Former Iranian president and alleged
moderate, Mohammad Khatami, is spending much of September visiting
the United States where he'll be making the rounds to various
Islamic conferences, universities, and other public forums. One of
his main messages is that American policies spawn Islamic terrorism.
He's correct.
Islam has long seen the political and religious realms as but
different sides of the same coin.
Whether enforced conquest and dominance were enhanced in the name of
an imperialist Islam or via various imperialist ethnic/national
movements acting under its umbrella, the expectations were basically
the same...All would yield in their respective wakes.
If one consented, peace was possible.
Yet, in a nationalist era, this too would become far more
complicated. |
Gerald A. Honigman is a Florida educator who has done extensive
doctoral studies in Middle Eastern Affairs. He has created and
conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has
lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly
debated many Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been
published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and
websites all around the world. |
While native Jews and Christians were simply expected to accept
their dhimmi status and all the subjugation and such that went along
with it, fellow Muslim but different ethnic groups seeking their own
political self-expression would also soon find themselves victimized
by the more dominant national group. The plight of black Africans in
the Sudan, Berbers in North Africa, and Kurds in Syria, Turkey,
Iran, and Iraq are but a few examples.
Resistance to this Islamic and/or Arab and/or Turkish and/or Iranian
(and so forth) subjugation and dominance was tantamount to being the
enemy. Darfur, Halabja, and such were the consequences.
And anyone who dared challenge this mindset was the enemy as well.
So America helps create Islamic terrorism because it dares to
suggest that others in the region besides Muslims--or the dominant
Muslim ethnic group, be they Arabs or whomever--are entitled to
their share of political rights as well in a nationalist age.
Lets not stretch this.
America has still not called for a roadmap for Kurdistan, for
example. And the bloodshed and genocide in the Sudan continues with
the world--including America--still looking on, virtually helpless.
There will be no trials in Geneva over this. Those are reserved for
the Jews building a fence to keep Arabs from blowing apart their
kids.
Yet America has taken steps in the right direction. And this has
been enough to make it the Great Satan in many a Muslim Arab, Muslim
Iranian, and so forths eyes.
Just supporting the rights of Jews, for example--half of whom were
refugees from the so-called Arab/Islamic world--to a resurrected
state on less than one half of one percent of the real estate in the
region has challenged the basic Dar ul-Islam vs. Dar al-Harb
mentality uniting the dominant religion and politics of the Middle
East and North Africa (and fast spreading elsewhere).
Steps taken if not to support, at least not to actively oppose a
decentralized, federalized Iraq with a thriving, autonomous Kurdish
area in the north are seen by Arabs, Iranians, and Turks alike as
hostile acts for reasons described above. Thirty million Kurds are
simply expected to remain stateless, politically deprived, and
culturally subjugated by others who have conquered and incorporated
their lands over the ages. And the birth of a free Kurdistan has
been declared by Arabs to be the equivalent of that of another
Israel.
So, America indeed encourages the terrorism of those who believe
that they have a monopoly on religious truth and political rights by
simply opposing those views and supporting a wider concept of
justice in the region.
Thus, a 22nd Arab state should not be created on the ashes of the
Jews sole one. And a state for tens of millions of stateless Kurds
willing to live in peace with their neighbors should be placed on
the agenda far ahead of an additional Arab one which envisions
itself taking the place of--not living side by side with--Israel.
Endorsing such things makes one an enemy of the dominant Islamic
world outlook and those who use it to further their own nationalist
causes. And while there may be other reasons as well (i.e. the
historical clash of non-native imperialisms with the various local
varieties), this is by far the main reason America is now hated and
victimized by the jihadists.
Which brings me back to Khatami's current visit.
Hes scheduled for a presentation at one of the worlds most
prestigious universities?Harvard.
Since much of academia, the United Nations, media folks, and such
treat visiting Israelis far differently than they do representatives
from Muslim countries, I have some concerns.
Whether the Israeli is from the far left or the right, he or she can
expect a non-stop grilling at such visits. At times, they have
indeed been prevented from even speaking.
Too often those who confront the Jew of the Nations about every and
all of its alleged sins, cower at any semblance of this when
interviewing the Muslim worlds counterparts.
So, permit me to propose a few questions to Khatami that I fear wont
be raised by others. I hope Im wrong.
Why is it that Iran can demand a second state for Arabs in Palestine
(Arabs historically never had one there, and purely Arab Jordan was
created from some 80% of the original 1920 Mandates borders),
support groups like Hamas and Hizbullah which aim to destroy Israel
(with Iran stating this as a goal itself--again, the Dar ul-Islam vs,
Dar al-Harb thing), yet millions of Arabs, in what Iran calls (oil
rich) Khuzestan but which for centuries has been known as Arabistan
because of the Arabs who have lived and at times ruled there, remain
suppressed and certainly deprived of such aspirations? Not long ago,
a neighboring Arab Saddam fought a bloody war with Iran over this.
Why are the rights of Arabs to that additional state in Palestine
more important than those of millions of Kurds whose historic lands
you acquired over the millennia via your own pre-and post-Islam
imperialist actions?
And ditto for how you deal with Azeris, Baluchis, and all others you
came to dominate in a pre-nationalist age but who now have
aspirations of their own as well? These folks make up at least half
of your own alleged nation.
What makes Iranian national rights more valid than those of others
seeking their own small share of justice and fair play in the modern
age?especially since they have not been permitted this within your
own domain?
Why Palestine but not Arabistan? Or Kurdistan? Or Baluchistan? Yet
youll call an Israel less than the size of New Jersey expansionist
because it refuses to return to its suicidal, 1949 armistice
line-imposed, nine-mile wide, rump state status.
In short, Mr. Khatami, when will you and your country drop the
hypocrisy and double standards which characterize your foreign and
domestic policies?
The day that you grant independence to Arabistan or Kurdistan and
such will be the day you gain the right to lecture and accuse
Israel. Unlike Iran, which had plans to even outlaw the Arab
language over its own Arab problem, Israel made Arabic the second
official language of its state.
Until that time, youre a pathetic joke.
Unfortunately, your many accomplices across the world will continue
to play deaf, dumb, and blind on your behalf, allowing you to sit on
your moral high horse while butchering and suppressing the rights of
millions within your own borders.
Gerald A. Honigman is a Florida educator who has done
extensive doctoral studies in Middle Eastern Affairs. He has created
and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth,
has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has
publicly debated many Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have
been published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals
and websites all around the world. Top |
® 