of their leaders dare or care to open that discussion. In his Cairo speech last June, President Obama effectively built a connection with the Muslim mainstream. Maybe he could spark the debate by asking that same audience this question:
“Whenever something like Fort Hood happens you say, ‘This is not Islam.’ I believe that. But you keep telling us what Islam isn’t. You need to tell us what it is and show us how its positive interpretations are being promoted in your schools and mosques. If this is not Islam, then why is it that a million Muslims will pour into the streets to protest Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, but not one will take to the streets to protest Muslim suicide bombers who blow up other Muslims, real people, created in the image of God? You need to explain that to us — and to yourselves.”
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Palestinian freeze demand - emblematic and a red herring
For over decades, Israeli concessions have never been "enough." The Jerusalem Post editorial, below, defines the conflict to hinge on the refusal of the Palestinian leadership to accept Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and thus questions if Israeli concessions, short of national suicide, will ever be "enough" for the Arabs
"It's not enough"
Editorial in the Jerusalem Post, Nov. 26, 2009
With the patience of a taxi driver at a red light about to turn green, the Palestinian leadership responded to Wednesday's announcement of an Israeli moratorium on new settlement building with: "It's not enough!"
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's unprecedented moratorium is both substantive and symbolic - the appropriate response to a Palestinian settlement freeze demand that is both emblematic and a red-herring.
THE DISPUTE between Palestinians and Israelis is not about settlements. It hinges on whether the Arabs are willing to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as the state of the Jewish people within any boundaries.
Some find it convenient to imagine that the clash between the Zionist and Arab causes has transitioned to a non-zero sum game. That is hardly the dominant view in Israel.
In 1920, the international community gave Britain the responsibility of establishing a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. But a year later London turned over eastern Palestine to Emir Abdullah and Transjordan was born. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
In 1937, the Peel Commission recommended dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Zionists consented. The Arabs... said no.
In 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Again, the Jews agreed. The Arab response was: "It's not enough" and they tried to throttle the newborn Jewish state. Israel survived while the Arabs took the West Bank and Gaza. Did they then form a Palestinian state? Of course not, because these territories alone were "not enough."
In 1967, the Arabs failed to push an Israel living within the 1949 Armistice Lines into the sea and the West Bank came into Israeli possession. Magnanimous in victory, Israel offered peace. The Arab response? "No peace, no recognition, no negotiations."
In 1977, Egypt's Anwar Sadat courageously embarked on the path of peace. Israel withdrew from all territory claimed by Egypt, and Menachem Begin, moreover, offered the Palestinians something they had never enjoyed - autonomy. Israeli forces would have been re-deployed as a prelude to final status negotiations. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
As a result of the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO leadership was invited to return from Tunis and set up a Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza. But a double-dealing Yasser Arafat never genuinely embraced this historic opportunity for reconciliation. Hamas intensified its terror campaign which claimed dozens of Israeli lives (well before the Baruch Goldstein Hebron massacre in February 1994). Ehud Barak twice - at Camp David (July 2000) and at Taba (January 2001) - offered Arafat a Palestinian state accompanied by extraordinary territorial and political concessions. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
When Israel unilaterally pulled its settlers and soldiers out of the Gaza Strip in 2005, the Arabs again said: "It's not enough."
In 2008, Ehud Olmert offered Mahmoud Abbas 93 percent of the West Bank, plus additional territory from Israel proper. Abbas did not even deign to say "It's not enough" - he just walked away.
Then in June of this year Netanyahu, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, unequivocally accepted a demilitarized Palestinian state. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
Generation after generation, decade after decade, Israeli concession after concession, the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to say, "It's not enough."
SO now the question is what will America do? Special Envoy George Mitchell reacted with sparing approval to Netanyahu's moratorium. "It falls short of a full settlement freeze, but it is more than any Israeli government has done before…" He then diluted this faint praise by coldly reiterating: "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."
A slightly more positive reaction came from Secretary of State Clinton who acknowledged that "agreed swaps" should be part of negotiations based on the 1967 lines.
To take additional risks for peace, Israelis must feel secure that the Obama administration wholly backs the 1967-plus formula. Washington needs to cajole Mahmoud Abbas back to the table to bargain in good faith, and it [the U.S. administration] should extract diplomatic gestures from its Arab allies in reciprocity for the premier's concessions.
Otherwise, the discouraging message that comes across to Israelis who want an agreement is that no matter what we do it will always "fall short" with this administration and never be "enough" for the Arabs.
"It's not enough"
Editorial in the Jerusalem Post, Nov. 26, 2009
With the patience of a taxi driver at a red light about to turn green, the Palestinian leadership responded to Wednesday's announcement of an Israeli moratorium on new settlement building with: "It's not enough!"
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's unprecedented moratorium is both substantive and symbolic - the appropriate response to a Palestinian settlement freeze demand that is both emblematic and a red-herring.
THE DISPUTE between Palestinians and Israelis is not about settlements. It hinges on whether the Arabs are willing to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as the state of the Jewish people within any boundaries.
Some find it convenient to imagine that the clash between the Zionist and Arab causes has transitioned to a non-zero sum game. That is hardly the dominant view in Israel.
In 1920, the international community gave Britain the responsibility of establishing a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. But a year later London turned over eastern Palestine to Emir Abdullah and Transjordan was born. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
In 1937, the Peel Commission recommended dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Zionists consented. The Arabs... said no.
In 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. Again, the Jews agreed. The Arab response was: "It's not enough" and they tried to throttle the newborn Jewish state. Israel survived while the Arabs took the West Bank and Gaza. Did they then form a Palestinian state? Of course not, because these territories alone were "not enough."
In 1967, the Arabs failed to push an Israel living within the 1949 Armistice Lines into the sea and the West Bank came into Israeli possession. Magnanimous in victory, Israel offered peace. The Arab response? "No peace, no recognition, no negotiations."
In 1977, Egypt's Anwar Sadat courageously embarked on the path of peace. Israel withdrew from all territory claimed by Egypt, and Menachem Begin, moreover, offered the Palestinians something they had never enjoyed - autonomy. Israeli forces would have been re-deployed as a prelude to final status negotiations. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
As a result of the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO leadership was invited to return from Tunis and set up a Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza. But a double-dealing Yasser Arafat never genuinely embraced this historic opportunity for reconciliation. Hamas intensified its terror campaign which claimed dozens of Israeli lives (well before the Baruch Goldstein Hebron massacre in February 1994). Ehud Barak twice - at Camp David (July 2000) and at Taba (January 2001) - offered Arafat a Palestinian state accompanied by extraordinary territorial and political concessions. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
When Israel unilaterally pulled its settlers and soldiers out of the Gaza Strip in 2005, the Arabs again said: "It's not enough."
In 2008, Ehud Olmert offered Mahmoud Abbas 93 percent of the West Bank, plus additional territory from Israel proper. Abbas did not even deign to say "It's not enough" - he just walked away.
Then in June of this year Netanyahu, following in the footsteps of his predecessors, unequivocally accepted a demilitarized Palestinian state. The Arab response? "It's not enough."
Generation after generation, decade after decade, Israeli concession after concession, the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to say, "It's not enough."
SO now the question is what will America do? Special Envoy George Mitchell reacted with sparing approval to Netanyahu's moratorium. "It falls short of a full settlement freeze, but it is more than any Israeli government has done before…" He then diluted this faint praise by coldly reiterating: "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."
A slightly more positive reaction came from Secretary of State Clinton who acknowledged that "agreed swaps" should be part of negotiations based on the 1967 lines.
To take additional risks for peace, Israelis must feel secure that the Obama administration wholly backs the 1967-plus formula. Washington needs to cajole Mahmoud Abbas back to the table to bargain in good faith, and it [the U.S. administration] should extract diplomatic gestures from its Arab allies in reciprocity for the premier's concessions.
Otherwise, the discouraging message that comes across to Israelis who want an agreement is that no matter what we do it will always "fall short" with this administration and never be "enough" for the Arabs.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Islamic Imperialism: The Ongoing Tragedy of the Middle East - Thomas O. Hecht
The Current Radical Islamist Challenge : Today, it is politically correct to say that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims want to live in peace. This may be true, but in light of worldwide Muslim terrorist acts in Bali, New York, the northern Chinese provinces, Mumbai, and Madrid, the reference to the religion of peace becomes questionable. Using such terms obfuscates the issue by causing a false optimism while diminishing the specter of the fanatics who rampage the globe in the name of Islam. The peaceful majority in Muslim lands is cowed into a non-existent force.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers No. 97, November 25, 2009
Dr. Thomas O. Hecht is the founder of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies and Chairman of its International Advisory Board.
The Current Radical Islamist Challenge : Today, it is politically correct to say that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims want to live in peace. This may be true, but in light of worldwide Muslim terrorist acts in Bali, New York, the northern Chinese provinces, Mumbai, and Madrid, the reference to the religion of peace becomes questionable. Using such terms obfuscates the issue by causing a false optimism while diminishing the specter of the fanatics who rampage the globe in the name of Islam. The peaceful majority in Muslim lands is cowed into a non-existent force.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers No. 97, November 25, 2009
Dr. Thomas O. Hecht is the founder of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies and Chairman of its International Advisory Board.
UN's IAEA votes: Iran must freeze project immediately
IAEA passes resolution rebuking Iran over cover-up [Nov. 28, 2009 ynetnews.com]
For first time since 2006, UN nuclear watchdog's governing body votes to censure Islamic republic for developing uranium enrichment site in secret, demands it freeze project immediately
Reuters
The resolution, passed by a 25-3 margin with six absentions, was the first by the 35-nation governing board in almost four years. With rare Russian and Chinese backing, it sent a message of international exasperation with Iran's nuclear secrecy and defiance.
But it was unclear whether the measure, sponsored by six world powers, would translate into crucial Russian-Chinese support for painful sanctions that Western leaders may push for if Iran does not begin to dispel fears about its nuclear ambitions soon.
Most developing nations on the International Atomic Energy Agency board, who are in a bloc that includes Iran, opposed the move, saying it would be provocative and counterproductive. Iran warned it would undermine its relations with the IAEA.
But supporters were provoked by the September revelation of a second enrichment site Iran had been building for at least two years, a subterfuge they said fanned suspicions of more secret sites that could be dedicated to making atom bombs.
An Iranian official said that the resolution jeopardizes talks between Tehran and six world powers on its atomic program and harms its cooperation with the agency.
The draft resolution urged Iran to immediately halt construction of the Fordow enrichment plant, located in a mountain bunker, and to clarify its original purpose and confirm it has no more hidden atomic facilities or clandestine plans for any. Iran denies it wants to build nuclear weapons, saying its atomic energy program is purely for peaceful purposes.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
IAEA: "We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us."
BBC November 26, 2009
Investigations into Iran's nuclear programme will reach a "dead end" unless Tehran starts to co-operate, the UN nuclear chief has warned.
Mohamed El Baradei told governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that there had been no movement on issues that needed to be clarified.
He said he was "disappointed" with Iran's rejection of a deal that would see its uranium processed overseas.
He spoke ahead of an IAEA vote on a resolution critical of Iran.
In September Iran was revealed to have a second uranium enrichment facility, deepening Western fears about the nature of its nuclear ambitions.
Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful energy purposes, but the US and other nations say its is seeking nuclear weapons.
'Outstanding issues'
Addressing IAEA governors in Vienna, Mr El Baradei said his inspectors had made no progress on areas which needed to be clarified in order to verify the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme.
"It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues," he said.
"We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us."
Tehran's late declaration of a second nuclear fuel enrichment facility had, he said, reduced "confidence in the absence of other nuclear facilities under construction in Iran which have not been declared".
And he called Iran's failure to agree to a US-backed plan under which its low-enriched uranium would be shipped overseas for processing into fuel disappointing.
The plan is seen as a way for Iran to get the fuel it needs, while giving guarantees to the West that it will not be used for nuclear weapons.
The BBC's John Leyne says that after years of taking a conciliatory tone, Mr El Baradei appears to have lost patience with the Iranians.
The IAEA chief, who steps down next month, spoke ahead of the vote on a resolution calling on Iran to halt construction of the recently-declared enrichment plant.
According to Reuters news agency, it also calls on Iran to comply with Security Council resolutions demanding a halt to uranium enrichment activity and allow IAEA inspectors access to its facilities.
If approved, it would be the first IAEA action against Iran in almost four years. The vote is expected either later in the day or on Friday.
BBC November 26, 2009
Investigations into Iran's nuclear programme will reach a "dead end" unless Tehran starts to co-operate, the UN nuclear chief has warned.
Mohamed El Baradei told governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that there had been no movement on issues that needed to be clarified.
He said he was "disappointed" with Iran's rejection of a deal that would see its uranium processed overseas.
He spoke ahead of an IAEA vote on a resolution critical of Iran.
In September Iran was revealed to have a second uranium enrichment facility, deepening Western fears about the nature of its nuclear ambitions.
Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful energy purposes, but the US and other nations say its is seeking nuclear weapons.
'Outstanding issues'
Addressing IAEA governors in Vienna, Mr El Baradei said his inspectors had made no progress on areas which needed to be clarified in order to verify the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme.
"It is now well over a year since the agency was last able to engage Iran in discussions about these outstanding issues," he said.
"We have effectively reached a dead end, unless Iran engages fully with us."
Tehran's late declaration of a second nuclear fuel enrichment facility had, he said, reduced "confidence in the absence of other nuclear facilities under construction in Iran which have not been declared".
And he called Iran's failure to agree to a US-backed plan under which its low-enriched uranium would be shipped overseas for processing into fuel disappointing.
The plan is seen as a way for Iran to get the fuel it needs, while giving guarantees to the West that it will not be used for nuclear weapons.
The BBC's John Leyne says that after years of taking a conciliatory tone, Mr El Baradei appears to have lost patience with the Iranians.
The IAEA chief, who steps down next month, spoke ahead of the vote on a resolution calling on Iran to halt construction of the recently-declared enrichment plant.
According to Reuters news agency, it also calls on Iran to comply with Security Council resolutions demanding a halt to uranium enrichment activity and allow IAEA inspectors access to its facilities.
If approved, it would be the first IAEA action against Iran in almost four years. The vote is expected either later in the day or on Friday.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Israel's Cabinet approves 10-month West Bank settlement freeze
Latest Update: 11.25.09, Ynetnews.com excerpt
Prior to the vote Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said a settlement construction freeze "allows us to present the world with a simple truth: the Israeli government wants to enter negotiations with the Palestinians, is taking practical steps in order to do so, and is very serious in its intentions of promoting peace."
Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer (Labor) said after the vote, "It’s an important and historic decision, one of the most important decisions this government has made. The decision would leave the Palestinians with only one choice – join the political negotiations. They have no reason to stall anymore."
Netanyahu earlier floated the idea of suspending construction in existing settlements. Wednesday's offer was the first time he has given a firm timeline for how long he is willing to stop the building.
Netanyahu stressed that the settlement freeze would not be implemented in east Jerusalem. "We do not put any restrictions on building in our sovereign capital," the prime minister said.
Latest Update: 11.25.09, Ynetnews.com excerpt
Prior to the vote Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said a settlement construction freeze "allows us to present the world with a simple truth: the Israeli government wants to enter negotiations with the Palestinians, is taking practical steps in order to do so, and is very serious in its intentions of promoting peace."
Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer (Labor) said after the vote, "It’s an important and historic decision, one of the most important decisions this government has made. The decision would leave the Palestinians with only one choice – join the political negotiations. They have no reason to stall anymore."
Netanyahu earlier floated the idea of suspending construction in existing settlements. Wednesday's offer was the first time he has given a firm timeline for how long he is willing to stop the building.
Netanyahu stressed that the settlement freeze would not be implemented in east Jerusalem. "We do not put any restrictions on building in our sovereign capital," the prime minister said.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
FBI: hate crimes based on religion target Jews 2/3 of the time
The FBI released its hate crimes statistics for 2008. Complete FBI stats are here.
Incidents based on religion increased 9% in 2008
There were 1,606 hate crime offenses motivated by religious bias in 2008. A breakdown of these offenses shows:
* 65.7 percent were anti-Jewish.
* 13.2 percent were anti-other religion.
* 7.7 percent were anti-Islamic.
* 4.7 percent were anti-Catholic.
* 4.2 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
* 3.7 percent were anti-Protestant.
* 0.9 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. (Based on Table 1.)
Incidents based on religion increased 9% in 2008
There were 1,606 hate crime offenses motivated by religious bias in 2008. A breakdown of these offenses shows:
* 65.7 percent were anti-Jewish.
* 13.2 percent were anti-other religion.
* 7.7 percent were anti-Islamic.
* 4.7 percent were anti-Catholic.
* 4.2 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
* 3.7 percent were anti-Protestant.
* 0.9 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. (Based on Table 1.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)