US Scholar Blames Arab Culture for Mideast Violence
Posted in Israel, Terrorism, war, wordpress, Politics, Palestine, Opinion, Foreign Affairs, Islam, Muslim, 9/11 on March 25th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews‘…the Hudson Institute scholar argues that the principle cause of continued violence in the Middle East — and the reason so many peace initiatives have failed — is Arab culture itself.’
There’s a quote to attract your attention. It’s a safe bet Lee Smith, author of ‘Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations’ will not be offered a job in the Obama State Department.
The report offered below was a timely find for presentation with the last post featuring another slur of Israel from the United Nations Secretary General. The view from this blog has typically been the reason for elusive Middle East peace is that no one really wants it. It is as if world powers need conflict among less powerful nations to accommodate their perverse competition. A handy excuse to distance themselves from direct confrontation with each other.
Be that as it may the book by Smith provides a tempting addition to anyone’s reading list. It is refreshing to see a story not blaming Israel or the US for Middle East problems. A few more authors from the Middle East couldn’t hurt. But then speaking out in other parts of the world is much more dangerous than it is here. (the US) At least one American tradition (and contitutional concept) seems to remain intact.
So repeat after me, it’s all the Arabs’ fault.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
from VOA….
Lee Smith says it has always been hard for Americans to understand exactly why peace in the Middle East is so elusive, and why violence and terrorism are so pervasive and persistent in the Arab world.
He says those questions became even more difficult to answer after the 9/11 attacks by a group of Sunni Arab terrorists that killed 3,000 people on American soil, and after the massive U.S. military deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Smith says American academicians and journalists often cite a list of root causes for Middle East turmoil, in which the U.S., the West and Israel usually play a big part: a history of colonialism and economic exploitation, the creation of Israel and American support for the Jewish state, the politics of oil, Western backing of repressive Arab regimes and the U.S. military presence in the region.
‘Culture of Violence’
Smith concedes these are factors in Arab perceptions of the West. But in his new book, “The Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations,” the Hudson Institute scholar argues that the principle cause of continued violence in the Middle East — and the reason so many peace initiatives have failed — is Arab culture itself.
It is a political culture, Smith argues, in which violence has always played a central role. “Of course, it was not America’s hand that blew up mosques in Iraq. It was not the Bush administration that conducted a campaign of terror in Beirut, assassinating Lebanese politicians, journalists and civil society activists,” says Smith. “And the U.S. State Department sentenced no opposition figures, intellectuals, journalists or bloggers to prisons in Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere around the Middle East, where they were subject to torture, rape and murder. It was Arabs who did this to other Arabs.”
Smith believes that is the main lesson American policymakers should learn: that Arabs today are divided against themselves.
“A clash of Arab civilizations; clashes between Arab regimes and their own people, the regimes and their domestic rivals and insurgencies, clashes between Arab regimes themselves,” says Smith. Perhaps most importantly, there is the clash between world views, where on the one hand, there is the democratic and progressive trend embodied in the venerable and still extant tradition of Arab liberalism, and on the other hand, the bloody and violent current represented by far too many of the region’s seminal figures.”
Strong Horse
Smith is an Arabic speaker who moved to Cairo after 9/11 determined to find out what motivated the al-Qaeda attackers. He has spent the past nine years crisscrossing the Middle East in search of the answer. Smith took the title of his book, “The Strong Horse,” from a quote by Osama bin Laden, who said, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”
Smith believes Arabs are trying to stabilize and strengthen their societies after centuries of Ottoman control, Western colonization and decades of conflict while also looking for that strong horse to lead them out of their troubled past. Faltering Arab states like Yemen, which faces new threats from young, radicalized Muslim insurgents, also need help maintaining the rule of law and exploring democratic pathways to political reform. Smith argues that the United States can and should continue to play that role.
“There is no evidence that the U.S. is any less strong than it has always been. So I think it becomes clear that even if we want to reduce our regional profile, an issue like the Yemen issue makes it clear that this is not possible,” says Smith. “I think the U.S. can certainly be of assistance. I think that one of the things that a ’strong horse’ does is not just punish his enemies but he rewards and protects his friends.”
Struggle for supremacy
Smith sees a clear distinction between the two world views vying for regional supremacy in the Middle East. On the one hand, there is Iran and its allies in the so-called “resistance” block, including Syria, the Palestinian group Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. And on the other hand, there is the United States and the American-backed Arab regimes, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.
Smith says the U.S. and its allies cannot afford to lose to the other camp. “It would be very bad for the U.S. and even worse for our allies in the region, because that would affect the political culture of the region to show that resistance ideology has scored a victory and that moderation and compromise are not as successful as resistance ideology,” says Smith. “So it would be a very bad thing for U.S. interests and U.S. allies in the region.”
Smith believes a victory for what he calls “the culture of resistance” would enshrine violence and vengeance as the manner in which all grievances, real and imagined, are routinely addressed.
U.S. role
The author acknowledges that after nine years of large-scale U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, and with the nation’s economic difficulties bearing down on them, many Americans feel the temptation to pull the U.S. strong horse out of the region.
But Lee Smith’s new book concludes that diminishing the American presence in the Middle East at this moment could create dangerous new instabilities that could worsen, not improve, the prospects for peace in the region.
Smith believes that would be especially true in the Arab Gulf states, where the U.S. for decades has ensured the security of the world’s largest oil reserves.
“The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations,” by Lee Smith, is published by Knopf Doubleday.
Obama’s honeymoon is over and according to the poll above about half the voters think Hillary or Barack would be doing about the same as president. Barack Obama has done nothing to inspire confidence resulting in the honeymoon being over and half the voters think Hillary would be doing about the same. So how’s Hillary doing as Secretary of State? Forget that most of the year she was promoting human rights as her central focus. What about the Middle East?
It is probably too early to draw a conclusion on President Obama’s reported ‘go ahead’ order on the Navy Seals mission to end the hostage situation involving Somali ‘pirates’ (thugs, terrorists, extortionists) and a now famous Captain Phillips of the ship Maersk Alabama. With one 16 year old perp in custody and Phillips still being held hostage, under imminent threat of death, the Navy team took out the remaining three thugs effectively freeing the captain from his captors.
The report indicates Hillary Clinton said the US will pursue a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians. How does that square with her quote below that different opinions will be respected? And how can she claim ‘time is of the essence’ if not to mean she wants a political win for her 2012 resume’? With at least one neighboring state calling for Israel to be eliminated and no significant history of progress towards peace since 1948 or before no one can really expect this situation to change soon.
Over the years many published reports indicate terrorism is fostered in the West Bank and Gaza for the high unemployment, predominantly youthful population with no opportunity and a crowded populace living in poverty and dire conditions. Then how did Abbas calculate they would need $2.8 billion to rebuild Gaza? How does Clinton determine $300 million in aid will make Gaza peaceful and responsible? And then there are 75 ‘donor’ nations meeting to raise more money. The better question is how smart do you have to be to realize if you launch rockets against Israel long enough to force retaliation after the smoke clears you will receive billions of dollars to do with as you please? The secondary question is this. If Gaza is so bleak and suffering from deplorable conditions why would it cost that much to rebuild and why do the Palestinians need wads of cash to ‘cover a budget’ and for ‘institutional reforms and economic development’? Is this the first time they have ever received money in this manner? No.
Madeleine Albright is described in the same account as a family friend and mentor to Rice. She urged Clinton to appoint Rice as an Assistant Secretary of State in 1997. While she impressed many and certainly enough to be confirmed others felt she was inexperienced and inflexible. A few years in the Clinton Administration and then to the Brookings Institution. A common career path for unemployed public servants similar to former Congressman becoming lobbyists. Next up the Clinton Obama Wars and filling the Administration with former staff to appease the Clinton clan before the convention. Oh there’s no nepotism here. And this is not a criticism directed at Rice for it is the case with most if not all Obama selections. So how is that working or shaping up for the average citizen?
Translation:: The money is used to pay for abortions the ‘patient’ cannot afford which would lead to back alley practitioners who care less about the patient than the liberals care about the unborn child. And ‘family planning’ is liberal-speak for abortion. The only reason they support contraception is political. It gives them another pork item to support in legislation and lets them believe they have convinced you they are trying to do things the right way. Could it be any more pathetic?