QandO
Questions and Observations| « The Courage of Their Convictions | Main | Book Review » |
|
June 25, 2004 Why the left shares some of the blame for "why they hate us" Since I touched on it yesterday, I wanted to take an opportunity to address in more detail the question which constantly seems to plague the left concerning Islam in general and the people of the Middle East in particular ... why do they hate us? My guess is they'd never answer: "partially because of the left in the west". They'd be incorrect. I'm reading a very interesting book at the moment: "The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror" by Bernard Lewis. Lewis is a long-time observer and recognized scholar when it comes to Arab affairs and Islam (note: not all of Islam is Arab, but Lewis's book is about all of Islam, from Algeria to Indonesia). Lewis addresses the "hate" issue in his book and his argument makes some sense. Yes, there's jealousy, there's an inferiority complex, there's even the religious difference, but that only addresses segments of the issue. However, one of the fundamental reasons for the hate in the "Arab Street" or "Islamic Street" if you prefer, is the perception of the West's callous disregard for the rights of the people of Islam, if disregarding them advances the cause of the West. And, even if not true, it appears, to the people of Islam, based on this perception, that they are considered to be inferior beings not necessarily worthy of help (or rights). The most flagrant violations of civil rights, political freedom, even human decency are disregarded or glossed over, and crimes against humanity, which in a European or American country would evoke a storm of outrage, are seen as normal and even acceptable." You certainly can't argue that the West, both left and right, has evinced much outrage over the atrocities of dictators in the middle east if it was to their advantage to have that dictator in power. Both sides in this country have turned a blind eye at times. At least until Iraq. We all know about the treatment of the Kurds by Iraq under Saddam. Cruel acts of genocide. It wasn't until recently that we became "outraged" about that. Another example took place in Syria where Hafiz al-Assad massacred between 10,000 and 25,000 of his own people in an uprising of the Muslim Brothers in Hama in 1982. Nary a ripple of dissent from the West. No mighty condemnation. No rattling of sabres. No hue and cry about human rights. It was mostly ignored. Assad was later visited 30 times by the American Secretaries of State under 3 successive administrations after that, never once having to answer for Hama, and even once by an American president (Clinton). Middle Easterners increasingly complain that the West judges them by a different and lower standards than it does Europeans and Americans, both in what is expected of them and what they may expect, in terms of their economic well-being and their political freedom. They assert that Western spokesmen repeatedly overlook or even defend actions and support rulers that they would not tolerate in thier own countries. Hard to argue the point, given the history of dictators we and the rest of the West have tolerated. The question has to do, then, not with "if" we've done that - we certainly have - but with "why" we've done that? Have we had lowered expectations and a seemingly lower status for the people of Islam based on those lower expectations? Or have we, at a minimum, given that perception? As Lewis notes: The underlying assumption in all of this is that these people are incapable of running a democratic society and have neither concern nor capacity for human decency. They will in any case be governed by corrupt despotisms. It is not the West's business to correct them, still less to change them, but merely to ensure that the despots are friendly rather than hostile to Western interests. In this perspective it is dangerous to tamper with the existing order and those who seek better lives for themselves and their countrymen are disparaged, often actively discouraged. It is simpler, cheaper and safer to replace a troublesome tyrant with an amenable tyrant, rather than face the unpredictable hazards of regime change, especially of change brought about by the will of the people expressed in a free elections." That is, until now ... with Iraq, that paradigm has been irrevocably changed. And its been changed by the right in this country. The West, in the guise of the US, is facing the "unpredictable hazards of regime change" and "the will of the people expressed in free elections". But consider the quoted paragraph. Doesn't it essentially express the argument (and attitude) of the left here in the US and those in Europe? In the UN? Among some in NATO? Saddam wasn't an imminent threat. He posed no danger to the US. If the people of Iraq are tired of him, let them take care of their problem. Killing his own people, yes, that's terrible, but that's their problem, not ours. Let's live with the "devil-we-know" instead of creating a new devil. That's the attitude and approach. Stay out, let Arabs take care of Arabs. We shouldn't intervene. It is on this attitude and approach that Lewis drops the hammer: "This approach commands some support in both diplomatic and academic circles in the United States and rather more widely in Europe. Arab rulers are thus able to slaughter tens of thousands of their people, as in Syria and Algeria, or hundreds of thousands, as in Iraq and Sudan, to deprive men of most and women of all civil rights, and to indoctrinate children in their schools with bigotry and hatred against others, without incuring any significant protest from liberal media and institutions in the west, still less any hint of punishments such as boycotts, divestment, or indictment in Brussels. This so-to-speak diplomatic attitude toward Arab governments has in reality been profoundly harmful to the Arab peoples, a fact of which they are becoming painfully aware." [emphasis mine] Live and let live (or die, or indoctrinate, or subjugate). No calls by the left for women's rights for Arab women. None of our business they scream. No calls from the left to boycott, embargo, divest or for trade sanctions because of human rights violations in Arab lands (but they will squall about "No War for Oil"). Handle it through the UN and talk it to death. Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy. In the meantime another family is fed through the shredder. Why do they hate us? Because of the perceived application of a double standard. And that standard was forged in the ideology of the left. Countless editorials from liberal columnists have told us we shouldn't be there, even if Saddam was a cruel and inhuman tyrant. Numberless liberal pundits have opined that we should have done more with the UN and sanctions, that regime change was not the answer. Tons of politicians on the left have stated that containment was the proper way to handle Iraq. All of this with seeming total disregard for the human tragedy that was Iraq, thereby validating the Arab street's perception of the West and its attitude. The Arab street feels we apply a double standard and look at them as inferiors, not worthy of rescue, not worthy of rights, not worthy of the blood or treasure to rescue them from tyranny. Obviously the right in this country, which has argued that Iraq is a just war if for nothing more than the human rights violations, can claim the moral high ground on this one. And the left? It can begin to accept responsbility for a good portion of the hate the people of the Middle East feel toward the West based on the "approach" and "attitude" they've advocated during this conflict as outlined above by Lewis. Maybe its time for the self-declared champions of "human rights" to do a little soul searching. |
Much that Lewis says is correct, but the Arab whining about double standards remains utter bunk. They vilify and demonize the US almost no matter what it does/doesn't do. They're hallucinogenic (in Goldhagen's meaning) about their anti-Americanism, and also utterly dishonest (otherwise why the huge % of young Arabs identifying emigration to the US as a desirable option in that UN-sponsored study of the Arab world a few years back?).
When one of the most odious and barbaric Arab autocrats devours Kuwait, killing and looting in medieval style, he's widely admired for "standing up to America" -- get your mind around the combination of moral imbecility and analytical dysfunction in that whopper. Oh, and by the way, within Iraq itself, the moral objection to the rape of Kuwait was ..... wait, I'm still straining to hear it ... oh yeah, about 7 westernized intellectuals in B'dad ostentatiously trotted out by CNN in the run-up to war who refused to buy looted goods at the souk. Aside from Kurds (who aren't Arabs of course and have their own special insight into Arab racism, barbarism, and treachery), most Iraqis weren't too troubled by the depredations against the "bedouin" in Kuwait.
The moral degradation of Palestinians, who widely support the unbelievably repugnant murder of innocents, is just a slightly worse version of the moral rot in the wider Arab world. That rot's entirely home-grown, as must be any real solutions.
Given the fundamental dysfunction in the Arab world, their purported resentment at alleged "double standards" by the US is small beer -- but even that item in the litany doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny. The august Arab populace presumes to lecture the US on how to protect its interests and those of its allies while dealing with the snake-pit that is the world Arabs themselves create. No sale.
(BTW, Bush's sweeping critique of decades of US policy in the region in his democracy initiative speech was a troubling descent into cheap-shot second-guessing -- those with really nifty alternative ideas for alternative ways of securing
US and global interests in the region sure were/are shy about offering them up. Democracy as an offensive weapon makes sense today -- but in 1960? 1980?)
And when the US moves (sacrifice its own blood and treasure) to remove the worst Arab regime of all, how do most Arabs react? Honking horns, tossing candy out to people on the street? No -- more of the sullen, hallucinogenic, self-contradictory anti-US slanders, along with tears and rage, and avid consumption of crude cartoon propaganda off al-Jazeera.
Hate almost always says much more about the one hating than those who are hated. So too here. I feel no need to play along with Arab psychological and social failure -- I pity them, but it's up to the patient to help himself.
Posted by: IceCold at June 25, 2004 04:28 PM
Ice: Tell us how you really feel! Heh.
I have no real argument with your points. In most cases their "hate" is self-serving, in that it gives them the ability to ignore their complete and utter failures by blaming (and hating) the West.
Cool beans. And I covered that when I said " Yes, there's jealousy, there's an inferiority complex, there's even the religious difference, but that only addresses segments of the issue."
That wasn't direction in which I was headed with my article. It was addressed to those on the left who presume that they must hate us because of what the right has done in Iraq.
There's no question that the West has, in the past, at least given the perception of an 'attitude' and an 'approach' which smacked of pragmatism over human rights. Hard to deny that whether true or not (and I think we both know its more true than not).
If one looks at the intervention in Kosovo juxtaposed with Iraq its hard to defend against that premise. Iraq was in full bloom when Kosovo was just heating up ... but we were outraged by Kosovo ... but not Iraq. Result: Perception validated whether in fact true or not, eh?
The same people who argued we belonged in Kosovo (the left) argued against any intervention in Iraq. Perception validated.
The shredders turned, Iraqi women were plucked out of the Bazaar for the entertianment of Uday and his bro, mass graves were filled and again, the perception was validated.
In 1991 we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait and encourged the people of Iraq to get rid of him, then stood by and watched him slaughter those who were naive enough, brave enough or dumb enough to do it. Perception validated.
My intent wasn't to excuse their hate, it was to explain the basis of some of it and how the left's continued insistance that freeing Iraqis wasn't a good enough reason to go to war validates that perception I've discussed. I think Lewis is correct in his assessement about this one underlying cause of the hate.
Posted by: McQ at June 25, 2004 04:54 PM
Kerry illustrates this point rather nicely. While Bush's stated goal is democracy for Iraq (and the region) Kerry has repeatedly said the goal should be "stability"
Guess he thinks the ability to self-govern is beyond the brown peoples...
Posted by: shark at June 25, 2004 08:29 PM
McQ, sorry for going off on a bit of a rant that was somewhat OT, and thanks for staying cool and patient. I also don't really disagree with your main point.
I like to see any assertion on foreign policy be transformable into a brief action memo with real options and actual alternatives in order to take it seriously -- it's a good discipline, and of course almost all the jaw-flapping one hears on any topic utterly fails that test. In the case of US support for Arab autocrats from WWII to recently, concrete alternatives would have to be offered that would have adequately advanced/protected US interests. Not saying it couldn't be done -- but I haven't seen it done, and to me there's not much moral force in the mere observation that the US backed some unsavory regimes.
But since you brought up Kosovo, that reminds me of an astonishing TV segment I saw sometime last year. Interview with some shopkeepers in Jeddah, S.A. Some standard-issue America-bashing was going on, and the interviewer (in a dramatic departure from the pathetic standards we're now accustomed to in western journalists) suddenly tried to challenge their insulting ignorant comments by pointing out the US had intervened in Kosovo to save Muslims. Oh no -- these guys would have none of that, and smilingly dismissed the reporter's info as false. He never even got to bring up Kuwait (and implicitly, Saudi Arabia) or Somalia.
With this level of ignorance and delusion, it's really difficult to imagine a meaningful dialogue. Almost like talking to lots of Americans and Europeans these days ....
Posted by: IceCold at June 25, 2004 11:16 PM
I thought Thomas Sowell had the best and simplest answer to the "Why do they hate us" question I've ever heard: Because the alternative is hating themselves, and they're not about to do that.
Muslim culture, as they're fond of reminding us, was once the pinnacle of human scientific, medical and philosophic endeavor. It's been a long, hard fall from which they've never recovered. They are told from birth that they are Allah's favored children, they are superior to all other humans on this planet, etc. Then they look around at the squalor they live in and realize something doesn't compute (after looking up "compute" in the Zionist dictionary).
When your life sucks, it's more convenient to blame a boogeyman than to admit it's your own backwards-ass religion that's keeping you from sharing in today's era of unrivaled prosperity. Just another version of The Man keeping them down.
Sounds like someone else I know...
Posted by: Jeff at June 25, 2004 11:26 PM