[(Continued from p.4)]
Today, both Iraq and Iran anticipate an American strike. If the first is hit, the Arab world is likely to be up in arms. Even in the wake of September 11, much of public opinion in the Arab world remains adamantly anti-American. Arab leaders, in countries ranging from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, have tried to elicit from the Islamic establishment some kind of condemnation of the horrors perpetrated by other Islamic groups, but the populace, many of the Islamic ulema (the doctors of holy law who have a large role in creating public opinion in the Arab and Islamic worlds) and even some government officials have stood fast. I have seen a fatwa by an official of the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Saudi Arabia condoning what Bin Laden did, declaring it an act of jihad, and declaring that nobody can shut our mouths. (Of course mouths can be shut when they say something against the regime, but when they say something against America or in favor of Bin Laden, that is allowed.)
Saddam Hussein has also obtained a great deal of credit with the Arab (and larger Islamic) public by lending concrete support to Palestinians fighting against Israel. He has instituted something quite generous from his point-of-view, an allowance of $15,000 for each family which loses any of its members during the intifada. Saddam is seen as somebody who does something, while the rest of the Arab world just makes statements. If a conflagration should occur, there could be implications for the stability of existing regimes, which might be threatened by a populist onslaught.
If President Bush should start with Iran, the same kind of conflagration might occur in other parts of the Islamic world where Iran and President Khatami have built for themselves an image, which is not totally exaggerated or false, of moderation.
To say there are likely to be sharp repercussions in the Arab and Muslim world is not to say that President Bush should stay his hand. The clash of civilizations is already here. For Israel, Iraq is a much greater danger because it belongs to the immediate circle of Arab enemies, while, at least in the long run, Iran could perhaps be counted among those who can offset the Arab threat. It seems likely that unless Iraq is emasculated by dividing it into its three constitutive elements, it will continue to threaten its neighbors. The U.S. has been reluctant to promote this because of the opposition of its regional allies. If Kurds in the north are afforded independence, which they certainly deserve more than the Palestinians, Turkey fears the impact on its own southern region with its large Kurdish population and the U.S. is reluctant to act against its ally; if the Shi'ites in the south gain independence, then the precedent would be set for the Shi'ites of the oil-producing coast of Saudi Arabia to demand the same. It is possible nonetheless that an alliance of Shi'ite states under Western protection would be better for the West than supporting the illegitimate and increasingly hostile government of the Saudis.
In the wake of September 11 and in view of the tremors that are likely to shake the Middle East following the much-expected continuation of the American battle against terrorism, it is time that existing alliances were reconsidered. In Saudi Arabia, the leadership is already doubtful whether it should continue to lean on the Americans for protection or shift to the much more pro-Arab European Union. Stability is not necessarily the great prize, because once the existing stability -- provided by Saddam, the Ayatollahs and the Kingdom in Saudi Arabia -- comes under the heading of "evil," it becomes imperative to shake it off. President Reagan's Star Wars program brought down the Soviet regime and put an end to decades of evil stability, for the benefit of us all.
Raphael Israeli is professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese History at Hebrew University.
(Editor's Note: Perhaps nothing shows better that there is a genuine clash of civilizations than this revelation of the extent to which Arab countriesincluding Egypt, supposedly the one closest to the Westmisapprehend the fundamental beliefs and values of Western civilization.)
The Egyptian press has been full of praise and glorification of Wafa Idris, the female suicide bomber who killed and maimed Jewish passersby in Jerusalem a few weeks ago. Apparently referring to the news coverage of the carnage in Jerusalem, an Egyptian opposition daily, Al-Wafd, carried on article entitled "An Oscar-Winning Film." According to the author of the piece, the heroine... is the beautiful, pure Palestinian woman, Wafa Idris, full of faith and willpower. I could find no one better than she, and I could find no film more wonderful than this, that shocked Israel's heart.
In the Egyptian government paper Al-Ahram, an article said the suicide bomber revealed the meaning of the Palestinian personality. In case it was not clear if that was praise or condemnation, the article continues, she revealed the heroism of the Palestinian woman. As a nurse, her work was like that of the merciful angels. She cared for the sick and injured, and rescued the wounded. And behold, she expanded the sphere of her work from saving individuals to saving the Palestinian nation.
Not just the epitome of the Palestinian personality, Al-Ahram called the suicide bomber the Palestinian Joan of Arc. Another Egyptian media outlet, Hadith al-Medina, as reported in the London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi, went further and likened Idris to Mary, the New Testament's mother of Jesus, in an article by the head of the Depart-
[(Continued on p.6)]
March 2002 - 5 - Outpost