This "Terrorism Unveiled" blog is going to be a good source of info. It's like opening a new window to read her.
The State of Affairs in the Middle East
What I've learned...
It’s been a month since I’ve stood on American soil, but I’ve learned more here in a month than I could learn in a year sitting in a classroom at my university.
So many new experiences and concepts continue to confront me daily. It takes a concentrated effort to fully synthesize my experiences and analyze them into a framework that helps me to understand better my own efforts here and the state of this region in general.
While it may be too premature to make concrete determinations about the Middle East, its people, state of affairs and prospects for the future, I can detail some overarching concepts that I have noticed. These may or may not change after further experience.
1. Israel is a problem.
When I say “problem,” I do not mean that I am opposed to the Israeli state or its people. But you cannot possibly understand the magnitude of Arab hate for Israel unless you are here daily. The hate for Israel muddles every aspect of politics. You can be on the subject of politics in China and somehow, someway Israel is at fault. This is a problem.
While I support Israel’s fight against terrorism and right to exist, I also lend credence to some Palestinian grievances. But, Israel is always blamed at the Palestinian Leadership seems to never be held culpable. At this point, I am in no position to “suggest” a course of action, but I can say that the problem is becoming worse due to the large revival of Islam that is occurring in this area.
2. The Revival of Islam
This scary, but very true trend is rocking the Arab world with more fervor than ever. This revival is a phenomenon that is affecting many of the youth in the Arab world and honest dialogue is needed concerning the source of this resurgence of Islamist sentiment. I have heard numerous times that if you look at a University of Jordan yearbook from 40 years ago, you would maybe find 4 women out of 100 wearing the hijaab (head covering). Today, it is hard to find 4 out of 100 that are willing to show their hair.
This is a visual example of this trend. Often the hijaab is not religious in nature, meaning the girls here do not wear it to become closer to their religion, but from social pressures stemming from the resurgence of religious association. The Arab world is continuing the “us vs. them” mentality. In my opinion, the Arab Nationalism period began by Nasser in the 1960s laid the foundational framework that allows the religious fundamentalism to pervade into this society and travel at lightning-fast speeds. Of course the question then is, how much did Koranic/Ahadith/Islamic descriptions of the Muslim community (Ummah) as an “us vs. them” setup contribute to the success of Arab nationalism?
Today the statistics from the Sociology Department from the University of Jordan show that if elections were held now, among the youth voters, 40% would vote for the Islamic Action Party (Islamist Party). This is deadly for democracy, freedom, and tolerance.
This trend is very dangerous. Until Muslims are brave enough to stand up and admit that Islam has dark aspects as well as peaceful commandments, and that it must be reformed, true tolerance and freedom continues to be threatened.
3. There are peaceful Muslims
This is one of those “obvious” statements, but I think it’s too often overlooked. While I believe the Koran has very violent scriptures and is the most basic source for terrorism today, many Muslims have chosen to ignore these verses.
I had the wonderful opportunity to live with a family in a rural area near Madaba. They were the most down-to-earth people I have met here thus far. They condemned HAMAS and said that bin Laden is un-Islamic. While I have to disagree that bin Laden’s actions are “un-Islamic,” at least from a traditional view, I get their point. They have reformed Islam, and from their reformed Islam, his actions are extremely horrific.
It is always encouraging to have candid relationships with those who refuse extreme orthodoxy and adapt religion to their day and time.
4. Woman are oppressed in the Middle East
Woman are generally not equal to men in most countries, at least socially. However, many countries have codified laws making men and women equal. This is simply not the case in the Middle East.
There is an incredibly long history of the subjugation of women in this area that stems from numerous reasons, none of which can be completely measured for their effect. In my view, this is partly from religious suppression, which also morphed into cultural/social traditions. (For example, Christian women in the Arab world are just as subjugated as Muslim women).
The woman in the home that I lived in Madaba was forced to serve her husband at his every whim. She never got to leave the house, she was not allowed to work, and if she went outside she had to cover her head so her husband’s “honor” would not be breached.
Marriage is the biggest goal of women in the Arab world, not education, happiness, or freedom. Birthing a male is the prime purpose of women in the Arab world, and if they are barren, they are considered less than human. “A tree which bares no fruit deserves to be cut down” is a saying here. A woman is shamed the rest of her life if she cannot give her husband a son, and often he will take a second wife and only give the barren wife enough money to eat.
As much as the male dominates here, it seems females are culpable in that they will not breakaway from these traditions. Females are their own worst enemies in this fight. They are the primary ones who gossip of others being “charmutas” (whores) if they do not wear the veil, if they do not please their husbands, or if they do not have children. They still view their role as a supplier to their husband and seem somewhat complacent with their fate.
5. Democracy has many foes and many supporters
Democracy has never taken hold with staunch legitimacy in the Middle East even after the modernization of many areas. In my view, a large amount of this is due to the role of Islam and its influence on the social fabric of society. Islam, in its most traditional form as well as the greatly politicized forms, is quite illiberal. Shariah law as given to the Muslim Ummah directly from Allah cannot be altered. Shariah law allows for no man-made laws, the most fundamental democratic value. Islam also contributes to Muslims to view themselves as Muslims before nationals of a sovereign state, another precondition for the democratic process.
While the religion itself cannot be completely blamed, as we see democracy in Turkey (of course it’s not the best example), it seems to have affected the social fabric in the stifling of dissent in order to support the integrity of the Muslim Caliphate. This charts far back into history as the use of religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc) works well for maintaining control. It also seems that the Islamic era was so area-specific in the Middle East and during the period leading up to the Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment thinking in the West, the Middle East was still focused on its past “glory.”
However when polled, many Jordanians (over 90%) feel that democracy is the best possible form of government. Yet, as I detailed in an earlier post, if completely free elections were held, studies show that Islamists would win a majority. So democracy as a process seems to be supported even when democracy as the end goal as a stable government framework is called into question (Islamists parties hope to gain power in order to reinstate Islamic law and political rule).
Israeli-Palestinian Question
Today’s lecture on the US roadmap for the Israeli/Palestine issue was by a researcher at the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan. He ferociously condemned Bush and especially Sharon, but to my pleasure, he had equal criticism for Arafat and the PLO. Here are some notes from the lecture:
• The key to Middle Eastern politics is outside intervention
• Most everything revolves around the Arab-Israeli conflict in the ME
• Historically American involvement is for 4 reasons, in order:
o To contain the Soviets
o To have access to 2/3 of the world’s oil
o To curb radical Islamists and sustain pro-Western governments
o To secure and provide for the well-being of Israel
• American role is part of the problem, not the solution, although the region needs the help of American in solving the problem
• Israel continues to defy the international community
• These are his opinions
o It’s in the best interest of peace in the region to get rid of Bush
o Arafat is horrible and we must get rid of him as well
o Sharon is a warmonger and we must get rid of him
o All Arab governments are corrupt and genuine change must occur through the help of the United States, not just cosmetic change
• The Arab masses failed because their intellect failed to create rational public opinion
• Bush is no different than Sharon
He argued that the Israelis use the excuse of security in order to implement “the wall” and to continue occupying the territory that they were supposed to return after 1967.
He also argued Arafat must be taken out and there must be a better PLO that makes institutional changes in society that allow for actual representation of the Palestinians rather than ripping them off. In this aspect, the Palestinians can finally settle on a peace plan that accepts a two-state solution.
I argued that security IS an issue to the Israeli government and that a state can’t realize a peace process when there are HAMAS suicide bombers threatening the basic fundamentals of a democratic society and state.
He retorted that only 6% of the population is involved with active violence.
To this, I said that it’s unfortunate that 80% of the population follow the ideology of HAMAS to which he corrected, “the tactics of HAMAS.”
I also added that this was the phenomenon of terrorism: it only takes a small amount to exact such a large amount of fear. This is how it’s asymmetrically viable.
To this, he argued that Israel engages in the same practices (and furthers terrorism of the other side) by demolishing Palestinian homes, kindergartens, killing innocent bystanders who are not in any way fighting or inciting violence.
I also argued that I see no way that a peaceful coexistence can work when so many children are taught by Palestinian curriculums that Jews and Israelis are evil, that Jews are the cause of all the world’s problems and that it is one of the best goals in life to be a shahid (martyr---yes, the school’s actually teach that it is good for children to want to grow up and kill themselves).
He retorted that 25% of Israeli curriculums teach that Arabs are far inferior to Jews and advocate violence and a complete occupation of all land in the area.
Then he argued that violence isn’t inherent in the Palestinians and that violence is a result of economic, personal, and cultural degradation and loss of dignity once they were expelled from the land they lived on. He also argued that HAMAS and Ariel Sharon are very much the same as in right-wing fanatics, just on opposite sides.
He fully supported a two-state solution and the right for Israel to exist (he even studied there for quite a few years).
I support a two-state solution, because let’s face it---if it’s a one-state deal, the amount of Palestinians will far exceed the Israelis in a few years and will be able to take over in this democratic state. Just as much as it’s crazy to think the Palestinians should retake all the land and the Jews should move to Minnesota, it’s also crazy to think that all the Palestinians should be expelled from where they’ve had homes for years.
terrorismunveiled.com |
