And
possibly this seems so because we have been conditioned to look for them as
such.
For
example, the wildfires in S. California no doubt remind those absolutely
convinced of that persuasion that it will not be a flood this time, but fire
that destroys the earth. There
are plenty of examples in all of history of great human sin, zealotry opposing
secular humanism and nations warring against each other’s evil empires, with
innocents dying. As just noted,
the meaning of something is the meaning you give it.
Great
thematic linkage between threads this morning. -
KWC
In my
more gloomy moments it seems that the Biblical prohecies seem
to be unfolding inexorably. Armageddon.
...
arthur
US policy is being
used for a narrow set of interests: the Christian evangelicals seem determined
to create a clash of religions -- Christianity vs Islam. Oddly, a
branch of them, the Christian-Zionists, have added to the portfolio an
Israel-first agenda. Given the Christian-Zionist belief that all
non-Christians will be destroyed, it seems strange that some elements in
Israel have embraced an alliance with these Christian-Zionists, but then the
Israelis probably don't think that God has that in store for them, so
don't much care for the beliefs and values that lie behind Christian-Zionism,
happy to settle for the political support the Christian-Zionists offer Israel.
In case any of you
missed it, by Christian-Zionist I am referring to people like Tom DeLay -- see
the very interesting speech he gave to the Israeli Knesset
recently.
Right now, the
Christian evangelical and Christian-Zionist agenda is powerfully placed within
the Administration: Rove, DeLay, Feith, Perle, Bolton, Reed...et al. US
policy toward the rest of the world generally and the Arabs and Muslims
specifically has been hijacked by these folks, and is now working against the
interests of the country. Sometimes these US policies are justified by the
'war on terrorism' -- one of the inventions of the Christian evangelicals --
but the sad fact is that the 'war on terrorism' is actually aggravating the
terror threat, not diminishing it. This is a pedantic way of saying that
Americans will die thanks to these Christian evangelicals.
As the rest of the
world reacts to what they see as a US out of control, we will see a broadband
resistance to the US take shape. Not only will there be further terror attacks
on US interests, but trade relations will suffer, and cultural ones. I don't
know if you ever had a desire to take your art overseas, but the chances of
that happening have taken a nose-dive in the last two years. Then, also,
we have the trillions of dollars that this 'war on terror is costing us, or
rather costing future generations. And the impact on US civil liberties, e.g.
the 'sneak and peek' and unlimited uncharged detention policies pushed by
Ashcroft and the President.
The Christian
evangelicals simply do not care about these costs to the US and our interests:
they give their religious goals precedence over US
interests.
The American public
is gullible. How many Americans have ever traveled to the Muslim or Arab
worlds (other than in a tank)? How many Americans even know Arabs or Muslims
who live in this country, as their neighbors? Hell, how many people even
on this list???
Americans are
patriotic. Combined with their gullibility, this leaves them open to being
exploited, to being conned into giving their support, if only a passive
support, for policies that would readily appear inimical to a populace that
was more knowledgeable, thoughtful, and skeptical.
While the gullibility
of Americans is saddening, the pernicious behavior of those who are willing to
exploit this gullibility is nothing short of criminal.
Could you speak more
about this?
REH
Excellent article --
thanks for posting it, Keith.
If Turki al-Faisal is
criticizing US policy and actions openly, this is indeed serious. I figure it
will take the US and UK about two decades to repair the damage they have done
to themselves overseas.. What an unnecessary penalty we have to pay for the
ignorance and narrow-focus agenda of the US administration.
The Shah tried the
White Revolution, and found that it led to greater demands for civil liberties
and economic freedom, not fewer. Then with US advice and advisors, he created
SAVAK, an instrument of secret and not so secret repression. And so he was
overthrown and a counter-revolution swept into power, instead of the moderates
who led the anti-Shah effort. I don't think the Saudis will go this way;
the Saudi populace is more united and coherent than Iran's (and smaller), and
they have the tribal structures of governance, which are accepted generally by
all, to fall back on. Specifically, I am referring to the diwanniya and
succession practices.
There is no intrinsic
reason that the US and Saudi Arabia should not get along. Attacks on Saudi
Arabia have been pretty well organized by those who want generally to poison
US relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds. These same people have
orchestrated a series of actions by the US that is designed, in my opinion, to
harm US relations with these countries, and so to set the US and Arabs/Muslims
against each other long term. Unfortunately, no one in the US government seems
ready to denounce these efforts.
The following, by our best foreign
reporter, John Simpson, with a long-time experience in the Middle East, can be
read as an adjunct to my previous posting (Crystal ball gazing on Saudi
Arabia) with the FT's interview with Prince Turki al-Faisal.
There have
been reports of small riots in Jeddah and other smaller towns in Saudi Arabia
from time to time, and there have also been small riots in Riyadh, the
capital, using football matches as excuses, but John Simpson writes here of
what seems to be the first serious riots in Riyadh. If, as I suggested
previously, a future riot starts getting out of hand, then that will give the
opportunity for someone to mount a coup d'etat -- probably someone in the
military.
KH
<<<<
SAUDIS FEAR THAT BRITAIN SEES
THEM AS THE NEXT IRAN
John Simpson
There was silence among the
orderly lines of men sitting cross-legged down the length of a hall in the
King Abd-al Aziz Mosque. Someone looked at his watch. Another man fiddled with
the box of food in front of him, caught the disapproving looks of his
neighbours, and stopped.
Then came the stuttering of a microphone, and
expectant movement in the lines. The instant the muezzin's voice proclaimed
the end of the day's fasting, the hungry men pulled their boxes open and
started eating. The warm evening air was filled with the smell of chicken and
saffron rice. Iftar, the evening feast, had begun.
The holy month of
Ramadan is a bad time to visit Saudi Arabia if you want to do business. This
year it is worse then usual: to the irritation of the Saudi government, the
British Foreign Office and the American State Department have warned people
not to come here unless they have to.
Half a column-inch in the
newspapers here hints at the reason: a senior al-Oaeda figure, Abu Mohammed
al-Ablaj, has sent out an e-mail promising "devastating attacks" during
Ramadan. This is presumably part of the information the British and Americans
have based their warnings on. It looks to me as though al-Ablaj is talking
about Iraq, but now that people have taken to suing their governments for not
telling them the obvious, the State Department and the Foreign Office tend to
warn first and ask questions afterwards.
This has, of course, got up
the nose of the Saudis in no small way. The government here maintains that it
has a very firm grip on the security situation. Six hundred suspects have been
arrested since April, and 3,500 Muslim clerics have been sent for
"re-education". At Friday prayers two days ago, the sermon I heard could have
been written by the Ministry of Information, it was so politically
correct.
The irritation with Britain and America is widespread
throughout officialdom, from Saudi Arabia's urbane ambassador to London,
Prince Turki al-Faisal, to his relative Prince Sultan, the minister of
defence. Last Thursday, choosing his words carefully. Prince Sultan told a
group of generals who came to offer their Ramadan greetings that there was a
smear campaign against the kingdom. "We are neither terrorists nor parasites,"
he said.
In other words, he was responding angrily to accusations in
Washington that Saudi Arabia, the recipient in the past of so much American
military support, is somehow behind the new wave of anti-American
violence.
Here, most people seem to take it for granted that the United
States has shifted decisively away from Saudi Arabia as a result of the
September 11 attacks. They see the invasion of Iraq as being America's way of
securing a safe supply of oil for the future, and assume that the shifting of
US military bases from here to Qatar and Iraq symbolises the parting of the
ways.
As for the British attitude, it is a source of annoyance rather
than anger. The Saudis expect a greater sensitivity and understanding from the
British, and feel that they haven't had it. Senior government figures scan
British statements anxiously for any sign that London believes that Saudi
Arabia is going the way of Iran, a generation ago; and they feel they can spot
them.
Having watched the course of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, I
think the similarities are exaggerated -- and yet the danger is clearly there.
The Shah, too, tried to re-educate his clergy, but he did it the hard way and
simply reinforced their anger and willingness to be martyred. In the teeming
slums of Teheran his soldiers shot down the demonstrators, while he himself
vacillated between toughness and conciliation.
The Saudis are aware of
the precedent, though they feel that the experiences of a Shi'ite state have
little relevance to them. Perhaps they are right, but history never repeats
itself precisely. Two weeks ago, hundreds of Saudis demonstrated for economic
and political reform in the streets of Riyadh; since demonstrations are
illegal here, the police dispersed them with tear gas and arrested a hundred
or more.
As in Iran in 1978, the opposition comes as much from liberals
as from fundamentalists, and they have a tendency to make a brief, tactical
alliance, though it doesn't last long. Like the Shah, the Saudi government is
experimenting with a little ultra-cautious liberalisation: press restraints
are marginally fewer, and there will be limited elections next
year.
These are nerve-racking times for the Saudi government. It feels
abandoned by its friends and increasingly threatened by its enemies, and the
princes who control most of the ministries cannot agree on the right way
forward. Maybe Ramadan will pass off without the attacks the Americans and
British have warned about; even so, the political choices here won't be any
easier.
John Simpson is the BBC's World Affairs Editor
Sunday Telegraph 2 November