Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH)
August 23, 2005

The Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH) is distributing the enclosed articles to build bridges of understanding between the West and the Arab World and countries with predominately Muslim populations. Unless otherwise noted, all copyright permissions have been obtained and the articles may be reproduced by any news outlet or publication free of charge. If publishing, please acknowledge both the original source and CGNews, and notify us at cgnewspih@sfcg.org.

**********

ARTICLES IN THIS EDITION:

1. "Trading Cricket for Jihad" by David Brooks
David Brooks, a columnist for the New York Times, dispels myths of the impoverished, devoid-of-hope terrorist and paints a picture of the educated, modern terrorist that facts and data have shown actually exists. In this context, Brooks then looks at certain U.S. foreign policy that is misguided in its attempt to dispel terrorism and suggests alternative steps.
(Source: New York Times, August 4, 2005)

2. "Fighting Terrorism: Blair Has Made a Rod for His Own Back" by Sir Cyril Townsend
Sir Cyril Townsend, former British Member of Parliament, although generally appreciative of Blair's responses to terrorism, worries that Blair has made some critical errors, particularly in the areas of freedom of speech and human rights. He warns that "[a] balance is essential between containing terrorism and protecting the rights of an individual."
(Source: Arab News, August 16, 2005)

3. "What next after the Gaza withdrawal?" by Daoud Kuttab
Daoud Kuttab, Director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University in Ramallah, worries that the seemingly unilateral action to withdraw from Gaza leaves many gaps. He argues that Palestinians and Israelis, as well as the peace process's multilateral guarantors, the United States and its quartet partners - the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia, should have been involved in the withdrawal to a greater extent to avoid practical problems employment, legitimacy, governance concerns - that will show themselves in the aftermath.
(Source: AMIN.org, August 18, 2005)

4. "Wars Need to Be Prevented, Not Stopped" by Stan Moore
Stan Moore, a member of several falconry and ornithological clubs and organizations, in an article rife with idealism, points out the role of the individual in changing international policy and particularly government-led violence or war. He also highlights the importance of prevention of conflict, not merely resolution, at a time when this theme is being heavily discussed amongst international organizations and communities.
(Source: Middle East Times, August 15, 2005)

**********

ARTICLE 1
Trading Cricket for Jihad
David Brooks

Nothing has changed during the war on terror as much as our definition of the enemy.

In the days after Sept. 11, it was commonly believed that the conflict between the jihadists and the West was a conflict between medievalism and modernism. Terrorists, it was said, emerge from cultures that are isolated from the Enlightenment ideas of the West. They feel disoriented by the pluralism of the modern age and humiliated by the relative backwardness of the Arab world. They are trapped in stagnant, dysfunctional regimes, amid mass unemployment, with little hope of leading productive lives.

Humiliated and oppressed, they lash out against America, the symbol of threatening modernity. Off they go to seek martyrdom, dreaming of virgins who await them in the afterlife.

Now we know that story line doesn't fit the facts.

We have learned a lot about the jihadists, from Osama bin Laden down to the Europeans who attacked the London subways last month. We know, thanks to a database gathered by Marc Sageman, formerly of the C.I.A., that about 75 percent of anti-Western terrorists come from middle-class or upper-middle-class homes. An amazing 65 percent have gone to college, and three-quarters have professional or semiprofessional jobs, particularly in engineering and science.

Whether they have moved to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, England or France, these men are, far from being medieval, drawn from the ranks of the educated, the mobile and the multilingual.

The jihadists are modern psychologically as well as demographically because they are self-made men (in traditional societies there are no self-made men). Rather than deferring to custom, many of them have rebelled against local authority figures, rejecting their parents' bourgeois striving and moderate versions of Islam, and their comfortable lives.

They have sought instead some utopian cause to give them an identity and their lives meaning. They find that cause in a brand of Salafism that is not traditional Islam but a modern fantasy version of it, an invented tradition. They give up cricket and medical school and take up jihad.

In other words, the conflict between the jihadists and the West is a conflict within the modern, globalized world. The extremists are the sort of utopian rebels modern societies have long produced.

In his book "Globalized Islam," the French scholar Olivier Roy points out that today's jihadists have a lot in common with the left-wing extremists of the 1930's and 1960's. Ideologically, Islamic neofundamentalism occupies the same militant space that was once occupied by Marxism. It draws the same sorts of recruits (educated second-generation immigrants, for example), uses some of the same symbols and vilifies some of the same enemies (imperialism and capitalism).

Roy emphasizes that the jihadists are the products of globalization, and its enemies. They are detached from any specific country or culture, he says, and take up jihad because it attaches them to something. They are generally not politically active before they take up jihad. They are looking to strike a vague blow against the system and so give their lives (and deaths) shape and meaning.

In short, the Arab world is maintaining its nearly perfect record of absorbing every bad idea coming from the West. Western ideas infuse the radicals who flood into Iraq to blow up Muslims and Americans alike.

This new definition of the enemy has seeped into popular culture (in "Over There," the FX show about the Iraq war, the insurgent leaders are shown as educated, multilingual radicals), but its implications have only slowly dawned on the policy world.

The first implication, clearly, is that democratizing the Middle East, while worthy in itself, may not stem terrorism. Terrorists are bred in London and Paris as much as anywhere else.

Second, the jihadists' weakness is that they do not spring organically from the Arab or Muslim world. They claim to speak for the Muslim masses, as earlier radicals claimed to speak for the proletariat. But they don't. Surely a key goal for U.S. policy should be to isolate the nationalists from the jihadists.

Third, terrorism is an immigration problem. Terrorists are spawned when educated, successful Muslims still have trouble sinking roots into their adopted homelands. Countries that do not encourage assimilation are not only causing themselves trouble, but endangering others around the world as well.
###
* David Brooks is a columnist for the New York Times.
Source: The New York Times, August 4, 2005
Visit the New York Times at www.nytimes.com.
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity.
Copyright is held by the New York Times. Please contact reprint2@nytimes.com for reprint information.

**********

ARTICLE 2
Fighting Terrorism: Blair Has Made a Rod for His Own Back
Sir Cyril Townsend

Whichever political adviser it was - and nowadays there are some 100 in Downing Street - who came up with Prime Minister Tony Blair's sound bite for his Press Conference on Aug. 5, can give himself a pat on the back because it was rather a good one. "Let no one be in any doubt, the rules of the game are changing."

Tony Blair was using his monthly press conference in front of Britain's top political journalists, to announce sweeping anti-terrorist proposals, which could lead to the deportation of many Islamic extremists before the year is out. Parliament is likely to be recalled next month to debate the measures, some of which will not need legislation.

"Coming to Britain is not a right and, even when people have come here, staying here carries with it a duty. That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those who break that duty and try and incite or engage in violence against our country or our people have no place here," said the prime minister.

Tony Blair is a great political communicator, and few world leaders can handle a press conference with a better touch. Hearing extracts of this conference on the radio and television suggested he had given a powerful performance, but when I read my newspaper at breakfast next morning my heart sank. When examined his proposals appeared rushed and not properly thought through. He had made a big splash, before departing for his family summer holiday, and I suspect he will regret some of his proposals at leisure over the next year or so.

In recent weeks and up to this conference Tony Blair has been magnificent. His handling of European issues, his visit to Singapore to help London win the Olympic Games, his leadership of the G-8 summit in Scotland, his calm yet firm reaction to the bombings in London on July 7, have all combined to greatly enhance his reputation. He worked hard to prevent a backlash against British Muslims. He suggested the "ideology" of the suicide bombers represented a poisoned "perversion" of Islam. Perversion seemed to many to be just the right word.

His announcement of the most sweeping anti-terrorism proposals in the last fifty years took the Home Office by surprise. Blair, who had attempted to build up a political consensus over terrorism, gave Charles Kennedy only 30 minutes notice of what was being cooked up; and the leader of the Liberal Democrats responded by saying the prime minister could not count on his party's support. He believed the proposals risked "inflaming tensions and alienating Muslims".

The hostile reaction from the Muslim community was most significant. Very sensibly Blair had leading Muslims into Downing Street in July to plan the way forward. Now there was anger at his plans to ban certain Islamic organizations, shut down bookshops and deport radical preachers to countries that torture their prisoners.

Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain Sir Iqbal Sacranie has a key role at this time. But he was "concerned and alarmed" at what was being proposed. He thought Muslims speaking out in favor of the Palestinian cause might face prosecutions.

"Our faith of Islam commands us to speak out against injustice wherever it occurs."

A leading group against the Iraqi war was the Muslim Public Affairs Committee. It feared the proposals would marginalize young Muslims. Its spokesman, Asghar Bakhari, declared: "These sound like draconian and quite stupid laws... All the mainstream groups that have spoken against British foreign policy are worried that they will be on the list to be banned. This no longer looks like it's about fighting terrorism, it looks like it's about getting Muslims."

Another anti-war group, the Muslim Association of Britain, feared Blair would "marginalize the Muslim community."

Kate Allen, the UK director of Amnesty International, argued: "Some rules have not changed. Torture is wrong, and always will be." Cherie Blair, the prime minister's wife and a top human rights lawyer, recently warned the government not to interfere with the independence of the courts. The prime minister has unwisely warned the judges that, if they continue to resist the deportation of extremists, he would be prepared to amend the Human Rights Act. Inevitably he has stirred up within Britain considerable and highly articulate legal criticism.

While some of this reaction could be regarded as over-the-top, Blair has made a rod for his own back. A balance is essential between containing terrorism and protecting the rights of an individual. His hasty announcement, before going on a holiday, suggests he is failing to achieve that balance. Hopefully Parliament after the summer will build in the necessary cautions and corrections. One of its traditional tasks is to control the enthusiasm of the executive.

###
* Sir Cyril Townsend is a former British Member of Parliament.
Source: Arab News, August 16, 2005
Visit Arab News at www.arabnews.com
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 3
What next after the Gaza withdrawal?
Daoud Kuttab

The withdrawal of Israeli troops and the evacuation of Jewish settlers from Gaza, after 38 years of occupation, is the most recent proof of the limits of military power, even when that power is overwhelming. Now is the time to take stock of the lessons learned from the years of occupation and resistance in order to understand what Israelis and Palestinians should do next.

To begin with, it is imperative to understand how much credit Palestinians can validly claim for the Israeli withdrawal. True, Palestinian resistance and sacrifices were a contributing factor in Ariel Sharon's decision to reverse a policy he had espoused for decades. But it would be a mistake to attribute the Israeli withdrawal exclusively to Palestinian attacks. After all, this bittersweet Israeli action was neither a clear result of military defeat nor a consequence of political negotiations.

But unilateralism is not a rational long-term and effective policy, for it will not lead to a genuine and lasting peace in the Middle East. Just as President Bush has discovered in Iraq, Sharon will also be forced to acknowledge the limits of his strategy.

Unilateralism seems very expedient to short-sighted politicians, for it obviates the need for what they perceive as the mess of actual negotiations - that is, meeting their counterparts face to face and discovering the human results of their policies. Going it alone also seems politically advantageous domestically, because leaders can decide how much and how far they want to carry out a particular policy.

To be fair, unilateralism is convenient not only for a reluctant Israeli prime minister who does not wish to make substantial compromises during negotiations; it is also attractive to hard-line Palestinians who regard multilateralism as a means of pressing them to make unpopular concessions.

In any case, the day after the completion of the Gaza withdrawal, Israelis and Palestinians will be confronted with important unresolved questions. There is no doubt that the evacuation of Jewish settlers in areas that Israelis consider part of their God-given territory represents a huge ideological reversal. But after years of preaching and practising one of Zionism's main tenets, will the removal of settlements continue in the West Bank, or will this be a one-time exception?

Palestinians, for their part, will be expected to answer questions - in deeds, not just in words - about their ability to build a modern pluralistic state. How will the Palestinian body politic deal with the growing power of the Islamic movements that undoubtedly will expect a significant share of power in post-withdrawal Gaza?

The international community also will have to answer some key questions. According to the Palestinian Economic Council for Reconstruction and Development (PECDAR), annual per capita income in Gaza continues to average roughly $700, while Israelis enjoy incomes averaging a $16,000 per capita. In the absence of relatively well-paying jobs, what will happen to the lines of unemployed Gazans? The potential flight of employment seekers - a formidable force worldwide - is only one problem. More immediately, if Gazan families are not well fed, the recurrence of cross-border violence, if not the eruption of a third Intifada, will only be a matter of time.

While the economic situation in Gaza is a critical issue, the future of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will be determined mainly by the next steps in the peace process. Permanent-status issues concerning borders, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and refugees must be dealt with bilaterally. Any serious observer of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will no doubt acknowledge that there can be no unilateral solution to these issues.

As for the peace process's multilateral guarantors, the United States and its quartet partners - the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia - have failed to provide even the most basic facts regarding Israel's withdrawal or how it relates to the "roadmap" agreed in 2003. They cannot continue to sit on the sidelines. Washington's quixotic decision to call Israel's unilateral move part of the roadmap has failed to convince many Palestinians. The prevailing opinion among Palestinians is that the roadmap will be put into deep freeze once the Israelis complete their Gaza withdrawal.

But the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, their leaders, and the international community must all respond to the challenges that will follow. Most importantly, the future of the conflict and the chances for genuine peace in the region will depend on understanding the limits of offensive military power, defensive resistance, and unilateralism. Serious face-to-face talks, in accordance to international law and with the help of the international community, are the only way forward.

###
* Daoud Kuttab is Director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University in Ramallah.
Source: AMIN.org, August 18, 2005
Visit AMIN.org at www.amin.org
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

ARTICLE 4
Wars Need to Be Prevented, Not Stopped
Stan Moore

One matter that should be very clear from the Cindy Sheehan experience is that neither George W. Bush, nor his administration, nor his supporters in the public media or the countryside are about to admit that the 'Iraq war of conquest' was a mistake. No matter what the evidence of lies, no matter what the "intelligence" really said, no matter what the damage to the nation and its citizens and soldiers, warmongers will be warmongers.

Moreover, political parties in the so-called but no longer seen "loyal opposition" no longer have the political strength or wherewithal to stop wars in progress. Wars take on inertia that makes them almost impossible to stop once initiated. A big reason for this phenomenon is likely the financial benefits of warmongering to professional politicians, who tend to be of the investor class and who often benefit financially from military spending, which is now a huge portion of the entire US economy.

Peacemakers and peacekeepers need to learn that wars must be prevented, not stopped. Peacemakers must anticipate causes of war. Peacemakers must see the signs of impending war, such as claims by their government that "all options are on the table", or outright dismissals that war is an imminent option. Peacemakers must give close attention to the inevitable demonization of foreign nations and their leaders, which is a sure sign of the process that leads to war.

The peaceful must find ways to speak truth to government deceit in real time. The peaceful must oppose war as an instrument of foreign policy on the grounds that wars waste property and lives and often victimize the innocent and civilians, and thus must be considered an outdated method of solving human conflict.

Peacemakers must oppose ALL war and especially pre-emptive wars that are aggressive and not defensive in the least. Peacemakers must develop coherent, logical, truthful arguments to instruct the public as to the harm caused by war to even the victors of military conflict. Peacemakers must devise strategies to influence public debate when emotions run high in favor of war, such as at times of grievous tragedy, such as immediately after the attacks of Pearl Harbor or 9/11/2001.

John Lennon had it right - we must give peace a chance. Edwin Starr was right when he said that "war is good for nothing; it can't give life but can only take it away".

We need more entertainers, more musicians, and more celebrities to espouse the peace movement for the younger generation. The Vietnam War resistance sprang to a large degree from young people who were at risk of being drafted in a conscript army. A volunteer army of today poses less of a threat to those who refuse to volunteer, but we need more brothers and sisters and cousins of veterans to oppose the war, and not just mothers of casualties. We need Crosby Stills and Nash to spur "young people [to be] speaking their minds [on the wrongful of war].

We need to prevent the planned war against Iran. We need to prevent war on North Korea. We need to prevent war against Venezuela and Syria and Cuba. We can see them coming, and we have to prevent these wars. We need religious leaders and celebrities and young folk and we need politicians and soccer moms and ex-military and wise elders and young parents and environmentalists and poor folks and everyone to oppose war and to prevent the next one.

What if they gave a war and nobody came? What if the politicians had to hold bake sales to finance wars? What if politicians and rich folk had to raise armies from their own children? What if the public stopped wars by preventing their governments from starting them?

We must prevent the next war while simultaneously stopping the current one. We can do it and we must.

###
* Stan Moore is a member of several falconry and ornithological clubs and organizations. Acknowledgement to Media Monitors Network.
Source: Middle East Times, August 15, 2005
Visit the Middle East Times at www.metimes.com.
Distributed by the Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity.
Copyright permission has been obtained for publication.

**********

The Common Ground News Service - Partners in Humanity, brought to you by Search for Common Ground, seeks to build bridges of understanding between the West and the Arab World and countries with predominately Muslim populations. This service is one outcome of a set of working meetings held in partnership with His Royal Highness Prince El Hassan bin Talal in June 2003.

Every two weeks, CGNews-PiH will distribute 2-5 news articles, op-eds, features, and analyses that aid in developing and analyzing the current and future relationship of the West and Arab/Muslim world. Articles will be chosen based on accuracy, balance, and their ability to improve understanding and communication across borders and regions. They will also reflect the need for constructive dialogue around issues of global importance. Selections will be authored by local and international experts and leaders who will analyze and discuss a broad range of relevant issues. We invite you to submit any articles you feel are compatible with the goals of this news service.

We look forward to hearing from you, and welcome any questions, concerns, or comments you may have about this service. Please forward this message to colleagues and friends who may also wish to subscribe to the service. To subscribe, send an email to subscribe-cgnewspih@sfcg.org with subscribe in the subject line.

If you are a member of the media, please join us in promoting constructive dialogue to improve understanding and perceptions. Unless otherwise noted, all copyright permissions have been obtained and the articles may be reproduced by any news outlet or publication free of charge. If you choose to republish any of the articles, please acknowledge both the original source and CGNews, and notify us at cgnewspih@sfcg.org

The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors, not of CGNews or its affiliates.

Common Ground News Service

1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite #200
Washington, DC 20009 USA
Ph: +1(202) 777-2207
Fax: +1(202) 232-6718

Rue Belliard 205 bte 13
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
Ph: +32 (02) 736-7262
Fax: +32(02) 732-3033
E-mail: cgnewspih@sfcg.org
Website: http://www.commongroundnews.org

Editors:
Emad Khalil
Amman Editor

Oussama Safa & Juliette Schmidt
Beirut Editors

Elyte Baykun
Washington Editor

Michael Shipler
Youth Views Editor

**********
This is a not-for-profit list serve.

Please feel free to forward this message to anyone you think would like to see these articles

Posted by Evelin at August 24, 2005 05:30 AM