Reconciliation with America
Ahmed Hany
May 02, 2009
When president Obama chose Turkey to talk to the Islamic World, he stressed that his country is not and never will be in a war with Islam. He stressed also that both Islam and America have a common enemy that is extremism and terrorism. However, he did not define terrorism and he did not mention other causes of the conflict.
A simple and short review of the causes of the conflict, one finds that the West started the conflict after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Margaret Thatcher, the then British premier asked the Western allies to chose Islam as a temporary enemy until they would prepare to contain China. She chose Islam because most of the energy resources were present in the Islamic World. Second, controlling of these resources helped the West to achieve other strategic goals which are encircling Russia and approaching China.
Shortly after that the American Ambassador in Baghdad dragged Saddam to conquer Kuwait. Let us not forget that the CIA helped Bin Laden to smuggle weapons to Afghanistan to fight Russia. While the Arab and Western allies were preparing to liberate Kuwait, Bin Laden declared war on them both and he considered Saddam an enemy as well. All types of double standard policies were applied to label Islam as religion of terror.
Therefore this reconciliation is a step in the global Western strategy. Bush received the leader of Chinese Moslems and talked about their rights while his soldiers were humiliating Moslems in Abu Gharib. The success of BRIC group, Brazil, Russia, India and China to achieve development rates that would make them have a say in the World affair and the return of Russia as a military power made the US accelerate reconciliation with the Islamic World after the eight years of military failure in Iraq and Afghanistan and consider partnership with Russia. The Chinese request that the dollar should be substituted by gold or another currency as international reserve means declaring war on America.
Referring back to the middle ages when the Church in Vatican burnt scientists and sold forgiveness deeds, one finds that it was normal for the West to associate backwardness with religion during the renaissance. On the contrast, the Islamic civilization was about sciences not about religion and it set the solid scientific base for Europe to have its renaissance and the industrial revolution. However, Islam has not in its hierarchy a church that dominates thinking of the followers. The Islamic World suffered from backwardness when Moslems left sciences and Islamic scholars left moderation. Fundamentalists and reformists are present in the three divine religions. The West used al-Qaeda as a church and the media gave fundamentalists the opportunity to declare weird religious edicts that labeled Islam with terrorism and backwardness.
Therefore the West and Islam have a common enemy which is extremism and violence in all faiths not in Islam alone. What is about the Neo Cons and their ideas about creating the Kingdom of God by leading the world to Armageddon in the holy land? What is about the extremist Jew who killed Moslem prayers in Ibrahiem Mosque in Jerusalem? What is about the Jew who killed the late Israeli Premier Rabin? The NATO forces occupied Kosovo to protect Moslems from slaying there. Then what are about Dir Yassin, Qana, Lebanon, and Gaza? What is about killing the Egyptian war prisoners? All these are crimes against humanity and are not less than 11 September if reconciliation considers any blood not cheap.
Therefore, the first step of a true and sincere reconciliation between the Islamic World and America comes from defining terrorism and crimes against humanity in human rights terms not in Islamic terms because any religion forbids killing innocents and civilians. This helps much the trust building between America and the Islamic World and to empower moderates in Islamic World.
There is no difference between al-Qaeda thinking and the American Neo Cons thinking who destroyed two Islamic countries. Bin Laden manipulates religion to kill. Bush said that God told him to occupy Iraq. Would president Obama order an investigation about the false information that led to destruction of Iraq? Would president Obama support trials of the Israeli politicians and military generals who asked soldiers to kill civilian in Gaza? He succeeded to reconstruct the emotional bridges between his country and the Islamic World, but to empower the alliance between the West and Moderate Islam more practical steps and strategic dialogue are needed.
If president Obama did not respond practically then he would ask the Islamic World for a concession. There is nothing priceless in policy. In other words the Islamic World might not ask for opening files as a prerequisite for reconciliation if the US would take positive steps regarding security and development issues of those who suffered due to the double standard policies especially in Palestine to establish the viable state there. This will establish a solid cornerstone for partnership.
President Obama considered the North Korea´s ballistic missile as a threat. What is about the Israeli Foreign Minister who called for using tactical nuclear bombs against Gaza and threatened to bomb the High Dam? Would president Obama add the Israeli government to the axis of devil until it stops killing civilians or at least boycott Lieberman? Both Lieberman and Hamas refuse Annapolis agreements and the two-States solution and refuse to denounce violence. However, Hamas has the right to resist occupation according to the international law. The only positive sign is that president Obama and his administration responded to Lieberman by stressing on creating a viable Palestinian State. The question is when.
If the Americans withdrew from Iraq without establishing a solid security system that keeps the integrity of the country and the safety and rights of all faiths and races it would be a disaster. Simply Arabs would consider it a betrayal if he let Iran be the first influential force there. He needs Iran for Afghanistan. However he needs Arabs to keep the whole Middle East a safe place. He needs the Saudi Arabia to contact Taliban. He needs Egypt for the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. He needs his military bases in the Gulf. Even he needs Egypt to balance the Iranian military power during negotiations with the Persian state. The historical golden rule in the Middle East is no war without Egypt. Who has the ability to fight is the best to establish peace and stability.
In fact president Obama wants the reconciliation for his global strategy and to win his war in Afghanistan and to keep the Pax-Americana. The Islamic World cares more about Palestine and Jerusalem. What president Obama will do during his visit to Palestinian lands and Israel next June is the real test of reconciliation. If he did not take firm decisions to establish the Palestinian state that east Jerusalem its capital, if he did not safeguard Iraq and its development, nobody in the Middle East would damn care about stability from Iran to Afghanistan. The success of America´s global strategy passes through Jerusalem. We need a real change of double standard policies not emotional speeches.
A simple and short review of the causes of the conflict, one finds that the West started the conflict after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Margaret Thatcher, the then British premier asked the Western allies to chose Islam as a temporary enemy until they would prepare to contain China. She chose Islam because most of the energy resources were present in the Islamic World. Second, controlling of these resources helped the West to achieve other strategic goals which are encircling Russia and approaching China.
Shortly after that the American Ambassador in Baghdad dragged Saddam to conquer Kuwait. Let us not forget that the CIA helped Bin Laden to smuggle weapons to Afghanistan to fight Russia. While the Arab and Western allies were preparing to liberate Kuwait, Bin Laden declared war on them both and he considered Saddam an enemy as well. All types of double standard policies were applied to label Islam as religion of terror.
Therefore this reconciliation is a step in the global Western strategy. Bush received the leader of Chinese Moslems and talked about their rights while his soldiers were humiliating Moslems in Abu Gharib. The success of BRIC group, Brazil, Russia, India and China to achieve development rates that would make them have a say in the World affair and the return of Russia as a military power made the US accelerate reconciliation with the Islamic World after the eight years of military failure in Iraq and Afghanistan and consider partnership with Russia. The Chinese request that the dollar should be substituted by gold or another currency as international reserve means declaring war on America.
Referring back to the middle ages when the Church in Vatican burnt scientists and sold forgiveness deeds, one finds that it was normal for the West to associate backwardness with religion during the renaissance. On the contrast, the Islamic civilization was about sciences not about religion and it set the solid scientific base for Europe to have its renaissance and the industrial revolution. However, Islam has not in its hierarchy a church that dominates thinking of the followers. The Islamic World suffered from backwardness when Moslems left sciences and Islamic scholars left moderation. Fundamentalists and reformists are present in the three divine religions. The West used al-Qaeda as a church and the media gave fundamentalists the opportunity to declare weird religious edicts that labeled Islam with terrorism and backwardness.
Therefore the West and Islam have a common enemy which is extremism and violence in all faiths not in Islam alone. What is about the Neo Cons and their ideas about creating the Kingdom of God by leading the world to Armageddon in the holy land? What is about the extremist Jew who killed Moslem prayers in Ibrahiem Mosque in Jerusalem? What is about the Jew who killed the late Israeli Premier Rabin? The NATO forces occupied Kosovo to protect Moslems from slaying there. Then what are about Dir Yassin, Qana, Lebanon, and Gaza? What is about killing the Egyptian war prisoners? All these are crimes against humanity and are not less than 11 September if reconciliation considers any blood not cheap.
Therefore, the first step of a true and sincere reconciliation between the Islamic World and America comes from defining terrorism and crimes against humanity in human rights terms not in Islamic terms because any religion forbids killing innocents and civilians. This helps much the trust building between America and the Islamic World and to empower moderates in Islamic World.
There is no difference between al-Qaeda thinking and the American Neo Cons thinking who destroyed two Islamic countries. Bin Laden manipulates religion to kill. Bush said that God told him to occupy Iraq. Would president Obama order an investigation about the false information that led to destruction of Iraq? Would president Obama support trials of the Israeli politicians and military generals who asked soldiers to kill civilian in Gaza? He succeeded to reconstruct the emotional bridges between his country and the Islamic World, but to empower the alliance between the West and Moderate Islam more practical steps and strategic dialogue are needed.
If president Obama did not respond practically then he would ask the Islamic World for a concession. There is nothing priceless in policy. In other words the Islamic World might not ask for opening files as a prerequisite for reconciliation if the US would take positive steps regarding security and development issues of those who suffered due to the double standard policies especially in Palestine to establish the viable state there. This will establish a solid cornerstone for partnership.
President Obama considered the North Korea´s ballistic missile as a threat. What is about the Israeli Foreign Minister who called for using tactical nuclear bombs against Gaza and threatened to bomb the High Dam? Would president Obama add the Israeli government to the axis of devil until it stops killing civilians or at least boycott Lieberman? Both Lieberman and Hamas refuse Annapolis agreements and the two-States solution and refuse to denounce violence. However, Hamas has the right to resist occupation according to the international law. The only positive sign is that president Obama and his administration responded to Lieberman by stressing on creating a viable Palestinian State. The question is when.
If the Americans withdrew from Iraq without establishing a solid security system that keeps the integrity of the country and the safety and rights of all faiths and races it would be a disaster. Simply Arabs would consider it a betrayal if he let Iran be the first influential force there. He needs Iran for Afghanistan. However he needs Arabs to keep the whole Middle East a safe place. He needs the Saudi Arabia to contact Taliban. He needs Egypt for the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. He needs his military bases in the Gulf. Even he needs Egypt to balance the Iranian military power during negotiations with the Persian state. The historical golden rule in the Middle East is no war without Egypt. Who has the ability to fight is the best to establish peace and stability.
In fact president Obama wants the reconciliation for his global strategy and to win his war in Afghanistan and to keep the Pax-Americana. The Islamic World cares more about Palestine and Jerusalem. What president Obama will do during his visit to Palestinian lands and Israel next June is the real test of reconciliation. If he did not take firm decisions to establish the Palestinian state that east Jerusalem its capital, if he did not safeguard Iraq and its development, nobody in the Middle East would damn care about stability from Iran to Afghanistan. The success of America´s global strategy passes through Jerusalem. We need a real change of double standard policies not emotional speeches.
Print
Email
