Not Barry Obama, unfortunately. Instead, Professor Barry Rubin.
(posted with permission)
Why We
Hear the Muslim World All Too Well
Message
to New York Times: Read your own op-ed page.
The
Times and other American media and
educational institutions are giving increasing amounts of space to
people from the Moslem-majority and Arabic-speaking states in the
apparent hope of understanding better their world view. Sometimes,
however, they have a hard time hearing what is being said.
Here
is what the newspaper’s editorial for February 8 claims and urges:
“We
don't know if there is any mixture of incentives or sanctions that
can wean Iran of its nuclear ambitions. But we are certain that the
Bush administration never tried to find it. This means not only
direct talks, but also far more persuasive diplomatic incentives,
including a credible offer of improved relations and security
guarantees.”
And
this, of course, is what the Obama administration is going to do with
Iran and Syria. Others urge the same techniques are applies to Hamas,
Hizballah, and even—though this is rarer—the Taliban and
al-Qaida.
But
to understand why this belief is so misguided one merely need
read…the Times of February 8, within inches of the
above-quoted editorial.
I’m
referring here to the truly shocking op-ed by Alaa al Aswany
entitled, “Why the Muslim World Can’t Hear Obama.”
A
better title would be, “Why the Muslim World Won’t Hear Obama.”
The
piece is overlong, convoluted, and not particularly well written. It
should be noted that the author, a novelist among other things, is
considered a moderate.
Alas,
for moderation in the Arab world.
There
are two themes: the one against Israel and the one against Arab
governments. Because these have not been resolved, the author says,
all of President Obama’s apologies and efforts are a big yawn.
So
what would the author—and presumably all the Arabs and Muslims—want
Obama and America to do? Well, to put it briefly, help overthrow all
the Arab governments and help wipe Israel off the map.
I
wrote the above sentence in a particularly blunt way but it really
does not exaggerate the message here.
First
of all, Egypt and other Arab states are dictatorships: “Here
in Egypt, we don't have previous or future presidents, only the
present head of state who seized power through sham elections and
keeps it by force, and who will probably remain in power until the
end of his days.”
Wait a
minute, though! Remember the last president of the United States, the
one who pushed for democracy and criticized the governmental systems?
The Arab world didn’t seem too thrilled about him. Egyptian
intellectuals screamed this was imperialist interference in internal
affairs and so on. So after all those years of bashing Bush
for—rightly or wrongly—proposing dictatorships be replaced with
democracy are we to believe that they will now bash Obama for
proposing to work with the existing regimes?
This,
of course, is an unsolvable problem. Whatever the United States does
here is going to be wrong. There is no way America can please Iran.
Well, I take that back. If America helps it overthrow all those bad
Arab dictatorships and replace them with Islamist regimes then Iran
will probably be happy.
And
Alaa al Aswany will be
able to read the Times more easily, as a political refugee
living in New York.
Then
there’s point two:
“We
expected him to address the reports that the Israeli military
illegally used white phosphorus against the people of Gaza. We also
wanted Mr. Obama, who studied law and political science at the
greatest American universities, to recognize what we see as a simple,
essential truth:
the right of people in an occupied territory to
resist military occupation.”
Regarding
“essential truth,” isn’t the Times supposed to publish
things that are factually correct? Israel has already been cleared of
the phony white phosphorus charge. So why is this article allowed to
repeat it? Here is indeed a lesson: people in the Arab world often
lie about you. No matter what you do, how much aid you give, how many
concessions you offer or implement, it will be said: you didn’t do
anything. Give more. Pay more. Apologize more.
Change more.
But
perhaps the most important and chilling sentence of the op-ed is
this, and if people were paying attention to such things nowadays
they would be thoroughly shocked:
“We
also wanted Mr. Obama, who studied law and political science at the
greatest American universities, to recognize what we see as a
simple, essential truth: the right of people in an occupied territory
to resist military occupation.”
What
are the implications of this sentence: that the United States should
endorse terrorism and violence in at least three conflicts. According
to the terrorist forces, Afghanistan and Iraq are under foreign
occupation. If Obama was to do as suggested, he would be backing
attacks not only on civilians and governments there but also the
killing of American soldiers.
As for
the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip,
south Lebanon, and much of the West Bank and still faces attacks. In
2000, Israel proposed to make peace based on a two-state solution
with a Palestinian state having its capital in Jerusalem. The
Palestinian side turned it down.
Since
Hamas and other radical forces assert that Israel is an occupying
power, attacking it—which includes firing rockets at civilian
targets—is legitimate. Moreover, if there is any occupation left,
it is due to the political strategy of the Palestinian Authority in
rejecting a political solution.
Yet
that is far from the entire problem here. For much or most of the
Muslim and Arab world views all of Israel as “occupied territory.”
The only way for occupation to end is for Israel to end. The author
here does not make clear what land is being discussed, though the
op-ed easily could have limited the territory in question to the West
Bank, Gaza Strip, and east Jerusalem. Have no doubt how most Muslims
and Arabs read the phrase about occupied territory: Obama must
abandon Israel altogether.
So
how can Obama appease or please the Muslim-majority world? We are
told by this moderate: by backing the right of Hamas and Hizballah to
attack Israel.
This,
then, is the supposed moderate position, the minimum way by which
Obama can make friends in the region. Clearly, the author here
doesn’t speak for everyone. Certainly the relatively moderate Arab
regimes and their supporters want more U.S. support for themselves.
Yet
there is much truth in this article’s stance. The only way for
America to “win over” this public opinion and the radical groups
is to surrender to them or join them. President Obama and editors of
the Times, please hear what you are being told here, and
despair of ever satisfying such enormous and dangerous demands by
some combination of charm and concessions.
# # #
