March 6, 2002 The Core of Muslim Rage By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN The latest death toll in the Indian violence between Hindus and Muslims is 544 people, many of them Muslims. Why is it that when Hindus kill hundreds of Muslims it elicits an emotionally muted headline in the Arab media, but when Israel kills a dozen Muslims, in a war in which Muslims are also killing Jews, it inflames the entire Muslim world? I raise this point not to make some idiot press critique or engage in cheap Arab-bashing. This is a serious issue. In recent weeks, whenever Arab Muslims told me of their pain at seeing Palestinians brutalized by Israelis on their TV screens every night, I asked back: Why are you so pained about Israelis brutalizing Palestinians, but don't say a word about the brutality with which Saddam Hussein has snuffed out two generations of Iraqis using murder, fear and poison gas? I got no good answers. Because the real answer is rooted in something very deep. It has to do with the contrast between Islam's self-perception as the most ideal and complete expression of the three great monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — and the conditions of poverty, repression and underdevelopment in which most Muslims live today. As a U.S. diplomat in the Middle East said to me, Israel — not Iraq, not India — is "a constant reminder to Muslims of their own powerlessness." How could a tiny Jewish state amass so much military and economic power if the Islamic way of life — not Christianity or Judaism — is God's most ideal religious path? When Hindus kill Muslims it's not a story, because there are a billion Hindus and they aren't part of the Muslim narrative. When Saddam murders his own people it's not a story, because it's in the Arab-Muslim family. But when a small band of Israeli Jews kills Muslims it sparks rage — a rage that must come from Muslims having to confront the gap between their self-perception as Muslims and the reality of the Muslim world. I have long believed that it is this poverty of dignity, not a poverty of money, that is behind a lot of Muslim rage today and the reason this rage is sharpest among educated, but frustrated, Muslim youth. It is they who perpetrated 9/11 and who slit the throat of the Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl — after reportedly forcing him to declare on film, "I am a Jew and my mother is a Jew." This is not to say that U.S. policy is blameless. We do bad things sometimes. But why is it that only Muslims react to our bad policies with suicidal terrorism, not Mexicans or Chinese? Is it because Arab-Muslim conspiracy theories state that Jews could not be so strong on their own — therefore the only reason Israel could be strong, and Muslims weak, is because the U.S. created and supports Israel? The Muslim world needs to take an honest look at this rage. Look what it has done to Palestinian society — where the flower of Palestinian youth now celebrate suicide against Jews as a source of dignity. That is so bad. Yes, there is an Israeli occupation, and that occupation has been hugely distorting of Palestinian life. But the fact is this: If Palestinians had said, "We are going to oppose the Israeli occupation, with nonviolent resistance, as if we had no other options, and we are going to build a Palestinian society, schools and economy, as if we had no occupation" — they would have had a quality state a long time ago. Instead they have let the occupation define their whole movement and become Yasir Arafat's excuse for not building jobs and democracy. Only Muslims can heal their own rage. But the West, and particularly the Jewish world, should help. Because this rage poses an existential threat to Israel. Three broad trends are now converging: (1) The worst killing ever between Israelis and Palestinians; (2) a baby boom in the Arab-Muslim world, where about half the population is under 20; (3) an explosion of Arab satellite TV and Internet, which are taking the horrific images from the intifada and beaming them directly to the new Arab- Muslim generation. If 100 million Arab-Muslims are brought up with these images, Israel won't survive. Some of this hatred will remain no matter what Israel does. But to think that Israel's exiting the occupied territories — and abandoning its insane settlement land grab there — wouldn't reduce this problem is absurd. Israel cannot do it alone. But it has to do all it can to get this show off the air. It would take away an important card from the worst Muslim anti- Semites and it would help strengthen those Muslims, and there are many of them, who know that the suicidal rage of their fanatics is dragging down their whole civilization. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/06/opinion/06FRIE.html I agree.
Thanks for the article. It was great. I'm still reading through his book, which I absolutely love. Islam may still be the the ideal but the Jews have Europe. After leaving the land, they traveled to Europe. When they returned, they brought back European education, technology and support. Until the last century or two, the Muslims were the most powerful in the world. It had to be really hard to go from great to weak. It just reminds me that they don't seperate government and power from religion like we do. I know the author knows this, but I just wanted to point it out.
Hawha? This wasn't s'posed to get any replies - just a good reading. But... That most definitely is the root of the problem. We stopped doing that in the 17th century. They still do it. Incidentally, I cannot imagine what it would be like to see your religious/political sect decline so much so fast. Their struggle is not even for dominance anymore; it's to approach parity. And they're still 200 years behind.
It's amazing what imperialism will do. Their big screw up was in trying to make a come back. They needed to modernize their countries but in most cases, tried to Europeanize them instead, since they didn't know the difference. One country that did come out of this quite well is Turkey. I don't keep up with them much (we left them in class when they became independent) but they did alright. They had some rough spots, but nothing like the rest of the region. And they are now trying to (or have already) enter the EU. Their country had just as many problems as the rest did. They managed to get it together though. I find it very interesting that one country could do this and not the rest. Like I said, I don't know anything about Turkey now, but they at least got out of trouble. (Sorry I replied. I didn't know )
No problem Princess. I just wasn't expecting one on this thread... IMHO Israel and Turkey are - so far - the only societies that are worth a dog's sh*t in their wieght. The Turks have Ataturk to thank for that (not the Ottomans). There's something to be said for secular democracy, and Turkey is living proof that it can work in the Islamic world. Israel... At least they have a real democracy. They have done so many bad things (settlements, mainly), but it's at least understandable taken in the 53-year war context that is their history. They have literally been under attack for that entire period - 53 years. What would you do? More importantly, what should we do? Support a Palestinian state, when that state is only likely to become a terrorist state? I honestly do not have a solution. I support the idea of a Palestinian state 100%, I just don't see anyne who can lead them peacefully towards that goal. Barghouti - the guy who is apparently lined up as #2 behind Arafat - is even bloodier than Arafat... I just don't know. I suspect that Netanyahu will be elected, and the Israelis will end up ethnically cleansing the territories. The peaceniks don't even realize what they're doing in trying to get Sharon thrown out - he has shown a very surprising amount of restraint. They will realize too late that they threw out a snake, only to replace it with a bear. That is certainly not what the Palestinians want, but... they don't know when to stop poking the tiger. It will eventually backfire. I actually do think that this whole thing will result in the Israelis "snapping" and forcing all of the Palestinians out. Everyone will regret the decisions now being made. Unfortunately, it is probably the only peaceful route in the long run.
But to think that Israel's exiting the occupied territories — and abandoning its insane settlement land grab there — wouldn't reduce this problem is absurd. Friedman. Did you forget this part of the article? Friedman seems to be advocating the Saudi Peace Plan. He is also supporting the growing movement by Israeli reservist and intelligence types to just pull out. Interesting that this thought is at this time beginning to find an advocate in the US press.
treeman, you are predicting ethnic cleansing on Israel's part. I think that their is a growing moral revusion by reservists and the Israeli public to Sharon's policies, that would I agree lead to this cleansing. I'm still optimistic that it won't happen. For the record would this ethnic cleansing be considered a terrorist activity, or a war crime? If this type of ethnic cleansing were to occur would you support putting Sharon, Netanyahu and others in trial in the Hague? Failure to do so would prove the Nazis, Milosevic and the cynics right : only the losers go to the Hague, while the winners are considered legitimate statesmen and leaders.
If a Palestinian state would end the mess over there, then why can't someone make that happen? Because Palestinians want the impossible. Israelis are not going to give up Jerusalem, period. Say what you want about how Israel took the land away from the Palestinians....ultimately the person with the biggest stick wins the day everytime. Just ask Native America or Mexico.
Ridiculous. He doesn't favor abandoning an ally, and caving to terrorists pressure. He doesn't generally favor appeasement. It has nothing to do with hating Muslims, nor being brainwashed by the media. Stupid stupid statement. Many Americans, specifically those you alluded to earlier Glynch, continue to oppose a US about face in their support for Israel. Why? (1) They are an ally. Have been since their creation. Every other country in the region are either completely unstable, or completely untrustworthy, most are both. (2) We (the public) don't like the fact that a coalition of Arab countries would roll over Israel tonight if they could, and would wipe out any Jew they could get their hands on. (3) We like the fact that the Israelis smash Arab armies that invade their territory and find it silly that they should give that territory back to unwilling participants in a sustainable peace. (4) We dismiss the 'Arab world' in their criticism of the US action because the 'Arab world' didn't give a crap about the plight of the 'Palestinians' until it became a useful PR tool to redirect attention away from their own deficiencies and corruption. (5) We have seen that Israel has indeed made attempts to promote a sustainable peace. There IS a Palestinian Authority now. There is land for them to control and that is a fact. There would be total autonomy by now if Arafat had not walked away from the table. What the Palestinians currently have would have been unthinkable 10 or 15 years ago, and impossible without Israeli support. (6) The civilian casaulties are not what Americans want. Soldiers killing women and children is not what we want. Both sides are engaging in it. However, when we see Palestinians killed they are rioting against police, or they are caught in an air strike made in retaliation for a bombing (there are exceptions). When we see Israelis killed, its people eating lunch at a pizza parlor, or taking a bus to school. Given the choice of who to support we don't choose those that commit suicide bombings. Military action can result in mistakes. Suicide bombings are 100% purposely targeting civilians. (7) Sanctions may or may not hurt Israel enough to cause a change in their stance. They have their own arms production capabilities. What they don't have would be happily supplied by the Chinese or the Russians. So the old 'its US bullets' crap is irrelevant. But what exactly would we demand they do? Withdraw? It seems likely that the Palestinians would demand more and more, and peace would be unsustainable. Nothing would be gained, except turning our back on our one trustworthy ally in the region. (8) Israelis hard liners are driving themselves out of power. As you've pointed out, more and more Israelis don't think this is the way to go. However, on the other side, radical extremists, who direct (but don't participate in) these suicide bombings are GAINING support. They are lauded by the international Arab community. They are supported from inside and out. And they are not going to stop. Their goal is not to have a piece of land for Palestinians to control. There goal is the eradication of Israel. That is not something many Americans agree with.
The more I think about it, the more I think that the only solution will be for the Palestinians to have their own country on the West Bank (minus old Jerusalem) and for a wall five times the size of the Berlin Wall to be built between Israel and the Palestinian country. Let the Israelis and the Palestinians build up their forces on either side of the wall and start staring each other down across a DMZ like North and South Korea. It is a depressing thought, since I am of the opinion that (1) the Palestinians should have and deserve their own country and (2) giving the Palestinians their own country will not end the violence because their goal is the total destruction of the state of Israel, which wil never happen. If the Palestinians do get their own country, I believe they will continue to indescriminately attack Israeli civilians. Then, perhaps, the world will see them for what they truly are. Terrorists.
If Palestinians are terrorists, then I guess that would make the Israelis NAZIs. I would say that Ariel Sharon is on the same level as Milosevic and Hitler.
I disagree. Sharon is no Mahatma Gandhi, he has a great deal of blood on his hands, and he leaves A LOT to be desired as Israeli Prime Minister, but in my opinion he has a long way to go before he is on the same level as Milosevic and Hitler.
I think it is all in perspective. Neither of them are really any better than the other. They both use scare tactics to frighten the other into submission. If these were two people living next door to each other in Milwaukee, they would both go to jail. They both are screwed up and neither of them really deserves our help.
Jeff's got a good point! Both sides want the same thing. It seems many people think one side is attacking while the other is defending. Both are doing both. Not one side is the good and the other bad. They are both both. And neither one side is a group of terrorists and the other is not. They are both doing what they know and what they can to stop the other side. The both want a full victory. And they both want order. The thing you have to understand about the Middle East is that brutality goes a long way. We don't tolerate it here in the US. Over there, a people will listen to whoever is in charge, no matter what they do, as long as the leader brings some order with him. When Assad flattened Hama, there was no big outcry from Syria. First, because a lot of them were dead. Second, because he took care of the problem. There was rebellion and he stopped it. "They might have said 'Better one month of Hama than fourteen years of civil war like Lebanon.'" (Freidman) Now, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has not been short and 'sweet' like in Hama, but the people will tolerate it. They have been for years. It's a very different culture and history than we know.
If Ariel Sharon is on the same level as Milosevic and Hitler, there would be no "Palestinians" left in the ME, there would be no arab citizens in Israel, and there would be no arab representitives in their parliament. In fact, Sharon was elected over Barak because the people wanted him to be almost Hitler-like in Israel's dealings with the P.A., but he's a better PR strategist than that. Since the people understood Sharon wasn't going to react with force, they desired the other extreme, pulling out of the occupied areas. They just want an end to the violence, one way or the other. It looks like now, Sharon has been too peaceful for their liking and might lose to an even more belligerent prime minister. (and Netanyahu is starting to present himself as one)
<B>(2) giving the Palestinians their own country will not end the violence because their goal is the total destruction of the state of Israel, which wil never happen.</B> I'm not so sure about this part, RMTex. If they have something of their own to focus their energies on (building their own economy, infrastructure), that will do a lot to dissipate the hatred. Keep in mind, these people have nothing else to think about and focus on but the occupation and in many cases, their own oppression, every day. Oppressed people are always going to lash out at their oppressors -- that's just human nature. Palestinians have more resources and more violent leaders, so the results are terrible, but I don't think the underlying feelings are all that different. In most cases, when the oppressed finally become free, they tend to focus on the good things of being free, rather than revenge on the oppressors. Many other countries in that region have a "destroy Israel" outlook as well, but none of them act on it (in today's world) -- maybe the same will be true by a Palestinian state. I think having your own property and voting rights and land and economy will go a long, long one way towards reducing both the violence and the hatred. The problem is in getting someone to make the first move, which neither side seems particularly interested in.
Do they really have more resources? I know that when the Jews first returned, they had the upper hand because they had been educated in Europe and had their technology and support. Was I wrong or did something change?
No one would dare mess with Israel on a military scale as long as the United States is a superpower. We are probably the only true ally that country has.
Unfortunately, the best solution, Israel giving up half of Jerusalem and all of the occupied territories won't work either for three reasons: 1. The goal of muslim militant factions is the destruction of Israel. They were offered 99% of what they requested last year, and they turned it down. 2. Appeasement is not, and has never been a successful method of dealing with an irrational and violent foe. Giving up too much now after all of the violence would not satisfy Hamas - it would indicate to them that their methods work. This would more than likely lead to escalating violence to gain more concessions. 3. Even if Israel and Palestine were existing side-by-side, Palestine's economy would be much worse off because of the lack of technology and skilled workers. They would look across at the relatively wealthy Israelis and blame them for their own problems. The same groups (Hamas, etc) would continue to foment discord among these people and continue to use them for their own ends. That is the true tragedy here. People are not naturally killers, they don't naturally grow up and decide to be suicide bombers. People are being taught to hate by the mullahs and others who desire to gain power. These people are more responsible than any others for the deaths of palestinians. Tragic, just tragic.
