Hi, I will not attempt to reply in kind to the two poems already posted. I will simply state my position and let others decide for themselves. This is my perspective from here in the United Kingdom.
The USA & Middle East - A Perspective by Jox (Writing as TC - # 0107)
11th September, 2001 has been noted in the history books. It is said to be the date of the most spectacular and most severe (in terms of infrastructure destruction and human devastation) terrorist attack that Earth has known.
To the terrorists, terrorism is not terrorism; it is waging war. To the victims, the word terrorism hardly conveys the horror of their plight.
What separates terrorism from war?
Some people say targeting civilians.
Firstly, this is almost to suggest that civilians are another species who suffered more than those in uniform. It does not matter what clothing one is wearing nor for whom one works - when violent death strikes our animal natures and sufferings are the same.
Secondly, targeting civilians cannot be so because we should not forget that the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in World War Two (WW2), by the United States Air Force (USAF), specifically targeted civilians at home in their cities. We should not forget the firestorms started by conventional bombing on Dresden by the Royal Air Force (RAF), nor on Coventry by the Luftwaffe. Each of these events killed many more civilians than did the combined attacks on The United States of America (USA) on that fateful date in 2001.
Some people say fighting for an unjust cause.
As with beauty, the justification of ugly terrorism is often in the eye of the beholder. Victims often regard the perpetrators as reckless, evil terrorists bent on inflicting as much damage and suffering as possible for no logical reason, or maybe for an unjust one. Terrorists regard their victims simply as necessary cannon fodder in their war for a just autonomy. These are not mutually exclusive positions - both might be right or both wrong.
In the Second World War Britain had a network of men and women in communities all over the country ready to oppose the Germans by any means should the mainland be invaded. To the Germans such means would have been terrorism. To the British they would have been freedom fighters.
The Arabs clearly feel repressed by Israel. (And Israel fears many Arabs). Israel is the region’s super-power but is surrounded by potentially hostile countries and many actually hostile groups. Israel has been backed by the USA throughout its actions - be they reasonable or brutal. Many Arab freedom fighters / terrorists have decided that they cannot defeat Israel whilst it is always backed by the USA. By hitting the USA with extreme terrorism (let us hope that it remains the extreme and is not over taken by worse) they hope to bring public opinion to bear upon political leaders. In short, they, therefore, are trying to prise the Jewish state from its American protectors.
Know thy enemy is a good maxim. Arab terrorists now regard the USA as their enemy if only because the US supports Israel. They believe that terrorism will work against the Americans. However, it is quite possible that those Arabs involved in this violent struggle do not know the USA as well as they thought they did. The USA has shown more surgical resolve since nine-eleven than many critics might have believed it would. Does the USA know its enemy, though? It has all the sophisticated technology that exists but knowing one’s enemy is more a matter of human intelligence of thought process than it is of Signals Intelligence gathering information. The USA needs to appreciate what the Arab terrorists really want and why many of their own people regard them as freedom fighters. That is not to say that the USA will agree with them but it most certainly needs to understand them.
Cry all we will for the victims of 11th September, 2001 those tears are worthless unless a political solution is found to the violent disputes which cause the emergence of terrorism. Crying is easy; solutions are very difficult. The USA must understand that the Israelis are often brutal, repressive and unjust. The USA should not, therefore, blindly support Israel - nor, because of past and even current support, can it afford to stand back now. The USA needs to formulate and implement fair policies for the Middle East. Certainly, others - such as the European Union - have major responsibilities too. However, Israel only seems to listen to the USA and it is only the USA which has a post-WW2 history of Middle East intervention. Now, the Arabs must also understand that the Israelis have rights to freedom and peace too. The constant suicide attacks in Israeli cities is as deplorable as Israel’s building of settlements in Arab areas.
From outside it looks as if neither side in the Middle East has a monopoly on immorality. To some degree, one might be inclined to adopt Shakespeare’s maxim of “A plague on both your houses”. It is very tempting but with the attacks on the USA we are reminded that this issue is global. With the USA’s constant support for Israel it has made itself a target for those who see terrorism as a way forward. The rest of the World, led by the USA, needs to engage the Middle East. We need to clamp down hard on terrorism but we simply cannot do that without clamping down equally hard on the causes of terrorism - the injustice which the Arabs feel. The pay-off for Israel will be peaceful co-existence.
The central tenant of this essay is thus:
Terrorism to the terrorists is war. We may not like that but we have to accept that we are involved in a war. Do I offer any 100% solutions? Of course not. But to almost wilfully fail to understand terrorists’ motives and the backgrounds from which they originate is stupid. To continue to blindly support one side (despite encouraging noises and a road map which is, hitherto, un-navigated) is also stupid. Terrorism will feed off the injustice of a regional superpower backed by the global Hyperpower attempting to crush the Palestinians and other Arabs. The backlash will continue to hurt Israel and the USA. We need proper action in the Middle East. And that means equitable intelligent engagement by the USA leading and others following.
Notes:
I would make the point that amongst the people who become terrorists by conviction are others who embark on terrorism because they are mentally disturbed and/or simply evil. We have seen that with some other terrorist groups and I see no reason why Middle eastern terrorism is any different. These people would probably maim and kill other people anyway - because they enjoy it. However, without the promotion of terrorism such individuals would act alone, doing terrible damage but on a much smaller scale - we would call them criminals (not that I am suggesting that terrorism is not a crime). Moreover, without the support of the terrorist's organisation behind them they might even not act out their unsavoury fantasies. But these people are in the minority within the groups. Most terrorists are committed because of their experience or the experiences of their people. A committed, determined and resourced person is, in many ways, far harder to stop than one who is simply bad. But with terrorism those who are just bad are able to wreck havoc beyond their wildest dreams.
Despite Irish republican terrorism since the early 1900s (resuming, after a break, in 1969) the United Kingdom suffered its largest single loss of people to terrorism on 11th September 2001. Many nine-eleven victims came from within fifty miles of where I am writing from. So we are not uninvolved nor unconcerned. Figures are misleading but the UK has lost thousands of people to terrorism in relation to the Irish situation. Terrorism is very familiar to us. (Side note: Much fund raising for Irish anti-British terrorism was undertaken in the USA - especially amongst Irish descendents. A lot of this has been stopped now because of the improved political situation and because of action by the USA authorities).
The USA is one of the UK’s closest allies (and vice-versa). Therefore, the UK has a responsibility to disagree where necessary. Indeed, on matters Israeli it often does disagree. Only yesterday, Her Majesty’s Government sent a message of condemnation to the Israelis concerning their threat to murder Yasser Arafat. Although the USA’s Secretary of State (Colin Powell) has said that murdering Arafat would cause uproar amongst Muslims, the USA is threatening to veto the specific current resolution at the United Nations (UN) which seeks to condemn the Israeli threat (linking it to a wider requirement of anti-violent sentiments by Arabs).
A note on God (Better not read this if you have a frail faith)
As regards references by many people around the World to God. The Arabs who piloted those planes into the World Trade Center had God on their side. They prayed to him and believed that they would become martyrs. Many of the victims had God on their side too - they prayed to him as they perished. Many of the relatives and commentators also appear to have God on their side. If you still have faith in God then you are very lucky. It seems to me that the God of whom everyone talks must be all things to all peoples. From my perspective he seems like a psychotic sadist to all mankind if he is willing to back all sides in a conflict then sit back and accept adulation for his support. I have absolutely no idea how anyone can have any faith in such a god. I would suggest to you that the truth is there is no god and that it is us - human beings - who have been playing at being God. We need to understand that with power comes great responsibility. If we are to start to solve the Middle East’s problems we need omnipresence in the region (yes, I know, a contradiction in terms) and we need to develop people’s trust by being absolutely fair - because we certainly do not have omnipotence. . . God, or no God, it is up to us.
|