Ok, on to the Op/Ed...
A week or more ago, I read an article about the newly elected Egyptian president,
Mohamed Morsi. He's the guy who replaced Mubarak, who is apparently very ill and probably won't serve a great deal of his life imprisonment sentence. A pretty lucky fate for an old dictator, all things considered. Just ask Libya's Muammar Gaddafi or worse, Nicolae Ceauescu.
 |
| President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt. / Source: NewYorkTimes.com |
In this article from the New York Times (see the link), Mr. Morsi talks about his life in America as a student at the University of Southern California in the 1980s, and how he learned a lot, scientifically - he points out - from the United States. Morsi says he admires the American work ethic and our time management, but doesn't like what he calls "nude" restaurants (Hooters) and American sexual mores.
The article goes on to describe how there is a marked coolness in relations between U.S. President Obama and Morsi. Neither will come out and say that the other is a potential problem to their administration, nor is either willing to offer the olive branch. On the U.S. side, it would seem that much of this has to do with Morsi's relations with the organization know as Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi resigned his membership with the conservative Islamic group upon taking the highest office in the land of the Nile, but he still has strong personal ties to that group's fundamental beliefs.
Now if you aren't "in the know" (I wasn't, I had to look it up), the Muslim Brotherhood is a group dedicated to the preeminence of Islamic values, and also the break down of colonial patterns that much of the Middle East and Africa suffered through during the last two centuries. Quite inconveniently for the United States, they (the Brotherhood) are also very much involved in the argument over the rights of Palestinians against the Jews in Israel. It's that whole "who gets the land?" thing again.
BBC.com profile on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
So why should the average American worry even a little about a former Muslim Brotherhood member becoming leader of Egypt? After all, Egypt's former leader Hosni Mubarak was definitely not the sort of person we would hold up as an example of what make American values "work." His human rights track record certainly left a lot to be desired. The Brotherhood has a history of social welfare involvement that many would consider laudable. Maybe Morsi will be a good thing, yes?
Well from my personal perspective, I'd say yes and no. Yes, Morsi seems a better alternative than a strong-man type, which Egypt could have easily had in power for some time. But then at the same time, if Egypt starts to frost over again when it comes to the Palestinian issue, and once again becomes a determined opponent of Israel, this will lead to greater unrest in the Middle East. Egypt and Israel have fought wars against each other that brought the then-Superpowers of the United States and Soviet Union nose to nose due to their implicit (if not really well-grounded), support of each side's cause.
 |
| There are no winners when it comes to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. / Source: TSPNSports.com |
And it isn't like the region is the most peaceful and happy place on the planet these days anyway. With the possibility of Iran building the bomb and potentially upsetting the balance of power over there, the instability in Iraq, the mess in Syria (see the latest on Turkish artillery shelling over Syrian-caused Turkish deaths), and the continued violence of Afghanistan as of this writing, things are just as bad in SouthWest Asia as they have ever been. Rising tensions with a nuclear armed Israel (even though they deny having the bomb, its the worst-kept secret of the Middle East) are the last thing the world needs right now. The Israelis aren't going to be keen to threats from their southwest, ala Egypt, and the east (Iran). Plus Syria's mess. And there's the cooling of relations with Turkey they recently experienced. It's getting to be a real rough neighborhood again, geopolitically-speaking.
And then on top of it all, that idiot Nakoula Basseley Nakoula went and made that movie, The Innocence of Muslims. Now a rational soul might ask, what would possess an American to make a film that directly insults a great portion of the world's population? We're talking a group of people who have shown in the past a penchant for putting out bounties on people who speak ill of their most respected beliefs (anyone remember Salman Rushdie of the book The Satanic Verses?). It couldn't have been well-meaning ignorance, in this author's view. And he certainly didn't make a butt-load of money over it either. So why?
Just after reading that article on the new president of Egypt, I read another from the New York Times that spoke of Pakistani plans to put a bounty on Mr. Nakoula's life. If I were him, I wouldn't plan on going to the dry cleaners without a ball cap and a fake mustache for a while. Pakistan, though it can't do anything to an American citizen without incurring the wrath of the U.S. government, is not incapable of "doing the deed" in this sort of situation.
 |
| A photograph from the CNN.com article said to be Nakoula. / Source: CNN.com |
And though I don't wish this stranger harm (after all, I don't know the guy from good old Adam), I wouldn't say his untimely death would really be the worst thing that could happen. After all, there are la lot of dead people around the world (including quite prominently those Americans in the embassy compound in Libya and in Egypt, as well as lots of civilians who died in attacks on the Yemen and Tunis embassies as well) that might still be alive if he hadn't decided to vent what, on cursory glance, appears to be nothing more than a reckless attempt to get some attention for a beef he probably carries (Note: it appears from my latest research that the U.S. Intelligence community has determined that the attack on Benghazi was probably not a reactive thing, but instead a pre-planned terror attack, which still fits my argument, if you read down a bit further).
New York Times article which says that the Pakistanis have discussed placing a bounty on Innocence of Muslims filmmaker.
Then again, and I say this with great care, as I feel a bit gun-shy about the risk of getting a Fatwa declared on me personally, but as far as non-state actors who do dumb things that lead to people getting killed, the Arabs have had their share. After all, the Saudis were well represented in the events of 9/11.
Wikipedia entry detailing September 11th, 2001 hijackers and their nationalities.
And what about this one?:
October 31, 1999, Nantucket, Massachusetts, United States. EgyptAir Flight 990 crashed off the U.S. coast killing all 217 people on board, including 100 Americans. Although it is not precisely clear what happened, evidence indicated that an Egyptian pilot, Ahmed el-Habashy, crashed the plane for personal or political reasons.
American victums of terrorism - see entry more than halfway down about EgyptAir Flight 990.
These are just a couple of examples of incidents that came about because of so-called Islamic extremism, which at its heart can't be all that much different from American extremism. Remember Timothy Vey and the Oklahoma City bombing? Regarding the above example of Arab-related violence, the Egyptian pilot was non-affiliated with a specific terrorist organization, and yet was suspected of killing a whole bunch of people because he had a grief against the United State's involvement in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Can't hold him to it now (since he died along with his passengers and crew), but that independent act alone says a lot. And coincidentally enough, it brings us back to Egypt, where this Op-Ed piece began. Funny, that.
 |
| The remains of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad, which was targeted by a terrorist car bomb. / Source: TimeWorld.com |
I suppose my point is, Muslim nations have been the source of independent terrorists for years (meaning people who don't work for a government/government sponsored organization, but are just your run-of-the-mill wackos who decide killing people without a state decreed declaration of war is a good thing and worth their very lives). And yet at the same time, the U.S. isn't supposed to make it a "state" thing. Granted, George W. Bush sure did, but the process had been building for years (not to excuse what he did, but it is true). And plenty of U.S. policy before him was markedly biased against Arab interests. Based on Arab ties to Islam and the fact that the prophet Muhammad was from what is now Saudi Arabia, it sure makes it look like the United States has a beef with Arabs personally. Hey, they were our favorite bad guy in plenty of 80s action flicks, you know.
Be that as it may, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is an idiot, by my way admittedly limited way of thinking. He should have to pay for his acts. It can be said that he was just "expressing his opinion," but that goes against all logic. If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater and there is no fire, you may be said to be expressing your free speech. However, the resulting deaths are still your responsibility. You caused a public panic, apparently on a whim, if indeed there was no fire.
American citizens died in the Middle East as a result of Nakloula's actions. He should be held accountable for those deaths, in some manner or another. He deceived many of his cast and crew into thinking they were making a different movie than they actually were, which shows he had a beef with Islam and therefore is responsible for his acts and the harm they caused.
CNN.com article provies information on Innocence of Muslims filmmaker.
My opinions aside, this is no doubt a tough call. A responsible state may be held accountable for the acts of its citizenry, but then again, Islamic-motivated terrorists have been killing people - outright killing people, without it being even remotely considered "collateral damage"- for years. An idiot makes a cheap trash movie and the whole Middle East goes up in flames over it? I can only hope that the "normal" Muslim on the street says "that guy was an ass," and then goes on about their lives. Unfortunately, based on the United State's history with regards to the Middle East, that is probably not the case as much as one would hope of rational and - at heart - good people.
 |
| It may easily be said that I am as simple-minded and naive an American as any other "Joe Six-pack," and I certainly have my war-mongering side (as my wife can attest), but this one makes sense to me. One could only hope that they meant what they wrote. / Source:Tikkun.org |
The bottom line? What would really help? My thought is that the Israeli/Palestinian thing needs to be resolved. Yes, of course some people will never let it go. But the way things stand today, we say the Palestinians have a case, but let the Israelis get away with murder, and support Israel in their bad actions through a form of salutary neglect. We can't force a sovereign state to change its ways, though we sure try to often enough. Just the same, if the Israeli/Palestinian thing was really resolved, and all agreements were made and kept, the regular "Joe" on the street in Islamic nations would probably ease up. They'd have every reason to do so. They aren't so different from you and I. I have to believe that. They love their kids, they worry about money, they squabble with their spouses (pointlessly, just like us, I'm sure), they hope for a better world and their own place in it.
So what I'm saying is, in the end, the crazies would still be crazy, but the general populace would settle down some. And let's face it, that would be good for East-West relations. We could use some of that these days. The alternative is as scary as anything we face today, and then some.
The parting comment:
 |
| Source: LolSnaps.com |
After a heavy Op/Ed, I like a little harmless frivolity. This one is cute in that PC nerd-sort of way.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We're pleased to receive your comments, but the author does check submissions before attaching them to the blog. See, it's only theoretically a free country in here...