Ibrahim Gharaybe
How can the wider Islamic movement go back to its original political
and cultural position that is to contribute to development and reform
instead of being a political and security burden? And how can it get out of
the cycle of accusations, violence, hostility and isolation into being a
major component of the Umma's (nation) political scene and a movement
capable of interacting with others while working for the development and
resurgence of the Umma? The Islamic movement at the beginning till mid last
century was in harmony with the general goals of society, mainly national
liberation and foreign resistance. It indeed was involved in the movements
of liberation and reform.
This Islamic movement's disposition towards reform started to change
during the second half of the twentieth century, as it began to oppose the
political system and the governments which led to unprecedented clashes and
to many Arab government's attempts to eradicate the Islamic movement
politically and physically. On the other hand, the Islamic movement sought
to destabilize the political security of these regimes and thus started
operating outside the political framework and the "legal legitimacy." So
this movement transformed into a threat to the stability of society and an
obstacle to its development and prosperity in addition to being a security
problem.
It has been proven that the Umma's individuals, communities and
institutions live in a state lacking completely in understanding, dialogue
and communication. In fact, when they get the chance of debate and dialogue,
their differences seem limited and manageable. Perhaps the Islamic movement
and its moderate leaders are capable of taking the initiative and solve the
crisis with the West and with Arab governments and secular groups, that is
through a clear and detailed declaration of their political and intellectual
positions regarding democracy, pluralism, citizenship, women, public
freedoms and political life.
The near future indicates the popularity of the Islamic disposition
amongst the region's societies and peoples to an extent that asserts the
Islamic nature of administration and governance in the Arab and Islamic
worlds. Perhaps this is a speculation of the United States, which has been
involved in serious dialogue and cooperation with some Islamic movements
like in Sudan, Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan. Even Hamas has recently
declared that it supports dialogue with America. The rise of fundamentalist
movements and political reform in the Arab world are Washington's two main
concerns. Its previous strategy to protect its interests led to the absence
of democracy and the rise of violence and fundamentalism. If there were to
be cooperation between moderate Islamic movements, who have a big chance of
winning democratic elections, and the Americans, the former would be faced
with a threatening situation. For these movements might weaken or
disintegrate in the benefit of fundamentalist groups. The solution would
either be a continuation of despotism, tension and struggle or taking the
path of political reform.
The problem is that the Americans deal with the Islamic movements
according to their interests and policies, while the Islamists do not have a
clear point of view concerning that. Many times they present a public
rhetoric that is hostile and fundamentalist while in fact taking a very
moderate position from governments and the West. The Islamic movements are
incapable of mobilizing their supporters in favor of their practical
convictions, yet they realize that they cannot continue with this game of
tragic romanticism. For at the end they find themselves an isolated elite,
committed to interests that do not correspond to the expectations of the
public they represent.
Source: Al-Hayat, english.daralhayat.com
Transatlantic Gaps:
European perceptions,
America's 'greater Middle East'
The Daily Star, March 4, 2004, Perthes addresses the European
view on American's Greater Middle East plan. He concludes that although
European policy-makers also wish to bridge transatlantic gaps, and that they
will not say 'no' to the American initiative, "they will certainly try to
leave their mark on any common transatlantic plan that will emerge from it."
Prior to security partnerships and economic
cooperation:
Let the West Make Peace With Islam First
Arab News, March 2, 2004, "People in the Middle East see things
differently from what the West envisions for them," Dr. Al-Oraifi explains.
Providing a Middle Eastern perspective on recent history in the region, she
urges that the West to first "make peace with Islam" before seeking security
partnerships and proposing economic cooperation.