COMMENTARY Time to redefine the
Middle East By Ramzy Baroud
It may be convenient for many to perceive
the Middle East as a politically charged,
fractious region, rife with conflicts and
disputes, devoid of prospects, save those leading
to even more uncertainty and turmoil. While the
region's history is indeed rich with instances
that would validate such a notion, only
uninterested minds would fail to appreciate the
immense role played by great European powers and
now the United States in painting such a grim
portrait of a region that once served as the
cradle of great civilizations.
The
accepted definition of the Middle East as this
cohesive, yet inherently violent, entity is
consistent with utterly militaristic and
chauvinistic views constructed
by numerous Western scholars, diplomats and
military men, whose attempt to reduce a vast,
diverse and intricate region has been propelled
primarily by their countries' imperialist drive
and hunger for territorial and political control.
This imperialist view of the world is
understandably simplistic. Appreciating the depth
and beauty of a potentially exploitable region can
lead to costly hesitation, a loss that empires -
by definition in need of growth and expansion -
cannot afford.
The historic Israeli view
of Palestinians - either the total denial of their
existence altogether, or at best the recognition
of an inferior breed of human - was more or less
shaped around the same theme applied in a variety
of global historic contexts: native Americans as
"uncivilized", Central American natives as
"heathens", Australian Aboriginals as "wild dogs",
and so forth.
Perhaps Palestinians, native
Americans, Mayans and Aboriginals did not have a
great deal in common, but their conquerors
certainly did: an immense interest in the land and
utter disinterest in its indigenous inhabitants.
But why is this notion more relevant in
the Middle East than ever before? Perhaps because
some Western powers, led by the United States and
Britain, insist on ignoring valuable lessons
provided by history, and refuse to accept that the
world around them is changing, that classic
imperialism has already demonstrated its
remarkable failure and ineffectuality.
Despite all evidence to the contrary, they
still speak of a looming victory in Iraq; they
still hope for a submissive Palestinian populace
who would be forced to surrender to Israel's
dictates; of a sheepish Iran that would beg for
mercy at the first threat of being "referred to
the Security Council"; of a gullible Arab populace
eager to throw flowers at the feet of the
conquerors. Not only are such fantasies unlikely
to actualize, but they utterly reek with
condescension and racism.
In the US case,
the ignorance of the complexities of the Iraqis,
the Iranians and others exhibits an appalling
level of foolishness that continues to expose
itself in the perpetual Iraq war and the
subsequent pending conflict with Iran.
The
American public was simply fed the original lie
that created false links between the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, with various
countries across the Middle East; the Pentagon was
entrusted with a perpetual military drive, as
self-serving, detached and inexperienced
neo-conservative supporters were told to lead a
mindless campaign that has already proved to be an
unmatched historic liability.
As some
neo-cons are now distancing themselves from the
Iraq disaster and are lining up for teaching jobs
at prestigious US universities - the latest being
former Defense Department official Douglas Feith -
others are pushing unreservedly for yet another
crusade in Iran, accusing the military of
mishandling the Iraq venture and ignoring the real
menace to the east. "Iran, not Iraq, is the real
danger," tirelessly parrot pro-war media pundits.
If it's too much to expect American
experts to appreciate the disastrous British
experience in Iraq a century ago, is it still too
much to expect the grievous Iraq lesson - still a
catastrophe in the making - to provide some
lessons before igniting another costly conflict in
Iran? Seemingly it is. In fact, according to some
"leading experts" in the influential American
Enterprise Institute - a neo-con nest, rife with
obsessed intellectuals and heaps of crazy ideas -
the Iraq war has already been won.
One of
the institute's leading figures, Danielle Pletka,
told me in an interview that many Iranians keep
complaining to her, "It's not fair that you
liberated the Iraqis and not us." Pletka is
credited by some for bringing dissident Iraqi
figure Ahmad Chalabi into the spotlight after
exaggerating his political clout. Chalabi fed the
neo-cons with the lies they needed to make their
drive for war possible. Yet when the war proved
disastrous, all fingers pointed to Chalabi for
"misleading" the US government.
The US
government may wish to carry on with its
fantasies, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair's
government may trail along as well. The fact of
the matter is that the Middle East is eager to
define itself according to its own terms and
aspirations. It's neither middle nor an east, and
it is not destined to eternal violence and chaos.
The imperialist West needs to appreciate
the complexities of this region, its richness and
its growing potential. It needs to abandon the old
Israeli view that "Arabs only understand the
language of violence". If the US government wishes
to escape its miserable fate in that region, it
must redefine its relationship with the Middle
East: replacing militancy with diplomacy, coercion
with dialogue, and racism with partnership.
Either that, or uncertainty and chaos will
continue to define the region, and define those
foolish enough to perceive the Middle East through
cliches and tired slogans.
Arab-American journalist Ramzy
Baroud teaches mass communication at
Australia's Curtin University of Technology,
Malaysia Campus. He is the author of Writings
on the Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of
a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).
