Prof. El-Kikhia,Mansour El-Kikhia: Arabs shouldn't have to apologize
Web Posted: 07/29/2005
12:00 AM CDT
San Antonio Express-News
I am fed up with the
ceaseless requests by columnists, religious personalities and other American
public figures for Arabs and Muslims to apologize for terrorist acts committed
by thugs and murderers in the name of Islam.
As far as I am concerned, the final straw came a couple of weeks ago when the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, paid for a national advertisement repudiating terrorism in the name of Islam.
As soon as the advertisement was broadcast on America's media, I read a column by one of the nation's most ardent Islam-phobic columnists, Cal Thomas, now also a FOX News personality, which plowed into CAIR's reconciliation efforts. Long before 9-11, Thomas' writings were full of venom for Arabs and Muslims. He represents a despicable and ignorant attitude that, unfortunately, a sizable segment of America has come to share. There is nothing American Muslims can do to satisfy this group short of packing up and leaving the United States.
I disagree with what CAIR did, and I also disagree with this groveling and begging for forgiveness, as though American Arabs and Muslims are responsible for those atrocities. CAIR knows better, and those running it know that Islam rejects all acts of violence outside self-defense. Arab and Muslim Americans are responsible for neither the twin towers nor the London subway bombings, and as Americans they should never accept responsibility for actions they did not instigate, commit or condone.
Furthermore, in spite of the fact they are constantly condemned for one
thing or another, they — like other Americans — are victims of these murderers.
Does anyone think they are pleased to have their movements and telephone
conversations monitored or that coercive and freedom-depriving laws are tailored
for them? Does anyone in his or her right mind really believe that being an Arab
American or a Muslim is pleasant in America today?
The United States has lost 3,000 souls to terrorist thugs, but that figure is miniscule compared to the 60,000 Algerians or the 25,000 Iraqis who also have died at their hands. These thugs don't differentiate between Muslim and non-Muslim, Arab and non-Arab when they plant a bomb or enter a village at night and murder everyone.
It is rejection of U.S. and British policies in the Middle East, not Islam, that has promoted terrorism against America. And for the benefits of those who do not know, 95 percent of Middle Easterners are Muslims. Hence, it is only natural that those opposing the United States and Britain in the region would be Muslims. In India, they would have been Hindu; in Latin America or Northern Ireland, they would have been Catholic.
More important, it was the British and the United States that drew first blood. The Middle East didn't come to America or go to Britain; rather, America and Britain went to the Middle East. Both powers used and abused regimes, toppling some and keeping others in power. They never thought that the people they were helping suppress were human beings with needs, beliefs and emotions. They didn't care as long as their interests were served.
America's experience in the Middle East is no different from its Southeast Asia stint, and look at the mess it left in that region. However, while the calamity of Vietnam, Laos and Kampuchea might be rationalized by the Cold War or even a domino theory, there is nothing to rationalize the invasion of Iraq except ideological stupidity. The United States illegally invaded and decimated a country that did not threaten its security and, in the process, unleashed one of the most vile and ruthless insurgencies the region has ever seen. And as it did in Vietnam, when the going got tough, it is planning to pull out. The result will be a protracted instability and turmoil
that no country in the region can escape.
Future turmoil in the region is exactly what the instigators of the Iraq invasion have planned all along. They had made their desire for strife in the Middle East known long before the invasion of Iraq. Yet they underestimated the consequences of their lunacy and set into motion processes and events that will make the United States less secure and threaten the lives of Americans for many years to come.
MY REPLY:
As you related in a prior column, I am sorry to hear that many people resort to cheap racism when responding to the points you bring up. There can be no honest dialogue and understanding when racism is an undertone.
I am curious though--you make a few assertions that seem to me a stretch. Perhaps you cannot delve deeper into each as you are no doubt limited in the length of your columns. Perhaps you simply choose not to.
First off, you imply that US/UK policies are to blame for most of, if not all that ills the Middle East, but beyond that very general implication no specific policy is offered as an example. I assume the major policy that is implied but not stated is our support for Israel. No matter one's personal views on Israel/Palestine, until the Arab world gives up it's non-negotiable goal of pushing Israel into the ocean, there can be no peaceable solution.
The US/UK have interests all over the globe including all those places you mention--India, Latin America, and yes, Northern Ireland. As far as I know the inhabitants of each of those regions have not resorted to suicide terrorism to settle their grievances against the US/UK. As you must know just yesterday the IRA announced that they would cease violent operations against the UK. My intuition tells me that the reason for this must be that Osama and his ilk have given terrorism a bad name. Furthermore, it would not surprise me if the ETA followed the IRA's lead.
You assert that our invasion of Iraq was "illegal". What exactly made it illegal? And by what standard is an invasion deemed legal? I assume it was because we did not have the backing of the U.N. security council which conveniently forgot that Saddam had been in violation of several U.N resolutions since the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War was drawn up. Should not violations have consequences? And we won't even discuss the various reasons for Russia (Putin advisors benefitting from the Oil for Food scam), France (stood to gain from contracts with Saddam once sanctions lifted), and China (no moral compass whatsoever??) choosing not to stand behind the US/UK; or the fact that we tried for 6 months to gain support from the other security council members which no doubt gave Saddam ample time to destroy/hide/relocate anything remotely related to WMD's (which anyhow was only one of the 23 reasons congress voted to go to war) and plan for the current insurgency.
These assertions we've all heard many times before, but the most galling of all is in your final paragraph. You claim that future turmoil is exactly what the instigators of the Iraq invasion had planned all along. That's a new one. Can you please submit evidence of this? Please give an example of when the US/UK announced their desire for strife in the Middle East.
In the end I am left with the feeling that your column is irresponsible, especially from a professor who is in charge of moulding malleable young minds hungry for answers. I hate to bring religion into this but I have a thought that's been dogging me lately: perhaps things would be different today if Mohammed would have chosen to be a carpenter rather than a warrior. I'd like to see a column on that subject someday.
No comments:
Post a Comment