Discovering the obvious-Arab "moderates" blame Israel, Arab radicals blame America.

Success in the world, whether individual or national, ultimately depends on the ability to understand reality and respond appropriately. It requires addressing your actual weaknesses and fixing your real problems in a process of constructive self-criticism followed by a process of reform or correction.

That isn't the way the Middle East works. At the same time, though, that's also not the way most of the world sees the region. As a result, we must be profoundly grateful when someone discovers the obvious.

Here are three examples of this phenomenon. The first comes from David Brooks, writing in The New York Times on April 8. Brooks attended one of the endless series of dialogues which always seem to follow the same pattern. The program was supposed to be getting "Americans and moderate Arab reformers together to talk about Iraq, Iran, and any remaining prospects for democracy in the Middle East."

But, guess what? All the Arab speakers wanted to discuss was Israel and its alleged control over US policy. In Brooks's words: "The problems between America and the Arab world have nothing to do with religious fundamentalism or ideological extremism... They have to do with American policies toward Israel, and the forces controlling those policies."

And, by the way, all the problems within the Middle East, too, stem from Israel. That includes not only the Arab-Israeli dispute, but also all the crises in Lebanon and Iraq, and those stemming from Iran's ambitions.

The Americans tried to get their counterparts to discuss other things, including the need for modernization in the Arab world. They failed.

THERE WERE two points in this that Brooks failed to understand. No, make that three. First, he saw this as a new phenomenon, as if it was something that had developed recently, when of course it has been consistent.

Second, he thought that the result of this kind of behavior would displease the Arab side: "Faced with an arc of conspiracy-mongering, most Americans will get sick of the whole cesspool" and look for anything that will let them get out of the region. This, of course, is precisely what both Arab nationalists and Islamists desire.

The third point was brought out by a reader in a letter published April 12. The author, Michael Smith of Cynthiana, Kentucky, shows more wisdom than a boatload of Middle East experts. Here is his letter in full:

"David Brooks reports that 'moderate Arab reformers have traced the problems in Iraq, Iran and other Middle East hot spots to a country roughly the size of Massachusetts that dominates the affairs of its Arab neighbors and operates a puppet government in Washington as well.

The answer to his question is simply this: Moderates think the United States behaves the way it does because it is Israel's puppet. Radicals view Israel as America's puppet. Thus, the moderates think it is possible to deal with America by convincing it to change its evil ways, while radicals view the United States as irredeemably imperialistic.

ANOTHER example of discovery comes from the well-known blogger who calls himself IraqPundit, an Iraqi exile. He writes of watching an Al-Jazeera television show on which a Somali guest complained about Islamist terrorists making the lives of Somalis miserable.

The host responded, "You sound like the Iraqi government when it calls any act of resistance 'terrorism.'"

This sent IraqPundit into a spin. Suddenly, all he could think of was "Iraqi men, women, and children choking to death in a cloud of chlorine gas released by one of the noble resistance's truck bombs... I saw Iraqi girls who had gone to school and Iraqi mothers who had gone to the market, all murdered and lying in a sea of Iraqi blood."

He concludes, "But that's Arab nationalism, isn't it? When the Ba'athist regime was overthrown hardcore nationalists equated Arab 'honor' with the survival of brutal and tyrannical trash. Now they equate 'resistance' with our slaughter."

MY FINAL example comes from an Islamist Internet site, courtesy of MEMRI's translation. One member posted an article opposing a nuclear attack on America by Islamists since the resulting US retaliation against Muslims would be devastating. He also stated that Muslim religion permitted revenge only on those who directly commit an act of aggression, and not on unarmed civilians.

Most responses strongly disagreed, starting with one that began, "This article was not written by a Muslim... but by an American... [probably from] one of their strategic centers for countering the Islamic jihad."

The notion was that anyone who opposed attacking a stronger adversary by killing millions of people must be an enemy agent. Of course, the great majority of Muslims reject doing any such thing, but the argument that those who speak in real-world terms are traitors is widespread, a constantly employed tactic.

The first, the radical one, is that these claims about Israel's omnipotence, the virtues of Arab nationalist "resistance," and the right to murder Westerners are correct. The alternative, more "moderate" stance, which appeals to a far wider circle, is that since Arabs or Muslims truly believe these things, such grievances must be addressed by apologies, policy changes and concessions.

When it comes to the Middle East, there is often nothing more difficult than discovering the obvious.

Religious fundamentalism and ideological extremism have a great deal to do with the problems between America and the Arab world.

(if I may) it also has a great deal to do with the problems between the “fundamentalists” (Salafists and Wahhabists) and the rest of the Arab/Muslims world.

The radical loser (Long Read)
Der Spiegel ^ | 1/12/05 | Hans Magnus Enzensberger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1694568/posts

snip)

There is also no mistaking other similarities, such as the fixation with written authorities. The place of Marx and Lenin is taken by the Koran, references are made not to Gramsci but to Sayyid Qutb. Instead of the international proletariat, it takes as its revolutionary subject the Umma, and as its avant-garde and self-appointed representative of the masses it takes not The Party but the widely branching conspiratorial network of Islamist fighters. Although the movement can draw on older rhetorical forms which to outsiders may sound high-flown or big-mouthed, it owes many of its idées fixes to its Communist enemy: history obeys rigid laws, victory is inevitable, deviationists and traitors are to be exposed and then, in fine Leninist tradition, bombarded with ritual insults.

The movement’s list of favourite foes is also short on surprises: America, the decadent West, international capital, Zionism. The list is completed by the unbelievers, that is to say the remaining 5.2 billion people on the planet. Not forgetting apostate Muslims who may be found among the Shiites, Ibadhis, Alawites, Zaidites, Ahmadiyyas, Wahhabis, Druze, Sufis, Kharijites, Ishmaelites or other religious communities.

(snip)

Contrary to what the West appears to believe, the destructive energy of Islamist actions is directed mainly against Muslims. This is not a tactical error, not a case of “collateral damage”. In Algeria alone, Islamist terror has cost the lives of at least 50,000 fellow Algerians. Other sources speak of as many as 150,000 murders, although the military and the secret services were also involved. In Iraq and Afghanistan, too, the number of Muslim victims far outstrips the death toll among foreigners. Furthermore, terrorism has been highly detrimental not only to the image of Islam but also to the living conditions of Muslims around the world.

The Islamists are as unconcerned about this as the Nazis were about the downfall of Germany. As the avant-garde of death, they have no regard for the lives of their fellow believers. In the eyes of the Islamists, the fact that most Muslims have no desire to blow themselves and others sky high only goes to show that they deserve no better than to be liquidated themselves. After all, the aim of the radical loser is to make as many other people into losers as possible. As the Islamists see it, the fact that they are in the minority can only be because they are the chosen few.
(snip)

The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.

Post-Saddam Iraq has shown the impossibility of choosing sides in the Shiite and Sunni division.

They will kill each other. But they will also join forces temporarily for the purpose of killing outsiders.

The destructive energy of Islamist actions is directed mainly against Muslims because they are low-hanging fruit.

Fundamentalist Islamism is just nihilism with a special purpose and direction.

The reason for the existence of time is so everything does not happen all at once.

Much of the animosity to the US was indirectly explained to me some years ago by an educated Lebanese Muslim.

He was aggravated that the US “used most of its military budget” to prop up the Israeli military. He had seen the power of the Israeli military first hand, and it had terrified him.

Therefore, he thought that if the US would stop funding the Israeli military, then it would only be as strong as that of the nearby Arab nations. So everything that Israel did was really the fault of the US.

Of course, I immediately challenged his axiom, but he refused to believe that US funding to Israel was *tiny* compared to our military budget. His mind refused to accept the truth—a truth so horrible to him that it was unthinkable.

And *this* is the problem in much of the Arab world. They really have no idea of how enormous our military is, how tiny Israel’s military is, yet how easily the Israeli military crushed the Arab armies.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.