REGIMENTING AMERICANISM A SHORT CUT INTO A DIALOGICAL GLOBE

Regimenting Americanism:

‐ A Short Cut into a Dialogical Globe

Mohamed BELAMGHARI

First Edition

i

ii

Book Specifications

Book Title

Regimenting Americanism: - A Short Cut into a Dialogical Globe

Author’s Name

Mohamed BELAMGHARI

Genre

Social Life, Sociology

ISBN No.

978-1512054316

Language

English

Publication Year

2015

Edition

First Edition

Book Price

$9.99

No. of Pages

99

Page Size

8``x11.5``

Publisher & Printed By

EduPedia Publications Pvt Ltd D/351, Prem Nanar-3, Suleman Nagar, Kirari, Nagloi, New Delhi PIN-Code 110086, India Contact : +919557022047 or +919958037887 Email : [email protected]

iii

Table of Contents Dedication ……………………………………………………………………… v Acknowledgement ……………………………………………………………... vi Introduction ………………................................................................................. 1 I. Forging a Western- Islamic Apolitical Dialogue ........................................ 6 A.“New Beginnings”................................................................................. 10 1.

Beyond Hatred and Stereotypes ....................................................13

2.

Economic Development and Cooperation.....................................19

B.Promoting Human Rights and Democracy............................................25 i.

Life, Dignity and Equality.............................................................28

ii.

Democratizing the Globe: Globalizing America...........................33

II. Seeking Global Security …………………………………………………40 A.Terrorism: An Anathema to Civilized Societies ………………..….…45 i.

Characterizing Islam and Islamism ……………………..…….…48

ii.

The 9-11Trauma: A Lesson to Heed ………………………...…..55

B.Israeli-Palestinian Stalemate: A New Outlook………………………..62 i.

Denouncing violence: What for? ..................................................65

ii.

Freezing the Israeli Settlements: To What End? ..........................72

Conclusion.........................................................................................................80 Bibliography...............................................................................................…....85 Index …………………………………………………………………………. 89 iv

To my beloved parents To my grandmother whom I love so much To my brothers and sisters To my professor and supervisor Dr. Mohamed DELLAL To all my teachers to whom I am indebted a lot To all those I love and love me bock To all these people, I dedicate this humble work.

v

I would like to avail mys elf of the opportunity of expressing my deep gratitude to a number of people who contributed, in one way or another, to the realization of this humble work. For his seriousness, hardworking characteristics and encouragement, I would like to express my thankfulness to my professor, supervisor and big brother Dr. Mohamed DELLAL whose insightful remarks and hints have contributed a great deal to the way I should be reading and looking at things. I should also like to thank all my professors thanks to whom I have managed to humbly write and speak English. Special thanks to Dr. Mohammed EL Kouche, Dr. Dr. Hassan Hakim and Dr. Omar Bsaithi, to mention but a few, to whom I owe much. To my best roommate, friend and colleague I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing thanks to Limame BARBOUCHI. Many thanks go to my high school teacher Mustapha Alwajani for the efforts he exerts with the aim of bettering his students’ knowledge and perception of things. No less important are thanks to my friends: Youness Alouafi, Mounir Sanhaji, Najem Fawzi, Mourad Hdida and Amina Hddadi, to mention but a few.

vi

1

At a time filled with tensions, heated disputes and bloody wars, nations of the 21st century have become preoccupied with empowering their military foundations and seeking new alliances which would guarantee their triumph in case a third world war is to take place. In the middle of these tensions and war mongering attempts, the United States of America, as usual, has to remind the world of its role as “the super power”, and re-instigate the world’s anxiety by its usual interceding in the international laws or by its military interventions in many places like Iraq, Afghanistan or even the Middle East region under the purported noble mission of securing the whole world against terrorists, war mongers, or drug and arm traffickers. Moreover, the American unilateral strategies in the world have not only brought into light the American hostility, but the world’s opposition and an era of turbulence in which wars are being planned behind closed doors, and initiated through technological, medical and academic institutions. Historically, after the Second World War, especially the Post-Cold War when the USSR was defeated, the United States of America has come to enjoy an uncontested power and hegemony. Obviously, the overthrow of communism has launched a diametrically opposed era of unilateral policies advanced by the USA and, somewhat, moments in which the rest of the world has to express, every now and then, its anxiety and fear of the giant American guard.

In fact, history has provided, to a degree, truthful accounts of the American agenda that stresses the fact that the United States of America should always be at the top of the world, which automatically orients the other countries to be subservient and at the beck and call of this super power. Correspondingly, calls for dialogue and new beginnings were recurrent in the American political discourse. Successive American presidents have always expressed their desire to build 2

international bridges between their loved country and the rest of the world. Still, reality has been proving that many quixotic speeches favouring dialogue, human rights or democracy, when put down to practice, they cease to function. The reiteration of the same calls and promises, thereby treading the same pathways over and over again can be ironically analogized to a game wherein players are rarely allowed a second chance to play. That is to say, when one plays a game and loses, he/she is not given the opportunity to play again and make up for what he/she missed but rather helped by another player who would try to compensate and correct every error made by the former player and so goes the game infinitely. Ironic as it may seem, such an analogy is indicative of the American policy which prompts every President to show up on stage and promise to make up for every error made by the former President. A case in point is Obama’s famous speech, “New Beginnings,” to the Muslim world wherein he focussed on trying to reestablish bonds of trust that have been aggravated and nearly cut when, for instance, George Bush the Son came into office. It is a very intelligent policy that the Americans are devoted to on the grounds that they, first, tend to act on their own, thereby raising the international rage which they think they can appease by calling for new reconciliatory and dialogical beginnings with the international community.

Furthermore, a very considerable era in the American history is the post 9-11 September 2001 attacks. The American 9-11 trauma has triggered much debate about the American undefeated might and unpreparedness for alien or terrorist attacks. Plainly, things have been explained in a way that led the Americans to suspect Islamist organisations, the most notorious of which is Al-Qaeda headed by Osama Ben Laden. As was pursued through media, the USA was resolute on implementing pre-emptive strategies with the aim of exterminating the enemy and 3

nipping it in the bud before it grows any stronger. Of course many interpretations are to be provided as to account for the real American intentions behind waging different wars on suspected terrorists but what remains startling right here is the fact that America does not care about what the international law dictates or what the other European countries object to. Simply, when the American security is breached, the transgressors are bound to meet their appalling destiny regardless of whatever attempts made by the other countries to deter the American’s firm determination. This was the pro-to-type image of the Bush administration and policy in dealing with law transgressors and securing the American interests.

It is mainly the idea of dialogue advanced by many countries that leads our minds to think about the feasibility of their real and good intentions. Besides, the question of trust has been always brought into being whenever attempts to call for dialogue are issued. In this way, the re-establishment of trust among countries is said to be the most important component which could guarantee an effective international dialogue and efface moments that had generated abhorrence and mistrust among these countries. That is why hundreds of speeches are given in favour of dialogue and the reestablishment of trust among people of different ideologies, races, languages or faiths. Yet, as put by the current American president Barrack Obama, “no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust.”1 His newly given speech in the Egyptian capital, Cairo has prompted much debate and promised new beginnings with the Islamic world. Though “new beginnings” has been a recurrent phrase articulated and reiterated by many American presidents, Obama’s speech was received with much intimacy and acceptance from the Muslims and even Jews. It is this speech which has inspired the idea of writing this - Barrack, Obama. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News 04 June 2009 1

4

book and further analysing Obama’s speech in light of the American policies and attempts to come into good terms with the rest of the world by repeatedly chanting slogans of democracy, human rights, women emancipation, economic development and international security and peace among many others.2

In this regard, this book will be divided into two parts. The first one shall be concerned with the question of forging dialogue between Muslims and Westerners. Such a point has been raised as a fundamental key element in Obama’s speech. To that effect, debating such an issue is going to put under scrutiny different subject matters of the speech, such as democracy, human rights and economic progress, and the extent to which such global concerns can be faithfully respected. The second part of the book attempts to further explain how international relations with Islamic and Western countries can be bridged provided that they are fully committed to fight against terrorism and law transgressors. During this part, focus shall be devoted to debating the different challenges that are perceived to be hindrances in the way of international security and peace, such as terrorism and violence. In the course of debating such security and peace challenges, the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts will be analysed with the aim of laying bare the numerous disparities that continue to fuel hatred between the Arab-Islamic world and the Western-Christian one. In this way, this book would have humbly assessed part of the speech of the leader of the world’s super power, thereby revealing the extent to which this speech resembles the previous ones although couched in more persuasive and promising words.

- Barrack, Obama. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News 04 June 2009 2

5

6

“We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment […] out of these troubled times, our fifth objective- a new world order- can emerge; a new era- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony.3 President George W. Bush (2001)

In his political speech addressed to the American Public, the ex-president George W. Bush promised the emergence of a new world order wherein both the West and East can thrive and live together in harmony and peace. In fact, words, such as peace and harmony among others, have become fashionable buzzwords in the politicians’ speeches. What has turned out to be the case is sheer anarchy and disharmony in the regions that George W. Bush, in the first place, promised to secure and free from the so-called tyranny. Consequently, a new World Order has emerged, but it is not the one that permeates the world with harmonious regulatory political, economic and social structures. Rather, it seems to be a New World Order that is much like the law of the jungle, but still clocked and articulated in modern versions. That is to say, when George Bush the Son, for instance, first advocated a need to restrain Sadam Hussein from annexing Kuwait, lest he would take hold of almost two thirds of the whole world oil reserves, his claim seemed to be predicated upon a humanitarian rationale, that is, coming to the rescue of Kuwait - Gearoid O Tuathail, et al. The Geopolitics Reader: “Towards a World Order.” London: Routledge, 2001. p. (131132) 3

7

against the ferocity of the Iraqi troops. However, recent critical and political studies and researches have demonstrated the fact that the American goal in Iraq or in any other place is to secure its military, economic and diplomatic interests as well as to implement, to use Chomsky’s phrase, its “ imperial grand strategy.”4

Driven by the imperative of securing its interests worldwide, the American administration seems resolute on implementing whatever strategy regardless of what the costs can be. In this sense, getting personal interests served always requires a final touch of polemics and quixotic ideals, such as “America and the world must defend common vital interests,” President George Bush went on declaring, “and we will”5. Therefore, it is not really a hidden political agenda which America is trying to implement in secrecy. Rather, it is a policy of a country considered to be the leader of the whole world. Thus, instead of intimidating people by employing disciplining totalitarian and conventional metaphors of dungeons and bludgeons, the American commands and policies are being fulfilled in modern polemic versions, most often introduced by enthusiastic and quixotic political speeches that serve to acquit the guilty and prosecute the innocent, so to speak. As a result of all such discontents, the antagonism of both Westerners and Easterners is always brought into the fore as the major stimulus for the clashes and wars that have been waged and heavily sponsored in the world.

In trying to appease the level of the irrefutable tensions that loom large between the West and Islam, a plethora of calls for forging a Western- Islamic apolitical dialogue are emphasised and recurrently brought into light every now and then. A case in point is the president Barrack Obama’s speech at the University of 4 5

- Noam, Chomsky. Hegemony or Survival. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2003. p. 21 - Gearoid O Tuathail, et al. The Geopolitics Reader: “Towards a World Order.” London: Routledge, 2001. p. 132

8

Cairo, wherein he made reference to a varied “Moral-Boasting” points aiming at enhancing the Western-Islamic relationships. His speech has been considered as a driving force towards establishing a harmonious global world where everyone can coexist and cooperate, thereby promoting equality and democracy. As an influential and reasonable response, Barrack Obama declared that “it is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share.”6

Suggestive as they may be, the President’s words have touched upon a human dilemma of narrow mindedness and opposition that continue to wreak havoc in our contemporary era. In fact, it is easy to spot differences than similarities. But, it should be noted that human beings are already aware of one another’s similarities, but they seek differences so as to provide pretexts to their hateful crimes. Such was the case with George Bush, whose policy in Iraq or elsewhere have proven to be ill-advised on the grounds that the pretexts he was seeking to invade Iraq were mere fabrications. The orchestration of the trepidation that Sadam Hussein possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) was a deliberate hateful act on the part of a person who decided to speak truth to power and oppose the American arrogance and the genocidal crimes of its Israeli protégé. Regardless of the genocidal gassing crimes of Sadam Hussein himself against the Kurds, he, at least, turned the table on the USA that provided him with weapons to use in his disciplining contraventions. As a result, he had to be gotten rid of, for he dared oppose a hyper power and challenge its vital interests in the Middle East.

- Barrack, Obama. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News 04 June 2009 6

9

Driven by the aim of reparation for all the mistakes committed by the former President, Barrack Obama has come to re-establish and forge new beginnings with the Eastern world. Such new beginnings are to be characterized by their tendency to promote human rights, democracy and fruitful apolitical dialogues. Therefore, the following sections shall be an attempt to lay bare a myriad of points on which Muslims and Americans can predicate their reconciliatory attempts so as to get the wheel of peace, human rights and democracy rolling further ahead in the current New World Order.

C. “New Beginnings” It goes without saying that the antagonism of both the West and East is, more or less, omnipresent. As some people would have it, the most effective way to overcome the repercussions of such an antagonism is to learn how to disguise our grudge to each other in a “polemical grind”. Suggestive as it may be, the “polemical grind” is believed to contribute to extinguishing the raged flames of wars at least for some days if not years. Likewise, the catchphrase “new beginnings” is a reiterated formula in a number of political speeches in which the importance is mostly placed on the requirement of forgetting the past wounds and hence thinking of forging new harmonious relationships.

When the American President Barrack Obama addressed the Egyptians or Muslims from an Egyptian Podium, this very act itself seemed to fill the atmosphere of his talk with much intimacy and empathy. Suffice it to contend that the president saluted the public with an Islamic formula, thereby signaling a sort of an intimate identification that can give a leeway to further potential agreements. “I 10

have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world,” the President Obama said, “One based upon mutual interests and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition.”7 At the hearing of Obama’s words, the Egyptian public reacted in an enthusiastic way given that the President of a hyper power and a world leader braved a long distance seeking to bring into good terms both Muslims and Americans. Besides, the avowed fact that one can cross miles and miles away so as to bond people together and seek reconciliation truly rings enticing bells and opens up horizons of hope and coexistence. Still, things should be approached with a critical mind so as not to fall into the trap of either rejecting peace and thus be considered a fanatic, or believing in reiterated quixotic calls for dialogue that are hard to implement in practice indeed.

These and other objectives favouring peace and reconciliation are always reiterated in the politicians’ or presidents’ speeches with the aim of convincing their audience of the credibility and viability of what they say. That is to say, the art of persuasion is no easy task but requires continuous emphasis on certain points. These points, in turn, are most of the time the headlines, which the politicians are required to address and stress in their talks. Mention here can be made of promoting peace and international security that have come to be considered as truisms to be raised every now and then. It is also by the use of rhetoric that people can get their messages easily across into the hearts and minds of millions, thereby blurring the boundaries of hatred and animosity that used to exist. “Rhetoric is always uplifting,” Noam Chomsky noted, “and we are enjoined to admire the

- Barrack, Obama. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News 04 June 2009 7

11

sincerity of those who produce it”8. In fact, we are bid to pretend that we admire the sincerity of those who produce rhetoric, given the fact that we are sick and tired of the multiplicity of promises that have never been fulfilled. But still, we cling to the hope that things may change if the people in power are superseded by others. Many Muslims cheered after the delivered talk of Obama in Cairo, for he expressed a will to promote a new relationship with the Americans predicated upon serving mutual interests, and a relationship that envisions common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

Nevertheless, we should always leaf through the pages of the past to have a good understanding of our present. That is to say, almost all the speeches of the American presidents to the Islamic world adopted a tone of propinquity, sincerity and friendliness. But, when it comes to implementing what is said in real life situations, what features to be the case then is the carrying out of only what serves the American interests along with its traditional clients. Suffice it to contend that Muslims are always friends of the Americans only in public speeches and diplomatic exchanges. In practice, however, the US prioritizes its interests as well as those of its clients to any other nation’s and acts in a coercive way that, in a way or another, leads the other nations to give their consent to what America dictates.

Indeed, structuring the debate of this paper this way has been done on purpose not to show a rigidity or sceptic agnosticism about the credibility and possibility of dialogues and new beginnings between Muslims and Americans. Rather, the purpose is to critically analyse the ways in which the American Selfevidence and so-called brilliance rule not just the “other” nations, but the

8

- Noam, Chomsky. Failed states. New York: Henry Holt and company, 2006. p. 4

12

Americans themselves. In this account, “to create the ground for debate and engagement with America,” Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies explained, “The particularity of its nationalism, the national self- absorption in its myth and historic narrative, has to be subjected to analysis”9. In other words, a relationship wherein Muslims and Americans can coexist at any level presupposes the dismissal of the plethora of reasons that give a leeway to stereotypical judgements, thereby obstructing attempts, for instance, of economic development and cooperation.

1. Beyond Hatred and Stereotypes Mindful of the multiplicity of artificial mental divides that condemn Westerners and Muslims to perpetual antagonism, the objective of the new current debates about dialogue is to bring the different conflicting parts into a reconciliatory dialogical table, aiming at achieving a cultural coexistence beyond stereotypes, hatred and animosity. Due to its powerful resonance across the globe, the inquiry about the prevalence of hatred in the world has been taken as a pretext to initiate and execute whatever illegal mission or crime against the so-called suspects of hatred. In their book, Why Do People Hate America?, Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies argue that hatred is a motive that pushes people to act in an unconformity to civilization and democracy. Hatred, therefore, has been taken up by the media and other people after 9- 11 attacks so as to express their grudge against those who hate them, namely extremists which seems to be a euphemism of Muslims. The purpose here, of course, is not to rehearse the grounds of complaint against America or the Muslims, but to analyse how issues that divide people and

9

- Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies. Introduction. Why Do People Hate America? England: Icon Books, 2004. p. IV

13

provide reasons for why people hate America emerge as a congruous expression of the American self-image, thereby obstructing attempts of coexistence and giving reign to more stereotypes from both sides: American and Muslim.

The call for peace and coexistence is of paramount significance; provided that it is put down into practice. Accordingly, rejecting stereotypes can contribute a great deal to the general scope of dialogue or cultural coexistence. People tend, therefore, to coexist with one another, bearing in mind the fact that hatred generates only hatred and wreaks havoc and pain. In this sense, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” Barrack Obama stated. “But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America,”10he would emphasize. This highly entails that both Americans and Muslims should fight against the stereotypes that place them in an oppositional direction, and thus reducing them to perpetual antagonism. In fact, avoiding stereotypes is a possibility as long as the Americans themselves are truly willing to stop, on the one hand, aggrandizing their way of life and, on the other hand, undermining peoples’ capability of competing with them at all levels.

One should, in fact, question every single action and word rather than be bamboozled into ready-packaged, easy conclusions. For instance, Noam Chomsky in his book, Hegemony or Survival brought into focus the idea of “intentional ignorance”. That is to say, the imperative of America’s mission as, to use Chomsky’s phrase, “the vanguard of history” is the chief principle of its foreign policy. In other words, the American interventions worldwide are conceived of as righteous in intent, leading thus to the transformation of the Global Order and, in so - Barrack, Obama. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News 04 June 2009 10

14

doing, perpetuating its own wide-reaching dominance. This is the case given that the US has given itself the right to play the role of the Big Brother, who has always to check that everything is alright, and that everybody is motivated by “elevated ideas” and “philanthropy” in the quest of “stability and righteousness”. To successfully realise this, America has to adopt the stance called “intentional ignorance”, which severely censures the terrible atrocities of some countries against some people. Adopting such an attitude, indeed, exposes US foreign policy as having entered a “noble phase” with a “saintly glow”, especially with the advent of the new norm of the humanitarian intervention.11 Though it created a huge fuss, the idea that Sadam Hussein had weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) proved to be a machination serving the US as well as its clients’ interests in the Middle East. After the war on Iraq had ended, no trace of WMD was found. If this has something to reveal, it is that the “noble phase” to which the US has entered is a noteworthy stage that concedes the inevitable flaws that accompany even the best of intentions. Intentional ignorance, in this regard, can be accounted for as an aptitude and readiness to wars that are clothed in a humanitarian guise, such as freeing the Iraqis from the tyrant or extirpating the terrorists in Afghanistan for the Afghans to live in peace.

Equally important is the role of media in propagating ill-conceived ideas about some people and blacking out truths. The American media, indeed, has played major roles in every war waged by the US administration. The objective is to depict the other as a terrorist and murderous, thereby rallying the American masses behind the state in its “revolution” against the suspected “misdemeanours”. In this sense, propaganda has breed elements of hatred and stereotypes, and thus

11

- Noam, Chomsky. Hegemony or Survival. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2003. p. (43-44)

15

enlarging the disparity between the attacked and attacker. Besides, propaganda is another efficacious technique that provides ready-packaged misrepresentations and stereotypes about any potential threat to the American interests worldwide. Therefore, “the only way to Attack [an] enemy is to construct a propaganda offensive depicting it as an imminent threat or perhaps engaged in genocide.”12 In fact, propaganda can be portrayed as a driving force of “intentional ignorance” seeing that it is meant to pave the way for the destruction of an imminent danger challenging essentially the interests of the US. Mention can be made of the war on Iraq, in which media played a major role in circulating ideas about the serious risk posed by Sadam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction not only on the US, but on the whole world as well. This, in turn, made it a prerequisite for the US to fulfil its “Historical Humanitarian Mission” of maintaining order and discipline in Iraq. In this sense, “propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.”13 That is to say, if totalitarian states were making use of bludgeons to maintain order and discipline among the populace in the past, now liberal democracies utilise propaganda in order to maintain the so-called “order” in the whole world.

Propagating erroneous images of the Other, on the one hand, provides reasons for people to hate America. On the other hand, pursuing a technique in which America always plays the role of the world guardian and protector illustrates, in flagrant terms, the image which the Americans have about themselves, and which is most of the time derived from their popular culture. For example, the pernicious libel against the Arabs is believed to have been lurking in 12 13

- Noam, Chomsky. Hegemony or Survival. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2003. p. (39-40) -Noam, Chomsky. Media Control. Canada: Seven Stories Press, 2002. p. (20-21)

16

the popular imagination of Europe for centuries by means of The Arabian Nights. The image of the Arabs as lascivious has become a lucrative theme to be illustrated in most western movies. In this respect, “popular culture throughout history has produced the material in which stereotypes are most in evidence,” Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies explained, “and which have been most effective in stimulating hatred.”14

The European popular imagination is fraught with images in which the Others are depicted in barbaric terms. If we just take the examples of the American movies, one can get an idea about why hatred and stereotypes are being fostered. A case in point is the Hollywood film-industry that tends to picture the American heroes and saviors, whose genius minds can save the whole planet from inevitable attacks or extra-terrestrial destructions. The other nations, most of the time, appeal to the American aid due to their helpless military state or inability to sort out appropriate solutions at very hectic moments. Hollywood movies or the popular culture instil in people’s minds the fact that the Americans can suit in ruling the globe, while the rest should be reduced to the American servitude.

Besides, in some American Orientalist books, Muslims are described in xenophobic terms and cast in exotic shapes. Edward Said in his book Orientalism developed the idea that illustrates the extent to which Islam and the West stand in an antagonistic diagram. Said demonstrated the extent to which scholarly ideas support, inform and sustain popular stereotypes. He went on to say that, the basic

14

- Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies. Why Do People Hate America? England: Icon Books, 2004. p. 45

17

representation of Muslims as militant, corrupt and infidels is a theme that gained momentum in the European popular imagination.15

Furthermore, the body of knowledge that the European popular imagination has constructed about Islam and Muslims “has been described by the British historian Norman Daniel as knowledgeable ignorance,” that is, “defining a thing as something it could not possibly be, when the means to know it differently were available.”16 The catch phrase “knowledgeable ignorance” is usually used in the context of popular culture so as to demonstrate the extent to which a culture can be stained by processes of Alterity and Manichean divisions, thereby bragging the “Self” and condemning the “Other” into a barbaric state. As a result, hatred will always be generated as long as people relay on their popular culture in order to have an idea about who their Others are. By means of comparison, both intentional and knowledgeable ignorance are interrelated on the grounds that the claim of being engaged in a “Humanitarian Mission”, whose principles, for instance, is to set free oppressed people, always entails propaganda. Propaganda, here, is another way of defining a thing as something it could not possibly be, when the means to know it differently were available. In this account, both intentional and knowledgeable ignorance amount to the same end, that is, fuelling, on the one hand, hatred as well as resentment among Human beings and, on the other hand, rendering impossible any attempt to avoid stereotypes and promote peace. In a nutshell, the “new beginnings”, which the President of the USA suggested to forge with Muslims, are indeed elevated and noble initiatives but their forging entails many sacrifices in terms of, for instance, abiding by international 15 16

- Edward, Said. Orientalism. England: Penguin Group, 2003. p. (93-94) - Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies. Why Do People Hate America? England: Icon Books, 2004. p. 52

18

laws or respecting peoples’ ways of life, thereby avoiding cultural clichés and stereotypes. Accordingly, to what extent both Americans and Muslims are intent on making such sacrifices is the question that should be addressed. Furthermore, if any attempt to establish a peaceful global community can be envisaged, its successful implementation, in fact, presupposes that all the nations of the world cooperate with one another with the aim of building a global powerful economy. Such global economy is believed to assist the poor countries with their national economy in order to compete with other countries not just on the regional level but on the international one as well. The following section, in this sense, shall dwell upon the question of economic cooperation between Americans and Muslims, and different conditions which can either advance or hinder such cooperation.

2. Economic Development and Cooperation Having discussed at length some reasons that provide excuses for some people to hate and wage wars, we now turn into an equally significant issue of economic development and cooperation worldwide. It should be noted from the onset that economic development is realised by means of investments, the empowering of labour and wages, governmental subsidies and the creation of business partnership among many other factors. To that effect, the American President, Barrack Obama, declared that the “Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world,” he went on to say that it is all for the sake of, “helping people pursue a better life.”17It seems to be a good - Barrack, Obama. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News 04 June 2009 17

19

promise, but does the current World Order sustain the idea of development as well as cooperation worldwide or is it the case that the President’s words were bound to fade away once he turned his back to the audience to whom he gave an exciting speech?

The fact that the US is a Super Power of the current century testifies, indeed, to its inevitable determination to pursue whatsoever profitable plan with the aim of securing its interests. Development, for America, entails, first and foremost, that it takes hold of, approximately, half of the world’s total riches; whereas the rest of the countries may benefit from the other half but with distinguished profits as well as higher rates and costs; costs in terms of human beings and natural resources. The logic of the US is clear when emphasizing the American interests to be prior to any thing regardless of whatever objection or international hindrance. Accordingly, the US can carry out intimidating strategies in order to have anything it desires. Besides, such intimidation has become clothed in a humanitarian character, which introduces us to the American new refined and sophisticated, to use Chomsky’s phrase, “Era of Enlightenment.”18Ironically enough, this “Era of Enlightenment” signifies a benevolent stage in history, that is, an era in which the civilised nations of the world, led by the United States, pretend to act out of “philanthropy” and “moral fervour” in pursuit of “lofty ideas”. To put it another way, for the US to prove its altruistic intentions worldwide, it usually promises to promote a plethora of concerns. A case in point is the call for promoting peace, democracy or human rights among many other exalted concerns. By promising such exalted ideas, the US expects other countries to join the chorus of self-congratulation, and thereby overlook some recalcitrant facts, such as the US unlawful interventions in some

18

- Noam, Chomsky. Hegemony or Survival. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2003. p. 51

20

countries as well as its transgression of some international laws, to mention but some examples.

In fact, Acting in the name of moral intentions in pursuit of economic development, freedom and democracy is a recurrent currency in the US interaction with the rest of the world. Besides, “In its treatment of the rest of the world, the US acts like an overgrown teenage bully,” in this case, “if it does like a country’s economic policies, it crushes them using the WTO [World Trade Organization] and IMF [International Monetary Fund], and if it does not work it imposes sanctions.”19 The US, in this sense, lays siege to countries, whose economic policies run counter to the American interests, by making both the World Trade Organization and IMF International Monetary Fund sever economic relationships with them, so to speak. Also, the Crushing of some countries economy by either depriving them from importing as well as exporting products, or by imposing massive tariffs on their products exposes, to a great extent, the fierceness and haughtiness of the US when it comes to the question of securing its interests. This is but one version of the way America regulates economic development and cooperation worldwide.

In addition, America insists on having a total freedom to carry out whatever strategy that suits it. This very freedom of the US jeopardises other lives elsewhere. In their book, Why Do People Hate America?, Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies explain that almost every concern of the world, from the risks and safety of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) to climate change, from the protection of the indigenous knowledge and resources to the promotion of education and economic development, among many others, is reduced by the US to a question of

19

- Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies. Why Do People Hate America? England: Icon Books, 2004. p. 86

21

‘free-trade’, that is, America is free to trade in everything by imposing its own rules.20 This explains a new conception of economic development. That is to say, countries have to play by the rules of the US or have their economy crushed. In this account, playing the role of a tyrant who always sets the rules for any transaction is a roundabout way of accumulating the wealth of the world: If not by means of military forces; it is, then, by imposing sanctions or severing economic relationships.

Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies outlined eight types of manipulations that US utilises so as to accumulate the wealth of the world it claims to uplift to progress and peace. These shall be compressed into four types of manipulations:

1. The US controls the IMF and WTO, and the rest of the world has no say as to protest against the total freedom of the US monetary system. In this sense, the US finances its domestic growth through the savings of the rest of the world. Therefore, it has become within its rights to issue the dollars for use as cash around the world and benefit from the right to set interest rates on the users of its currency. By raising interests sky high, many states are trapped in a vicious circle of either allowing their currency to float –, that is, to allow the foreign exchange values of their currency to vary freely according to the value of the dollars –, or tie it to the dollar in what has come to be known as Dollarization. In this way, countries end up indebted to the US or dependent on its economic policies. Furthermore, because most of the world has no say at the IMF and little power to initiate positive changes at the WTO, the US

20

- Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies. Why Do People Hate America? England: Icon Books, 2004. pp. (85- 86)

22

can use its power in a way that would lead to foreign ownership and domination of many countries’ manufacturing and financial sectors. To explain, as part of the deal with the IMF, countries agree on allowing higher foreign control of, for instance, their banks, financial institutions or technology sectors all for the sake of getting some loans to save their economy. Consequently, American businesses end up wholly or partly owning most economic sectors of mainly the indebted developing countries.21 2. Trade liberalisation –, that is, removal or reduction of barriers to international trade in goods and services – is interpreted by the US to mean one-way, open access for American multinationals and businesses. Developing countries, in this way, have to make some changes in their food and agriculture policies, and open up their economies to cheap food imports, while reducing support for their farmers. Consequently, trade liberalisation enables the US to export its goods cheaply to developing countries in which farmers are put out of business due to their inability to compete. This is what the US calls ‘economic freedom’ that actually destroys the economic freedom of poor people.22

3. The US Imposes massive tariffs on key agricultural items such as rice, sugar and coffee, and thus it undermines the efforts of the least developed countries to combat poverty and feed their population. Consider, for instance, another case wherein the US is supposed to provide African economies with dutyand quota-free access for their products to the American market. The case is 21

- Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies. Why Do People Hate America? England: Icon Books, 2004. p. ( 73-74) - Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies. Why Do People Hate America? England: Icon Books, 2004. p. (75-76)

22

23

that the US grants access only to the products that may not affect its products or US producers. This also a form of free-market economy, which is believed to be notorious for its monopolistic tendencies, that is, the right and total freedom to supply or trade in particular goods and services. The consequences are always the same; that is, instead of developing the economy of poor countries, the US seeks its own interests while undermining the other’s, thereby increasing their debts and dependency.23

4. The US imposes unilateral coercive economic measures with regularity. The imposition of sanctions on countries that stand in enmity with the US has been a legacy which the US employs to tame its despisers. For instance, the US has tried to bring down commodity prices in the developing world, that is, the US aspires after structuring a global political economy in which commodities of the indebted countries are cheap, especially as a way out of debt. Therefore, any attempt to resist such a global structure is bound to failure; and more than that the imposition of sanctions by the US does only exacerbate already aggravated financial situations of the poor countries.24

If, in a way or another, such a more or less, massive embargo against the poor countries is to be considered development and global economic structuring, it follows then to tip hats to the Americans for their invested efforts to maintain order in the world. Meanwhile, efforts to cooperate with the Americans in their intentions should be encouraged since such efforts are only serving the interests of the world’s guardian and are to be considered as gratefulness to the American good-intentions worldwide. Still, one should always be optimistic with regard to potential brilliant 23 24

- Ibid. P. (76-77) - Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies. Why Do People Hate America? England: Icon Books, 2004. p. (78-79)

24

prospects which may bring about change for the better. The probability of peace and dialogue respectful of principles of democracy and the basic human rights is not a farfetched aim if but America is really willing to fulfil what it preaches in public. In this sense, the following section shall put under scrutiny the ways in which the promotion of both democracy and human rights is being articulated and the extent to which their “proper” promotion is a possibility or impossibility.

B.Promoting Human Rights and Democracy It goes without saying that most people around the world aspire after having a decent life wherein they can enjoy basic rights – such as freedom, equality and respect among many others–, and hence perform their duties in relation to their nations as reliable citizens. These are, certainly, basic human needs, with which people come to recognize their importance in relation to one another as well as to their nations. In this sense, many are the calls issued by the US with regard to promoting the basic human rights for citizens of the world, and also frequent are the excuses provided by the US in masking its maltreatment of human rights and misuse of democracy. Frequently, what is being chanted as quixotic slogans of democracy and human rights by politicians, country leaders or even organizations turn out, most of the time, to be a passing fad that quenches nothing but the thirst of particular moments. That is to say, promises are usually made in different speeches in an attempt to appease the anger of the oppressed people or give them hope for a better future. Once it is time to fulfil such promises, other excuses are brought into play in order to legitimize the different acts of human rights violation, the abuse of the basic principles of democracy and restrictions on individual as well as collective freedom among many other transgressions. 25

Mindful of the myriad of mental divides that make it an impossibility for envisaging a “proper” treatment of human rights and a spread of equality, democracy and freedom, there exist multiplicities of exigencies that obstruct the progress of human rights and democracy. Yet, retaining faith in change for the better is highly recommended. In this sense, Barrack Obama stressed the importance of strengthening different rights and obligations in his speech to the Islamic world in Egypt. His “unyielding belief” that people are in dire need to feel their humanity after all has urged the examination of a plethora of demands which both Americans and Muslims look forward to accomplishing in collaboration with one another. In this sense, the President declared that:

All people yearn for certain things: The ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and does not steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.25

In fact, the president’s words herald a beginning of a new era in which people can speak their mind and have a say on how they are governed without being censured or reproached. The rule of law and the equal administration of justice, which the President made reference to in his speech, seem to be a roundabout way of saying that the world has been living in a state of anarchy wherein law is taken hold of by the strong, thereby spreading out injustice. For this reason, the US, as a super power, has come to make sure that the rule of law and

- Barrack, Obama. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News 04 June 2009 25

26

justice are restored and structurally being implemented worldwide. In other words, supporting human rights shall be an American duty in relation to all nations of the world. This seems to put forward the idea that America has been absent for a long time and once back, it is surprised to find that the world is living in a chaotic state, that is, the strong dominates the weak. May be this can be a strange way of looking at things, but the truth is that America is notorious for not pleading guilty or appear to be weak if it assumes the whole responsibility for violating human rights or abusing democracy in this or that country. Furthermore, it should be noted that the abuses of democracy and human rights are not only traced to America but to the Muslim world as well. Calls are always issued from both Muslims and Americans with the aim of promoting different rights and principles. However, “what Americans and Muslims share in common is the verbal desirability of these goals,” Luis J. Cantori explains, “but the implementation and understanding of these concepts differ significantly.”26 Moreover, the very idea of the American inclination to interfere with processes of implementing democracy and respecting human rights worldwide is what further wreaks havoc and instigates hatred and animosity against it. In this account, the following section shall dwell upon the question of human rights and the extent to which some principles of human rights – , such as the right to live a life of dignity and equality – are being respected worldwide.

- Cantori, J. Louis. “Islamic Republicanism and a Liberal Democracy.” Islam and the West for a Better World. Ed. Khalid Hajji. Qatar: Arab Scientific Publishers, Inc. p. 66 26

27

1. Life, Dignity and Equality In discussing the topic of human rights, several issues come to the limelight such as whether one should have and enjoy all the rights he/ she can desire or suffice it to be contented with some rights and not others. Advocating human rights presupposes providing people or respecting their choices with regard to what rights they, most of all, desire to have. Basically, the right to live is the major basic in human fates. Therefore, no body has to interfere with either ending or elongating one’s life, for it is a divine gift with which people have been endowed. The right to live, in this sense, should not be understood in a strict sense, that is, the opposite of death. Rather, it is the right to live a life of dignity, respect, happiness, equality or security among many others. These and other rights are basic necessities that each one, on the face of the earth, desires to have and enjoy. Nevertheless, things sometimes run counter to the human will since human beings have not yet learnt how to coexist but look forward to controlling one another and maintaining tight grips on one another’s personal life. Having such a situation explains the gross violations of human rights by the powerful when claiming to maintain order and discipline either by coercive or tactful means. As a “war of choice”27, to use Barrack Obama’s phrase, the war on Iraq has made explicit a multiplicity of violations committed in the name of human rights and democracy promotion by the US. In their war on a helpless enemy, the

- Barrack, Obama. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News 04 June 2009 27

28

Americans have subdued the Iraqis and denied them the basic human rights of life, understood in a strict sense. The military as well as the economic sieges posed on Iraqis have reduced them to a mortified life wherein their dignity and honour have been shamelessly disgraced. In this sense, Noam Chomsky explained in his book, Failed states that: The UN special Rapporteur on the right to Food, Jean Ziegler, accused US and British troops in Iraq of “breaching international law by depriving civilians of food and water in besieged cities as they try to flush out militants […] US led forces “cut off or restricted food and water to encourage residents to flee before assaults […] using hunger and deprivation of water as weapon of war against the civilian population, flagrant violation of the Geneva conventions.28

Depriving a civilian population from daily necessities such as water and food is a flagrant act that runs counter to basic principles of human rights. To flush out militants defending their country does not entail sanctioning the whole population. Although one can consider such an act as a war tactic or strategy, it should be noted that even wars have rules to be respected, such as avoiding the killing of innocent children, women, the injured and the old among many other cases. But the case of the American war requires using many tactics so as to reach the envisaged goals behind the whole invasion despite that such war strategies can lead to collateral damages, and thereby violating human rights. Such collateral damages are further exposed in the following lines:

Acute malnutrition doubled within sixteen months of the occupation of Iraq, […] a figure that translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi

28

- Noam, Chomsky. Failed states. New York: Henry Holt and company, 2006. p. 50

29

children suffering from ‘wasting”, a condition characterised by chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein”. This is a country in which hundreds of thousands of children had already died as a consequence of the US- and UK-led sanctions.29

Killing innocent civilians, children and women is a flagrant breaching of principles of human rights. However, the USA is resolute on pursuing its interests, after which simple pretexts are laid bare in speeches. In other words, America can get anything it wants and destroy whoever challenges its interests. To make sure that whatever it does is understood to be for the benefit of the whole world, the US provides pretexts for the public so as to say that the people America kills are but victims of war or misdemeanours, who have already violated human rights in relation to one another. And this can be deemed to be a reason for the US to attack them and thus restore principles of human rights. Moreover, the right to be equal with others – especially in the context bringing together men and women – and live with dignity is another pressing issue that the promotion of human rights entails. This would bring us to put under scrutiny the issue of women’s rights and the way the US is staunch to face the challenges that hamper securing proper rights for women, among which equality and education feature most. “Issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam,” the President Barrack Obama noted that, “the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support women’s rights.”30 To that effect, to believe in a woman’s capability to make a choice and

29

- Noam, Chomsky. Failed states. New York: Henry Holt and company, 2006. p. 53 - Barrack, Obama. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News 04 June 2009 30

30

compete with men is the simplest thing one should do. For a long time, patriarchy has denied her many rights; she has been subdued in humility to serve her husband, brothers or father; she has not been allowed to express her natural needs even before her father and she has been conventionally confined inside her father’s house, thereby having only two occasions to get outdoors: The first chance is when she shall head for her marital house, while the second is when she shall be taken to the graveyard.

Having been oppressed for a long time, the female has started to fight for her rights and publicly protest against the traditional confinements long set by patriarchy. Her emancipating journey has taken her through different stages, along which she had to fight and prove her aptitude and readiness to compete for her equality and assert herself side by man. Still, women’s rights are currently denied in 21st century wherein progress is posited to have geared up maturity and tolerance. That is to say, the rights of women are still denied, for they are viewed to be an object that suits nothing but to be used for sexual intercourses. This is one of the reasons that explain the heavy exposure of some women to sexual harassments. Besides, “Women and (and “the feminine”) are stereotypically associated with a need for protection, with peacefulness, and life-giving,” Maria Eriksson Baaz and Maria Stern explained that, “these associations serve as the necessary counterpart to the supposed “masculinity” of protecting, warring, and killing”31. That is to say, the female is always associated with all what is weak and security demanding, whereas masculinity is the reverse of weakness, thereby killing, raping and warring are stereotypically and obstinately being perceived to be normal behaviours.

- Maria, Baaz Eriksson and Maria, Stern. “Why Do Soldiers Rape? Masculinity, Violence, and Sexuality in the Armed Forces in the Congo (DRG).” Journal of the International Association (2009): 53-02. p. 499 31

31

Furthermore, women were being actively used as powerful sexual tools for the defeat of some and victory of others. The truth is that “rape is often generally and simply referred to as a weapon of war”32. It is this weird act that has become branded in self-evident terms given that soldiers can commit acts of rape but be still seen to fulfil their duties in war. This is the case simply because raping the woman of one’s enemy may down-heart him, thereby contributing to his defeat and the victory of the rapper. “Throughout history, rape has been commonly seen as an expected, even inevitable aspect of warring, which has connoted revenge and triumph for the winning side,” this explains that, “the rape of the women of the vanquished, which is a “war booty”, figures as a common narrative of warring.33

As a Common narrative of warring, the raping of the vanquished women is used as a militarised global weapon. For instance, many are the women who were raped by the US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.34 It is indeed frustrating to come across facts indicating calamities that unleash disorder instead of the usual promised order and respect of the basic human rights. If America promised, in the first place, to war Iraq so as to secure human rights, it should be noted that the law in Iraq “has granted women nearly equal rights with men. All of this has now been reversed under the US occupation”35. If this is the case with the promotion of human rights, then what could be the case with the process of democratization both inside and outside the USA?

- Maria, Baaz Eriksson and Maria, Stern. “Why Do Soldiers Rape? Masculinity, Violence, and Sexuality in the Armed Forces in the Congo (DRG).” Journal of the International Association (2009): 53-02. p. 496 33 -Ibid. p. 498 34 - Asian Tribune “Rape of Iraqi Women by US Forces as Weapons of War: Photos and Data Emerge.” 03 october, 2009 35 - Noam, Chomsky. Failed states. New York: Henry Holt and company, 2006. p. 51 32

32

2. Democratizing the Globe: Globalizing America As a favourite topic to always be referred to in public or political gatherings, the issue of democracy has occupied the attention of the public for centuries. Holding on to the belief that democracy would one day reign all over the world is the beacon of light towards which people, mainly the oppressed look with desiring as will as aspiring eyes. So much fuss, indeed, has been made of the fact that democratizing the globe is the world’s duty, and thus if America is the world, then it is the American duty to spread their democratic principles worldwide. Accordingly, as a “guardian” of the world’s interests, America keeps expressing its inevitable will to give a leeway to efficacious solutions aiming at democratizing the globe, thereby globalizing the American policies. Before going any further, it would be of paramount significance to take a look at the way Americans implement democracy inside the US. By doing this, one can comprehend the way in which democracy is being transferred to the rest of the world. In their “democratic” interactions with the American public, the people in power do not, indeed, seek to implement democracy as it is –, that is, a system of government by all the people of a country, usually through elected representatives thought of as allowing freedom of speech, religion and political opinion – but in a way that should be compatible with the high interests of the powerful. This is, in fact, very revealing and thought-provoking, given that “democracy ought to be a system in which the specialised class is trained to serve the masters, the people who own the society.”36 According to Lipmann’s elaborated theory of “progressive

36

- Noam, Chomsky. Media Control. Canada: Seven Stories Press, 2002. p. 27

33

democracy,”37 the American social structure can be divided into three main constituents: “the executive groups”, “the specialized class” and the masses or, to use Chomsky’s words, “the bewildered herd”38. According to such a structure, the American social system and democracy is positioned to progress along a line that dictates on the weak to serve the strong. That is to say, the executive groups consist of wealthy individuals taking hold of most businesses. The role of such groups is to issue orders for the specialized class to run. The elite, therefore, consists of the elected actors who should follow orders strictly or else lose their prestigious positions. In the middle of all this, the masses are not supposed to play any role but act as “spectators in democracy”39. In this regard, as long as the “bewildered herd” maintain their passive roles of being the spectators who only watch but do not exert any mental efforts to think or act accordingly, the project of democracy is perceived to be a success. But, once the “bewildered herd” reacts in protest, a crisis in democracy occurs in the sense that the reaction of the masses can hamper the imperial plans of the executive groups, as Noam Chomsky would have it:

The people with real power are the ones who own the society, which is a pretty narrow group. If the specialised class can come along and say, I can serve your interests, then they will be part of the executive group. You have got to keep that quiet. That means they have to have instilled in them the beliefs and doctrines that will serve the interests of private power. Unless they can master that skill they are not part of the specialised class […] the rest of the bewildered herd basically just have to be distracted.40

37

- Qtd in Ibid. p. 25 - Noam, Chomsky. Media Control. Canada: Seven Stories Press, 2002. p. 26 39 - Ibid. p. (16-17) 40 - Ibid. p. (18-19) 38

34

This can be the way according to which democracy in the USA is being implemented. Democracy, in this sense, seems to be a highly monitored social system. It is understood in terms of power that is being manipulated by a minority so as to monitor a majority; a minority that can be described as a Lobby group that seeks privatisation of everything, even morals and principles. In fact, the dominant theme of the American democracy is to “restrict the public arena and transfer decisions to the hands of uncountable private tyrannies,” this, in turn, plays an important role in, “removing the public from potential influence on policy.”41This can be accounted for by the fact that the American public has no influence on the decision of the government, or more specifically, the decision makers. A case in point is the war tendency that is hard to be shaken though different public demonstrations protest against it. Furthermore, in their book, Why Do People Hate America? Sardar Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies explained that:

America prides itself on being a democracy, constantly urges other countries to become more democratic, and censures or takes action against those who, in its government’s view, is less than democratic. Yet, American democracy is exceptionally undemocratic.42

The undemocratic “democratizing bandwagon”43 has spread out across the globe, thereby convincing other nations to rally behind undemocratic democracy. In simple words, describing the American democracy as undemocratic can be accounted for by the fact that democracy for America means a system of government that aims basically at securing the interests of the decision makers or the executive groups. In this sense, democracy is best understood as laying down 41

- Noam, Chomsky. Failed states. New York: Henry Holt and company, 2006. p. 218 - Sardar, Ziauddin and Merryl Wyn Davies. Why Do People Hate America? England: Icon Books, 2004. p. (108109) 43 - Noam, Chomsky. Failed states. New York: Henry Holt and company, 2006. p. 131 42

35

strict rules –, which are less than democratic –according to which the American public is to be controlled and rendered subservient. If this is the case of the American democracy inside, so how is it being applied to the rest of the world? One way of finding out about this shall be conducted by the examination of the ways America treats and interferes in other countries. In other words, neoconservative intellectuals quite openly speak of American imperial liberalism, that is, the use of military power so as to achieve democratization. This same process can be traced to be at work presently in the Middle East. Therefore, this can be termed democracism in the sense that the ideology of democratization is being used so as to achieve imperial domination and control.44 In this respect, “when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self- serving hypocrisy”, this is strongly the case since “American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.”45

It

seems

that

the

American

democracy

or

the

“bandwagon

of

democratisation” is designed to only suit certain purposes, among which are control and domination of the whole world. In their treatment of democracy, even Americans are being converted into a fashionable undemocratic trend that they have accepted with self-complacency, if not pride. Every body talks about the American model of liberal democracy, but most do not dare oppose the progression of such model either inside or outside America. In fact, America holds the belief that “democracy is a good thing if and only if it is consistent with its strategic and

- Cantori, J. Louis. “Islamic Republicanism and a Liberal Democracy.” Islam and the West for a Better World. Ed. Khalid Hajji. Qatar: Arab Scientific Publishers, Inc. 2007. p. 66 45 - Noam, Chomsky. Failed states. New York: Henry Holt and company, 2006. p. 202 44

36

economic interests.”46 However, the rest of the world are not contented with the way America is pursuing its own interests, a reason which makes it hard to argue for an apt implementation of democracy and other related virtues. To that effect, Noam Chomsky proposed some solutions which can be of paramount significance to the spread and progress of democracy worldwide, and which the US has to abide by in case a dialogue is to be established between the West and East or the oppressed and oppressor. In fact, Noam Chomsky has in mind a kind of democracy that advocates freedom for everyone to have a say with regard to the way they are governed and have an influence on the policies, which their countries implement either inside or outside their territories. In this regard, the US, for instance, has to

Accept the jurisdiction of the international criminal court and the world court […] let the UN take the lead in international crises. Relay on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones in confronting terror; keep to the traditional interpretation of the UN character; give up the security council veto and have “a decent respect for the opinion of Mankind”, as the Declaration of Independence advises, even if power centers disagree; cut back sharply on military spending and sharply increase social spending. For the people who believe in democracy, these are very conservative suggestions.47

Now, it is the USA that should abide by the international laws if the Americans really look forward to forging new beginnings with the Arabs. Disputes are not to be settled simply by delivering enthusiastic speeches, and thus promising new horizons that seem to be bleak and hard to achieve under some current circumstances as well as the current so-called new American World Order. Rather,

46 47

- Ibid. P. 152 - Noam, Chomsky. Failed states. New York: Henry Holt and company, 2006. p. 262

37

it is time for everybody to be frank and express what they really wish: Peace or violence. Instead of calling the shots from behind desks by means of red buttons, it can be helpful to prompt the decision makers to tune their channels of dialogue in the receptive grounds of their country first for democracy to properly reign. Accordingly, reconciliation, democracy and human-rights can be smoothly and enthusiastically received with open arms by the other nations of the world. It is at this stage that we can decide to overcome our differences and look for each other’s similarities for dialogical, peaceful and developmental objectives to be accomplished.

38

39

At the dawn of the new millennium, the era of the supposed global village, disparities are more intensified than ever before. Large segments of humanity live in conditions of dire poverty and forced displacement. In fact, we live in a world of obscene inequalities, profoundly defined by two major camps: the haves and havenots. Besides, with the advent of global information technologies, or say, globalization, different challenges have been posed to the countries of the globe. 40

Among these challenges, security has always featured the most significant need to be looked at and fostered among nations. People have lost a sense of security, for they have had to, willy-nilly, get involved in a globalized world that advances free mobility of people, ideas, goods, services and information among many others. In this sense, globalization has also facilitated the movement of transnational agents or terrorists across borders. Indeed, such an easy mobility of everything across borders that have become soft and porous has resulted in a number of social disruptions and other pathological forms of violence fuelled by terrorist attacks everywhere insofar as people are no longer safe but subject, every now and then, to imminent and unanticipated attacks. In effect, the September 11th terrorist attacks put on display different contradictions and ambiguities manifested in globalized consumerism, and globalized terror. It is, therefore, worth noting that a great deal of literature has been produced with regard to the pros and cons of globalization. In this sense, while globalization has been attempting to bring people together into an interactive global scene, which has been compressed to become a “global village,” it has also increased the rift between the haves and have-nots, thereby prompting people into despising and rejecting it. The intensification of inequalities among people, realized by means of globalization, is one of the underlying principles that pushes terrorists into waging bloody wars, either with a purpose of protecting the weak, or in the name of stopping the corrupting effects of Western civilization on the whole world. Ironically enough, just as globalization facilitates the leaking of terrorists and arms across borders, terrorism itself makes benefit of technology and other globalized means so as to realize its goals, thereby putting the brakes on globalization itself. In an article entitled, “An Insurgent Empire: Has America Changed after the 11th September?,” Rida Hilal contends that globalization is a contradictory as well as 41

ambiguous phenomenon in the sense that it facilitates the free mobility of terrorists, arms, information and goods among many other things, but, at the same time, this very free mobility puts the brakes on globalization. In other words, the effort to prevent terrorists from moving their sources and monies across borders is leading to a great scrutiny of trans-border transactions, thereby slowing down the flow of capital. The fear that terrorists move freely from a country to another is also setting up new security measures about border patrol, and thus restricting the number of migrant laborers in different places. Such a complex and ironic relationship is depicted

as

the

“globalization

of

terrorism

and

the

terrorism

of

globalization.”48Therefore, “it is ironic that global terrorism, the phenomenon of terrorists operating in and against several nations simultaneously, was facilitated by globalization and now it has become the biggest challenge to globalization.”49

Faced with such security challenges, the United States of America, whose corporate businesses and life styles are considered to be one of the leading forces of globalization50, is pummeled towards seeking a global security and deterring the terrorist threats, which do without achieving global peace and serenity. In this regard, “speaking for the United States, I can say this,” Richard M. Nixon stated that, “we seek the right to live in peace, not only for ourselves but for all the peoples of this earth.”51 America, indeed, is in a unique position as the world’s sole

Rida, Hilal. Introduction. “An Insurgent Empire: Has America Changed after the 11th September?” The American Empire III. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic house of publication, 2002. 2001/19251. p. 7-8. 48-

Muqtedar, M. A. Khan. “Teaching Globalization in the Era of Terrorism.” GlocalEye: Lecture given at University of Richmond, 02 February, 2004 .< http://www.ijtihad.org/globalterror.htm> 49-

Rida, Hilal. Introduction. “An Insurgent Empire: Has America Changed after the 11th September?” The American Empire III. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic house of publication, 2002. 2001/19251. p. 8 51Richard, Nixon, Qtd. in “Combating Terrorism in a Globalized World.” America: National War College. 2002. PDF. 50-

42

superpower, which makes it a necessity for the Americans to come into the rescue of nations of the world whenever in need. Driven by such an imperative, the U.S. has expressed its willingness to fight terrorism anywhere, thereby making people all over the globe feel secured. In this sense, a report by the National War College illustrates the perception which some American students have about their country, especially that of the “modern” white man whose burden is to protect the globe. Part of the report states that:

Terrorism is the societal evil of our time, and the global war on terrorism is our [American’s] great challenge. This evil must be abolished as slavery and piracy were in the 19th century and Nazism and Apartheid in the 20th century. The strategy of abolishment seeks to create a global environment hostile to all terrorist groups, whether they operate globally, regionally, or within the boundaries of a single state. As a grand strategy, it would provide overarching guidance to orchestrate all instruments of national power while coordinating the collective efforts of the international community. The proposed strategy of abolishment is similar in scope to the strategy of containment of communism because the threat of terrorism, when coupled with weapons of mass destruction, poses no less a threat to the safety and security of the free world.52

As a major in the American proposed strategy of abolishment, containing terrorism is no easy task unless coordinated by collective efforts of the international community. That is to say, establishing a global environment hostile to terrorists and their associates should be the task of every nation in the world including the Islamic nations. This has been a call expressed by president Barrack Obama in his speech to the Islamic world in Cairo. Conducting an American partnership with

“Combating Terrorism in a Globalized World.” America: National War College. 2002. PDF. 52-

43

Muslims has been deemed by the president to be an efficacious plan to defeat terrorism globally.53 Such a partnership, in fact, presupposes that Muslims forget about the different atrocities committed by America, for instance, in Iraq in its mission to restore the rule of law and overthrow the totalitarian regime of Sadam Hussein. If one can go on enumerating the terrorist crimes committed by the U.S, the list will not end. It is worth noting, in this regard, that the American terrorist crimes against some peoples –, such as the case of Guantanamo Bay – have always been disregarded, and they have rather acquired a propagandist usage, which fits squarely with defining terrorism as an abominable act conducted, to use Chomsky’s phrase, “against us”54. It is when the Americans and their allies are threatened that terrorism becomes an urgent matter to be looked at and put an end to; whereas when America encroaches on states’ rights and kills civilians in its unlawful use of force, the term terrorism acquires new meanings, among which self-defense and humanitarianism, as frequently encountered.55

In what follows, the term terrorism is going to be put under analysis with the aim of uncovering the different discourses that lie behind the usage of the term. Afterward, some security and peace challenges posed by terrorism or other pathological forms of violence shall be dwelt upon with the aim of laying bare some of their ensuing effects mainly on the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate. In so doing, the discussion of such security and peace challenges is intent on exposing the extent to which America is determined and able to fulfill whatsoever beneficial it promises the world in a number of political speeches.

-Barrack, Obama. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News 04 June 2009 54Noam, Chomsky. Media Control. Canada: Seven Stories Press, 2002. p. 81 55Noam, Chomsky. 9-11.Canada: Seven Stories Press, 2001. p. 23 53

44

A. Terrorism: An Anathema to Civilized Societies The Bush administration’s polarizing policy of “you are with us or against us”56 , it is believed by many political analysts, has put on display an American mental state that advocates a division between, on the one hand, the civilized nations that are against terrorism, and on the other hand, the “failed states”57 that are suffering from social mayhem, thereby providing suitable conditions for terrorism to be mushroomed and strengthened. In this sense, it is the duty of the civilized nations, led by the U.S, to uproot the danger of terrorism and its growing swamps globally. Furthermore, it is highly required that:

The United States encourage all civilized societies to pool diplomatic, informational, military, and economic capabilities to defeat terrorist organizations wherever they exist, deter future acts of terrorism, and ultimately diminish the underlying causes of terrorism. This strategy calls upon states, regional and international organizations, private and public entities, and individuals to collaborate in the war against terrorism. From the largest superpower to the lone citizen, each has a role to play in combating terrorism, and each has a responsibility to share the burden.58

In fact, fighting terrorism should be everyone’s duty: developed or underdeveloped countries. Instead of polarizing the globe into civilized nations and uncivilized ones, thereby falling into the trap of Othering and xenophobia, it can be more significant to coordinate efforts of nations and individuals globally, including

George W. Bush. “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People.” Washington, DC, September 09, 2001. 57Noam, Chomsky. Preface. Failed states. New York: Henry Holt and company, 2006. p. 1-2. 58“Combating Terrorism in a Globalized World.” America: National War College. 2002. PDF. < http://www.ijtihad.org/globalterror.htm> 56-

45

even the third world countries or failed states, so as to trap terrorism wherever it exists. It is undeniably a fact that terrorism is an abominable act seeking to destroy the flora and fauna of nations. It does not differentiate between civilians and militants; the young or old; the woman or child. Everyone is a potential target to terrorists in their massive scale operations. This can be one of the reasons that can prove the despicable characteristics of terrorism, an anathema to every nation not just the civilized ones. In so doing, the war against terrorism can take an influential path, especially when it is backed up by the whole international community that shares and despises the same enemy.

It is worth noting that the war on terrorism was not first declared after the 11th September attacks. Rather, the declaration of war on terrorism was older than that. Thirty years ago, the Reagan administration came into office announcing that the war on terrorism would be the core of the U.S foreign policy.59 In this sense, look at what people, who re-declared war on terrorism after the 11th September terrorist attacks, say terrorism is. In fact, in his Media Control, Noam Chomsky discusses the problem of defining the term terrorism at length. He explained that the definition of terrorism is a vexing and complex issue with which big minds have been wrestling. An official definition found in the U.S code and Army manuals briefly reads as “the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature […] through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear.”60However, the official definition of terrorism is untenable chiefly for two main reasons. First, the official definition of terrorism is a “close paraphrase of official government policy, it’s called low-

5960-

Noam, Chomsky. Media Control. Canada: Seven Stories Press, 2002. p. 70 Qtd. In Noam, Chomsky. Media Control. Canada: Seven Stories Press, 2002. p. 79

46

intensity conflict or counterterror.”61In other words, an analysis of some of the U.S wars demonstrates, indeed, the extent to which these wars relied on violence or threat of violence against civilians or militants62 to attain different goals that are political or ideological in nature. The other reason can be summed up in the inability of the official definition of terrorism to identify the perpetrators, thereby giving the wrong answers as “to who the terrorists are.”63That is to say, considering the official definition of terrorism to be a close paraphrase to a low-intensity conflict or counterterror may generate confusion, in terms of whether or not the terrorists are those engaged in resistance wars; those countering an attack or those waging wars simply to intimidate and instill fear. Fortunately, a self-serving propagandist definition of terrorism has become the norm in the U.S “re-declaration” of war on terror. “The solution is to define terrorism as the terrorism that they carry out against us.” With this new form of defining terrorism, “we can then draw the standard conclusions that we and our allies are the main victims of terrorism.”64By definition, terrorism which targets the U.S and its allies is the one that should be paid attention to and globally fought. By contrast, the terrorist atrocities, for which the U.S is responsible in its massive scale terrorist operations on civilians and militants alike, are always excused or overlooked. Still, it is a fact that “the U.S is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court and that rejected a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law.”65 Another issue that comes to the fore due to propagandistic definitions of terrorism relates to identifying the perpetrators or terrorists in the sense that some Europeans or

61-

Noam, Chomsky. Media Control. Canada: Seven Stories Press, 2002. p. 80 Noam, Chomsky. 9-11.Canada: Seven Stories Press, 2001. p. 76 63Noam, Chomsky. Media Control. Canada: Seven Stories Press, 2002. p. 80 64Ibid. p. 81 65Noam, Chomsky. 9-11.Canada: Seven Stories Press, 2001. p. 44 62-

47

Americans, tend to confuse Muslims with Islamists and take them as one entity that should be held responsible for terrorism. To that effect, the subsequent section shall outline some differences between Islam and Islamism or Muslims and radical Islamists with the aim of clearing up the confusion that some Americans, intentionally or unintentionally, tend to have with regard to who the terrorists are and what the aims they try to achieve are.

1. Characterizing Islam and Islamism It goes without saying that a great deal of literature has been produced with regard to the questions of Islam versus Islamism. Varied are indeed the characteristics and orientations that distinguish between the two. As well, different are the religious and ideological points of reference of both Islam and Islamism, which totally make them confront rather than complement or inspire each other. It is because many people tend to confuse Islam with Islamism, especially when the question of terrorism is brought into play, that misunderstanding, hatred and animosity, among many other things, are generated among people globally. By definition, Islam has become perceived as the repository of terror. As such, many Westerners have become hostile towards Muslims simply because they simply failed to understand that “most Muslims are not fundamentalists, and most fundamentalists are not terrorists.”66 Observably, after the 11th September attacks, many Muslims have confronted hostile physical as well as verbal attacks from some of the fundamentalist Americans, for Muslims are propagated by media to be fundamentalists by nature.67 Ironically enough, a poll of public mood to the average Bernard, Lewis. Crisis of Islam: “The Rise of Terrorism.” London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2003. p. 107 Juhaya, S. Praja. “Islam, Globalization and Counter-terrorism.” International Senior Seminar Visiting Experts' Papers: Resource material Series No. 71. PDF. 6667-

48

Americans was conducted with regard to the responsible for the 11th September attacks: was he Yussef Islam, Osama Bin laden or Barrack Obama?68 For some, the answer was Yussef Islam, an American singer formerly called Cat Stevens before he converted to Islam, because his second name is for them a stigma and a connotation to all what is evil and terroristic in nature. Some others have opted for Barrack Obama as the responsible for terrorism. However cynical it may seem, these statements have made starkingly and flagrantly obvious how ignorant most of the American public is vis-à-vis even issues related to their national security, and the extent to which such a public can be easily bamboozled into ready packaged, propagandistic images of the others by the Media: images they easily consume without questioning the reliability or credibility of the sources.

Building up on what has been said, this section shall be concerned with drawing a distinction between both Islam and the insurgent Islamism. Understandably, Muslims complain when some Westerners are being hostile to them and when their reputation as well as that of their religion is being defamed. In its nature, Islam advocates tolerance and peace. It is a religion that denounces violence and the killing of human beings without having the lawful right to do so, which is mostly issued by Islamic courts. Intimidating people by the use of force is stigmatized by Islam simply because peace ranks first among the priorities and obligations of such a religion. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the best example of the people who advocate peace globally. His teachings have concentrated on seeking peace while condemning violence and terrorism. This is further explained by Juhaya S. Praja contending that:

68-

"Stereotypically Dumb/Stupid Americans." Fifi Box.

49

Islam and Islamic law have consistently condemned terrorism (the killing of non-combatants). Like the members of all religious faiths, Muslims have had to deal with religious extremism and terrorism from their earliest days. The responses of the mainstream majority to groups like the Kharijites and the Assassins and more contemporary groups like Islamic Jihad in Egypt or al-Qaeda have been to condemn, combat, and marginalize them.69

It is true that many a Muslim was a target of the terrorist activities in places like Morocco, Egypt or Iraq. Muslims have openly denounced the killing of civilians, be they Christians, Muslims or Jews.70 From its earliest days, Islam had to deal with religious extremism, rebellion and civil wars epitomized by groups like the Kharijites and the Assassins whose fundamentalist beliefs dictated to them to act in violent ways. It should also be noted that:

The Kharijites were a pious but puritanical and militant extremist group that broke with the Caliph Ali and later assassinated him. The Assassins lived apart in secret communities from which they were guided by a series of Grand Masters, who ruled from the mountain fortress of Alamut in northern Persia. The Assassins’ jihad against the Seljuk Dynasty terrorized the princes, generals, and ulama (scholars), whom they murdered in the name of the Hidden Imam. They struck such terror in the hearts of their Muslim and Crusader enemies that their exploits in Persia and Syria earned them a name and memory in history long after they were overrun and the Mongols executed their last Grand Master in 1256.”71

Though, in fact, there exist too many versions of the Kharijites’ stories of assassination and terror, one can not deny that their terror had effects on both Juhaya, S. Praja. “Islam, Globalization and Counter-terrorism.” International Senior Seminar Visiting Experts' Papers: Resource material Series No. 71. PDF. 70Fareed, Zakaria. Preface. The Post America World. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. p. XXVII 71Juhaya, S. Praja. “Islam, Globalization and Counter-terrorism.” International Senior Seminar Visiting Experts' Papers: Resource material Series No. 71. PDF. 69-

50

Muslims and Crusaders. Closely related to the Kharijites’ case are groups like Egypt’s Islamic Jihad who have organized their massive scale terrorist operations against western tourists, burned churches, and killed Copts and Christians.72 In Algeria, the Armed Islamic Group has engaged in a campaign of terror against the Algerian government.73 Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda undertook a global war of terror against Muslim and Western governments alike, thereby distorting Islamic law in issuing their own fatwas, that is, legal jurisdictions in an attempt to legitimize their war and call for an attack on civilians or non-combatants.74 The examples of terrorist activities organized against Muslims themselves are numerous; which conveys and proves the fact that Muslims are also victims of terrorism, and hence Islam is not tantamount to terrorism. Rather, it is a religion that advocates elevated ideas and principles in pursuit of global peace, security and coexistence.

Extensively noticeable is the fact that most of the extremist groups sanctify their actions through pious references to Islamic texts, notably The Qur’an and the traditions of the Prophet (PBUH). While doing so, they claim to represent a truer, purer and stricter Islam than that currently practiced by the majority of Muslims. Given the adaptive nature of Islam –, that is, the fact that Islam has left up a space for the interpretations of some of its teachings to the clergy or the Islamic jurisconsult who is authorized to issue a fatwa, thereby allowing them to filter the Koran’s message through different cultural lenses–, different interpretations of the

- “Terrorism in Egypt.” Wikipedia: Reative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, 26 December 2009. 73 -"Algerian Insurgency." GlobalSecurity.Org, 2010 74Juhaya, S. Praja. “Islam, Globalization and Counter-terrorism.” International Senior Seminar Visiting Experts' Papers: Resource material Series No. 71. PDF. 72

51

guiding principles of The Qur’an have come into the fore with the rise of different extremist groups. Nowhere are differences in Islam more visible and intensified than in the different interpretations and readings of the Holly Qur’an. Radical Islamist groups, in fact, fit squarely within the category of those who mis-interpret the teachings of Islam, thereby sharing in common a tendency to re-establish a strict rule of the Islamic laws in the whole globe while stopping the corrupt effects of western modernity or civilization on the Islamic world. In this sense, new “fatwas”, that is, a legal opinion or ruling on a point of law75 have been issued so as to put into display new regulations that extremism aspires to establish. For instance, The 11th September attacks were the latest epitome of Islamist fundamentalism that carried out the fatwa issued in 1998 by Osama bin Laden. The fatwa stated:

The duty to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque (Mecca) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move off of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God.76

What Al Qaeda has done, indeed, violate Islam in a bid to lend legitimacy to its power grab. That is to say, issuing a “fatwa” to kill civilians and military alike runs counter to what Islam preaches. Such a fatwa is meant to escalate the level of terror and violence, and hence prove that Al Qaeda has the power to attack any target regardless of whether or not it would harm civilians. Besides, the strategy which Al Qaeda follows in its terrorist wars is to gain the sympathy of many a

Bernard, Lewis. Crisis of Islam: “The Rise of Terrorism.” London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2003. p. 109 Osama, Bin Laden, et al. “Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad against Americans.” Al-Quds al-Arabi, February 23, 1998. . 7576-

52

Muslim by claiming to have the intention to liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Holy mosque of Mecca from the grip of the unbelievers. Therefore, defending such an Islamic cause is likely to yield fruitful results, such as garnering many fundamentalist sympathizers who could join the terrorist organizations in order to fight for the liberation of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Holy mosque of Mecca and even the Islamic governments no matter what it costs them since their death will be deemed as martyrdom. In fact, Islamist groups tend to make a good use of the naivety of some fanatic Muslims by promising them to die as martyrs and enjoy the blessings of Allah in the after life if only they could valiantly fight holy wars against the Western as well as the Islamic infidels. In short, issuing “fatwas” so as to achieve ideological or political ends is a flagrant deviation from the basic Islamic principles and teachings.

Another revealing example of such a deviation is the famous fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini on February 14, 1989, against the novelist Salman Rushdie because of his novel entitled The Satanic Verses. The fatwa reads as:

[I inform] all the zealous Muslims of the world that the blood of the author of this book […] which has been compiled, printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur’an, as also of those involved in its publication who were aware of its contents, is hereby declared forfeit. I call on all zealous Muslims to dispatch them quickly, wherever they may be found, so that no one will dare to insult Islamic sanctities again. Anyone who is himself killed in this path will be deemed a martyr.77

To promise martyrdom and the rewards of paradise to whomever kills Salman Rushdie and the contributors in his novel is unislamic; for no body has the 77-

Qtd. In Bernard, Lewis. Crisis of Islam: “The Rise of Terrorism.” London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2003. p. 108

53

right to interfere with whether people can go to hell or paradise. This is something decided upon and destined only by Allah the Almighty. In Islam, even if one is totally pious and follows strictly the orders of Allah, still he should always ask for Allah’s mercy. No one is going to be rewarded with paradise upon the good deeds he or she has done in his or her life, except by the mercy of the Almighty. If this fact has something to reveal, it will be that dying as a martyr, and thereby enjoying the rewards of paradise is a divine job and not the Mufti’s, “the Islamic jurisconsult who is authorized to issue a fatwa.”78 Islam does not urge its zealous to be hired killers so as to defend it. By contrast, there are different things one can do in case Islam or the Prophet is defamed or insulted. The simplest thing one can do is to bring the accused of an offence to trial, be confronted with the accuser and then be given the opportunity to defend himself. In case the accused is found guilty, the usual verdict is to consider his act to be tantamount to apostasy. “Jurists usually decide that insulting the prophet should be sanctioned by a flogging and a term of imprisonment, thereby the severity of the flogging and length of the term depend on the gravity of the offence.”79These are, in fact, some of the teachings, which the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) tried to instill in his Umma, Islamic community, and which he himself used to put into practice whenever necessary.

In short, the adaptive nature of Islam has given leeway to a multiplicity of interpretations to its basic principles. Radical Islamists have manipulated the Qur’anic verses to suit their terrorist activities. “Some even go so far as to dismiss some Qur’anic verses as ‘revoked’ or ‘abrogated’.”80 Terrorism, in this sense, has been infiltrated so as to execute the mis-interpretations of the Islamic religion. This

Bernard, Lewis. Crisis of Islam: “The Rise of Terrorism.” London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2003. p. 109 Ibid. p. 109 80Ibid. p. 108 7879-

54

proves that there exists a huge difference between Islam and Islamism, and that the hatred and animosity which some Westerners have against Muslims stem, indeed, from their ignorance of the true teachings of Islam and the prophet Muhammad (PBUH). This is a fact that has been proven in a number of occasions, the most notorious of which is the 11th September terrorist attacks. In an attempt to lay bare some other facts about America uncovered by the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, the following section shall address the 11th terrorist attacks and their ensuing results that could have instigated changing perspectives with regard to the American as well as the world’s perceptions of the superpower’s or American might.

2. The 9-11Trauma: A Lesson to Heed Seventy years ago, in 1943 to be precise, the American invincibility was contested by the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor. This historical incident has often been brought into play to describe the latest terrorist attacks of the 11th September on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Historically, the Japanese attacks of Pearl Harbor were seen by some to have changed the international scene, especially that the U.S reaction at the time was very aggressive by dropping nuclear bombs on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, launching, thus, the beginning of an era wherein nuclear weapons and wars can make a huge difference. However, the myth of the American invincibility has been aggressively contested again in the 11th of September, 2001. Therefore, that day was, to some extent, a threshold to a new phase in the history of the world as well as that of the U.S on the grounds that America is no longer that imagined invincible power living behind a colossal fortress, which can not be reached and attacked. Rather, the terrorist attacks of the 55

11th September seem to be a watershed event for the American public and the whole world, declaring, thus, that the U.S can be defeated in its home not just abroad. The attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center are significant in the sense that both of them epitomize a side of the American power and its influence globally. For instance, the World Trade Center symbolizes the influence of the American corporate businesses spread across the globe, thereby holding a tight grip on the global economy. As for the Pentagon, it has always stood for the supremacy of the American politics and military; an invincible military that can cross miles and miles away to deter or punish wrong doers anywhere in the globe. Significantly, the choice of such American settings for the terrorist attacks unravels the hatred which many individuals across the globe have for America and its hegemonic policies and plans globally. Following such line of reasoning, this section shall be devoted to discussing two main points, one of which explains the 11th September terrorist attacks, while the other point dwells upon some of the facts about the U.S that the attacks have unraveled. After the 11th September attacks, three interpretative paradigms have been suggested to explain the nature of the terrorist events. Rida Hilal explained these three paradigms at length in his article entitled, “An Insurgent Empire: Has America Changed after the 11th September?”81 The first paradigm that was suggested is that of Samuel Huntington’s famous thesis on the Clash of Civilizations, which propounds a conflict in which civilizations will be involved some time in the future, namely the Islamic civilization against the Western one. At the beginning, such an interpretative paradigm was prominently accepted to be a

Rida, Hilal. Introduction. “An Insurgent Empire: Has America Changed after the 11th September?” The American Empire III. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic house of publication, 2002. 2001/19251. p. 7-8. 81-

56

truism by many Westerners, but all of a sudden, it turned out, the Huntingtonian thesis was dismissed, for the simple reason that Muslims themselves condemned the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center and described them as unislamic. Besides, Muslims have always been subject to terrorist activities, and therefore it is a war against fundamentalist groups of Taliban or Al Qaeda and not Islam versus the West.

The second paradigm interpreting what happened in the 9-11 attacks was that of Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History and he Last Man.” Francis Fukuyama explains that after the defeat of communism, two forces will be the markers of human advancement: Liberal democracy and the global market. Therefore, global peace will reign by the time liberal democracy, global market and Western modernization are spread out across the globe. However, the 11th September attacks have proven the contrary in the sense that there are still some people who are against liberal democracy, so to speak. Drawing from a reservoir of anger and resentment against the spread of Western or American ways of life to their cultures, Al Qaeda conducted its attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center as a sign of their insurgency and protest against the American foreign policies and economic invasion worldwide. In this sense, the likes of those who attacked America are numerous, thereby refuting the Fukuyamist interpretative paradigm of global peace with the advent of liberal democracy and global market. The closest interpretative paradigm of the events of the 11th September was that of Benjamin R. Barber’s Jihad vs. McWorld. Barber provides a picture of two viewpoints held by some people with regard to globalization. While the first perspective holds it necessary to recover all what is traditional or local, that is, regaining traditional identities of individuals in a massive scale conflict with the 57

West, the other standpoint votes for McWorld, that is, the spread of McIntosh computers and McDonalds Hamburger among many other “Mcs.” by virtue of their ability to group different identities across the globe in a virtual space.82 In fact, it was this interpretative paradigm of Benjamin R. Barber’s Jihad vs. McWorld hat could offer a closer explanation of the 11th September in the sense that terrorists of Al Qaeda can fit squarely within the category of those conducting Jihad against McWorld or globalization. In their efforts to stop the corrupt effects of western modernization on their countries, cultures, traditions or identities, Al Qaeda and its associates have made it clear that “the duty to kill the Americans and their allies— civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.”83

Coming to the second concern of this section, the discussion

of some of

the facts that the terrorist attacks on America have put into display shall be of paramount importance to understanding the extent to which the U.S is faced with a serious situation wherein it is required to abide by the international law, work cooperatively and multilaterally with the international community with the aim of extirpating terrorism. Some of these facts shall be outlined in what follows:

1. The attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center have proven that America is not that invincible superpower that can not be contested by a terrorist organization let alone another country. The image which the Americans have built about their power portrays them as living behind giant fortifications through which no other power can break easily. Given the

82-

Barber, R. Benjamin. Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Ballatine Books, 1995. Bin Laden, Osama, and others. “Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans.” Al-Quds al-’Arabi, February 23, 1998. . 83-

58

sophisticated security measures, such as the radars and X-rays that the Americans use so as to detect any danger seeking to breach their national security, it is thought that the Americans are in an isolated peaceful land away from danger, and that the only incident that could challenge their colony’s security, seventy years ago or thereabouts, was the historical incident of Pearl Harbor to which they reacted aggressively and ruthlessly. However, the 11th September attacks have proven that the Big Brother can be attacked even from behind his gigantic walls and fortifications and have his population intimidated.84 2. The attacks of the 11th September have proven that tracing enemies or anticipating threats has become the biggest challenge to the U.S and its national security. Osama Bin Laden and his associates are nothing but protracted transnational agents representing no country and who can not be easily hunt down or even identified. They operate from within decentralized, protracted and global transnational networks and organizations. In this regard, the war against terrorism is predominantly a war against decentralized organizations and not countries. Consequently, such a fact has demonstrated a changing perspective in the whole scope of international relations. That is to say, international relations are conventionally set up among sovereign countries varying with regard to economic and military power, different vis-à-vis the agendas whereby they seek to empower their sovereignty and, most of all, similar in their tendency to establish economic and diplomatic relations with one another, thereby securing their own distinctive interests worldwide. Settling disputes between such countries is

- Rida, Hilal. Introduction. “An Insurgent Empire: Has America Changed after the 11th September?” The American Empire III. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic house of publication, 2002. 2001/19251. p. 6 84

59

done by means of war or peace.85 The problem that has been posed with the rise of terrorism is that countries can be subject not only to the sort of challenges posed by a country to another –, that is, challenges such as those considered to be posed by Sadam Hussein when he decided to annex Kuwait and take hold of two thirds of the whole world oil reserves, thereby contesting the American interests in the region –, but also to decentralized and protracted transnational organizations and their diffused agents. 3. Furthermore, the attacks have instigated a need for the re-constitution of the conventional notion of the state as sovereign and bounded.86 That is to say, fighting terrorism entails the imposition of some constraints on individuals and their easy movement. Given that globalization has been the major element facilitating an easy movement of terrorists, information and money across borders, it has become a necessity to put the brakes on globalization itself, regardless of what the costs can be, by setting “new rules about border patrol, VISA regulations, and monitoring of foreign travelers.”87 In this account, it can be noticed that, “new security measures at airports have already raised the costs of travel and are affecting the profitability of the airline industry. Increased regulations on imports are slowing international trade. Higher costs, as a result of all the above are reducing profits and may dampen the incentive to seek foreign markets.”88In light of all these restrictions, the modern nations are perceived to be moving towards re-

85

- Fatiha, Sahli. International Relations: Basic Principles in International Relations. Marrakesh: The National Papermaking Press, 1993. 197/93. p. 41 86 - Rida, Hilal. Introduction. “An Insurgent Empire: Has America Changed after the 11th September?” The American Empire III. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic house of publication, 2002. 2001/19251. p. 7 87 -Muqtedar, M. A. Khan.“Terrorism and globalization.”GlocalEye,2001. 88Ibid.

60

establishing borders between one another, thereby going back to ages characterized by their bondedness and isolation. 4. Finally, America as a melting pot or a society wherein an amalgam of ethnicities, races, cultures and religions are thought to cooperatively coexist has proven illusory after the 11th September events. In other words, the hostile attacks, to which the Arabs and Muslims were subject after the 911terrorist attacks, provided evidence to the fact that America has not yet managed to bridge the cultural or religious differences of its citizens. Rather, the American multiculturalism – which is always reiterated by politicians in their public speeches or over which a great deal of literature has been produced in academia – when always emphasized in different political as well as academic discourses can be ironically portrayed to be a tranquilizing drug taken by the Americans so as to make them believe that they really cohabitate and constitute one single body, which is the reason why America is the world’s powerful country.89 Nowadays, "Multiculturalism is generating a lot of interest among concerned people in the United States. Americans are becoming more aware of the importance of multiculturalism in the country."90 Having discussed at length the different interpretations given to the 11th September attacks and the facts that have been made obvious after such attacks about the Americans, this section has tried to lay bare the fact that before making a judgment convicting some people on charges of terrorism one should rather get to know these people and their different affiliations. As well, some of the different - Rida, Hilal. Introduction. “An Insurgent Empire: Has America Changed after the 11th September?” The American Empire III. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic house of publication, 2002. 2001/19251. p. 8 90 - Kenneth, T. Jackson. "Multiculturalism in the US." Area & Country Studies, the 2nd of March, 2010. 89

61

information which are conveyed by the media are ideological in nature and tend to serve some particular propagandistic purposes. In this sense, there should always be a critical reading of each and every single information one receives. This same way of reading things should be applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the grounds that it has been an ongoing conflict that produced different and, sometimes, ambiguous academic and political discourses from the partisans of each side: Israeli and Palestinian. Besides, dwelling on the topic of the IsraeliPalestinian conflict is to show that it is one of the major factors leading to conflict between the Arab-Muslim world versus the Western-Christian world.

B. Israeli-Palestinian Stalemate: A New Outlook For years, if not centuries, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has occupied the attention of the international community owing to its difficulty and complicated historical roots. In fact, different accounts of the nature of the conflict and its evolution have been provided by the partisans of each side, the Arabs and Jews, so as to convince the international community of the legitimacy and nobility of each side’s cause and garner many sympathizers from across the globe. Though Sketchy and complex as it may seem, the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate has long roots dug in the history of the Middle East region. Both Arabs and Jews claim their legitimacy and historical ascendency over Palestine. As a result, most of the accounts provided as to the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are blurred by their partiality, insofar as any attempt to clear up the confusions and bias cloaking such an Arab-

62

Jewish historical conflict shall certainly be met with increasing degrees of intricacy and hesitation.

In this sense, we shall limit ourselves to the most influential historical moments that have culminated in, a more or less, everlasting conflict and stalemate. In this respect, a turning point in the Arab-Jewish conflict was the British mandate of Palestine, mainly its most distinguishing historical incident of the “Balfour Declaration” in November 1917, upon which Britain vowed to support the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The declaration, in fact, was consequential of lobbying by different European Zionist movements and organizations, and it was also the beginning of successive events of violence and warring between the Arabs and Jews. On November 29, 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine recommended the partition of Palestine as an attempt to broker a twostate solution, which would entail the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside an independent Jewish state of Israel. At the time, the U.S played a major role in supporting the decision of the United Nations when the President Harry S. Truman approved of the partition of Palestine owing to the growing pressure exerted on him and his administration by the lobby organizations, such as “the Israeli-American Friendship League”, “the American Jewish Committee” and “the American Jewish Congress” among many other pro-Israeli organizations.91 It is worth noting that the U.S has always vowed to support Israel with its ambitious plans, and almost every president who came into office has helped Israel financially, militarily and logistically in order, on the one hand, to ensure its ascendency over the Arabs in the Middle East and, on the other hand, benefit from

Tahir, Shash. “The American relations with the Arab world and Israel.” The American Empire I. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic house of publication, 2001. 2000/18447. p. 319 91-

63

the geopolitical strategic role played by Israel to contain the spread of the USSR in the Middle East. For these and other reasons, “America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known,” President Barrack Obama publicly emphasized, and he added that, “this bond is unbreakable.”92 Given the ongoing conflicts between the Palestinians and Israelis, the international community has decided to organize official negotiations between both opponents mediated by an international contingent known as the Quartet on the Middle East.93 The Quartet is represented by a special envoy, Tony Blair. The Arab League is another important actor, which has proposed an alternative peace plan, that is, the Egyptian mediated efforts, for Egypt is a founding member of the Arab League and has historically been a key participant as both an opponent to Israel and a strategic host of the Palestinian refugees through the passing point of Rafah.94 The current U.S administration of Obama has expressed its will to broker negotiations and peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, and thus put an end to a conflict that has been evolving for many years, if not decades. To that effect, Obama stated in the Cairo speech that violence has in fact been a daily staple of the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate. To that effect, Palestinians are required to stop their violence against the Israelis, while the Israelis should stop the construction of new settlements on the Palestinian land.95

Barrack, Obama. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News, 04 June 2009 93 - “Israeli–Palestinian conflict.” Wikipedia: Reative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, 5 June 2010. 94“Israeli–Palestinian conflict.” Wikipedia: Reative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, 5 June 2010. 95 -Barrack, Obama. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News, 04 June 2009 92-

64

Israel has always dubbed the Palestinian violence an attempt to "derail the peace process,” while the Israeli crackdown on Palestinians, the ongoing construction of its settlements have been considered by the Palestinians to be vexing issues that should be prioritized by the U.S administration. In this sense, the following sections shall attempt to bring into light the different implications of the Palestinian violence as well as the continued construction of the Israeli settlements and their ensuing results on the relationships bringing together the Arab-Muslim and Western-Christian world.

1. Denouncing violence: What for? The persisting nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has called for investing co-operative and coordinated efforts of the international community, led by the U.S, so as to find an apposite peaceful solution for both opponents to coexist. In fact, it should be noted that from its beginning, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been one of the most intricate and vexing conflicts posing multiple obstacles beyond the expectations of the great powers trying to resolve it. Arguably, no conflict on earth combines so complex a mixture of religious fervor, national aspirations, historic and economic grievances, territorial rivalry and geopolitical factors.96 Consequently, such a complicated mixture constituting the Israeli- Palestinian conflict has had its effects beyond the Middle East region in the sense that the U.S, for instance, has been involved in guiding and influencing the peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians. That is to say, the support of the Israeli government with military equipments and financial funds by the U.S has

Michael Goldfarb. “Crisis guide_ the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- council on foreign relations.” < http://www.cfr.org/publication/13850/crisis_guide.html> 96-

65

been for the purpose of securing the American interests in the region.97 Simultaneously, many American leaders have brokered peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis, such as the Oslo Accords in 1993 and the Camp David Summit convened by the U.S President Bill Clinton. In this sense, the U.S has historically been involved in this conflict by pretending to seek stability in the region. This stability, however, will not be concretely sensed unless the Israelis are safe in their home and the Palestinians no longer violently threaten the very existence of their neighbors. The Palestinian violence has, in fact, been considered by the U.S and its allies a daily staple of the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate for years. The current U.S administration does not accept or consider violence and intimidation against the Israeli civilians to be a critical step towards peace. In May and June 2009, President Barrack Obama said that “Palestinians must abandon violence,” he also emphasized that, “Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to live.”98 That is to say, “resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed.”99 What is really striking about Obama’s emphasis on abandoning violence is its tendency to inform Palestinians that resistance can have better efficacious results if done by means of diplomacy and negotiation rather than violence. For instance, Hamas must recognize past agreements, such as the former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's letter of recognition of Israel's right to exist. Such letter of recognition was deemed to be a crucial milestone in the Israeli-Palestinian relationships, particularly during

Karima, Kirles. “The United States and Israeli: Very Special Relationships.” The American Empire II. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic house of publication, 2001. 2001/15906. p. 365 97-

Barrack, Obama. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News 04 June 2009 99Barrack, Obama. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News 04 June 2009 98-

66

the Oslo accords of 1993. Therefore, recognizing past agreements, according to the U.S, is a crucial diplomatic way envisaged to resolve the conflict, and it is better than violence. However, another incident which happened just after the Oslo accords was the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, an Israeli official “who signed the Oslo accord against the will of many of his compatriots,”100 by a right wing Israeli in 1995. Revealing as it may be, the gunning down of Yitzhak Rabin unraveled the Israeli tendency to pursue its war against Palestine since its interests and ambitious plans in the Middle East were incomplete, and any attempt to find a peaceful solution between the two rivals has been aborted. Meanwhile, the assassination of the former Egyptian president Anouar Sadat, who launched and brokered a peace initiative between the Israelis and Palestinians in 1977, uncovered a growing rift existing between what the Israeli officials declare in public and what they concretize in real life situations. In this account, an Israeli Newspaper has declared that: The moment of truth has arrived, and it has to be said: Israel does not want peace. The arsenal of excuses has run out, and the chorus of Israeli rejection already rings hollow. Until recently, it was still possible to accept the Israeli refrain that "there is no partner" for peace and that "the time isn't right" to deal with our enemies. Today, the new reality before our eyes leaves no room for doubt and the tired refrain that "Israel supports peace" has been left shattered.101

This, indeed, explains the intricate nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has been an enigma for the coordinated efforts of the international community, headed by the U.S, to resolve. The fact that Israel does not want peace Michael Goldfarb. “Crisis guide_ the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- council on foreign relations.”< http://www.cfr.org/publication/13850/crisis_guide.html> 101Gideon, Levy. “Israel Doesn't Want Peace.” Haaretz, June 10, 2010 Sivan 28, 5770. 100-

67

and that the different crimes it commits in the name of peace testify to its unwillingness to accept a Palestinian state living by its side as well as its unlimited ambitious Zionist colonial project in the Middle East. Therefore, “I write as someone who served loyally in the Israeli army in the mid-1960s and who has never questioned the legitimacy of the state of Israel within its pre-1967 borders,” Avi Shlaim added by emphasizing that, “what [he] utterly rejects is the Zionist colonial project beyond the Green Lines.”102 Here, mention can be made of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip in the aftermath of the June 1967 war, which clearly had very little to do with security rather than territorial expansionism. These and other point of views have even been voiced by Jewish newspapers, academicians and laymen, among many others, in their protest against the Israeli Zionist projects, killing and intimidation of innocent Palestinians. Therefore, many past and present facts have demonstrated at length the unwillingness of Israel to reach peaceful solutions with the Palestinians. Many are the pretexts provided by Israel to explain its refusal of peace. The Palestinian violence or “terror” is one of the excuses provided so as to pave the way for Israeli terror against the Palestinians, the most frequent victims of whom are children, women and the old. In this sense, Gideon, Levy explains that: Terror, used as the ultimate excuse for Israeli refusal [of peace], only helps Olmert keep reciting, ad nauseum, "If they [the Palestinians] don't change, don't fight terror and don't adhere to any of their obligations, then they will never extract themselves from their unending chaos." As though the Palestinians haven't taken measures against terrorism, as though Israel is the one to determine what their obligations are, as though Israel isn't to

Avi, Shlaim. “How Israel Brought Gaza to the Brink of Humanitarian Catastrophe.”The Guardian, 7 June, 2007. < http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine> 102-

68

blame for the unending chaos Palestinians suffer under the occupation.103

The message behind Olmert’s emphasis on fighting terror is clearly meant to urge the Palestinians and the Israelis alike to fight the Hamas movement. It is Hamas that has always been causing trouble for the Israelis. In 2006, Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council, where it constituted the majority party. But it has not yet concurred to recognize Israel’s existence as a legitimate political entity. This was further stressed in June 2009 when Hamas leaders met with the former U.S President Jimmy Carter and declared anew that “[they] do not in any way recognize Israel.”104In fact, many Palestinians, mainly those supporting Hamas, oppose the existence of Israel as a political entity because of the Israeli despotism and restrictions on Palestinian political freedoms, economic freedoms, civil liberties, and quality of life. Many feel that their own opposition to Israel was justified by Israel's arrogant and oppressive crimes against the Palestinians. A revealing example of the Israeli oppression and inhuman treatment of the Palestinians is its imposed economic sieges on the Gaza Strip since 2007; not to mention the Israeli violent and barbaric raids on Gaza strip in 2008, which culminated in the death of thousands of Palestinians. Israel ignored international calls for lifting the siege on the Palestinians, and recently it has imposed another siege on the Gaza Strip to which the international community reacted in a different way by sending some ships, the Freedom Flotilla, carrying pro-Palestinian activists and a humanitarian aid bound for the blockaded Gaza. Israel surprised everybody - Gideon, Levy. “Israel Doesn't Want Peace.” Haartez Newspaper. June 10, 2010 Sivan 28, 5770. 103

“Israeli–Palestinian conflict.” Wikipedia: Reative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, 5 June 2010. 104-

69

by sending its warships and attacked these aid-carrying ships aiming to break the siege on Gaza, thereby killing more than sixteen people and injuring more than fifty people. As usual, Israel had to find excuses to explain what happened, such as that its soldiers were defending themselves against the activists who attacked them with rocks and knives upon boarding ships.105 As a superpower, the U.S has always tried to broker peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians but of no avail. The promises of resolving this issue have been made by different American presidents in different political speeches, but reality always belies such promises. Take, for instance, the last attacks on the Freedom Flotilla by the Israeli soldiers, the only thing which Barrack Obama could offer to Mahmud Abas, during his visit to the white house, was another promise of solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem and that it will be in the United States' national interest. Furthermore, Barrack Obama in his first State of the Union speech to Congress in Washington forgot to mention the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which he vowed to take care of during another speech given in Cairo to the Muslim public or “despite the priority [he] gave the matter upon taking office.”106If this has something to reveal, it is the fact that the U.S indifference towards this issue is to ascertain the security of Israel and its ascendency over the Middle East region.107 In this sense, Israel will not stop its aggression and terror on the Palestinian and will not listen to the international community’s calls for abandoning violence, of course, as long as it keeps the White House in its corner. Therefore, the answer to what the

Rian. “Israel attacks Pro-Palestinian aid flotilla.” 31 May, 2010. 106Marian, Houk. “No mention of Israeli-Palestinian stalemate in Obama's State of the Union speech.” January 28, 2010.< http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/138922> 107 - Tahir, Shash. “The American relations with the Arab world and Israel.” The American Empire I. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic house of publication, 2001. 2000/18447. p. 327 105-

70

U.S is urging the Palestinians to stop their violence for is simple, that is, to assure the ascendency of the Israelis over the Palestinians. In effect, one can not deny the fact that the pathways trodden by the international community, led by the U.S, to broker peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis are always the same. In so doing, focus, on a number of occasions, has been placed on laying bridges so as to reach peace regardless of the official or partisan discourse. Mention can be made, in this account, to the Oslo accords; a peace initiative for which Yitzhak Rabin paid with his blood and also that of Anouar Sadat in 1977, which culminated in his assassination too. However, the hope for peace – if any – can be in the hands of academics, NGO’s and Humanitarian organizations among many others. For instance, we have to bear in mind that most of the pressure exerted on the Israeli government is done not by the Palestinian rockets, but the inside work conducted by Humanitarian and NGOs based in Israel.108 Academics, Jewish, fighting a very bitter war on behalf of justice (a war they could have been better off) are the bricks that can lead to peace. Having discussed the question of the Palestinian violence and its implications in the Israeli and American political discourses, we now turn to an equally significant issue constituting the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, that is, the issue of the Israeli settlements. In this respect, the next section shall address the matter of the continued construction of the Israeli settlements on the Palestinian lands and the reaction of the U.S towards that.

108

- Jerrold, Kessel & Pierre, Klochendler. "Israel declares war on peace NGOs." 1 June, 2010.

71

1. Freezing the Israeli Settlements: To What End? The problem of the Israeli settlements in parts of Palestine has instigated a hot conflict that fuels up the already exacerbated relationships of the Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli settlements are Israeli civilian communities in the Israelioccupied territories, that is, lands that were captured from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria by Israel during the 1967 6-day War. Such settlements currently exist in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.109 In fact, the Israeli policies toward these settlements have ranged from active promotion to strategic removal or temporary freeze.110 This explains the fact that the Jewish settler population is estimated to have grown from about 20,000 in 1982 to more than 600,000 presently.111 The continued expansion of the Israeli settlements at the expense of forcibly evacuating the Palestinian citizens, such as the current expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem, has been a key issue in the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate. The ongoing construction of settlements by Israel is frequently censured as an obstacle to the peace process by different countries, among which the U.S is prominently present. This can be testified to by means of quoting barrack Obama, who declared in his speech to the Islamic world that “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” in this sense, “it is time for

109-

“Israeli settlement.” Wikipedia.

110-

Meron, Benvenisti. "Israeli settlements buried two-state solution: expert." Thomson Reuters. 111-

Ibid.

72

these settlements to stop.”112 Recently, “The White House condemned Israel's approval of 1,600 new settlement homes in disputed East Jerusalem.”113 It is true that Relations between Israel and the Obama administration have been chilly precisely because of the settlement issue; and it is also true that Mr. Obama has been less friendly to the country than past U.S leaders. Many international intergovernmental organizations have declared the continued construction of the Israeli settlements a violation to different rules and international laws. For example, it is worth noting that: The Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, every major organ of the United Nations, the European Union, and Canada, have declared that the settlements are a violation of international law[...]Non-governmental organizations including Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have also characterized the settlements as a violation of international law.114

The settlements have on several occasions been a source of tension between Israel and the international community, particularly the U.S. Given the long-time “special relations”115 between the U.S and Israel, an American special ally in the Middle East region,116 the latter has been making use of such relations so as to legitimize its colonial Zionist project in Palestine, thereby ignoring the international calls to stop its violence against the Palestinians and abide by the international laws

Barrack, Obama. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News, 04 June 2009 113“U.S. Condemns New Israeli Settlements.” JERUSALEM, March 9, 2010. 114“U.S. Condemns New Israeli Settlements.” JERUSALEM, March 9, 2010. 115Tahir, Shash. “The American relations with the Arab world and Israel.” The American Empire I. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic house of publication, 2001. 2000/18447. p. 283 116 - Ibid. p. 319 112-

73

and conventions. The U.S has, indeed, been standing in the way of UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israeli actions and vetoing every single law critical of the Israeli violence. The problem of the Israeli settlements, however, has frequently been a source of disagreement between the U.S and Israel. For instance, “in 1991 there was a clash between the Bush Father Administration and Israel, when the U.S. delayed a subsidized loan to pressure Israel not to proceed with the establishment of settlements in the Jerusalem-Bethlehem corridor.”117 At the time, the George Bush Sr. administration “voted in favour of six resolutions critical of Israel.”118 Moreover, the current U.S administration is against the Israeli continued expansion of settlements. A case in point is President Barrack Obama’s as well as George Mitchell’s, America’s special envoy to the Middle East, opposition to the settlements, which they expressed on a number of occasions. As a result, Israel agreed to 10-month freeze on new settlement construction in an attempt to proceed with peace talks with the Palestinians. Although Israel has agreed under heavy American pressure, “it has refused to suspend construction already under way in Jerusalem.”119 More than that, “On 15 October 2009, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he had ended talks with the Americans over the settlements.”120 The questions that should be asked then are the following: What makes Israel so audacious as to turn down an American demand to stop its settlements? Is not

117-

“Israeli settlement.” Wikipedia.

“US gives Abbas private assurances over Israeli settlements.” guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 April 2010 19.24 BST. < http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/29/israel-settlement-building-peace-talks> 118-

HILLEL HALKIN. “What to Do With the Settlements.” FEBRUARY 4, 2010 120“U.S. Condemns New Israeli Settlements.” CBS News World. JERUSALEM, March 9, 2010. 119-

74

America a superpower or “the world’s cop” that is entitled to dictate its rules to be strictly followed by others? As a matter of fact, these and other queries may not be comprehensively answered unless one investigates into the basic mechanisms of the general working of the American system or, in other words, the different mechanisms that produce decisions in America. Such mechanisms, in fact, have been discussed at length by Manar Achorbaji in her article, “The Main Introductions to the Analysis of the Mechanisms of the American System.”121 In fact the American political system is one of the most complicated systems in the world in that it is predicated upon strict rules and obligations that can not allow the decision to be made by a single power. Many people may think that the president is the only one who has the utmost right to decide on what the policies of the U.S should be both inside and outside, and that no body is going to abort a resolution issued by the president. In so doing, the American president is often thought of, especially in the Arab world, as a power that has the ability to stop Israel’s aggressions and unilateral moves with regard to the construction of settlements by virtue of the right of the veto which he has been granted by the American constitution. In this sense, the president can veto every single decision issued by Congress and which he does not agree with. However, the truth is that every president bears in mind different considerations before using the right to veto. Among such considerations is the balance of power in Congress; that is, there should always be a majority of two thirds of Congress voting for the president’s resolutions.122 Otherwise, if two thirds or the majority of Congress vote against the president’s resolutions, then he can not go on with implementing them and even his

Manar, Achorbaji. “The Main Introductions to the Analysis of the Mechanisms of the American System.” The American Empire III. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic House of Publication, 2002. 2001/19251. p. 171 122Rosalie, Targonski. Outline of U.S. Government: “The Legislative Branch: the Reach of Congress.”United States: Office of International Information Programs, 2000. p. 72 121-

75

right of using the veto will not be given an importance or bothered with.123 Therefore, every single president avoids using the right to veto by taking into consideration these realities so as to preserve his status as commander-in-chief. In addition to what has been said, there are many key elements to understand the working of the American political system. For the time being, this work shall be contented with two of them, which are perceived to be of capital importance to understanding the reasons why, for instance, some of Obama’s promises in different speeches should not be taken for granted. In this regard, the first key element in understanding the working of such a political system is the federal nature of the U.S, which constitutes a balance between the three American political institutions, that is, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial institutions. The second key element is that of the pressure groups and their role in the American decision making.

The American constitution has built a federal system that is predicated upon the principles of checks and balances. That is to say, the American constitution has meant to organize relations between the three American institutions, executive, legislative and judicial, in a way that will give the right to each one to control and supervise the others in every step they take with regard to the American well-being. In this way, no institution can have the right to take a decision alone without consulting with the other institutions, which seems to be, at once, a relation of partnership and supervision. In this sense, the president has the right to propose to Congress a law that he considers to be necessary and expedient for the American wellbeing; and the majority of Congress can decide on whether to pass that law or turn it down. The president also has the right to appoint the judges of the Supreme 123-

Ibid. p. 78

76

Court, and it is for the congress to grant its approval or not. Once the judges are nominated, Congress can not remove them. On the contrary, they are the only power that can turn down any resolution of Congress by considering it unconstitutional. As well, the Supreme Court acts as a policeman checking the constitutionality of laws and rules passed by either the Executive or Legislative branches.

Sometimes there are moments wherein the U.S president is given the right by the constitution to take a decision without the approval of the congress. For instance, the moments of war or those having to do with the U.S national security, which require only one single voice of the president. Still, Congress has got “the power of the purse”124 That is to say, in times of war, Congress has to vote for allotting a military budget so as to support the decision of the president. In case Congress does no approve of spending money on a certain war, the president’s decision will not be effective even if it is a higher national security case.

Bearing in mind such an intricate American political system, the pressure or lobby groups make a good use of their money so as to win the American decision for their favour. Drawing on a famous saying of Till O’Neil, an American congressman, contending that “the American policy is a local one”125 in the sense that whoever wants to affect the decision in America should work at the level of the grassroots, that is, the constituencies of the American decision makers. In so doing, the lobby groups, such as those working for the well-being of Israel, tend to spend their money on sponsoring the presidential electoral campaigns, which can not,

- Manar, Achorbaji. “The Main Introductions to the Analysis of the Mechanisms of the American System.” The American Empire III. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic House of Publication, 2002. 2001/19251. p. 184 125 - Ibid. p. 183 124

77

most of the time, be financed by the person running for the presidential elections. As a result, the winner in the elections tends to make some favors to the pressure groups in return to what they have done for him to win the elections. Such favors, most of the time, range from appointing some representatives of the pressure groups in the president’s administration to taking some decisions which can do favor to some countries, such as the case of Israel.126

Mindful of the pressure that Congress may have on the president’s decisions, pressure groups try to establish close relations with some congressmen. This can be done through different means. For instance, they endeavor to have at least a representative in Congress, leaking, thus, sensitive information to them about other Congress members. Building on this, the pressure groups tend to contact some congressmen and offer to help them with their electoral campaigns and provide information that can affect their membership in Congress. In this way, the lobby groups gain many voices in Congress to support their future intentions. In case some Congressmen refuse to yield to what the lobby groups propose, they, otherwise, succumb to their constituencies’ demands. In so doing, pressure groups work at the level of the grassroots by trying to rally people representing different electoral districts behind their plans and ideas. Such plans and ideas, which are, most of the time, propagandistic, are being instilled in peoples’ minds by means of the media and other facilities. As a result, such people representing the electoral districts put pressure on their representatives in Congress so as to listen to what the pressure groups want. This way of putting pressure on the congressmen by their constituencies is called the “triangulation system”127

126

- Ibid. P. 198 - Manar, Achorbaji. “The Main Introductions to the Analysis of the Mechanisms of the American System.” The American Empire III. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic House of Publication, 2002. 2001/19251. p. 213 127

78

Bearing in mind such a complex system producing the decision in America, one can understand the extent to which Israel is resolute on pursuing the construction of settlements on Palestinian lands, thereby ignoring even the U.S calls to stop them. When the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, said that he had ended talks with the Americans over the settlements, he surely was convinced that America can not really affect the Israeli decisions as long as these decisions are being put pressure on by pro-Israeli organizations, and that every single move the Israelis make is in accordance with their higher national interests with which even the U.S can not interfere.

To bring the Israeli-Palestinian discussion into an end, it should be declared that this second part of the book has attempted to bring into focus the issue of global peace which the U.S declared in a number of occasions to have an intention to promote. In so doing, focus has been placed on the questions of terrorism and violence and the extent to which both concerns have been addressed by the U.S. In general, the aim behind such an analysis of the American political system was to make explicit the fact that the American decision is not an independent one. Rather, it is the culture of pressure that repeatedly echoes in the American society in the sense that whoever desires to achieve something should learn the policies of lobbying first. In a nutshell, instead of saying that it is the American principles being regimented all over the world, one should, rather, say that it is the lobby principles being infused worldwide, so to speak.

79

80

It can be deductively proven from the afore-discussed points, the major of which is the transparency of what an American or any Western leader promises in his speeches addressed to the public, that politics is a complex field of study serving only to slow down the cycles of violence or turbulence among nations rather than end them; that is, giving hope to people for change for the better without really plausible moves and results by the end. This has become quite clear with Obama’s speech addressed to the Egyptian public, wherein he promised quite lot of things but, it turned out, the present time testifies to quite a different reality. For instance, developing the economy of the world through partnership was one of the concerns brought up in Obama’s speech, and brokering peace-talks between Israelis and Palestinians to reach peace was another, to mention but a few examples. The truth is that many people have expressed their anger against the current policies of Obama, who could not do anything regarding the latest economic depression that got many American workers laid off from their jobs let alone contributing to the economic progress of other countries. Besides, having promised to prioritize the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate in pursuit of peace upon coming into office, Obama, on a number of occasions, such as the latest events of the flotilla ships, acted in accordance with the previous policies or

81

strategies of the U.S Presidents before him, that is, promising Mahmud Abbas to see to the matter the sooner the possible as was revealed above. Of course, if one goes on enumerating the different promises that have not yet found their way to reality, the list shall not stop. People have, In fact, grown sick and tired of the different promises that have become nothing more than refrains in political speeches. The hope for leading a better life void of violence and abject poverty is the main dream everybody aspires to realize, and it is this same dream which is being made a good use of by politicians once they keep reiterating it in public, thereby extending the hope to realize that dream to some other time in the future. It is inescapably a fact that blame has been most of the time placed on Presidents who go on promising things without fulfilling them. Indeed, Part of this reality is true, whereas the other part is subject to criticism. In other words, the true part is that presidents of the U.S vowed, on a number of occasions, to secure the whole world’s interests, but their promises turned out to be mere words in the air, so to speak. The other part subject to criticism is the fact that the U.S presidents, as discussed above, can not do anything just by themselves without having the approval of other American constitutional powers. If, suppose, one of them is steadfastly willing to make a change, the nature of the political structure from within which he operates is not going to permit him to do so. Though an American president is granted by the constitution the powers of executing orders, he is still being chained by some other powers that have been created so as control and supervise each other in case a power is intent on surpassing its duties and obligations. Ironically enough, “as the happy euphoria of the post-election “honeymoon” dissipates, the president discovers that Congress has become less

82

cooperative.”128 Every single law which the President desires to pass in Congress has to be vested by two-thirds of Congress. In this sense, “it is very easy to defeat a bill in congress,” lamented President John F. Kennedy. “It is much more difficult to pass one.”129The president, in this sense, is forced to build at least temporary alliances among diverse, often antagonistic parties by virtue of their strong influence on the decisions of Congress. The best locations of these alliances are the Constituencies of Congressmen. If this has something to contribute to such a discussion, it is the fact that every president is aware of the constraints posed on him upon coming into office, but he tends to tread the same pathways taken by former presidents.

Actually, what remains significant to bring up into this debate is to find the way out from the labyrinth. It is a labyrinth wherein most people, willy-nilly, have got involved in that they have become sick and tired of the various refrains of promises articulated by politicians without concrete results. It ought to be voiced out that the most workable solution for peoples and nations of the world, be they Muslims, Christians or Jews to live in peace is in the hands of people themselves, particularly the masses or, to use Chomsky’s phrase, “the bewildered herds.” That is to say, “it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.”130 As long as citizens of countries are bamboozled into ready-packaged, stereotypical perceptions about other nations, as long as they keep faith in their ignorant knowledge regarding whom the other nations are and whether or not one

- Rosalie, Targonski. Outline of U.S. Government: “The Executive Branch: Powers of the Presidency.”United States: Office of International Information Programs, 2000. p. 48 129 - Qtd. In Rosalie, Targonski. Outline of U.S. Government: “The Executive Branch: Powers of the Presidency.”United States: Office of International Information Programs, 2000. p. 48 130 - Qtd. In Rosalie, Targonski. Outline of U.S. Government: “Government of the People: The Role of the Citizen.”United States: Office of International Information Programs, 2000. p. 109 128

83

should make efforts to establish peace and partnership with them, governments will continue to manufacture public consent to whatever agenda that suits their selfopinionated interests. Now, even wars are being waged by means of instilling propagandistic images in the minds of people about their potential enemies, which they do not even know quite enough. Therefore, the power to govern and positively affect the decisions of nations “comes directly from the people, not through the force of arms. This may have been tidy and direct as a theory, in practice it was far from exclusive.”131 The mobilization of “the bewildered herd” can make a difference and affect whatever unnecessary decision is to be taken by a certain country. This applies to both the Arab-Islamic world as well as the WesternChristian one. The solution of the Arab-Jewish conflict is also dependent on the citizens and whether or not such citizens are fully aware of each other’s differences, thereby willing to respect these differences and live in peace regardless of what the official discourses dictate.

No less important is the fact that citizens of nations are controlled by media, which tends, most of the time, to convey to them bogus information serving nothing but the agendas of governments sponsoring them. In a nutshell, the hope for peace –if any – should be sought by individuals or collectivities alike with the aim of breaking out of the tight circle of knowledge wherein they have become confined by media. This will certainly contribute to influencing, later on, most of the decisions made by nations of the world, on top of which the United States of America.

-Rosalie, Targonski. Outline of U.S. Government: “Government of the People: The Role of the Citizen.”United States: Office of International Information Programs, 2000. p. 110 131

84

85

Bibliography:  Achorbaji, Manar. “The Main Introductions to the Analysis of the Mechanisms of the American System.” The American Empire III. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic House of Publication, 2002. 2001/19251.  Benjamin, R. Barber. Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Ballatine Books, 1995  Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2003  Chomsky, Noam. Media Control. Canada: Seven Stories Press, 2002  Chomsky, Noam. 9-11.Canada: Seven Stories Press, 2001  Chomsky, Noam. Failed states. New York: Henry Holt and company, 2006  Eriksson, Baaz Maria and Maria, Stern. “Why Do Soldiers Rape? Masculinity, Violence, and Sexuality in the Armed Forces in the Congo (DRG).” Journal of the International Association (2009): 53-02  Hilal, Rida. Introduction. “An Insurgent Empire: Has America Changed after the 11th September?” The American Empire III. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic house of publication, 2002. 2001/19251.  Kirles, Karima. “The United States and Israeli: Very Special Relationships.” The American Empire II. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic house of publication, 2001. 2001/15906.  Lewis, Bernard. Crisis of Islam: “The Rise of Terrorism.” London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2003  Louis, J. Cantori. “Islamic Republicanism and a Liberal Democracy.” Islam and the West for a Better World. Ed. Khalid Hajji. Qatar: Arab Scientific Publishers, Inc, 2007  Said, Edward. Orientalism. England: Penguin Group, 2003.  Sahli, Fatiha. International Relations: Basic Principles in International Relations. Marrakesh: The National Papermaking Press, 1993. 197/93  Shash, Tahir. “The American relations with the Arab world and Israel.” The American Empire I. Ed. Rida Hilal. Cairo: The Islamic house of publication, 2001. 2000/18447.  Targonski, Rosalie. Outline of U.S. Government. United States: Office of International Information Programs, 2000  Tuathail, O. Gearoid, et al. The Geopolitics Reader: “Towards a World Order.” London: Routledge, 2001  Zakaria, Fareed. The Post America World. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009  Ziauddin, Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies. Why Do People Hate America? England: Icon Books, 2004

86

Articles:  Nixon, Richard. “Combating Terrorism in a Globalized World.” America: National War College. 2002. PDF. http://www.ijtihad.org/globalterror.htm  Praja, S. Juhaya. “Islam, Globalization and Counter-terrorism.” International Senior Seminar Visiting Experts' Papers: Resource material Series No. 71. PDF. www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_rms/.../10_p32-p39.pdf

Electronic sources:  Asian Tribune “Rape of Iraqi Women by US Forces as Weapons of War: Photos and Data Emerge.” 03 October, 2009 http://www.care2.com/news/member/760164053/1275220  Benvenisti, Meron. "Israeli settlements buried two-state solution: expert." Thomson Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62M3FY20100323  Bin, Laden Osama, et al. “Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad against Americans.” Al-Quds al-Arabi, February 23, 1998. http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm  Bush, W. George. “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People.” Washington, DC, September 09, 2001. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html  Goldfarb, Michael. “Crisis guide_ the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- council on foreign relations.” http://www.cfr.org/publication/13850/crisis_guide.html  HALKIN, HILLEL . “What to Do With the Settlements.” FEBRUARY 4, 2010 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704259304575043101789714506.html  Houk, Marian. “No mention of Israeli-Palestinian stalemate in Obama's State of the Union speech.” January 28, 2010.< http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/138922  Jackson, T. Kenneth. "Multiculturalism in the US." Area & Country Studies, the 2nd of March, 2010. http://www.essaycustom.com/2010/03/02/multiculturalism-in-the-us/  Kessel, Jerrold and Pierre, Klochendler. "Israel declares war on peace NGOs." The Arab American News, the 1st of June, 2010. http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=World&article=279  Khan, M. A. Muqtedar. “Teaching Globalization in the Era of Terrorism.” GlocalEye: Lecture given at University of Richmond, 02 February, 2004. http://www.ijtihad.org/globalterror.htm  Khan, M. A. Muqtedar. “Terrorism and globalization.”GlocalEye, 2001. http://www.glocaleye.org/terglo.htm

87

 Levy, Gideon. “Israel Doesn't Want Peace.” Haartez Newspaper. June 10, 2010 Sivan 28, 5770. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-doesn-t-want-peace-1.217576  Obama, Barrack. “A New Beginning.” Oregon Local News 04 June 2009http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/text_of_president_barack_obama_2.ht ml  Rian. “Israel attacks Pro-Palestinian aid flotilla.” News Fit. 31 May, 2010. http://www.newsfit.info/news_Israel-attacks-Pro-Palestinian-aid-flotilla_file_86302.html  Shlaim, Avi. “How Israel Brought Gaza to the Brink of Humanitarian Catastrophe.”The Guardian Newspaper. 7 June, 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine  "Algerian Insurgency." GlobalSecurity.Org, 2010 http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/algeria-90s.htm  “Israeli–Palestinian conflict.” Wikipedia: Reative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, 5 June 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict “Israeli settlement.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement  "Stereotypically Dumb/Stupid Americans." Fifi Box. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWCPAXgrm2U  “Terrorism in Egypt.” Wikipedia: Reative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, 26 December 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Egypt  “U.S. Condemns New Israeli Settlements.” CBS News.com World. JERUSALEM, March 9, 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/09/world/main6282500.shtml  “US gives Abbas private assurances over Israeli settlements.” guardian.co.uk, Thursday 29 April 2010 19.24 BST. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/29/israel-settlement-building-peacetalks

88

Index 1 11th September attacks, 52, 54, 55, 58, 62, 63,

Bush, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 51, 80, 93

65, 67 9

business, 25, 29

9-11terrorist attacks, 67 C A

century, 8, 26, 37, 49

administration, 10, 14, 32, 51, 52, 69, 70, 71, 72,

challenge, 15, 48, 49, 65

79, 80, 84

children, 35, 36, 74

Advocating, 34

Chomsky, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 26, 35, 36, 38,

agreements, 16, 72, 73

39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 50, 51, 52, 53, 89, 92

Al Qaeda, 58, 63, 64

civilization, 19, 47, 58, 62

America, 4, 8, 10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,

coexist, 15, 19, 20, 34, 67, 71

24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 38, 39, 41,

coexistence, 17, 19, 20, 57

42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 56, 61, 62, 63, 64,

Congress, 51, 69, 76, 81, 82, 83, 84, 88, 89, 93

65, 66, 67, 70, 80, 81, 83, 85, 90, 92, 93

Congressmen, 84, 89

American, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20,

contraventions, 15

21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36,

cultural coexistence, 20

39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 61, 62, D

63, 65, 66, 67, 69, 72, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 92, 93

democracy, 9, 11, 15, 16, 19, 22, 26, 27, 31, 32,

American masses, 21

33, 34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 63

animosity, 17, 19, 33, 54, 61

democratization, 38, 42 dialogical, 9, 19, 44

B

discourse, 8, 77

barbaric, 23, 24, 75 E

bewildered herd, 40, 90 bloody, 8, 47

economic development, 11, 19, 25, 27, 28

bridges, 9, 77

emancipation, 11 89

extremism, 56, 58

Iraq, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, 34, 35, 38, 42, 50, 56

extremists, 19

Islam, 4, 14, 17, 20, 23, 24, 33, 36, 42, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 92, 93 F

Islamic, 4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 32, 33, 42, 48,

freedoms, 75

49, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 65, 66, 67, 69, 72, 76, 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 90, 92

fundamentalist, 54, 56, 59, 63

Islamism, 4, 54, 55, 61

fundamentalists, 54

Israel, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 92, 93, 95

G

Israeli settlements, 71, 77, 78, 79, 80, 93, 95 Gaza, 74, 75, 76, 95

Israeli-Palestinian, 4, 11, 50, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73,

globalization, 46, 47, 48, 63, 64, 66, 93

76, 77, 78, 85, 87, 93 Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, 50, 68, 70, 72, 76,

H

77, 78, 87, 93 Hamas, 72, 75 K

Hatred, 4, 19 human rights, 9, 11, 16, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35,

killing, 35, 37, 55, 56, 72, 74, 76

36, 38

knowledgeable ignorance, 24

humanitarian, 13, 21, 26, 75 L

hyper power, 15, 17 lobbying, 69, 85

I

M

ideas, 21, 22, 23, 26, 32, 47, 57, 84 ideological, 52, 53, 54, 59, 68

martyrs, 59

innocent, 14, 35, 36, 74

masses, 40, 89

intentional ignorance, 20, 21, 22

media, 9, 19, 21, 22, 54, 68, 84, 90

interests, 10, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28,

Middle East, 8, 15, 21, 42, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73,

30, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 65, 66, 72, 73, 85, 88,

74, 76, 79, 80

90

militants, 35, 52, 53

international security, 11, 17

misdemeanours, 21, 36

intimidation, 26, 52, 72, 74

Muslims, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25,

invasion, 35, 63

32, 33, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 67, 89 90

Sadam Hussein, 13, 15, 21, 50, 66

N

security, 10, 11, 34, 37, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55,

new beginnings, 8, 10, 16, 18, 24, 43

57, 65, 66, 74, 76, 83 O

specialised class, 39, 40 spectators in democracy, 40

Obama, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 25, 32,

speech, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 26, 32, 39, 49, 70,

34, 36, 49, 50, 55, 70, 72, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82,

76, 78, 87, 93

87, 93, 95

stereotypes, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

occupation, 35, 38, 42, 74, 75

stereotypical, 19, 89 P

strategies, 8, 9, 26, 35, 88

Palestinians, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, T

79, 80, 87 tensions, 8, 14

peace, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28, 31, 48, 50, 55, 57, 63, 66, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76,

territories, 43, 78

77, 78, 80, 85, 87, 89, 90, 93, 95

terror, 13, 43, 47, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 74, 75, 76 terrorism, 11, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,

policy, 9, 10, 14, 15, 20, 21, 41, 51, 52, 83

56, 57, 64, 65, 66, 67, 74, 85, 93

political, 8, 13, 14, 16, 30, 39, 50, 51, 52, 53, 59,

terrorists, 8, 10, 21, 47, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 64, 66

67, 68, 75, 76, 77, 81, 82, 83, 85, 88

the United States of America, 8

power, 8, 11, 15, 18, 28, 29, 32, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 49, 58, 61, 62, 64, 65, 81, 83, 88, 90

U

President, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 24, 25, 26, US administration, 21

32, 36, 69, 70, 72, 75, 80, 89

USA, 8, 9, 15, 24, 36, 38, 41, 43

promises, 9, 18, 26, 31, 50, 76, 82, 87, 88, 89 promotion, 27, 31, 34, 36, 38, 78

V

propaganda, 21, 22, 24 violence, 4, 11, 44, 47, 50, 52, 53, 55, 58, 69,

pro-Palestinian activists, 75

70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 85, 87, 88 violent, 56, 75

R rallying, 21

W

religious, 25, 52, 54, 56, 67, 71 war, 8, 21, 22, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 49, 51, 52, 53, 57, 63, 65, 66, 73, 74, 77, 83, 93, 95

S 91

weapons, 15, 21, 49, 61

44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62,

Western, 4, 11, 14, 15, 47, 57, 59, 62, 63, 68, 71,

66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 85,

87, 90

87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 95

women, 11, 35, 36, 37, 38, 74 Z

world, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, Zionist movements, 69

25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 39, 42, 43,

92

Book Title

Regimenting Americanism: - A Short Cut into a Dialogical Globe

Author’s Name

Mohamed BELAMGHARI

Genre

Social Life, Sociology

ISBN No.

978-1512054316

Language

English

Publication Year

2015

Edition

First Edition

Book Price

$9.99

No. of Pages

99

Page Size

8``x11.5``

Publisher & Printed By

EduPedia Publications Pvt Ltd D/351, Prem Nanar-3, Suleman Nagar, Kirari, Nagloi, New Delhi PIN-Code 110086, India Contact : +919557022047 or +919958037887 Email : [email protected]