Scenes From an Arab Classroom

The surprising lessons my class in Abu Dhabi taught me.

BY JAMES TRAUB | APRIL 27, 2010

For the last four months, I've been commuting back and forth to Abu Dhabi to teach a class on U.S. foreign policy to a group of Emirati college students as part of a program organized by New York University (which will be opening up a full-fledged university there in September). We had our last class on Sunday, and I asked my 10 students -- seven women, three men -- how I could do better next time. Should we have debates and role-playing? Yes. Would students be willing to take the pro-war side on Afghanistan? Yes. Iraq? Yes. Pro-Israel on Israel-Palestine? "No, no, you can't ask that!"

We had just finished listening to, and talking about, the passage of Barack Obama's famous Cairo speech in which the U.S. president talked about the Palestinian conflict, with its paired admonitions to both sides to acknowledge the legitimate aspirations, and the suffering, of the other. That was good -- mutuality and respect. But imagining yourself into the position of the oppressor? Beyond the pale. And these were bright, ambitious kids who had won a scholarship named after Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, the crown prince of one of the most pro-American states in the region. If these kids weren't going to heed Obama's plea, who would?

It was an education for me to understand what the world looked like to my students. Our first class was on Woodrow Wilson and the origins of the idealist tradition in American foreign policy. They were not impressed. Did Wilson really believe that nations would respond to appeals to conscience? When it came to the League of Nations, they thought that Sen. William Borah, Wilson's thunderous arch-foe, got the better of the argument. American exceptionalism struck them as sheer hypocrisy. A few classes later, we listened to the CBS newsman Harry Reasoner portentously explain why the United States had to fight in Vietnam: America offered the world freedom, and the Communists, enslavement. "You can't talk that way," said Salama. "How can you say, ‘We are good and they are bad?' We would never say that."

If American moralism struck them as arrogant, its tradition of liberal conception -- the sense that the world is malleable rather than merely manageable -- seemed to them naïve. They were default realists: Hans Morgenthau, though hard for them to parse, was more their cup of tea than Lyndon Johnson. We read Robert Kagan's Of Paradise and Power, with its insistence that, especially after 9/11, Americans, unlike Europeans, accepted that we live in "an anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable." "Is that the real world?," I asked. "I think so," said Fatma, a free-thinking novelist-to-be. "You can't convince people with hearts and flowers." Nouf, our most intellectual student, shot back, "Frankly, I found the book appalling." She defended European anti-militarism. But mostly she was shocked by Kagan's claim that at times the United States "must live by a double standard," advocating arms control for others, for example, but not for itself. The idea of America as liberal hegemon stuck in her craw.

Living in the Emirates gave my students a distinctive, though I think not unique, perspective. Abu Dhabi, especially, is something like Renaissance Urbino or Ferrara: a wealthy city-state ruled by a benevolent prince. The students consider themselves incredibly fortunate -- as indeed they are -- to live in a place so prosperous and forward-looking (at least if you're a citizen rather than a member of the vastly more numerous immigrant-labor class). But they know the Emirates are not a democracy. We listened to Ronald Reagan's famous 1982 speech at Westminster in which he called for a new policy of democracy promotion. We talked about what distinguishes a democracy. "A free press?," asked Mohamed. OK, but does Abu Dhabi have one? No, not really. Then what? Then, one of the students said, we should either change our definition of democracy or say that democracy promoters shouldn't target the Emirates. Citizens of Russia and China say much the same thing; we Westerners are not likely to convince them otherwise.

Ron Sachs-Pool/Getty Images

 

James Traub is a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and author of, most recently, The Freedom Agenda. His column for ForeignPolicy.com runs weekly.

SIR_MIXXALOT

6:13 PM ET

April 27, 2010

These views are common.

Even in the US -- here is Richard Cohen in the Wash Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701154.html

"The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself."

Is it hard for you to believe that Arab kids want to get in Israel's shoes? Not for me. I am a Jew and I don't want to get in Nazi boots either.

Smart kids -- smarter than many in the US. And better informed than 99% of Capitol Hill.

 

JACOB BLUES

9:30 PM ET

April 27, 2010

But Mixx the shoes fit so well on you

Another "Jews as Nazi's" wanna be Jew hater. Yes, the shoe fits even if you are a Jew.
.
Why you may ask? Take a good look in the mirror the next time you utter the words Israelis as Nazis and realize it is a Jew-free Arab world, not an Arab free Israel.
.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

11:33 PM ET

April 27, 2010

I said in Israeli shoes, you

I said in Israeli shoes, you fool. Not Jewish shoes.

Read and learn.

When Israel stops committing war crimes with US arms and my tax dollars you may have a right to lecture me on anti-Semitism.

I agree with the UK Jewish member of Parliament that Israel is acting like Nazis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8

 

ARADI

9:20 AM ET

April 28, 2010

I wonder

As an American, whose nation is responsible in the past decade for about 10 times as many civilian deaths in the Middle East as the entire Israeli-Arab conflict put together, how does it feel in your own boots?

 

JACOB BLUES

9:27 PM ET

April 27, 2010

Such idealism

from a bunch of sons and daughters of rich elitists of a divine right monarchy. Call it what it is James, a royal dictatorship / country club where the 'natives' our outnumbered by the hired help by a factor of nearly 10 to 1.
.
While you're expanding the minds of your students ask them how acceptable it is for the Arab world to have kicked out its entire population of Jews including the most recent final ethnic cleansing of the last 100 or so from Yemen.
.
Meanwhile, while you're looking for idealists, ask them about comparisons of Nasser, Khadaffi, Khomenei, and Hafez al' Assad, and compare and contrast the actions they took within their societies (Hama) and inter-Arab affairs (Egypt / Saudi war in Yemen).

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

11:37 PM ET

April 27, 2010

Just as bad as the rich self-righteous pro-Zionist kids at Yale

They are just as bad as the rich self-righteous pro-Zionist kids at Yale and Harvard who have no clue of the atrocities committed by Israel.

e.g.: by Shulamit Aloni, the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html

Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel

By SHULAMIT ALONI

Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what's right in front of our eyes. It's simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practises its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population.

The US Jewish Establishment's onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population's movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians' land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.

If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night--all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.

On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. "Why?" I asked the soldier. "It's an order--this is a Jews-only road", he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?"

Indeed Apartheid does exist here. And our army is not "the most moral army in the world" as we are told by its commanders. Sufficient to mention that every town and every village has turned into a detention centre and that every entry and every exit has been closed, cutting it off from arterial traffic. If it were not enough that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on the roads paved 'for Jews only', on their land, the current GOC found it necessary to land an additional blow on the natives in their own land with an "ingenious proposal".

Humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either.

Major-General Naveh, renowned for his superior patriotism, has issued a new order. Coming into affect on 19 January, it prohibits the conveyance of Palestinians without a permit. The order determines that Israelis are not allowed to transport Palestinians in an Israeli vehicle (one registered in Israel regardless of what kind of numberplate it carries) unless they have received explicit permission to do so. The permit relates to both the driver and the Palestinian passenger. Of course none of this applies to those whose labour serves the settlers. They and their employers will naturally receive the required permits so they can continue to serve the lords of the land, the settlers.

Did man of peace President Carter truly err in concluding that Israel is creating Apartheid? Did he exaggerate? Don't the US Jewish community leaders recognise the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination of 7 March 1966, to which Israel is a signatory? Are the US Jews who launched the loud and abusive campaign against Carter for supposedly maligning Israel's character and its democratic and humanist nature unfamiliar with the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of 30 November 1973? Apartheid is defined therein as an international crime that among other things includes using different legal instruments to rule over different racial groups, thus depriving people of their human rights. Isn't freedom of travel one of these rights?

In the past, the US Jewish community leaders were quite familiar with the meaning of those conventions. For some reason, however, they are convinced that Israel is allowed to contravene them. It's OK to kill civilians, women and children, old people and parents with their children, deliberately or otherwise without accepting any responsibility. It's permissible to rob people of their lands, destroy their crops, and cage them up like animals in the zoo. From now on, Israelis and International humanitarian organisations' volunteers are prohibited from assisting a woman in labour by taking her to the hospital. [Israeli human rights group] Yesh Din volunteers cannot take a robbed and beaten-up Palestinian to the police station to lodge a complaint. (Police stations are located at the heart of the settlements.) Is there anyone who believes that this is not Apartheid?

Jimmy Carter does not need me to defend his reputation that has been sullied by Israelophile community officials. The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what's in front of them. Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. We should remember that we too used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state. And the list of victims of terror is quite long and extensive.

We do limit ourselves to denying the [Palestinian] people human rights. We not only rob of them of their freedom, land and water. We apply collective punishment to millions of people and even, in revenge-driven frenzy, destroy the electricity supply for one and half million civilians. Let them "sit in the darkness" and "starve".

Employees cannot be paid their wages because Israel is holding 500 million shekels that belong to the Palestinians. And after all that we remain "pure as the driven snow". There are no moral blemishes on our actions. There is no racial separation. There is no Apartheid. It's an invention of the enemies of Israel. Hooray for our brothers and sisters in the US! Your devotion is very much appreciated. You have truly removed a nasty stain from us. Now there can be an extra spring in our step as we confidently abuse the Palestinian population, using the "most moral army in the world".

[Translated by Sol Salbe]

Shulamit Aloni is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

11:43 PM ET

April 27, 2010

It would appear the Arab kids

It would appear the Arab kids are correct and the pro-Zionist posters on this website are wrong.

Smart kids.

 

GUYVER

10:31 PM ET

April 27, 2010

Cheap shot at Al-Jazeera

Al-Jazeera has problems but almost all the documentaries it airs are Western made and it doesn't air documentaries with such blatant lies.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

12:07 AM ET

April 28, 2010

Agreed. AJ is a waaaaaaay

Agreed.

AJ is a waaaaaaay better source of info than most US networks. The Zionist forces in this country have made it difficult to obtain AJ on regular cable channels.

The more Americans listen to the Zionist Goebbels's on Fox the worse off we'll be.

Just FYI, most of the reporting on Iran is wrong by our elite media:

http://www.raceforiran.com/iraq-redux-redux-this-time-the-washington-post-is-rehashing-defectors%E2%80%99-arguments-but-now-about-iran

The Washington Post had another piece on Iran today, this time on the front page, that could easily have been run about Iraq back in 2002. We have recently criticized the Post for relying on Green Movement partisans for ostensibly objective ”analysis” about Iranian politics. Today’s piece relies almost entirely on unnamed U.S. officials and a known terrorist organization to make the Iraq-redux argument that Iranian “defectors” are providing the U.S. government with critical information that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. (The Post’s story refers specifically to three alleged, relatively recent defections.)

The Post seems to take as fact that, “Iran’s political turmoil,” created by the country’s June 12, 2009 presidential election, “has prompted a growing number of the country’s officials to defect or leak information to the West, creating a new flow of intelligence about its secretive nuclear program.” But, the Post’s journalists do not appear to have asked some basic questions about the information they are being fed by U.S. officials.

At least four main points from the Post’s story do not stand up to serious scrutiny.

1. What is the factual basis for the U.S. officials’ claims that there is any real “political turmoil” in Iran today that would prompt mass defections from an important, prestigious, and sensitive industry like Iran’s nuclear program? All the evidence at this point shows that support for the Green Movement has dropped precipitously and that the government is firmly in control.

2. What is the factual basis for linking the three alleged Iranian defections cited by the Post to the supposed “political turmoil” precipitated by Iran’s June 12, 2009 election? Two of the three defectors named in the Post piece (and the only two with any connection to Iran’s nuclear program), appear to have defected before the June 12, 2009 election.

–The only individual cited in the story who clearly defected after the June 12, 2009 election was one diplomat at the Iranian embassy in Norway, who had no access to Iran’s nuclear program.

–The second defector cited by the Post reportedly defected in 2007—two years before the 2009 election.

–The third defector named is Shahram Amiri, now 32, who supposedly disappeared in June 2009 while on pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia—at about the same time as the election in Iran that supposedly prompted a mass of defections. Given the planning that would be required for someone to defect (both by the defector and by his handlers), it does not seem plausible that Amiri became so dissatisfied with the political order in Iran after June 12, 2009 that, within days, and with significant political demonstrations going on in Iran, he was able to arrange to leave his supposedly sensitive job to travel abroad and establish arrangements for his defection with Western handlers. If Amiri, in fact, disappeared in June 2009, it more likely that his decision to work with Western handlers and eventually to defect was taken well before the June 12, 2009 election.

3. Amiri’s case deserves more scrutiny than the Post’s journalists gave it. The reporters cite U.S. and European officials claiming that Amiri

“has provided spy agencies with details about sensitive programs, including a long-hidden uranium-enrichment plant near the city of Qom… Amiri is described by some as the most significant Iranian defector since Brig. Gen. Ali Reza Asgari, a former deputy defense minister and Revolutionary Guard Corps commander who switched sides during a 2007 trip to Turkey.”

The reporters also cite the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI) to claim that “Amiri had been associated with sensitive nuclear programs for at least a decade.” The NCRI is identified by the Post only as “an opposition group that publicly revealed the existence of a secret uranium-enrichment program in 2003” without readers being informed that the NCRI is part and parcel of the notorious MEK, which the U.S. government has officially designated as a foreign terrorist organization.

The Post reporters also have their facts wrong about the NCRI’s previous nuclear “revelation”. In August 2002—not 2003, as claimed by the Post, the NCRI held a press conference to “expose” two nuclear facilities in Iran (Natanz and Arak) that they claim to have discovered. However, the sites were already known to U.S. and other intelligence agencies and, under the terms of Iran’s then-existing safeguards agreement with the IAEA, Tehran was under no obligation to disclose the facilities while they were still under construction and not yet within 180 days of the actual introduction of nuclear materials.

Furthermore, how could it be that Amiri, who would have been 31 years old at the time of his defection, would have had meaningful access to anything sensitive about Iran’s nuclear program—much less to have had such access “for at least a decade”? Unless Amiri completed his doctorate as a teenager and was given a senior position in Iran’s nuclear program with high level access at the age of 20 or 21, this claim literally does not add up.

4. According to the Post, “Some [unnamed] observers say the Tehran government has been unnerved by the defections and point to the death of an Iranian physics professor more than three months ago as a sign that it has begun a crackdown designed to frighten would-be spies.” Their evidence for this, yet again, are claims only attributable to the NCRI, which is part of the MEK, a terrorist organization dedicated to the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.

These claims rest on the January 12, 2010 assassination in Tehran of an Iranian professor, Masoud Ali Mohammadi, who, it is implied, was killed by the Iranian government because of his knowledge of Iran’s nuclear program and sympathy to Iranian opposition groups. The Post cites only the NCRI for the ominous claim that, “The day before his death, Iranian intelligence agents had searched his home and confiscated documents and notes.” The Post fails to mention that Dr. Mohammadi was a quantum field theorist with interests in such diverse fields as condensed matter physics, cosmology, and string theory. These subjects are all quite distinct from nuclear physics, nuclear engineering in general, and nuclear weapons in particular. Therefore, the claim that Dr. Mohammadi was a nuclear physicist with access to sensitive aspects of Iran’s nuclear program is highly suspect.

Oddly, the Post then features a subheading, “Learning from mistakes,” under which the journalists report that U.S. officials are “under pressure to avoid their predecessors’ mistakes”. Unfortunately, rather than learning from “their predecessors’ mistakes” in perpetrating one of the biggest intelligence in modern American history in their bungled assessments of Iraqi WMD, U.S. officials are instead seeking to avoid a repeat of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program—which concluded, among other things, that Iran had stopped work on purely weapons-related aspects of its program. If that conclusion remained on the table, how could Washington argue for intensified sanctions against the Islamic Republic—much less keep the military option “on the table”?

It would also be constructive if reporters in America’s most prestigious media outlets sought to learn from “their predecessors’ mistakes” in helping to disseminate the manufactured “intelligence” about Iraqi WMD (much of it based on defectors’ stories) which was used to make the case for invading Iraq.

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

 

LAL QILA

6:11 AM ET

April 28, 2010

Al Jazeera iphone app to get past American censorship

"AJ is a waaaaaaay better source of info than most US networks. The Zionist forces in this country have made it difficult to obtain AJ on regular cable channels"

For those who want to see live Al Jazeera in America and elsewhere, bypassing American censorship, get the Al Jazeera iphone app.

It's free and the quality of the app and the content is superb. I haven't seen anything equivalent from any other news source.

 

TUCOMPAY1976

10:06 AM ET

April 28, 2010

Conspiracies Abound

For the record, I've had the pleasure of teaching both in the Middle East and at four different colleges/universities in the U.S. What I've discovered is that Arab students are not unlike U.S. students in their conspiracies. I've had numerous white American students tell me with a straight face that their own government was behind the 9/11 attacks. Their evidence, you tube "documentaries." Although Dr. Traub may not have encountered this before, I can tell you that I have.

In addition, I doubt that Al Jazeera is behind the "U.S. worked with Bin Laden" story Traub's students provided. Clearly Dr. Traub hasn't watched Al Jazeera before (probably because he doesn't speak Arabic). If he does, then he's way off the mark about Al Jazeera.

 

GUYVER

12:54 PM ET

April 28, 2010

Good point

Youtube is filled with such "documentaries". Even before Youtube took off there were many conspiracy videos online, like the infamous "Pentagon Strike".

 

CARTILAGE

1:01 PM ET

April 28, 2010

Sibel Edmonds

Sibel Edmonds has stated that Bin Laden worked with the CIA right up until 9/11. Are we going to say she's a conspiracy theorist whackjob as well?

 

SMCI60652

2:01 PM ET

April 28, 2010

It's not just the Middle East

I have Pakistani cousins that are graduates of the most elite Universities in Pakistan studying as Fulbright scholars at places like Johns Hopkins... and THEY are convinced that the Bush Administration was behind 9/11.

If the intellegentsia of the next generation in the Muslim World is this cynical about the United States' actions and intentions, what the hell are we in store for?

I was born in Pakistan but have lived my entire consious existence in Washington DC with an incredibly politically active father.

Needless to say we've had long winded discussions and arguments over the realities of the world... but Americans would be stunned in their tracks if they knew the sheer majorities in the Muslim World (possibly even Europe) that have an incredibly disfavorable view of the United States. And at the top 3 reasons for said views is almost always: "The Special Relationship" with Israel.

Go figure.

 

SSIDDIQUI

3:46 PM ET

April 28, 2010

Good Point

On my last trip to Pakistan, I walked into a small restaurant for dinner. There was a TV in the corner, and it was turned onto the news. When Pres. Bush's name was mentioned, the other people in the restaurant turned around and cursed at Bush and Americans.

Further, It's not just Pakistanis and Middle Easterners that hate America. It's the rest of the world. I've spoken to Europeans that harbor a strong distaste for Americans. And East Asians as well. It never ceases to amaze me at how ignorant and ethnocentric Americans are.

 

SIR_MIXXALOT

3:53 PM ET

April 28, 2010

Our flawed foreign policy engenders anti-Americanism.

Our flawed foreign policy engenders anti-American terror.

It has NOTHING to do with religion -- this is secular anti-Americanism co-opting islam to achieve its aims.

Why is there Anti-Americanism? Many reasons, but we have to admit our fault: our bad policies, as even the Defense Science Board has admitted (see below).

Some of AQ's causes are legitimate even if their means to achieve them are WRONG. eg.

We have indirectly killed >1 million muslim civilians in Iraq and Af/Pak.

The US-led war on terrorism has left in its wake a far more unstable world than existed on that momentous day in 2001: Rather than diminishing, the threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates has grown, engulfing new regions of Africa, Asia, and Europe and creating fear among peoples from Australia to Zanzibar. The US invasions of two Muslim countries have so far failed to contain either the original organization or the threat that now comes from its copycats in British or French cities who have been mobilized through the Internet. The al Qaeda leader is still at large, despite the largest manhunt in history.

Afghanistan is once again staring down the abyss of state collapse, despite billions of dollars in aid, a hundred thousand Western troops, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The Taliban have made a dramatic comeback. The international community had an extended window of opportunity for several years to help the Afghan people—they failed to take advantage of it.

Pakistan has undergone a slower but equally bloody meltdown. In 2007 there were 56 suicide bombings in Pakistan that killed 640 people, compared to just 6 bombings in the previous year.

In 2010, American power lies shattered, US credibility lies in ruins. Ultimately the strategies of the Bush administration have created a far bigger crisis in South and Central Asia than existed before 9/11.

Eight years of neocon foreign policies have been a spectacular disaster for American interests in the Islamic world, leading to the rise of Iran as a major regional power, the advance of Hamas and Hezbollah, the wreckage of Iraq, with over two million external refugees and the ethnic cleansing of its Christian population, and now the implosion of Afghanistan and Pakistan, probably the most dangerous development of all.

This is what the US government’s Defense Science Board has to say on the situation

“American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended.

American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies.

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,” but rather, they hate our policies.

The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.

• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that
“freedom is the future of the Middle East” is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim selfdetermination.

• Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have
elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support.

• What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.”

====

Our messing around overseas (witness our clear involvement with the terrorist murder of 5 Iranian revolutionary guards recently) causes blowback terrorism. It does not matter whether or not AQ has any safe havens or not or whether Hezbollah is rearming— regular people — heck, even US army officers, it appears — can become radicalized by the sheer extent of our injustice abroad.

Note I am not justifying what they did. Their means are WRONG. But their cause is, at least partly, just.

We need to stop our addiction to oil and leave the middle east.

Force — even when wielded by the seemingly strong against the nominally weak — continues to be an exceedingly uncertain instrument. The United States’ penchant for projecting power has created as many problems as it has solved. Genuinely decisive outcomes remain rare, costs often far exceed expectations, and unintended and unwelcome consequences are legion.

The pursuit of US military dominance is an illusion, the principal effect of which is to distort strategic judgment by persuading policymakers that they have at hand the means to make short work of history’s complexities. The real need is to wean the United States from its infatuation with military power and come to a more modest appreciation of what force can and cannot do.

We have to come to the painful conclusion that we have created much of the terrorism and anti-Americanism that we are subject to via our terrible foreign policies. It will be difficult to protect us from our (well-earned) blowback without fixing our own foreign policy.

Here is the link to the MIT official who calculates >1000000 dead muslim civilians as a result of our war of choice.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12150

 

LAL QILA

7:44 PM ET

April 28, 2010

Thank you for the clarification

America creates its own anti-Americanism.

Israel creates its own anti-Israel and wider anti-Jew hatred.

And then both bang their heads into the wall, over and over again, and ask stupidly why they hate us.

Perhaps for our freedoms. Not!

 

DONUAE

11:33 AM ET

April 29, 2010

from the students

Your input are extremely insightful to read, and we feel great to find a US citizen arguing about some of the facts and thoughts raised by us (the students) in our arguments, in class with Professor James about American foreign policy. its a kind of a relief to read your open-minded thoughts, especially coming from an American background, (it is not common). This class was extremely controversial about the issues of political concern, but we think it was a healthy debate between an American perspective (Professor James) and Middle Eastern Perspective (the students). we can only assume a better future policy, but lets hope the future holds a different, more effective policy, I mean fair, sharing, and integrating policies rather than what resulted from past policies.

Thank you

 

BOJANGELS

12:06 PM ET

April 30, 2010

I too just taught in the ME - Damascus

I found that no matter how intelligent my students were, or seemingly "western," there was at the core of their moral compass a distinct hate for "zionists," but they really mean all Jews. They used the two quite interchangeably. Go figure this mentality helped make the Jews from Arab countries zionists after they were ethnically cleansed from their homes in North Africa, the Levant, Yemen and the Gulf.

But no one has taken up their cause because they have not resorted to terrorism, conspiracy theories or have made a fetish out of violence as have the Palestinians.

http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/

The first comment is quite distasteful. It buys into the Arab narrative, as does this entire article, of Jews being alien in the Middle East. What of the thousands of years-long connection to the land of Israel and what of those who were kicked out of Arab countries? When I asked my Syrian students what happened to Syria's Jews they shrugged, indifferent. Fuck them was one answer I heard. According to Ahmadinejad they should live in Alaska.

I care about the Palestinian cause and support their state. But for anything to happen we need clarity on all sides, not wholesale denial of one group or the next.

 

SMCI60652

1:06 PM ET

April 30, 2010

I agree with you

... and think the Arab countries made a HUGE mistake in expelling their Jewish popluations or allowing them to leave en masse.

Nothing would have done more to undermine the Zionist cause then to have examples of safe, secure, flourishing Jewish communities in Arab countries as a constant and glaring reminder that Zionism is an evil borne out of European sins, not Arabian sins.

What you have to recall though is that we have no effective way of measuring how much Arab anti-semitism is inherent in their society, and how much of it is fostered and finds its cause in the actions of the State of Israel.

I often find that the same folks that can't distinguish between the ills of Zionism and normative Judaism, are also the same folks that don't distinguish between the glaring failures of US foreign policy, and the relatively benign goodwill of the majority of the American public.