english.daralhayat.com 2008/09/07 17:28 GMT

Events Reveal An Astonishing And Frightening Confluence Of Arab, Islamic, Isreali And American Extremists' Agendas

Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat 2004/06/25

There is a glimmer of hope that world public opinion is showing signs of a new awakening to the dangers of radical extremists' agendas and promises, in all their backgrounds, forms, and ideologies. For the new awaking to be effective, actions at the popular level are needed in order to isolate and eradicate this extremism. In the American setting, such actions would have to be initiated by American voters, half of whom, according to the latest polls, have lost their trust in George W. Bush after he was co-opted by the clique of extremists both inside and outside his administration. At the Arab level, the time has come for the public to regain control of its future and free it from the clutches of Islamic radicalism by coming out openly against the cold-blooded beheading of hostages in Saudi Arabia and Iraq and affirming its total rejection of the Al-Qaeda network and its likes. This would require a refrain from finding justifications and rationalizations for terrorism and a refrain from offering it support, even tacitly. This summer could witness the onset of a new kind of awareness and a popular consciousness leading to moderation. But it could also witness a strengthening of the kinds of radical fundamentalists who serve only to help each other, intentionally or unintentionally, even if extremism strikes down their own populations.

Arab populace will pay a high price if it misses the opportunity to confront both the bloodthirsty extremism of the terrorists and the excessive "police state" practices of their governments in the fight against terrorism--two impediments to Arab aspirations to a future of prosperity, democracy, and reform that would benefit all.

The time has come perhaps to hold the "Al-Qaeda" network and its likes to a higher degree of scrutiny and ask what they have to offer by way of a political agenda other than destruction. Destruction that is the staging ground for rule by fundamentalist, religious extremism. Destruction that is robbing all Arab peoples of their present and future.

The time has come perhaps to raise the question as to the confluence of three fundamentalisms--extremist Islamic, fanatical Jewish, and crazed Christian--in their various locales and manifestations. Is this confluence a coincidence? Or does every fundamentalism need a counter-fundamentalism to justify its extremist nature?

In Saudi Arabia, as in Iraq, the events of the past few years have revealed an astonishing and frightening confluence among Arab, Islamic, Israeli, and American extremist movements. There is a kind of secret conversation taking place among the various quarters and nooks of extremism, a mutual summons whereby one extremism feeds off the other.

The "Al-Qaeda" network wishes to reign supreme in Saudi Arabia once it brings about its collapse, even if such a collapse means a total breaking up of the kingdom and the installation of a radical Islamic government on only a portion of its land. Chaos is Al-Qaeda's weapon.

The clique of American and Israeli extremists is working to bring about the collapse and break-up of Saudi Arabia by spreading chaos, Al-Qaeda's weapon of choice, for strategic goals convenient for both Israel and the United States. Control of the oil-rich eastern region is only one of these goals, and a very important one. But the other goal consists of dividing the Arab region to remove any threat or challenge it might pose for Israel.

Al-Qaeda and this radical extremist American-Israeli clique agree on the desire to sever the American-Saudi relationship, even if for entirely different reasons.

"Al-Qaeda" wants to push the Americans out and believes that its tactics will result in the closing of American bases in the Arab and Islamic region.

The Israeli radical movement has sought to sever the strong relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia ever since the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah launched the initiative that was subsequently adopted by the Arab leaders in the Beirut Summit. The initiative threatened to expose the persistent Israeli refusal for a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict based on the principles of a two-state solution, Palestine and Israel, an end to Israeli occupation, and the peaceful coexistence of Israel with all states in the region.

The terrorist events of September 11, in which 15 of the 19 perpetrators were Saudis, came as a gift to the band of Israeli extremists and their American cohorts. Thus began the campaign against Saudi Arabia.

The convergence in the goals and actions of Islamic, Jewish, and Christian radical movements, exemplified by both Al-Qaeda and the clique of American-Israeli extremists, leads one to these important questions: Who is Al-Qaeda? Who are its true followers? And why does it continue to heap misery on Arabs and Muslims while claiming to avenge their oppression?

Those men who are hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, or those who have snuck away to Iraq, or those who have taken control of the pulpits in Saudi mosques, who are they really? Whose interests do they represent?

Surely they do not represent the interests of the Arab and Islamic peoples who have no need for the culture of destruction that those men continue to embrace. Surely the Palestinians have not benefited one bit from these men. And surely Iraq has not benefited, and will never benefit, from them. Who are these men? And whom do they work for?

We know that they worked with the CIA in Afghanistan in the past and were financed by Saudi Arabia in its war against the Communist infidels. We know that they held Afghanistan hostage and used the Taliban to impose their rule. We know that they went back to Algeria to seek power and there they massacred their opposition as they do now in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

There are some in popular Arab and Muslim circles who are convinced that the terrorist attacks of September 11 where not the work of Arabs and Muslims and that the Al-Qaeda network had no hand in them. If such a scenario is true, then let Al-Qaeda put forth unequivocally its evidence and proof of innocence. If indeed it were infiltrated by Israelis, as some claim it was, Al-Qaeda has the responsibility to explain this infiltration. If there really were Israelis carrying out operations in its name, as some profess, then it is incumbent upon "Al-Qaeda" to make that clear.

In any case, this network has failed to serve the interests of Arabs and Muslims. It is instead exploiting their causes and future and only serving the interests of their enemies. The time has come to take a stand, by the people.

Because the Arab and Muslim populace is incapable of ridding itself of Al-Qaeda by popular vote, its only recourse is to protect itself by not allowing this network to use Arabs and Muslims as its constituency. This requires a concerted effort to isolate Al-Qaeda and its likes and to come out in public demonstrations protesting against them and against all forms of extremism.

And lest Arab governments should be deluded into thinking that they have become models of governance in the eyes of their citizens, these same citizens must also use their demonstrations against Al-Qaeda and the doctrine of destruction to demand also that their governments expedite the otherwise hesitant implementation of reform and stop using the war against terrorism as justification for repressive measures against their citizens.

The newly awakened Arab citizens have the opportunity to reclaim rights that were usurped by their governments' authoritarianism, on the one hand, and by wars of "opposition" launched at the expense of people. The Arab public itself is the means of true opposition to both governments and their opponents who are simply vying for power. And this is its chance.

On the American front, the power of the American public to shape events will become apparent in a few months, during the presidential elections. There is of course the looming danger of a shift in American public opinion favoring a sudden turn in events. But there are signs of a rising consciousness among Americans following a deep repose inside the trap laid for them by the extremists among the neo-conservatives and Israeli apologists.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll points to a rise in public anxiety over mounting American casualties in Iraq that has "erased" the significant advantage that George W. Bush once held over the presumptive democratic presidential nominee, Senator John F. Kerry, concerning who is best able to deal with the threats of terrorism.

America is evenly split, according to the poll. Half the country approves of the way Bush is handling the war on terrorism, down 13 percentage points in just two months since April, at which time Bush enjoyed a 21-point advantage over Kerry. America is now evenly divided: 48 percent favor Kerry while 47 percent favor Bush.

There is no doubt the Iraq war will be crucial in determining the outcome of the upcoming November presidential elections, particularly in light of divided voter sentiment on the costs and benefits of the war. The poll reflects the divergence of opinions on the war: its goals, its justifications, its effect on the global image of the United States, and its effect on the prospects for peace and stability in the Middle East.

Bush remains, in the eyes of most Americans, a stronger leader than Kerry, and one who can be more trusted in managing crises. He is also regarded as the candidate who is better able to keep the nation secure and as a leader who sticks with his positions.

But Kerry has a 52 percent to 39 percent advantage over Bush in honesty and trustworthiness, a result that can only be explained by Bush's adventure in Iraq , before which his truthfulness was hardly ever in question before the war.

Despite that, and according to the poll, Americans also question whether Kerry has a clear plan for Iraq. Bush's only edge of 50 percent, as compared to Kerry's 45 percent, is on the Iraq issue.

The afore-mentioned poll proves that Bush and the clique of extremists, both in and around his administration, have lost their wager--that declaring the war on terrorism would win the unquestioned support of Americans. Half of Americans have come to the realization that this band of extremists sought to push them through fear-mongering towards ever-costly ends. This is why half of Americans oppose what Bush has done in the name of the war on terrorism.

The Department of Defense has yet to pay the price for the mistakes it committed in Iraq in the name of a war on terrorism waged to take it away from American cities.

Run mostly by hawks and the most extreme of conservatives, this department has made up reasons for war in the name of fighting terrorism and spreading democracy and reform. But its deceptive schemes may only reap American anger, especially in light of the Iraq and Guantanamo prison scandals. This in addition to the allegations regarding the involvement of Vice President Dick Cheney's office in business deals and interests at the expense of American voters. Until now no punishment has been imposed on any of the high-level decision makers who presided over the Iraq war, the war on terrorism, the money and prison scandals.

The responsibility is mostly George W. Bush's, according to half of Americans, who also see a great danger in his religious zeal and his deference to the extremists inside his administration.

This loss of confidence and trust comes from a deep-seated public fear of his orientations and thinking and the ominous prospect of a return of the neo-conservatives and their agendas should he be re-elected.

The elections will be more a referendum on Bush and the gang of extremists surrounding him than a genuine desire for John Kerry as an alternative.

Few believe that the neo-conservatives will continue on their course of decline should Bush be elected for a second term. Most are wary that a temporary disappearance of extremist elements would only be a transitional ploy to gain legitimacy.

Until now Kerry has not come out to accuse Bush of embroiling America in Iraq and of using the September 11 catastrophe to promote the Doctrine of Preemption that neo-conservatives had articulated years earlier.

John Kerry has not put forth a convincing plan for Iraq.

His supporters say that he is better off waiting for Bush to finish off the work of drowning himself before Kerry plays his cards. They say that it is still too early and that it is better to wait until after the Republican and Democratic conventions. Their view is that this summer will be a quagmire for George Bush and that it is in John Kerry's interest to wait till after Bush's hot summer in Iraq and the war on terrorism.

Five months until the U.S. presidential elections. Five months during which extremism and moderation will continue to face off. Five fateful months remain during which the American and Arab public can either play their detrimental roles or continue to be herded like sheep by the forces of radicalism.

A glimmer of hope is not enough. The challenges require a force of massive proportions, or else darkness will prevail.

<h1>Events Reveal An Astonishing And Frightening Confluence Of Arab, Islamic, Isreali And American Extremists' Agendas</h1><h4>Raghida Dergham     Al-Hayat     2004/06/25</h4>There is a glimmer of hope that world public opinion is showing signs of a new awakening to the dangers of radical extremists' agendas and promises, in all their backgrounds, forms, and ideologies. For the new awaking to be effective, actions at the popular level are needed in order to isolate and eradicate this extremism. In the American setting, such actions would have to be initiated by American voters, half of whom, according to the latest polls, have lost their trust in George W. Bush after he was co-opted by the clique of extremists both inside and outside his administration. At the Arab level, the time has come for the public to regain control of its future and free it from the clutches of Islamic radicalism by coming out openly against the cold-blooded beheading of hostages in Saudi Arabia and Iraq and affirming its total rejection of the Al-Qaeda network and its likes. This would require a refrain from finding justifications and rationalizations for terrorism and a refrain from offering it support, even tacitly. This summer could witness the onset of a new kind of awareness and a popular consciousness leading to moderation. But it could also witness a strengthening of the kinds of radical fundamentalists who serve only to help each other, intentionally or unintentionally, even if extremism strikes down their own populations.Arab populace will pay a high price if it misses the opportunity to confront both the bloodthirsty extremism of the terrorists and the excessive "police state" practices of their governments in the fight against terrorism--two impediments to Arab aspirations to a future of prosperity, democracy, and reform that would benefit all.The time has come perhaps to hold the "Al-Qaeda" network and its likes to a higher degree of scrutiny and ask what they have to offer by way of a political agenda other than destruction. Destruction that is the staging ground for rule by fundamentalist, religious extremism. Destruction that is robbing all Arab peoples of their present and future.The time has come perhaps to raise the question as to the confluence of three fundamentalisms--extremist Islamic, fanatical Jewish, and crazed Christian--in their various locales and manifestations. Is this confluence a coincidence? Or does every fundamentalism need a counter-fundamentalism to justify its extremist nature?In Saudi Arabia, as in Iraq, the events of the past few years have revealed an astonishing and frightening confluence among Arab, Islamic, Israeli, and American extremist movements. There is a kind of secret conversation taking place among the various quarters and nooks of extremism, a mutual summons whereby one extremism feeds off the other.The "Al-Qaeda" network wishes to reign supreme in Saudi Arabia once it brings about its collapse, even if such a collapse means a total breaking up of the kingdom and the installation of a radical Islamic government on only a portion of its land. Chaos is Al-Qaeda's weapon.The clique of American and Israeli extremists is working to bring about the collapse and break-up of Saudi Arabia by spreading chaos, Al-Qaeda's weapon of choice, for strategic goals convenient for both Israel and the United States. Control of the oil-rich eastern region is only one of these goals, and a very important one. But the other goal consists of dividing the Arab region to remove any threat or challenge it might pose for Israel.Al-Qaeda and this radical extremist American-Israeli clique agree on the desire to sever the American-Saudi relationship, even if for entirely different reasons."Al-Qaeda" wants to push the Americans out and believes that its tactics will result in the closing of American bases in the Arab and Islamic region.The Israeli radical movement has sought to sever the strong relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia ever since the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah launched the initiative that was subsequently adopted by the Arab leaders in the Beirut Summit. The initiative threatened to expose the persistent Israeli refusal for a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict based on the principles of a two-state solution, Palestine and Israel, an end to Israeli occupation, and the peaceful coexistence of Israel with all states in the region.The terrorist events of September 11, in which 15 of the 19 perpetrators were Saudis, came as a gift to the band of Israeli extremists and their American cohorts. Thus began the campaign against Saudi Arabia.The convergence in the goals and actions of Islamic, Jewish, and Christian radical movements, exemplified by both Al-Qaeda and the clique of American-Israeli extremists, leads one to these important questions: Who is Al-Qaeda? Who are its true followers? And why does it continue to heap misery on Arabs and Muslims while claiming to avenge their oppression?Those men who are hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, or those who have snuck away to Iraq, or those who have taken control of the pulpits in Saudi mosques, who are they really? Whose interests do they represent?Surely they do not represent the interests of the Arab and Islamic peoples who have no need for the culture of destruction that those men continue to embrace. Surely the Palestinians have not benefited one bit from these men. And surely Iraq has not benefited, and will never benefit, from them. Who are these men? And whom do they work for?We know that they worked with the CIA in Afghanistan in the past and were financed by Saudi Arabia in its war against the Communist infidels. We know that they held Afghanistan hostage and used the Taliban to impose their rule. We know that they went back to Algeria to seek power and there they massacred their opposition as they do now in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.There are some in popular Arab and Muslim circles who are convinced that the terrorist attacks of September 11 where not the work of Arabs and Muslims and that the Al-Qaeda network had no hand in them. If such a scenario is true, then let Al-Qaeda put forth unequivocally its evidence and proof of innocence. If indeed it were infiltrated by Israelis, as some claim it was, Al-Qaeda has the responsibility to explain this infiltration. If there really were Israelis carrying out operations in its name, as some profess, then it is incumbent upon "Al-Qaeda" to make that clear.In any case, this network has failed to serve the interests of Arabs and Muslims. It is instead exploiting their causes and future and only serving the interests of their enemies. The time has come to take a stand, by the people.Because the Arab and Muslim populace is incapable of ridding itself of Al-Qaeda by popular vote, its only recourse is to protect itself by not allowing this network to use Arabs and Muslims as its constituency. This requires a concerted effort to isolate Al-Qaeda  and its likes and to come out in public demonstrations protesting against them and against all forms of extremism.And lest Arab governments should be deluded into thinking that they have become models of governance in the eyes of their citizens, these same citizens must also use their demonstrations against Al-Qaeda and the doctrine of destruction to demand also that their governments expedite the otherwise hesitant implementation of reform and stop using the war against terrorism as justification for repressive measures against their citizens.The newly awakened Arab citizens have the opportunity to reclaim rights that were usurped by their governments' authoritarianism, on the one hand, and by wars of  "opposition" launched at the expense of people. The Arab public itself is the means of true opposition to both governments and their opponents who are simply vying for power. And this is its chance.On the American front, the power of  the  American public to shape events will become apparent in a few months, during the presidential elections. There is of course the looming danger of a shift in American public opinion favoring a sudden turn in events. But there are signs of a rising consciousness among Americans following a deep repose inside the trap laid for them by the extremists among the neo-conservatives and Israeli apologists.A new Washington Post-ABC News poll points to a rise in public anxiety over mounting American casualties in Iraq that has "erased" the significant advantage that George W. Bush once held over the presumptive democratic presidential nominee, Senator John F. Kerry, concerning who is best able to deal with the threats of terrorism.America is evenly split, according to the poll. Half the country approves of the way Bush is handling the war on terrorism, down 13 percentage points in just two months since April, at which time Bush enjoyed a 21-point advantage over Kerry. America is now evenly divided: 48 percent favor Kerry while 47 percent favor Bush.There is no doubt the Iraq war will be crucial in determining the outcome of the upcoming November presidential elections, particularly in light of divided voter sentiment on the costs and benefits of the war. The poll reflects the divergence of opinions on the war: its goals, its justifications, its effect on the global image of the United States, and its effect on the prospects for peace and stability in the Middle East.Bush remains, in the eyes of most Americans, a stronger leader than Kerry, and one who can be more trusted in managing crises. He is also regarded as the candidate who is better able to keep the nation secure and as a leader who sticks with his positions.But Kerry has a 52 percent to 39 percent advantage over Bush in honesty and trustworthiness, a result that can only be explained by Bush's adventure in  Iraq , before which his truthfulness was hardly ever in question before the war.Despite that, and according to the poll, Americans also question whether Kerry has a clear plan for Iraq. Bush's only edge of 50 percent, as compared to Kerry's 45 percent, is on the Iraq issue.The afore-mentioned poll proves that Bush and the clique of extremists, both in and around his administration, have lost their wager--that declaring the war on terrorism would win the unquestioned support of Americans. Half of Americans have come to the realization that this band of extremists sought to push them through fear-mongering towards ever-costly ends. This is why half of Americans oppose what Bush has done in the name of the war on terrorism.The Department of Defense has yet to pay the price for the mistakes it committed in Iraq in the name of a war on terrorism waged to take it away from American cities.Run mostly by hawks and the most extreme of conservatives, this department has made up reasons for war in the name of fighting terrorism and spreading democracy and reform. But its deceptive schemes may only reap American anger, especially in light of the Iraq and Guantanamo prison scandals. This in addition to the allegations regarding the involvement of Vice President Dick Cheney's office in business deals and interests at the expense of American voters. Until now no punishment has been imposed on any of the high-level decision makers who presided over the Iraq war, the war on terrorism, the money and prison scandals.The responsibility is mostly George W. Bush's, according to half of Americans, who also see a great danger in his religious zeal and his deference to the extremists inside his administration.This loss of confidence and trust comes from a deep-seated public fear of his orientations and thinking and the ominous prospect of a return of the neo-conservatives and their agendas should he be re-elected.The elections will be more a referendum on Bush and the gang of extremists surrounding him than a genuine desire for John Kerry as an alternative.Few believe that the neo-conservatives will continue on their course of decline should Bush be elected for a second term. Most are wary that a temporary disappearance of extremist elements would only be a transitional ploy to gain legitimacy.Until now Kerry has not come out to accuse Bush of embroiling America in Iraq and of using the September 11 catastrophe to promote the Doctrine of Preemption that neo-conservatives had articulated years earlier.John Kerry has not put forth a convincing plan for Iraq.His supporters say that he is better off waiting for Bush to finish off the work of drowning himself before Kerry plays his cards. They say that it is still too early and that it is better to wait until after the Republican and Democratic conventions. Their view is that this summer will be a quagmire for George Bush and that it is in John Kerry's interest to wait till after Bush's hot summer in Iraq and the war on terrorism.Five months until the U.S. presidential elections. Five months during which extremism and moderation will continue to face off. Five fateful months remain during which the American and Arab public can either play their detrimental roles or continue to be herded like sheep by the forces of radicalism.A glimmer of hope is not enough. The challenges require a force of massive proportions, or else darkness will prevail.