Barry Rubin hits on the head. It's ironic that for all the accusations against the Bush administration for politicizing intelligence, the New York Times et al still think they are on the side of the angels when they suppress news of Arab extremism:
The Region: Strange line of reasoning
By BARRY RUBIN
There is something very wrong with the Western reasoning process dealing with the Middle East. Wanting a good outcome, people distort reality, ignoring factors which show that a happy ending is simply not within easy reach.
Since this line of reasoning dominates so much of the debate, few ever see the absurd contradictions pointed out.
Exhibit No. 1: A liberal journalist in America's leading east coast newspaper writes that Muslims are reconsidering the extreme interpretations of their religion. The specific case: a challenge to the notion that a martyr (read: terrorist) going to heaven will get several dozen black-eyed virgins as a reward.
But the author offers no evidence. Virtually the entire article consists of an old story about a German scholar who claims the word "virgins" is a mistranslation of some other, perhaps more culinary reward.
A single publication by a non-Arab, non-Muslim Westerner is neither part of the Muslim debate, nor is it going to have any effect on it. Indeed, the fact that the scholar did not even dare publish his findings under his own name says far more about the condition of the world than anything else.
What is noteworthy is how few Muslims, especially Arabs living in the Arab world, are fighting the currently dominant extremist interpretations prompted by radical Islamists. These interpretations are actually gaining in power.
Exhibit No. 2: In the same week a conservative researcher writes an article in America's leading west coast newspaper to the effect that Arab liberals are flourishing and want American help. The article ridicules those who say that Arab liberalism is weak and wants to stay at arm's-length from the Americans.
Two quotes are cited as sole proof of this assertion. One comes from a noble writer of fiction who plays no part in political life; the other from an Arab journalist who has stated the exact opposite in a dozen articles.
The truth is that outside Kuwait there is not a single serious liberal party in the Arab world; that outside Egypt there is not a single liberal newspaper in the Arab world (the two in Egypt are both of small circulation).
Arab liberals show great courage in speaking out precisely because there are so few of them and they face such overwhelming odds.
Publicly, at least, they must struggle to reconcile their feelings that the prevalent Arab political ideas are ridiculous with their need to survive and their desire to have influence.
Arguably the most courageous Arab liberal gave a lecture at an obscure American university some months ago, a forum where he had little to fear from his government's repressive apparatus. When asked how Americans could help bring democracy to the Arab world, his sole recommendation was that they write Congress asking for a change in US policy away from supporting Israel and backing "dictatorships," without even a mention of how he felt about Iraq or naming any regimes.
Helping Arab liberals and hoping for a more moderate interpretation of Islam are good things. But one should not confuse a good goal with a false claim of its triumph
Wrongly assessing intelligence, whether it is about invading Iraq or the threat from radical Islamist terrorism, is not a good idea.
WHICH BRINGS us to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign claims that the real problem is that President George W. Bush was not been energetic enough in pressing for peace. If Kerry wins he will solve the problem by working hard and sending a special envoy to mediate.
Others assert that Bush is the one who will make the issue a priority and succeed if he wins a second term.
Yet most of these people admit there is no Palestinian leadership ready to pursue a compromise peace or implement commitments even if one was available.
Unfortunately, there are more signs of growing radicalism – an open call for fighting until Israel is destroyed – than there were five years ago; and this includes those in Fatah who criticize Yasser Arafat.
So what then is the basis for believing that harder work will bring success? What more telling sign is there of the Arab world's real atmosphere than Jordanian King Abdullah's recent major speech in which, despite being a moderate, he felt the only way possible to criticize Arafat and the Palestinian leadership was to accuse them of excessive moderation?
Abdullah defined the Palestinians' real problem and mistake as having offered Israel too many concessions.
Meanwhile, the man in Israel most identified with arguing that Arafat is a real partner for peace, to whom Israel should make concessions, stated privately not long ago that it disgusted him to say nice things about Arafat publicly because he had such low regard for his veracity and performance.
It isn't just apologists for terrorism and radicalism who misrepresent the evidence, but also the "well-intentioned," who think distorting reality can promote peace or moderation. Often they don't even realize they are doing so.
It is simply that any evidence pointing away from their preferred result is ignored. And that can be a deadly error.
jpost.com |
